By the time Rep. Chenoweth introduced her bill, there were 11 original cosponsors -- a significant number indeed. Consider that the other leading bill to repeal the Lautenberg gun ban only had one original cosponsor when it was introduced earlier this year. That bill, introduced by Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), would only repeal the retroactive part of the gun ban, leaving the ban in place for the future.[Emphasis Added-DC]Really?
It would seem so:
Rep. Barr shows support for Lautenberg ban.We've seen the best the Republicans are offering us--this is all the LP can muster? We are so screwed.
In early March, Rep. Bob Barr endorsed the concept of the Lautenberg gun ban, calling it "important and worthwhile legislation." Barr's comments appeared as an editorial in the March 6, 1997 issue of USA Today, where he called for only a limited repeal of the Lautenberg ban. While he opposed the retroactive part of the ban, Rep. Barr endorsed the underlying principle behind the Lautenberg gun ban, stating that,This [Lautenberg gun ban] is important and worthwhile legislation, and we cannot allow its effectiveness to be reduced.Unfortunately, this was not the first time that Rep. Barr has expressed his support for the underlying principle behind the Lautenberg gun ban. On September 28, 1996, Rep. Barr issued a memo on his Congressional letterhead stating that:The Lautenberg amendment with the Barr language is strong protection for women and children. [Emphasis in the original.]And then on October 12, 1996, Rep. Barr sent a letter to the editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, again saying that he had fought hard to "improve" the Lautenberg language. He noted that because of his amendment, the Lautenberg gun ban could now pass constitutional muster and not be struck down by the courts. Barr stated:Under the Lautenberg language -- which was cleared up through my amendatory language that was adopted -- there was no consistent definition of "crime of domestic violence," and therefore the entire provision would have been declared unconstitutional. My language corrected this deficiency by setting forth the common elements of the crime that would apply to everyone. [Emphasis added.]Rep. Barr was also one of the Representatives who voted last September in favor of the Lautenberg gun ban as part of the omnibus spending bill (H.R. 3610).
The above statements would seem to indicate that Rep. Barr is content with only repealing the retroactive nature of the ban, and thus, leaving the gun ban in the federal code in perpetuity.
I'm writing in Papoon for President.
"He's Not Insane."
14 comments:
I'm new to your great site so forgive me if you've covered this before, but what's not to love about Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is the best candidate for freedom, and has NOT withdrawn from contention, which is why the complicit media never mention him anymore. If the Founders were to come back, they'd greet Dr. Paul with a hearty handshake and buy him a tankard of ale. He gets that "Constitution" thing. One of the few.
He gets favorable mentions here and at keepandbeararms.com. Maybe people will see that he is the last, best hope now. Thanks for providing these excerpts, David. It's never what they SAY they'll do that counts, but what they've DONE.
I think Ron Paul feels that a low-profile Republican has a better chance than a Libertarian in the third-party, dim, marginalized, "also running" media "spotlight."
the libertarian party has all but lost its way -- nominating bob barr is only a terrible symptom, and a signifying event, of what might as well be a neoconservative takeover of the party, but probably is just the usual: young, stupid, idealist american college kids finding a new way to proscribe their agendas for the role of the state.
but of all places, the LP, the party ideologically at odds with political proscription (as is ron paul), the party whose foundation rests upon the axiom that the state is the mortal enemy of freedom. how shameful.
some people call this a "paleolibertarian" position. i am here to state quite clearly that there is no such thing as a non-paleo libertarian; the libertarian wades daily in the living history of his country, lest he repeat its worst follies, and bring about again its worst calamities.
Well blow me down! I didn't know this about Barr.
Thanks David.
Chris, do a search on this site for the term "Ron Paul" and you'll find no one has been a more vocal supporter than me. Thing is, by ruling out 3rd party, he ruled himself out.
If he wants to reconsider, so will I.
Aw hell... and here I thought Barr had a good 2A record. Sheesh... Oh well... so much for that.
The LP seriously lost its way. That douche Wayne Allyn Root favors gun control, even though he CLAIMS he's pro-second.
Is Mickey Mouse good for gun rights?
I've emailed the Barr organization to express my regrets. The man who helped break the felony conviction requirement barrier for one to lose his/her gun rights. Now a misdemeanor does it, more to come. As Jed Clampett said to Jethro, "Don't hep me, boah."
I know a little about this situation by having helped a friend. This I believe runs a little deeper than what is on the surface. BUT! I demand to be corrected without being hit with any personal shots, OK?
It's my understanding that the FOP took this case to the higher federal court (the 5th I believe) but nevertheless a district federal court. The first time around that court rule against the Jerk's gun laws. The Clinton DOJ applied and won on the second try because the court ruled. "congress can pass stupid laws". The reason the FOP took it all the way was because congress passed a waver that allowed cops and military to serve with a felony conviction but this law as a misdemeanor which wasn't covered under that exemption. The FOP fought it because they thought is was poorly written.
I'm looking at the dates of Barr's actions of being a congressman and it falls spot on after the second ruling.
My wondering is: Was Congressman Barr trying to undue the damage by saving cops and Gi's being hit retroactively on this bill?
Avg Joe--we can speculate as to motives, but the quotes in 3 separate documents--his congressional memo, his letter to the AJC, and his op ed in USA Today, and some of the reasons for support he stated, --as well as his vote FOR Lautenberg in the 1996 omnibus spending bill--are kind of tough to explain away as some sort of super- secret- genius- make- lemons- out- of- lemonade strategy--besides which, anything that makes "The Only Ones" even more elite is hardly a libertarian--or a freedom position.
I'll post a piece tomorrow that includes a link to his USA Today article, which can be purchased online (and that precludes me posting it here in its entirety)--but I've written Barr an open letter asking him to explain all this to us.
I know this must disappoint you--it disappoints me, too. But we gotta know what we're dealing with and we deserve to know the complete truth.
I won't go as far to say I'm disappointed, I'm used to such from the elected folks.
One point I can see that is a different angle then what you are thinkingo of. With the Lautenberg Gun Laws having been buryed in a spending bill. Many in the congress said they didn't know it was there. My hunch is Barr didn't know himself but lied about it saying he knew it was there. It's my understanding that the gun law was slipped in at the last min. and republicans ask if there was any gun laws buried in the bill. They were told no, of course not. So if Barr knew why did he not tell the other members of his party to notice the trap in the bill.
You have landed on a topic that has many questions and many needed answers. Good find David, a nice big fat can of worms.
Joe,
They are paid to READ the bills that they pass into law. If they won't even bother to read what they are signing as my representative the I don't want them even making my bloody coffee.
I've given up on the Libertarian Party. I'm working with the Boston Tea Party to elect Charles Jay and Tom Knapp - or at least get them on the ballot in Colorado, Florida, and elsewhere. www.bostontea.us
Excerpt from the Gun Owners of America:
Bob Barr: The Transformation of a Former Republican
by Erich Pratt
Director of Communications
It's a truism in Washington that a politician's voting record gets worse the more time he spends in Congress. Even the most fire-breathing constitutionalist has buckled under the pressure of party politics to vote for pork barrel projects and other anti-rights measures which are completely contrary to the positions on which he or she campaigned.
There are exceptions to this rule, however. And one notable exception is former Rep. Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president this year.
Barr arrived in Congress in 1995 as a former U.S. prosecutor. Sporting a law-and-order mindset, his voting record was often antithetical to gun rights, as he only voted right in 8 out of 14 votes in his first term.
Many of his early votes in Congress showed his strong support for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms -- an agency which has spent several decades terrifying and abusing gun owners. In his first term, Barr voted to allow the ATF to conduct warrantless searches of gun owners, to increase the agency's pay by $40 million, and to federalize many state crimes which would have increased the scope and jurisdiction of the ATF.
Moreover, Barr also voted for an appropriations bill which contained two pieces of pernicious gun control:
The Lautenberg gun ban which disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home -- "offenses" as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse; and The Kohl gun ban which creates a virtual one-half mile wide "gun free" circle around every American school (or a 1,000 foot zone going in any one direction from any school).
Needless to say, Bob Barr's first term was certainly not memorable in the minds of most gun owners. But what happened after that can only be described as remarkable, as over the following years (until his retirement in 2003), Barr voted right on 27 out of 31 votes affecting gun rights.
Not only that, Barr sponsored bills to prevent frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry and spearheaded the fight against a National ID card and the so-called "sneak and peek" provisions in the PATRIOT Act.
In the end, one might conclude that Barr's voting record on firearms issues is not quite 100 percent in line with the Libertarian Party. That is true. But as noted above, his voting record after his first term in Congress improved tremendously (voting right in 27 out of 31 votes) -- a record that is certainly better than 99 percent of most Republicans and Democrats.
When political pundits look back on his congressional career, they don't typically remember the first term, but rather the civil libertarian that emerged during the ensuing years.
Jesse Walker, writing in Reason magazine, says that during his congressional career, "Barr was one of Washington's loudest critics of the federal government's abuses of power, taking the lead in investigating the raid on Waco and in opposing Bill Clinton's efforts to undermine due process in terrorism cases."
Barr himself -- when introducing the staunch pro-gunner, Ron Paul, at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past February -- told the cheering delegates that, "If there was ever, ever any doubt in my mind ... about how to vote on a particular bill, the answer was easy ... you see where Ron Paul stands on an issue, and you know that's the right place to be."
Given the fact that Ron Paul is a strong constitutionalist and a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, that's not a bad endorsement to hear from a presidential hopeful. To be sure, Barr supported Paul's efforts to withdraw the United States from the United Nations while he was still in the Congress. Many gun owners support such a withdrawal due to the strong anti-gun advocacy of the global organization.
Currently, Bob Barr serves on the NRA Board of Directors and works with national organizations on issues ranging from privacy to national security.
Yes, I saw that. It doesn't change the fact that he's ducking addressing the issue.
Until he does, I see no reason to trust him. The LP is supposed to be above that. If they're not, what do we need them for?
Post a Comment