Press Release

The Alliance for Justice is awarding Co/Motion Grants totaling more than $170,000 to eighteen local organizations that support youth activism around the problem of gun violence in America. The Alliance's Co/Motion Youth Gun Violence Prevention Initiative seeks to strengthen the voice of young people by providing them with valuable skills and resources to support their dedication to the prevention of gun violence through advocacy, grassroots organizing and public education.

What does this translate to? Past experience says it means things like:

• Busing schoolchildren to anti-gun protests during school hours
• Ad campaigns that target those too young to think critically about the claims
• Mandatory "educational programs" preaching an anti-gun message

What it doesn't mean are any actual gun-safety programs -- like, say, NRA's Eddie Eagle. Why not? Because the anti-gun crowd are not interested in gun safety; they are interested in banning guns.

Bushmaster Firearms, the Windham, Maine gun manufacturer that made the weapon used in the sniper shootings around Washington, D.C., last fall, said it supports the proposed extension of the semiautomatic assault-weapons ban, the Portland Press Herald reported May 14.

This is an outright lie. Bushmaster was misquoted in the story, and published a statement on their webpage to that effect. I've included the full text of that statement in the full article.Bushmaster Firearms has always been a proud and strong supporter of the Second Amendment and an individuals right to access, own and use firearms. Bushmaster has fought the anti-gun movement continually in their constant efforts to eliminate firearms from our society. We have committed a great deal of our resources to support this effort and will continue to do so. Unfortunately, the anti-gun movement finds a great deal of favor in much of the press with their bias and slanted reporting. Bushmaster has always tried to be open and honest with the press in an effort to help them see the other side and to educate them on the real issues. Often the real story is left out or slanted in an attempt to feed the anti-gun agenda. In a May 14th article in a local newspaper, regarding the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and its sunset provision, the reporter took totally out of context what Mr. Faraday said and slanted the article in a way that made it appear that Bushmaster was in support of extending the Ban. One of the quotes that was taken out of context and was incomplete was "From our point of view, extending the ban is probably OK, in terms of affecting our sales, but we have always supported legislation protecting gun rights, including the Assault Weapons Ban sunset provision." The reporter asked how Bushmaster dealt with the ban in the first place and how we were able to continue our business. The quote that we would consider supporting the bill that would strengthen the current Assault Weapons Ban law was totally mischaracterized. The discussion was about how far apart the pro-gun groups and the anti-gun groups are in trying to understand each other, and that if the anti-gun groups would propose ideas or suggestions that made sense, then we would consider them, but instead their entire effort is to shutdown the industry. The firearms industry's ongoing battle with the well-financed anti-gun groups creates an atmosphere of absolute non-understanding and non-compromise on both sides. From the point of view of the firearms industry, it has become an issue of survival. As long as the press continues to distort and slant the issues, and the anti-gun groups are determined to destroy the industry, then there never will be any meaningful discussion of the issues.

"Will the LP be on all 50 state ballots again in 2004?" Your response to this e-mail will help answer that question for the Libertarian Party. So please -- read it through, and carefully consider the LP's ballot access strategy.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Dear Libertarian,

"Will the LP be on all 50 state ballots again in 2004?"

Your response to this e-mail will help answer that question for the 
Libertarian Party. So please -- read it through, and carefully consider 
the LP's ballot access strategy.

There is a lot of good news in this E-mail, but not a lot of hype. It's 
not filled with the words Emergency! and Crisis! in big letters. This 
is a serious appeal to serious Libertarians who believe in getting our 
candidates on the ballot.

There are many wonderful organizations working for freedom in today's 
world.  The Cato Institute, the Advocates for Self-Government, the 
Reason Foundation, and many more are tirelessly working to advance the 
Libertarian ideals of individual liberty and personal responsibility. 
Many of these organizations have budgets and staffs that are much 
larger than the LP's.

But none has more influence on public policy than the Libertarian 
Party!

As the media puts it:
"The Libertarian Party has influence in today's politics dramatically 
disproportionate to the number of votes its candidates receive..."
- - Columbia (MO) Daily Tribune

"Libertarians have quietly become America's best organized and most 
significant third party."
- - Bob Ewegen, The Denver Post

"Although Libertarians are small in number, they are winning local 
seats and influencing the national agenda -- including the debates on 
Social Security and IRS reform."
- - Donald Lambro, Insight Magazine

"Libertarians are more and more driving the political debate in this 
country."
- - Larry Hicks, The York (PA) Dispatch

"The Libertarian Party today wields influence far beyond its ranks..."
- - Congressional Quarterly's Researcher.

How does the LP exert influence far beyond the size of our money and 
manpower? It's simple: leverage. The political leverage that we get 
from having hundreds and thousands of candidates. Virtually everyone 
who hears the word Libertarian for the first time hears it from a 
Libertarian Party candidate.

As Sharon Harris of the Advocates for Self-Government said:
"The LP pulled the word 'libertarian' into the public vocabulary -- and 
in doing so has changed the face of American politics ... LP candidates 
have taken libertarian ideas to many millions. The LP has elected 
hundreds of candidates to office."

The leverage of running 1,640 candidates in 2002 supercharged our media 
coverage! In the first six months of 2002, our media clipping service 
reported that the word "Libertarian" appeared in an average of about 
130 news articles per month that reached 17 million individual readers.
But in October, the height of campaign season for our army of 
candidates, the number increased six-fold to 851 articles, reaching a 
phenomenal 151,708,688 readers!

And that does not even include the hundreds more articles in weekly 
papers, the thousands of interviews and debates, and the hundreds of 
thousands of pieces of literature that our candidates use to bring more 
voters to the libertarian fold.

Without ballot access, there would be no partisan Libertarian 
officeholders.

Without ballot access, there would be no partisan Libertarians on the 
ballot at all -- which is just what the Democrats and Republicans want.

"Republicans are running scared," said the Clovis (NM) News Journal.

"How could you have targeted a disabled war veteran like Senator Max
Cleland?" asked a distressed reporter from the Columbus (GA) Ledger 
Inquirer, upset at the LP's hand in defeating the Democratic drug 
warrior.

"Republicans can't ignore the Libertarians," said the National Review
Online.

"Libertarians tipped the balance in some of the nation's excruciatingly 
close gubernatorial races this year," moaned the Weekly Standard.

Ballot access is the key to the LP's political clout. It is the 
lifeblood of the party and our candidates.

The LP is the undisputed leader in ballot access for third parties. In 
fact, with our army of candidates carrying much of the ballot access 
load, by working at it election cycle after election cycle, and by 
planning ahead:

We do our petitioning better, cheaper, and faster.

- - We have not failed on a Presidential ballot drive since 1988!

- - We are already on the ballot in 27 states in '04. Our nearest 
competitors, the Greens, are only on in 20.

- - In 2000, Pat Buchanan spent over $250,000 just to get on the ballot 
in North Carolina -- more than seven times what the LP spent for that 
state.

- - We have had an LP presidential candidate on all 50 state ballots for 
3 election cycles in a row. No other third party in US history has even 
done so twice.

- - In 2000, our pre-eminent ballot status led us to become the first 
third party since 1920 to run candidates for the US House of 
Representatives in a majority of districts nationwide. Those
256 House candidates earned 1.7 million votes -- the first time any 
party other than the Dems and Reps had exceeded 1 million votes.

- - And in 2002, we became the first third party since 1920 to run 
candidates for at least 10% of state legislative races. Here again, our 
candidates earned more than 1 million votes.

As Sharon Harris put it:
"The LP -- more than any other organization -- has smashed the Iron 
Curtain of discriminatory ballot access laws that have choked 
alternative politics in America for half a century."

Our dedication to ballot access is what made those achievements 
possible.

Will the Libertarian Party remain the preeminent champion of ballot 
access and third party politics? Or will we relinquish that title to 
some other party -- like the Greens?

Your contribution will answer that question.

Most states don't need help in getting on the ballot. In states such as
Louisiana, all the LP has to do is remain an organized party to be able 
to run candidates at all levels. But in Oklahoma, we must collect 
enough signatures to equal 5% of the previous total vote for Governor. 
In 2000, we had to collect more than 98,000 signatures to meet the 
requirement.

We do expect our state parties to do their share of their ballot drive 
before we step in to help. So we created the 35/35 rule. Our rule of 
thumb is that the state LP must be prepared to collect at least 35 
volunteer signatures and/or dollars per party member. The Oklahoma LP 
only has about 150 members. To put themselves on the ballot without 
outside help, every single member of the Oklahoma LP would have to 
collect more than 650 signatures -- a nearly impossible requirement.

Here are the states that need help in 2003.

Ohio needs 32,290 valid signatures by December 31.
Oklahoma needs 50,179 valid sigs.
Alabama must have 40,938.
West Virginia calls for 12,963.
Arkansas needs 10,000 signatures to put partisan LP candidates on the 
ballot.

To make up for the inevitable invalid signatures from people who turn 
out to not be legally registered, we'll have to collect about a quarter 
of a million "raw" signatures to meet these requirements.

The year before the presidential race is the most important in the 4-
year ballot access cycle.  2003 is the year that we must get most of 
our biggest drives out of the way -- drives that are simply way too big 
for the state parties to handle on their own.

We must start our largest drive, Oklahoma, immediately to finish it 
before winter weather sets in. Delaying this drive so that it is 
completed in 2004 will lead to BIG increases in costs.

The bottom line: we must raise $70,000 immediately to start Oklahoma 
and finish Ohio quickly. To complete the rest of these 6 crucial drives 
before winter weather sets in, we'll need to raise an additional 
$160,000 this year. We may also have to assist drives in South Dakota, 
North Dakota, and other states as well.

Why is it so important to get these drives started now, and completed 
this year?

Three reasons: money, money, and money.

1. We can get the drives done cheaper this year, because it is the "off 
season" for petitioners.

A dollar spent on ballot access this year can buy up to two signatures.

A dollar spent on ballot access next year, when competition really 
heats up for the limited number of professional petitioners available, 
may only buy a half of a signature -- or less.

There's better cost control on a drive when it's done early. You can 
keep better track of validity, and use just the best, most cost-
effective petitioners. If you are up against the deadline, it is very 
easy to collect too many signatures at the very end of the drive and 
end up buying thousands of signatures you don't need.

The cost difference in doing a drive early and right, versus scrambling 
to meet a looming deadline, can be enormous. With plenty of lead-time, 
we completed the 2000 drives in Alabama and Ohio for 67 cents per 
signature. In Arizona, doing the drive at the last minute cost us $2.87 
per sig -- more than 4 times more.

2. By starting early, we can avoid the problem that nearly cost us 50-
state ballot status in 2000 -- the Oklahoma summer snowball.

We started the 2000 Oklahoma drive in mid-1999, but we didn't have the 
cash to finish the job that year.

BIG MISTAKE!

By the time we had raised the funds to continue, the Natural Law, 
Green, and Reform Parties were all petitioning as well -- upping the 
competition and costs for petitioners and locations.

As the drive dragged on into late spring of 2000, we even had to 
compete with ourselves for petitioners. To finish Oklahoma before its 
deadline, we had to rob petitioners from the Illinois drive and the 
other states we could not legally start until 2000.

Having robbed Illinois' petitioners to get Oklahoma done in time 
created a snowball effect.  We barely finished Illinois right at its 
deadline as well, upping the cost yet again. The snowball rolling 
through Illinois kept us from moving our petitioners into the next 
states on schedule, putting us behind everywhere.

This "Oklahoma summer snowball" meant we were playing catch-up for the 
rest of the summer, shoving us against an avalanche of deadlines and 
jacking up the cost of every single drive.

With enough early funding Oklahoma could have been done for 70 cents or 
so per signature. Instead, we spent $1.33 per signature -- twice as 
much -- for a total of $130,953.37.

But at least we made it: the Natural Law Party spent more than $100,000 
in Oklahoma, and failed to make the ballot. The Greens also failed.
Our other 2000 drives also cost many tens of thousands more than they 
should have -- all because of the Oklahoma summer snowball.

3. By getting these very difficult drives out of the way now, we'll 
have more money available for advertising next year.

In 2000, ballot access consumed most of our funds from January through
August -- more than half a million dollars in all.

By the time we had put Libertarian candidates on all 50 ballots, we had 
less than a quarter million dollars left for advertising for the rest 
of the campaign season.

The vote totals for all of our army of Libertarian candidates suffered 
for it.

We can do better than that for 2004. By getting all of the difficult 
drives out of the way this year, we can save many tens of thousands of 
dollars, and spend our money next year supporting our candidates with 
advertising.

Plus, as any LP state chair will tell you, it is much easier to recruit 
candidates once ballot access is assured. By getting ballot access out 
of the way early, we'll have more time to recruit more candidates -- to 
further leverage our dollars and earn even more free media next year.

Your donation will make our decision.

Will we continue to be the absolute champions of ballot access and 
third party politics?

Or will we take a step back and let some other party like the
Greens take our place?

50-state status hangs in the balance.

It's in your hands right now.

I know the Democrats and Republicans would like to see us fail. So 
would the Greens.

They'd like a free ride without Libertarian challengers.

Do you want to see another army of Libertarian candidates on the ballot 
in all 50 states for 2004? I hope so, because it's what real political 
parties do. I'm personally committed to 50-state status for the 
Libertarian Party in 2004. I hope you'll demonstrate your commitment to 
our candidates with a generous gift to our ballot access fund. 

To avoid the mistakes of 2000, we must raise $70,000 to start Oklahoma 
immediately, and put Maryland, Ohio, and Alabama on the road to 
completion. We need an additional $160,000 to accomplish all of our 
2003 ballot access goals.

Can you be a petitioning patriot, and make a contribution of $1,776?

A donation of $1,000 will make you a true ballot access hero, as well 
as make you a Life Member of the Libertarian Party.

$500 will buy as many as 1,000 signatures.

$100 will make you a minuteman on the front lines for freedom.

Or perhaps a monthly pledge of $10, $20, $50, or $100 would better suit 
your budget.

Your contribution, in any amount, will make a difference. When you 
help, we get the job done. Can we count on you?

Please visit 
http://www.lp.org/contribute?prog=ballotaccess2003&fund=2003-0050 and 
make your best contribution right now.

On behalf of our army of Libertarian candidates, thank you.

Yours for freedom,

Ron Crickenberger
Political Director
Libertarian Party National Headquarters


PS: Better - Cheaper - Faster. That's how we get the ballot access job 
done when you give us the resources.

We haven't failed on a presidential ballot drive since 1988. But we 
have spent way too much on way too many drives by not having the 
resources to get them done early.

Let's not make the mistakes of the past again. Instead, let's make 2003 
a year of ballot access success, and 2004 the year we bring the 
Libertarian message to America with more advertising and candidates 
than ever before.

When it comes to ballot access:

Success this year means success next year.
Success now means much lower costs.
Success now means more advertising next year.
Success now means more candidates next year.
Success now means more media next year.

Doesn't everyone in the country deserve the chance to vote for the 
freedom and prosperity that the Libertarian Party represents?

Don't we have a duty to bring them that choice?

Will you give your best possible donation for ballot access today at 
http://www.lp.org/contribute?prog=ballotaccess2003&fund=2003-0050?  
Thank you.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBPsp2DNCSe1KnQG7RAQEXNAP/aPEv4v1Fz51Vwpz1WoXB32JbAvvYXbGc
i0y1aHJE+CTypmgKf+paZxk04xanKI1apGAUg7A8mTk+3DrNXSvEgOcmLG5orEJk
Hzl05kM62iAqC+L4tM5BG/5ojTxMpNfoI5uMojukTnHWvreHwhrJAZbdbC0U/0tw
4h+nluyXTzQ=
=8L0r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party                                http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                    voice: 202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037                                   fax: 202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at: 
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

A judge in Tacoma, Washington ruled Friday that a lawsuit brought by nine families of the Washington, D.C.-area sniper attacks against the gun dealer and manufacturer that supplied the assault rifle used in the shootings should proceed toward trial. The court rebuffed arguments by Tacoma gun dealer Bull's Eye Shooter Supply and assault rifle manufacturer Bushmaster Firearms that they are immune from responsibility for supplying guns to criminals.

Remember, the defendents in this case are being sued because a) the gun store had a firearm stolen from them, by admission of the criminals involved, and b) the manufacturer thought that a federal firearms license for dealers was sufficient background verification. Or, in other words, for no reason at all.

"There are just two things standing in between the American people and their freedom: Democrats, and Republicans," says Joe Seehusen, incoming head of the Washington, DC-based party. "Government at all levels has become too big and too bossy, and it's time to cut it down to size."

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: June 3, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 
E-Mail: Pressreleases@hq.LP.org
================================

Libertarian Party's new executive director
appeals for 'second American revolution'

WASHINGTON, DC -- The incoming executive director of the nation's 
third-largest political party is issuing a bold appeal to the American 
electorate: Help us fire the government.

"There are just two things standing in between the American people and 
their freedom: Democrats, and Republicans," says Joe Seehusen,  
incoming head of the Washington, DC-based party. "Government at all 
levels has become too big and too bossy, and it's time to cut it down 
to size."

Seehusen, 50, comes to the party with a background in business, media, 
and politics, and ran for U.S. Congress in 2000 from Iowa's Third 
District. He plans to put that experience to work building a political 
party large enough to "fire the government" by electing Libertarians to 
statehouses around the country and ultimately to governorships and 
Congress.

"By most objective standards, the Libertarian Party is the nation's 
largest and most successful alternative party in history ?- and 
therefore the only one with a realistic chance of challenging either of 
the two older parties in the near future," said Seehusen, who listed 
the following "political indicators":   
 
* Number of officeholders: Currently 340 Libertarians hold elective 
office, more than all other third parties combined.  

* Number of candidates: During the 2002 election cycle, the party ran 
1,642 candidates, the largest slate of third party candidates since 
before World War II. 

* Number of voters: 3,424,123 people cast at least one Libertarian vote 
on Election Day, 2002. Libertarian House candidates have earned 1 
million votes for two election cycles in a row -- making it the only 
party in history other than the Democrats and Republicans to have done 
so.

* Ballot status: A Libertarian presidential candidate has appeared on 
all 50 state ballots for the last three election cycles. No other third 
party has done so twice. 

* Impact on national elections: Libertarian candidates have been 
credited with controlling the outcome of several gubernatorial and 
Senatorial elections in the past two years.  

"Of course, no one can guarantee that we'll be able to break up the 
duopoly created by the Democrats and Republicans," he said. "But over 
the next few election cycles, Libertarians clearly have the potential 
to break through on the federal level, and I'm asking every American 
who wants smaller government to help us achieve that."

What should be clear to everyone is that the nation will benefit from 
having a real choice at the polls, he added. 
 
"Republicans and Democrats have been running this country for decades, 
and they're running it right into the ground," he said. "They have 
racked up over $7 trillion in debt, squandered trillions more on 
welfare programs that leave the poor worse off than before, created a 
phony retirement fund filled with IOUs, jailed hundreds of thousands of 
Americans for victimless crimes, waged war around the globe, and taxed, 
regulated and plundered the people they're supposed to be serving.

"Thomas Jefferson said, 'God forbid we should ever be 20 years without 
such a rebellion' -- and by that standard we are 200 years overdue.   
It's time to ignite a peaceful, second American revolution, and restore 
our heritage of freedom."



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party                                http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                    voice: 202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037                                   fax: 202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at: 
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

A new study by a University of Pennsylvania researcher adds further evidence that guns in the home significantly increase risks of gun death and injury for occupants.

The New York Times inaccurately reported that Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh said FBI "agents have contacted about 50 libraries nationwide in the course of terrorism investigations" (Eric Lichtblau, "Justice Dept. Lists Use of New Power to Fight Terror," May 21, 2003). The transcript of the hearing, below, makes clear that AAG Dinh was speaking of ordinary criminal cases rather than national security cases. Information on library contact in national security investigations is provided to Congress in a classified format, as was also noted in AAG Dinh's testimony.

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                            OPA
MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2003                                       (202) 514-2008
WWW.USDOJ.GOV             TDD (202) 514-1888
STATEMENT OF BARBARA COMSTOCK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS,
ON DOJ TESTIMONY REGARDING LIBRARIES:

The New York Times inaccurately reported that Assistant Attorney General 
Viet Dinh said FBI "agents have contacted about 50 libraries nationwide in 
the course of terrorism investigations" (Eric Lichtblau, "Justice Dept. 
Lists Use of New Power to Fight Terror," May 21, 2003).  The transcript of 
the hearing, below, makes clear that AAG Dinh was speaking of ordinary 
criminal cases rather than national security cases.  Information on library 
contact in national security investigations is provided to Congress in a 
classified format, as was also noted in AAG Dinh's testimony.

***
REP. CHABOT: Can you tell us how many times, if at all, library records 
have been accessed under the new FISA standards in the USA PATRIOT Act? And 
if they have been so accessed, have the requests been confined to the 
library records of a specified person?

AAG DINH: Mr. Chairman, Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, requires the 
Department of Justice to submit semi-annual reports to this committee and 
also to the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate counterparts on the 
number of times and the manner in which that section was used in total.  We 
have made those reports. Unfortunately, because they occur in the context 
of national security investigation, that information is classified.
We have made, in light of the recent public information concerning visits 
to the library, we have conducted an informal survey of the field offices, 
relating to its visits to libraries. And I think the results from this 
informal survey is that libraries have been contacted approximately 50 
times, based on articulatable suspicion or voluntary calls from libraries 
regarding suspicious activities. Most, if not all of these contacts that we 
have identified were made in the context of a criminal investigation and 
pursuant to voluntary disclosure or a grand jury subpoena, in that context.
(Transcript, House Subcommittee on the Constitution, May 20, 2003)

"RIAA's claim that it has an emergency need to violate the privacy of the two Verizon users is weak, especially since one of those users has already filed a declaration stating that he has disabled KaZaA entirely," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Once again, RIAA has shown that it is willing to sacrifice normal procedures and processes that protect Americans' privacy and constitutional rights to protect its business model. The over 60 million KaZaA users (more people than voted for our President) are sending a clear signal that the industry is failing to meet their needs."

A federal judge who handed down a one-day sentence to medical marijuana advocate Ed Rosenthal in California should be commended along with the jurors who pressured him to do so, Libertarians say. "Judge Charles R. Breyer just gave every drug warrior in America a cold, hard slap in the face," said Ron Crickenberger, political director of the Libertarian Party. "If every judge displayed this much common sense, the government's war on sick and dying Americans could be over within weeks."

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: June 6, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 
E-Mail: Pressreleases@hq.LP.org
================================

Libertarians commend jurors, judge
for one-day sentence in medical marijuana case

WASHINGTON, DC -- A federal judge who handed down a one-day sentence to 
medical marijuana advocate Ed Rosenthal in California should be 
commended along with the jurors who pressured him to do so, 
Libertarians say. 

"Judge Charles R. Breyer just gave every drug warrior in America a 
cold, hard slap in the face," said Ron Crickenberger, political 
director of the Libertarian Party. "If every judge displayed this much 
common sense, the government's war on sick and dying Americans could be 
over within weeks."

Breyer, a U.S. District judge in San Francisco, ignored federal 
prosecutors' recommendation for a five-year term and sentenced 
Rosenthal to one day in jail on Wednesday for growing 100 marijuana 
plants. Breyer also set Rosenthal free immediately, saying he had 
already served the time.

Because federal law prohibits medical marijuana, Breyer had refused 
during the trial to allow jurors to hear evidence that Rosenthal was 
raising the plants with the explicit approval of local health 
officials.  Upon learning that after the trial, jurors publicly 
repudiated their guilty verdict and demanded that the judge spare 
Rosenthal from prison.

"Fortunately, Breyer eventually did the right thing," Crickenberger 
said. "But unfortunately, not every medical marijuana patient is as 
lucky as Ed Rosenthal.  

"In California and the seven other states that have adopted medical 
marijuana laws, federal drug agents have raided and ransacked clinics 
and dragged suffering, terminally ill people off to jail," 
Crickenberger said. 

"Federal judges routinely refuse to allow jurors to hear evidence about 
marijuana's medical benefits, or that medical marijuana is legal under 
their state laws. And many terminally ill AIDS and cancer patients are 
wasting away in prison, where they have been prevented from using their 
medication.    

"The fact is that by continuing to enforce federal medical marijuana 
laws, the government is sentencing its own citizens to a slow-motion 
execution."

One of the most poignant examples is the case of Peter McWilliams, a 
bestselling author and Libertarian Party member who died in California 
on June 14, 2000 after being denied his medicine, Crickenberger pointed 
out. 

"Peter had suffered from AIDS and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and had used 
medical marijuana to suppress the nausea caused by his other 
medications," he said. "While out on bail awaiting sentencing for his 
'crime,' he was prohibited from using medical marijuana -- a decision 
that almost certainly led to his death.  How is what the government did 
to Peter any different from premeditated, cold-blooded murder?"

Another example: Steve Kubby, former Libertarian candidate for 
California governor and a prime mover behind Prop 215, who uses medical 
marijuana to treat a rare form of adrenal cancer.

"Steve was arrested when police raided his Olympic Valley, California 
home in 1999, and was convicted in December 2000 of two minor drug 
possession charges. To avoid a jail term, he moved to Canada with his 
wife and two young daughters," Crickenberger said. 

"Like so many others, Steve has been forced to choose between 
abandoning his country and dying a slow, painful death in prison."

Future tragedies like these could be avoided with help from more jurors 
who demand the truth and more judges who are willing to buck the system 
as Breyer did, Crickenberger said.

"The long-term solution is to elect enough Libertarians to Congress to 
repeal ludicrous laws that turn Americans into criminals for trying to 
save their own lives," he said. "But until that happens, let's 
encourage judges to give every medical marijuana patient in America the 
'Ed Rosenthal' treatment."




-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party                                http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                    voice: 202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037                                   fax: 202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at: 
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

If the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is investigating rapper Snoop Dogg's armed bodyguards for violation of federal weapons laws, why isn't the agency also snooping into Sen. Ted Kennedy's armed security? That's the question being asked today by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA). Reports say ATF agents may present a case against the rapper's bodyguards because it is a violation of federal law for a felon to possess guns or ammunition, or for anyone knowingly employed by a felon to carry a firearm or ammunition. Dogg, whose real name is Calvin Broadus, was convicted on a serious drug charge in 1990. "And that brings us around to Sen. Kennedy," said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. "On July 25, 1969, he pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of a crime, the fatal car crash at Chappaquiddick. That guilty plea under federal gun law not only disqualifies Kennedy from owning a firearm, it also prevents him from having an armed bodyguard.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) today unveiled http://www.CandidatesOnGuns.org, the only website designed as a clearinghouse for information on Presidential candidates' positions on the gun violence prevention issue.

Thanks to a last ditch effort by FCI and a team of pro-gun leaders, AB-50 (California's proposed ban on all .50cal rifles and ammo) was defeated today in the Senate Public Safety Committee. FCI President John Burtt traveled to Sacramento to testify and was joined by the NRA's Ed Worley, California Rifle and Pistol Association's Jerry Upholt, Gun Owners of California's Sam Paredes and Safari Club's Kathy Lynch. AB-50 had been pulled from last week's committee schedule and in the interim, FCI presented Committee members with documented expert testimonials that dispelled the ridiculous anti-gun myths put forth by the backers of the 50 ban. The bill was heard today in Committee and defeated. It is effectively dead for this session, although we expect anti-gun forces to try again next year.

Law enforcement officers across the state arrested a total of 770 motorists for driving while impaired (DWI) during the first week of the summer "Booze It & Lose It" campaign. That includes 87 impaired drivers under the legal drinking age of 21. The campaign continues through July 13. The arrests are a result of 1,014 checkpoints and stepped-up patrols conducted statewide between June 26-29. Counties with the highest number of DWI citations included Wake (49), Cumberland (35), and Wayne (23).

Less than one per checkpoint. How very effective. "Papers, please?"

A Second Amendment lawsuit was petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court today -- just in time for Independence Day. The case Silveira v. Lockyer, which originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, was previously appealed to the U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, resulting in a deeply divided ruling. The lawsuit seeks to address at least two specific aspects of the Second Amendment, namely: does the Second Amendment apply to the states in the same way that the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments apply, and does it guarantee an individual right, in the same manner as those other amendments to the Bill of Rights.

On wednesday, the house measure that would have put an end to federal raids on medican marijuana clinics failed by a vote of 152-273.

According to sources in the drug reform community, capitol hill offices were inundated with "tens of thousands of faxes, phone calls, and e-mails" as a result of the last-minute lobbying campaign by Libertarians and others around the country.

And although the measure lost, there is cause for optimism:

• 67 percent of Democrats voted for the amendment.
• 15 House Republicans supported it.
• The number of "yes" votes was 62 percent higher than last time the full house voted on a medical marijuana issue, in 1998, indicating that congressional support for medical marijuana is rapidly growing.

"Gun-banning Senator Charles Schumer has displayed incredible hypocrisy when it comes to the Second Amendment," said Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America. "Schumer does not trust Americans to own guns, but that does not keep him from thinking that he is special. Schumer's elitism justifies his traveling with an armed New York City detective to protect him. Too bad if the rest of us cannot afford to hire armed police detectives. "Gun-banning Senator Charles Schumer has displayed incredible hypocrisy when it comes to the Second Amendment," said Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America. "Schumer does not trust Americans to own guns, but that does not keep him from thinking that he is special. Schumer's elitism justifies his traveling with an armed New York City detective to protect him. Too bad if the rest of us cannot afford to hire armed police detectives. "It gets to be too much to bear when Schumer protests that he believes in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. If Schumer supports the Second Amendment, then Hitler was a Zionist. Schumer wants us to accept the Humpty Dumpty line that 'words mean what I make them mean.' "If Schumer supports the Second Amendment, we challenge him to introduce Rep. Hostettler's H.R. 990 in the Senate. This bill would have each state recognize the concealed carry permits issued by other states the way driver's licenses are recognized," Pratt observed. -- GOA -- Larry Pratt is Executive Director for Gun Owners of America, a national gun lobby with over 300,000 members located at 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151. Either Larry Pratt or another GOA spokesman is available for press interviews.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today congratulated the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) for resolving its lawsuit against the Montclair, N.J. Board of Education, which had allowed anti-gun materials to be distributed in the school, but not pro-Second Amendment materials. "This settlement will put school districts around the country on notice that they can no longer prevent both sides of the Second Amendment debate from being heard," said SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb. "Such a ruling is long overdue."

Indeed.

An allied military plan to confiscate weapons in Iraq may destabilize the nation further by giving the green light to street thugs and Baath Party loyalists who are terrorizing innocent civilians, says the Libertarian Party. "Imposing this gun grab is like declaring war on Iraq for a second time," said Geoffrey Neale, Libertarian Party chairman. "How many innocent men, women and children will be kidnapped, robbed or murdered because their U.S. 'protectors' turned self-defense into a crime?"

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: May 23, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
================================

Plan to confiscate weapons in Iraq 
may victimize innocent civilians, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- An allied military plan to confiscate weapons in Iraq 
may destabilize the nation further by giving the green light to street 
thugs and Baath Party loyalists who are terrorizing innocent civilians, 
says the Libertarian Party.

"Imposing this gun grab is like declaring war on Iraq for a second 
time," said Geoffrey Neale, Libertarian Party chairman. "How many 
innocent men, women and children will be kidnapped, robbed or murdered 
because their U.S. 'protectors' turned self-defense into a crime?"

Iraqi citizens will be forced to surrender their heavy weapons under a 
proclamation expected this week from U.S. and British forces. The goal, 
allied commanders say, is to stabilize the war-torn nation by 
confiscating arms such as AK-47s, grenades and machine guns wielded by 
criminal gangs, paramilitary groups and remnants of Saddam Hussein's 
government. 

The demand for gun confiscation rests on the breathtakingly na?ve 
belief that criminals -- whether in Iraq, the United States or anywhere 
else -- will obediently turn in their weapons, Neale added.

"If Saddam's henchmen wanted to surrender their guns to an occupying 
army they would have done so already," he said. "And if criminal gangs 
don't comply with laws against looting, murder and kidnapping they 
certainly won't comply with a new gun regulation.

"This weapons ban will just make all of their jobs easier by disarming 
their potential victims."

Though Iraqis will be permitted to keep small arms at home for 
protection, the heavier, soon-to-be-banned weapons may also be 
necessary for self-defense in the postwar mayhem, Libertarians point 
out.

"Why should Iraqi civilians have less of a right to choose their  
weapons than allied troops have to choose their weapons?" Neale asked. 
"To the authorities who arrogantly claim that Iraqis don't 'need' an 
assault gun or a grenade, we say: Why don't you surrender your assault 
guns and grenades? If you really believe Iraqi citizens will be safer 
living under this gun control edict, set an example by complying with 
your own law."
  
The demand for the gun ban is actually a stark admission that 
occupation forces have failed in their most important, post-war mission 
of protecting the population, Neale said. 

"Let's not punish innocent men, women and children for the U.S. 
military's inability to secure the peace," he said. "Wouldn't it be a 
tragedy if Iraqis who survived the horrors of Saddam Hussein became 
casualties of the U.S. government's gun grab?"





-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party                                http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                    voice: 202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037                                   fax: 202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at: 
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

The governor of Washington is considering a bill that would make it illegal for retailers to sell or rent violent video and computer games to minors, Wired News reported April 30. Under the measure, store clerks and owners could face fines of up to $500 per incident for selling or renting violent games to anyone under age 18.

Even aside from the free speech issues, the cultural assault upon the warrior spirit isn't going to help anything. Repression never does. We need to teach self-control, self-reliance, and honor. These values will enable us to make the right choices about when violence is justified, and when it isn't.

In a victory for the Madison Center for Free Speech, a United State District Court on Monday declared that the First Amendment was violated by an Indiana law that prohibited the printing or distribution of a list of candidates expressing support for the candidates without their prior written consent. Federal Judge John Tinder found that requiring candidate consent caused a candidate's supporters to "lose the independent quality of their speech, as any slate they publish is now understood as having been licensed by the primary candidate in question," and also "deprives a candidate of the freedom to retain any neutrality or ambiguity with respect to his would-be supporters."

The Libertarian Party, a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, is applauding Friday's federal court ruling striking down several provisions as unconstitutional. "This ruling is a victory for third parties and for the tens of millions of Americans who support them," said Geoffrey Neale, national chair of the Libertarian Party. "In an attempt to reduce corruption among Democrats and Republicans, this law stifled political speech and imposed massive regulations that make it harder for third parties to compete."

From: Libertarian Party Announcements 
To: announce@hq.lp.org
Subject: LP RELEASE: Campaign finance ruling
Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 16:55:45 -0500 (CDT)

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: May 3, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
================================

Federal court ruling on campaign finance law
is victory for third parties, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Libertarian Party, a plaintiff in the lawsuit 
against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, is applauding 
Friday's federal court ruling striking down several provisions as 
unconstitutional.

"This ruling is a victory for third parties and for the tens of 
millions of Americans who support them," said Geoffrey Neale, national 
chair of the Libertarian Party. "In an attempt to reduce corruption 
among Democrats and Republicans, this law stifled political speech and 
imposed massive regulations that make it harder for third parties to 
compete."

The three-judge federal panel in Washington, DC, struck down several 
sections of the nation's new campaign finance law, formally known as 
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). 

Though legal experts had yet to assess the full impact of the complex, 
1,600-page ruling, it's clear that the court rejected sweeping new 
restrictions on political ads aired by interest groups, overturned a 
ban on "soft money" from corporations, labor unions and wealthy 
individuals and struck down a ban on minors contributing to political 
parties.  

The Libertarian Party became a plaintiff in the lawsuit in March 2002, 
saying it "places an unfair burden on third parties, which have fewer 
resources and staff members to deal with its red-tape provisions."

One immediate effect of the ruling: Young Libertarians, such as 17-
year-old Trevor Southerland of Georgia, will once again be allowed to 
participate in the political process.

Southerland, a founder of the Catoosa County, GA, Libertarian Party, 
was 16 when he became a plaintiff in the lawsuit last year. 

He pointed out that since the law bans people under 18 from 
contributing to political parties, and since the Libertarian Party 
requires all members to pay annual dues of $25, the result is that 
youths are in effect banned from the party.

"It's nice to be legal again!" Southerland said in response to the 
ruling. "It was scary to think that donating to a campaign could be 
illegal -- kind of like living in the Soviet Union."

Another Libertarian who is legal again is 17-year-old Max Goldstein of 
Indianapolis. Goldstein was 16 last year when he served as a delegate 
to the Indiana state Libertarian convention and the national 
convention. 

"I think the ruling is fabulous," Goldstein said. "Now I have an 
opportunity to do more political work."

Like other plaintiffs, the national Libertarian Party is still 
assessing the full impact of the ruling, Neale said. 

"Nonetheless, it's clear that many aspects will be beneficial for third 
parties," he said. "For example, the ban on soft money would have made 
it impossible for us to take these contributions to build a 
headquarters, as Republicans and Democrats already have done.

"It would have also prevented us from selling ads to businesses in our 
party newspaper or selling political buttons to our state parties, 
since that revenue is classified as contributions under the bill."

Many other regulations mandated by the bill wouldn't matter much to 
Democrats and Republicans, which have the capacity to absorb the costs, 
but would have a disproportionate impact on third parties, he added. 

"The bottom line is that in an attempt to rein in corruption among 
Democrats and Republicans, Congress inflicted collateral damage on 
third parties," he said. "The only way to reduce the influence of money 
in politics is to reduce the size and power of government. If Congress 
had nothing to sell, special interests would have nothing to buy."

The ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Other plaintiffs include former Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate 
Carla Howell and former Massachusetts Senate candidate Michael Cloud, 
both Libertarians; Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX; the ACLU; the NRA; the National 
Right to Life Committee; the James Madison Center for Free Speech; the 
AFL-CIO; the Republican National Committee; the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce; and the National Association of Broadcasters.




-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party                                http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                    voice: 202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037                                   fax: 202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at: 
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

California Assembly Bill 1044 is part of a deliberate effort to conceal massive wrongdoing in the handling of Concealed Weapons (CCW) permit applications across California, including wrongful actions on the part of state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today. "SAF has received complaints from our members in California for years that the gun permit issuance system is being handled improperly," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "The key to proving it has always rested with timely access to public records held by local agencies. We have now learned that AG Lockyer has taken specific steps in violation of the California Public Records Act to mask the local misconduct. Instead of correcting the problem, he is trying to have his past misconduct declared legal by the current legislature.

The international anti-tobacco treaty that the U.S. government has suddenly embraced won't reduce smoking in other nations by one iota, Libertarians predict, but it will infringe on the right of adults everywhere to smoke. "This treaty proves that politicians and bureaucrats are hopelessly addicted to running other people's lives, no matter which nation they're from," said Geoffrey Neale, Libertarian Party national chairman. "While this document will further empower the international nanny state, in all likelihood it won't deter people from smoking."

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: May 21, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
================================

Global tobacco treaty will curb freedom,
but not smoking, Libertarians predict

WASHINGTON, DC -- The international anti-tobacco treaty that the U.S. 
government has suddenly embraced won't reduce smoking in other nations 
by one iota, Libertarians predict, but it will infringe on the right of 
adults everywhere to smoke. 

"This treaty proves that politicians and bureaucrats are hopelessly 
addicted to running other people's lives, no matter which nation 
they're from," said Geoffrey Neale, Libertarian Party national 
chairman. "While this document will further empower the international 
nanny state, in all likelihood it won't deter people from smoking."

In a speech before the 171-member World Health Assembly on Wednesday, 
U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson is expected 
to announce that the U.S. has abandoned its opposition to the 
international anti-tobacco treaty.

Formally called the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the 
multinational agreement seeks to combat tobacco use around the globe by 
imposing higher cigarette taxes, cracking down on smuggling, banning 
advertising and outlawing sales to minors.

Libertarians' main objection to U.S. participation: It's none of the 
government's business whether people smoke.

"American politicians have no right ordering Americans not to smoke -- 
much less people halfway around the world," Neale said. "Smoking is a 
personal choice, not an international crisis. Adults should have the 
right to engage in behavior that hurts no one but themselves, as long 
as they're willing to accept the consequences."

Americans who support the treaty should be reminded that trying to 
"protect" people in other countries from smoking cuts both ways: The 
U.S. government would get power over individuals in other nations, but 
foreign leaders would get the same power over us.  

"Do you really want bureaucrats in Brazil, China, and Zimbabwe to have 
the power to decide whether and where you can smoke, and how much it 
will cost?" he asked. "If you think it's hard to fight City Hall, 
imagine trying to fight the United Nations."  
 
Finally, Neale noted, evidence shows that higher tobacco taxes, anti-
smoking campaigns and more stringent regulations don't curb smoking 
anyway: 

* In Australia -- where cigarettes cost about $4 a pack, most tobacco 
ads are banned, and the government sponsors massive anti-smoking 
campaigns on TV -- smoking rates are about the same as in the U.S., 
according to a study by the University of Sydney's Department of Public 
Health. 

* In the United States, the teen smoking rate has increased at the same 
time that states boosted taxes, outlawed smoking in public places and 
launched public education campaigns, according to a study by the U.S. 
Centers for Disease Control. The study found that smoking rates among 
high school students rose from 27.5 percent to 36.4 percent between 
1991 and 1997, during which time the government launched an 
unprecedented anti-smoking campaign. 

* A recent study at Cornell University also found no significant 
decline in teen-age smoking rates in states that raised cigarette 
taxes. 

"The bottom line is that treaties, taxes, and tyranny won't curb 
smoking in the United States or abroad," Neale said. "It's time to 
snuff out the U.S. role in the global anti-tobacco treaty."




-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party                                http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                    voice: 202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037                                   fax: 202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at: 
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

On May 13, 2003 a documentary is scheduled to air on PBS's "Independent Lens". The documentary is titled "Guns & Mothers" and is produced and directed by Thom Powers of Sugar Pictures. SAS's Maria Heil is the featured Mother on the pro-gun side of the issue. This one-hour documentary is quite riveting. It is one program you will want to videotape and view a number of times, for a number of reasons.

Consumer Federation of America (CFA) today (May 9th) announced its strong support for the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003," legislation introduced by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). CFA supports the McCarthy-Conyers bill because it will not only make the assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban permanent, but will significantly strengthen the current law. The current ban will expire September 13, 2004 unless Congress reauthorizes it.

Who the fuck are the CFA? Since they have a "Firearms Project Director" I have to think they aren't really a consumer organization.

Assault weapons are infamous as the guns of choice of cop-killers. FBI data analyzed by the Violence Policy Center found one in five police officers that died in the line of duty between January 1998 and December 2001 were killed with assault weapons.

This would be during the period when assault weapons were banned, of course. Surprise, surprise. But now lets consider something. Basic math skills. 1 in 5 police officers who died in the line of duty (in a narrowly selected date range) were killed with already banned assault weapons. Yes? That means 80% of police officers killed in the line of duty during that period were NOT killed with assault weapons!

Susan Peschin, CFA's Firearms Project Director, states, "It's no secret that the current assault weapons ban does not meet its stated objective. Reauthorization of the ban under the McCarthy-Conyers bill includes substantial improvements to prevent the gun industry from continuing to flood America's streets with these deadly weapons."

These would be the deadly weapons that are used in perhaps 1-3% of crimes? Oh, no, sorry. The firearms used in 1-3% of firearm crimes are rifles in general, not just assault weapons. So the 1-3% figure is actually too high. These weapons must really be the choice of criminals! Our streets are flooded!

Assault weapons were originally developed for use in military combat. Semi-automatic assault weapons are civilian versions of military weapons with features that allow them to kill large numbers of people rapidly -- also known in military parlance as "hosing down an area."

This is a factual inaccuracy of stunning falsity. For the details, see What is an Assault Weapon?.