Brophy Continues to Subvert the Right of Self-Defense
by Ari Armstrong, Mark Brophy, Dudley Brown, and Bob and Sandra Johnson, May 26, 2004
[For more material about Mark Brophy's Libertarian nomination for the Colorado legislature, along with commentary about the Liberatrian Party of Colorado, please see Mark Brophy Updates.]
Very early this morning, I added the article Libertarian Party of Colorado, R.I.P to the web page. I also sent out an e-mail to Dudley Brown, Mark Brophy, and several members of the state Libertarian Party. Brophy's reply is most disappointing. I'll get to that later. My original e-mail stated:
"When Joe first joined the party, he didn't run for state legislature, and he wasn't foolish enough to answer a survey from one of the most important lobby groups in Colorado while in a state of complete ignorance. But Brophy did, and now there are consequences. His PUBLIC survey demands a public critique. There's no other way about it...
"Even if Brophy is in the process of rethinking his position on the gun issue, his idiotic move of filling out that survey -- badly -- and then following up with TWO written comments that only got worse, should automatically disqualify him from running as a Libertarian candidate, at least this time around. Again, candidates must, MUST be held to much higher standards than members. Also again, the motives of Dudley Brown are completely irrelevant to this matter. Of course, if Brophy wishes to issue a PUBLIC apology and explain why he has changed his views over the last few days, that might help to mitigate the damage he has caused, with the help of Norm Olsen and others. I would be only too happy to publish such an apology and explanation from Brophy and his facilitators. Of course, the most appropriate time to have done that would have been April 15, more than a month before the convention, the day Brown sent out his first critique of Brophy. But no, at that time both Brophy and the board concentrated their efforts on attacking Brown, rather than addressing Brophy's blatant violation of libertarian principles. At this point, Brophy's debt has risen far higher than a day and a dollar. -Ari"
I don't know for sure, but I believe the Libertarian Party chose me in a landslide as their representative in Senate District 14 because I am a stronger supporter of the Second Amendment than Republicans such as Bob Schaffer and Pete Coors.
Unlike those Republicans, I support prohibiting law abiding concealed carry permit holders from carrying concealed within public schools. Nevertheless, I believe government should be able to prevent citizens from carrying firearms in courthouses and police stations. If someone has a disagreement with a public school teacher or administrator, he is unlikely to use his firearm in a fit of passion. However, a judge who daily deprives people of their liberty for years at a time is likely to be shot, even if he performs his duties well.
Unlike Coors and Schaffer, I would follow the example of Vermont and Alaska, for all 50 states, and ban the practice of requiring a permit to conceal a firearm. I would do so because the Second Amendment is a federal issue that no state can override. Coors and Schaffer are wrong when they state that state's rights override the national Constitution.
Unlike Bob Schaffer, who also lives in Senate District 14, I would repeal any law that makes it illegal for anyone who has ever been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor to possess a gun.
If the Libertarian Party decides to nominate me for the United States Senate rather than the State Senate, who will get your vote? Steve Gresh will vote for the Republican nominee, so I ask for your support in canceling out his influence.
Uh, RMGO doesn't support Pete Coors or Bob Schaffer. Just like you [Brophy], they failed to answer the RMGO/GOA survey adequately.
I often vote third party (I've voted for the LP presidential candidate at times, but most often align myself with the American Constitution party).
But, should you join the race for U.S. Senate, you merely add to the number of politicians who compromise our rights. Thanks, but no thanks.
Mark Brophy's above reply is nothing like the "apology and explanation" he needed to offer. It is completely irrelevant whether Brophy's positions are marginally better than the views of some Republicans (who aren't even running against him). The Libertarian Party, it seems, has devolved from the "Party of Principle" to the party of "Hey, at least we won't violate your rights as severely as the other guys!"
Brophy writes he wishes to prohibit "law abiding concealed carry permit holders from carrying concealed within public schools," but the context indicates he means exactly the opposite. (So in addition to running a candidate who wishes to violate the rights of gun owners, the state LP has also nominated a candidate unable to express his views coherently.) My position is two-fold: first, all schools should be privately run, and thus able to make their own decisions on this matter, and second, responsible adults should have the legal ability to protect students in existing government schools.
Brophy again raises the matter of courts and police stations, even though, as I explained in the article to which Brophy is supposedly replying, those matters are completely irrelevant to the original survey question about local ordinances. Brophy still has not described his position on local ordinances.
Brophy now says he wants to legalize concealed carry without a permit. However, the key benefit of such a system is that it doesn't register gun owners with the state. Yet Brophy also supports Brady registration checks (with waiting periods), so he supports registering gun owners with the state, anyway, so his position on concealed carry is meaningless.
Brophy claims "[a] state's rights [cannot] override the national Constitution." However, on the survey, Brophy stated he supports Brady registration checks at gunshows -- something Colorado law has made possible (for private sales). Only two conclusions are possible: Brophy doesn't realize his answers are contradictory, or he changes his positions at whim.
Brophy continues to demonstrate that he is unfit to run for any office with any party. That the Libertarian Party of Colorado nominated him to run for the state legislature is obscene.
Mr. Brophy, if you have a lick of sense or any respect whatsoever for the principles of liberty, you will step down as a Libertarian candidate. If the board of the Libertarian Party of Colorado has any respect whatsoever for libertarian principles, it will demand that Brophy step down. If the members of the Libertarian Party of Colorado have any commitment to liberty, they too will demand that Brophy step down.
Bob and Sandra Johnson
I just read your article Libertarian Party of Colorado, R.I.P. I could not agree more. I came to the same conclusion after the Rick Stanley debacle. However, all is not lost. As long as we have someone like yourself who thinks clearly, remains true to Libertarian Principles and is able to communicate his thoughts to others, there is still cause for hope. Please continue to use your mind and your talents to spread the word for Liberty. Keep up the good work and Thank You.
P.S. from Sandy -- all I could do after I read it was cry. And wonder how this could have happened.
[More replies were added May 27.]