Tonight the Republican Liberty Caucus of DC is hosting “How To Buy and Register a Gun.”

The event will occur at Old Dominion Brew House, 1219 9th Street NW (Mt Vernon Square/Convention Center metro) at 7pm. Event description:

“If you’re excited about the recent overturn of the DC gun ban but don’t know where to get started, come listen to RLC member Kris Hammond speak about how to buy a gun and get it registered in the District of Columbia.”

In July, 2008, the Republican Liberty Caucus of DC organizational meeting featured Dick Heller, a RLC member who helped us charter our affiliate.

Mr. Heller won the case Heller v. DC at the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use within the home in federal enclaves such as DC. He is subsequently fighting for additional rights in Heller II.

Sometimes genius surfaces in strange places, and there is certainly an element of genius in the new movie Guns and Weed: The Road to Freedom. The film is not perfect and it’s certainly not the slickest production, but it’s one hell of a smart, informative and entertaining film.

It starts from a brilliant idea: looking at gun rights and the legalization of marijuana as two linked issues which between them expose many of the problems with our government and in our society from a libertarian perspective. By looking at one right which is constantly under threat and another which has been taken away arbitrarily, the film explores the broader issue of the ongoing diminishment of our civil liberties by intrusive government.

The film was made by Michael W. Dean and Neema Vedadi. Dean is the writer and director. Vedadi is a featured performer and producer. Dean describes himself as a punk rock libertarian and is the former Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Wyoming. Vedadi is a weekend news anchor on ABC affiliate KEPR in Wyoming. Dean mainly appears playing backing guitar for Vedadi in some hilarious rap numbers. Iranian-American punk-rap is a musical genre I never really expected to see. Vedadi also plays a variety of roles in small skits and dramatizations in the film and he’s damned funny. Another asset to the film is a very pretty girl who fires a lot of guns while wearing a nice sun dress and does some excellent narration, credited as J-Tizzle. Also very effective were some of the medical marijuana users, especially a young couple afflicted with Krohn’s Disease and Multiple Sclerosis who use marijuana to ease the pain and discomfort of their conditions. I also found some of the detailed insights into the mechanics of the medical marijuana business very interesting.

The most familiar of the interviewees is Sheriff Richard Mack who is very highly regarded in civil libertarian circles, but the less prominent participants, many of them local gun owners, marijuana entrepreneurs and civil libertarians from Wyoming and Colorado are articulate and make lots of good points. They give personal and substantive perspectives on issues like the medical value of marijuana, prisons overflowing with non-violent offenders, the whole milk ban, problems with the justice system, free speech, the Mexican drug cartels, abuse of government power, the failures of democracy and a web of other issues which all link surprisingly logically to the two core subjects.

There are a lot of libertarian films out there and most take themselves way too seriously and are no fun at all. Quite a few shade over into areas of fringe politics and radical rhetoric which make them threatening to a mainstream audience. One of the great accomplishments of Guns and Weed is that it doesn’t take that route. It’s approachable and relatively non-threatening and doesn’t get preachy. It manages to soften its very serious message with humor, music and engaging performances. It’s informative but it’s also enjoyable.

Perhaps best of all, the whole of Guns and Weed is on YouTube in a series of linked segments and you can watch it in an hour and a half. I recommend it to everyone, especially those who still think the War on Drugs is a good idea. It might be just the thing for some of my Republican friends who understand the right to bear arms but haven’t yet realized how interconnected all of our civil liberties are. Go watch it and help it go viral!

Nothing much gets by local Republican Liberty Caucus members.

Liz Karlson (pictured, above, in her interview on local television), Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Marion County (Indiana), pays attention to local news and politics. When the Republican Mayor of Indianapolis hired an out-of-state fella, Frank Straub, for the post of Public Safety Commissioner, she was paying attention to his agenda for the city. According to The Indianapolis Star,

“In response to a question about illegally owned guns, [the newly appointed] Straub said there is no clear national policy on guns and that gun trafficking needs to be controlled. ‘My own personal perspective,’ he said during that interview, ‘is we have way too many guns on the street and way too many people that own guns’.”

“The concerns were fueled further by Straub’s support for the failed attempt to extend the 1994 ban on certain semiautomatic rifles. Straub, who was public safety commissioner in White Plains, NY, at the time, was among a group of law enforcement officials who met with individual members of Congress to express support for extending the ban so that modifications could be made. Some also have pointed to his membership in the International Association of Chiefs of Police, a group that, according to the National Rifle Association, works closely with the federal gun control lobby.”

WISH TV’s Jim Shella has a story on the opposition to Frank Straub in which he interviews Liz Karlson and explains her position. Stella reports, “Both on Facebook and in her role as chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus, Karlson makes the case that Ballard is not true to Republican principles.”

He concludes that this is just one battle in a much bigger war.

Dear RLC of Florida members:

What an exciting five months it has been since our RLC of Florida State Convention. The newly seated RLC of Florida Board of Directors is been off to a great start in accomplishing our 2009 Strategic Objectives (.doc).

Below please find a brief update to things that are occurring around the state:

Chartering Local Groups

Our 2009 Strategic Objectives placed high priority in assembling organized groups of RLC Chapters around the state. By having organized groups that regularly meet, discuss upcoming events and get to know one another, we will become more effective at spreading the message of liberty.

We officially chartered our first two groups: Northeast Florida, Chaired by John Stevens and Central East Florida, chaired by Matthew Nye. Both of these men and their boards are demonstrating great leadership and are now holding regular RLC meetings with upwards of 150 persons in attendance.

Additionally we have groups in Tallahassee, Pensacola, Clay County and St. Johns County actively working to become chartered. We have a student in the University of Florida Law School that is in the process of chartering a UF School of Law RLC group.

If you are interested in starting a county chapter or a student chapter formed and chartered please contact RLCFL Vice-Chair Steven Talcott Smith or Board member Michael Durden.

The Chartering Committee completed a chartering application template for local groups to easily become chartered by the RLC of Florida. Essentially, the group needs paid ten members within a county or student group to petition to become chartered. Also, we have a standing conference call for all leadership around the state who wants to become more active. If you would like to begin building a group, we welcome your participation.

Marketing / Promotions

The Northeast Florida Marketing Committee group created a fantastic standard template website for use by newly chartered groups to promote their regional or county group. You can view the new Northeast Florida RLC website template at www.rlcnef.org. Special Thanks goes Kimberly Wells, the NE Florida Vice Chairman, and Erik Setzer, NE Florida RLC Board member, for their work in developing this new website.

Additionally, we are raising money for printing of new Rack Cards, Brochures, and the new 18 Page Liberty Guide. The Liberty Guide will be a magazine type document that can be given to our state legislators or fellow Republicans in the local Republican Executive Committee’s to provide an understanding of the RLC Positions. We anticipate this entire project costing approximately $5,000 for printing. The design and graphics work of these projects are substantially complete with minor edits needed. If you are able, please make a generous donation to the RLC of Florida to help promote our cause.

Committees

We have numerous committees that are working on membership, chartering, marketing, activism, legislative issues, and numerous other topics. If you would like to join one of these state committees, please let me know. A follow up e-mail is forthcoming to discuss the committees in more detail.

Legislative Initiatives

On the legislative front, there are numerous exciting pro-liberty pieces of legislation pending in the Florida legislature this year that that the Board of Directors will be considering. We will be taking Board action to pass resolutions for and against legislation. If there is a bill that you feel the board should support or oppose, please let us know. We will be assembling a committee to head up our annual Tallahassee trip. If you would like to serve on this committee please let us know. Below are some of the specific pieces of legislation with links that the Board will be considering resolutions in support or opposition:

Support:

HB 21 Florida Firearms Freedom Act

Original Bill Filed: http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0021__.xml&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0021&Session=2010

HM 19 – Limiting the Scope and Exercise of Federal Power

Original Bill Filed: http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0019__.xml&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0019&Session=2010

HJR 37 – Health Care Services

Original Bill Filed: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0037__.xml&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0037&Session=2010

Floridians for Smarter Growth Initiative

http://www.florida2010.org/index.php

Oppose

Hometown Democracy – Amendment 4 – a statewide “Vote on Everything”

Read and learn more about this dangerous communistic initiative

http://www.florida2010.org/aboutus.php

Candidate Campaign Endorsements

RLC Members around the state are actively working on a number of local and state campaigns. Additionally, candidates are seeking endorsements from our state board. If you would like to serve on the Candidate Endorsement Committee, please e-mail me.

Conclusion

It is a pleasure to serve as the Chairman of the RLC of Florida. We are never at a loss of events to attend, candidates to support or legislative efforts to rally behind. It is all of you that are the Patriots and the true Public Servants. The true public servants are those Patriots who tirelessly dedicate their time and energy without payment and their treasure without thought of monetary gain; whose efforts are often met with criticism and seldom without thanks; yet they remain undeterred in the glorious Cause of Liberty for themselves, their fellow man and their posterity.

It is these Patriots who have and will preserve our American way of life. We are making a huge difference in the public debate. Thank you the opportunity to serve this group during this exciting times.

Sincerely,

Will Pitts
Chairman

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Below you will find links and articles relating to the legislation being considered by the RLC of Florida Board of Directors:

Regulation of Firearms: Creates Florida Firearms Freedom Act; provides legislative findings & definitions; provides that specified firearms, firearm accessories, & ammunition for personal use manufactured in state are not subject to federal law or regulation; provides that importation into state of specified parts & incorporation of such parts into firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in state does not subject firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation; provides that certain basic materials are not subject to federal regulation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition under interstate commerce; provides that specified firearm accessories imported into state from another state do not subject firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce; provides legislative findings with respect thereto; provides exceptions; provides applicability; requires that firearms manufactured & sold in state must bear indicia of manufacture by specified date.

Limiting the Scope and Exercise of Federal Power: Urges Congress to honor provisions of U. S. Constitution & U. S. Supreme Court case law which limit scope & exercise of federal power.

HJR 37 – Health Care Services

Health Care Services: Proposes creation of S. 28, Art. X of State Constitution to prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system; permit person or employer to purchase lawful health care services directly from health care provider; permit health care provider to accept direct payment from person or employer for lawful health care services; exempt persons, employers, & health care providers from penalties & fines for paying or accepting direct payment for lawful health care services; permit purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems; & specifies what amendment does not affect or prohibit.

Articles of Interest Relating to the Above:

Will Florida Ban National Health Care?

Plakon and Baker File Florida Health Care Freedom Act (.pdf)

Florida reacts to Federal overreach, joins 10th Amendment reserved rights effort

Baker sponsors 2nd Amendment protection bill in Legislature

From the Libertarian Party’s blog:

“If you’re lucky enough to live in Montana, take a moment to thank Joel Boniek.”

“Boniek, a Republican state representative from the Livingston area, sponsored legislation exempting Montana-made guns from federal legislation. It was signed into law April 15.”

“Joel’s bill applies only to guns made and kept in Montana. Supporters hope it triggers a court case over whether the federal government can regulate gun sales.”

“Boniek overcame amazing odds and defeated a Republican incumbent in the primary who voted to expand government and openly criticized tax relief efforts. He’s not your typical politician. A quiet, peaceful man, Joel lives “off the grid” and still makes his living as a crane operator, carpenter and hunting guide.”

“But Boniek’s upset win proves that voters want representatives who put freedom first, and that principled candidates who run smart campaigns can knock off entrenched incumbents – and accomplish great things in office.”

“Now, wouldn’t it be nice to have a state representative in your town just as passionate about defending your rights?”

I would count myself among the first to agree that one of the legitimate roles of the Department of Homeland Security is to make sure that we aren’t attacked by terrorists, including those of the homegrown variety. The next Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski is as much of a threat to the safety of the nation as the cleverest al-Qaeda operative who might sneak over the border from Mexico or go AWOL on his or her student visa.

Yet on reading a controversial new report from DHS, I have to wonder about the selective and political nature of their concerns. They seem to have a handle on one or two potential sources of domestic terrorism, while completely dismissing or ignoring other potentially much more serious threats.

Their report focuses entirely on domestic terrorism originating from disgruntled conservatives. Their concern over racist and nativist groups and their rising activism seems justifiable, but in the document they spread their net awfully wide to include just about every kind of conservative who might have legitimate concerns over the policies of the Obama administration and the political trends in the nation.

They break potential terrorists down into two groups: hate groups, whose inclusion makes a great deal of sense; and a much broader category of those whose motivations are “mainly anti government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely” — which is an extremely broad category that could easily include those who have been promoting 10th Amendment state sovereignty legislation or who oppose federal bailout and stimulus spending.

The latter group also includes a great many people who would never sensibly be classed as terrorists. It’s a group that includes me.

They also express understandable concern over a resurgence of conspiracy fanatics who “believe that a ‘New World Order’ would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty.” You only have to visit infowars.com to see that the potential for extremist violence from that quarter remains very real.

Yet the government officials responsible for the report don’t seem to grasp the difference between those fanatics and the much broader and more mainstream popular concern over actual threats to civil rights originating with the current administration. They seem not to understand that when the Second Amendment is actually threatened, it is the anti-Constitutional actions of government — not those who want to stand up for their rights — which is the problem. I guess that reflects what side their bread is buttered on and who is buttering it for them.

These officials’ callous awareness that the Administration is potentially creating terrorists by its actions and their acknowledgment that there is a real attack on gun rights, is rather dismaying. Of the gun rights issue they write:

“Legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among right wing extremists…Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.”

This is probably a genuine concern, but — in the report — they seem totally oblivious to how broad the discontent with gun rights restrictions are and how large a role the actions of the government play in radicalizing ordinary citizens.

I worry as to whether these bureaucrats can tell the difference between legitimately concerned citizens and actual potential terrorists.

I’m not happy with legislation to restrict gun rights. I might be buying a lot more ammunition as a result of shortages. Does that make me a terrorist?

For some critics of this report, it also prompts a legitimate concern that it may put too much focus on broadly targeting veterans and soldiers returning from Iraq or Afghanistan. The report seems to take the attitude that anyone with a military service background is automatically a terrorism suspect just because they might be a high value recruiting target for anti-government groups. The report raises the issue of “disgruntled military veterans,” without considering the reasons why they might be disgruntled, focusing only on the potential for the rise of another Timothy McVeigh, a possibility which could be most easily prevented by addressing the psychological and social support needs of returning veterans rather than labeling them potential terrorists. It seems a shameful disservice to operate on the assumptions which DHS expresses in this document.

Perhaps what troubles me the most is what’s not addressed in the report as well as the politically one-sided nature of the report. Historically, the U.S. has faced as much threat from domestic terrorists on the left as on the right, yet it is the rise of “right wing extremism” which is the sole concern here. It’s all about the next Timothy McVeigh, with no attention to the threat of the next Unabomber. This despite the fact that ecoterrorism and far left radicalism are demonstrably on the rise here in the U.S., mirroring an enormous growth in “leftwing extremism” and — in particular — socialist anarchism on a worldwide basis.

I worry because this document is just a starting point for a much wider exploration of the idea that the right wing is a haven for terrorists. It is the unfortunate but perhaps inevitable outcome of the security measures taken after 9/11, where the legitimate need to monitor real threats begins to come under the sway of politics. The report concludes by declaring that:

“DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in right wing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive right wing extremist radicalization.”

This is a frighteningly broad mandate. The biggest factor driving “right wing extremist radicalization” could very well be the activity of government in stigmatizing the political right, classing them as extremists and terrorists and launching partisan investigations of anyone who speaks out against the current administration and its policies.

When our government starts labeling discontent and disenfranchised citizens as radicals and extremists simply because the bureaucrats disagree with their political beliefs, it is the first step towards driving them to become what they are unfairly accused of being.

Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe.

St. Louis Alderman Charles Troupe has called for an armed citizenry to protect their own lives and property in response to the city’s ineffective, unresponsive police force. According to The Associated Press, “The community has to be ready to defend itself, because it’s clear the economy is going to get worse, and criminals are getting more bold,” Troupe, 72, said last Tuesday.  He is encouraging north-side citizens to purchase guns and learn how to use them.

Troupe, who is a former State Representative, said that when he and residents approached a district police commander last year, they were told “there was nothing he could do to protect us and the community … that he didn’t have the manpower.”

Troupe has also worked to repeal a red light camera ordinance in St. Louis.

The up side of being a liberty Republican is that when either party gets elected there’s always some reason to be hopeful. When the Republicans get elected we can hope for fiscal responsibility, smaller government and robust capitalism. When the Democrats get elected we can hope for some progress on civil liberties and social issues. The downside is that this also means we can be disappointed when the parties don’t follow through on the more positive parts of their agendas.

For the last eight years the Republicans let us down pretty consistently, failing to live up to their promise of smaller government and fiscal responsibility and giving only a few small victories on issues like gun rights and taxes. Now it looks like the Obama administration is setting us up for another round of disappointments as they move to the center and pass up the opportunity to take genuinely tolerant positions on social issues.

The Clinton administration was certainly known for its weakness on social issues and civil liberties outrages. Clinton escalated the drug war and established the farcical “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military. His Attorney General, Janet Reno, oversaw a bumper crop of civil rights abuses including the Mt. Carmel massacre, the suppression of the Freemen in Montana, the return of Elian Gonzales to Cuba and the erroneous leak of Richard Jewell’s name as the Olympic bomber. The fact that Obama has chosen to bring so many Clinton appointees into his administration raises the concern that he will follow the same pattern and has little interest in protecting civil rights or making progress on social issues.

Most troubling is his recent choice of DC lawyer Eric Holder as Attorney General. Holder held the second position at the Justice Department under Reno and later under John Aschcroft. Before that, he was U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. In those two jobs, his record on civil liberties issues was truly abominable.

Holder was one of the lead figures in the midnight military-style assault and forced deportation of little Elian Gonzalez. It was a long time ago, but the images of a little kid being dragged off by force to the dictatorial darkness of Castro’s Cuba by agents of the U.S. government was one of the first things that began to open our eyes to the fact that something has gone very wrong with justice and law enforcement in our country. He also defended a company accused of paying for the support of death squads in Colombia and other human rights violations. At the end of the Clinton administration, he even promoted Clinton’s pardons for 16 FALN terrorists and politically connected megacriminal Mark Rich. Hard though it is to believe, these are just footnotes; there are much worse things on his record.

Holder has been a rampaging drug warrior, advocating much harsher drug laws for the District of Columbia, including making simple possession of marijuana a felony, and harsh minimum sentences for drug users. In one interview, he said, “We really have to concentrate on the – drug users that continue to use drugs, continue to have negative impacts on the communities in which they live, and so we have to redouble our efforts I think in that regard.” His choice to focus on punishing users over dealers or importers is the kind of inhumane policy which has uselessly filled our jails with minor drug offenders.

Throughout his career, Holder has adamantly opposed gun rights, supporting the Clinton efforts to restrict gun sales, enthusiastically enforcing the DC gun ban and even filing a brief to try to stop the Supreme Court from striking down the ban in DC vs. Heller, which said, “The Second Amendment does not protect firearms possession or use that Is unrelated to participation In a well-regulated militia.” He also proposed a new law providing “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale,” and has advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three-day waiting period on gun sales, limiting handgun sales to no more than one per month and even totally banning possession of handguns.

Perhaps worst of all, Holder has advocated laws restricting freedom of speech on the internet, saying:

“It seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions…reasonable regulations on how people interact on the internet, that is something which the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at.”

Holder’s record on free speech and dissent is bad in other areas as well. After 9/11 he condemned those who might try to obstruct government power in pursuit of terrorists on the grounds of civil rights; he was even part of the legal team which looked at ways to get the PATRIOT Act reauthorized in 2005. It turns out he also wants to take away internet , as indicated in a 1998 Justice Department memo:

“In particular, priority also should be given to large-scale distributors of obscenity over the Internet. Because of the nature of the Internet and the availability of agents trained in conducting criminal investigations in cyberspace, investigation and prosecution of Internet obscenity is particularly suitable for federal resources.”

With such a terrible record on so many issues, I was surprised to find that Holder had never taken a position opposing gay rights and gay marriage. I guess that issue never crossed his desk. It can be argued that Holder was following the policies given to him by bosses from successive administrations, but he certainly made no effort to question or challenge any of the abusive and unconstitutional programs which he has spearheaded.

For years, Eric Holder has worked to degrade our civil liberties and weaken the Constitution and the values which on which our nation was founded. That Obama should have picked him for Attorney General is a very discouraging sign for those of us who had hoped to see liberal policies on social issues and more respect for human rights and individual liberty from this administration. It’s past time to see a liberalization of marijuana laws and the basic rights to free speech and self-defense should never be abridged. Holder is one of the bad guys. He’s not the kind of change people were looking for from this administration.

If you didn’t like Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, or Janet Reno and their oppressive and draconian policies, you ought to be really worried about Eric Holder, who seems to be their most gung-ho ideological successor.

According to Las Vegas Now, the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada has declared its support for an individual’s right to bear arms, making it the first state affiliate to buck the national ACLU’s position on the Second Amendment.

Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, said an individual’s right to bear arms is in the Nevada Constitution, reflecting the state’s “long, proud tradition of libertarian skepticism of government overreach.”

The national ACLU disagrees with the recent Supreme Court ruling (Heller v. DC) in which RLC member Dick Heller won his case before the High Court, and sees the Second Amendment as a collective right to own guns ratherthan an individual right.

“I’ll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands,”
declared the late actor and freedom fighter Charleton Heston.

According to Gun Owners of America, “In open defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Washington D.C. gun control law, the City Council passed an ‘emergency’ law that keeps in place almost all of the law that was ruled unconstitutional. Even Dick Heller, who brought the case against Washington’s gun ban, was rejected when he tried to register his handgun because any ‘bottom loading’ firearm is a ‘machine gun’ according to the D.C. police.”

The message continues, “According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority and responsibility to govern the District. It can simply repeal the District’s onerous gun law. Not surprisingly, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has no intention of allowing the D.C. gun ban repeal legislation to come to the floor, even though it is cosponsored by more than half of the members of Congress.”

“To free the bill from the Speaker’s death grip, Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) has filed a discharge petition to bring the bill directly to the floor. Rep. Souder needs 218 cosigners for the petition to be successful. There are currently 109 signers. There are not many days left in this legislative session, so it is vital that the discharge petition moves quickly. Please contact your representative and urge him or her to support the repeal of the D.C. gun ban and to sign the Souder discharge petition. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Representatives a pre-written message on this issue.”

In related news, Dick Heller, et al., filed a complaint (For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and Writ of Mandamus) against the city today to force them to comply with the US Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller and to protect our individual rights such as the right to defend ourselves in our own homes. Mr. Heller is an RLC member who recently spoke to the first meeting of the Republican Liberty Caucus of DC.