SAF and its clone, so called "citizen's" committee are govt fronts


PDA






MasterPiece Arms.com
October 9, 2005, 08:22 PM
There are two strange groups (that are actually one organization) that claim to be "gun lobbies" but are actually government fronts: the "Second Amendment Foundation" and so called "Citizen's' Committee for the Right to..."

These sister groups SAY all the right things, but are not genuine. The easiest to expose, is this wide open fraud that is falsely named, so called "citizen's" committee. I have noticed that a lot of Americans, even gun owners, accept things at face value. Calling that group "citizen's" committee is as far from the truth as it gets. First, there is no committee. Second, there are no "citizen's" (meaning grass roots regular citizens as the name falsely implies) on said non existent committee. So just what IS there? So called "citizen's" committee has a "national advisory council." Just who is on this "council?" None other than Dick Cheney and Dan Quayle (yea, JUST what I think of when I hear the phrase "citizen's" committee :rolleyes: ) Under their "national advisory council" sits a long list of "congressional advisors." There are about 40+ congressdudes on this list. What got my attention initially, is that I started noticing that there were several GOA "F" rated congress-scumbags (John Breaux, and Tim Johnson) on this list. I also counted a bunch of GOA rated "Cs" and "Ds" as I analyzed their entire list. The kicker, is that ALL OF THIS is a semi secret! You won't find it on their joke of a website (CCRKBA.org, which by the way, has large portions that have not been updated since the year 2000). So how did I find out? I had joined alleged "citizen's" committee to get in free to a gun show and this information was gladly provided in mailings where they wanted me to send money.

Basically: so called "citizen's" committee, is really an EXCLUSIVE committee of government types :barf: .

The exact origin of so called "citizen's" committee is rather murky. They clearly don't want people knowing exactly WHO started that group, why, and when. Contrast that with GOA, who is proud of it's founder, origin, and purpose.

So, what do these government types gain from starting/controlling a fraud like so called "citizen's" committee? The biggest part seems to be simple control of the opposition from the inside. Alleged "citizen's" committee siphons off a lot of well intentioned $$ from sincere gun owners that would otherwise go to a group with some substance, or to a firearm purchase. 2nd, the motive is also to help get these 40+ congresspukes re-elected. They can claim to be "pro gun," without having to actually DO anything pro 2nd amendment. If anyone tries to point out that they aren't really pro 2nd amendment, they just say "hey, I'm a "congressional advisor" to "citizen's" committee for the..."

How does the "second amendment foundation" fit into all this? SAF puts a little more effort into looking genuine (filing amicus briefs in lawsuits for example) but this amounts to stage scenery just like it's sister in fraud, so called "citizen's" committee. A lot gets made of SAF's "gun rights policy conference." This very publicized get together, which has strangely been held in the most anti gun cities in years past, is the most worthless yack fest imaginable. People spend literally thousands of dollars in TRAVEL, LODGING, MEALS, etc to hear a bunch of preaching to the choir for a few days. That adds up to millions, that if were directed into lobbying efforts, COULD actually do some good in repealing unconstitutional laws. I have yet to see a single benefit or new tactic, or improved organization, come out of that stupid yearly conference.

Some gun owners, who just don't have the courage to go against the crowd, don't want to believe that a group who says all the right things could be a fraud. They're too busy looking for obvious enemies, and forget just how sophisticated the enemies of freedom really are.

What started to ge me suspicious years ago, was I started noticing that SAF and so called "citizen's" committee only issue press releases to the choir week after week. Like anyone else, I enjoyed reading the hard hitting stuff that SAF/so called "citizen's" committee releases all the time, but I noticed that SAF just mirrors those press releases, but neither group does anything deeper. I started wondering why they don't have something as simple as an email alert system. Then when I noticed that you can't tell where government ends and so called "citizen's" committee begins, it started becoming clear.

What is rather funny, is about a year or so ago, so called "citizen's" committee apparently noticed that their weekly press releases weren't being read by ANYONE (not even much of the choir), so they showed up with their strangely deep pockets and bought keepandbeararms.com outright (which is still a VERY useful site), which was having financial problems, and even coughed up the cash for a brand new server for the site. They proptly took down the link to GOA (shhhocking) and started putting their weekly press releases front and center. Talk about mission accomplished, but as I said, keepandbeararms.com is still very useful for getting newslinks.

Gun owners need to be a little more savvy, and start looking past the surface and ask questions, not just for the sake of being synical, but when groups are clearly hiding things.

I had someone tell me once that it was a "good thing" that all these government types are everywhere in so called "citizen's" committee. He figured that it somehow improved "coordination" between a "gun lobby" and those that make the laws :rolleyes: . What struck me is that he wasn't at all bothered by the obvious deception in the name of so called "citizen's" committee. Some people will use wishful thinking to polish every apple no matter how rotten.

If you enjoyed reading about "SAF and its clone, so called "citizen's" committee are govt fronts" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
beerslurpy
October 9, 2005, 08:56 PM
I never gave money to the SAF, but I have to admit I beleived they were a legit pro-gun group. They helped NRA file teh lawsuit in NOLA and they regularly issue press releases like you said.

I never really investigated giving them money because I'm happy with the NRA and GOA for now.

TexasRifleman
October 9, 2005, 09:00 PM
Not sure how you connect SAF into your consipracy to overthrow the free world.

From SAF's documentation, backed up by filings with IRS etc;

1. What is the Second Amendment Foundation?

The Second Amendment Foundation, founded in 1974 by Alan Gottlieb, is a tax-exempt Washington-state non-profit corporation organized under 501 (c) (3) of the IRS code. It has been a pioneer in innovative defense of the right to keep and bear arms, through its publications, public education programs and legal action. To fulfill its purpose, the Foundation maintains a headquarters office in Bellevue, WA, and a publishing office in Buffalo, NY.

2. How is SAF organized?

The Foundation is governed by a seven-member Board of Trustees which includes: Joseph P. Tartaro, president; Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and vice president; John M. Snyder, treasurer; Sam Slom, secretary; Massad Ayoob, Glen Voorhees and Robert M. Wiest. Gottlieb, Tartaro and Wiest for the current executive committee of the Board. A copy of the Foundation's audited annual financial statement is available on request.


I think your tin foil hat is 2 sizes too small...........

Jim March
October 9, 2005, 10:01 PM
For two years ending recently (couple months ago) I was the full-time registered lobbyist for CCRKBA in Sacramento, with the title of "California Field Rep".

The parting came amicably as a result of my getting arrested in another area of political activism. Not something I'm bitter about. For details see:

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/8556.html?1122679073

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/8568.html?1122664155

Despite no longer being employed in the gun rights field I still have contacts and work them on a volunteer basis. I was a volunteer activist before, I'm still one now.

MasterpieceArms: My personal opinion is that your first message above is...I'll be polite and say "inaccurate". Bigtime. I could use far harsher language.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that Gottlieb, Tartaro, Dave Workman, Joe Waldron and the rest of the group is very much on our side and highly effective - esp. in the area of lawsuits and legal research, they've got *everybody* beat cold including the NRA.

CCRKBA and SAF are indeed two sides of the same coin, with a lot of the same people involved - but completely separate budgets, funding, etc. That's because CCRKBA is a 501(c)(4) overtly political organization that can hire lobbyists, etc. and SAF is a 501(c)(3) educational/legal organization. Money donated to CCRKBA is NOT tax deductable, money to SAF is.

This kind of "split" is very common. NRA does it too - the main NRA is 501(c)(3), the NRA/ILA ("Institute for Legislative Action") is 501(c)(4). The grabbers do the same thing for the same reasons.

GOA is purely 501(c)(4). JPFO is purely 501(c)(3). Each believes they can do their missions under their respective tax statuses and more power to them.

I can tell you that GOA's rep to the California legislature (Sam Parades of Gun Owners of California) was and remains a highly effective voice. Cool.

The Gun Rights Policy Conferences aren't just about the speechifying, although it can be damned useful to know how activists in other states are getting along and what techniques worked. The real "meat" is in the personal contacts made and the info-sharing a "meatspace meeting" creates.

What else...oh, they damned well DO have a mailing alerts list. I'm still on it, and the best are almost always reposted to this forum by somebody or another.

Alan Gottlieb owns radio stations and a political mailing list/mailer company, and donates a LOT of his personal resources to CCRKBA and SAF. He's probably one of the wealthiest people in the movement, and he got that way despite his activism in this field, not because of it.

You're WAY off base.

Zundfolge
October 9, 2005, 10:08 PM
Why would a couple of pro-gun "government agencies" be a bad thing?

MasterPiece Arms.com
October 9, 2005, 10:22 PM
Way to miss the point by a Nebraska mile TexasSIGman. And good heavens will you puhleeeeeze learn to read. I NEVER said it was a mystery who started SAF, or when. THIS is what I said:

The exact origin of so called "citizen's" committee is rather murky.

Any by the way "TexasSIGman" it is ever so easy to sit on the sidelines and throw the "tinfoil hat" mud (it reminds me of Homer Simpson heckling Flanders from the nosebleed section when Flanders was coaching :D ), which is amazingly common and just makes you look like you're avoiding the issue. Apparently people don't like their fantasy of things being interrupted.

Heck, I'll even up the ante and say that it's also rather murky exactly how and when it went from being Alan Gottlieb's organization, to having multiple vice presidential and congressional level insider connections! Go ahead mr big shot, you start your own 501(c) organization and see if Dick Cheney and 40 + congressmen come a callin.

To Jim March:

You read something INTO what I wrote. I NEVER, EVER personally maligned Gottlieb, Tartaro, Dave Workman, or Joe Waldron. I am sure at least most of them, are as sincere and honest as they get.

And Jim, I could also use harsher language for the way you avoided the point and put words in my mouth, but I'll just say that you put out some interesting perspective.

As far as the email alert system goes, so called "citizen's" committee shows no such thing on their site. As was mentioned earlier, it is so called "citizen's" committee that is an overtly political organization (as opposed to SAF). Since the email system does not appear on "citizen's" committee's site OR mailings, it shows further what a shell and do nothing group it is.

Old Fuff
October 9, 2005, 10:49 PM
Jim March is well known on this forum, and well respected. So are his opinions.

I also personally know some of the individuals that were cited by MasterPiece Arms.com - either outright, or by implication.

And like Jim I think the charges are ... well ... hogwash.

bogie
October 10, 2005, 12:04 AM
Anyone else notice the distinct trend that's been showing up lately - something along the lines of "This isn't good enough because (of some trivial reasoning...), so you shouldn't support any of it!" Generally with a lot of people agreeing...

We're being fragmented, folks... I wonder how many of the hits on this site come immediately following a hit on something like Democratic Underground?

Car Knocker
October 10, 2005, 12:12 AM
Masterpiece,

I see a lot of opinion, innuendo and belittling, but no facts (substantiated by verifiable links or cites).

beerslurpy
October 10, 2005, 12:20 AM
Something just occurred to me- if someone is working to promote RKBA in this country, do we care who they work for? The devil? The chinese? The democrats? As long as they do real useful work on the ground and evangelize effectively for our position, I say who cares who is on their board of directors.

MasterPiece Arms.com
October 10, 2005, 01:20 AM
Don, if you're going to comment on something you clearly did not read, then I'm not going to waste time re listing the facts just for you. ;)

If you want things that are verifiable, here's a suggestion. Ask so called "citizen's" committee and SAF why they hide (by not posting it anywhere on EITHER site) and thus making it difficult to verify, who the current members of the "national advisory council" and "congressional advisors" are?

I also personally know some of the individuals that were cited by MasterPiece Arms.com - either outright, or by implication. Why are you speaking in riddles? :confused:

Something just occurred to me- if someone is working to promote RKBA in this country, do we care who they work for? The devil? The chinese? The democrats? As long as they do real useful work on the ground and evangelize effectively for our position, I say who cares who is on their board of directors.

THAT is an excellent summation of the problem. Are we in the pro gun community really so naive as to assume that as long as the "devil," "chinese," or even the "democrats" tell us what we want to hear in the way we want to hear it, that they are as good as friends? Yikes. :what:

TexasRifleman
October 10, 2005, 09:15 AM
So basically it sounds like your main complaint is that you don't like their website. Does that about summarize this mess?

Surely you don't want us to be amazed at your super detective skills at finding out that NRA-ILA is part of NRA for tax purposes as explained so well above, and that SAF/CCRKBA do the same thing for the same reason?

Because other than complaining what their website doesn't show, you've offered no actual fact about anything at all, nor does this thread even seem to have a point.

You offer no proof for why you feel this way, and no offer of a suggested course of action.

So I'm going to step aside from this one, but I'll be reading it to see if an actual point surfaces somewhere.

geekWithA.45
October 10, 2005, 12:35 PM
The primary assertion that these orgs are "government fronts" is not supported by the mere participation of publicly elected officials.

Larry Craig, among others, is on the NRA board. Are you willing to assert that the NRA is a "government front"?

I'm afraid that unsubstantiated paranoid conspiracies, tinfoil hattery, and cut-n-paste from infowars, rense, or the various 9/11 conspiracy groups aren't going to get a lot of traction here.

THERE ARE LOTS OF FAKE GUN GROUPS THAT ARE VERIFIABLE, and this sort of nonsense unproductively increases the noise:signal ratio.

We're busy people with serious work to do, but if you're serious about these allegations, here's how you can help

Let us know what/when/how/who/where you uncover reasonably concrete evidence that the various GOA D's & F's have compromised or sabotaged the activities of SAF or CCRKBA.

Justin
October 10, 2005, 12:56 PM
If you want things that are verifiable, here's a suggestion. Ask so called "citizen's" committee and SAF why they hide (by not posting it anywhere on EITHER site) and thus making it difficult to verify, who the current members of the "national advisory council" and "congressional advisors" are?

You are the one making the outrageous claim, therefore the onus of proof is on you, chum. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

Carl N. Brown
October 10, 2005, 01:17 PM
I am not convinced that SAF/CCRKBA are a "fake" group like AHSA.

All I have heard is that someone feels SAF/CCRKBA is not as
sincere and grass roots as GOA and NRA/ILA. Well, it is hard
to get more sincere and grass roots than Larry Pratt or
Wayne LaPierre. But that does not make you a phony.

We've got real enemies, folks: we should not be sniping at allies.

scromp
October 10, 2005, 02:00 PM
This guy has been trolling KABA with this same diatribe for months, though he seems to have improved his grammar somewhat.

pax
October 10, 2005, 02:15 PM
We've got real enemies, folks; we should not be sniping at allies.

Closed.

pax

If you enjoyed reading about "SAF and its clone, so called "citizen's" committee are govt fronts" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!