Will You Continue to Support the SAF After Their Involvment in ManchinToomey ?


PDA






Bruno2
May 3, 2013, 08:41 AM
I was curious as to how much support the Second Amendment Foundation lost after Alan Gottlieb camr out in support of the Manchin Toomey UBC bill. Gottlieb openly admitted that the CCRKBA's staff actually drafted the bill. I understand that a lot of us which consider themselves absolutists didn't support it.

So , will you continue to back them or not?

If you enjoyed reading about "Will You Continue to Support the SAF After Their Involvment in ManchinToomey ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bruno2
May 3, 2013, 09:18 AM
So far the answer is NO! We will see what the poll brings in the near future.:cool:

Ryanxia
May 3, 2013, 09:46 AM
I've been paying a lot of attention this whole thing (and definitely didn't support any version of the UBC) but I wasn't aware the SAF supported it. I had been thinking I need to support more pro 2A organizations than just the NRA and my local F&G but now I don't think SAF would be a wise move to give my green to.

Ed Ames
May 3, 2013, 10:25 AM
“Our support for this measure was contingent on several key provisions, the cornerstone of which was a rights restoration provision that is not on the schedule for consideration,” said a frustrated CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “This is not a reflection against Senators Joe Manchin or Pat Toomey, who are staunch Second Amendment advocates, and I want to thank them for all of their efforts to include as many protections for our gun rights as possible.

“But it appears the Democratic leadership in the Senate was opposed to letting this important consideration come up for a vote,” he said. “We told everyone including a number of senators, that while there are many pro-gun rights provisions added to the main body of the bill, our support was contingent on this additional amendment coming to the floor. When we say something, we mean it.”

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/robert-farago/safccrkba-gottleib-withdraws-support-for-manchin-toomey/

Seems good to me. Note that I don't agree with them that mandatory UBCs are OK (lived with 'em in CA. No thanks!) but they are horse trading to undo specific significant harms.

DeepSouth
May 3, 2013, 10:26 AM
For what it's worth the SAF said. ---- well, Ed you beatme to it.

“Our support for this measure was contingent on several key provisions, the cornerstone of which was a rights restoration provision that is not on the schedule for consideration, but it appears the Democratic leadership in the Senate was opposed to letting this important consideration come up for a vote. We told everyone including a number of senators, that while there are many pro-gun rights provisions added to the main body of the bill, our support was contingent on this additional amendment coming to the floor. When we say something, we mean it.”

They dropped their support be for the vote.

I'll have to look in to this more to decide if its a deal breaker or not.

Loc n Load
May 3, 2013, 10:36 AM
The SAF has been responsible for some serious "wins" in past years for us gun owner's, having said that....I am going to reserve judgement whether to "throw them under the bus" until I know all of the facts, which at this point I don't. It will all get sorted out in the near future and then I will decide "yea" or "nea". I am a firm believer in rewarding our friends & allies and punishing our enemies.

Bruno2
May 3, 2013, 10:54 AM
Keep n mind the SAF and their chairmen are not absolutists. The article I read in The American Law Journal regarding Allan Gura showed that he is in favor of the UBC. I would imagine that Gottlieb is as well due to the writing and support of the WA supposedly pro gun bill he drafted which included a registry and a strong backing of Manchin Toomey if you will.

Walkalong
May 3, 2013, 11:10 AM
I'm not quite ready to throw them under the bus just yet, as I am not 100% clear on all the facts. They have certainly done some good work, so that must be taken into consideration as well.

bikerdoc
May 3, 2013, 12:10 PM
I suspect some back room strategies and a campaign of semantic disinformation that was agreed upon was reneged upon by congress.
SAF has some smart guys who I think were betrayed by the other side.
Let us see how this shakes out.

mrvco
May 3, 2013, 12:20 PM
I appreciate what they "tried" to do and the fact that once they realized it wasn't going to work, they dropped their support. There are ways to improve the current situation, but the public debate seems to be polarized between the extremes of banning all scary guns, mags over 10 rounds and creating a national database of all civilian owned firearms and on the other end of the spectrum, a wholesale repeal of the NFA, BCA and FOPA.

rbernie
May 3, 2013, 12:24 PM
SAF has some smart guys who I think were betrayed by the other side.Given who betrayed them, I wouldn't suggest that they were all that astute in making the deal. More to the point, if they can't figure out how to tell friend from foe, how can they be useful to the RKBA effort?

Sam1911
May 3, 2013, 12:33 PM
... and on the other end of the spectrum, a wholesale repeal of the NFA, BCA and FOPA.Personally, I'd like to see a much stronger show of committment from them that this really is the core of their mission, but I do agree with many others that the good they have indeed done grants them a lot of benefit of the doubt from me.

Undoubtedly, the T-M debacle is a serious, shining, oozey, inflamed black eye that will take a long period of untainted and stellar efforts from them to overcome.

Heck, there's still people who HATE the NRA even now for supporting FOPA back in 1986, and that bill was about 80% positive!

CoRoMo
May 3, 2013, 12:39 PM
We always hear/read/say that whenever 'our side' compromises in a gun control debate, we really don't get a "compromise", instead, we lose a bit more of our 2nd Amendment Right. 'Our side' in the legislation would define 'compromise' to mean that they decided to give the other side a little of what they wanted instead of everything they wanted.

But that's not true compromise.

True 'compromise' is "give & take"; as in, we give you UBC but in exchange we get rights restoration, reopen the NFA registry, and open the access of handguns in regards to interstate transfers. In that example, we gave up a large chunk of our rights but we gain a large chunk back... in exchange.

It looks like the SAF wanted to sit down and actually draft a real compromise for once in the gun control struggle. They offered what the antis wanted and asked for some stuff back in exchange. The antis didn't want to barter these rights, they wanted them surrendered (even if a bit at a time). I presume the SAF wanted to get out in the front and control the conversation so that this time around we don't ONLY lose something, but this time we get something back as well, and so that 'our side' is driving the dialog rather than simply being in defense mode throughout.

And it looks like when the compromise they drafted wasn't accepted, they retracted their support from it.

If this is true, I'd opt to change the vote I cast in this thread.

loose noose
May 3, 2013, 12:45 PM
I'm sorry to appear ignorant but what is the SAF?

CoRoMo
May 3, 2013, 12:46 PM
I'm sorry to appear ignorant but what is the SAF?
Read the first sentence in the first post.

hnk45acp
May 3, 2013, 12:50 PM
They do/did much more good than bad, no one org. is perfect but at the end of the day we need to stand united. Our enemies constantly seek to drive a wedge between gun owners and will again. This won't be the last time so support those who support us even if it's not 100%. What would be the alternative? They will learn and already did if I remember they ultimately pulled their support

TCB in TN
May 3, 2013, 01:11 PM
I don't agree with everything SAF does, but give them the benefit of the doubt because of their successes, and their explanation.

BTW I was (and still am) completely against UBC's, but I said myself I would have traded UBCs (or at least a form of UBC) for destruction of all existing 4473 records and any associated data, removal of all serial #'s from the UBC's, a law against collecting and storing info on gun owners, and a couple of smaller concessions (like removal of the sporting purposes test on imports and, eliminating the tax stamp on suppression devices and SRBs etc).

I would love to draw the line in the sand and just say no more, but eventually we need to start whittling away at some of the currently accepted infringements.

I also believe that if we gave up UBCs and got rid of some of the other things, UBCs would be easier to beat in court. Smart political play coupled with smart legal strategy will get us back on track far faster than either one alone.

HankR
May 3, 2013, 01:17 PM
I think it took them a little too long to retract their support. Many of us were telling them for several days that the bill did not say what SAF said it said. A lot of confusion and division was caused by SAF supporting the bill while others (those who read the bill, and knew what "is" is) were against it.

They do do more good than harm, but they almost cost us "big time". I agree with what Sam said, and might add that SAF is very good at litigation but, apparently, not so much with legislation. Perhaps they should stick to their strengths.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 3, 2013, 02:39 PM
Alan Gottlieb's statement that they would not support Schumer-Toomey-Manchin came after the amendment was already effectively dead. At the time he made that statement, it was widely understood that the votes were not there, even though the vote had not happened yet. It was also considerably after GOA and NRA came out against the amendment.

SAF has had some excellent success on the litigation side of the fence and have shown a willingness to work with other RKBA groups. Two qualities I've always admired about them. However, their lobbying attempts here appear bush league at best. If you have Chuck Schumer on your side and Dave Kopel, the NRA and GOA arguing against you, you have an obligation to present a better case than "Trust us! This is great!"

Dave Kopel made some very specific allegations of sloppy drafting that to my knowledge, CCRKBA and SAF still haven't addressed. Personally, my perception is that SAF was out of their depth on this one and got snookered. I would hate to see that effect the good work they do; but this was a case of very poor judgment at best. I know I am going to be reluctant to donate more money to an organization that thought this was a smart move, with or without rights restoration.

roadcoder
May 3, 2013, 02:52 PM
I'm okay with the UBC. And whether or not it's a good idea, I believe not coming to an agreement on it will engender a backlash which could affect things I do care about, like AWB or high-cap issues. I think this was overreach and fear it will muddy the waters.

Queen_of_Thunder
May 3, 2013, 02:58 PM
I can only handle on knife in the back at a time. They cannot be trusted.

F-111 John
May 3, 2013, 03:06 PM
If the bill went to the senate floor as they proposed, there was a lot of good in it. Unfortunately, there was some very bad in it as well, and reminded me of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act which gave us interstate travel, but at the same time closed the National Firearms Registry to new additions.

It would be nice to be able to purchase handguns from an FFL in any state, but it wasn't worth having every single transaction "blessed" by the feds to get it.

Sam1911
May 3, 2013, 03:06 PM
I'm okay with the UBC. Really? :scrutiny:

And whether or not it's a good idea, I believe not coming to an agreement on it will engender a backlash which could affect things I do care about, like AWB or high-cap issues.A backlash? From whom? The senators who couldn't even send an agreement to the house...who would never have voted for it anyway? This wasn't going anywhere because the people really don't want it, and it's a bad idea. No worries about a backlash. The relatively few seriously anti-gun voters aren't strong enough to do anything about it, the vast majority of voters in the middle-ground don't care one way or the other, and those of us on the pro-gun side are VERY motivated to stomp it to death. Looks like we're in good shape right now.

I think this was overreach and fear it will muddy the waters.I think it was a strong showing of force, which we desperately needed, and thoroughly -- comprehensively -- exhausted the will of the Congress to march down this dead-end road again anytime at all soon.

If they couldn't turn the Sandy Hook tragedy into a SINGLE piece of federal anti-gun legislation after all the massive effort they poured into it, they aren't likely to be able to work up the momentum to get that ball rolling again for years to come.

We done GOOD.

roadcoder
May 3, 2013, 03:26 PM
Really?
Yes, really. When I sell guns privately I go through FFL. I don't want to have to guess if someone is qualified to own one. I leave that to the NICS check.

A backlash? From whom?

Voters. From a non-partisan polling group:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/more-backlash-against-senators-on-gun-vote.html

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/hagan-landrieu-gun-voters-could-help-in-2014.html

pseudonymity
May 3, 2013, 03:37 PM
I will continue to support the SAF for their judicial victories, but I think the time has come to abandon any compromises. The gun rights movement seems to be gaining momentum and it is to our advantage to turn any legislation into a zero sum game. Nine states have already passed a version of the Firearms Freedom Act, and we handed gun control at the national level a very visible defeat.

The only reasonable gun control is legislation that repeals some of the existing restrictions with no ground being surrendered.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 3, 2013, 03:38 PM
PPP is not a non-partisan polling group by any stretch of the imagination.

That poll wants me to believe Murkowski in Alaska is down 16 points for not supporting gun control. Nonsense!

OilyPablo
May 3, 2013, 03:48 PM
Of course I will continue to support SAF.

CoRoMo
May 3, 2013, 03:54 PM
I'm okay with the UBC.

...

When I sell guns privately I go through FFL.
So why do you want a federal law enacted that would force you to do something that you are already doing voluntarily?

roadcoder
May 3, 2013, 04:06 PM
To clarify:

I don't WANT the UBC, but I'm OK with it if it were to pass.

I pick my battles and the UBC fight isn't one I would engage in.

Just my opinion.

roadcoder
May 3, 2013, 04:12 PM
You're right, it is a partisan polling group.

That said, it's not impossible that Murkowski is down when you see in the polling that almost 100% of the drop came amongst Democratic voters:

"...Murkowski has lost most of her appeal to Democrats in the wake of her vote, with her numbers with them going from 59/25 to 44/44...."

And I don't believe politicians should vote the polls every time. I'm just saying that UBC in and of itself is not that egregious compared to some other things the gun control nuts want. It all comes down to the philosophy of whether or not you give ground. It's a hard call, and, like I said earlier, only time will tell what the right decision is.

DeepSouth
May 3, 2013, 04:41 PM
So why do you want a federal law enacted that would force you to do something that you are already doing voluntarily?


He doesn't. He wants to force YOU (and everyone else) to do what he's doing voluntarily.

Ed Ames
May 3, 2013, 04:55 PM
Which is the essence of the problem. Forcing others to do what you want. If the people involved were less authoritarian they would be pushing for something very different and probably far more acceptable. Except of course they wouldn't be pushing for anything then.

Imagine this....

Allow everyone to run background checks on themselves. The background check generates a code that is good for 24 hours.

Allow sellers to validate those codes online or via telephone.

Now give the seller an incentive to encourage the system to be used. E.g. waive civil and criminal liability for the seller if she validates a code on sale.

The system would provide background checks for far more sales than are checked today. It would probably reach 99% of the compliance of a more authoritarian system with transfers done through ffls. Remember: You will never get compliance of people who are willing to break the law. Drug sales are against the law, have been for generations, yet drugs are still sold without government oversight.

Would that bother you? I'd be OK with it myself, especially if it let me follow up with a push to change the dealer checks to follow the same form.

As for push-back and polling, the problem is that most people don't know the current laws. E.g. many people still think the "assault weapon" issue is about full-auto machine guns. In that context, how can anyone take a poll seriously?

CoRoMo
May 3, 2013, 04:57 PM
He doesn't. He wants to force YOU (and everyone else) to do what he's doing voluntarily.
To be fair, you'll notice that he doesn't actually WANT the government to force me to follow his example.

But he's 'okay with it' if our government forced you and I to do something we've never been forced to do in the history of this free nation.
Which is the essence of the problem. Forcing others to do what you want.
Yeah, we've heard/read this many, many times... Gun control is not about guns. It's about control.

DeepSouth
May 3, 2013, 05:03 PM
To be fair, you'll notice that he doesn't actually WANT the government to force me to follow his example.

But he's 'okay with it' if our government forced you and I to do something we've never been forced to do in the history of this free nation.


Fair enough, I stand corrected. I am however reminded of a saying that goes something like. --All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing---

My paraphrase




I blame all typos on the iPhone auto correct!!

Bruno2
May 3, 2013, 06:03 PM
I recommend everyone read this article. It is about 3 pages , but it gives a very in depth perception of Alan Gura. I think it may surprise many of his supporters:http://www.americanlawyer.com/PubArticleALD.jsp?id=1202586287375&thepage=1&slreturn=20130403180028

I would post some quotes from it , but I believe it is better read in its entire form.

Cosmoline
May 3, 2013, 06:09 PM
I'm still not sure what the heck that was even about, or if it was an attempt to muddy the waters and help block the bill.

Bruno2
May 3, 2013, 06:11 PM
The reason why I made this poll thread was to see if what I was thinking is accurate. I felt like this move was going to hurt the SAF. It looks like I was correct. It's sad , but as gun owners we need to vote with our feet. This is the best way to show politicians and organizations just how convicted we are about what we believe in. I hope the SAF will do whatever it takes to make a run at gaining our support. I know this will hurt their pocketbook for sure.

Bruno2
May 3, 2013, 06:18 PM
Personally, I'd like to see a much stronger show of committment from them that this really is the core of their mission, but I do agree with many others that the good they have indeed done grants them a lot of benefit of the doubt from me.

Undoubtedly, the T-M debacle is a serious, shining, oozey, inflamed black eye that will take a long period of untainted and stellar efforts from them to overcome.

Heck, there's still people who HATE the NRA even now for supporting FOPA back in 1986, and that bill was about 80% positive!


Put me down in that category that still hates the NRA over the FOPA. I am sure you know though. Seems like we have had that conversation before Sam.

I view what the SAF did here was like a girlfriend cheating on us. It was very embarrassing and done in front of everybody that we knew. We were involved and committed to her. Now we either have to swallow are pride and try again or we have to wash our hands of her. I don't know if we can ever trust her again. Should we take her back and she runs around on us again then that will surely make for a bitter hatred.

BullfrogKen
May 3, 2013, 06:29 PM
Poll needs a "wait and see what they do next" button.


'cause that's where I am.


I feel like SAF and Toomey sold us out. The gun control debate was DEAD until they got down on their hands and knees over top of it; pounded on it's chest; placed their lips around it and blew some oxygen into it's lungs.

Bruno2
May 3, 2013, 10:09 PM
I agree Ken. I will look into adding one. From what I see most of the people that remain undecided and have said so in the comments didn't vote either way. So I believe that it isn't too late to add the option.

Ed Ames
May 3, 2013, 10:16 PM
As a side note: there are people who refuse to participate in Public polls. That's why there is a warning on them - people don't like 'em. So public poll results are never representative/always skewed.

HKGuns
May 3, 2013, 10:35 PM
To be fair, you'll notice that he doesn't actually WANT the government to force me to follow his example.

....and this is EXACTLY the reason we continue to lose ground. I don't care about it, doesn't affect me.....I don't care, why bother.

In my mind this is worse than the Anti's who actually stand for something.

Texan Scott
May 3, 2013, 10:50 PM
When you dine with the devil, take your own fork, y'all.

SAF thought they could negotiate with the antis... that they would deal in good faith. That they really were interested in dialog and open to compromise.

Well, they got burned. Used. Told "Thanks for the good time, babe... now get outta my truck".

Think about that next time someone starts trolling a 'reasonable compromise' thread.

Bruno2
May 3, 2013, 11:04 PM
Yeah Scott that was the thing that got me. The SAF came out saying a couple weeks before the vote that they were behind it and it would be good for us. Then the morning of the vote they tried to say they no longer backed it. Well I bet a lot of people wrote their congress critters trying to support the bill. So that was bad b/c a couple hrs notice is not enough time to retract what you formerly told your representative. I just didn't like it. I didn't like the trade off part either. It's not a plea bargain.

OilyPablo
May 3, 2013, 11:10 PM
I will talk to the SAF guy at the gunshow tomorrow. I guess that's one thing nice about having SAF nearby.

Bruno2
May 3, 2013, 11:17 PM
Invite them here to defend themselves Pablo. I am willing to listen.

Sam1911
May 3, 2013, 11:27 PM
If you read the THR archives from the January-February 2013 time period you'll see (locked) thread after (locked) thread full of folks desperate to find something we could offer to give up to the other side, because they were utterly certain that we did not have the strength to stonewall new legislation, and they had the oddball misbelief that if WE picked which rights we didn't care about so much that they'd take those juicy morsels and leave the rest of our rights alone.

We probably closed 20 threads just full of that sort of pathetic appeasement.

The very most positive, though probably delusional, of those threads suggested that we could take this opportunity and actually get the anits to the bargaining table. Accept that they were taking something but try to demand something from them in exchange. Maybe they'd give up reopening the MG registry. Maybe they'd take silencer and SBR/SBSs out of Title II of the NFA. Maybe they'd remove the interstate private sales restriction. And so on.

Is that what SAF, Toomey, and Manchin were trying to do?

I can envision a narrative wherein Gottleib & Co. really did set out to do just that. Such an effort would have taken several months to bring to fruition, so the timing seems right. Unfortunately for them (in a way) the inevitable delay meant that their grand proposal came after the strength of the gun-control effort was already too far spent to accomplish anything, so the effect was Ken's CPR-on-the-corpse analogy. Not, "Hey, these guys are trying to get something in exchange for the hit we're about to take..." but [/]"Hey, these guys are trying to make a bad law happen that would have died if they'd just kept their dumb mouths shut!"[/i]

And some of the things he claimed to have inserted into the bill sure are positive -- and the big negative (UBC) does read to most folks as about the weakest strike against us that the antis could ever hope to achieve. (Though the ramifications are indeed very bad.) So that story rings true to me.

Unfortunately, it does really seem that they tried to play political poker with a set of old school car sharps who were happy to bluff them up, sweeten the pot with the good will from the shooting community that their involvement was expected to bring to the table, then pull a little last minute shift to leave them holding a hand of junk.

It does indeed read as though they thought since they were slick in court they must be slick in politics, and they got played hard, and publicly.

Bruno2
May 4, 2013, 11:01 AM
The poll seems to stay constant with 2/3 nay and 1/3 yay. That sucks for SAF if they truly lose 66% of their support.

Bruno2
May 4, 2013, 11:09 AM
his is from the article that I posted in post #36.
Drawing Fire from His Usual Allies

Gura's current docket represents the final phase of a three-step plan that began with establishing via Heller that the Second Amendment affords an individual the right to bear arms, according to Levy. The second step involved ensuring that the right to bear arms applies to the states, which was achieved with the McDonald decision. The final, and most drawn-out, step is geared toward defining the scope of that right. "Everyone understands it isn't absolute and that there should be some restrictions," Levy says.

Maybe not everyone.

Gura has said he is hardly a gun rights absolutist and has expressed support for banning machine guns, preventing felons from acquiring weapons, and allowing instant background checks for prospective gun buyers. Those positions have put him at odds with some of his usual allies. During the Heller oral arguments, he said there was no question that governments could ban certain types of firearms and appeared to endorse not just background checks, but also laws requiring gun owners to store their arms in a safe.

"I received a very negative reaction from the real far-out, anti–gun control crazies, who were really angry with me," author Adam Winkler quotes Gura as saying in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. In the book, Gura recalled being compared to Osama bin Laden and Benedict Arnold, and drawing the ire of both the Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association. "These people are crazy," Gura told Winkler. "I could have [made an absolutist argument before the Court]. And that would have probably made me very popular in some cabin somewhere out there in the woods. Of course I would have lost 9 to 0."

The tension between Gura and the NRA is well documented. He clashed openly with the group during the Heller litigation, accusing it of trying to derail the case out of fear that the Court would deliver an unfavorable decision. Gura also felt the NRA tried to hijack McDonald. He was especially angry when the Supreme Court took some of his allotted time and gave it to the NRA, represented by then–King & Spalding appellate partner Paul Clement.


People should read the article in the link provided. It is very interesting. Interesting in the aspect that the guys whom have been fighting for us may very well end up continuing the fight to an angle that we don't particularly like or want.

Derek Zeanah
May 4, 2013, 11:30 AM
Dave Kopel made some very specific allegations of sloppy drafting that to my knowledge, CCRKBA and SAF still haven't addressed. Personally, my perception is that SAF was out of their depth on this one and got snookered. I would hate to see that effect the good work they do; but this was a case of very poor judgment at best. I know I am going to be reluctant to donate more money to an organization that thought this was a smart move, with or without rights restoration.
This pretty much summed up my response here.

It's quite possible that the SAF acted in good faith. I've been convinced that Bill Ruger tried to act in good faith once, and he got screwed in the process, and as a result we all got screwed.

Looks like this almost happened to us again. And I'm disappointed that the SAF got snookered.

Bruno2
May 4, 2013, 11:44 AM
Derek, do the views laid out in the article quote surprise you as they did me? The SAF's top layer is in favor of restricting certain guns as well as UBC"s. I just don't like it. I was a very stern supporter of the organizations efforts to uphold rkba , but then I read that article and it changed my opinion. I wasn't all that shocked that they came out in favor of the Manchin Toomey just because I feel they would like to see a UBC system put in place. Don't get me wrong I was somewhat caught off guard.

Sam1911
May 4, 2013, 11:46 AM
Reading that article quoting Gura was a serious slap in the face. I've no doubt that he has personal lines of what he believes are reasonable restrictions and it would be silly to expect them to align perfectly with my own...

However, hearing it all tossed out in such a strident and insulting manner from someone so much at the tip of our spear, so to speak, is hard to take.

Derek Zeanah
May 4, 2013, 11:51 AM
Bruno2,

My take was similar to Sam's. Gura had a 3-part plan, and our interests were aligned all the way through the first two steps. I'm grateful for what he's done to bring us to this point, but when it comes to UBCs, registries, banning full-auto firearms and other "reasonable" restrictions, I think we need to part ways.

I'm glad you linked the article, and I'm assuming it was accurate, but based on the support for UBCs we've seen recently I'm inclined to give the author the benefit of the doubt.

Bruno2
May 4, 2013, 11:58 AM
The part where Gura butts heads with the NRA was somewhat enlightening. It appears as though the NRA was frightened that the judgment handed down had potential to do more harm than good to the RKBA. The NRA lately has taken a more absolutist approach where they are scared to give up another inch in fear of a backlash from their members. IMO this is good. They are getting more in line with what I believe. If we continue with as much momentum as we have had in the last 6 months maybe we could possibly start to go the other way and actually start to get some things repealed. OTOH we are seeing more states get on the anti wagon. We used to have to worry about HI,CA,NY,IL and NJ. Now we have to add MA,CT, CO and MD to the list. The anti states are approaching 20% of the Union. This is a little scary and MA is set up to have more Draconian restrictive laws put in place after the marathon bombing.

SuperNaut
May 4, 2013, 12:08 PM
Didn't the SAF end up not supporting Toomey-Manchin in the end? Their own freakin' bill? Something has gone seriously awry over in SAF-land and I need a real explanation from them about what went down before I will consider donating again.

Walkalong
May 4, 2013, 12:29 PM
If they couldn't turn the Sandy Hook tragedy into a SINGLE piece of federal anti-gun legislation after all the massive effort they poured into it, they aren't likely to be able to work up the momentum to get that ball rolling again for years to come.

We done GOOD.
Agreed.

Now we need to put the dagger in their heart by firing many antis in 2014. If we can do this, they will really be scared to touch gun control. I we don't, they will feel like they got away with pushing control without losing any jobs, which will ease their minds a bit.

ilbob
May 4, 2013, 12:36 PM
people will always disagree on the best way to achieve political goals. personally, I think they were played here by the other side, and are just unwilling to admit to it.

Sam1911
May 4, 2013, 12:50 PM
I think they were played here by the other side, and are just unwilling to admit to it.That certainly could be, and it may be the "Occam's Razor" answer to the whole thing. What politically active entity is ever going to admit, "Woah, we made a huge mistake and acted like a bunch of amateurs!!!"

The darker possibility, informed by the quotes Gura gave in that linked article, is that UBC and perhaps some other measures are actually DESIRED outcomes for him/them -- just as they are for the antis. That this wasn't hard compromise, but horrifyingly common goals.

Neither is acceptable, of course...

OilyPablo
May 4, 2013, 01:36 PM
Well SAF wasn't at the show. THAT was weird.

Bruno2
May 4, 2013, 01:38 PM
They probably can't afford a booth now.:evil:

we are not amused
May 4, 2013, 03:14 PM
All this hate toward the SAF reminds me of all the hate that the mere mention of the NRA often generates.

Sometimes, we are our own worst enemies!

OilyPablo
May 4, 2013, 03:27 PM
All this hate toward the SAF reminds me of all the hate that the mere mention of the NRA often generates.

Sometimes, we are our own worst enemies!

This AND how many folks here are starting gun rights orgs, running them, out there fighting the fight? I'm not saying you guys are wrong - but if you give money to SAF, as I clearly do, SPEAK to them - tell them your displeasure and use your $ as leverage. If they make too many mistakes PULL the plug. They will listen if $'s stop so the point of this thread is well taken.

Johannes_Paulsen
May 4, 2013, 03:29 PM
I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this -- that this was a well-intentioned attempt to actually increase legal protections for the right to keep and bear arms at the expense of (what was thought to be) a reasonable cost. I think the You Tube video of Gottlieb that circulated the weekend after Manchin-Toomey was announced supports this.

That said, I think tactically, they sold themselves too short. Parts of the bill were badly worded (as pointed out by Kopel,) and the one thing that didn't get much mention was the federally-funded committee to study gun violence that the bill would've installed, which would've just been an anti-second amendment propaganda machine.

If the left wants to make that kind of stuff law, they'd better expect to pay a more serious price for it -- national concealed-carry license reciprocity, for instance.

Sam1911
May 4, 2013, 03:32 PM
Well, when "we" say things like these:

Gura has said he is hardly a gun rights absolutist and has expressed support for banning machine guns, preventing felons from acquiring weapons, and allowing instant background checks for prospective gun buyers. Those positions have put him at odds with some of his usual allies. During the Heller oral arguments, he said there was no question that governments could ban certain types of firearms and appeared to endorse not just background checks, but also laws requiring gun owners to store their arms in a safe.

"I received a very negative reaction from the real far-out, anti–gun control crazies, who were really angry with me," author Adam Winkler quotes Gura as saying in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. In the book, Gura recalled being compared to Osama bin Laden and Benedict Arnold, and drawing the ire of both the Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association. "These people are crazy,"

... we're hardly our own best friends, now are we?

I'll laud your efforts and support you every way I can, so long as you're actually working for my interests. Start making statements or working towards goals I'm vehemently opposed to, and no, we really aren't buddies any more.

But hopefully there's a different result from all of this, and that is that folks on "our" side, including Gura, look at their allies and start listening to what their own supporters and friends are saying, and mature in their own views. We all do it. We all are, and should be, educated and influenced by those around us who share our general goals and who may present broader or deeper views on those goals than what we ourselves arrived at on our own.

Gura, Gottlieb, and probably quite a few others, need to take notice of the new position of strength and solidarity and boldness we possess and re-evaluate the efforts and long-term goals they are pursuing.





(...see "Zumbo.")

Tinker
May 4, 2013, 03:55 PM
Looks like this almost happened to us again. And I'm disappointed that the SAF got snookered.

Alan Gottleib has always impressed me any time I've seen him comment or debate (going back decades). He has been around long enough to know how snakey/tricksy the other side is. I find it hard to believe that he could be snookered by them in any way. That is what disturbs me about his association with the Toomey deal.

ErikO
May 4, 2013, 04:17 PM
Good things from bill: no transfer law between non-proscribed family members even if residents of other states, opening up pistol purchases to be the same as rifle and shotgun when out of state, forcing other states to match Missouri on adjudication reporting or suffer loss of funding from Safe Streets.

The VA having power over vets was garbage - would have been fixed by a failed amendment - as was a few of the amendments. National reciprocity would have been nice. Death of the AWB and magazine bans was a bonus. The changes of language to both FOPA and Dick Act would have made it possible to enact a registry under future bills.

Richard Feldman explained in an interview how this bill had the potential to fix several things that actually are broken but as it stood when it hit the floor it was unpassible. I agree with him.

the core of the bill, the Universal Background Check - is something I am opposed to on the grounds that it is stretching the Commerce Clause way beyond where it should be applied. Having the OPTION of using an FFL to transfer to folks you do NOT know for sure are not blocked is ok, being forced to do so by FEDERAL LAW when you are both verified residents of the same state is not good.

we are not amused
May 4, 2013, 04:33 PM
Well, when "we" say things like these:



... we're hardly our own best friends, now are we?

I'll laud your efforts and support you every way I can, so long as you're actually working for my interests. Start making statements or working towards goals I'm vehemently opposed to, and no, we really aren't buddies any more.

But hopefully there's a different result from all of this, and that is that folks on "our" side, including Gura, look at their allies and start listening to what their own supporters and friends are saying, and mature in their own views. We all do it. We all are, and should be, educated and influenced by those around us who share our general goals and who may present broader or deeper views on those goals than what we ourselves arrived at on our own.

Gura, Gottlieb, and probably quite a few others, need to take notice of the new position of strength and solidarity and boldness we possess and re-evaluate the efforts and long-term goals they are pursuing.





(...see "Zumbo.")

Sam1911, I sincerely appreciate your view, but would like to point out that some of your fellow moderators disagree with it, such as Frank Ettins. He is strongly in favor of background checks and other Second Amendment restrictions.

I have mixed feelings about the original Manchin/Toomey compromise that was drafted with the help of Gottlieb, but that was not the one voted on, and the SAF withdrew their support.

My point is that every time somebody says something we disagree with, we have to make them the ENEMY! Sometimes, I think we just need to disagree, and not try to ostracize them.

The SAF has done a lot to protect the Second Amendment, and I don't think they should be thrown under the bus just yet. The NRA has often come under fire for perceived lapses in the past, and I confidently predict them to do so again.

So, YES! I will continue to support the SAF, the NRA, GOA, JPFO, and heck, even the Pink Pistols. I don't have to agree with every subtle nuance of their agenda to know that helping them, helps me keep my Second Amendment Rights

we are not amused
May 4, 2013, 04:40 PM
Good things from bill: no transfer law between non-proscribed family members even if residents of other states, opening up pistol purchases to be the same as rifle and shotgun when out of state, forcing other states to match Missouri on adjudication reporting or suffer loss of funding from Safe Streets.

The VA having power over vets was garbage - would have been fixed by a failed amendment - as was a few of the amendments. National reciprocity would have been nice. Death of the AWB and magazine bans was a bonus. The changes of language to both FOPA and Dick Act would have made it possible to enact a registry under future bills.

Richard Feldman explained in an interview how this bill had the potential to fix several things that actually are broken but as it stood when it hit the floor it was unpassible. I agree with him.

the core of the bill, the Universal Background Check - is something I am opposed to on the grounds that it is stretching the Commerce Clause way beyond where it should be applied. Having the OPTION of using an FFL to transfer to folks you do NOT know for sure are not blocked is ok, being forced to do so by FEDERAL LAW when you are both verified residents of the same state is not good.

Well explained, and was why I somewhat supported the Bill, as it originally only expanded background checks at gun shows.

I strongly believe that there was enough to gain from it, that I don't think it's supporters are necessarily our enemy.

Bruno2
May 4, 2013, 04:41 PM
Well , also if you look at the premise of Heller it wasn't argued or decided on behalf of what the 2nd amendment is for. It's not about being able to keep a gun in your home. The 2A isn't about hunting either. I can see where the NRA is running into problems seeing eye to eye with the SAF. I have to admit that I have a better attitude towards the NRA after this last round of anti gunners attempts to dis arm our fellow countrymen. I was all out in support of the SAF before this and I have to admit that I was wrong about both orgs. The NRA is the undisputed champion of gun rights. They listen to what their base wants and then they make it happen.

Bruno2
May 4, 2013, 04:47 PM
WANA, if the SAF wants to do what feel like s their brand of gun freedom then so be it. Just do it on your own dime. They aren't representing some of the most important factors of the freedom that I am in favor of. If I throw them money and all of the sudden end up having to get gov supervision every time I buy or sell a gun then I wouldn't be happy about it. OTOH if they use funds from people that are in favor of that so be it. No harm no foul, but don't use my funds to do it.

Sam1911
May 4, 2013, 04:50 PM
Sam1911, I sincerely appreciate your view, but would like to point out that some of your fellow moderators disagree with it, such as Frank Ettins. He is strongly in favor of background checks and other Second Amendment restrictions.Ok. I don't know if that's so or not. Maybe it would be best to let him say so, or not say so.

If it is, so what?

My point is that every time somebody says something we disagree with, we have to make them the ENEMY! Sometimes, I think we just need to disagree, and not try to ostracize them.Right, and that's ok if we're just talking among ourselves. When someone is working for, or against, MY RIGHTS, they get my support and thanks, or they most heartily do not.

We can -- and MUST -- work as hard as we can to help our friends in this effort mature in their views by offering them as much encouragement as possible when they're right, and the firmest voice of constructive criticism that we're able when they are wrong. (So very DEAD wrong.)

The SAF has done a lot to protect the Second Amendment, and I don't think they should be thrown under the bus just yet.Certainly. I think I said something similar way back at the beginning. If they dance back onto the straight and narrow most ricky-tick, I'll be happy to consider them to be working to repair any damage their lapse has caused our broader effort.

Again, though, it does give one pause when pondering where donation dollars will do the most good, if one of our favorite groups just got PLAYED like a bunch of grade-school dorks trying to beat a Vegas 3-card-monty hustler.

The NRA has often come under fire for perceived lapses in the past, and I confidently predict them to do so again.Yes, but they seem to be a pretty shining example of an organization's views and efforts "maturing" in the right directions over the last 20-30 years. They aren't and won't ever be perfect, of course, but they're standing pretty strong these days and deserve our encouragement and support. (And still need our constructive criticism -- e.g. the anti-video games rant.)

So, YES! I will continue to support the SAF, the NRA, GOA, JPFO, and heck, even the Pink Pistols. I don't have to agree with every subtle nuance of their agenda to know that helping them, helps me keep my Second Amendment RightsCertainly! But they need to hear from you when they bomb one badly, and money talks louder than anything else. If the pink pistols come out (LOL) against open carry or in favor of making silencers illegal, or some other such thing, I'm going to be working pretty hard to bring them back into the fold, not sending them another check and saying "keep up the good work."

Texshooter
May 4, 2013, 11:11 PM
What are the "restrictions" that SAF wanted to be voted on but could not get?

Bruno2
May 4, 2013, 11:13 PM
They wanted a UBC system put in place.

I will look for the video where Allan Gottlieb explains their position and desires.

Bruno2
May 4, 2013, 11:15 PM
The support in the polls seem to have shrunk to 25%. It is getting worse.

lilguy
May 4, 2013, 11:44 PM
I've been a NRA lifer for over 30 years and a lifer in the ISRA for a while. I sent my first check to the SAF first of the year and was shocked they helped write. the Senate bill. Will refocus my attention on supporting GOA in the future.

hso
May 5, 2013, 08:30 PM
If being shorted on finally removing Schumer's blocking of restoration of rights for us (and so many government laws try to make us felons) was key to SAF/CCRKBA getting the other concessions happened to be the breaking point I'm glad they pulled out, but trading UBC (even a gutted one) for those benefits for us was a big risk to take in using the momentum from the propaganda campaign against us to perform some judo on the Antis.

Depending on the House to clean up the language and prevent any harm was a chance also (a good bet, but still a gamble).

It is clear now why Schumer wasn't at the M/T press conference if Gottleib was manouvering to take away one of his cornerstone "achievements" as an Anti.

DeepSouth
May 5, 2013, 10:51 PM
This bill is already back and another similar one is also coming. I'll wait and see what they do next before I pass judgement.

Bruno2
May 5, 2013, 10:54 PM
Here is the $64k question: Will the SAF continue to try to help with legislation or did the black eye they received teach them a lesson?

I can see where they were coming from , sort of. It's hard work beating these unfair laws in the courtroom so why not be there when they are being made? Kind of like doing right the first time.

IMO the antis are like homeless people. You cant give them a cigarette when hey ask b/c they will just ask you for a dollar or another cigarette. Also every time they see you they will ask for a cigarette. There is no end to it. The antis already think they can get more gun control w/o compromising anything they have legislated in the past. So why would they look at a compromise this time?

Pointshoot
May 5, 2013, 11:22 PM
How come 'compromise' is defined as the slow (or fast) grinding away of the 2nd Amendment over the decades ? This is equivalent to 'compromising' with a wolf who wants to eat you all at once, but you agree that he can only eat one limb or organ at a time.

We have rights as men. They are not granted by any piece of paper or any government. The American founders knew that, but few Americans today seem to.

The excuse used for all this is a fraud; many seem to have fallen for it. Rational thought and reasoned argument are no longer taught in the schools today. In fact, your odds of being the victim of a mass shooting are less than being struck by lightning, (just look up the 10 year stats on both events). Yet, there seems to be all manner of pro 2A people quite ready to 'compromise'.
I have been supporting many more pro 2A groups over the last few months, (and have been a member of several of them for many years). Any of them that fall for Universal Background Checks are fools that do not know history. This will be the foundation of registration and eventual confiscation.

I will wait to see how matters move forward. If SAF goes for UBC they lost me as a member. Winning all sorts of small cases is great; going along with UBC negates all of that IMO.

jfh
May 6, 2013, 12:20 AM
of what was said a couples pages back by Walkalong:

"Now we need to put the dagger in their heart by firing many antis in 2014. If we can do this, they will really be scared to touch gun control. I we don't, they will feel like they got away with pushing control without losing any jobs, which will ease their minds a bit."

Jim H.

Pointshoot
May 6, 2013, 12:30 AM
IMO the real solution isn't in D.C. Both parties have overseen the slow and steady erosion of the 2nd Amendment and the entire US Constitution. Better to focus on the state and local level including nullification of un Constitutional law. The American founders focused on local power in government. Local means that you can keep a better eye on them and can better voice your objections, and force change when needed.

RetiredUSNChief
May 6, 2013, 12:55 AM
Be careful about outright dropping support for the SAF, or any other strong second amendment advocates.

Let's first be sure of our facts before jumping the gun.

Then, if the facts seem to be counter to the spirit of the SAF (which is, of course, to be a strong second amendment advocate), we need to take action to get them back on track.

Remember that one very powerful tool for those who would restrict or eliminate our second amendment right is "divide and conquer". Producing schisms in the organizations which we depend upon to project our voices in powerful, no-nonsense ways is one of them. Don't let them do this.

One has only to look toward such tactics in Australia to see how successful that was.

Don't toss the SAF under the bus just yet...rather, kick their rear ends as necessary to get them back on track, if they should actually wander off the beaten trail.

Bruno2
May 6, 2013, 01:10 AM
That's right Johnny! The talking heads on Face the Nation this morning are convinced that the job loss and Senate loss in 1994 wasn't due to the gun control vote. We know better and we aim to show them different in 2014.

Bruno2
May 7, 2013, 01:12 AM
The poll will be open for another couple of weeks.

Johannes_Paulsen
May 7, 2013, 01:22 AM
@Bruno2 - the video I mentioned above can be found at this website:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-gun-rights-advocate-reveals-key-role-in-writing-manchin-toomey-background-checks-amendment/

Bruno2
May 7, 2013, 01:31 AM
@Bruno2 - the video I mentioned above can be found at this website:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch...cks-amendment/


He admitted that he was working to implement some background checks in an effort to prevent more comprehensive and effective legislation from passing in Congress. “I think we snookered the other side,” Gottlieb concluded, “and they haven’t figured it out yet.”

That statement is very ironic. I think Gottlieb was the one who got snookered.

Thanks for posting the link Johannes!

Bartholomew Roberts
May 7, 2013, 06:21 AM
It is clear now why Schumer wasn't at the M/T press conference if Gottleib was manouvering to take away one of his cornerstone "achievements" as an Anti.

Based on a single news article I read at the time, Schumer did not appear because Pat Toomey didn't want him at the conference because he knew he would be seeing that in political ads during his next reelection.

Here is the $64k question: Will the SAF continue to try to help with legislation or did the black eye they received teach them a lesson?

Technically, it was the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) that was involved in the drafting. This was another group led by Gottlieb and they share a lot of staff and mailing lists in common with SAF. SAF just supported the action from their closely related group.

Rugerspyderon
May 7, 2013, 07:32 AM
I think Alan was trying to move the ball forward. Being on the defensive is not always the best tactic. The Trojan horse approach makes sense, I believe he could have gotten what he wanted but we called too much attention to it. It was like having a neon sign on the Trojan horse of Troy as it was wheeled into the gates. Alan and Alan have more than earned our support. I doubt any of us on this thread have done as much, outside of the battlefield, to protect our 2nd amendment rights as those two.

OilyPablo
May 7, 2013, 07:37 AM
He tried to compromise. They didn't want it. Never again. Let's move on with standing firm on the 2nd.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 7, 2013, 08:41 AM
The Trojan horse approach makes sense, I believe he could have gotten what he wanted but we called too much attention to it. It was like having a neon sign on the Trojan horse of Troy as it was wheeled into the gates.

The facts do not support that analysis. Every single anti-gun politician voted for the Amendment. Schumer gave an impassioned speech on the floor of the Senate begging Senators to vote for it. Bloomberg and Biden threw their support behind it. The bill was defeated by the pro-rights crowd, not because the antis backed away from it.

To use your analogy, it would be like the Greeks fighting to drag the horse out of Troy after it was already safely behind the walls.

Heck, Biden is still out there stumping for it even after it has been defeated in a Democratic controlled Senate. They are not the least bit concerned about Gottlieb's support for it and they sure don't think they are the suckers in the deal.

hnk45acp
May 7, 2013, 12:57 PM
Maybe it'll be a "teachable moment" for the SAF

Johannes_Paulsen
May 9, 2013, 12:03 AM
Posting this because it's somewhat on topic.... via Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned (http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/05/08/with-friends-like-this/), the left-wing Think Progress blog is reporting that CCRKBA was handing out materials at the NRA show in Houston defending parts of Manchin-Toomey. From Think Progress:


Gun rights activists across the nation believe the Schumer measure would establish a de facto gun registry due to a record keeping requirement. There is no record keeping provision in the Manchin-Toomey bill, and using background check information to create a registry would be punishable by up to 15 years in prison.[...]
The Manchin-Toomey alternative would provide for background checks on all commercial gun sales, including those done at gun shows and that originate on the Internet. An important exemption applies to transfers of firearms between family members, and private sales between friends and neighbors would also be exempt.

Don't know the veracity of this (Sebastian says he did not stop at CCRKBA's booth in Houston.) I report, you decide.

Bruno2
May 11, 2013, 12:11 PM
Don't get me wrong , I can see how a UBC could help. However, the entire deal is just too sticky. I can see it causing more problems for the law abiding than it will solve. We just don't need another gun law on the books that will incriminate people if not followed.

We still have some time left before the poll closes, but it certainly looks like the CCRKBA/SAF didn't do themselves any favors with their support for the bill.

I certainly hope they get the message because it's very sad that an org that has done this much for our cause has lost this much support.

phil dirt
May 11, 2013, 01:28 PM
Gottlieb did not support a registry in Washington state. In fact, he tried to cut a deal that would have, if passed, done away with our Washington state pistol registry which is filed with the local police agency and kept by them. It didn't pass because the cops were not willing to give up the pistol registry, which is separate from the 4473.

Gottlieb has done a lot of good work for gun owners in the past, and I will continue to support him.

I well remember that a bunch of you guys got on your high horse and refused to vote for Romney. So now we've got Obama, who is even worse! Sometimes we only have a choice between the bad and the ugly.

Bruno2
May 11, 2013, 03:57 PM
I well remember that a bunch of you guys got on your high horse and refused to vote for Romney. So now we've got Obama, who is even worse! Sometimes we only have a choice between the bad and the ugly.

I understand. The biggest problem with Mitt was that he already did a big ban on firearms in MA.BO just had the talking part down.

I am truly torn on the CCRKBA/SAF situation. They have done a lot. They don't seem to be as diligent about polling their members about views as some other pro rkba orgs are. At least I haven't heard of or stumbled across any. Their base could very well be in the majority of supporting UBC's. However, I am not. One of the reasons I started the poll was to see if they have lost support. Also I wanted some sort of public feedback for anyone interested to have a look at. I would think that an org like theirs would be interested in what their base has for opinions since that is who is funding the operation.

F-111 John
May 11, 2013, 05:30 PM
Their feedback will be reflected in their future donation rates.

Johannes_Paulsen
May 12, 2013, 04:04 PM
@Bruno2- it would be interesting to see how many of the people voting "no" in your poll actually had supported SAF with donations in the past?

Bruno2
May 13, 2013, 10:50 AM
@Bruno2- it would be interesting to see how many of the people voting "no" in your poll actually had supported SAF with donations in the past?

I was thinking the exact same thing Johannes just the other day. The thought crossed my mind that some of the people voting may have never been members to start with. However, even future prospects being turned off will indeed effect donations. I had them friended on my FB and always encouraged people to support them. I couldn't say enough good things about them. One day I logged onto FB and saw the video and explanation of what they had done with the UBC bill and I flew off the handle.

I think we need some answers from the org. I want to know if they will push their agenda regardless of what their members think or if the base has any stroke? Also Do they care at all how their supporters feel. Are they using people or are they doing the peoples work? I completely understand that my views may not match everyones to a tee, but there are a few of my views that must be supported in order to get my coin. NO UBC crap at all will be tolerated and certain weapons are not to be viewed more dangerous than others .

DeepSouth
May 13, 2013, 08:15 PM
I have finally decided to withhold my money for a little while, at least 6 months and maybe longer if there is something else proposed that I want to watch them closely on.
Hopefully the drop in income will show them where we stand, but they have done enough good in the past I am willing to give them another shot. But one more shot is all they get, thin ice form now on.


I voted yes, would have liked to have voted....probably, but not right now.

we are not amused
May 14, 2013, 06:24 PM
Sometimes we are our own worst enemy!

For all of the people on this thread expressing outrage and hate toward Alan Gottlieb and the SAF, I want to ask a question.

What have you done on the level of the Heller decision and the MacDonald case?

There are plenty of Yahoo's on this site who openly spew hate toward certain gun companies because of statements made by the then owners, twenty years ago.

There are people on this site who openly express contempt toward avid gun rights supporters, for statements or actions which occurred over forty years ago.

Now there are people who are expressing contempt and hatred against the man and organization who won the Heller and MacDonald case. All because he apparently isn't ideologically "pure" enough.

Heck, there are a lot of people on this Forum, (including moderators) who don't support the Right to Bear Arms, that think it is a privilege to be granted or withheld at the whim of our Progressive Lords and Masters.

Yet, we are throwing someone who has done more to secure the Right to Keep and Bear Arms than anyone on this forum has ever done, simply because he isn't ideologically "pure" enough!

He has conducted several interviews with both Tom Grisham of Gun Talk,and Mark Walters of Armed America Radio. I urge everyone to look up the podcast, and listen to both those people. They decided they couldn't support his efforts, but they aren't throwing him under the bus.

Reasonable people can have differences of opinion and tactics, and still not be the enemy!

He is definitely someone who done a lot of good for our side, and we shouldn't be blackballing him.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR GUN RIGHTS, THAT IS ON PAR WITH WHAT ALAN GOTTLIEB HAS ACCOMPLISHED?

Sam1911
May 14, 2013, 06:52 PM
:D We are amused! But you're right to a degree. We do owe these guys a debt of gratitude for what they've done. In the past. But the past is not the present, nor the future, and where they've walked in the past does not dictate that their path is straight and narrow now, or in the future.

Because of that. we also owe them the benefit of our best counsel and honesty in pointing out where they've gone awry. They aren't the masters any more than HCI or the President is. This is a cooperative effort, and we, the voters, supporters, and affected citizens are part of the "team." We need to encourage them when they're discouraged, and ASSIST them when they falter. Sometimes that encouragement and assistence must take the form of constructive criticism and even constructive coercion in the form of withholding monetary support.

It is fun and facile to launch an "argument killer" like this ...
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR GUN RIGHTS, THAT IS ON PAR WITH WHAT ALAN GOTTLIEB HAS ACCOMPLISHED?... but it's really a dodge. We are not all, and cannot be, constitutional litigators fighting cases before the SCOTUS. But we are all these litigators' CLIENTS. They work for us, the affected citizen who's rights hang in the balance. So "what have you..." is akin to saying, "Who are YOU to say that the doctor amputated the wrong leg? Where's YOUR medical degree?"

We don't need to hang these guys in effigy, yet at least, but we do need to tell the doctor that he's made a terrible mistake and needs to move heaven and earth to get back on the right track. His blunder has caused a severe loss of good faith with his patient and he'll have great trouble being as effective in the future.

Bruno2
May 14, 2013, 07:01 PM
Well, I gave them some of the money they used to get those decisions. I also lobbied for them to gain more money and that helped fund those suits. I also gave money to the NRA/ILA that helped fight the McDonald case too.

WANA, don't get me wrong or anybody else here for that matter. Most of us appreciate what has been done by SAF for RKBA. However, I am not in favor of any kind of UBC rather it be private , gov or whatever, records no records that's how I feel. I am having trouble sending them anymore money b/c I am scared they are going to litigate me into something I don't want. When the NRA tries to legislate me into something I am totally against I ill not fund them anymore as well.

Nobody is saying lets try to dismantle SAF or CCRKBA. We are just saying lets vote with our wallets to get them on board with what the majority of gun owners want and not their own personal agenda. Should they take it wrong or not agree with no UBC ever and decide to dissolve or continue full steam ahead on fighting for a UBC then to hell with them. We all have our own opinions.

Bruno2
May 29, 2013, 12:22 AM
Back to the top. The poll is about to close and I would like to give anybody the opportunity that hasn't voted or commented to do so.

barnetmill
May 29, 2013, 12:29 AM
I will consider my support on an issue by issue basis. They do serve a useful purpose in being a loose cannon that is independent from the NRA. They help keep everybody on their toes.
I did not vote since I see only two choices.

Davek1977
May 29, 2013, 03:42 AM
Being unpredictable, or a "loose cannon" is the LAST thing I want from people supposedly reflecting our views and opinions. I want them to steadfastly defend my rights, combat gun control, and prevent further intrusions/infringement. They instead supported something I never would, and that also runs contrary to how a LOT of gun owners feel, and appearently don't feel the least bit bad about doing so. We are the sum of our actions, and good deeds in the past don't make up for mucking up things presently. Until I see a wholehearted apology for basically throwing us under the bus, AND future work that reflects my personal values and opinions regarding guns and gun control, I see no reason to provide financial support at this time.

Bruno2
June 3, 2013, 07:36 PM
Well guys, the poll closed at a 70-30 score. Looks like according to THR that these guys have shot themselves in the foot. I hope by accident and maybe they have experienced one of BO's "teachable moments". We will see.

Johannes_Paulsen
June 4, 2013, 08:44 PM
Oddly, I received a call from SAF earlier today. I did not have time to talk, as I was in a car with a colleague at the time, but if they call back, I might quiz them on this....

MechAg94
June 5, 2013, 07:33 AM
A little late for me, but I think a lot of pro-gun people thought an a gun bill was inevitable and was going to pass. I applaud their attempt to get pro-gun amendments attached and essentially undermine the Feinstein bill, but accepting Antigun parts is not a great idea. In the end, support for it wasn't what some people thought.

I think this is essentially how we got the 1994 AWB I think. Maybe some older timers can correct me on that. I know the political support for gun control was even stronger then.

phil dirt
June 6, 2013, 11:42 AM
As I said earlier, I support Gottlieb and the SAF. I am a life member of his Citizens For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms, and I'm also a life member of the SAF, the NRA and GOA. I don't always agree with any of them 100%, but these groups are the only reason we still have a Second Amendment in this country. I well remember a bunch of you guys got on your high horse and refused to support Romney, not that he was perfect by a long shot, but he was certainly less of a threat to us than the POS we now have as President. In politics, it seems we usually have our choice between the bad and the ugly, not that I consider Gottlieb to be either one. Looking at the big picture, I will continue to support all of the pro gun groups with my money. As we all know, I think, the anti-gunners are not going to give up, and they'd love to see us cut our own throats. If you have a problem with any of our pro gun groups, call them, write them and tell them about it, but if you think this war can be won without the money it takes to fight it, you can be sure we are going to loose!

Vern Humphrey
June 6, 2013, 04:32 PM
I don't understand why they would support EBCs. Not even the supporters of EBC believe it would have prevented any of the mass shootings that have taken place in the last few years. So why have EBCs?

By the same token, a DOJ study found that firearms-related homicides have declined 39% in the last 18 years and firearms-related crime in general have declined 60%. Clearly, whatever we're doing now (and that's expanded concealed carry) is working.

If we want to reduce firearms-related crimes even farther, make CCW licenses good on the same basis as drivers licenses -- licensed on one state, licensed in all. And start removing prohibitions about where CCW holders can carry.

Pointshoot
June 7, 2013, 08:06 PM
IMO many 2A supporters seemed to miss one very important point after events like Sandy Hook and others. - - - Your odds of being a victim of a mass shooting are much less than being struck by lightning.(Look up the 10 year stats for both events). The arguments that you allow yourself to be drawn into, are a complete hoax. Its nothing but gaming you using emotionalism. Yet some think they should 'compromise' with the gangster/liars who are intent on taking away your rights that were recognized in the US Constitution. Are we completely clueless ? When a predator shows up on your doorstep demanding that he be allowed to rape your wife and two daughters, will you feel pleased at the 'compromise' of only letting him have his way with one daughter (this time around) ? Have years of public 'education' dumbed us down that much ?
I am currently a SAF member. They have done a lot of good legal work. But Univ Back-ground Checks are nothing but a way to national registration, and then confiscation. If you study a little bit of world history, this is obvious. If SAF is so dumb as to go along with UBC, all the work theyve done in the past means little. I will drop my support for them immediately.

None of these proposals are about reducing crimes. They are about disarming you.

Get it ?

OilyPablo
June 7, 2013, 10:13 PM
None of these proposals are about reducing crimes. They are about disarming you.



Of this there is little doubt.

Vern Humphrey
June 7, 2013, 10:41 PM
As I have mentioned before, the DOJ just released a study showing homicides with firearms have declined 39% in the last 18 years, and all gun-related crimes have declined 60%.

So where's the crisis that "gun control" advocates are trying to solve?

Rugerspyderon
June 7, 2013, 11:05 PM
They deserve the benefit if the doubt. They have earned it more than the vast majority of us.

Bruno2
June 7, 2013, 11:52 PM
I somewhat agree Rugerspyderon. However, I think they need to come clean on their position regarding the UBC stance. Will they continue to do their will or will they do the will of the members? Their member base may have shifted to where they are doing the will of the members b/c everyone else not wanting the UBC jumped ship. I am just saying they need to clarify what their intentions in the future will be

garymc
June 8, 2013, 12:14 AM
Hope I'm not repeating someone else's idea. But I've come around to the thought that compromising 100% freedom to 50%, then compromising to 25%, then 12.5%, then, well, you see where it's headed. I was thinking Ed Ames' post #33 was sounding good. Give us an 800 number, let us make a background check on a private sale if there is doubt, case closed. Gun dealers wouldn't like to be cut out of the action. Then I realized, why do any of this crap? The SAF wanted to compromise when they thought we would be crushed under a tsunami of gun control sentiment by 90% of the voters. How gullible. They thought that because they were lied to and bluffed out. It's hard to blame them, because that was what was all over the media. Some states passed gun control measures, probably thinking 90% of their voters wanted it. Missouri and some other states passed laws or resolutions saying "We're not enforcing any federal gun control legislation." In Missouri, by a veto proof majority. That told me, if a majority of the professional politicians in the (bicameral) legislature passed this, then that 90% number was crap. I can't wait till 2014 elections to see what happens to the house and senate.

Bruno2
September 22, 2013, 11:03 PM
Walkalong said:
Agreed.

Now we need to put the dagger in their heart by firing many antis in 2014. If we can do this, they will really be scared to touch gun control. I we don't, they will feel like they got away with pushing control without losing any jobs, which will ease their minds a bit.


I am very happy the CO recall election turned out like it did.I am glad mainly because this sort of debunked the theory that most of the politicians that were voted out after the Brady Bill was passed in 94 were voted out for other reasons that their support of the Bill. That was the antis explanation of the backlash. Well, now that seems to be the only reason the CO politicians were fired. Also I am happy the recall election happened when it did because we all know how short the attention spans and memories of the voting public are. This sort of splashed some cold water on the sleeping memory of the people we will need to help us fire these antis in 2014.

I know the CO recall wont stop the most hardened of the antis like Feinstein or McCarthy , but maybe some of the politicians that like to straddle the fence will get the message and avoid gun control like the plague it is to politicos.

I still have yet to hear if the SAF has changed their tune . I don't hear a lot of chatter about them like I used to. Maybe they will see the writing on the wall after they do the books at the end of the year?

phil dirt
September 23, 2013, 10:43 AM
Yes, I will continue to support them, at least for now. SAF has done far more good for our cause than bad. That's more than I can say for those who insist on open carrying at Starbucks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Will You Continue to Support the SAF After Their Involvment in ManchinToomey ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!