search
top

Alan Gottlieb Lobbies Grassroots to Support Toomey-Manchin Amendment

Sebastian made a comment while reading the Toomey language for his gun amendment that, while there are flaws, it appeared that it was written by someone with more gun knowledge than your average congressional staffer. Turns out that Alan Gottlieb is officially taking credit for having his staff help write the amendment based on this video.

I have some issues with this recording for a couple of reasons.

One, he misrepresents the ability to buy guns across state lines. At 3:03, Gottlieb says, “Another important one, you cannot now legally buy a handgun in a state that you don’t live in. If you’re not a resident of that state, you can’t buy a handgun. Under the so-called background check bill, you’ll be able to buy a handgun in all 50 states. As long as you buy from a licensed dealer, you can buy it from anywhere you want.” He adds more later, claiming that with “a gun license of any kind from any state, under the Toomey-Manchin proposal, there is no background check.”

Two, he promises that none of the 4473s on concealed carry licensees from FFLs will go to the government. Gottlieb says, “you have to fill out the 4473 form, it stays in the dealer’s file and never even gets called into the government.”

These two statements are just false. In fact, on the registry/4473 point, Dave Kopel’s initial review of the Toomey-Manchin amendment points out that the registry ban doesn’t include records from FFLs who close down and therefore must send their 4473s to the federal government for storage.

Beyond the actual policies in dispute, there’s a question of the strategy of this speech. Gottlieb asks dinner attendees to back this amendment specifically to advance their partisan agenda. I’m all for political reality and dealing with the fact that some people are willing to trade away our freedoms, but I truly do view defending the Bill of Rights as a non-partisan fight. I don’t want any party sitting comfortably thinking the Second Amendment is just something to take advantage of when it fits their agenda.

Gottlieb also tells the audience that these are all “secrets” to the bill – including a promise that a restoration of rights amendment is going to be presented and already has the votes – that he doesn’t want any gun control proponents to know about until after the amendment is official. So, then, help me understand why that would be announced in a room full of people while a video camera is going. (Clearly, this isn’t a hidden camera. It appears to be right in front of him, even if handheld.) That doesn’t seem very strategic to me. If CNN runs this video on repeat, those votes have likely disappeared.

My outrage moment, though, happened when Gottlieb told the crowd that every day, at every gun show, men who can’t speak English go in and purposefully load up with guns without showing ID and without ever undergoing background checks. Gee, thanks, Alan. As many gun shows as I have attended running a table, I have never witnessed anything like that happening. In fact, I have seen far more gun sellers refuse sales that they just don’t feel comfortable with than I have seen even a normal, ID-showing private sale.

Look, I get why some think that pro-gun folks should have been involved in the process of writing this amendment to try and keep innocent gun owners out of jail. That’s a reasonable argument to me. But, that’s very different from calling the Toomey-Manchin amendment a “Godsend” and misrepresenting what it does in order to lobby for grassroots support.

I would ask, if the Toomey-Manchin language goes through as presented, is the Second Amendment Foundation going to fund an Alan Gura defense for the first arrested gun owner who was just confused by the new rules about when processing through an FFL is required?

h/t to Misfires & Light Strikes for sharing this video and opening the discussion.

UPDATE: Interesting that the video is now starting to disappear from the internet. I found another copy of it. It’s the exact same video because the timing marks to my quotes line up.

73 Responses to “Alan Gottlieb Lobbies Grassroots to Support Toomey-Manchin Amendment”

  1. Bitter says:

    For what it’s worth, I have nothing against SAF or Alan Gottlieb. I just didn’t appreciate the attack on gun shows that actually “verifies” for the anti-gun movement the very worst they think of our culture. I also question the strategy outlined here, specifically in announcing these other amendments that will really cause waves. I also consider it a very different thing to be part of the conversation with purposes of keeping people out of jail as opposed to outright lobbying for support for the amendment.

    • Oldfart says:

      Like everyone else here, I don’t know just what Alan had in mind when he “helped” Manchin-Toomey with their bill. In the end it might be a plus for gun owners or it might be an anchor around our necks but what his actions have undeniably done is split the gun-rights community in a way Schumer and Feinstein could only wish for in their wildest wet dreams.

      I don’t trust government – especially this administration of this government – to abide by any law.

  2. Roberta X says:

    Geez, Alan Gottlieb, please stay off my side.

  3. Andy B. says:

    “Turns out that Alan Gottlieb is officially taking credit for having his staff help write the amendment based on this video.”

    I guess I should stop pretending to not be vain, because I have to say, Gottlieb’s another one I called, a long time — that for his public advocacy of “safe storage” laws. We had a somewhat public pissing contest over it. But hey, he’s always been willing to take gun rights advocates money, so I guess he can’t be all bad, huh?

  4. harry sucio says:

    I really don’t think as a Californian I am going to be able to go to gun stores in Utah or Arizona and buy guns with my Utah or Arizona carry permit. I have a very hard time believing my state will not make that a crime somehow.

    • Bitter says:

      Good luck even finding a gun store that will sell to you in those circumstances. The requirements for FFLs to follow the laws of their state and the state of buyer would remain in place, so most won’t even be willing to take the chance selling to buyers from extreme anti-gun states.

  5. WR2A says:

    Hmm.

    Okay, so….um…screw Gottlieb. Screw The SAF. Screw ‘em all. I came into this world with The Second Amendment unadulterated or exploited, and by God, I shall leave it as such.

    I have no more time for any “political group” that says they want to speak for me regarding gun ownership. Not the SAF, not the NRA, none. I’m done with these people.

    I am an American, born on American soil, a Veteran, a husband and father, and I am a faithful taxpayer to a corrupted government. The Second Amendment is my f-ing gun permit.

    I’ll let the lesser folks hash it out and play at politics. I really would prefer to be left the hell alone.

    Thank you, Sebastian, for posting this video. It has made certain things more clear to me.

    • Bitter says:

      I came into this world with The Second Amendment unadulterated or exploited…

      I’m not trying to be snarky, but unless you were born the second it was ratified, you came into a world where people have been debating and limiting the scope of the Second Amendment your entire life. Historically, there were those who tried to use limits to gun ownership to keep them out of the hands of those they did not like based on skin color or immigrant group. These days, the anti-gun elites tend to want to use gun control just to keep them out of the hands of folks they judge over cultural differences.

      The Second Amendment is like just about any other – there has been debate and there will always be debate about the scope of it and working out the “details” of how it is interpreted. At times, it will be a major topic of discussion. At other times, only the most devoted activists will be involved.

      I will suggest this in light of your frustration. You say to just “screw ‘em all.” In my experience, those who just yell “shall not be infringed” don’t get very far in advancing their rights. In my experience, when I learn about the gun laws actually on the books any time someone references the “good old days,” rarely were those days actually so good or fair for everyone who wanted to be a law abiding gun owner. Unless you can afford a private island that isn’t part of a larger government, then you’re pretty much stuck living with people who will disagree on your views of the Second Amendment and even those who agree with you, but opt to use different strategies. My suggestion is that rather than screaming for them to all go screw themselves, it’s more productive to find the area where you can “fit” the most and stand up for your views that way.

      • ExurbanKevin says:

        In thinking about things, if we say “We don’t support criminals getting guns” we must, in some way, infringe upon the rights of the law-abiding, because there has to be some check, some toll booth that says “Is you a criminal or is you not?” that relies on more than just one person’s say-so. The law-abiding will answer such a question with “no”, and they’ll be correct. Crooks will answer it with “no” as well, the trick is to make sure we catch them in the lie.

        And it’s how, why, and when that’s we’re arguing here. We all support (at least I hope so) the idea that people who mean to do us harm should not have the means to do so.

      • WR2A says:

        So the tried and true, “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”? Perhaps. But I’m not trying to catch flies. I desire to smash them.

        My approach and your approach, along with Sebastian, are different, to be sure. *shrugs* I’m good with that. As long as I don’t step on you and you don’t step on me, we are cool. ;)

      • Andy B. says:

        “I came into this world with The Second Amendment unadulterated or exploited…”

        I can both agree and disagree with your point.

        I was born a few weeks after the end of WWII, but I’m old enough to remember when in most practical ways our Second Amendment rights were little affected. I’d say the de facto prohibition of automatic weapons was the only thing in position, nationally. Different states had different restrictions, but when I was a young kid I remember my dad ordering a handgun by mail and receiving it from the postman at our door. And regarding automatic weapons, I will confess to watching more than one war trophy fired, when I was growing up. I remember swapping guns with kids on the parking lot, when I was in high school.

        Part of that milieu was, there may have been a lot of things that were against the law, but in those days there was little technology and not much more will for enforcing those laws. Technically I couldn’t get a hunting license until I was twelve, and yet I was walking the fields with a .22 rifle when I was seven.

        Now we have both technology and the will of The State, in spades. Add to those self-appointed Good Citizens who believe they should have a hand in seeing The Law enforced.

        That is why I have difficulty working up much excitement about the nuances of laws that pretend to “allow” us to do, that which was taken for granted as little as fifty years ago. We may have taken true freedom for granted, but today the concept has been lost, entirely.

  6. RP says:

    And i just last week became an SAF life member. Bragging about helping to write a gun control bill? Really??

    Its a shame because unlike, say, GOA, the SAF has an impressive list of achievements. They’ve taken antis to court and stomped their sorry asses. I’ve reveled in it.

    I know with GOA Richardson and Pratt can do whatever they want. Is the SAF like that? Or is more like the NRA where there’s a board and yearly votes? I haven’t even received my paperwork yet.

    • Bitter says:

      I am not aware of any voting mechanism in the SAF.

      Keep in mind, that, in theory, this would have taken place through the CCRKBA, not SAF. SAF is the (c)3 organization which cannot spend a major part of their finances on lobbying. Now, with the cost of court cases, the cost of Gottlieb’s staff work on this bill may not constitute a major part of their budget, so only the organizations can speak to how the terms of the gun amendment deal were funded. CCRKBA is the (c)4 that can do more lobbying activity.

      • RP says:

        They will be receiving a phone call from me tomorrow.

        • Bryan S. says:

          Fat load of good that will do, they have your money.. for life. I always tell people to steer clear of life memberships, because it hurts your ability to walk with your money in tow.

    • Andy B. says:

      The impression I’ve had of Gottlieb Enterprises for a number of years now is that they exist totally to make money. That is not to say Gottlieb isn’t smart enough to know that more money can be made by actually promoting ones front-agenda than by just gabbing about it, but I have also been under the impression that their court cases were primarily fund-raising artifices, and, if they are successful, to them that’s gravy, and not a necessity. I have heard many of their cases criticized as terribly risky and not well strategized. Not having much respect for “law” as anything more than eyewash for the masses, a charade and a kabuki dance, I’ll withhold judgment on that.

      • Andy B. says:

        I forgot to add that my guess is that Gottlieb is believing the claimed statistics about most gun owners supporting enhanced background checks, and he’s hoping to cut in on some Fudd cash that squishes were formerly sending to the NRA.

      • Beatbox says:

        Come on, and the nra hasn’t been all about padding their rolls by pandering to the tea party for th last 5 years? And when they are actually need doing to do some heavy lifting they act like a deer in the headlights.

        • Andy B. says:

          “padding their rolls by pandering to the tea party for the last 5 years?”

          I don’t know if your comment was intended for me, but don’t even get me started on the subject of “NRA pandering.” I’ve been watching who some of their convention speakers have been for a lot of years now.

          Regarding who will pander to the squishes among us, Gottlieb may be gambling on a long-shot, and know it. The NRA may not be willing to gamble, having taken so much heat, deserved or undeserved, for squishiness for years now. IMO Gottlieb may be gambling from an informed guess, knowing what he was let off the hook for in years past; e.g., our “safe storage” experience. Sometimes it seems like a new crop of RKBA advocates with thick checkbooks must fall off the turnip truck every year or two.

      • Sebastian says:

        I have heard many of their cases criticized as terribly risky and not well strategized.

        That hasn’t been true since they’ve been funding Alan Gura. I can’t speak to past cases, but Second Amendment law in the courts is relatively new.

  7. thefirstndsecond says:

    Wasn’t this the guy kicked out of the SAF for the safety issues in 1994?

    • Matt says:

      He’s still the VP.

      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, Kirby Wilbur, and Robert M. Wiest. Gottlieb, Tartaro and Wiest form the current executive committee of the Board. A copy of the Foundation’s audited annual financial statement is available on request.

  8. ecurb says:

    He did this in Washington, too. The “background check” bill there was so awful it even had anti-gun columnists saying “this is why nobody takes us seriously”.
    We were having a field day with the proposed random warrantless home searches, and Gottlieb stepped in to negotiate a “fix”.

    My suspicion is that he’s trying to weasel his way into being taken seriously as a lobbyist. Which of course is the natural result of everyone supporting the SAF as an alternative to the NRA.

    • RP says:

      I joined the SAF as a supplement to the NRA, not an alternative. As their early opposition to the Heller case demonstrates, the NRA isn’t the best at court battles. But the SAF has excelled in that arena. And as this ordeal demonstrates, the SAF and their lobbying wing needs to stay the hell out of working with legislators. They have a specialty, and they’ve been good at it. They need to stay in their damn lane.
      I have a feeling that as a second or third rate lobbying group, they’re just out of their depth here. They got manipulated by people more sophisticated at the game than they are.

  9. wrt81 says:

    It seems that Gottlieb it also mistaken on the specifics of the amendment….

    http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-group-had-hand-writing-manchin-toomey-background-check-amendment?cid=rss

    Per the fourth paragraph:

    “It also exempts the sale or transfer of firearms between family members and friends as well as sales outside a commercial venue from a background check.”

    This is not true. It does NOT exempt “friends”, it exempts family members only. And it does NOT exempt sales outside a “commercial venue” as far as I can tell. Any sale occurring at a gun show or due to an internet posting (even on a non-commercial site like a local forum), must go through the background check.

  10. Patrick H says:

    Wow that’s terrible. I joined SAF when this whole thing started too, and know I’m extremely disappointed. Wow.

  11. HappyWarrior6 says:

    What the hell is a “restoration of rights” bill? Yeah right. I’ll believe it when I see it.

  12. RP says:

    The betrayals lately make me wonder: how many of us in the gun culture hold the belief that armed defense is a natural right and a cornerstone of a free society? How many are just looking to protect their hobby and will tolerate gun control-lite?

    I wonder because I’m scared this won’t set off the firestorm of resistance we need to see in 11/2014.

    • JC_VA says:

      Lately, I’ve been thinking it’s those people who queue up to buy 2,000 rounds of ammunition, but would give you a blank look if you asked them to donate that to the NRA (or perhaps even just to buy a membership).

  13. Right Wing Wacko says:

    Please tell me this is the Poison Pill, much like they did to kill the bill here in Washington State! If so it’s a big gamble.

    Otherwise I just lost a bunch of respect that I had for the SAF.

    • Bitter says:

      He’s openly lobbying for it in this video, in an email to supporters, and in the Washington Post. Before his work with Toomey, and the political cover this provides that Manchin apparently said was “huge,” gun control advocates didn’t have 60 votes. Now, they are much closer. I might add that MAIG has praised Gottlieb’s endorsement very “helpful” in getting gun control passed. So, please tell me how you can’t see it as anything other than an outright endorsement of the flawed Toomey proposal.

  14. Justin says:

    I find this to be very strange as gottleib and the SAF have been fierce defenders of the 2nd amendment.

    I have to wonder if they’re supporting proposals that are inherently flawed with the intention of taking the whole thing down via the court system at somepoint in the future.

    I guess I just have a hard time believing that SAF would sell us out.

    • Bitter says:

      Did you watch the same video at all? Seriously, he’s making promises that aren’t anywhere close to confirmed and he’s actually lying about the amendment in order to build support. There’s a big difference between allowing a legislative opponent to make mistakes you can maybe take down in court and openly lobbying for more restrictions.

      Plus, if his real goal is supposedly so wonderfully inspired, why attack gun shows by saying that every single gun show allows shady and questionably legal sales? Please explain the court strategy in basically writing a commercial for our opponents.

      • Justin says:

        I didn’t get a chance to watch the video, when I made my post, I was on mobile and somewhere that I couldn’t watch it.

        I guess, if anything, I just don’t want to believe it.

  15. Motor-T says:

    I like the SAF for their work in the courts. I like the NRA for their work in the congress and state legislatures.
    When they stray into the other ones wheelhouse, things just go badly.

  16. Andy B. says:

    This may be very dated, but please let us know if any of the facts stated in it are false.

  17. surfgeorge says:

    I’d recommend people read:

    Ten Really Important Problems with the Toomey-Schumer Sell-out(Many more to follow)

    by Michael E. Hammond
    http://gunowners.org/congress04112013.htm

    One of the problems is that if there are possible violations of the creation of the (poorly defined) “registry”, the person responsible for deciding whether or not to prosecute those creating the registry is, you guessed it, Attorney General Holder! Here is the excerpt from the above article:

    (6) SECTION 202(c): “The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination…”
    COMMENT: First of all, if your private gun transaction is covered by Toomey-Manchin (and virtually all will be), you will have a 4473, and, if you have a 4473, you can assume you will be part of a national gun registry. Schumer’s staff, in drafting this section, might have benefited from talking with pro-gun advocates in connection with the real nature of the problem. First of all, although taking a storeful of 4473’s to an ATF agent’s home is not unheard-of, the real problem is when ATF agents go into an FFL with a laptop and copy all of the information on the 4473’s. This language would not stop that. Second, whatever ATF thinks it’s compiling with the 4473’s it does not regard it as a “national gun registry,” even though we regard it as such. I drafted the language in McClure-Volkmer prohibiting national gun registries. I also drafted the first draft of the Smith/Tiarht amendment doing the same. ATF does not regard itself as violating these. Third, with respect to making unauthorized copying a crime, the person who will determine whether the Department of Justice is prosecuted is Attorney General Eric Holder (who, by the way, is the head of the Department of Justice).

  18. TeeJaw says:

    There is a lot of ingratitude to Alan Gottlieb here. He and his CCRKBA gave us Heller and McDonald. It’s like you guys are dissing Moses after he led you out of Egypt.

    If in fact the Toomey/Manchin bill gives us interstate gun purchases, genuine stiff penalties for anyone using transfer information to start a gun registry, a way for prohibited persons to get their gun rights restored, a CCW from any state as a badge of honor on a gun purchase, no checks on transfers among family and friends, and all that for only a check required for private transfers to strangers, then anyone who would reject that is nuts. They will pass something. And they pass something that gives us nothing. This bill, if it’s actually done, will on balance be a pro-gun bill.

    It’s the first good news I’ve heard in several months, and I was getting pretty depressed. I live in Colorado and I’m watching my state be turned into California by some of the most ignorant jackasses on this planet.

    • TeeJaw says:

      All the stuff I referred to above is, I believe, to be offered as an amendment to Manchin/Toomey on Tuesday by some agreement Gottlieb worked out with them. i was also told that if the amendment is rejected they can kill the whole bill. This could all be wrong, of course. Gottlieb presents this as that he thinks he will win on Tuesday, but if not the whole bill will go down. Who knows. Hope of any measure is welcome at this point.

      I didn’t see the video you have here because it has been taken down.

      • Bitter says:

        Since you say that “you believe” something to be true, I think it’s safe to assume you have not actually read the actual language of the amendment. It varies from the talking point promises.

        The video here was basically a commercial written for Mike Bloomberg delivered by Alan Gottlieb. He promised everyone that the Senate would vote overwhelmingly to support a program to give gun rights back to criminals. He promised that the background check elements were completely meaningless. He told them that it mostly regulated gun shows and that gun shows have shady transactions every single day at every single show with men who can’t speak English stocking up on guns without even showing identification. Seriously, he might as well have written the next MAIG attack commercial. It was awful for our movement. It lied about provisions of the amendment. It also made false promises of amendments we have no evidence will be introduced or even passed in order to drum up support.

        • HappyWarrior6 says:

          Bitter,

          Take the following with a grain of salt, but I can understand how this could happen:

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/could-national-reciprocity-of-concealed-carry-permits-kill-the-gun-bill/2013/04/12/7cb4131a-a38d-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html

          The NRA is very quiet about maneuvers when they are up to something strategic. This is certainly within the realm of comprehension.

          • Give me national reciprocity & universal sales, and I’ll accept background checks.

            I’ve never bought a gun without a background check. Was given a gift.

            But yes, there is a danger to these bills. What happens if you’re safe keeping a firearm for someone long term? (ie: an unstable housing situation). That shouldn’t be a felony.

          • Whetherman says:

            “The NRA is very quiet about maneuvers when they are up to something strategic.”

            Is that anything like Nixon’s Secret Plan to End the War?

            • Geodkyt says:

              What secret plan to end the war? Bomb the shit out of North Vietnam, start turning over groud ops to the RVNs. Hell, he RAN on “Vietnamization” and “Blow shit up” as his strategy to “Bring the boys home”.

              It worked, too — right up until the Democratic Congress cut the RVNs off at the knees without ANY supplies. Ignore the press reports — look at what actually HAPPENED.

      • surfgeorge says:

        As Bitter wrote, some of the provisions Gottlieb claims are part of the bill are not in the bill (1. no reciprocity for CCW 2. no provision for non-resident gun purchases, etc.), and some other things that are in the bill without meaningful enforcement provisions. See my post above with a link, and a quote re who is responsible for enforcing the “no registry” provision: Eric Holder. Do you trust him or this administration to enforce a “no registry” law?

      • JC_VA says:

        I wonder if when the bill goes down, he’ll try and take credit for it by “introducing gun owner protections”. Nice little revision of the history.

    • Bitter says:

      Actually, Gottlieb didn’t “give us” Heller. Do your research. That was funded by Robert Levy. Alan Gottlieb didn’t start funding Alan Gura until after he had won and could also be used as a fundraising source. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy with McDonald. But, if you’re going to demand we give people credit, you need to know where credit in funding the cases is due.

  19. HappyWarrior6 says:

    The best hope for gun rights in the Senate it seems is one of three paths in the senate:

    1) Inteoduce national CCW amendment, muster enough votes to include it in the bill
    2) Adopt Coburn’s amendment
    3) Poison it

    Note that these are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    There is a window of opportunity since *something* is going to advance and get voted on.

  20. I am going to reserve judgement until I see how this goes down. Maybe there is some super double secret backroom deal being negotiated.

    I just joined SAF in this current crisis and if Gottlieb sold us out I am going to tell them exactly why they’ll never see another penny.

  21. Patrick says:

    Before I join the dog pile, I’d like to see if Gottlieb was talking about things yet to come.

    My own entry into the lobbying game came with some interesting lessons – like how some amendments are worked in advance, provided a certain set of conditions are met or maintained. You might have to prove your ability to herd certain groups or opinions, and then you get the votes you need. Lawmakers play the odds game, and if they support something they want to know they won’t get burned for it.

    If Alan was softening the gun groups so that “Good Things” would make into the bill and covert it into something we like…then maybe this could be inartful lobbying of the community on his part.

    I like Alan. I’d like to see where this goes – and if there is more to this – before getting too worked up over it.

  22. Bubblehead Les says:

    I’ve met Alan Gottlieb, drank and talked with him. One of the things he told me is that the SAF LIKES to go after Bad Case Law and try to defeat it in the Courts. It’s obvious that M-T is a Bad Bill. But the other parts that the Senate has put out over the last few months were a lot worse. I think that Gottlieb knows that the Senate will pass SOMETHING. But if they pass M-T, that gives them room to fight the very Law (if it clears the House and gets signed) that they supported IF Holder doesn’t obey it and tries to use it as a Weapon. And the Bill does clawback some of the “Crimes” that the Northeast/West Coast/et.al. are currently suffering from.

    But if that’s his Strategy, boy, that’s like trying to sneak a Bomb into Hitler’s Bunker!

    All I can say is that it will be an Interesting Week in the Senate.

    • Patrick H says:

      Well actually it looked like the Senate wasn’t going to pass ANYTHING until he helped write the Toomey-Schumer bill. So that was a very STUPID move on his part.

      There are way too many problems with that bill. If he really wanted to help, he would have worked on the Coburn bill- as that would either be a great compromise if something had to pass, as well as being pretty good for us.

      But nope, he screwed it all up.

      • P.M. says:

        Exactly, Patrick H.

        Nothing to add, except that we need to start pointing our Senators toward Coburn’s proposal, and stressing that any deal needs to include a _real_, undeniable pro-gun concession, such as CCW reciprocity.

        (So the moral is “We support fine-tuned legislation that strengthens the right to carry for self-defense”, not the truly poisonous moral “Every time some fiend shoots up a fake gun free zone, we will enact more gun control.”)

  23. Bryan S. says:

    My take on this is… how can we trust a federal government to obey a law, when the need for that law shows they have a poor comprehension of the limitations they had set forth from the founding?

  24. anonymous says:

    My outrage moment, though, happened when Gottlieb told the crowd that every day, at every gun show, men who can’t speak English go in and purposefully load up with guns without showing ID and without ever undergoing background checks.

    I think Gottlieb has “gun show” confused with “polling place”, and “load up with guns” confused with “voting“.

    • Whetherman says:

      That would be an easy mistake to make, since neither right depends on the language you speak.

      Gottlieb is pandering scum. Always has been, always will be.

  25. I’ve noted a number of people pointing out the ban on a registry and the penalties if one gets started. We should all remember that what Congress giveth, another Congress can taketh away.

    This is starting to remind me of the days when the NRA lost it’s way, and had to be forcibly returned to the path of righteousness (for varying values of righteous). It seems that SAF has went down the same road, and can no longer be trusted to fight the Good Fight.

    But it’s the Washington Disease. No matter how pure they are, prolonged exposure to the corrosive nature of Big Time Politics is guaranteed to turn even the best men into insider-wannabes. And I’m unsure Gottlieb was ever one of the best men. Good man, maybe, at best.

    Time to find ourselves some new playmates.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The NRA and the SAF: Screw ‘em both as far as I’m concerned | WR2A: The CT Line In The Sand - [...] Shall Not Be Questioned, a video of Alan Gottlieb, founder of SAF. [...]
  2. SayUncle » My opinion, the fix is in - [...] the interesting bit is that SAF’s Alan Gottlieb is cool with the bill. The interesting thing is that Gottlieb’s …
  3. SAF Supports Toomey-Machin - INGunOwners - [...] NRA stands strong against Toomey-Manchin SAF fully supports it, even calling it a "win". Alan Gottlieb Lobbies Grassroots …
  4. OFA Flooding the Senate Phone Lines | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] we have no idea what damage could end up happening to any prospective pro-gun amendments with the promises made …
  5. Senate Votes 68-31 to End Filibuster on Background Check Vote - Page 2 - [...] and letting them know you're not happy with Alan Gottlieb pushing for the Manchin-Toomey amendment. Alan Gottlieb Lobbies Grassroots …
  6. Alan Gottlieb Lobbies Grassroots to Support Toomey-Manchin Amendment | - [...] PagunBlog [...]
top