“The gun rights lobby has to wake up and realize we need to lead, not follow,” the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation and the chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms told Guns.com in an interview at the at the NRA’s 143rd Annual Meetings and Exhibits in downtown Indianapolis last weekend.
Gottlieb’s desire to strike a deal on an enhanced background check measure that would cover private sales made over the Internet and at gun shows is based on the premise that fighting UBCs is a losing battle over the long run.
via Gottlieb: Gun rights lobby needs to lead, not follow on background checks (VIDEO).
We had a nice discussion about this in Facebook yesterday. Although he might be somewhat right, the timing and the wording could not be any worse. The issue is that for many of us, the mentioning of the words Background Checks is immediately associated with the infamous Manchin-Toomey-Schummer Universal background bill that was Rosemary’s Baby trying to be passed as the Gerber Baby. And it does not help either that Mr. Gottlieb was also involved temporarily in that spawn and his reputation was tarnished by it.
The comment also feels defeatist. Yes, Bloomberg has many millions and a great PR company, but he just simply does not have the numbers as in people backing his side. And yes he has the Media but unless they hire the best hackers to create millions of Facebook and Twitter personas, they are only so many who can come up and take over Social Media. It is not gonna be an easy fight, but I know we will win it. Just look at the different legislatures, how many Anti Gun bills were presented and how very few passed compare with pro-gun bills that did pass.
Mr. Gottlieb should have waited till he had a firm proposition to present to all of us and not some generic platitude. We have a good base in what was the Coburn Amendment which is a good first step.
I may touch ion this later.
No compromise.
I don’t have a say about their policies if I’m not a member.
I usually agree with Gottlieb, but in this case we already have backround checks, the 4473 and NICS. What we need to do is protect what we have, adding more laws just bloats our already overreaching government.
ALL background checks of ANY type should be eliminated, on the simple basis that they don’t accomplish their stated goal.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
THIS! exactly!
IL has had universal background checks since ’67 I believe, everyone has to have a FOID card to be able to touch (in some cases) and buy guns and ammunition.
You are also required to check this FOID card when selling face to face in a private transaction. We saw how well this system works in Chicago.
If it worked, Indianapolis would have a far bigger murder/shooting problem then Chicago.
The whole ‘universal background check’ thing is a farce, just one more restriction to make it harder on people, that’s all it is.
I quit my membership after the Manchin-Toomey nonsense. This is one of things that irritates me about the gun rights movement: SAFs strength lies in the courtroom; NRAs strength lies in the legislature. Why do they have to shit on each other and try to get into each other’s strong areas? Leave the egos for the Bloomberg-bots.
This Made sense when Gottlieb was talking this when Manchin Toomey was being debated. He thought for sure the antis were going to get this one through, and as much as we spit on it, It is nice that the NRA got in and made sure handguns weren’t NFA items like the initial bill was done, or that the Brady Bill failed open if the mail form got lost, ect.
Manchin Toomey was lighting in a bottle for antis, they may never get a blood dancing like Sandy Hook ever again, and they still failed.
This should EMBOLDEN us and we should be pushing for National Reciprocity, Constitutional carry, and at LEAST pulling Suppressors off the NFA, maybe get handgun transfers to be treated EXACTLY like long guns as well.
Of course I will also say that I’m a supporter of opening up the NICS to the citizens. It is a good feeling for somebody to show you their CCW at a sale and Know 100% at that time they are NOT a prohibited person and that Johnny Law might come knocking at your door asking about that gun you sold.
But it needs to be open to the public, and the .gov can’t have their finger on the offswitch, and there needs to be a condition where if the system goes down ALL sales are legal for an outage longer than X hours until service is restored.
Defeatist is right… There are already enough checks…
[…] Miguel is also unhappy with Alan Gottlieb’s rehashing of Manchin-Toomey. One thing I would mention is that Coburn was kicked out of the negotiations with Schumer et al. Meaning they rejected his amendment. No one really got behind his amendment because it wasn’t going to satisfy anyone. […]
It’s akin to taking a plea deal because you’re afraid to lose in court. It is defeatist and unacceptable in my book. Throwing in the towel without even fighting the fight is a no go.
He’s willing to offer “Universal Background Checks” as a compromise to get something we gun owners want. If we were under political attack – as we were when the Schumer bill and the Manchin-Toomey bill were being debated – that would be a reasonable action.
Right now, though, we’re winning. We’re not being attacked. We should be on the offensive, pushing for repealing some parts of the NFA (i.e. de-regulating silencers/suppressors) and the GCA (i.e. removing 4473s and the “extra” restrictions on handgun transfers that don’t apply to long guns), and opening up NICS to private transfers. Or better yet, killing NICS entirely and implementing BIDS, which offers several advantages over NICS (you can even campaign with this slogan: “Nix NICS; Bid on BIDS!” You’re welcome. 😉 ).
We don’t need to concede anything right now. We should be trying to win back some of the ground we’ve lost over the past several decades, and make the other side offer concessions. Anything else is stagnation at best, preemptive surrender at worst, and either is unacceptable from a leader in the gun rights movement.
I like SAF have been a member for a few years now. Gottlieb has done more for gun rights than 99% of the population, he is human like anyone else and will from time to time make what we consider a mistake. Same with the NRA. Please set aside your desire for perfection, it does not exist in ANY man.
This is an election year, we need to stop anti gun politicians at ALL COST. PLEASE… JOIN SAF, NRA, GOA, NAGR YOUR STATE ORGANIZATION AND JOIN YOUR LOCAL GUN CLUB.
SEND A BIG CHECK IN ADDITION TO SAF, NRA, GOA BECAUSE WE WILL LOSE THIS FIGHT IF WE DON’T STAY INVOLVED.
Tyre, I am a member and was ready (kid you not) to drop the $150 and become a Life Member when I bumped into this little bit of info. I am holding out till a clearer message comes from them.
I am a life time member of the SAF, but after his initial responses supporting Manchin-Toomey I stopped sending them money like I had been every year. Now that he brought this crap up again I won’t be sending any money to the SAF in 2014. I need to see them get their act together for at least a year before I will ever consider sending them anymore money. I appreciate what they have done with Heller and McDonald, but Alan seems pretty clueless on the legislative front and should just leave it to the NRA which has a better handle on that side of the house.
Per the commenter above, please don’t support the NAGR. Those guys don’t actually do anything but take your money. Support groups that actually work for us. The state organizations, the NRA, and in the past I would have said the SAF, but I think we need to send them a message to shut up with the defeatist talk and so I would withhold from them for at least another year. As a 501c3 the SAF doesn’t participate in Electoral politics anyway they focus on education and court cases.
Might be too much common sense in what Dr. Coburn has to say for some folks.
First, Mr. Gottlieb is involved in many organizations.
SAF is a 501(c)3. As a result it cannot do the legislative tango, nor can it advocate for or against candidates or ballot measures.
So, first, get your targeting right. SAF litigates (suing folks who desperately need it – Chicago leaps to mind…) and educates(Women & Guns, TheGunMag.com, Gun Rights Policy Conference, etc). Regardless of Mr. Gottliebs position on any piece of legislation, SAF does not and cannot have a position.
SAF only gets to come in and file lawsuits *after* unconstitutional legislation is passed.
SAF’s sister organization (CCRKBA – Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms) is somewhat less limited legally. They *can* take a position on ballot measures – they are not a 501(c)3. They can also educate around issues concerning current legislative proposals (IANAL, YMMV). So if you have a gripe, at least gripe about the right group.
If you don’t have a UBC proposal running in your state yet – be thankful. Colorado has already fallen, and WA has the UBC Initiative (I-594) from Hades on the ballot this fall…currently looking to win (recent polls).
My read on Gottliebs comments is that when not only the public but gun-owners poll favorably for UBC, that it is time to push for a UBC that gets civil rights supporters (2A folks) the best possible set of benefits for the least amount of damage from an essentially flawed concept when enacted into law.
And that abandoning the playing field to the other team when the ideal (“NO UBC”) option is no longer viable is, um, ill-advised. Instead, best deal…and support the other organizations warming up for prolonged litigation.
So the principle here is misery loves company? If Washington requires help, it should be “help us defeat UNC” not “Hey, accept UBC in your state so we don’t feel lonesome when we are butt-molested.”
What has been sold is that you can buy guns without background check period. That is followed very closely by the 40%^ of all guns sold in the US do not go theorugh a background check load of manure based on a telephone poll of 200 people before NICS was even implemented. I don’t know anybody, but surrendering just because the opposition is a good liar goes against my grain. What Gottlieb and you are asking is that just because Colorado got shoved 15 pounds of of bad laws, the rest of the states should be accepting legislation that only shoves 10 pounds of bad laws down our throats so we use less mouth wash. How about we all fight and make sure we don’t have to eat any kind of shit by actually working hard on the issue? By calling the opposition liars at top of our lungs (and prove it with the facts) till everybody listens.
How about we act like confident battle-scarred winners and not fearful kitties worried about getting a a paper cut?
And Miguel brings the BOOM!. Right on, brother.
If we backed every gun control measure that a carefully crafted anti-rights poll showed to be “favored” among the public we’d have nothing but deactivated war trophies hanging on our den walls, as my uncle has in France.
The simple truth is that background checks accomplish nothing but to constrain the rights of the law-abiding, and they never can accomplish anything else in a country already awash in hundreds of millions of firearms that never wear out.
When you manage to get that felon selling guns out of his trunk to other felons to start applying UBCs to his customers, call me.
Until then I intend to fight to MAXIMIZE my rights, not merely to settle for whatever crumbs the Progressive fascists feel inclined to leave me this time around (only surely to return for even those crumbs, soon enough).
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
I wonder what Bloomberg is paying him to take this dive? Because that’s what it looks like from here. May his chains rest lightly on his shoulders.
He may just be alarmed by the fact that the King County moonbats are the electoral face of Washington State, and the unfortunate non-bat minority in that state are about to get a gun law that’s a clear step towards Bloomberg’s, Schumer’s, etc. goal of an ultimate ban.
Remember, Gottlieb already made common cause with Schumer once. Just because he’s promising to disagree (later!) with where the train is going, that’s no reason to let him herd you on the train.
[…] I have mentioned before my disappointment with Gottlieb’s stance on Background Checks. I am a believer in compromises when they are stepping-stones and we keep moving forward, not when these compromises are suddenly set on concrete, cannot be undone and will be used as gateways for restrictions. […]