SAF (Gottlieb) Helped Write S.649 (Toomey/Manchin) "Background Check Bill"

MaverickNH

MaverickNH

NES Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
8,337
Likes
7,959
Location
SoNH
Feedback: 8 / 0 / 0
SAF (Gottlieb) on S.649 (Toomey/Manchin) Background Check Bill

SAF's Gottlieb helped write S.649 - the now infamous Toomey/Manchin bill. It's well worth watching the short video for information.

Gottlieb says the story will break Monday in the WSJ.

"Posted by Daylight Disinfectant
Dateline April 12 2013 – Portland Oregon – by Dan Sandini:

You might have to wait for Monday to read about it in the Wall Street Journal but you can read about it here right now. An influential gun rights advocate actually helped write the Background Check Bill coming up before the Senate this coming week.

“There’s a Million other checks in there it’s a Christmas Tree,” bragged Gottlieb, “We just hung a Million Ornaments on it.”

Alan Gottlieb, Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation, speaking candidly at a GOP gathering on Friday claimed that his staff had actually helped write the bill. He went on to describe how the bill would be a step in the right direction for gun control advocates.

“Unfortunately some of my colleagues haven’t quite figured it out yet because they weren’t standing in the room writing it. My staff was. I’ll be perfectly candid about it. This will probably break on Monday in the Wall Street Journal. “

Lacking two cameras I could not catch the multitude of jaws dropping in between bites of succulent sirloin at the Persimmon Country Club where the event was held. If some shutter bug caught the look on former State Chair Allen Alley’s face please facebook it to me. I’m imagining him looking like Marty Feldman.

Gottlieb was discussing Measure Number S.649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013 ): “A bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.”

This is the same Bill which Senator Rand Paul sought unsucessfully to fillibuster in order to protect the Second Amendment Rights of American Citizens. I could go on but watch the video (above) and see it for yourself, or read the transcript below. But remember … shhhhhh … it’s a secret."
 
Last edited:
WallHack said:
I really hope this shit gets shot down
Click to expand...

Me too, but I'm still trying to sort this out. My ultimate fall-back on "Assault Weapons" and "High-Capacity Magazines" is F'em - they are not taking my AR15 and 30rd mags. And who knows when anyone did a legal F2F on any firearms manufactured, distributed and sold before any Univeral Background Check bill passes.

Civil disobedience is always an option, and is often quietly practiced where firearms restrictions are enacted. But we need a back-up plan, now that a filibuster is out of the question.

So this is a "SAF Bill", and there was supposedly a separate "NRA Bill" that was mentioned in a few early news articles but whose sponsors I can't even find now, let alone any text. SAF and GOA are not cash-rich and powerful organizations with highly-compensated executive staff. But they can make mistakes too. So I remain wary. [I fuss about 3 pro-gun organizations in NH that can't get along but I guess that's the national model - even the far-right has a middle and two extremes]

As I recall, NRA tried to sink Heller in its early days, but joined on later. NRA likes to run the show - to call all the shots. But they are as much fighting a grudge-match against their named enemies (Schumer, Feinstein and the gun control lot) as they are defending gun rights. It's become personal for them.

NRA plays big stakes and sometimes bets the farm on winning. But this will end in SOME legislation being passed, and it won't address purely mental health and school security. Guns laws will be passed. We all hate uncertainty. And blocking bills in committee is certainty. But the cows are out of the barn.

Senate and House rules and parliamentary procedure games are still fair game, but "Assault Weapons" and "High Capacity Magazine" amendments will be debated. After a lot of hard work in recent weeks, the now-easy work is to make sure they get their 15 minutes of fame and dismissal.

The new hard work is GAINING ground rather than focusing on just not losing ground. S.649 is a dangerous place to start from in such an effort, but these are indeed dangerous times...
 
MaverickNH said:
Me too, but I'm still trying to sort this out. My ultimate fall-back on "Assault Weapons" and "High-Capacity Magazines" is F'em - they are not taking my AR15 and 30rd mags. And who knows when anyone did a legal F2F on any firearms manufactured, distributed and sold before any Univeral Background Check bill passes.

Civil disobedience is always an option, and is often quietly practiced where firearms restrictions are enacted. But we need a back-up plan, now that a filibuster is out of the question.

So this is a "SAF Bill", and there was supposedly a separate "NRA Bill" that was mentioned in a few early news articles but whose sponsors I can't even find now, let alone any text. SAF and GOA are not cash-rich and powerful organizations with highly-compensated executive staff. But they can make mistakes too. So I remain wary. [I fuss about 3 pro-gun organizations in NH that can't get along but I guess that's the national model - even the far-right has a middle and two extremes]

As I recall, NRA tried to sink Heller in its early days, but joined on later. NRA likes to run the show - to call all the shots. But they are as much fighting a grudge-match against their named enemies (Schumer, Feinstein and the gun control lot) as they are defending gun rights. It's become personal for them.

NRA plays big stakes and sometimes bets the farm on winning. But this will end in SOME legislation being passed, and it won't address purely mental health and school security. Guns laws will be passed. We all hate uncertainty. And blocking bills in committee is certainty. But the cows are out of the barn.

Senate and House rules and parliamentary procedure games are still fair game, but "Assault Weapons" and "High Capacity Magazine" amendments will be debated. After a lot of hard work in recent weeks, the now-easy work is to make sure they get their 15 minutes of fame and dismissal.

The new hard work is GAINING ground rather than focusing on just not losing ground. S.649 is a dangerous place to start from in such an effort, but these are indeed dangerous times...
Click to expand...

Sorry to bring up an issue that may be considered by many to be controvercial but the NRA was right to oppose Heller but maybe not for the reasons that many thing or the actual reason that the NRA did so.

The problem is that its led to the "incorporation" of the second amendment.

It has left us with a one size fits nobody solution that like Obamacare, medicare etc that WILL blow up in our faces.

The unintended consequences of Heller and Incorporation (which is not constitutional btw) is that its solidified the false and unconstitutional notion that the fed gov may pass laws restricting your rkba

We all know deep down that NICS, '34/'68 GCA's, AWB's. National CCW and a raft of other federal legislation has no legal/constitutional foundation.

In supporting Heller, subsequent decisions and incorporation we've turned our backs again on Federalism and the principle of limited/constitutional government.

The worst part about it is that we've put all of our eggs in a single basket and those rights are now subject to the whim of a single unaccountable political appointee to SCOTUS.......and we stand a very good chance of witnessing a polar shift in the balance of power in SCOTUS that stands a good chance of changing the balance of power for generations.

What SHOULD have happened is that there should have been a decision limiting federal legislation limiting 2A/RKBA and it should have been left to the states to determine how they wish to pass laws on this issue......the result would have been 50 states jockeying for laws that lead to good outcomes......in other words people would flee the failures of Cali/Ill/Md/NY and other states for states that have good gun laws and lower crime rates that generally accompany them.

You want examples? Look at Mass and NH or Md and Va.

What we are seeing today is largely what happened under FDR during the 30's and early 40's and let to the establishment of Leviathan under the mental gymnastics of the "Interstate Commerce Clause" in direct contradiction to the historical record/intent/ratification debates etc.
 
Last edited:
I remain skeptical. The last draft of the bill I saw included some ridiculous language on what is referred to as a transfer and how you can let friends borrow a gun.

Also, the first thing Alan said in that video was "this whole debate has gotten so polarized...". Dude, your entire speech at the GOAL rally was basically about how we need to stop those damn dirty democrats from taking our guns.
 
yanici said:
Maybe not. Has anyone actually seen the full text and isn't it still possible that it will have amendments tacked on?
Click to expand...

I don't even know if the latest version is released yet. I will need to see the thing before passing judgment.
 
they should of thrown more crazy shit in that bill, like the repeal of the Hughes amendment.

Christ, at least give us the ability to be armed equally has the .gov small arms wise.
 
Dench said:
they should of thrown more crazy shit in that bill, like the repeal of the Hughes amendment.

Christ, at least give us the ability to be armed equally has the .gov small arms wise.
Click to expand...

I can think of a couple of good candidates to add to it

GFSZA repeal
Laughtenberg Amm
'34/'68 GCA repeal


Heck, while we're at it defund the ATF

Seriously though....don't you worry.....the "Sausage Factory" of ammendments has already started behind closed doors and I'm sure we'll see all kinds of turds added.

It will be touted as "Bipartisan" and the GOP Progressives that voted to allow "Discussion" of your rights will vote for it and MSM will spin it as a victory.

When the next shooting in a "Gun Free Zone" happens they'll just say that the bill didn't go far enough and the whole sausage factory will start up again.

What we NEED to do is replace senators and reps that have this misguided notion that our rights are up for discussion
 
jpk said:
I can think of a couple of good candidates to add to it

GFSZA repeal
Laughtenberg Amm
'34/'68 GCA repeal


Heck, while we're at it defund the ATF

Seriously though....don't you worry.....the "Sausage Factory" of ammendments has already started behind closed doors and I'm sure we'll see all kinds of turds added.

It will be touted as "Bipartisan" and the GOP Progressives that voted to allow "Discussion" of your rights will vote for it and MSM will spin it as a victory.

When the next shooting in a "Gun Free Zone" happens they'll just say that the bill didn't go far enough and the whole sausage factory will start up again.

What we NEED to do is replace senators and reps that have this misguided notion that our rights are up for discussion
Click to expand...

Gottlieb needs to shut his big fat **** mouth. I seriously hope Comm2A doesn't stoop to the "We ca't haz people buy a gun with no name at a gun show" bullshit line.

How did humanity ever live before the days of a photo ID? Give me a ****ing break.
 
I can't wait to see how everyone spins this. [thinking] No one is on our side. I literally have come to the conclusion just now that it is every man for themselves. Might be better off that way with all the flip floppers out there. [puke]
 
I guess when the gang bangers (that no one cares about) start going through NICS, they will be on to something?

Maybe a NICS kiosk in Chicago for the thugs to utilize while they buy their stolen firearms for cash/drugs with no ID? Could be on to something.... just think of all the gang violence that would be slowed...
oh, wait.
 
ntomsw said:
I can't wait to see how everyone spins this. [thinking] No one is on our side. I literally have come to the conclusion just now that it is every man for themselves. Might be better off that way with all the flip floppers out there. [puke]
Click to expand...

There are a number of Sen's that are on our side.

Here's a list of the Sens that attempted to prevent this from proceeding

Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
 
jpk said:
There are a number of Sen's that are on our side.

Here's a list of the Sens that attempted to prevent this from proceeding
Click to expand...

Until when?

- - - Updated - - -

How can anything be fluid when it is written as clear as can be that he helped write it. Oh let me guess, this is one of those let's give them an inch to make them happy things? Give me a break.
 
jpk said:
There are a number of Sen's that are on our side.

Here's a list of the Sens that attempted to prevent this from proceeding

Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Click to expand...

Well, there's 2 Dems that aren't getting invited to Harry's Christmas party.
 
bullseye said:
Well, there's 2 Dems that aren't getting invited to Harry's Christmas party.
Click to expand...

Pryor is truly a mixed bag on the issues......more "confused" than anything it seems.....clearly he's trying to pander to his pro 2A constituents and I don't put much stock in this particular vote considering his history....

Mark Pryor on the Issues

Begich is a bit better but not much.....I think there may be a chance that he's actually acting in a genuine manner wrt RKBA

Mark Begich on the Issues
 
jpk said:
No....he's done an unbelievable amount of pro 2a work......but this is just a badly misguided mistake in judgement....IMHO

- - - Updated - - -



Here's how its going to go down.......the Demwit majority will remove any theoretical mitigating "good" provisions and tack on onerous/universal provisions and the Big Gov Progressives like Ayotte and Collins will vote for it.
Click to expand...

Benedict Arnold made a "badly misguided mistake in judgement."

We still call him a Traitor.
 
soloman02 said:
Benedict Arnold made a "badly misguided mistake in judgement."

We still call him a Traitor.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with the analogy and it certainly doesn't qualify as treason BUT it certainly was a phenomenally stupid/misguided move to try to pull off this stunt.

Mr Gottleib should be repeating the following out loud right now

I
M
Sofa
King
Wee
Todd
Did
 
I thought all internet sales already have to be shipped to an FFL and thus go through a NICS check. At every gun show I've been to everyone is doing NICS checks as well. Is this vastly different in other parts of the country?

If Alan is correct then it sounds like the background check provisions in this bill are basically worthless - which I wouldn't say is good, but is not terrible.
What concerns me the most about this bill is how it tries to define the limited circumstances in which you can let someone borrow your gun.
 
jefftk said:
I thought all internet sales already have to be shipped to an FFL and thus go through a NICS check. At every gun show I've been to everyone is doing NICS checks as well. Is this vastly different in other parts of the country?

If Alan is correct then it sounds like the background check provisions in this bill are basically worthless - which I wouldn't say is good, but is not terrible.
What concerns me the most about this bill is how it tries to define the limited circumstances in which you can let someone borrow your gun.
Click to expand...

"Internet Sales" would include anything that was advertised on the "Internet" whether its a forum like NES or a site like gun broker regardless of whether the two parties are eligible for FTF or not.

The bill as written would also prohibit the sale of any firearm without a NICS check if it were "advertised" in any way shape or form as being for sale......that includes any firearms posted for sale at your local range/club or presumably anything included in an email.

In a perverse way its sorta like Canada's laws on Prostitution.....prostitution isn;'t illegal.....communicating about it IS.
 
This bill would essentially rule out face to face private transactions correct? From what i am reading it says the every transfer needs to go through an FFL.
 

Similar threads

CT: HB-5467 An Act Concerning Firearms Background Checks (2024)
Replies
2
Views
230
sbhaven
S
Thousands more gun dealers must run background checks on buyers as Biden administration moves to close 'doggone dangerous' loophole
Replies
4
Views
192
AJK129
AJK129
Bill H.4139
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ron Jablonski
R
3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing In SAF Pennsylvania Gun Rights Victory
Replies
1
Views
149
oldguy68
oldguy68
Biden EO: Background Checks for Private Sales
Replies
1
Views
306
Toast
Toast
Back
Top Bottom