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

crazymjb said:
Nothing would have stopped it, but the reactionary manner in which this country works means that something MUST be brought to the table in washington. To refuse to have anything to do with it and then getting raped doesn't help us any. SAF crafting it in a way that doesn't really effect us, and if anything may actually quietly give us MORE ground is much bbetter than the former situation. You can put your fingers in your ears and go la la la la but washington had to at least introduce something, amd I'd prefer that something is as undamaging as possible.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

We only have to make compromises because of people like you who think thats what needs to be done. I don't have my ears in my fingers signing la la la, I just don't acknowledge a connection between new gun laws and losers like adam lanza.

I don't support what doesn't deserved to be supported, especially for the sake of politics.

instead of feeling bad for the 2A community and looking at damage control, I talk to those who would support these bills and remind them that none of this would of stopped any of the recent shootings. I'm here to educate and resist, not meet in the middle.
 
From a strategic standpoint, I'm not convinced Gottlieb isn't right on this. Is it a compromise? Yes. Do I want to compromise? No. Strategically though, I really don't think the "shall not be infringed" idea will fly and as NewGuyRay mentioned, this is vastly better than what Shumer wanted.
 
Is it a compromise? Yes. Do I want to compromise? No
Click to expand...

It's a matter of reading the winds, and making the best guess of "will a boatload of crap pass if we stand in solid opposition". The answer, unfortunately, is probably yes. We can take back little bits of territory when and where we can, or watch the enemy do the same to us as we chant the mantra of "shall not be infringed" and know that we never yielded an inch in what we were asking for as we lost it all bit by bit.

Once the enemy has a background check passed, we will have lost all ability to use it as the basis of a compromise where we get something.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
It's a matter of reading the winds, and making the best guess of "will a boatload of crap pass if we stand in solid opposition". The answer, unfortunately, is probably yes. We can take back little bits of territory when and where we can, or watch the enemy do the same to us as we chant the mantra of "shall not be infringed" and know that we never yielded an inch in what we were asking for as we lost it all bit by bit.

Once the enemy has a background check passed, we will have lost all ability to use it as the basis of a compromise where we get something.
Click to expand...

As Gottleib explains it, its an interesting mix of compromise on the background check. It closes some "loopholes", sort of maintains one, and partially introduces one. Additionally, while most of us think that requiring the issuance of a permit to exercise a fundamental right is impermissible, this proposal does add some value to possessing a permit with regard to background checks. For instance, personal transfers between two "permitted" individuals are exempt from the new "Internet" background checks. Purchases at dealers made by a permit holder are no longer subject to a check through NICS. Your license is your background check and the 4473 is filled out, but held at the dealer and is not submitted to BATFE.

I'd like to hear more about the proposed new felony for mis-use of background check records to be convinced, but while this proposal expands background checks in some ways; it eviscerates the existing system in some ways.

While we all hate the current system, it is not going away anytime soon and certainly not legislatively; the Manchin/Toomey proposal does make some very positive changes to the system. I guess the question is whether we stomp our feet and proclaim an all or nothing approach with legislation or if we fight within the system and accept incremental gains in legislation when the gains favorably outweigh the retreat? Of course it is up to each individual to determine for himself/herself whether the gains are significant enough to warrant support.

If anyone really believes that all of the gun laws we abhor will disappear in our lifetimes either legislatively or judicially, they will probably die waiting for that day to come. Beyond that our choices are pretty limited and what Alan Gottleib has proposed is one possible approach to working within the system.

Democrats have been very successful to date by forcing Republicans to vote against things they might otherwise support by including them in bills that are otherwise poisoned to the point where Republicans cannot vote for the bill. It's about time we turn the tables and force the gun grabbers in Congress to either vote against expanded background checks or get them by giving up more ground than they gain.

Just my opinion of course.
 
Maybe while he was at these meeting Gottleib should have just been carrying a gun, shot them all and done us all a favor.

Anything short of that is aiding the enemy.
 
Another POS "gun rights advocate" compromising our rights out of existence one piece at a time. How many rights orgs does that make now? Oh, it's most of them.

They're all out to screw us people, it's all politics. None of these groups actually care about your rights. Put your money where it will do the most good, at home.
 
Last edited:
I'm doing a wait and see at this point.

I don't think that Gottlieb and SAF are selling us out...at least, I hope not. The reality is that some bill was going to be introduced and debated. Consider this quote from the OP:
“There’s a Million other checks in there it’s a Christmas Tree,” bragged Gottlieb, “We just hung a Million Ornaments on it.”
Click to expand...
The hoplophobes are demanding a bill, they want their "Christmas Tree." Fine. Now it's time to decorate that tree, so lets do it with our own ornaments (amendments). Hang enough ornaments on it, and it won't even resemble a tree anymore. It will get to the point where the gun-grabbers will complain that the bill doesn't go far enough and they won't support it. They don't want compromise, they want their agenda, which is basically no guns in civilian hands.

Turn any proposed bill into such an abortion that the people pushing for it won't even support it. It also puts the grabbers in the position of having to vote against a bill proposed by one of their fellow collaborators. The end result will be that no new law gets passed.

It doesn't gain us any ground, but it does forestall losing any more.
 
center442 said:
I'm doing a wait and see at this point.

I don't think that Gottlieb and SAF are selling us out...at least, I hope not. The reality is that some bill was going to be introduced and debated. Consider this quote from the OP:

The hoplophobes are demanding a bill, they want their "Christmas Tree." Fine. Now it's time to decorate that tree, so lets do it with our own ornaments (amendments). Hang enough ornaments on it, and it won't even resemble a tree anymore. It will get to the point where the gun-grabbers will complain that the bill doesn't go far enough and they won't support it. They don't want compromise, they want their agenda, which is basically no guns in civilian hands.

Turn any proposed bill into such an abortion that the people pushing for it won't even support it. It also puts the grabbers in the position of having to vote against a bill proposed by one of their fellow collaborators. The end result will be that no new law gets passed.

It doesn't gain us any ground, but it does forestall losing any more.
Click to expand...
This. Gottlieb has been tireless in fighting so far. Instead of throwing rocks and screaming "TRAITORS!!" at the drop of a hat, let's see how this will shake out. I really don't think that someone whom has won us some MAJOR victories and dedicated their lives to fighting for us deserves the lynchings they are getting.
 
If they truly only wanted background checks, they could set up a system where you call into a 1-800-number, give a SSN/name/address, and get a yes/no to the sale. No other paperwork or forms, and no other record of the transaction. Some type of anonymous call and you're good to go. The other stuff just sets us up for registration.
 
MA_Shooter said:
If they truly only wanted background checks, they could set up a system where you call into a 1-800-number, give a SSN/name/address, and get a yes/no to the sale. No other paperwork or forms, and no other record of the transaction. Some type of anonymous call and you're good to go. The other stuff just sets us up for registration.
Click to expand...

SSN? NFW.
 
Gadsden said:
This. Gottlieb has been tireless in fighting so far. Instead of throwing rocks and screaming "TRAITORS!!" at the drop of a hat, let's see how this will shake out. I really don't think that someone whom has won us some MAJOR victories and dedicated their lives to fighting for us deserves the lynchings they are getting.
Click to expand...

I am thinking this was something engineered by him to effectively poison pill the entire thing. In other words, put enough stuff in it to sell the bill to the senate power brokers, but at the same time make it unpalatable to hard core antis. Even if it has the chance of passing the senate vote when it hits the house it will have that much more lard in it to make it even less likely to pass the house.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
I am thinking this was something engineered by him to effectively poison pill the entire thing. In other words, put enough stuff in it to sell the bill to the senate power brokers, but at the same time make it unpalatable to hard core antis. Even if it has the chance of passing the senate vote when it hits the house it will have that much more lard in it to make it even less likely to pass the house.

-Mike
Click to expand...
Yea, that's what I'm guessing to. Many of these folks are up for re-election soon. They have to keep the moonbats happy, but also don't want to piss all over gun owners. This gives them a chance to look like they are "doing something" while saving face... at least let's hope this is what is shaking down.
 
xtry51 said:
He's just pointing out that there are simple solutions to the "suppposed problem they are presenting" they are not at all interested in. They want confiscation and short of that they want registration so they can commit confiscation later.
Click to expand...

And that was part of my point. Even his solution isn't that simple and all this BS has unintended consequences.
 
drgrant said:
I am thinking this was something engineered by him to effectively poison pill the entire thing. In other words, put enough stuff in it to sell the bill to the senate power brokers, but at the same time make it unpalatable to hard core antis. Even if it has the chance of passing the senate vote when it hits the house it will have that much more lard in it to make it even less likely to pass the house.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Yup, and it might even force some anti's to vote against a background check bill which can make them vulnerable to other anti's in future primary elections. We've all seen how previous votes can be distorted for the purposes of campaign commercials.
 
The Volokh Conspiracy » The ?Pro-Gun? Provisions of Manchin-Toomey are Actually a Bonanza of Gun Control

David Kopel • April 15, 2013 2:20 am

The Toomey-Manchin Amendment which may be offered as soon as Tuesday to Senator Reid’s gun control bill are billed as a “compromise” which contain a variety of provisions for gun control, and other provisions to enhance gun rights. Some of the latter, however, are not what they seem. They are badly miswritten, and are in fact major advancements for gun control. In particular:

1. The provision which claims to outlaw national gun registration in fact authorizes a national gun registry.

2. The provision which is supposed to strengthen existing federal law protecting the interstate transportation of personal firearms in fact cripples that protection.

Kopel is another guy I trust to defend the RKBA, even if he is somewhat left of the 'Shall not be Infringed' stance. But I wonder if there might be some gun-lawyer ego involved here. A lot of these law school theories are tossed in the opening minutes of SCOTUS trials.
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
It's a matter of reading the winds, and making the best guess of "will a boatload of crap pass if we stand in solid opposition". The answer, unfortunately, is probably yes. We can take back little bits of territory when and where we can, or watch the enemy do the same to us as we chant the mantra of "shall not be infringed" and know that we never yielded an inch in what we were asking for as we lost it all bit by bit.

Once the enemy has a background check passed, we will have lost all ability to use it as the basis of a compromise where we get something.
Click to expand...
+1 rep
I knew I could count on you for some sound reasoning. [wink]
THANKS!
Oh wait, how dare I... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS, JUST TRY AND TAKE THEM, NO COMPROMISE! There...does that sound better? LOL [rofl]
 
69hdfl said:
+1 rep
I knew I could count on you for some sound reasoning. [wink]
THANKS!
Oh wait, how dare I... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS, JUST TRY AND TAKE THEM, NO COMPROMISE! There...does that sound better? LOL [rofl]
Click to expand...

Yeah. Voluntarily give up your rights and then tell me how ou "won".

Baaaaaaaaa
 
I had a chance to sit down with Allen Gottlieb from the Second Amendment Foundation and get the straight scoop about the gun related legislation pending in the Senate. The following is the summary from my conversation with Gottlieb.

First, let’s start from the point where we lost the cloture vote. The vote lost by a huge margin with 68 senators voting in favor of cloture. Once reached, it was evident something was going to go to the floor and Schumer’s background check bill was simply draconian, bad, evil, and needed to be stopped.

I Support Toomey-Manchin and You Should Too!
 
Martlet said:
Yeah. Voluntarily give up your rights and then tell me how ou "won".
Click to expand...

NOPE! [laugh2]
If you have read the info in the bill... then won't even try, it would be a waist of my time trying to explain it to you. [rolleyes]
If you haven't read the info...C'MON, REALLY!!!
 
Last edited:
Interesting call with biden....this was sent to the members of Moms Against Guns

The White House*cordially invites you to join a conference call on the need for common-sense reforms*to reduce gun violence*featuring*Vice President Joe Biden*Monday, April 15, 20133:10PM*Eastern Time (please dial in 5-10 minutes early)*You must RSVP via*http://ems6.intellor.com?p=600052&do=register&t=1.
 
just saw on facebook that CCRKBA/SAF is pulling all support from the bill because now the pro-gun amendments are not being considered.
 

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