Previous Post
Next Post

You may remember that the founder and head of the Second Amendment Foundation earned the ire of gun rights advocates when the post-Newtown Manchin-Toomey background check bill was working its way through Congress. Alan Gottleib wanted to cut a deal with the gun control folk; he offered a national concealed carry reciprocity law in exchange for “expanded background checks.” Alan’s deal and the Manchin-Toomey bill failed. If you thought that SAF PR disaster would dissuade Mr. Gottleib from suggesting a compromise on background checks, you thought wrong. Here he is, again, saying let’s make a deal; arguing that expanded background checks are inevitable. Is he right?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Always remember:
    “When good compromises with evil, evil wins. But when good stands up to evil, good wins…” -Anon

  2. And this is why after being a life member I’ve told them at every further request for money to drop dead

    • As have I. This is what I said to SAFs Board after the ManchinToomey debacle: stick to what you are good at; funding strategic litigation. Work as a team with NRA who is good at lobbying politicians and shaping legislation in all 50 states. And don’t ever let this bozo in a bowtie speak for you or even pretend to speak for gun rights advocates. Once burned twice shy and that is being charitable….

      • I love the NRA and am a life member. But they’re not good at shaping legislation in ALL 50 states. Ask those of us from Maryland, New York, Connecticut, etc.

        • Seriously, the NRA-ILA was next to useless in CT; in fact, most of the opposition to the gun bill (and it was a lot) was organized by the CCDL and, really, just word of mouth at the gun club. Also, I am not being negative about the NRA to just be negative. In fact, I still give money to the NRA-ILA (because it succeeds on the Federal level) and I actually like our lobbyist, whose name I forget, a lot. She came into a room at the LOB while were watching the inevitable on CCTV and told us to get off our asses and go to the Capitol building where the legislators would see, and, alas, ultimately ignore us. But, hey, I got a front row (OK – balcony) to watch freedom die in CT.

          It would great to see the NRA-ILA step up its game in the next election cycle here. Yeah, we’re a small state, but, really, that should make the process easier. And while would be easy to ignore us, because, after all, gun rights are actually expanding elsewhere the fact is that small tumors grow and metastasize; Why not go all out and try to excise it when it is easier to remove . Yeah, it will take a while, but there are already some really positive signs, i.e., there was a special election in East Granby; the incumbent had passed (and voted to pass the gun bill) – and she was replaced by a 2A friendly R. (It is, however, a more rural type area to the extent that CT does rural).

          I am, however, really, really second guessing my decision to renew my SAF membership.

      • Yeah, I absolutely cant respect anyone in a bowtie, he just looks like a buffoon. Hell, he is a lazy, cowardly, defeatist, buffoon.

      • Actually I think it was very smart to have SAF working to weaken the bill from the inside while the NRA and GOA fought it. I would be willing to bet that SAF coordinated it with the NRA.

    • As have I. I have even demanded they refund my Life Membership fee but they refuse to respond. Looks like I’ll have to go to Small Claims Court to get the money back.

      • Good for you! I’m hitting the hay with a smile on my face. I wish you good luck in getting it back.

    • Power in numbers my friend. A conservative estimate of American gun owners; 100 million. Do you know how many enlisted people we have in all our branches of the military? Around 1.4 million. That includes the foot soldiers who would carry weapons, as well as everyone involved in the support of operations. There are another 850k troops available in the reserves. If they are lucky, maybe 1/3 of all those personel are fighting forces per se. So about 700k. Do you know how many police officers there are in this country? A little less than 800k.

      So even if I’m generous, if the orders came down tomorrow, there would be 2 million people with the knowledge necessary to hit the streets. I would anticipate that about 1/2 of those folks would defect immediately, purely for ideological reasons. So they would have 1 to 2 million pairs of boots on the ground to control 300 million people, 1/3 of which are armed. Power is just one big illusion.

      They already have a list of owners (or at least MI6 does). Have you ever bought a hunting license? Ever filled out a 4473? Ever purchased ammunition with a credit card? Do you surf TTAG regularly? It’s not that complicated. Yet, even with all those nukes, warthogs, apaches, and drones, all those operators have to sleep somewhere. They do not want any part of us. This is why they are taking baby steps. They have been reduced to begging for mere background checks. Let them beg. No.

        • We were. Then you brought up the NSA. Background checks are just another way for statists to exert control over their fellow brethren. Most people who died in the camps in WWII willingly walked into gas chambers. Think about that for one second. Power is an illusion. The all-seeing all powerful NSA/Feds is an illusion. So what if they know who we are. There isn’t a single thing they can do about it.

    • And states share firearms ownership info with fusion centers to be given to local cops.

      Do you REALLY trust this Executive Action WH that promised Brady to work under the radar screen?
      That sent its Sec State Hillary out to lie to Mexico and repeat the discredited 90% from LGS meme?

      FBI and every other FED agency has had access to HIPPA protected confidential medical records…think those are secure?

      Think the Presidents Most Attractive State AG might keep the firewall up between state registration?

      • HIPAA is a fig leaf for another pervasive surveillance scheme – this one done in the name of “public health.”

        I’m working on a HIPAA assessment for a client right now. There is nothing in HIPAA that protects the confidentiality of peoples electronic health information from the government – local, state or federal.

        In a fundamental sense, people work for who pays them. It has been many years that doctors have worked for insurance companies and the feds. Anyone who thinks what you tell your doctor is confidential, and won’t be recorded in their chart for others to see, is a fool.

        With the big push for electronic medical records, it won’t be too many more years before everyone’s health information will be electronic and it will be a breeze for the government to, for example, scan medical records looking for medical or psychological reasons to limit firearms ownership. All this would take would be some new regulations or an executive order.

    • I’m with you on that…
      Why are we the ones that must compromise? It’s their turn…
      “You give us nationwide concealed carry reciprocity and we won’t break out the tar and feathers.”

  3. I’d begin to agree with UBCs if we got national ccw reciprosity, NICS were made public, and I didnt have to keep a bound book for the ATF. But we all know that its about the records. Always has been.
    I do not have a FFL.

      • yep.

        you’d think if UBCs were going to be as effective as their supporters, say, then what’s the problem with repealing those laws?

        I mean, we keep being told that only the cleanest of the clean will be getting guns after UBCs pass, so what’s the problem with opening up NFA again, right? right?

        it just proves that they A) under the surface, really don’t think the UBC laws will work, but don’t care, and B) never intend to roll back the clock on any other laws or regulations, no matter how heavily vetted gun ownership becomes otherwise.

        • Exactly – so let’s call their bluff and offer them UBC (our version) in exchange for a whole bunch of things we want.

    • I’d go for that. Make the background check involve only information on the subject of the check. The only reason you’d want information on the seller or the gun is for the NFTS, which -let’s face it- is a miserable failure not only for crime prevention, but for crime solving. So let’s junk that.

      Also, remove silencers from the NFA, and stop this ridiculous ban on importing “non-sporting” firearms, which are nonetheless perfectly legal and commonly available to buy and possess in the United States. That’s just straight-up industry protectionism.

    • National reciprocity in exchange for UBC was exactly what SAF was trying to arrange. The other thing they wanted is a well-defined appeals process for people stripped of their right to RKBA, and that it wouldn’t be for life for any felony, no matter how minor (seeing how a bunch of non-violent victimless crimes are felonies these days).

  4. No he is not, as to national carry I see this as a state issue. As an individual I can choose to carry where I please regardless of whether my carry permit is valid or not and yes I understand the legal issues here.

    • I would personally LIKE national reciprocity, but I have to agree here, it is and should be a state issue, and steady progress is being made in that regard. Why rock the boat?

      • They are, actually. It’s just that states have agreed to acknowledge the licenses of other states for a limited time, and then to exchange for a local license with minimal or no further testing (though many states do require at least a theory test, and some require the practice exam), as a matter of convenience.

        • “acknowledging the licenses of other states” = reciprocity. Have a CCW in your home state, reciprocity would allow you to carry in every other state that you happen to be passing through. Just as you can drive in all fifty states (and even Canada) without a license from each and every state.It should be the same for guns–which, despite popular perception–are much safer than motor vehicles..

        • My point was that it is not something that is federally mandated, but rather the states decide for themselves. It just so happens that all states decided to reciprocate driver licenses for non-residents.

    • I agree, it’s a state issue with states adopting unconstitutional carry license requirements. As it stands, we already have nationwide concealed carry, it’s called the 2nd amendment.

      I want to keep and/or bear an arm in my pocket.
      “shall not be infringed” is the only law that need apply. Requiring a piece of plastic, fingerprints on record, etc are infringements.

      That being said, I abide by state laws even if they are unconstitutional to a point. Maybe that’s why we’re having problems in the first place.

      • So far, all the courts that have ruled on the issue directly have held that concealed carry bans are constitutional. Of course, those states also had unlicensed open carry, and I think this was an important consideration, Even Peruta did not hold that concealed carry bans are unconstitutional, instead merely concluding that the state had to allow some form of carry–open, concealed, or both, It would seem that as long as you are allowed to carry, even if the manner of carry is regulated in some fashion (as by a concealed carry ban or permissive CCW), your right to carry is not infringed,

  5. I think his overall point is valid. We need to recognize that if hillary gets in, she will be a two term president. The courts will lean so far left that we won’t have a hope of appealing anything that might roll through. Gotlieb wants us to take the wind out of their sails and craft our own legislation before they have the upper hand. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

      • Yeah, she may just skip that step and go straight to door-to-door confiscation, while saying shrilly that “nobody’s gonna take your guns”.

    • So, the unnamed act which you concede Hillary will perpetrate, will it be an act of consensual governance or will it be an act of aggression against our natural rights, using the violent coercive power of the state? If the former, then we need not fear it. If the latter then why on earth would we compromise with it? If the latter, does your view of history indicate that it can be appeased?

      Any background check conducted by the government is the fox guarding the henhouse.

      • Pretty much. Compromise here would be essentially the same as Leftist foreign policy. Appeasement never works. We are not dealing with reasonable fellow Americans who all have our nation’s best interest at heart. We are dealing with domestic enemies sworn to destroy the United States of America (at least the leaders, if not the useful idiot rank and file). This will only encourage them.

        And why in the world would anyone think the leftists would actually hold up their end of any bargain? They are lawless, they have no honor, and they have already stated as clearly as they can in both word and deed that they regard any measure passed as nothing more than an increment toward the final goal of complete civilian disarmament.

        Not. One. Damn. Inch.

    • Do you remember back in 2006 when Hillary was inevitable and going to be a two term President? If I remember correctly the Hillary presidency was sidetracked by some first term unknown entity in the Senate whose name I somehow forgot. Hillary will not get the nomination. She probably won’t even run and if she does there will be another unknown Democrat who will sidetrack her again. She is a terrible campaigner with no accomplishments and massive foreign policy failures. The MSM may dismiss this when a Republican brings it up but they will not ignore it during the Democratic Primary. This is deja vu all over again.

      • Yup. Hillary is a very, very weak candidate. Tin ear, no accomplishments, horrible judgment, etc. But she (and Bill) loooooove money, and the most effective way for them to get it is ‘campaign fundraising’.

        If the Invincible Clinton Campaign Machine™ can be derailed by a first-term senator with zero accomplishments, I don’t think it’s something we have to worry about. Let the Democrats pretend she’s invincible, all she’s going to accomplish is keeping money from going to a (D) candidate that can win.

    • ReadMore, I’m a burglar that just broke into your home. I’m probably going to take whatever looks good to me, but if you want to “take the wind out of my sails,” you can maybe give me a list of things that I can take from you – some of the things on that list being things that I’m undoubtedly going to take any way, but I’ll accept your “compromise.”

  6. Alan, WTF?! I WANT to like you. I really do. You’re a hero to this movement. But you are f*cking KILLING us with this shit. CEASE compromising and knock off the “it will happen eventually” defeatist nonsense.

    Once again I must refrain from donating to your organization because of your antics.

    • “Antics” are something you see on the Three Stooges or Laurel and Hardy. This is actual, VOLUNTARY CAPITULATION.

    • It’s okay, I’m giving to SAF what I used to give to NRA in olden days (on top of what I normally give them). For this pragmatic, working approach, and the lack of frothing at the mouth, among other things.

  7. Just like Obamacare will lead to the destruction of American healthcare as we know it, universal background checks will lead to registration and eventual confiscation.

  8. Alan Gottlieb is still upset that the universal gun registration bill he worked on with Chuck Schumer didn’t pass.

    We do NOT need to give up more of our rights. When’s the last time the opposition offered to give something back? Alan Gottlieb doesn’t realize that no matter what we give them, they’ll just keep coming back for more until all we have are bolt action .22 rifles. And then they’ll just outlaw lead ammo (which they’re already trying to do).

    Alan Gottlieb, do the rest of us a favor and get lost. You did some good things, but you’re undermining all of them by constantly pushing really, really horrible things like universal background checks. They aren’t universal because only the law-abiding will use them, so it won’t stop criminals. And, you expect that the same government that has been illegally spying on every single American won’t hold on to gun purchase information to make a massive gun registry. Go away.

    • We don’t need him. I think the gun rights movement has pretty much moved beyond being represented by Gottleib. Despite it’s imperious sounding name, I don’t think the “Second Amendment Foundation” has all that much visibility or influence among People Of The Gun. As recent events have shown, on gun-rights issues and others, we have a rather aroused constituency that will take direct political action with surprising alacrity. The Second Amendment Foundation is irrelevant.

    • “Alan Gottlieb doesn’t realize that no matter what we give them, they’ll just keep coming back for more until all we have are bolt action .22 rifles.”

      Yes, he does, and what makes you think you’ll get to keep the .22 bolt action rifle? Think of the children!

  9. It’s the old tactics vs. strategy game. He’s obviously concluded that the political winds in the nation are still blowing leftward, and he’s trying to get something on the books in our favor before the possibility is gone.

    Or because he knows that universal carry is a poison pill that will kill any gun control legislation.

    Either way, he’s playing strategy, the NRA is doing tactics. Both are necessary.

    • And that “something” he wants on the books has been a poison pill since it was first floated. We wants to continue the infringement so that he continues to be employed and collecting a paycheck.

      He’s not as bad as Shannon “The Shill” Watts and the post-Menopause Mob, but he’s cut from the same cloth.

  10. It needs to be a sweet damn pot to talk me into something that ugly. I think getting a few things like SBRs and Silencers of the NFA list might be worth it. Especially seeing as we have to go through “expanded background checks” anyway….
    I like the idea of national concealed carry, but I think we’ve made plenty of progress toward that without having to give away the farm. I see no reason to start now, just for a handful of states that I no longer want to go near.

    • Doesn’t matter what they offer. Just like past immigration bills. They get what they want now, but never make good on their side of the bargain. Ten pots of fairy gold are no better than one pot of fairy gold when the sun rises the next morning.

      • I really can’t recall one time that they’ve offered anything in return. C’mon, folks, help me out; I know I’m wrong about this!

        To the contrary, it’s more like “accept A right now and we won’t shove A, B and C down your throats at the same time. Be nice!”

    • Shoot. I suggested adding repeal of the NFA above as a sweetener, but your post points out to me that the “universal background checks/national gun registry” makes it obsolete! So don’t stop with SBR’s and silencers, universal checks and registry is EVERYTHING the ATF does now with NFA items, so it should obviously be repealed at the same time!

  11. There is no point to background checks. There is no point to expanding the system.

    Criminals can get guns and the background check process we have now does nothing to dissuade them. When the background check does pop, it is rarely enforced. The rate of prosecutions for attempting to purchase a firearm by a felon is ridiculously small.

    Instead we have this massive apparatus that takes time and money to keep operating that mostly just passes people through the system because a vast majority are going to pass.

    Then you see something like the Washington Naval Yard shooter and you think “What is the point?” That man had a Secret clearance, which is far more intrusive than a normal background check and his violent history, even without the prosecutions, should have been discovered and he should not have been able to receive Secret clearance. Yet he had access to the facility and was able to gun down several people.

    What good do background checks do exactly? They are an expensive and ineffective “feel good” measure that inconvenience firearm purchasers. I used to believe the inconvenience was worth it if it made it tougher for felons but I’ve since come to realize the whole charade is security theater at its finest.

    • He’s not arguing that they’re a great idea. He’s arguing that, like most bad ideas of gun control, it doesn’t matter and it might happen anyway… so we might as well get something out of it.

  12. No compromise. Standing strong after Newtown . Illinois has concealed carry because good men did NOT stand down.

    • Funny you mention Illinois. Guess who brought McDonald v. Chicago all the way to SCOTUS, and successfully argued it there? Hint: it wasn’t NRA.

  13. Let’s see, I’ll take National Reciprocity with no expanded background checks for $500, Alex.

    *ping ping ping ping ping*

    And that’s today’s Daily Double!

  14. If it were the right kind of background check, I could accept that compromise. And what I mean by “the right kind” is this: you call in to the NICS with someone’s drivers’ license number or Social Security number or some other piece of uniquely identifying information and get a “Yes” or “No” on whether that person is prohibited from owning firearms. Things that are not a part of this hypothetical process: what kind of weapon is being sold, what the serial number of the weapon being sold is, and whether, in fact, you actually buy or sell a weapon after getting a clean background check.

    That’s a universal background check I could potentially support. (The devil is always in the details.) Quite honestly, if the feds would just let me check the NICS to see if someone is a prohibited person or not (and skip all the registration rigmarole), I would probably do so whether or not it was mandatory.

    But that compromise is not on the table and probably will never be on the table. It’s a pity that the anti-self-defense movement is clinging so tightly to their ideology that they’re preventing common sense safety legislation, isn’t it?

    • I work for an organization which conducts background checks on its members. I can tell you that the NICS is a flawed system. For reasons I don’t care to discuss (and don’t fully understand) not all arrests and convictions make it into the NICS. We’ve hired people, trained them, and then a year later (when their security clearance investigation is complete) found out that they are not qualified due to a criminal record.

      That’s my specific comment. To state it more generally, the government sucks at almost everything it does; why would you think it would not suck at this? In the “new normal” we’ve seen several previously apolitical arms of the state turned into weapons of the ruling party. Do you think the background checkers will be a permanent exception from this phenomenon?

      • I’ve heard samefrom highly placed person in DAs office. Except these folks allowed to continue despite the background check you and I would fail. Hmmmm…could it be cronyism or political? Nawwww….

      • Ooh, ohh…I knew that the government would suck at doing that. John Titor said so in his last Usenet post before returning to 2036….or maybe its common sense, whatever.

    • Better yet a system where the buyer performs his own background check and receives a code thats valid for a period of time. Then all the seller has to do is go to the site, enter the code and get the approval or denial along with enough info to determine if the buyer is who they say they are ie. Drivers license info.

  15. I understand his reasoning that if we don’t come to the table and help shape the bill, the anti-gun bigots will have the only voice at the table and the bill will be disastrous to our rights as outlined in the 2nd Amendment. And it almost seems reasonable, in that context.

    Then I remember what “…shall not be infringed” means. Which is more than I can say for the Supreme Court and many legislators who swear that they “support the 2nd Amendment, but…”

    I’m tired of compromising on something that is very clear in its intent, as well as in the personal papers of the founders who shaped the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I cannot support the SAF, as they attest to “support the 2nd Amendment, but…” when it comes to background checks which will lead to a national registry of firearms owners.

  16. Compromise? We have compromised – and been compromised – enough. What have the antis given up? Not a damned thing! Until “Shall not be infringed” is firmly embedded in their tiny skulls, we will not give an inch.

  17. Being stuck in a “May Issue” state, I find this rather tempting.

    If we could get a carve out for family transfers, I’d take it.

    • Nope. Here’s the compromise I’ll take:

      -Expanded background checks

      In exchange I want-

      – National Concealed Carry Recipricocity (including mandatory shall-issue throughout US)
      (only gun law actually showing even a correlation with lowered violent crime)

      Following because all of these address infringements on the second amendment which have demonstrated no tangible benefit to the citizens. They have not shown to lower crime or contribute to public safety:

      – No additional taxes above normal sales taxes to be levied on ammunition
      or fireams by state, federal or local governments.
      – Prohibition of any state or local government from instituting a ban on any type of firearm (bye-bye CA handgun roster)
      – Prohibition of any state or local government from restricting the capacity of magazines/weapons
      – Prohibition of any state or local government from requiring registration of any firearm
      – Prohibition of any state or local government from requiring citizens to have a special ID to exercise a constitutional right
      – Prohibition of any state or local government imposing a fee on a citizen to exercise a constitutional right
      – No additional fees levied on firearm businesses including ranges and stores.
      – Elimination of the 1986 ban on the sale of new machine guns to the general public

  18. How about in exchange for allowing “expanded background checks”, we get rid of the NFA requirements, because the background check system will magically be so good that I shouldnt need to jump through the NFA hoops anymore right?

  19. I forgave his last lunatic offer to trade away my gun rights, and I thought maybe he just panicked. But clearly he is no friend of gun owners, And his association with Cheaper than Dirt was unsavory as well.

    SAF, I’m done with you.

  20. Not just no, but hell no.

    Universal background checks should be called, FFL appreciation bill because right now the secondary market is what keeps FFLs in check. Also it creates criminals out of people doing normal things sell and loaning guns to family members and friends.

    As far as National Concealed Carry, though I think that only a court decision or a national law will fix the mess of concealed carry reciprocity, it simply isn’t worth giving up the right to freely do commerce between the people. Though I do wonder how is it proper to liberals that other states have to recognize another state’s gay marriage, but not concealed carry which is a fundamental right?

  21. We all know what expanded background checks would really do. They would kill off most private sales, make those continuing private sales felons, and force every legal gun sale to record and register the transaction and eventually this will lead to more restrictions that would deny more people firearms until almost everyone is denied for some reason or law, and then confiscation. No legit gun supporter would ever be for universal/expanded background checks.

    The anti-gun folks still treat us like children, they think we are gullible and stupid enough to allow that trojan horse in. NO COMPROMISES, NOT EVER. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

  22. The key points are this:
    1) The pro-gun side looks unreasonable to those on the fence when we oppose background checks entirely. Nobody understands the points of privacy and firearms databases.
    2) A.G. is not saying roll over and die, he’s saying that if we inject ourselves into the bill-writing process, we can either craft a bill in such a way so as to alleviate the fears over expanded background checks, or at least play the political theatre to change the image of “The Gun Lobby” as an uncompromising, uncaring shill for gun manufacturers. The reality is that we’re playing a game against a team that wants to believe that “something is being done”, and cares much less about it being truly effective. So play the game. If the other side pushes too hard, inject a poison pill into the discussion, something that you know they will not agree to but allows you to stay at the table and appear to be negotiating. At the end of the day, at lot of this is theatre, and our side needs to get better at it.
    3) We need to recognize the A.G. has a point. I would argue that there isn’t anything inherently wrong with expanded checks. It’s the knock-on effects that we’re worried about; firearm registration, de facto owner databases, privacy, etc. So push for third-party verified new and existing record destruction, with personal liability for violators, as a mandatory part of any bill. Give FOPA teeth, and the checks may not be much of an issue.

    • Nope. Nope. Nope.

      No matter what stance the pro-gun side takes they’ll be portrayed as unwilling to compromise. It’s the series of compromises over the years that have put states like NJ, CA, CT etc. etc. in the position they’re in.

      As soon as the anti’s get their compromise- they renege on their agreement and go right back to trying to put even more restrictive laws in place.

      You can not compromise with folks who’ve proven you can’t trust them

      • Who said anything about trust? Read point 3 again, specifically the part about giving FOPA teeth. Compromise, by definition, means that you get something that you want. So set the bar high. Dismantling the 4473 database, mandatory record destruction, friends and family exemptions, etc. If we fail to do that, it’s our fault, nobody else’s.

        • Give the FOPA teeth and it will be ignored via selective prosecution until it can be amended when the anti-gun folks have the right people in place. Paper is paper, they’ve proven quite willing to ignore laws they don’t agree with…

        • There is absolutely no way, in this day and age, that any data of any kind, about anything, that goes to or through the government, will EVER be completely deleted, no matter what is agreed to or whether third, fourth, or fifth party verification is used. That facility in Utah was designed to hold all data on everybody in the world for 1000 years. Phone calls, emails, texts; and gun registrations would be a tiny addition to that. No, we don’t keep that data, but this place is so secret we can’t let you check for yourself.

    • AG didn’t do a very good job last time. The Universal Background checks, and the National Reciprocity with the other positive pro-gun benefits were presented as separate amendments. Thus we could’ve easily gotten the Universal Background Checks without the National Reciprocity.

      AG needs to stick with what he is good at court cases, and let the NRA-ILA handle legislation (where they are very good).

      • “Thus we could’ve easily gotten the Universal Background Checks without the National Reciprocity.”

        That’s the big issue. Again, compromise only works if you get something substantial out of it.

    • Your go-along-to-get-along rationale would have more meaning if the movement to protect gun rights was dealing from a standpoint of weakness. But the fact is, it is the gun-controllers who are losing credibility and support while support for gun rights is growing. One thing squishy politicians are certain of is that the gun-rights movement can turn out voters in significant numbers. Trying to cut deals with gun-controllers is always a bad idea.

      • More specifically, trying to cut deals with Chuck Schumer is always a bad idea. He is cunning, wily, feels no obligation to negotiate in good faith, and is a master of slipping in a sub-clause that negates what you thought you had gotten out of him.

        If it relates to firearms and Chuck Schumer is for it, I’m against it.

    • There’s always somebody that falls for Oil Can Alan’s schtick. Can’t you see he’s just insuring future employment for himself? He’s giving away our rights while trying to make it look like something else.

  23. The existence of a federal government is a compromise. Some people didn’t want a central government; some people wanted a strong central government; some people wanted a weak central government. We compromised and created a central government which was powerful within its given sphere and which was to have zero power outside of that defined sphere.

    When you talk of compromise now, you are talking of compromising with people who don’t respect our existing compromise. There is no reason to believe they will be satisfied with the next compromise.

  24. If a bill for UBCs have the following I would be ok with it.

    UBC for FFL dealers only. UBC expire after 5 years and study of crime must be completed to show if UBCs decrease crime. Dealer can not charge for a private sale. Sales between private parties ok as long as from same state, or licenses to carry from any other state, or personally known by the seller, or reasonable knowledge that the buyer is not a prohibited person and a resident of the same state as the buyer.

    What does not expire: National reciprocity, and features such as collapsible stocks, removable magazines, removable flash hider, barrel shrouds, hand guards, forward pistol grip, pistol grip, are legal and must not be considered to make a firearm illegal. Any law that uses these are now null and void. For a firearm to be considered illegal must be how many bullets are fired per trigger pull. If multiple rounds, then would be classified as a NFA item. Records on firearm ownership must not be kept by any state, city, county, or municipality or government entity or a government contractor. Any record kept is a fine of $1000/record. Pistols/revolvers can be purchased in any state following the background process of the state where the purchase happens.

    • What agency would have the authority/responsibility to ENFORCE any of this? Because if it is the government, this is a waste of time and energy, we are seeing right now that the current government enforces laws which do not exist and does not enforce laws which do exist, totally at their whim, and for some reason does not arrest itself. The way to prevent information for being kept and used against you is to not give it out in the first place.

    • What was a discussion about Alan Gottlieb’s chicanery has turned into a goddamned wishing well.

  25. Off the cuff, I don’t want any laws for universal background checks. Any system would be ripe for abuse and misuse and hence fraught with peril.

    Having said that, I believe Mr. Gottlieb is an excellent strategist playing the long game and I am keenly interested in his thoughts. I also like the idea of applying Sun Tzu’s Art of War tactic of taking on the enemy on terms that are most favorable for us. (That would mean that our side crafts any legislation on our terms.) Finally, if we categorically reject universal background checks, we must consider how gun grabbers will use that to demonize us and what impact that may have.

    How about a weekend strategy conference in the middle of the country — perhaps some place in Missouri — to sort this out?

    • No matter what stance we take, gun grabbers will and do demonize us. Since it doesn’t matter what stance we take, support what the constitution clearly says, “shall not be infringed” . So what compromise will I accept? Constitutional carry in all fifty states. No back ground checks for buying any battle field suitable weapon, like any full auto weapon, suppressors, grenades, shoulder fired missiles, crew served machine guns, artillery,tanks, fighter planes and bombers. The compromise? I won’t need to own weapons of mass destruction like chemical, biological or nuclear.

      In other words, any weapon or weapon system that a well trained and equipped citizen militia should have as our constitution has required for us as good American citizens as a bulwark against enemies foreign and domestic.

  26. I would totally be on board with UBC if it was something I could do directly without involving a FFL. I would even pay a yearly fee for it (if it was something reasonable)

  27. Until the national policy is “shall not be infringed”, i.e the appropriately-named “constitutional carry”, I’m not sure I want any national policy at all. I fear the ultimate tendency would be to restrict the free states, rather than free the restricted states.

    • Exactly. If we give the Feds ultimate CCW authority, it only takes ONE bill to get through and muck it up for everyone, especially for the more gun-friendly states (and I’m from IL, so it’s not like we have much to lose.)

  28. The compromise was made a long time ago.

    The Militia Act of 1792 required that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years” shall arm themselves, at their own expense, with standardized military grade weapons within “five years from the passing of this act.”

    We compromised after a time so that this became voluntary. Maybe GOA needs to promote we go back to the first requirement to force everybody to arm themselves–as stated by the US Constitution.

    • Now that’s a compromise I could support! Good thinking. Evil will compromise us into the grave, IF we allow it! They already almost have, and the “we must compromise some more” crowd on this page can’t even see it…
      The moral is: Even gun people can be sheeple.

    • Does the household with Heather and her Two Mommies get a pass? Or does one have to become the Gun Daddy? Inquiring minds want to know!

  29. As someone with the same last name as Mr. Gottlieb, please alter the title and such, everyone misspells our names!

  30. He did indeed say in a radio interview a year ago that state-by-state referenda is a likely way for the antis to proceed, and that they will be very hard to fight. This is what’s happening now in his own State of Washington, and how many of us are ready to predict that the anti-gun initiative there will lose? I bet not many. So, we can flame him all we want, but WA State will quite possibly get a UBC, and if it does, it will have plenty of annoying provisions in it.

    The question is, could he really have negotiated a better deal in WA? I think he may have tried and it didn’t work, but I am not sure.

  31. If we are going to “compromise” I want it all
    -Free up ALL NFA items
    -Free up ability to produce new full auto weapons
    -eliminate the BATFE
    -Eliminate having FFls (anyone can now sell anything)
    -National recreprocity, better yet constutional carry everywhere
    -No more gun free zones
    -No age limits on buying firearms
    -plus you and your mom’s gun rights wish list!

    And for this I want the progressives to establish a 1-800 number that anyone can call for a BG check. It will be used for firearms, employment, anything where you need to know if someone is a criminial/ prohibited. You call, give a name and a SS number and ask if they are prohibited. You get a yes, or a no, and then you hang up the phone. No one knows if the call was for a firearm, or an employment check. And if it was for a firearm no one knows if it was what the caliber, make, model, or serial number is. And no one knows if you actually made a transaction and completed the sale. All they get is a name of a person who may or may not now have possession of a firearm. And frankly they already have our names, so we are not loosing anything there.

    Now the ball is in OUR court and when the progressives shoot this down (cause we know they will) WE get to call them “the ones not willing to compromise”

    • One more: Everyone gets to understand the difference between “losing” and “loosing”, the latter being barely a word at all.

  32. How about this: “Universal” background checks in exchange for federal preemption of state and local gun control laws (i.e. no FOID card, no CA assault weapons ban, etc.). And if you’re wondering, yes, Congress could preempt state gun-control laws under Art I, Section 8: “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia.” State laws banning modern rifles and 30-round magazines prevent the nation from having a well-armed militia. Consequently, Congress could prohibit such laws (arguments that the 2nd Amendment already prohibits such laws notwithstanding).

    The benefits of this would be extraordinary. New gun owners are often drawn in by the cool looking firearms, like AKs and ARs. By banning these firearms and making it a bureaucratic nightmare to get the permits necessary to buy handguns, gun-control advocates are effectively denying us virgin gun owners and are winning in those restrictive states through a war of attrition.

    • You are right on. The other side constantly says that the laws in these states down’t work because guns come in from other states – so, we give them nationwide universal background checks in exchange for preempting laws they admit are not working. Heads we win, tails they loose.

  33. He may think he has ‘good intentions’ and there could even be some strategic reason behind his plans.

    BUT…when was the last time the pro-2A crowd got anything positive from a so-called ‘compromise’ with the gun grabbers? Every time we ‘compromise’ we give up a little freedom. Eventually, a little becomes a lot and we are left with nothing.

    Furthermore, after everything we’ve seen (cover-up over Benghazi, lies about O-care, IRS, NSA, etc) with this admin, does anyone really trust the federal government? Don’t forget, the gun grabbers WILL NOT stop with universal background checks. UBC’s are simply another small step toward their ultimate goal.

  34. UBC in exchange for reciprocity or anything else might look good on paper and might even be implemented for a short while, but I think that anything we’d offer to the other side would probably be abused and anything we get in return now would be drastically diminished later, or taken away entirely at some point.

    The NJ Senate Committee just voted 3-2 in favor of reducing mag capacity from 15 rounds to 10. It’s not law yet, but give it time. This was despite pleas and arguments that such move will do nothing to reduce crime, but it will affect law abiding gun owners. The leftist law-makers just would not listen. You’d think that the initial compromise of 15 rounds was good enough and that the politicians would leave it alone, but no such deal. Let some time pass and all of a sudden only criminals need more than 10 rounds, so we need to compromise again. And by compromise I mean turning law-abiding citizens into felons if they don’t comply. At some point we’ll need to compromise again, down to 7 rounds, then 5, then 0.

    If these are the sort of people you want to compromise with, people who will betray you and stab you in the back the first chance they get, why even try? Maybe Alan knows something I don’t, but giving in now will most likely result in many of our rights severely limited or taken away later. And good luck appealing to the SCOTUS. Those jerks proved that they don’t know the first thing about inalienable rights and enforcing the Constitution.

  35. No. NO COMPROMISE! You DON’T compromise on civil rights for STARTERS. And secondly while, the ‘people of the gun’, do ‘compromise’ already with the Brady Law the ‘Universal Background Checks’ is a complete Red Herring. It’s a political tool to try to force a proverbial crack in the armor of the 2nd Amendment. The ‘normal’ background checks have no noticeable affect on crime. Giving the anti gun freaks in power even more tools to smacks up around with is not only stupid but it’s INSANE.

    I urge everyone to look further into the study that the anti’s are harping on. I’m talking about the claim that ‘90% percent favor universal background checks’. Even if we disregard the fact that this is STILL a civil rights issue the fact that this study is complete garbage. Specifically because the makers of that study played around with the terminology in an effort to drum up it’s numbers. Subtle things, like selective dropping the word ‘universal’ when they asked if self proclaimed NRA member supported ‘background checks’. That, and using peoples lack of knowledge on how the current NICS system works.

    Alan Gottlieb; I get what you’re trying to do. And I do agree with your logic here. However I STILL stand by the fact that giving any inch here is not going to do any good for America.

    • Also this is a backdoor to more infringements. Since the law will require UBC, the executive may be able to define what prohibited person means. We’ve seen this in the past. They can expand the “prohibited person” definition till there is just a small number of people that can be “allowed” to exercise their natural right to keep and bear arms.

  36. Ok here is my idea of compromise.

    Instead of taking away right, we instead make it easier for normal citizens to do NICS check on a private sale. Something I’ve wanted for years.

    You create a website where you can request a private check for free. The seller has the link sent to the buyer. The buyer fills out the information, and request the NICS check. The FBI does it check, and sends a response to both buyer and seller. The sellers response is pretty basic, name and status (proceed, delayed, or denied). The buyers response will be more detailed if there is a delayed or denied response (who to contact et al). If the buyer is approved they get a confirmation code.

    Now buyer and seller meet up. Seller pulls out their smartphone and asks for confirmation code from buyer. He enters the confirmation code into a smart phone app, and up pops the buyers photo from state issued ID, name, and status. You compare that with their state issued ID to get three levels of identity verification (NICS to person, NICS to ID, and ID to person). And then finish the transaction normally.

    The system should cost nothing to the end users as it should be funded via the existing FET. It should automatically deletes records after 30 days. And finally it should be entirely optional, but I am willing to bet that a majority of people would use it as it ensures a little more security in your face to face transactions.

    Oh one final thing, the project should be managed by someone with non-government IT project management experience with contractors. We don’t want to be as bad as

    • So how would later the seller claim that he made the UBC? Unless there is registration. I have yet to see a scheme where there is no registration and UBC works.

      • Under my proposal there would be no law requiring the UBC. This is about give consumers options, as a whole I believe that most gun owners are good people and would embrace the system if we make it free, and easy to use.

        But if we did have a UBC requirement, the confirmation email would suffice.

  37. I have mixed feelings about Gottlieb’s argument.

    And one definition of “mixed feelings” is, watching your mother-in-law drive your brand new Lamborghini over a cliff.

    • His predictions are happening in WA, so it’s not all theoretical.

      What is not clear, however, is whether he could have negotiated anything better there with the legislature in exchange for UBC’s. And unless he could have negotiated something better, the only argument left would be to say that even simply giving the UBC’s away would still have served the purpose of taking the momentum out of anti-gun forces to organize as well as they have lately. This last argument is not entirely clear though – they could have organized anyway to pursue further goals beyond the UBC’s.

  38. I’m probably an extremist in that I think all weapons transfers should involve a background check. I couldn’t agree more that they should be free and available to the public. Perhaps if that service were offered by the Imperial Federal government, to the public, for free, more people would start using it of their own accord.

    • Extremist? No, but why a UBC? The criminals and psychopaths wouldn’t be stopped by it and the “imperial Federal Government” would just use it to control the people.

      Extremist? No, but you have a mix of statist in wanting a UBC and anti-government in calling the Government the “Imperial Federal government”, so you sound like you don’t trust the people and you don’t trust the government and so your left with what? Not trusting anybody?

      Extremist? No; you just sound confused, What to be?, a statist elitist or an American Patriot that believes a civil right like the second amendment really “shall not be infringed”.

  39. I’m encouraged by the number of comments here in favor of no more “compromises”. Looks to me about seven to one. It shows me that folks are waking up to the antis “compromise them into the ground” strategy. Seems like we are waking up to the fact that we have been compromising our rights away ever since 1968, and what have we ever GAINED?
    Their strategy is simple, they gain some new restriction, and we get to look “reasonable”, at least for a little while…. There’s a name for that, its called; “heads I win, tails you loose”! Its high time we stopped playing THAT game!

  40. I cannot agree with Gottleib on this.

    As history has shown, you give the grabbers an inch, they take a mile.

    I’d rather a splintered potpourri of byzantine state and local laws than another federal overreach noose which will become increasingly tight over time with the entire fight controlled in Washington. THAT doesn’t bode well for us over the long term.

    • There is a big difference between “give” and “trade”. Right now we could not only control how exanded background checks are implemented – which is no small thing – we could load up a bill with HUGE pro-gun rights provisions and force them to accept them or oppose a bill that gives them what they say they want most.

      In short, if they support the bill it’s a net win – and if they oppose it, it becomes a net loss for them.

  41. The other side- backed by folks like bloomy- will not agree to reciprocity that allows people to carry in their vaunted special cities like NY. So this move is a smart way to shut down the whole thing while still looking like the reasonable ones. Too bad most people here can’t smell what he’s cooking.

    • It’s not clear that one could “shut them down” with UBC’s. They have other items on their agenda.

      • The goal of the antis is a gun free society throughout the US, even Alaska. Give them a concession or compromise; they will simply raise the bar. Nothing will “shut them down” until either a decisive event neuters them (unlikely), or they fully achieve their goals (also unlikely).

        Everybody should be steadfast for a protracted fight.

      • Given that this is the only issue that has broad public support, yes we could shut them down. When they come back to ask for registration, or AWB or any other item they will appear very unreasonable.

    • @ Hannibal
      Your point has obvious merit.

      POTG have been conditioned to vigorously object to ANY possible threat that might affect what’s left of our freedoms with good reason; consequently the resolute defensive responses.

      I think someone made reference to this above; once bitten, twice shy. The anti’s have bitten us a lot!

    • You’re wrong. Places like Chicago and DC have both been ruled against and basically told to allow citizens to carry. Both cities continue to dance around and block citizens’ rights wherever possible.

      If Gottlieb got national reciprocity added to a bill, all of the major anti-gun hovels will STILL prevent citizens from carrying. Don’t think so? Continue watching rulings coming out of various course (CA is next) and watch the states/cities continue to play legal tricks to still get the same end result, which is an effective ban on concealed/open carry.

      So as a “poison pill,” it’s useless. They’ll let it slide by, not enforce it, and not punish locales that continue to work around it via legal tricks.

      Just look at how well this administration enforces immigration law.

      …but if you skip a background check, believe you me, the hammer is gonna come down on you HARD.

      • Jeff, that’s why we should write the law to preempt all state and local laws governing sale and possession. In addition, states would be required to be shall issue and recognize permits that meet minimum training and background check requirements. Given them their background checks and let them either accept the bill or oppose the universal background checks they have been begging for.

  42. “As if the word ‘Rights’ in and of itself wasn’t inherently misleading, even to the extent that it’s seldom actually clearly understood, the notion of using such a provably-erroneous word combination as ‘gun rights’, and most especially by those having positioned themselves as self-proclaimed ‘defenders’ of the oldest and most continual of all ‘Rights’ of every American Freeman to Keep and Bear “Arms” — is, well, foolish at best.”

      • If I may, purely for purposes of clarification:
        The ’Right’ as declared and enumerated in the majority of State Constitutions and via the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is that ‘of the people’ ( all Freemen / Freewomen / Citizens ) to ‘Keep and bear Arms’.
        This particular ’Right’ which those within and acting on behalf of ’government’ are Morally, ethically and legally bound by oath and duty under Constitutional Contract to secure for the people — necessarily includes but certainly isn’t specifically limited to hand-held and shoulder-braced ‘Fire-Arms’.
        In historical context, the ‘Right’ of the people to Keep and Bear ‘Arms’ means every implement of War.
        Unsurprising then to note that nowhere to be found in any of the declarations is the word ‘Gun’.

        And yes, words, terms and phrases do, in fact of actuality matter.
        Inanimate objects cannot and do not have ‘Rights’, any more than any weapon, in-and-of-itself is capable of ’assault’.

  43. Vast majority of POTG don’t carry when traveling state to state (and if they do how many?). For me this is meaningless benefit. Why would I give up the UBC (something that is more probable to be affected of in my home state) to gain carry rights in other state? It is a bad compromise.
    No inch back.

  44. Let the flames begin, but I agree with Alan Gottleib. He is a realist.

    The conditions for getting universal background checks passed is fairly easy:

    1) Hillary or the next democratic president who has a majority or enough Rhino’s to make it happen because it will be a DNC platform item and one thing about the DNC, they all line up with the platform even if means jumping over a bridge together.
    2) Both Manchin and Toomey HAVE NOT given up. Look at recent quotes on AmmoLand. They are still pushing even with its failed passage. Manchin has had several fund raising sessions sponsored by Bloomberg, he is deep in Bloomberg’s pockets and so is Toomey
    3) The next Newtown style school shooting — the pieces on the chessboard are already in place laying in wait — the emotions pushed by 24/7 media images will push the country over the edge. The constitutions are rights be damned it will not be stopped by SCOTUS.
    4) Bloomberg’s billions. He will make it happen or die first. Many of us wish for the latter but he has enough money to buy enough votes over several years — here again, principle will prevent many gun owners from joining the NRA. Looking at those who are already pissed off at SAF. Yes, dropping funding from gun rights organizations helps exactly — nobody!
    5) Gun owners, that is right, gun owners who will not go to the poles to the vote. Many will stay home, many will vote social issues > gun issues and some out of principle will vote for a 3rd candidate that has no chance in hell in winning. True, gun owners are an independent lot and highly principled, at the same time they believe they would rather hang alone than hang together on issues. DNC groupies have no such principles, the dogma goes above the individual and so we will loose on principle alone.

    Universal Background checks are inevitable — maybe not be today or tomorrow but like ACA, they will make it happen. Those who are hating on Alan are in denial of the inevitability.

    It is far better to setup a proposal with terms we like than to have them forced down our throats — from a political point of view, it is also in our favor — we can say, “See gun owners are reasonable people, those guys over there do not want background checks” That is the audible and the optics that are important.

    Alan is correct and thinking strategic — maybe the specifics need to be better defined but he is correct. Sometimes PoG get into their own emotional hang ups. I do not giving one thing up (that is basically useless anyway) for things that are better for all of us as loosing of giving in.

    • Yeah, It’s not possible that forty states would have shall issue CC, 5 states that have constitutional carry laws and that Illinois has a shall issue law when back in the eighties there was no shall issue CC states at all. Oh. wait a minute, that’s not true.

      You don’t remember what happened after congress pushed through the AWB in ’92 and the blood bath that happened at the polls afterward to the Democrats.

      You keep saying how it’s “inevitable” that UCB will pass. Wait until the fall out from Obama Care and this latest push for more gun control; then we will see how many Democrats still have a job in Congress after the next election.

      Then we will talk about what’s “inevitable”.

      • You believe we will never have a democratic president and enough democrats and Rhino’s to push this through? You are looking at only 2014 — I am looking at 2016 and further down the road. The gun grabbers know they cannot win all the states, this is why all their focus is at the national level where they can put their will on the whole nation.

        There are many scenarios that can screw us.

        • 2016 will not let them pass it if the Republicans take more Senate seats, or even gain the Senate, later this year and then retain enough seats in 2016. I do not believe in compromise on UBC because the only known way to enforce such a provision is through the creation of a federal gun registry, which is supposedly unconstitutional as it is. And the way the political climate is, 2016 might as well be 20 years into the future. A few months is a lifetime in politics, let alone a few years.

    • I totally agree. I would only add that we should load it up with pro-gun rights provisions and force the other side to show their real goals. Most people outside the gun rights community do support background checks – but they are also in favor of shall issue and lots of other pro-gun rights positions.

  45. If we give up any, we need double that amount back. For starters, SBR’s SBS’s and so forth need to be struck from the law. In addition, the Hughes amendment needs to go. After that, I think we should CONSIDER it.

  46. This kind of “logic” always irritates me …

    It’s like saying “give your enemies what they want or they’ll come and take it” … or “if you give him your money maybe he won’t hurt you” … or “don’t scream or it’ll be worse on you” … or “women who dress like that deserve it”.

    Not buying it, not one damned bit.

    • I think you have got his suggestion wrong.

      The time to negotiate is when you are strong, not when you are weak. We are now strong.

      The item you want to trade is the one you are most likely to loose.

      You want to make the trade when you can get the most for it.

      Right now, we could get a lot in trade for “expanded” background checks AND we can decide EXACTLY how the bill is written.

      I would have to see the deal in order to know if I could support it, but in principle it may be a very good move.

  47. “…saying let’s make a deal”

    Wasn’t there some sort of metaphor out there involving cakes and gun control?

  48. Let’s focus on the National CCW for a minute, since this seems to be emerging as the antis’ “carrot” for us.

    In order to not dilute the requirements in the most strict states (and their big, big money campaign contributors), the licensing criteria would have to be just about as stringent as in those states. In the same way as the criteria for obtaining a driver’s license need to meet all common state licensing requirements (e.g., recognition of sign meanings, passing a written exam on the state traffic laws, ability to drive on the right side of the road, demonstrated ability to park, etc.). So…


    That is the downside of Universal Federal CCW licensing.

    • Some states have a “regular” and an “enhanced” carry permit. The enhanced one would be valid nationally. Problem solved.

      • The “enhanced” would still have to satisfy the requirements of NJ, CT, MA, MD, NY and NYC. God would have a hard time getting a CCW there, especially NJ (see Drake). Problem’s baaaaack.

  49. Gottleib is, plain and simple, a quisling.

    He needs to shut up and step away with his defeatist attitude.

  50. I just can’t stand with him on this one…
    My gut tells me it won’t go the way he thinks it will. I don’t know if Clinton will get elected, but I do know that if she doesn’t make a push, someone else will.
    And that bow tie was starting to grow on me. :/

  51. The pro-gun lobby needs to lead in enacting gun control laws, instead of following? I’ve heard this argument before and it makes no sense. It’s like a boxer hitting himself in the face on the theory that his blows will hurt less than his opponent’s fists. I dropped my GOA membership after hearing Gottleib’s betrayal.

    • I would think that you would listen to someone who has done more for gun rights on the legal front than the NRA has. Get a clue – opposition to background checks is very “soft”. We already have them on new gun sales and have for over 20 years. People outside the gun rights movement don’t understand what the problem is, why we are opposed.

      Additionally, if you read Heller, it all but says that background checks are constitutional. I don’t know any 2nd Amendment legal scholar – including the most pro-2nd Amendment ones – who think that an instant background check is unconstitutional.

      Think for a moment how much we have to gain.

      We could place additional safeguards against defacto registration in the bill.

      We could include a federal preemption for all laws governing sale and possession of firearms – and take tons of bad laws off the books.

      We get rid of some bad federal laws and enact more that protect our rights. Example: We could add teeth to FOPA by enabling both civil and criminal penalties .

      We could force the other side to admit that they really want much more than just background checks – or shut up and accept a lot of pro-gun rights provisions.

  52. Background checks? The left doesn’t want background checks. If it did, NICS would be an open system, available to private sellers, as originally intended.

    UBC is about the 4473, period. An FFL is subject to audits. If an FFL doesn’t keep his 4473s, the G can punish him by taking away his FFL.

    Private sellers are not subject to audit — there isn’t enough manpower in the ATF to audit every private sale — and there’s no way to punish a recalcitrant private seller.

    So it’s not about the check. It’s about the records. Always the records. If Gottleib doesn’t get that, he’s an idiot. And he’s not an idiot.

    • He’ll probably agree with you but then tell you that it will happen anyway, so we may as well ask the other side to use lube while we can.

      I’ve been trying to decide for the last year if I agree with him. Something in me says let’s go down fighting, but who knows if that’s the right choice.

    • “UBC is about the 4473, period. An FFL is subject to audits. If an FFL doesn’t keep his 4473s, the G can punish him by taking away his FFL.”

      IIRC the 4473 form goes back to GCA 1968 and predates background checks.

  53. Mr Bow tie has run and raised funds for many of the good USSC
    Cases we have won in the last decade.
    Since Klintoons backgroundchecks went into effect over 200 million
    Background checks are saved on Federal Computers.
    Last year the FBI NICS completed over 21,000,000 background checks.
    In West Virginia a warehouse holds the records (500 million) of every 4473 that the ATF has grabed, back to 1968, on paper not electronic, thank goodness!
    The NSA Buffalo Creek Complex is the new home for ALL your
    Medical records under ObamaKare.
    Your local ISP has records of EVERY thing you have ever done on the net just waiting for a National Security Letter under the Patriot Act to drop, then be given to the White House!

    • “Since Klintoons backgroundchecks went into effect over 200 million
      Background checks are saved on Federal Computers.
      Last year the FBI NICS completed over 21,000,000 background checks.
      In West Virginia a warehouse holds the records (500 million) of every 4473 that the ATF has grabed, back to 1968, on paper not electronic, thank goodness!”

      1) They are not supposed to be saved – but if we wrote our own bill we could figure out out some ways to make it even harder for the feds to do so.

      2) The background checks do not include the firearms information – not even how many firearms were involved in each check. The 4473 forms do not hold any more information.

      3) The real danger is the bound book information – and with the exception of FFLs that are closed, the feds do not have this information (although they would love to). FFLs will – and in the past have – sound the alarm should BATFE attempt to copy this information.


  54. Deal. You want UBC’s?
    Well if we can choose 1/2 of all the 30,000 gun Control
    Laws already on the books to END when the UBC goes into
    effect then maybe!

    • A federal preemption would do more than that – and would expose us to no more risk than we are currently under.

  55. No. Not only will it never pass, but even if it did (which it won’t), the non-compliance would be staggering.

    • True – however – you guessed it – the devil is in the details. Here’s how I would implement “universal” background checks:

      1) Background checks would be price controlled and voluntary

      2) Knowingly transferring a firearm to a prohibited person would carry a mandatory 10 year minimum sentence – multiple offenses to run consecutively.

      3) Anyone who conducts a transfer through a dealer would not be able to be prosecuted – even if the person is prohibited.

      So, if I want to give a gun to my kid or my best friend and I am absolutely sure they aren’t prohibited – no problem. I can do that without a background check. On the other hand, if I sell to someone I do not know – am I going to trust that they are not prohibited? Of course not!

      This bill would do at least as much good as mandatory background checks – and would give BATFE some very good tools to use against dirt bags who sell guns to criminals.

  56. There is no point to background checks and they will make no one safe, but we should propose and pass our own law anyway. It is they most likely gun control law to pass, they’re passing punitive, all encompassing laws state by state, and it’s the most powerful weapon in their arsenal. By passing our own law, we could dictate what it covers (ie, exempt all CC holders from any additional background checks) and as the ‘compromise’ and weaken existing laws (I’m looking at NFA and GCA).

    It’s not going to please the absolutists here, but strategically it’s the right thing to do.

  57. We are in a war with the anti-gun activists. How do most wars end? Negotiated settlements. When is the best time to negotiate? When you are winning!

    We could blow Bloomberg out of the water, simply by pushing a background check bill that includes a national (federal) preemption of laws regarding the sale and possession of firearms. I have been in this fight for over 40 years and when it comes to gun laws THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS – WE NEED TO BE THE PEOPLE WRITING THOSE DETAILS.

    We are not going to be able to hold off so called universal background checks forever – because even those outside the gun rights movement who are sympathetic to our cause do not understand why we are opposing extending a system that is already in place. Furthermore, background checks are almost certainly going to be ruled constitutional.

    Right now the other side would really have a hard time opposing a background check bill, no matter how many pro-gun rights provisions we attach to it. So let’s write one that has everything on our “wish list” attached.

    As others have mentioned, it is the right thing – and the smart thing – to do from a strategic point of view.

    • I disagree:

      1) Compromise on gun rights is never the right thing strategically, because it just leads to further infringement. It also psychologically conditions the populace that certain restrictions on the right to arms are A-Okay.

      2) I do not agree that UBCs are inevitable for a few reasons: one, they are not something DEMANDED by the public. Nor are they something demanded by the Democratic party in the way that Obamacare was. Obamacare was a Holy Grail type of thing policy-wise for Democrats. They were willing to temporarily lose House and Senate seats over it. UBCs is a different story.

      Two, many people sympathetic to our cause came to understand during the post-Newtown push that the resistance to UBCs was due to the fact that it would require the creation of a federal registry. Supposedly the Manchin-Toomey bill would not have legally allowed this, but as David Kopel pointed out, the bill defined “gun registry” as something created by the Justice Department, which opened up the can of worms that say a different federal agency could create one.

      So while something that is important to educate the public on, it is not per se inevitable IMO.

  58. I gave SAF money in 2012 – but after being co-conspirators in the Manchin/Toomey fiasco I refuse to give them a single penny ever again.

    Alan Gotleib is a damned idiot and focuses purely on CCW – he’s got blinders on when it comes to the big picture. He fails to realize that if he keeps on making deals with gun-grabbers the only thing he’ll be carrying concealed is a banana!

  59. I’d give up background checks for nation wide conceal carry, but only on the condition that the 86 NFA is struck down and we have the right to buy the same automatic weapons as law enforcement. Of course the new law would prohibit states from making stricter laws.

    So background checks for conceal carry? No. Background checks for conceal carery, supressors, sbr, and assault rifles. I could live with that considering the government ready has the ability to find out we own weapons (NSA).

    That’s coming from someone california who doesn’t have the right to carry, own firearms without bullet buttons, 10rd magazine limit, no NFA guns of any kind, no open carry.

    • I like with these conditions to a compromise. I’ll gladly have have expanded background checks to have the 1986 ban removed, plus stripping states of harsher “assault” weapon laws. It gives us something we want, plus something we detest and hate. It is commonly said to not let perfect be the enemy of the good.

      As it is, I’ve always supported a different loophole-ish idea for getting around the NFA & 1986 ban. All most federal & state gun laws specfiically only apply to “civilians”, and not to federal, state or county organizations. What has ever stopped a sheriff or county board from unilaterally declaring all residents of their respective locales to be law-enforcement for the purposes of purchasing and owning a firearm? The downside to this solution is that it only would work in extremely pro-gun areas, and would still leave areas like New York & California (home to millions of americans) out in the proverbial cold

      • These are fun flights of fancy. Just remember the other side never offers compromise measures.

        So why should we? Once they’ve lured us into the compromise game, we’ve lost irrevocably.

        • It depends on what you believe the election results will be this year and in 2016.

        • Belief can be either negative or positive. If you’re counting on an election to set things right again, you must be a newcomer to the planet.

  60. @ Sir Vince Warde:
    The West Virginia Warehouse includes not only the 500 million
    FFL’s but also the dealer books and all sales records of closed,
    Raided, or obtained by warrent FFL records.

    Klintoon’s 1994 gun assault on the People Bill, included the requirement that ALL background check records be destroyed
    Within 90 days……trust the kkklintoons to keep the letter of the law…..
    At least three other requirements to dispose of the records have been passed and signed into law since ….. Bush43 and the Messiah currently in the Oval Office did nothing ….. OOps! Two Zeros!

  61. @ ThomasR:

    With the Speaker of the House wanting to force the Congress in
    August to Pass a we love all alien invaders and want them to be our next 50 million Americans Bill; we may find that Nov 2014 will be a bloodbath of both Democrats and Republicans…..

    Leaving the Progressives still in control
    In Washington DC!

  62. I must have missed that language in the Constitution. That we must submit to regulation of our natural, that is to say God given rigts, to appease the tyrannical gov’t. The noose just got a little tighter

  63. You guys are totally NOT getting it. This was Machiavellian politicking at it’s best.

    If you think something is unavoidable, like illegally demanding that all guns be sold with a NICS check, even those not sold through an FFL (and THAT is what “expanded background checks” actually means, I wish the LAZY would quit using the slime-by Media’s term to describe what is FEDERAL OVERSIGHT OF YOUR GUNS…the answer to which can only be “FU” and folks buy and sell amongst themselves anyway) and the open opportunity to have a uniform CCW standard for EVERY State….I think I would’ve done the same as Gottlieb.

    It was a smart play, some of you guys can’t see the “long game”.

    • SCREW the long game! What have the banner/grabbers EVER given up? Their idea of “compromise” is our side making concessions. Bit by bit.

  64. Making “reasonable” compromises is how we have effectively lost so many of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. There are no reasonable compromises of your rights.

    In other words, NFW!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here