Previous Post
Next Post

Senator Patrick Toomey and Joe Manchin (courtesy“I agree: it’s not a perfect bill.” Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottleib admits, referring to the Manchin-Toomey “compromise” on firearms background checks moving towards a Senate vote. “But it gives us a chance to make gains we couldn’t make in ten years. Maybe not ever.” In a telephone interview with TTAG, Gottleib did his level best to “sell” the Manchin-Toomey bill to skeptical gun owners—who’ve grown increasingly dubious after The Volkh Conspiracy’s recent analysis. Gottleib’s read Kopel’s kvetch regarding provisions for federal gun registries and interstate firearms transportation. The SAF’s main man admits that the bill’s language leaves something to be desired. “We can tweak it after we pass it,” he asserts. “Everything can be fixed [in the House version].” Yes, well, what about that federal gun registry thing . . .

“The government is prohibited from creating a gun registry now, under existing statutes,” Gottleib says. “The Manchin-Toomey amendment creates a penalty for doing so: 15 years in jail. It gives existing laws against a federal gun registry teeth.”

But wait! That’s not all! Gottleib points out that Manchin-Toomey bestows criminal and civil immunity on private sellers who sell a gun to a private buyer who then uses the firearm to commit a crime—provided the sale was conducted after a background check. It’s the same immunity that currently covers gun dealers and manufacturers.

Now would you support it? Well don’t answer! Gottleib says the Machin-Toomey Amendment restores veterans gun rights, permanently and explicitly removing the presumption of ineligibility. And it opens the doors to the interstate sale of handguns, with all the free market benefits that would bring.

So you get a severe penalty for officials who dare create a federal gun registry, immunity from prosecution for background checked private sales and more protection for veterans’ gun rights. But wait! If you support it, Alan reckons non-violent felons will also get their gun rights back. “There’s a definite deal, an agreement between Manchin and Reid that would make that happen.”

So . . . what about national reciprocity? Alan pauses almost imperceptibly. “There will be an amendment. I’m not sure that would pass,” he says, sounding sure it wouldn’t. Which could be a deal killer for a lot of gun guys who know that national reciprocity would be the death knell for states with a de facto concealed carry ban (e.g., New York and New Jersey).

Alan will have none of that defeatist talk, returning to his theme that something must be done now because Americans want something to be done now—creating an opportunity for gun rights.

“That 90 percent figure of Americans supporting background checks [after Newtown] is probably right—even though if you ask people if it’s going to work, to do anything to reduce violence, they know it won’t. I agree it’s not going to work. But it’s a window of opportunity for us.”

So why doesn’t the NRA support Manchin-Toomey?

“The NRA’s not willing to do anything because the other side is so Looney Tunes,” Gottleib says. “It’s like the right to life debate. The Pro-Choice side support partial birth abortions, which makes them look crazy. The Right To Life side insist that women who’ve been raped must have the baby, which makes them look crazy.

“Same thing here. There is no middle ground for the NRA . . . If they don’t do what can be done, they’ll win the battle but lose the war. I don’t want to lose the God damn war.”

Previous Post
Next Post


    • The reason we are not interested in their “deal” is that it is a backdoor registration method. If Democrats were really serious about a compromise, then a background check would not need to be retained, and it certainly would NOT need to include any information about the firearm or the seller. This is the main reason for the no-compromise approach.

      If I could get a card that said that I passed a background check, and that’s all I needed to show to keep and bear arms, I would be all for it (and you might actually get to this mythical 90% figure they keep touting). But that’s not what our opponents are interested in. If they proposed such a compromise, it would be shot down IMMEDIATELY. Our opponents are not interested in background checks. They use the public’s gullibility to use background checks to keep tabs on firearm owners. Why does the government need to know what I own? Total information awareness are what they are after, and that kind of state is not going to be pleasant to live in.

      We are talking about a government that has been in a state of emergency since 2001. We are talking about a government who gave itself the right to kill U.S. citizen without trial or due process. And we expect this same government to prosecute itself when it violates the firearm registry laws? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight…

      • It has a provision that gives a 15 year sentence for not destroying records (registration). Seriously, if I’m able to buy a gun without a background check, just by waving my CCW card, I’m good with banning private sales at gun shows (which are, lets face it, less than 10% of sales).

        • ” I’m good with banning private sales at gun shows (which are, lets face it, less than 10% of sales).”

          And then we wonder why it is so easy for them to chip away at our rights!

        • Are you hard of comprehension, or are you just purposefully trolling? Let me repeat myself: YOU STILL HAVE TO FILL OUT A 4473, which will then go to the ATF. Your CCW does not allow you to just come in, wave the card, and walk out. You still fill out the 4473, but it’s just that the FFL does not send it to the NICS.

          The ATF is prohibited from keeping a registry, yet they have every single 4473 ever filled out in their basement. It is just not indexed in a easy to access manner, which is how they currently get around the law. They routinely show up at FFLs to copy all of their 4473 on hand. And you think that none of our esteemed defense contractors hasn’t set up a registry before, given that they are private companies and not the government? Give me a break.

      • All this problem takes to solve is State compliance with small a Federal mandate (stick with me). In all cases, only a person of age can purchase a firearm. In order to prove that age they are required to show I.D. If everyone who applied for a State I.D. went through NICS and their issued I.D. indicated this then private sellers could simply check I.D. – many sellers already do this with CC Permits, to cover their asses. If you are ever convicted of a felony, or adjudicated mentally deficient the stamp/mark on your State I.D. is removed. A standardized method of appeal can also be put in place, and retail purchases can continue to use the existing system.

        Not perfect, but it does not invade privacy, does not involve a gun registry, works across all States and uses existing infrastructure to implement. Details could be worked out I’m sure.

        • How about we just make it so that if a person is free, they can buy a firearm? It worked for a really long time and I don’t think it ever stopped working. We just let government get in the way.

        • @ theaton – I agree 100%. But I am also a realist and want to make headway in that direction, not stall the conversation from the get go.

        • If we start the conversation by agreeing that the Constitution doesn’t really mean what it says, we’ve already lost the conversation and there is no point in having the discussion. That is exactly how “shall not be infringed” turned into “screw me any way you like.”

        • I could probably agree to this kind of system. None of the amendments are absolute. The problem is, our opponents would never be satisfied. As they have shown time and time again, what they truly seek is disarmament in exchange for the “security” of the state. Hardly a fair trade, methinks…

        • I suppose by the first not being absolute, you’re talking about not yelling fire in a theatre. That is correct. However, you can’t yell tire in a theatre either if you cause a panic. When you do that, you’ve used your right to infringe on the rights of others. That is the only time a right should not be absolute. My owning in arm does not infringe on the rights of others. When you go into a theatre, they don’t remove your voice box nor give you a lobotomy so you have no vocabulary. They don’t even tape your mouth shut. In other words, they don’t disarm you because you might yell fire when there is no fire.

      • Oh, wicked funny. You’re so blinded by your own stupidity you can’t see that democrats have fooled themselves with the whole “gun show loophole” for so long that they are willing to give up their first born to get at it. Wake up, this is a massive net gain for gun rights.

        • Ha Christopher even after it became clear there was no CCW reciprocity you are still pushing this as a “massive net gain for gun rights”.

          Many of the bad gun laws in the past were accomplished by picking on minority (10%) activities. Why join in on this game to limit rights? Also, your pulling those numbers out of thin air. The beauty of the private party sale is that noone knows how many transfers are taking place.

          Nowhere in the bill does it say you can just wave your CCW and bypass the background check process. It bypasses the NICS check in some very limited circumstances. How many states does this affect? Many states already allow CCW permit to bypass NICS. If you live in a state where this isn’t the case, move or at least stop telling the rest of us to give up our rights so you can skip a ~15min phone call that is the least onerous part of the current FFL purchase process. You still must fill out the 4473 and the purchase gets logged in the bound book.

          I would hate to see what you consider a loss.

        • Christopher,

          A real compromise would involve a background check with no information on the seller, and no information on the firearm being sold. Our opponents could care less about the actual background checks, which is why they would soundly defeat such a proposal. They want a list of persons of interest, along with what they own. If they really wanted to make sure that only law-abiding citizen had the right to keep and bear arms, they would have no problem with such a system.

        • Yes, exactly, but, as usual, the Left is using a euphemism that sounds nice but means that more of our liberty will disappear.

    • Gottlieb is either being disingenuous or is clueless.

      The “immunity” thing is a farce. If you sell a gun to someone and you have no reason to think they are a prohibited person, you won’t lose a lawsuit now. You’d be no more liable in this situation than if you sold your car to someone who then got drunk and caused a wreck. There’s been no rash of lawsuits making this frivolous claim either. This is “immunity” to an imagined threat.

      The fifteen year jail term for registries is a farce as well. If you think the federal Department of Justice is going to bring criminal cases against other federal officials for keeping lists, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

      • Sertorious, immunity is a big deal. You might win a lawsuit if you sell a gun to a criminal and he uses it for a criminal purpose, but it will cost you your life savings to win. Immunity means dismissal, and you’ll pay your lawyer less than the cost of his new Rolex.

        • I disagree. Settled tort law principles would require dismissal of the suit anyway. The intervening criminal act breaks the causation chain, in legal terms.

          If you think this a problem we need protection from, I challenge you to link me even one article about a regular person (not a gun dealer) being sued for selling a gun to someone who was over eighteen and not known to be a prohibited person. I doubt you can find one.

      • Yep, this.

        The violates federal laws that should result in felonies all the time. Rarely do prosecutions happen. Look no further than Fast and Furious.

        I think Mr. Gottlieb might be well intentioned, but looks like he needs a weekend of R&R to get back to reality.

      • The whole thing is a farce. The 5 or 10% of sales at gun shows are not worth defending, if we can get all that stuff out of the bill that is being offered. Tack on CCW reciprocity and see how they stand afterwards.

        • Not one inch, Christopher. I do not negotiate with people who have proven beyond any doubt that I can’t trust them.

    • I was about to join the SAF ontop of being a life nra member but thankfully i found out gottleib’s point of view. He seems to be too trusting of the government. Silly wabbit….trix are for kids!

  1. So, what exactly do we GAIN in this bill? DOJ doesn’t prosecute its own, it opens up other departments to create registries, it guts FOPA. This doesn’t sound like a win. The only potential win, CCW reciprocity, is being proposed as an amendment to the bad bill. We’re giving up everything on a promise to consider something we want.

    • Exactly, we gain nothing and lose private sales. Sorry Alan, but I’ve lost all faith in the SAF and CCRKBA after this. Also, if Alan is so confident, how come he scrubbed any mention of his support for this useless bill from all websites under his control?

      • Totenglocke, we do not lose private sales, Where did you get that?

        Truly private sales, just like transfers between family members, would not require a background check.

        • From reading the bill on Toomey’s site.

          Oh sure, they have an exemption for immediate family members, but all other private sales are toast. The claim that Machin-Toomey only goes after “gun show” and “internet” sales is a lie, it goes after all private sales.

      • Alan Gottlieb is a Capitalist first. Gun rights just happens to be his game. Spend 5 minutes Googling him yourself.

        • Capitalism is a good thing. Selling out the rights of others and calling it capitalism is a a bad thing. Treason!

        • If he were a capitalist he would not support the conversion of a right to a fee based privilege, as such government intrusion is the antithesis of capitalism and has been clarified as illegal at least since Murdock v. Penn, no matter how much it is done. Having broken the law previously is no excuse for breaking it again.

    • Our current DOJ might not prosecute its own, but if Eric Holder started a registry, whose to say that the next AG wouldn’t decide to prosecute him. While that might be unlikely, it would still be a deterrent. Who would want to risk that some pro-gun AG decides to enforce the law.

      • If Rand Paul or Ted Cruz got elected, I could see a new AG and Holder put in prison for F&F (of course he is innocent until proven guilty). I doubt a Clinton, Feinstein, Bloomberg, etc. would ever make such a move.

        • They are saying the right things NOW…but this is their first term…wait until they have been re-elected and are more interested in getting along with other Senators rather than representing their electorate…I hope I am wrong, but I have plenty of examples to lead me to that conclusion. See: Toomey.

    • If the public wants SOMETHING done. Is this the something that satisfies the low knowlege voter so they can go back to low knowledge activities with not much having been done.
      Maybe that’s what we get, not a lot taken away.

        • If you don’t like “appeasement”, what’s your alternative suggestion come next Newtown?

        • Why do we need an alternative suggestion? Do you hear calls for banning pressure cookers, backpacks or dufflebags after Boston? Did you hear calls for banning knives after the Texas incident last week? We only need get the message out about the anti’s hypocrisy.

      • How many times re you willing to give an inch to Progressives, KCK? Those inches add up after a while. Draw a line in the sand for once.

  2. Losing a little resepect for SAF here. The gains are there, but hand waiving the glaring problems as “we’ll fix it after we pass it” is not sound policy and downright poisonous to gun rights considering the abiguouosness of the language and who would be in charge of interpreting it.

    • “Fix it after we pass it,” means after we pass the amendment, not the whole bill. Amending an amendment to fix this sort of thing is common. If Dems refused, then it would bring down the whole bill.

  3. He doesn’t want to lose the war, eh? If he gets his way this will be a Pyrrhic victory.

    All we need to do at the federal level is stand our ground and block all of this ****. I think it’s the states where we’ll win or lose this war.

    Regardless, I’m not going to let this little man in a bowtie sell me out. I regret ever contributing to the SAF.

    • Agreed. I’ve promoted the SAF to others as the best option for where to donate your money due to their success in state level court decisions (and a couple SCOTUS decisions). However, seeing how he’s willing to sell out a right (private sells) for imaginary benefits (the government magically caring about restrictions on their power) I can’t make that recommendation anymore.

        • I’d contact them and ask for a refund after this. Obviously they know it’s shady since the SAF, CCRKBA, their Youtube accounts, and Facebook pages have been scrubbed clean of the posts about their support for this bill.

        • I called them yesterday and rescinded my lifetime membership and they agreed to refund my $150. I had to argue a bit because it had been longer than 30 days, but I consider Mr. Gottlieb’s actions to be a breach of implied contract. I can’t imagine too many joined as members in order to see the government given MORE power over our gun transactions…

        • I was getting ready to become a life member next week after I cleared up the bills from recent family vacation. $$ will be spent on ammo since I am a life member of the NRA already.

    • Absolutely. We stand our ground, we either win, or we lose. Incremental retreat leads to nothing but total failure.

      ARE WE FAILURES? Lemme hear ya say, “NO AND HELL NO!!”

      • Bluto: What? Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

        Otter: [to Boon] Germans?

        Boon: Forget it, he’s rolling.

  4. Did he have anything to say about current sharing of CCW information by states with DHS or ATF, as in the case in Missouri-the one case we know about, but few believe is the only incidence of this type of sharing? That sharing of the information was already illegal, but does anyone believe that one person will suffer any consequences?

    Personally I am tired of this”pass the law and then we will tweak it” BS……somehow the after passage action is never with the same since of urgency as before the passage.

    I have supported the 2AF in the past with membership and donations, but am questioning whether I will in the future.

    • When he says “pass” does he mean pass the Senate and get fixed in the House (somewhat reasonable) or pass into law and fix with a different law later (nuts)?

        • Than perhaps their is a chance – but I want CC reciprocity. Without that, I don’t see the point. The Holders and Gregory’s in this nation won’t get prosecuted. There is no precedent whatsoever to expect enforcement of an illegal registry. As it is the bill looks like two or three steps backward without any forward.

      • Sorry, but to me an iron clad National Reciprocity should be in the senate bill, long before it sees the light of day going to the house. If it is added in the house and then gets watered down back in the senate (Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer and Lautenburg) we lose big time!

        All of this bill needs to be clarified before going forward!

        • Ain’t gonna happen, Captain. Schumer doesn’t want all of us rednecks running all over NYC with our Bibles in one hand and our pistols in the other trying to find a Mt. Dew Big Gulp.

  5. Ok, proposed thought exercise:

    Taking the core of M-T (background checks for gun shows and internet based sales to strangers) what changes/improvements can be made to reduce/eliminate the risks folks like Kopel see and what reasonably-attainable (no “get rid of the NFA” pipe dreams) advances can be included to make this bill net pro-gun?

    Maybe a TTAG competition, we could get an outside judge that is pro-gun but also a political realist.

  6. How about an amendment doing the following: prohibiting any govt agency from creating registry, removal of civil immunity for violation of the no registry, national reciprocity, a mandate that the bill can only be amended by a 3/4 majority in both houses, and a kicker – if congress tries to strip out national reciprocity or civil/criminal penalties, then something onerous kicks in, like elimination of all federal taxes on guns and gun related products for a 10 year period.

      • Theaton, I’m amazed that of all the posters here, only one lone voice cries out in the wilderness to say “NO MORE COMPROMISE-NO MORE NEW LAWS-” So many here and across the country have thrown in the towel because the left tells us WE MUST DO SOMETHING. How about we do something like this. HELL NO…OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT FOR SALE. THEY ARE NOT UP FOR A VOTE. MAJORITY OPINIONS ARE JUST THAT, even if I am the only American left who believes I have a right to keep and bear arms, without anyone including the government knowing who I am, or what I own…I am still free to own, and carry what I want, buy it from whoever, whenever and government will just have to kiss my ass. HOW BOUT WE DO SOMETHING …like that?

  7. “We can tweak it after we pass it,”

    I take Alan may no longer be playing with a full deck or are his true colors finally starting to show?

    • Depends, if he means “Get the Senators invested in the core concept, clean it up in the House, and then pressure the Senators to pass the House version” that is risky but makes some sense. I agree if he thinks we will pass a second separate law to fix it that is NUTS.

      • That makes sense except for the history of Gun Control….when has a concession that has seemed reasonable on its face, turned out not to have shafted Gun owners, the 2nd Amendment, individual rights, liberty or essential freedom? I can’t think of a time. Its seems to me that the only safe way to preserve what few rights we have left is not to concede any.

  8. I wish someone would ask Gottleib why the bill waives the HIPAA law and allows the government to collect your medical records as part of the background check.

    As seen in NYS, those medical records can be data mined and if you have ever taken some medication that the police suddenly consider a prohibitive class of drugs, then your gun rights are denied and your pistol permit pulled, and your guns need to be turned in.

    Allowing the government to link to your medical records creates 4th amendment issues that can prevent you from excercising your 2nd amendment rights.

    Doctors prescribe medications for multiple uses. Maybe a specific crazy person should be denied, upon a doctor’s concern for safety. But maybe someone else, using the same medication for a different reason, has no doctors concerned about him or her. Yet this bill allows the government access everyone’s medical information and decide what prescription drugs should ban you from gun ownership, and see that 5 years ago you took that drug, so you now fail the background check.

  9. Can someone explain the “safe travel” portion of the bill?

    Please excuse me if this is a duplicate. I do not think my earlier question got posted.

  10. Sadly, I have donated to SAF. Won’t happen again. I have purchased at Cheaper Than Dirt! Won’t happen again.

    Whatever anyone on OUR side thinks, we MUST PRESENT A UNIFIED FRONT.

    So Gottlieb should have talked to Chris Cox at NRA-ILA FFIIRRSSTT!!

    Some folks might think they’re doing what’s best for us, but when it comes down to it, victories are frequently of the divide and conquer variety.

    • If TTAGgers who’ve donated to SAF would call and demand their money back, it would deliver a powerful message. What’s stopping you?

      OF COURSE you won’t get it back; that’s not the point.

      • I just called yesterday and got my lifetime membership money back that I had paid in March.

        Even if they don’t give you the money back, I agree it’s worth calling to let them know how dissatisfied you are.

        And send a letter directly to Alan, too – I did that as well.

    • “So Gottlieb should have talked to Chris Cox at NRA-ILA FFIIRRSSTT!!”

      He probably did and that’s what got him in the anti-gun mood.

  11. I’m starting to regret having donated to SAF now… and getting close to adding Gottleib to the same category I have DiFi in. I appreciate all that SAF has done in Illinois, but seriously, if this is what he supports now, then I have to say “FOAD Alan!!”

  12. As far as I can tell the bill does NOT “open the door for interstate firearm sales”. The bill all but bans almost all private firearm sales, requiring all firearm sales other than family members (out to spouses of first cousin) to go through an FFL dealer. It specifically prohibits there be any regulation passed to require an FFL dealer conduct a background check for a private sale and it specifically prohibits any cap on what fee an FFL dealer could charge for such a service.

    A person has to wonder why the federal government would want to force ALL firearm sales to have to go through FFL dealers. FFL dealer that are regulated by the ATF. Maybe at a ‘future date’ the ATF might hand down a “You may not sell these weapons” proclamation, and maybe such a proclamation might not require any legislation to be passed.

    • It’s easy, they redefine them as an NFA weapon, either as an AOW or as a destructive device, or declare them to be readily modified to be machine guns. They already apply the “sporting purposes” test to imports, and have ruled certain 12 gauge shotguns to be destructive devices rather than, you know, shotguns.

    • Without complete registration of firearms, you can’t force a sale though an FFL. I sold every firearm I’ve ever purchased. If I hadn’t done that, I could sell any of them to any other person. Without a complete and current database, there would be know way for the government to know? Non-compliance killed Canada’s registration. I hope non-compliance in the United States would be even worse.

  13. Why does the bill waive HIPAA and allow the government to link to your medical records. If they decide a certain prescribed class of drugs now gets you on the denial list, they won’t care why it was prescribed. We all know doctors can use a medication to treat a variety of issues. If a medication you took 5 years ago, for anxiety before a surgery, suddenly becomes associated with crazy mass killers, you could then be on the banned list.

    The decision would be made without doctor input, but instead just because this bill allows a governement database to link to your medical and prescription records.

  14. The Rights secured by the blood of patriots should not be dismissed because someone cried on TV, despite what our socialist leaders say.

  15. Call SAF and complain and ask for your donations back (even if they refuse to give them).

    Second Amendment Foundation
    James Madison Building
    12500 N.E. Tenth Place
    Bellevue, WA 98005
    Voice: 425-454-7012
    Toll Free: 800-426-4302
    FAX: 425-451-3959

  16. I also don’t believe in this “registration” thing. Today’s background checks don’t create a database. How is doing more checks creating a database. I would rather focus on the Constitutionality of the Federal government interfering in intrastate commerce. That to me is the deciding factor.

    I thoroughly support legislation to keep weapons out of the hands of those who should not have them, but on the other hand, I am a responsible weapon owner, and I will never sell a weapon, even within the confines of my state, without going through an FFL or seeing a concealed carry permit.

    • “Today’s background checks don’t create a database.”

      Hundreds or thousands of FFL’s have gone or been forced out of business over the years since Form 4473 came about. When that happens, the ATF collects all of the forms from the closed FFL. What do you think they do with them?

      Please show me one piece of legislation that has kept weapons out of the hands of those who should not have them? On a side note, who gets to decide who should not have weapons?

      • yes I know about FFLs that go out of business, but that doesn’t change either from what exists today. I was at a gun show and witnessed a background check come back negative on a felon. does that count?

        I think the trend right now is felons are not allowed to have weapons. Since mental illness is a slippery slope, we’re going to have to work out way through that one. I’m pretty sure we can all agree that people that are shit house crazy should not have access to weapons.

        • No, it doesn’t count. Felons can have weapons, just not firearms. How do you know he was a felon? How do you know it wasn’t a mistake in the NICS system? I’d rather have a thousand felons buy arms than one free citizen be denied. Besides, felons should have all rights restored when they are let out of prison. If a person is to dangerous to possess arms then that person needs to be locked up. If we’re worried about felons, why don’t we deny them the right to buy knives, baseball bats and rope? Many “gun owners” have been trained to believe that felons shouldn’t have guns because guns are just to dangerous. However, a gun is no more dangerous than a knife, club, rope, car, rat poison, etc…. You’ve bought into the lefts delusion.

        • Who gets to define who’s crazy? You? How long until people who vote against Dear Leader are labeled crazy and banned from ownership?

    • I personally think that Mr. Gottleib truly believes in what he is doing. In most cases I agree with him, in this case I do not, but I do not question his motives.

  17. “Gottleib says the Machin-Toomey Amendment restores veterans gun rights, permanently and explicitly removing the presumption of ineligibility.”

    Nothing in law is permanent. Not even a Constitutional Amendment.

  18. To everyone who said “The NRA will throw us under the bus and compromise like last time! Support the SAF instead!”, you might want to wipe all that egg of your faces.

    • Yes, it is looking like that. I’m man enough to admit I was wrong about the SAF.

      But that doesn’t make me wrong about the NRA.

      I wonder when someone is going to submit a bill to repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act. I’d like to see more offense and less defense.

      • I wonder when someone is going to submit a bill to repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act.

        And I wonder when I’ll get to ride a pink unicorn through Area 51.

        • But their repeal should be the counter to the requests to “compromise.” Compromise from status quo is just an increasing infringement.

      • DITTO…There are many laws which need to be stripped from the books. PROGRESSIVES HATE to lose any of their ground but I dearly love it when they do.

  19. I’m losing confidence in Alan Gottlieb’s ability to form an argument and influence politicians.

    What kind of idiot angers a huge chunk of people on either side of the abortion debate by characterizing their positions as looney? Why pull them into the equation at all? This is about guns, not abortion. With as much divisiveness as there is on guns, there is no advantage in dividing even further with guns.

    I called the SAF yesterday and they asked me to wait 48 hours before making up my mind. Mr. Gottlieb’s statements here do not help his cause at all. He is looking more and more like someone who is star struck by being included in helping “draft” the legislation.

    • Gottlieb is probably looking at ways he can argue cases based on this law rather than the reality of what will happen in the meantime.

      I agree with Skyler – all the regulations (excepting Weapons of Mass Destruction, unless someone can convince me) should be repealed.

  20. You guys should be doing standup at the Improv. Last month, the NRA was selling us out. This month, SAF is selling us out. Meanwhile, both the NRA and SAF have done more to promote gun rights in America in the last few months than all of you in all your lifetimes combined. So who’s laughing at you? The Brady’s, VPC, Obama and the rest of the gungrabbers.

    Really, guys. The next time you do your schtick, insist on a cover charge and a two drink minimum.

    • But the SAF is looking like idiots. They felt a need to “compromise” and support a bill that now everyone is saying won’t even pass.

      It’s an unforced error.

      • Skyler, there are (at last count) 39 Senators opposed. We need 41. The SAF isn’t a lobbying organization, but they can read tea leaves as well as Thomas Lipton.

    • Maybe it’s not a big deal to you since you live in MA, but the rest of us in free states that still enjoy the ability to sell our property to trusted friends without going through an intermediary don’t really care for this compromise.

      It’ a substantial trade-off and we don’t get anything worth a damn in return other than promises that the government will police itself. Yeah, right.

      Gottlieb thinks he’s a clever man doing us all a favor. I disagree.

      • us in free states that still enjoy the ability to sell our property to trusted friends without going through an intermediary

        @Michael B., you would still have that right under M-T.

        • Possibly, as long as we don’t discuss it online ahead of time. Or do the deal at a gun show. I’m not sure so I cautiously concede you may be right about that.

          I still think this is a bad bill and if passed in its current form will impact hundreds of close-knit state online gun communities, which is something else that really bothers me. All those lovely B/S/T forums on our FL gun rights boards, where gunnies can find good deals and trade with other people of the gun, go bye-bye.

          I’m also of the opinion that when something else happens the banners will probably go after the obvious “loopholes” M-T creates. What will we compromise then?

        • @@Michael B., I’m not supporting the bill as it is now written. But I still support SAF.

          Have we already forgotten Heller & McDonald?

        • I gave the SAF money when they and Gura were fighting the good fight and I’m proud of that. But I’ll have to think long and hard before I give him more greenbacks in the future. Sorry, Ralph. I get where you’re coming from but I feel jilted, especially since this whole thing was totally unnecessary and something Gottlieb decided to get involved with.

          Up until this compromise there were no serious pieces of gun control legislation that even looked like they had a chance of passing. I certainly hope this one dies an ignominious death.

          I’ll continue to be a member of the NRA, the GOA, the VCDL, and FL Carry but Alan has some ‘splainin’ to do if he wants my contribution next year. I don’t want him playing Game of Thrones with the bastards up there on my dime when we don’t have to play it.

        • Have you read the text of the bill on Toomey’s site? Because according to what he posted as “the official bill”, no, you wouldn’t be able to do that – all private sales except to relatives would be banned.

          @Michael B

          Good news is that multiple news sites are reporting that both the Senate and House aren’t too fond of the M-T bill and are saying that they don’t expect any bills to pass.

    • So why is this bill worthwhile without national reciprocity? I’m not selling out the SAF, just wondering what value you see in this legislation? Or do you think that the house can add reciprocity and other pro freedom amenemts in the house?

      • I didn’t say that it was worthwhile. I’m not supporting M-T. But turning on SAF and NRA is about as stoopid a move as I could imagine. And yet, here it is.

        I have seen the enemy, and he is us.

        • I agree. I’m an NRA, FPC, GOA, SAF, etc. member. I won’t be asking for my dues back. I don’t agree with the returning of dues, but I do agree with holding the NRA and SAF accountable. If you have a better way to approach the matter I’m all ears. In Gottlieb’s video, he mentioned CCW reciprocity. Yet I don’t see that in the text. That’s got me concerned.

        • National CCW reciprocity is already in the Constitution of the United States. Why would we need another law saying the same thing? If we’re to lazy to have the original law enforced then what makes you think the second will fair any better?

        • I didn’t pay Gottlieb to give up some of my liberties for me in exchange for empty promises from the government. That wasn’t part of the deal when I joined the SAF. I paid him to put a stop to **** like this and keep fighting court battles.

        • Michael B – That’s exactly right – and that’s why many, many supporters paid him – because that’s how he portrayed himself. So after a massive surge in new donations, he turns around and tells us we have to give the government even more control over gun transactions and just trust that the government won’t ever use the information for ill. And to add insult to injury, he tell us to take a hike if we disagree. Well, I’m taking a hike, Alan, but you might wish soon enough that I – and many others – hadn’t left.

        • I don’t intend to quit the SAF. But I do expect them to line up a bit better than this. Gottlieb may be the leader of SAF, but he may need to find other employment.

        • No, Ralph, the enemy is “gun rights” groups that sell out our rights while still taking our money in the name of defending our rights. The SAF and CCRKBA KNOW that they screwed up because they’ve scrubbed any mention of their support for this bill from their web presence. Alan should have issued a public apology for his mistake, not talked to Rob and pushed for why we need to ban private sales.

        • Why do people keep saying they have “Scrubbed all mention of their support of this bill”? If you go to the CCRKBA website, their reason for support is the main thing on the page! They suck at scrubbing.

    • So, your buddy was your best wingman ever, and helped you meet your wife.

      You should not get mad when you come home early and he’s bangin’ her?

    • Ralph,

      You really have no idea what the posters here have done to promote gun rights in America.

      The NRA has been selling our rights out at a faster pace than they have been promoting them. As long as they can get cash to pay their six and seven figure salaries, they really don’t care about the underlying right. Actually, having the underlying right in danger is better for the NRA.

      Of all of the pro-gun people, I never even guessed that Alan would sell out. However, even if the NRA and SAF had a two hundred year history of never backing down or giving in, the first time they did, they would be subject to ridicule. Let’s say a neighbor has lived by you for decades and never gave you any problem. One day he comes over and steal’s stuff out of your house. Are you going to give him a break?

      • When Mr. Gottleib takes a case, I am sure he has weighed that there is a good chance he will prevail. Surely he has turned down cases where he personally felt the issues needed to be defended but there was no way he could see a victory. Perhaps, being pragmatic, he views this bill as the best that can be achieved, realizing that there WILL be a bill of some type…the Media demands it.

        I choose to differ with him but I do not believe that his stance is a sell out, just in this instance, wrong .

        • So your saying that Alan’s view is: they’re going to kill us so we might as well make them choose an axe rather than a sword?

        • Unlike you, I will not presume to know what all of the posters here have done in the fight for rights. I personally write to my Federal Congressmen weekly and my state legislators monthly. I regularly write editorials for local and national papers. I’ve had some local ones published but never any national ones. I keep trying though. I have written amicus curiae for Heller, McDonald and other cases. Have they done any good? I have no way to know. Have I done my duty as a citizen? I believe so.

          From your writings here it is obvious that you are okay with a few infringements as long as those infringements don’t affect you personally.

  21. Let’s see, we abandon Gotlieb and the SAF. We abandon WLP and the NRA. Who do we have left if we ditch and call traitor to everyone that makes a misstep? Are you guys sure you’re pro 2a and not actually working for slow joe?

    Beat me to it Ralph and stated it better, as usual.

    • We have left the only people that we should ever depend on, ourselves. If we expect others to do our duty we will always be disappointed.

    • Some of the guys complaining about SAF — like Skyler, as one example — are well-intentioned hardliners. I don’t mean to disrespect other hardliners by leaving them out. We’re on the same side.

      I like the hardliners’ style, but they’re not thinking this through. Supporting the SAF and supporting M-T are two different things. I support the SAF, but I’m not supporting M-T in its current form.

      The other voices belong to a bunch of newly arrived concern tr0lls. They think they’re clever, but like unruly children playing around adults, they’re very easy to spot.

      • If you pay the SAF to support M-T and you don’t support M-T then you are either neutral or you’ll have to work a hundred times harder to defeat M-T. Unless you think your single voice is equal to or greater than the Alan’s voice. You would make a good Obama supporter! “I support Obama but I don’t support spreading the wealth, more taxes and more spending.”

      • i agree with ralph 100%
        i guess those hard liners dont understand the concept of current politics. want everything you want all at once? actually think that by calling your senator tomorrow, hes not gonna say the same damn thing he said today? wanna big ass cookie because “youre doing all you can?”
        wake up. if your senator isnt on your side, he’s not going to be simply because a crap ton of people call him. this isnt something we can win (excuse the pun) guns blazing. theres this thing called political strategy that plays a part. i’d trust him to win SO MUCH quicker than anyone on here.
        i dont support the bill at all, but id rather take this bill than anything else that would be put forward by the far left dems. i’d take it in a second. Alan knows what he’s doing, alot more than most of you armchair trolls out there. wanna try and do something he cant or do his job even better? i’d sure love to see it.

        • We know we can’t get everything at once. However, there is no reason to take 5 steps backwards for one perceived step forward.

          “i dont support the bill at all, but id rather take this bill than anything else that would be put forward by the far left dems.”

          You’ve bought into the lefts idea that when something happens, a new law must be passed. Why is that? Why should we accept any legislation that doesn’t address the problem trying to be solved. The only problem that is trying to be solved at the moment is an armed citizenry. It’s unfortunate that some on the right assist in this tom foolery but it’s shameful when supposed gun-owners also assist.

    • Why depend on anyone? Why look to any organization to do what we as Americans were tasked with doing simply by being citizens?

      • Because many citizens have been trained that they can’t do anything and it’s the job of others to fix stuff.

  22. 10 reasons Gun Owners of America opposes this bill. This organization, along with the Illinois Rifle Association, has been the heavy lifter fighting for concealed carry in what was the last holdout in the nation, Illinois. They have been going toe to toe with the corrupt Chicago machine, and though I still am chewing my nails, looks like we probably will get a pretty good bill. Ironically, we seem to making progress while great portions of our nation are losing their freedoms. But I digress. GOA has earned a lot of credibility with us here in Lincoln Land. Might want to get one more take on it. They confirmed my initial gut feeling. ANYTHING labeled a “compromise” smells like a sell out for our side.

  23. To hell with compromise. Our rights are non-negotiable. Scrap the bill with the anti-2A junk, introduce a bill with only the good stuff. See how easy it is?

  24. Gottleib is usually right, but this time he’s got it all wrong. There is nothing solid in this bill for us… Well, nothing that is a net gain.

  25. I said this once already, I’ll say it again. This should NEVER have come to pass. But for 16 FUCKING TURNCOATS who probably either thought it would be cute to let those Dems show their already well known colors, they let the camel inside the tent. This entire ‘compromise’ should have been thrown in the trash basket. The ONLY thing that should have been done was to allow private sellers online or telephone access to NICS 24/7 and the funding to make it so. THAT IS ALL. Would have taken 3 pages on a legal pad, tops.

  26. Does anybody have any insight into the reasoning behind some of the provisions of subsection (t) paragraph (4)? They include such things as precluding the ATF from making regulations requiring FFLs to participate in providing background check services to private sellers, or placing a cap on the fee they may charge for this service. Is this an honest attempt to protect FFLs (from…?), or is it some kind of a prelude to blocking the availability of background checks to private sellers?

    • If you can’t get an background check done or it costs too much money then you can’t sell your firearm, at least theoretically.

    • A charitable reading may be to prevent the government from creating unduly burdensome procedures or capping the price at a level where it isn’t worth it to the FFLs to run the check.

  27. “But it gives us a chance to make gains we couldn’t make in ten years. Maybe not ever.”

    I’m sorry, I can’t seem to grasp how stepping towards more gun control lets us make headway in the opposite direction.