Gottleib on Registration Again SMH

[Bruno2]

I picked this up from GOA's site:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/?s=Alan+Gottleib

Here he is beating his registration drum again.

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?

 

[Twiki357]

National concealed carry reciprocity - I hope he’s right.

Expanded background checks - I hope he’s wrong! The less Big Bro knows about what I have, the better.

 

[Pointshoot]

Gottleib had done some good legal work to support the 2A.


But his positions, as given in the link provided, . . ended my support for his organizations.
Even if he changed his position, I would not support him. I don't trust the man's thinking.




The federal government oversteps its authority in many areas. And while it would be great if there was concealed carry reciprocity across the country, this is a matter that is for state governments. (Such laws could be pushed at the individual state level, to make it happen.)

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Alan Gottleib is not my representative and I have not given him the authority to speak for me or to bargain away MY rights. CCW is a state's matter. Allow the several states to come to their own agreements concerning CCW(as long as we have to have one)reciprocity.

 

[gunnutery]

Personally, I don't think bearing arms is a states rights issue, considering the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A. States rights are for making laws that the government is not expressly forbidden to make.

Aside from yelling "fire" in a crowded place and harrassment laws, you can't really stop people using freedom of speech in the 1A. The 5A can't really be applied differently in other states either, so why should the 2A be any different?

 

[alsaqr]

Long time ago i refused to support the SAF and Alan Gottlieb; something just did not smell right. Then i learned that Mr. Gottlieb is a convicted felon who had his gun rights restored.

Here we have a convicted to felon running a gun rights organization, while shilling for a gun law that would make others felons for selling their private property. Go figure.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

I don't think bearing arms is a states rights issue, considering the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A. States rights are for making laws that the government is not expressly forbidden to make.

Normally I would agree, however, as long as a CCW is required by some/most states(I would prefer Constitutional carry)and those CCWs are to be administered and overseen by states. It is the states that should be able to recognize or not another state's CCW. Now, IF that "National Reciprocity" didn't require more than what my state of Alabama( and my county of Blount) requires to get a CCW, I might change my mind.

 

[Spats McGee]

Long time ago i refused to support the SAF and Alan Gottlieb; something just did not smell right. Then i learned that Mr. Gottlieb is a convicted felon who had his gun rights retored.

This is the first time I've heard this. Do you have any solid evidence? I'd be interested in seeing it.

As for Mr. Gottlieb, . . . . IMHO, he threw us under the bus with the Manchin-Toomey deal that he tried to cut, and I will likely never trust him again. My rights weren't his to bargain away.

I don't want universal background checks;
I don't want federally mandated national reciprocity; and
I certainly don't want to accept the first to get the second.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

My rights weren't his to bargain away.

^^^^^This!

 

[Bruno2]

If none of you guys have ever read the American Lawyer interview with Allan Gura from a couple years ago you should.UBC's are what the SAF is ultimately litigating for.

 

[alsaqr]

This is the first time I've heard this. Do you have any solid evidence? I'd be interested in seeing it.

Found it. It's also in the Federal Register.

The names of those granted relief are required to be printed in the Federal Register along with the court of conviction. ATF does not print the crimes of conviction. In 1989 the Violence Policy Center requested copies of the conviction records and ATF investigations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and specifically requested the records of Alan M. Gottlieb, head of the pro-gun Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. The agency refused to release all but Gottlieb's records. Gottlieb had pleaded guilty in 1984 to tax evasion. Two years later he applied for relief. In a pre-investigation interview Gottlieb explained to ATF agents that because of his involvement with the gun lobby and the fact that he was a director of the U.S. Ammunition Company, it was "awkward for him not being able to handle the ammunition product of the company...[and it was] also awkward for him not to handle firearms when he represents Citizens Committee to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment Foundation." Gottlieb's ATF investigative report (See Figure I-4 on pages five through 11) illustrates the comprehensive nature of the ATF investigation: interviews with regional law enforcement agencies, neighbors, friends, business associates, and arresting and probation officers. In recommending relief, Gottlieb's investigating officer described him as a "very devoted gun person...into conservative Right Wing stuff."

After a year of protracted negotiations with ATF for further information (ATF claimed Gottlieb's file was released as the result of his status as a public figure), the agency refused to release the documents.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/reliefone.htm








It's on one of the gun control sites. Gottlieb was one of the last to have his gun rights restored before congress cut the funding.

http://www.whoislog.info/profile/alan-gottlieb.html

The following year, 1984, was not a good one for Gottlieb. For openers, a federal grand jury indicted him on two counts of filing false income tax returns and neglecting to pay $40,000 in taxes for 1977 and 1978. He eventually admitted to underpaying by $17,000. He was fined $5,000 and sentenced to 366 days in a minimum security jail in Spokane. As jails go, it wasn't a bad place and anyway he was released every morning to do work-release fund raising for the local YMCA.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/mof.htm

He also spent seven months in prison for tax evasion. [3] In 1984, Mr. Gottlieb pleaded guilty to underpaying income tax returns by $17,000 and served ten months in Federal prison. [

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alan_Gottlieb

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Litigating for UBCs after you have filled out the boundaries of Second Amendment law on other issues (semi-autos, magazines, carry, etc. etc.) is one thing. Trying to legislate it BEFORE any of that is decided as a matter of law is suicidal. I will not support SAF any longer.

 

[Bruno2]

Here is an excerpt from the interview with Alan Gura (argued for the SAF in the Otis McDonald case)that was published in The American Lawyer:

Drawing Fire from His Usual Allies

Gura's current docket represents the final phase of a three-step plan that began with establishing via Heller that the Second Amendment affords an individual the right to bear arms, according to Levy. The second step involved ensuring that the right to bear arms applies to the states, which was achieved with the McDonald decision. The final, and most drawn-out, step is geared toward defining the scope of that right. "Everyone understands it isn't absolute and that there should be some restrictions," Levy says.
Maybe not everyone.

Gura has said he is hardly a gun rights absolutist and has expressed support for banning machine guns, preventing felons from acquiring weapons, and allowing instant background checks for prospective gun buyers. Those positions have put him at odds with some of his usual allies. During the Heller oral arguments, he said there was no question that governments could ban certain types of firearms and appeared to endorse not just background checks, but also laws requiring gun owners to store their arms in a safe.

"I received a very negative reaction from the real far-out, anti–gun control crazies, who were really angry with me," author Adam Winkler quotes Gura as saying in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. In the book, Gura recalled being compared to Osama bin Laden and Benedict Arnold, and drawing the ire of both the Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association. "These people are crazy," Gura told Winkler. "I could have [made an absolutist argument before the Court]. And that would have probably made me very popular in some cabin somewhere out there in the woods. Of course I would have lost 9 to 0."

The tension between Gura and the NRA is well documented. He clashed openly with the group during the Heller litigation, accusing it of trying to derail the case out of fear that the Court would deliver an unfavorable decision. Gura also felt the NRA tried to hijack McDonald. He was especially angry when the Supreme Court took some of his allotted time and gave it to the NRA, represented by then–King & Spalding appellate partner Paul Clement.

 

[Spats McGee]

Thank you, alsaqr.

 

[barnbwt]

In his defense, Gura is a lawyer, rather than an activist or rabble rouser. He is absolutely correct in stating his purpose is to convince a slate of judges of something amenable to his clients, rather than to satisfy all sympathetic interests. More like a politician; at the very basic level, little more than a mercenary. Honestly, I do trust a man like Gura is more capable of putting his personal beliefs aside when arguing a case than a lot of our crowds' favorites.

Gottlieb's just a tool, though. The SAF is one of the most consistently off-message RKBA groups there is, so much so I hesitate to describe them as one. The kind of group the NRA is constantly accused of being (pandering, disingenuous, and parasitic). In Gottlieb's defense, I'll go out on a limb and guess that the tax return for a guy at the helm of a pseudo-advocacy group who pays himself handsomely probably isn't the easiest thing in the world to file. I see his group as our side's version of the Southern Poverty Law Center (you know, a scam ). Nuclear engineer, just like Carter

TCB

 

[Bruno2]

I run a business and I am not an accountant. I hired one though and my taxes are filled correctly every year. I don't make as much as Gottlieb, but I got an extra thousand laying around to pay the bean counter so I don't go to jail or the poor house.

I don't like the part where he is in favor of restricting felons and the such as well as UBC's. Only because he got his rights restored.

 

[pseudonymity]

In his defense, Gura is a lawyer, rather than an activist or rabble rouser. He is absolutely correct in stating his purpose is to convince a slate of judges of something amenable to his clients, rather than to satisfy all sympathetic interests. More like a politician; at the very basic level, little more than a mercenary. Honestly, I do trust a man like Gura is more capable of putting his personal beliefs aside when arguing a case than a lot of our crowds' favorites.

In addition, Gura is mainly a civil rights lawyer as well, with no real background in 2A causes. Keep in mind that the Heller case was completely funded by a man who does not even own a gun and if I am not mistaken also believes in UBC. IMO, Gura does have some legitimate reasons to take offence to the NRA legal teams, most certainly after they took a portion of Gura's oral argument time in McDonald and granted it to the very same person that argued *against* Gura in Heller two years earlier.

I think there is room for all sorts of pro 2A organizations, from the large and diverse NRA, the vocal GOA, the focused push of SAF, the fundamentalist JPFO and others as well. Progress is progress, and pro 2A concerns have been making progress in the US as a whole since 1994 despite setbacks in some states (as in my current state of proto-incarceration).

 

[Bruno2]

I agree Pseudo. However, I have a fear of the SAF litigating something that could be potentially harmful if not lethal to the 2A such as UBC's. Gottlieb is trying his hand at an initiative right now according to the link in the OP here. This was the third step that the American Lawyer article discussed. They are going at trying to get UBC's in place as we speak. That's the death of the private sale or so called gun show loophole and the foot in the door for registration leading to confiscation.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

IMO, Gura does have some legitimate reasons to take offence to the NRA legal teams, most certainly after they took a portion of Gura's oral argument time in McDonald and granted it to the very same person that argued *against* Gura in Heller two years earlier.

Just to clarify, Clement argued FOR an individual right both as Solicitor General during Heller and as NRA counsel during McDonald. Here are the oral transcripts from Heller: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

Clement even suggested the Second Amendment protected machineguns based on Miller in those orals. So, I don't know I would agree with your characterization that Clement was arguing against Gura.

In any case, I think there is a big difference between legitimate differences of opinion in litigation strategy, or even one organization grandstanding, and supporting Schumer-Toomey-Manchin after Newtown and then doubling down on that mistake instead of acknowledging the error.

Gottleib appears to still think supporting STM was the right move and that was a good bill - even after guys like Dave Kopel and Dave Hardy pointed out big areas of concern with it. Even if his general point that universal background checks written by pro-gun people will be better than universal background checks written by anti-gun people is true, he seems to have judged wrong on both when to make that deal and how such legislation should be written. That's a big "oops" in my book. Failure to acknowledge the error means you don't get any further support from me.

 

[jgiehl]

Anything is inevitable if you roll over

 

[Arizona_Mike]

He's done some great work in the past but I think he is wrong here. CC momentum is on our side anyway and this might be a bad trade like the court-gutted travel law*. I can see the same type of Federalism, complexity, and jurisdictional issues that were an issue with the travel law.

Mike

*-I'm not saying that the Gun Owners Protection Act was a bad trade overall or that the NRA rolled over as some state (they clearly did not--they were taken by surprise). We got a lot of good things in that deal including the ability to buy ammo and components from non-FFLs and by mail.

Mike

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That was one of the things that annoyed me about Schumer-Toomey-Manchin. One of the "pros" for gun owners is that states like NY and NJ would actually honor the intent of 1986 FOPA instead of arresting gunowners who were forced into an unscheduled overnight layover while travelling with a firearm.

How ballsy do you have to be to offer to honor past agreements you already made as a concession for a new agreement? See, it is a compromise... We'll start doing what we promised to do 20 years ago if you'll just accept this new restriction.

 

[BryanDavis]

I recall the immediate post-Newtown climate here on THR... I think a number of people may have panicked. ... And the panic may have extended to even a number of "somebodies" in the upper echelons of the SAF.

But the Republican Party held strong and the new AWB didn't even make it past the Senate.

Now is a good time to dream of what you want for the 2nd Amendment and make that clear to your representatives. Nation-wide concealed carry reciprocity has been introduced a number of times. As I've said before on this forum if the Republican Party scores a trifecta in 2016 and wins the House, Senate, and White House your wildest dreams may come true. A repeal of the 1968 Gun Control Act, reopening the machine gun registry, you name it. If a Democratic Senate, House and White House can ram Canadian-style healthcare down everyone's throats just think what we can do given the same opportunity.

Anyways, I just felt like butting in with a message of hope instead of the usual pessimism I see on this forum.

 

[Bruno2]

But the Republican Party held strong and the new AWB didn't even make it past the Senate.

You are correct. However, the UBC idea got a lot of traction and blind sided a lot of us. We were going all out defending the AWB and were not looking for the sucker punch. That would have been far worse than an AWB. Once the camel gets its nose in the tent with registration then confiscation is right around the corner.

As I've said before on this forum if the Republican Party scores a trifecta in 2016 and wins the House, Senate, and White House your wildest dreams may come true. A repeal of the 1968 Gun Control Act, reopening the machine gun registry, you name it. If a Democratic Senate, House and White House can ram Canadian-style healthcare down everyone's throats just think what we can do given the same opportunity.

I don't see the Republicans doing anything like that. They had plenty of opportunities in the past to attempt it, but I have never heard anything of the sort. The Republicans in general are more pro gun than the Democrats for sure. However, I see them as the not as anti gun party where the Dems are the anti gun party. We need liberty minded people in office instead of conservative. Ron Paul would have been awesome, but the media destroyed him.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

If Gura is basically a civil rights lawyer then maybe that is what we need.

The 2nd Amendment argument has always been highly contentious and potentially vulnerable hook to hang our hopes on. I am giving 2nd Amendment supporters less attention and looking for support of firearms ownership as a basic individual freedom--a civil rights issue.

Civil rights and social justice have been the big hammer slung by the same crew that wants to restrict or ban firearms ownership. Once we make it clear that this individual freedom has the same standing as other civil rights they have a big problem.

I want it made clear that the basis for many regulations are based on fantasy (prejudice) and are therefore a form of bigotry. The fact that many laws were initially aimed at non-white citizens, that using "Saturday night special" (look up the history of that phrase) as the scapegoat is racist and that the fees often imposed are blatant efforts to discriminate based on socioeconomic standing make the case.

(Call me cynical, but I suspect that the civil rights movement in the 1960s alerted the anti gun crowd to the fact that demonizing "Saturday night specials" was not going to go over, forcing them to move to the funny looking EBR as the new scapegoat.)

I would like to see it clearly established that the Jim Crow laws limiting individual freedom based on prejudice is the same as any other laws limiting personal freedoms based on prejudice.

I think that this is more accurately the issue and a big enough stick to put it to rest.