Gottleib on Registration Again SMH

[Bartholomew Roberts]

(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.)

Actually, the original push for gun control was to ban handguns. Handguns were actually a part of the originally proposed NFA (which is why short-barrelled rifles and shotguns were also part of NFA). This got no political traction and handguns were removed from NFA. Although late gun control (like the 1968 GCA) would target imported handguns via the points system and in general do everything to make sure handguns remained expensive and out of reach. The Brady Campaign was previously Handgun Control, Inc., who was previously the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

Somewhere in the late 1980s, Violence Policy Center came up with the idea of targeting semi-automatic firearms because it would be easy to associate them with machineguns and bans on handguns were rapidly losing political support. BenEzra published a great chart on this in another thread; but it boils down to gun banners will ban anything they think they can target.

 

[pseudonymity]

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.

I was referring primarily to the fact that there is a long standing series of disagreements between the NRA and SAF legal teams. Clement was representing the opposing side, so in that sense he was "against" the Heller team. That being said, I think it is fair to say that Clement may have been more of pro-2A purist in Heller oral arguments then Gura was.

Also, despite how Gura may have felt about the grant of time to Clement for orals in McDonald, it seems that Clement had the correct idea regarding incorporation under Due Process.

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.

I certainly agree on the issue of trying to drum up support for MT. Gottlieb absolutely should never have trusted that any type of compromise solution would be honored in the final legislation. I believe Gottlieb is fixated on concealed handgun carry, and would willingly compromise other 2A protections to advance that goal.

That being said, the SAF legal work has been significant, but their legislative work is highly suspect. The legislative work of the NRA has been outstanding recently and their legal work mostly effective, but they also seem focused on pandering to a political world view that falls well outside 2A protections also.

 

[Spats McGee]

Just to clarify in regards to some comments earlier in the thread: civil rights lawyers are, in many ways, constitutional litigators. A big part of my job is civil rights defense, and I spend a big chunk of time in my cases working on constitutional issues.

 

[Bruno2]

Really I don't see why the antis don't attack handguns? It is easier to prove a better case against them than for an AWB. Just saying, the numbers are there for pistols.

 

[barnbwt]

...but not the poll numbers. That's the real problem

TCB

 

[Bruno2]

Yes, thank the Lord barnbwt for that!

The scary thing about the UBC to me was that it picked traction where the AWB was sucking hind teet. A UBC would be way worse than an AWB IMO. Nobody even saw the UBC dilemma coming until all the sudden they were going to vote on it and they had the blessing from the Godfather of 2A litigation (used to be Godfather).

Our own Tom Coburn was trying to push it. His FB page was on fire!! We had people saying they were moving him out of the State rather he liked it or not on his page.He backed out at the end, but his vote could have screwed us all.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Coburn had an alternate version that was truly universal background checks - it covered way more sales; but it also did away with a lot of 1968 GCA record keeping. He tried to convince Schumer to adopt it and got nowhere so he split off and offered it as an alternate to Schumer's bill; but it never even got a vote from Reid.

Coburn's bill actually would have been really good if it hadn't relied on the previous federal gun law infrastructure so much. Until you completely gut and rewrite the 1968 GCA reporting requirements, any UBC is going to end up in registration.

 

[Davek1977]

Really I don't see why the antis don't attack handguns? It is easier to prove a better case against them than for an AWB. Just saying, the numbers are there for pistols.

There are most likley far more pistols in circulation than "assault weapons" meaning that many more perople would join the fight to protect them. The "numbers may be there" for pistols, but if we had far more Chevys than Fords on the road, it only stands to reason more Chevys would be involved in more fatal accidents, all other things being equal. Gun owners bristled up and woudn't stand for an assault weapons ban on the federal level. What makes you think they would react any differently or more benignly if it only involved handguns, which many more people likely own? If the opposition to an assault weapon ban overwhelmed the anti-gun movement, imagine what would happen if they called for an outright ban on all handguns?!!?

 

[Bruno2]

I imagine that stuff all the time. Long guns have more "legitimate" purposes in the eyes of the antis like hunting. Also they aren't as concealable.

 

[hso]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E_z1mynceY

 

[kwguy]

They just keep looking for chinks in the armor. There's no logic, it's just that any victory for them is a loss for us. It's like a river wearing down a rock. If they can't get an AWB passed, they'll go,for something else. Like pistols, or magazine limits, or UBC. It's an assault on all fronts. Always has been.

 

[Bruno2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E_z1mynceY

hso, I just don't believe all of what he is saying. Alan seriously believes that 90% of gun owners want a UBC? He seriously thinks that just because it will be "illegal" to use the UBC data base for the wrong reasons will stop anybody from doing it? He thought that M-T getting shot down in Congress reflected badly on the antis b/c they were the ones that didn't agree to it? I haven't heard ay chatter at all about the antis being blamed or shamed for anything like that.

Gottleib seriously believes that we are headed for UBC's and there is no way around it?

My opinion is that the SAF or CCRKBA publicly getting behind a UBC is misrepresenting the pro gun people of our nation. This is giving the uninformed members of society(the sheeple) a false impression of where I stand.

The last thing I thought I heard was that he had no out of state private gun sales listed in MT. That is a totally stupid law. What state you live shouldn't have anything to do with private purchases. I am not on board with being required to ask any questions of anybody in a private sale. Also the fact that I cant ship my buddies 12 ga that he left here in Oklahoma back to him on South Dakota where he lives w/o going through an FFL is asinine. That is his property regardless of any laws restricting anybody from owning a gun (which he isn't prohibited).IMO this is an illegal search and seizure issue.

 

[CoalTrain49]

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.

UBC (universal background check) was a flanking maneuver because the trench warfare of the AWB (assault weapons ban) is getting less support as time goes on. It doesn't deliver the desired effects of decreasing crime or even stopping mass murder with a firearm. Liberal politicians and AG (anti-gun) types need a fresh horse and UBC is that horse. Every AG supporter would like to see a UBC in place and I believe it will become the primary focus of AG crowd. We have the issue on our ballot in the next election so it's a reality where I live. If it passes in WA look for it to come to your state soon. A UBC won't be effective either as private sales will continue as an illegal activity the same as drug deals. About the only thing it will do is help my friend who is an FFL/dealer buy a bigger boat.

I don't fear a UBC as I usually have one run on my sales and purchases anyway. I also understand that the SN record deletion is suspect and those records probably live somewhere in cyberspace and probably are being used to "fight crime". I'm not a proponent of that but I'm not so naive that I think it isn't happening. I also understand that my phone and computer is being monitored by the NSA looking for terrorist and criminal activity. I'm neither so they can keep looking. I can't do anything about it anyway.

Alan Gottleib has it right even if he is/was a felon. The new trend will be more people control and less gun control. People have a right to go about their business and be armed. Those rights are being expanded, not diminished. With that will come demands for more accountability in the form on licenses and permits. It's just another feel good program and those intent on mayhem will work around it like usual. Look at Oklahoma's recent CC/OC laws and you will get a good idea of some of the things to come. Notice that there is still private sales but penalties for selling to a certain class individual makes it a risky business.

 

[barnbwt]

Gottleib seriously believes that we are headed for UBC's and there is no way around it?

What would that be, an "appeal to inevitability?" Hardly a sound 'argument,' especially considering what Gottleib does for a living. This type of statement is nothing more than two-faced endorsement by those who want to promote something but not be associated with it.

TCB

 

[PavePusher]

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.

And isn't he the very example of why there should be an avenue to have Rights restored? Firstly, tax evasion shouldn't bear the burden of having such Rights removed. Non-violent, hardly a 'crime' (you give as much in taxes as you possibly can, right?). Secondly he has, in the main, done some very good work for everyone else's Rights.

 

[Bruno2]

I agree with most of what you wrote Pave. However, they have reached the point of trying to get something passed that we don't want. Also, trying to get something passed that could very well open Pandora's Box.

Like I keep saying, there are a lot of laws on the books regarding gun rights. If they haven't got a handle on stopping crimes committed with guns by now they aren't going to. I don't want to give one more inch!