My Open Letter To The Second Amendment Foundation

Hello

I DO NOT support background checks as why do I need one to sell my personal property. This is an infringement on my liberty. And i will not stand by as you whittle away my rights for concessions on pistol purchase registration. Both are infringements on my liberties and rights. You should not be substituting one thing for another and Iam appalled that the SAF would even entertain this idea. Tell the legislature to stay out of my personal private affairs and support the people to freely associate and buy or sell their personal property without government intrusion. Shall not be infringed, Shall not be impaired.

Sincerely
XD45PlusP

You can also tell them how you feel.

http://www.ccrkba.org/index.php?page_id=2

I was quite disappointed to hear of their capitulation. I think the best we can now hope for is gridlock in Olympia.

Read this: http://www.examiner.com/article/firestorm-erupts-over-story-about-ccrkba-and-background-checks

SAF is a legal organization, not a lobbying group..that's CCRKBA

Gray Peterson said:

Read this: http://www.examiner.com/article/firestorm-erupts-over-story-about-ccrkba-and-background-checks

SAF is a legal organization, not a lobbying group..that's CCRKBA

Click to expand...

Great link Gray, thanks! Please everyone read that article before passing judgement.

A compromise is a compromise is a compromise....is a loss.

Gray Peterson said:

Read this: http://www.examiner.com/article/firestorm-erupts-over-story-about-ccrkba-and-background-checks

SAF is a legal organization, not a lobbying group..that's CCRKBA

Click to expand...

Mission Statement The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is dedicated to promoting a better understanding about our Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms. To that end, we carry on many educational and legal action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate.

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=mission

Click to expand...

Sounds like a lobby group to me. Now, are they a registered lobby group? I do not know.

OC for ME said:

Sounds like a lobby group to me. Now, are they a registered lobby group? I do not know.

Click to expand...

Education isn't to politicians, it's to the general public. Legal is filing lawsuits, like the case that took down IL's total gun carry ban, or striking down Chicago's handgun ban, or Chicago's total civilian range bans.

I was ready to shoot off a heated letter to CCRKBA when I saw this, but after reading the Examiner article I will not. Thank you for that article, Dave.

Alan Gottlieb is using political tactics to achieve a bill that does not totally screw Washington gun owners, and he is in a good position to do that. Our job is to write our legislators in opposition to any "universal" background check bill, compromise or not. We are both fighting against an unrestricted "unlimited" background checks law; Alan is not betraying us.

The best outcome is for no bill to pass. Ideally this would be because of popular opposition, but, as Alan says, it's possible the gun grabbers who proposed and support this won't tolerate a compromise that isn't "we get everything we want, you get nothing" and kill the bill completely. If that happens, then his tactics were sound.

If "universal" background checks does pass in the face of opposition, then better it has been weakened through compromise as Alan proposes: no more retail sale records, CPL holders exempt, etc.

Thanks Gray

Thanks for the link Gray great read.

Gray Peterson said:

Read this: http://www.examiner.com/article/firestorm-erupts-over-story-about-ccrkba-and-background-checks

Click to expand...

Another obsequious, butt-kissing article by Workman, defending those who advocate "reasonable regulation" and compromise. What else is new?

Mandating government control (whether by CPL or by background check at point of sale) of every legal firearm purchase, in exchange for supposedly doing away with a state database of some legal gun owners, is by no means a "win." Any mandatory background check can be used for de-facto registration, anyway. I will also guarantee that no mandatory background check provision is going to go away.

Gottlieb defends his absurd position by whining, "But, but, but...this would be the first time a state registration requirement went away!" Big freakin' deal. First of all, it's not even a true registration requirement, because it can be easily (and legally) circumvented by private sales. Second, even CANADA did away with a NATIONWIDE, MANDATORY registry of all long guns, because gun owners RESISTED and REFUSED over a period of years. They didn't cave in and bend over the way Gottlieb is doing.

I used to tell people to support the SAF, and how they weren't like the other limp-wristed "gun rights" organizations. Screw that. We don't need compromisers in leadership positions. The anti-gunners have been moving the goalposts in every discussion, and we acquiesce to playing ball on their new field, losing our rights in the process. We need to start at the position of "shall not be infringed," every single time. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

I see this as a 2 steps forward 1 step back kind of a thing.

Right now, this whole debate is a give and take. Everyone must give to take. It's what is causing both sides to both win and lose.

I, just as most people on both sides, would like nothing more for this to be all take. Unfortunately it isn't all take and to seem reasonable, we have to be able to throw them a bone everyone in a while. This is why so many pro and anti gun bills are dieing. They are all take. We just have to make sure what we take is always more than we give so that the end game can come to be. If we're 50 behind but every move we take 2 while only giving 1, we will eventually win.

With all of the changes being proposed, this bill will be almost entirely pro with just a little con. This will either progress us a little or kill it and leave us in no worse position.

This is just my opinion, though. I may be young and naive.

Playing political games and gambling with our freedoms is a dangerous thing. We shouldn't be compromising, and just because some of us hold our nose and follow the law by getting CPL's and the requirements for it does not in any way rationalize a broader infringement.

Constitutionally they have no right to keep those records and registration anyway, we should simply ask by what authority they do this........none.

I understand why people think this is a win, but it is from a defeatist attitude that we are loosing anyway so lets loose a little less.......sadly this has been the history of compromise that has gotten us into the position we are in today.

xxx.jakk.xxx said:

I see this as a 2 steps forward 1 step back kind of a thing.

Right now, this whole debate is a give and take. Everyone must give to take. It's what is causing both sides to both win and lose.

I, just as most people on both sides, would like nothing more for this to be all take. Unfortunately it isn't all take and to seem reasonable, we have to be able to throw them a bone everyone in a while. This is why so many pro and anti gun bills are dieing. They are all take. We just have to make sure what we take is always more than we give so that the end game can come to be. If we're 50 behind but every move we take 2 while only giving 1, we will eventually win.

With all of the changes being proposed, this bill will be almost entirely pro with just a little con. This will either progress us a little or kill it and leave us in no worse position.

This is just my opinion, though. I may be young and naive.

Click to expand...

The only way our liberty is maintained is to be sure that any "gun legislation" dies. Compromise is not a good thing where rights are concerned. ANYONE.....ANYONE!!! who advocates compromise re our liberty is not as liberty centric as they must be.

Liberals count on us liberty centric citizens to compromise our liberty away in degrees.....absurd, simply absurd.

OC for ME said:

The only way our liberty is maintained is to be sure that any "gun legislation" dies. Compromise is not a good thing where rights are concerned. ANYONE.....ANYONE!!! who advocates compromise re our liberty is not as liberty centric as they must be.

Liberals count on us liberty centric citizens to compromise our liberty away in degrees.....absurd, simply absurd.

Click to expand...

+1

No more compromises period. If this bill passes I am moving out of Washington.

Jeff Hayes said:

No more compromises period. If this bill passes I am moving out of Washington.

Click to expand...

I hope it doesn't! I'd hate to have a fellow patriot like yourself leave.

Gray,
If this bill passes will this then also remove the requirement that FFL's will have to call in those with CPL's to NICS? or will there still be a double standard?

sudden valley gunner said:

I hope it doesn't! I'd hate to have a fellow patriot like yourself leave.

Click to expand...

We have already been looking in Idaho, I am tired of financially supporting a state government that I disagree so strongly with. In the last year I have directly caused several companies to not relocate/start up in Washington. Washington is no longer freedom friendly, business friendly and taxes are about to go through the roof those things along with the coming firearms laws is a bit much for me to tolerate not to mention every day I live here I am financially contributing to the ending of my rights and freedom.

I for one would love to see the state gun registry go away. I'd swap that for locally executed background checks with no records retained and plenty of exemptions. If we can trade one really bad law in for one way less bad law AND fend off the gun grabbers at the same time, I like it. It's playing their "You're not willing to compromise" game against them - showing them what real compromise really is. It's no net loss of freedom.

Bill Starks said:

Gray,
If this bill passes will this then also remove the requirement that FFL's will have to call in those with CPL's to NICS? or will there still be a double standard?

Click to expand...

Bill, there is a different bill in the house covering the CPL Exemption that should of been passed last year.