Here come background checks....
I dont trust ANY media, they lie...
But Allen Gottlieb, if this is true as stated, you suck moonbat dick. Fuck you.
Never Compromise..... come fucking take them.
 

Republican Leader Mark Schoesler said no social and no gun bills will be coming through the senate this year.  If its not a budget or education bill forget about it

FU, Gottleib.  I just went SAF Life and he's going to be getting a piece of my mind. I've given to the SAF for the past few years and it stops if he goes full retard.



Also a (yearly) member of CCRKBA and sent them an email on WTF they are thinking.

Not one more inch.





 

Last night I was seeing red after reading this...





"Second Amendment activist Alan Gottlieb said Tuesday he has offered to back a controversial gun-control proposal"
I pretty much shut down. This morning first thing I read the entire piece.





"I need to see the final version, but we’re working with the sponsors of
the bill to try to get one that’s workable,” said Gottlieb, who also
runs the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation. "If we can
accomplish that, it’s a win for all sides."





Im pretty sure thats exactly what the Vichy said. Ive never met Gottlieb, and Im sure he is a well intentioned nice guy, but has he lost his fucking mind? A win for them is a loss for us. PERIOD.





"Hope and Pedersen had scaled back the bill before that hearing,
including by exempting concealed-pistol license holders from the checks,
but Gottlieb and other gun-rights activists still opposed it."







So it would be a background check for everyone except all the people I know? Everyone with a CPL is exempt from any check? Call me naive, and I still dont back ANY gun control laws strictly out of principle, but I personally dont oppose that.








Under Federal law those are not supposed to be kept (yeah right). If the fuckers are illegal that is its own fight. If they are legal to do so, that is a different fight. Having to seek approval to central government for approval for a sale is......it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.



There is a reason the NRA opposes this bill- it sucks.





Gottlieb, you need to fucking resign before you pretend to represent gun owners and dance with the devil to sell us all down the river. As Tweak said, not one more fucking inch.





Molon Labe.

WTF?

Idaho is looking better everyday.

Bad idea.

Getting rid of the handgun records would be nice - currently the WA Dept of Licensing has the ability to track down every handgun you have bought from an FFL, and LE do use this.  But the FBI does a check in 5 minutes (long guns), the state allows the local PD or SO to take days to notify you about handgun transfers, plus there is a 5 day waiting period.  So we are going to get stuck with a super slow system, and ffl dealers are going to refuse to help- $20 isnt going to cover the time, paperwork, and hassle.  

Plus, I think we have all seen in NY, where outright confiscation was discussed (final outcome wasnt much better), why it is not a good idea for gun grabbing politicians to be able to pull your name up on a list and find out what you own.  

Maybe they could keep criminals in jail instead of punishing law abiding citizens?

Gottlieb have an email address?

Can someone explain to me... How in the hell do you enforce universal background checks without a universal registration database??????????????

The honor system?

It just blows my mind that Kline and the like can't imagine this playing out.





Cop/ATF: "Sir, where did you get that rifle?"





Me: "Go get poked."





Cop/ATF: "Well, I'll just look that up... um, wait... where do we look that up?"
 

There already is a registration database in place for new gun sales.

Perhaps we will get short barreled shotguns, rifles and machineguns out of the deal.

Anything manufactured after a certain date would be in the system and would be de facto registered.  I would imagine it would be easy enough to find out when something was made.



 

Anyone who compromises our 2nd Amendment rights is a traitor - pure and simple.  WE need to let them know that there are repercussions such as loosing their job (if elected) and we have to FOLLOW through and not let them off the hook.  It's just like kids, if they think that we will allow them to get away with it they will keep pushing the limits.  I'm so sick of how our society has degraded to the point that it is OK to promote restriction of any LAW ABIDING citizen's rights.  Let's keep a list of who did what so that we can get them out of whatever position or office they hold when the time comes to put our money where our mouth is.

RANT OFF - SFC out.

Not.

Cool.

Already fired off a nasty E-mail to Alan.

I went to CCKBA and did a "contact us" e-mail.


For those that are not senile, does anyone remember the initiative to keep guns locked up?

In that piss poor initiative did Alan not come out supporting it at first? I think he did, then got an earful and came out against it.

Perhaps we SHOULD get those. If we are going to get screwed, at least they could offer some lube.

Email just sent as well.

I  agree I do not know wtf Allen is thinking.  If  We give these rope sucking liberals a compromise this year they will be back for more next year and the next and so on.

 

It's not a "compromise" when they get what they want and we get fucked, it's rape.

Some of you rocket scientists should do some research before you get goofy.

Dave Workman has the "right" side of the story in his Examiner.com story: http://www.examiner.com/article/firestorm-erupts-over-story-about-ccrkba-and-background-checks

Tempers went ballistic in the firearms community Wednesday morning when the Seattle Times reported that gun rights advocate Alan Gottlieb was negotiating with state lawmakers on so-called “universal background checks.”

On one forum, he was branded a “traitor.” On another, it was alleged that a “sell-out” is “in the works.” Elsewhere, one might think that Gottlieb was the anti-Christ. Even the Seattle Times reader section contains some nasty remarks.

It all has to do with House Bill 1588, against which Gottlieb testified while sitting next to the National Rifle Association’s savvy veteran lobbyist Brian Judy last week. In Gottlieb’s opinion, the measure in its original form “stunk.” It was after the hearing that Gottlieb and Rep. Mike Hope (R-Lake Stevens) had a long conversation.

Gottlieb, founder of the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, subsequently talked with Hope again, but that discussion is not as close to producing a done deal as the Seattle Times story intimated. One might compare it to the time that Samuel Clemens wrote, “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

Phones have been ringing non-stop at Gottlieb’s Liberty Park complex since early Wednesday morning, and a stream of e-mails – many apparently written by people who did not read the Times article but only picked up on conversations on gun rights forums – have been stinging.

Last month, people were calling him a hero for forcing the City of Oak Harbor to erase a long-standing city parks gun ban ordinance under threat of a lawsuit. He was cheered last year for beating the City of Seattle on its attempt to ban firearms from city park facilities, and undo the state’s model preemption law in the process. In 2010, he was virtually canonized for having filed the landmark lawsuit that led to the Second Amendment’s incorporation to the states by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Now, because he has participated in a give-and-take discussion about background checks, he’s suddenly a pariah. Then, again, maybe he isn’t.

Gottlieb may actually hold all the cards in the gun rights debate in Olympia, and he’s a pretty shrewd poker player. Before even considering supporting any kind of expansion of the current background check law, the state would have to make serious concessions, he told Examiner. The Seattle Times article portrayed the situation thusly: “To support it now, Gottlieb is requesting several tweaks, including asking state officials to conduct the checks, not the feds.”

Those “tweaks” include something monumental: Destruction of Washington state’s long-standing handgun registry, a database that has existed for years on every retail handgun purchase. For those gun owners who did not realize this, when a potential buyer fills out paperwork at a gun store, in addition to the federal Form 4473 which is done for the background check, there is a State of Washington Pistol Transfer Application.

One copy goes to local law enforcement and the other goes to the state Department of Licensing, where the record is kept. Under Gottlieb’s proposal, that would cease to exist.

Another concession would be an exemption from background checks for any state resident possessing a concealed pistol license (CPL). Also, no checks would be required for firearms transfers between family members.

In addition, according to Gottlieb, “If you are a member of an organization like the Washington Arms Collectors who does a background check for membership, you would be exempt from additional checks to buy a firearm at their gun shows.” His full statement is below.

Some political insiders have privately suggested that Gottlieb’s maneuver is nothing short of brilliant. On the outside chance this measure should become law, it would be the first time in memory that a state gun registry would be abolished. “That,” said Gottlieb, “would be huge.” Right now, he is waiting to see a substitute measure that includes all of his requirements, and a non-severability clause, meaning that if one section of the law goes down, it all goes down.

Gottlieb does not believe legislative anti-gunners will go along with his provisions, and will kill the bill. If so, the political blood will be on their hands, he says. Gun owners made a legitimate offer and anti-gunners slapped it away because they wanted something for nothing; all “take” and no “give.”

Historically, that has been the pattern with any gun control effort. The prohibition lobby has expected gun owners to roll over for every demand and expect nothing in return, and then insisted that they are being “reasonable” against an "extremist gun lobby." As this column noted, Evergreen State gun rights advocates are pushing back this session in Olympia. Gottlieb’s proposal just might reveal who the real extremists are.

Alan Gottlieb’s statement:

“First you should know that I do not support Washington House Bill 1588 as it is currently written.

“My support for a state universal background check bill must include a substantial victory for gun owners that includes, but is not limited to repealing, prohibiting and destroying the current state handgun registration system and the data base of several million records of gun owners and their firearms that include the type of handguns and the serial numbers.

“This would be a huge victory for our gun rights. We would be the first state to repeal a gun registration system. Think about that and what it means for your privacy as a gun owner and the fact that we all know historically that registration leads to confiscation.

“In addition, if you have a carry permit you will be exempt from additional background checks. No checks would be required for transfers between family members. If you are a member of an organization like the Washington Arms Collectors that does a background check for membership, you would be exempt from additional checks to buy a firearm at their gun shows.

“There are other inclusions that must be made as well that are good for our rights and freedom that need to be in a final bill to have my support.

“My guess is that the gun grabbers will not go along with these provisions and kill the bill. If they do the “blood” so to speak is on their hands, not ours.

“There are other smart, tactical, political and morally justified reasons why I have taken this position that I do not want to make public at this time. We do have enemies and I am not going to telegraph our strategy to them by spelling out our battle plans.

“I enjoy winning our freedoms more than the fight. I wish I can say that about some of my critics who have pre-judged without knowledge what it is that I am doing.

“Anyone who knows me knows that for the past forty years my efforts have expanded and protected our right to keep and bear arms from local city councils all the way to the United States Supreme Court.”

Alan Gottlieb

There is no goddamn give and take, only take and take. It's more political bullshit from lying cocksucking politicians. I don't fucking care if John Browning, John Wayne and Jesus Christ come out in favor of this law. It's treason and only a traitor supports treason. The Oak Harbor law was illegal under state law and it it might have remained if not for the actions of a fuck ton of gun owners, many of them members here, who showed up and told the City Council to fuck off. So before you show up here and "set us all straight" check your fucking facts and sit the fuck down.

This.
I can't even believe what I'm reading!!!  Workman and Gottlieb are seriously supporting making person to person transfers illegal!?



Dave and Alan, Please tell me how you enforce this without registration of all firearms and law abiding "unlicensed persons"!  You are falling right into WCF's arms!  How does 1588 change any criminal activity?  Criminals are having a huge laugh... oh wait... they aren't even paying attention to this argument, because they couldn't care less.
 

Rocket scientists?

I continue to believe that taking a page from the illegal Alien's play book is  the way to go.  Civil disobedience so vast that it totally overloads the system eventually negates laws that are unpopular, such as immigration laws.  At some point government will realize thet "we the people" have given them a huge "screw you", then follow that up by continually voting politicians who make unpopular decisions out of office.

The big problem will be convincing politicians that gun owners have more horsepower at the ballot box than the liberals do.

I looked up 'solipsist' cause, you know, I aint no rocket scientist (just a lowly senior engineer) and I came up with "extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption".

Kind of fits the blithering diatribe.

I'm guessing you're a one post pony too.

If the point of the Seattle Times article was to cause disruption amongst pro-gun activists - it seems to have succeeded.



Gottlieb and Workman have been on our side before, I see no real indication that they have abandoned us (and no, an article in an anti-gun newspaper does NOT count.)

I believe the point that Dave Workman is trying to make is that some concessions on our part might be in our best interest for the concessions they would have to make on their part.  

In exchange for agreeing to support this legislation the state would have to agree to:

1.  Abolish the hidden registry that occurs whenever a firearm sale is reported to the state and local sheriff.
2.  Allow a valid CPL to be used in place of a background check.
3.  Allow membership to certain organizations to be used in place of a background check.
4.  No background check required for transfers between family members.
5.  I think there is already consensus that no record of as specific firearm will be recorded as part of a background check.

So I guess every man can make a decision for himself whether or not this is a good compromise.  The other point which is inferred in the article is that the inclusion of eliminating the hidden registry may be enough of a poison pill to simply kill the entire background check legislation completely.  Which I think is what most people want.

Plenty here to debate without throwing bombs at each other.

The definition I remember is something like, 'a person who believes the world is merely their mental construct."

 

Funny, both Gottlieb and Workman include the little gem "members of organizations like the Washington Arms Collectors would be exempt from any new background checks" in their defense of this treasonous proposal.  They are both board members of the W.A.C., who I would wager stand to see substantial personal gains if there is a sudden large increase in W.A.C. membership because of this law.  Before this most recent round of anti-gun legislative attempts, the W.A.C. was on its way out... seeing a large decline in membership and show attendance after some recently-made-public accounts of finincial miscounduct by the W.A.C. board.leadership and the changing of the "show" rules that restrict table sales and require business licenses and sales tax collection for potential sellers.  How better to boost their organization than by proposing this so-called "compromise"?  

And how, exactly, would it be a "huge win" if the current DOL handgun database were to be abolished? Do you think those records would really just "disappear"?  Really? It might prevent any future (dealer) handgun sales from being recorded in that database, but everything that's in there now will always be in there, somewhere.  The state will never truly just "get rid" of the database.  How many copies of the copies of the copies are there?  Just like the internet, once something has been reported to/recorded by the gov't, it can never truly be "deleted".  To think otherwise is foolish and naive.    

"Not one more inch!"  is right.  

"Give them nothing, but take from them, everything..." is even better.

Aren't those about the same?

It's not intended to be a compromise.

It's intended to get the bill sponsors backed into a corner where they have to scuttle their own bill - and then publicly defend doing so to their peacenik hipster constituents in Seattle and Bellevue.

Think of it kind of like the queen's gambit.  The more I read through this and sketch it out in my head, the more awesome it is.  Gottlieb just made a brilliant move and has the antis well cornered with this.  You folks need to relax.

Exactly, with more lunacy in mine.

Divide and conquer.  It's age old, and works like a charm.  My old department was famous for it.  They would pit the jail against the road, then use there puppets in the "union EB" to instil fear amongst the membership.  It worked every time.........

9.4.  Bonus points for "sock puppet."

I tend to agree hence my comment that it's a bit of a poison pill.

*If you are correct, then he needs us to cry foul to help his hand look honest.





If you arent, then we are correct in our disagreement.











And if he really wanted them to sink it for sure, he should have insisted all NFA be opened back up. Then if they call we do really get something out of the sellout compromise.



 

 

I am against ANY more giving of any kind BUT if we are going to give WTH lets do something big.

So if we are going to compromise we need to get something real good, all the stuff Alan is talking about, plus SBR's, Auto, I do not know why but throw in SBS.
Then the Dem's can have so called UBC's or kill it all. That is compromise.

Otherwise it is just ALWAY's giving in and giving in again.

Keep in mind I simply summarized what I thought Dave Workman was saying in his article.  You'll notice I did not give my opinion on whether or not I thought there should be concessions.  Several days ago I emailed all members of the senate law and justice committee asking them to block all gun control measures.  I'm assuming everyone posting in this thread has done the same.

My reaction:
Since the Seattle Times is a well established part of the agitprop machine here in the US, and since Mr. Gottlieb has been a STAUNCH supporter of second amendment rights for many years (Heller, anyone?), I trust that this whole tempest is not warranted.

I trust Mr. Gottlieb. He has too long a history to go ballistic over an article as printed by the fucking Seattle Times.

Watching the history of RKBA in America, and the everything but confiscation progression spiral towards confiscation, the incremental push towards turning us from citizens to subjects, forgive me if I am not trusting anybody but God & my Mother (and I aint so sure about her).



If he was quoted as telling them, "From my cold dead hands", then I would have some trust. If he had came here himself and addressed concerns, then perhaps I would have some trust.



But the history from roots of gun control, through Miller, GCA68, FOPA 86, Brady/AWB until this recent hard push both federal and state tell me trust nobody. The Kenyan is steady telling us he doesnt want our guns out one side of his mouth, while his girl feinstein admits if she had 51 votes they would have already been confiscated...



And you trust somebody who has met and has talks with the opposition? The only civil discourse is compromise. When he is directly quoted as a "win win for everybody", that is NOT a win for us. That is a compromise and that is a crime. The only place I want to meet them is at Olympia telling them to fuck off, or in a courthouse with the Judge telling them to fuck off, or on the day they come to take my guns with force telling them to fuck off.



Until then, no compromise, not one more fucking inch. They have ruled and taken all my guns they can. My children will not see me disarmed and turned into a subject.



No more. Molon Labe.