But I thought it was NRA who always caved
So, SAF is accused of betraying gun owners. But NRA stands firmly against the bill. This is usually viewed as something that goes the other way around.
John notes that SAF should stick with what they do best: litigation. Leave the lobbying to the, uhm, lobbyists.
One thing I know about SAF is they always have a plan. I just don’t know what it is in this case. Granted, it could have have been a miscalculation on the part of SAF but I’m guessing they’re up to something. They usually are.
We’ll see.
April 15th, 2013 at 9:38 pm
I wonder about that “plan” too. Perhaps they have already gamed the new law and think they have ways of knocking it down in court after the fact, leaving us better off?
Still seems unnecessarily risky… it’s a dead certainty we’d still have the AWB without that sunset provision.
April 15th, 2013 at 11:59 pm
A correction.
SAF neither endorses nor condemns *any* legislation – it is, after all, a 501(c)3.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep & Bear Arms is the organization y’all are talking about…a sister organization, but also a difference that makes a difference.
April 16th, 2013 at 12:23 am
SAF and CCRKBA are basically the same organization for all intense and purposes. It’s run by the same guy. It’s just a difft money pot for Gotlieb.
April 16th, 2013 at 1:12 am
After hearing some comments from both Gottlieb and in the recorded message from Gura at the 2012 GRPC, I don’t trust them in the area of lobbying. I agree that they should stick to litigation, which I can’t deny they are a good at. And I told them exactly via the feedback form on saf.org.
For a change, I’ve been impressed at the strong stance the NRA has taken. Credit where it is due.
April 16th, 2013 at 7:41 am
I had listened to Gottlieb on Gun Talk. The way he puts it sounds great. Reading the bill I don’t see it. I think the NRA is right on this one.
HELL NO to any gun control
April 16th, 2013 at 9:40 am
No matter how clever SAF may be, remember that they still have to deal with both the Stupid Party and the Venal Party to do this. Anything can, and will happen.
April 17th, 2013 at 8:19 am
Do any of you guys think that the endorsement by SAF and other gun rights groups will make the bill/amendment too toxic for the hardcore gun grabbing left and thus peal off what would otherwise be sure votes for anything on background checks?
April 17th, 2013 at 9:30 am
I think SAFs thinking was that the ‘bad’ parts of the law are ones that would not survive subsequent court challenge in the age of Heller. While the ‘good’ parts were mitigating prior law that otherwise does stand up to strict scrutiny.
Playing with fire; it’s how you make steel, but also how you get burned.