Triangle Tactical Podcast and Blog on Guns, Gear, and Competition Shooting
At the NRA Annual Meeting, the folks at Guns.com met up with Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, he had the following to say about universal background checks:
Two things:
1. Having to ask permission to sell my private property is a violation of my rights. It’s that simple. They only way to write a background check bill that protects our rights is to not write it.
2. If we concede and allow a background check bill to pass into law, that just means that the anti-gun crowd has more money, time, and motivation to push for the next thing on their list. We have to remember that their goal isn’t background checks, even if they say that it is. The goal of the anti-gun crowd is complete civilian disarmament. If you don’t believe me, head over to any of their Facebook pages, and count how many times you see “repeal the second amendment!” in the comments of their posts.
Sorry Mr. Gottlieb, you’ve done a lot of good work with SAF, but you were wrong on Manchin-Toomey, and you are wrong on background checks.
“If we don’t lead the train, we’ll get run over by the train”
I say we fight to stop the train.
Not one inch.
I agree with EVERYTHING in this article. Give the Anti-gun crowd an inch and then watch them complain that the “gun nuts” won’t give up a mile, all in the name of “common sense” and to “protect the children”.
Restrictions on selling your private property is a violation of what right, exactly? There is no such right granted by constitution or law. Sales of real estate can be restricted by covenant, sales of privately-held controlled substances are restricted almost everywhere, sales of technology to some countries is restricted. Your local pharmacy is not allowed to sell prescription drugs to anyone who wants them, your local store can’t sell liquor to minors. There are loads of similar examples. The notion that anyone has some God-given right to sell anything they possess to anyone else without restriction is a myth — it simply doesn’t exist.
You need a better argument than “i should be allowed to sell anything to anyone.”
Ah, yes, you are ignoring the “shall not be infringed” line of the 2nd Amendment. Having to ask permission from the government to buy or sell a firearm is an infringement. The Constitution doesn’t say prescription drugs or alcohol sales shouldn’t be infringed.
That’s an interesting interpretation, but unfortunately it isn’t one that any court has ever accepted or is ever likely to accept because the position that it extends to commercial traffic has never won the day. My point is that arguing in favor of unrestricted and unregulated gun sales because it’s implicit in the SA is simply not an argument that is likely to win over the state legislatures or the public in general.
I think the “burden” argument is a better one. Arguing that the SA means anyone should be able to sell and anyone should be able to buy — which logically means all restrictions are illegal — is not something most of us are willing to accept. But the argument that it’s too great a burden on private collectors or individuals who make an occasional sale or trade, might be a more acceptable argument. I’m not comfortable with opening up internet sales to anybody with a credit card, which is where your position leads. But I have no problem with the occasional sale or trade between collectors or friends.
But then how do you define occasional? It’s either you can buy a gun without a background check from a private party, or you can’t. I’m pretty alright with the current system, and I’m not willing to “compromise” and give up the ability to sell a gun without a permission slip from GovCo.