Second Amendment Foundation: We Don’t Support Guns at Political Protests

This is why I am a GOA guy. First backing Machin Tonney and now this. No thanks. Firearms are a symbol of American Independence and of our national resolve. Every citizen has a right to protest while armed.


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...n-we-dont-support-guns-at-political-protests/

The Second Amendment Foundation is one of the most effective advocates for Second Amendment rights. They’ve won crucial Supreme Court and lower court battles bolstering the Second Amendment’s status as a fundamental individual right. They clearly believe that everyone has a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Except, it seems, at protests . . .

Following the riots in Charlottesville where gun control activists had their knickers in a twist about the presence of armed protesters (despite the fact that there were no injuries or arrests involving these individuals), the SAF’s Alan Gottlieb is trying to split the difference and appear to be the “reasonable” voice in gun politics.

“We are not a fan of armed protests and highly discourage that,” said Alan Gottlieb, the founder and executive vice president of the SAF. “Firearms serve a purpose, and the purpose is not a mouthpiece. It’s to defend yourself. If you are carrying it to make a political point, we are not going to support that.”

That distinction — designating firearms for self defense, not political expression — limits the scope of the Second Amendment, not to mention gun owners’ First Amendment rights as well. The RKBA was intended as a guarantee against a tyrannical government. One of the best ways to remind elected officials of that fact: put them on display, normalizing them in the eyes of the public.

Following the Sandy Hook shooting, Gottlieb supported the failed Toomey-Manchin Background Check Bill which would have put severe restrictions on the ability for Americans to purchase firearms. He’s remained open to making a deal on background checks with anti-gun legislators.

As gun rights supporters have shown over the last 30+ years, politics is the art of the possible. The SAF has a history of trying to appear as the “moderate” alternative to the National Rifle Association. While that may earn them some points across the aisle, it doesn’t generate warm fuzzies among gun owners.

Every National level 2A Org makes calculated decisions about their political stratagies. Some of them I disagree .( Yes , I'm including the three letter Org of which I have been Life Member for 40 plus years.)

While I can comprehend the reasoning of SAF on this matter, I do not Agree . BUT , I'm not throwing the baby with the bathwater. They are the Superstars of 2A Litigation, and that still deserves and needs our support.

You both make excellent points. I don't agree with the SAF position on peaceable protest while exercising 2A rights, but maybe they're trying to position themselves for victory in courts by appearing to take a "middle" route. I think there's a huge danger in this strategy as it suggests that those who do open carry at protests are extremists and politicians in purple states like Virginia might have luck in pushing new restrictions through while citing this SAF position.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Biggfoot44 said:

Every National level 2A Org makes calculated decisions about their political stratagies. Some of them I disagree .( Yes , I'm including the three letter Org of which I have been Life Member for 40 plus years.)

While I can comprehend the reasoning of SAF on this matter, I do not Agree . BUT , I'm not throwing the baby with the bathwater. They are the Superstars of 2A Litigation, and that still deserves and needs our support.

Click to expand...

Good post. For example, I joined GOA until it's President repeatedly attacked the NRA in an effort to bolster its own membership drives. I don't have a problem with them self-promoting, but the bashing of another pro 2A org was in poor form. No more GOA for me.

SAF is probably trying to balance, not wanting to advocate a position that might be thrown back at it if some nut case, e.g. ANTIFA type carries out an operation under false flag or otherwise.

Even the ACLU initially took some heat in Charlottesville for representing the Supremacist protesters in court, and they had the Constitution on their side and won. Didn't stop some people from initially pointing fingers and blaming the ACLU, which was ridiculous. And ACLU is more popular and "mainstream" among a wider audience than SAF is. I think the ACLU since then has said they're not going to be put into that position again, either.

I believe the demonstrators have the right to demonstrate while carrying as long as it's legal in the jurisdiction. What...at least in my view...is that we also have to consider the tactics we use during peaceful demonstrations. The mainstream press is not our friend and won't be. They will look for the one guy in an otherwise peaceful and professionally dressed crowd that's carrying a firearms, dressed in cammies and wearing buttons that say something like "I'd rather be killing Communists" or "The only think I feel when I kill is recoil". Does the individual have the right to dress that way and demonstrate? Of course he does. The point is that unfortunately gives the media "ammunition" in how to negatively portray gun rights and freedom supporters. When I was a federal law enforcement officer and worked demonstrations I saw how the media tilts their reporting.

We need to be smart in how we present ourselves. Sometimes we might be harming our own interests while exercising our rights.

This sums it up and I agree with them:

If you are carrying it to make a political point, we are not going to support that.

Click to expand...

We have entered a new era. The Insane Left will NEVER accept the private ownership or display of firearms.

Our progress is tied to Open Carrying EVERYWHERE that it is legal, even at political demos to rally and energize people who now believe our freedoms will likely be taken from us without a whimper.

More firearms in public, not less. 50 years of pandering to female & beta-male anxieties has gotten us...where?

Rack&Roll said:

We have entered a new era. The Insane Left will NEVER accept the private ownership or display of firearms.

Our progress is tied to Open Carrying EVERYWHERE that it is legal, even at political demos to rally and energize people who now believe our freedoms will likely be taken from us without a whimper.

More firearms in public, not less. 50 years of pandering to female & beta-male anxieties has gotten us...where?

Click to expand...

AMEN! Even an empty holster tells a story.

Could it also be that if they advocate carrying at protests, and an incident occurs, it can be an issue in the court cases?

We've seen the other side's tactics.

Q

fidelity said:

You both make excellent points. I don't agree with the SAF position on peaceable protest while exercising 2A rights, but maybe they're trying to position themselves for victory in courts by appearing to take a "middle" route. I think there's a huge danger in this strategy as it suggests that those who do open carry at protests are extremists and politicians in purple states like Virginia might have luck in pushing new restrictions through while citing this SAF position.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I think that I will write Alan and tell him that. SAF's public opinion regarding open carry will become the gun grabbers next propaganda hit piece. Sometimes saying nothing is more effective ... Proverbs 17:27-28.

Qbeam said:

Could it also be that if they advocate carrying at protests, and an incident occurs, it can be an issue in the court cases?

We've seen the other side's tactics.

Q

Click to expand...

It's one thing if they choose not to advocate carrying at protests. It's another if they actively advocate that you don't! Not sure which this is, maybe vague by design? On your other point, it's hard to imagine those drafting the BOR's contemplated no carry when protesting a tyrannical government!

I pitched my SAF card after Never Trumper Gura , kept labelling Trump anti semitic, as well as a risk for gun rights.

Regardless, I completely concur with their position on frowning upon publically walking your guns as a political statement.

I think making 'policy' statements is stupid. It really depends on the situation. The Patriot Picket guys were the only ones willing to go out and counter protest in front of the NRA. They were clearly outnumbered. They had absolutely no intention of intimidating anyone. They were taking a defensive position, against a much larger crowd. They were the only ones that had the courage to actually stand in front of the NRA headquarters and prevent vandalism. For this situation, they were absolutely right to politely stand their ground, while exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

Let's not forget how approachable they were and how willing they are to engage anyone in a civil conversation. We need to think about what makes sense for specific situations instead of dumbing things down and playing to the Anti-2nd Amendment folks. Guns are not evil.

Two thumbs up !!!

MikeTF said:

I think making 'policy' statements is stupid. It really depends on the situation. The Patriot Picket guys were the only ones willing to go out and counter protest in front of the NRA. They were clearly outnumbered. They had absolutely no intention of intimidating anyone. They were taking a defensive position, against a much larger crowd. They were the only ones that had the courage to actually stand in front of the NRA headquarters and prevent vandalism. For this situation, they were absolutely right to politely stand their ground, while exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

Let's not forget how approachable they were and how willing they are to engage anyone in a civil conversation. We need to think about what makes sense for specific situations instead of dumbing things down and playing to the Anti-2nd Amendment folks. Guns are not evil.

Click to expand...

If the protest is about the government trampling upon the citizenry in some way, then it damned well is appropriate to be carrying one's firearm as an expression of protest, and not just for self-defense. Carrying a firearm is not a harmful act and should never be treated or regarded as such. As long as the protest remains peaceful, there are no grounds for objection. If the protest does not remain peaceful, then the protesters will at least have the means to defend themselves if necessary.

Either way, the government can then react either by recognizing that it serves the people and not vice versa, and thus not reacting to the armed protest by imposing further restrictions, or by deciding that it rules over the people and, thus, enact more restrictions in response to the armed protest. The latter is what the California state government did in response to the Black Panthers protest.

We know which of those two ways a proper lawful government would react. And we also know which of those two ways a modern government will react. Modern governments, even in the U.S., tend to believe that they rule over the people, that their purpose in life is to tell people what to do and how to do it, and that people operate at their pleasure and not vice versa.


SAF does everyone a disservice here by failing to properly qualify their stance. It will be used against us in the worst ways possible. You will see laws spring up that forbid people in or around protests from being armed, and they will cite SAF's position as proof that the RKBA crowd supports those restrictions.

Is SAF trying to lose the war here? What idiots...

Carrying sidearms at NRA sight itself as a counter could hardly be labeled off issue. Demonstrations labelled for Free Speech , then armed vigilantes with kevlar, ARs, and Sig's waltz in, a bit ridiculous. I don't read that at all as a positive demonstration in moving gun rights sentiment in a positive direction. To the contrary.

Schipperke said:

Carrying sidearms at NRA sight itself as a counter could hardly be labeled off issue. Demonstrations labelled for Free Speech , then armed vigilantes with kevlar, ARs, and Sig's waltz in, a bit ridiculous. I don't read that at all as a positive demonstration in moving gun rights sentiment in a positive direction. To the contrary.

Click to expand...

Who are you trying to appease? The people who believe that firearms should not be carried in public?

I don't consider civility any kind of appeasement at all. I may or may not have been armed at each one. Code Pink was a true anti NRA/Gun demonstration. Going open carry at that event sent a relevant message. Not every enemy protest focuses on 2A. I recognize a few think every protest does, but I'm not in that camp. The last few demonstrations were not focused on gun rights.

Schipperke said:

I don't consider civility any kind of appeasement at all. I may or may not have been armed at each one. Code Pink was a true anti NRA/Gun demonstration. Going open carry at that event sent a relevant message. Not every enemy protest focuses on 2A. I recognize a few think every protest does, but I'm not in that camp. The last few demonstrations were not focused on gun rights.

Click to expand...

I get it. It depends on the situation. I appreciate these thoughts!