Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

This is an important case because it is testing state gun laws against Colorado’s strong right-to-keep-and-bear-arms state constitutional provision.

Our brief provides a historical examination of why the right was specifically protected by the state constitution, and applies that to today’s context.

Anti-gunners are constantly arguing that there is no historical support for protecting modern repeating firearms and our brief provides proof that repeating rifles capable of holding 15 or more cartridges were in existence long before Colorado became a state in 1876. The framers of Colorado’s constitution knew exactly what they were doing.

Alan Gottlieb
June 5, 2019
SAF JOINS IN AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTING CHALLENGE TO COLORADO GUN CONTROL
[See also BREAKING: FPC, FPF Join Challenge to Colorado Gun Magazine Ban, File Colorado Supreme Court Brief.

SAF and friends don’t win them all but they win a lot of the lawsuits against the anti-gunners. And sometimes they get the antigun city and/or state to pay for the lawsuit.

I think this is the best bet, short of changing our culture, which I’m also working on, to reduce and perhaps eventually stop the infringement upon our rights. My employer and I donate thousands of dollars to SAF and FPF each year.—Joe]

8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

  1. We’ve often said that the freedom of the press is not seen in modern context to be limited to the press technology of 1776, but then; the belieif in freedom of the press is coming into contention also.

    Most leftist agitators would assert a right to move freely about, from place to place. Must their movement then be limited to horseback, or horse-drawn carriage only?

    Does freedom of religion apply only to those denominations which were already established in 1776?

    A good argument in favor of the second amendment is that so many people are against it. For why would it need to be enumerated in the construction if it were not a thing which the founders knew would be under attack in all ages?

    All manner of the rationalizations of the leftist agitators then (guns shoot too fast, look too scary, are too big, too small, too loud, too quiet, et al) are but the living proof of the need to enforce the second amendment.

    And yes; there were many repeaters before Colorado became a state, but the 1860 Henry, “that damned Yankee rifle you could load on Sunday and shoot all week” being among the more prominent, was already a maturing technology, having been preceeded by the Volcanic lever action pistol among others. And anyway, the revolver is a form of repeater. Examples of revolving breeches can be found from prior to the American founding, but the revolver as we know it came from Sam Colt in 1836.

    It is interesting to note that, time and time again, just as in the case of the Henry lever rifle, the U.S. Military has rejected new technologies, citing the lower rates of fire of the old weapons, and the attendant conservation of ammunition as well as the tried and true, as benefits. So while today the leftist agitators are shouting “It’s a military rifle!”, back in the day the military decision-makers were against it, shouting, “It’s a civillian rifle!” Or “It’s not suited to military use!”. The same story played out with E. Stoner, a civillian, and his AR-15.

    There was a significant time then, when civilians, Indians, and contracted scouts were running around with repeaters, yet the military themselves carried single shot rifles.

    It’s ironic of leftist agitators out there then, who scream, “But it’s a military rifle!” when we all know perfectly well that it was developed by civilians, the military rejected it, civilians proved it, and only THEN did the military, reluctantly, slowly, adopt it.

    It is also generally the case that original repeaters tended to have relatively dainty mechanisms, and so it is that they tended to fire less powerful ammunition. This is as true of the Henry lever action repeater as it was of the revolver and other designs. Thus comes the still on-going debate over power and range verses rate of fire and ammunition capacity.

    As in all other matters of any importance, the leftist, radical extremists and anti-American revolutionaries driving the arms prohibition movement have got this one entirely backwards. The best they can do is hope (or pray to satan) that the truth doesn’t spread so far as to ruin their movement.

    • There was a Supreme Court case a few years ago, which determined that the common law right to travel [not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, but traditionally recognized by the courts] does not extend to air travel.

      It would not surprise me to learn that eventually became restricted to the right to travel on foot within one’s immediate local area.

      • Good grief. Even by the mentally defective standards of much of the judicial branch, that is an outrage. Can you cite the case?

      • I’m not surprised by that decision. There are others that uphold the idea that driving a motor vehicle on the public street is a privilege, and not a right.
        If there is no right to use the common carriers that travel by air, how long until it is extended to bus and train travel?
        Assuming that it hasn’t yet been extended.
        And what about bicycles, skateboards and just schlepping your stuff in a wagon? Los Angeles has a problem with the battery operated scooters. How long until anything with wheels has to have a license to be out in public?

  2. “Anti gunners are constantly arguing”…..One should never argue the merits of someone else’s statement. No need to show over 15 round magazines are historical. To ban them is an “infringement”, something politicians can go to jail for!
    The “supremacy clause” of the federal constitution stomps Colorado like a bug.

  3. SAF has a good record. Unfortunately they are appearing as amicus, and this action is led by RMGO, Dudley Brown’s clown show.

  4. In a sane and logical world the issue of “gun control” would be moot. The facts categorically prove beyond doubt that such laws do NOTHING to prevent crime or make anyone (except criminals) safer. The gun grabbing left doesn’t give a rats ass about logic, facts or reality and they CERTAINLY don’t give a damn about the health or safety of ‘we the people’. ALL they care about is power and disarming us is the ONLY way to guarantee they obtain and maintain maximum power. And to help them in this quest they have subverted and destroyed the court system by infiltrating it with agenda driven communists in black robes posing as judges. Any RATIONAL judge would always, without fail rule in FAVOR of Second Amendment rights ( and all the other enumerated rights) but judges are political animals and their goal is to aid and abet those who put them on the bench by ruling for the agenda of power and AGAINST freedom.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.