73Chall
Happy to be here
2A Champion, Alan Gottlieb/SAF & CCRKBA - QA Outdoors Interview with
Full Interview Here: https://www.qaoutdoors.com/
Question
When, when you look at everything that's happening, despite the fact that we're being outspent by phenomenal amounts of money. You're still winning in the court. The courts are just about the only hope we have at this point, are they not?
Question
Let’s bifurcate a distinction between what happens in election cycles versus the courtrooms.
Second Amendment supporting groups have a conservative judge appointed or a liberal judge actually interprets the the law as written and everybody thinks it's all of a sudden, you know, rainbows and unicorns.
Yet, when you look up, and the firmly anti-gun areas continue to be anti gun areas -and continue to pass laws they know won't pass muster. Their attorneys general tell them this law you're proposing is unenforceable, and they pass it anyway.
So how are we supposed to keep this straight, Allen, in our heads? The fact that we're losing the battles, even though we may be winning other battles?
How do we separate the two of those in our minds?
Question
So looking at their strategies…what the heck are they trying to accomplish?
Question
Okay, now let's let's play worst case scenario, which is always my fun game. Your you’re Chicago, you pass a law that you know, has not one chance of making it through the Supreme Court.
You go right ahead with it, and get your reelection bid and you’re successfully back in office.
And you go ahead and you just keep passing them. Because the Attorney General and the Justice Department is in on the ideological flip. Is that a fair conclusion?
Question
Maybe Maybe I'm looking at it from an old man's perspective but it looks like the long game for them is “we're just going to harass as long as we possibly can.” I mean, instead of a set piece battle, which they keep losing, they keep trying to fight guerrilla actions, just keep harassing, keep bothering keep, keep disrupting. I mean, is there any way to slow that up?
Question
Common sense hasn't entered into some of the some of the discussions, I don't think it's it. Do we have to look at like an angry 14 year-old to understand how they think?
Question
Sure. Well, you've you've seen me write on a number of occasions, that emotion will always trump logic in the court of public opinion.
Fortunately, hissy fits aren't allowed in a court of law. But if the people who are supposed to enforce the laws are paying attention to the hissy fits, we’re kind of in a Catch-22 here aren’t we?
Question
Okay, now, here's, here's my third rail question. You intimated earlier that the opposition is more than willing to use extremely stepped up rhetoric - if not just straight out violence - to reenforce their positions? Do you believe that we have a potential for this tactic to blow up in their - and our- collective faces?
Question
Is it a, is it a difference in understanding levels of violence? I have taken a position that I've heard put forward by others, that the anti gun group considers violence, civil disobedience, whatever, to be a rheostat. They can turn the heat up - just like on a stove - till they get the boil they want. Then they turn the heat down.
What they fail to understand, on the Second Amendment side is we have a switch, we don't have a rheostat. We have showed a lot of restraint. The inclination of the hot heads on our side is to flip the switch. But I feel our switch is more like the pin on a hand grenade than the switch on a light.
How do we how do we tone down? Is there a way to tone down the difference? And more fundamentally, is that even an accurate characterization?
Question
How much does it cost to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court? Do you have a an estimated number on what that cost is?
Full Interview Here: https://www.qaoutdoors.com/
Question
When, when you look at everything that's happening, despite the fact that we're being outspent by phenomenal amounts of money. You're still winning in the court. The courts are just about the only hope we have at this point, are they not?
Question
Let’s bifurcate a distinction between what happens in election cycles versus the courtrooms.
Second Amendment supporting groups have a conservative judge appointed or a liberal judge actually interprets the the law as written and everybody thinks it's all of a sudden, you know, rainbows and unicorns.
Yet, when you look up, and the firmly anti-gun areas continue to be anti gun areas -and continue to pass laws they know won't pass muster. Their attorneys general tell them this law you're proposing is unenforceable, and they pass it anyway.
So how are we supposed to keep this straight, Allen, in our heads? The fact that we're losing the battles, even though we may be winning other battles?
How do we separate the two of those in our minds?
Question
So looking at their strategies…what the heck are they trying to accomplish?
Question
Okay, now let's let's play worst case scenario, which is always my fun game. Your you’re Chicago, you pass a law that you know, has not one chance of making it through the Supreme Court.
You go right ahead with it, and get your reelection bid and you’re successfully back in office.
And you go ahead and you just keep passing them. Because the Attorney General and the Justice Department is in on the ideological flip. Is that a fair conclusion?
Question
Maybe Maybe I'm looking at it from an old man's perspective but it looks like the long game for them is “we're just going to harass as long as we possibly can.” I mean, instead of a set piece battle, which they keep losing, they keep trying to fight guerrilla actions, just keep harassing, keep bothering keep, keep disrupting. I mean, is there any way to slow that up?
Question
Common sense hasn't entered into some of the some of the discussions, I don't think it's it. Do we have to look at like an angry 14 year-old to understand how they think?
Question
Sure. Well, you've you've seen me write on a number of occasions, that emotion will always trump logic in the court of public opinion.
Fortunately, hissy fits aren't allowed in a court of law. But if the people who are supposed to enforce the laws are paying attention to the hissy fits, we’re kind of in a Catch-22 here aren’t we?
Question
Okay, now, here's, here's my third rail question. You intimated earlier that the opposition is more than willing to use extremely stepped up rhetoric - if not just straight out violence - to reenforce their positions? Do you believe that we have a potential for this tactic to blow up in their - and our- collective faces?
Question
Is it a, is it a difference in understanding levels of violence? I have taken a position that I've heard put forward by others, that the anti gun group considers violence, civil disobedience, whatever, to be a rheostat. They can turn the heat up - just like on a stove - till they get the boil they want. Then they turn the heat down.
What they fail to understand, on the Second Amendment side is we have a switch, we don't have a rheostat. We have showed a lot of restraint. The inclination of the hot heads on our side is to flip the switch. But I feel our switch is more like the pin on a hand grenade than the switch on a light.
How do we how do we tone down? Is there a way to tone down the difference? And more fundamentally, is that even an accurate characterization?
Question
How much does it cost to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court? Do you have a an estimated number on what that cost is?