FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 2023
Alan Gottlieb/SAF & CCRKBA

Question

Alan, you are more attuned to what's going on in the battle to protect the Second Amendment than anyone else I can think of. Is it a safe characterization to say that we have never lived in more interesting times?

ALAN GOTTLIEB

Alan Gottlieb, Founder, Second Amendment Foundation

Yes, I think it's definitely safe to say that. You know, we've been under the gun, so to speak many times, over the years. When Clinton was President, we had, you know, a couple of really bad years where we were under a heavy attack. But today, it's a little different, not only really under heavy attack, and of course, you know, we have a hostile media, as well, which is nothing really new.

But what is new is the fact that our opposition is more organized than ever before. And it's extremely well-funded like it never used to be. So in past critical battle cycles, we were able to basically out fund and outspend our opponents, which made a very big difference. Today, that's not the case anymore, we're being outspent. The, you know, billionaires like Michael Bloomberg was George Soros, people are putting more money in then then we have between all the gun rights groups. And that's altering the battlefield a whole lot.

And unfortunately, like you do local, state legislatures, you're hearing, you know, anti gun rights bills. What we’re seeing is that they bust people in and have more people showing up, wearing t-shirts with slogans on them, and have more people testifying than we have now. We used to refer to it as their astroturf, but this point, you know, the money over time to actually build, you know, a platform for them.

So as a result, the interesting times now are a lot more scary.

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?

ALAN GOTTLIEB

At this particular moment, yes, we are winning in the courts, we're doing very well. In fact, like right now, the Second Amendment Foundation has 48 active cases in court right now. And there are two more that are being readied to be filed. So it can be up at the 50 level very quickly.

I never could have imagined it, you know- ever- that we'd had that many cases going on at one time. Counting other cases that other people have filed as well, it’s probably something around 70 cases, you know, in the in the court system, dealing with the right to keep and bear arms at this time, and we are winning.

The Bruen decision from the Supreme Court last year, June of last year, has had a very heavy impact. And we're only just a little bit less than a year out from that decision. Now things are starting to fall into place from it. And the courts are doing well for us. We've even had a couple of Biden and Obama judges in places rule in our favor, which is like, you know, unbelievable. That never would have happened a year ago. So that's a blessing.

The problem is again, you know, election cycles. Cycles come and go and change. And it doesn't take a whole lot of change in an election to wipe out all the gains we've had with judges.

Biden already has appointed more judges in the in the same time frame than Trump did, and Trump actually made the courts work for us. Biden is obviously in the process of erasing that.

So the courts may not be there that much longer the next election cycle could cement our victories or spell doom for us. But yes, the courts have done a very good job for us.

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?

ALAN GOTTLIEB

That's a tough question. Because obviously, you know, you get rulings in your favor, you get some rulings against you. But you get legislators that are gonna ignore the courts to begin with.

But, you know, let me let me relate it this way. When the Bruen decision from the Supreme Court came down, I expected to see the anti gun states governors and some attorney generals pushing legislation that would, they would think, comply with Bruen. They would be as strong anti-gun as they could get away with. But that didn't happen. They decided to double down and stick their finger in the eye of the Supreme Court and pass legislation that is was even worse than the law that the Bruen ruling struck down in New York.

And as a result, they may be doing us a very big favor.

Because getting cases in front of the Supreme Court first of all, isn’t easy. They have a lot of things to consider and decide. And it's hard to get a gun case to them.

They're usually not taking gun gun cases to close together. But when they go and stick their finger in the Supreme Court's eye, it's going to force the court to take gun cases up at the Supreme Court level.

When the cases are worse than what this Court ordered struck down; the Court’s not going to be happy with that.

So I think in the long run, these anti-gun states that have, you know, gone to the mat, so to speak, are making a rather big mistake.

I think they probably should have waited until the courts switched and there wasn’t a 6-3 pro gun rights majority.

Maybe they should have fought for an anti-gun rights majority before they started doing things like this. They’re helping us cement gun rights by passing all these crazy things.

And to be candid about it, we've got a lot of TROs and preemptory injunctions against a lot of these laws already at the lower court levels. You know: New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Oregon, I mean, they just can't go do this and get away with it. And their timing….it’s not strategically good.

Question

So looking at their strategies…what the heck are they trying to accomplish?

Alan Gottlieb

Well, I think that one they’re true believers, and they don't really care. They think, you know, they can get away with it. And they're obviously appealing to their anti-gun rights base so to speak, and they don't really care. But they may begin be doing us a favor, by overreaching tremendously, which is going to get us some very good, powerful decisions at the High Court level.

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?

Alan Gottlieb

Yeah, I think you're right. But you know, unfortunately for them, while they may have the administration, the Justice Department, you know, on their side, not challenging their laws, there are groups like the Second Amendment foundation that are going to challenge their laws.

And you know we've got a great track record. You use Chicago as an example. So I'm gonna go to Chicago. Sure.McDonald McDonald vs. Chicago: a gun ban on having handguns in Chicago. We overturn that at the US Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court incorporates the Second Amendment to the 14th Amendment, making it applicable to all the states and political subdivisions, which is what's opened up the floodgates for all these suits, including the Bruen case that went to the Supreme Court, right?

We beat it. We beat Chicago. With that said, Chicago comes back and they pass a law saying, Okay, you can have a gun in your own home, but you have to have your training and part of the training is on a gun range. But we've banned gun ranges, so there's no gun range in Chicago for you to get to for training. So… we went to court again, that was Ezell versus Chicago. And we knocked out that law as well.

So then Chicago comes back again - this is you know, your theory here - Chicago was back again, and pass the law, okay, we can have, you can have, you know, a gun range in Chicago.

But we're going to put all these requirements that make it impossible to build one for noise restrictions, you know, for all kinds of other things so that your zoning, so that you can't you can't build it even if you want it to.

So we're back in court, again, with Ezell versus Chicago, and we knock out that law as well.

And, you know, in Chicago, I mean, it's like, they don't learn. They keep coming back. But we keep coming back, and we keep winning. And I think, again, in the long run, when they act the way the act, it hurts them over time.

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?

Alan Gottlieb

I don't know of any way to really slow that up. They've learned over time to do that. And they've also learned over time with our court cases on how to stall the cases themselves and run up our bills in doing so. Tricky, more difficult for us to litigate. And they've gotten good at that from experience.

So I mean, it's hard for me to say what, what makes what makes sense from their point of view. But again….

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?

Alan Gottlieb

There's definitely immaturity on their side, you know, and there's definitely anger on their side as well. You know, this, the battle in general, on the right to keep your arms has gotten, it's always been emotional, but at this point is at the point of over the top and highly toxic. The other side doesn't mind getting engaged in all kinds of toxic rhetoric, which fuels the divisions in our country.

And that stamps out logical, you know, analysis of, you know, what's going to work and what's not going to work in preventing violence.

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?

Alan Gottlieb

Sometimes we do get judges that you know, only want to argue the emotion. They don't want to look at the facts, or the law or the Constitution. We have that in some courtrooms. That used to be more prevalent prior to the Bruen decision. Now, basically they have to go to the text and the history of the Second Amendment rather than balancing tests.

But some of the judges we’re still fighting in some of these courts want to bring it back to the balancing test, even though those have been thrown out.

Question

Right. That's an internecine court war, which is going to happen because one of the challenges we face is that some judges are elected and other judges are appointed. Sometimes it's awfully hard to tell whether they got it on merit or votes.

Alan Gottlieb

That is true. And let me go back in time a little bit, if I can. When I founded the Second Amendment foundation back in 1974, one of our long term goals here was to try to get a case to the US Supreme Court. And now we've had three major ones on gun rights and really a fourth one dealing with guns as well. Right.

Back in 1974, we had a totally different environment in the court system. First of all, there was only one case that really dealt with the right to keep your arms that talked about it being in detail. And that wasn't even a federal case. It was based in Oregon, on the Oregon State Constitution, and it didn't even involve a gun, it involved knives. And the court ruled that you know, a knife is bearing arms and the state couldn't ban certain kinds of knives. That was the only ruling we had.

And in Law Review, you know, journals, there were no law review articles talking about individual rights. We started out having a scholars conference - the first one was at Boston University- where we had about, you know, two dozen pro gun rights attorneys and scholars, laying out what we needed to do to change the environment. And it talked about, you know, doing research and writing law review articles and getting things in popular culture magazines and intellectual publications.

Then we had a second one that's very important. Four years later, at the University of Arizona’s Law School, we then spread out what we already accomplished, which was an awful lot in a short period of time, but had to take a look at, you know, where we were. And we actually invited some anti-gun attorneys and scholars to it as well, to critique our work. So we’d know what we have to improve on.

And we came up with -I think it was the dean at the University of Florida law schools, a 14th amendment Corporation expert, who told us you guys got a big problem - because you're never gonna be challenged with the state laws. Because the 14th Amendment is never Incorporated.

The second amendment only applies to the federal government. That problem is what brought the Heller decision or the Heller case, right at the forefront. Because Washington DC is a federal enclave so to speak, and hence, you could sue, you know, DC, for the individual rights theory. We won that case, and we filed the case in McDonald vs. Chicago to get it incorporated into the 14th amendment so that you can sue all other jurisdictions.

So you talked about earlier on the other side playing a long game, we've had to play a much longer game to get to the point we're at now.

Question

Did you understand 1974 you'd be at this for this long?

Alan Gottlieb

Yeah, coming up on 50 years with the found eight second amendment Foundation. And it's taken this long to get to where we are. So the other side playing the long game? I mean, I guess maybe I can understand it, because we've had to play a very long, long game to get to where we are,

Question

You're playing an Asian long game -thinking 100 years, you know? Most of us think in terms of quarters anymore. Coming from television, I used to think in quarter hours. It's almost inconceivable to me that think that this has been going for this long. In 1974 I was firmly ensconced in the other side of the issue, not as not as an anti-gun participant, but as a benign observer. But I remember when things started to change, and when the cases were moving through the court system. But Alan, that's a long time ago.

Alan Gottlieb

Yes, it really is. It's been quite an amazing journey. So when I said earlier on in this interview that we have close to 50 cases right now that I never could have imagined. Back then I really couldn't imagine one even getting to the Supreme Court for real. Right. So we've come a very long way.

Question

I'd say most people who have had a case go before the Supreme Court, would like to have your record down. How are you now? 3-0?

Alan Gottlieb

Well, yeah, I guess you could say we're 3- 0. The Heller case we didn't bring directly, but our attorney Alan Gura argued it, and we did a very important amicus brief in that case. The other case, and of course, the really important case, McDonald vs. Chicago, which opened the doors for all these all these lawsuits.That was definitely our case. And Bruen wasn't our case, either. But we did a very important amicus brief in that case as well. Yeah.

Question

Well, I I can't think of of Gura without thinking of you guys. So I guess you guys are pretty well, interlinked in the minds of many others.

Alan Gottlieb

Gura is no longer doing gun cases. We're very lucky that we've acquired the law firm of Cooper and Kirk, a noted Washington D law firm that DC law firm. It's heavily engaged in lots of constitutional litigation, to do a lot of work and oversee all of our cases. And so, Cooper Kirk's involvement with this. It's been a godsend.

Question

OK…the Second Amendment foundation….look into the future… where do you see your organization three to five years from now?

Alan Gottlieb

Growing, we're bringing in next generation of leaders to run the organization. As you know, I'm getting a little long in the tooth. And I think the newer younger crowd is going to take the foundation to more heights than I've taken it to.

And I'm really proud of some of our new leadership. And the gun litigation side of what we do will continue. But I think a lot of our other activities and other areas are going to grow as we expand and get better funding.

And I'd like to thank a lot of people in the industry who've stepped up to the plate and helped us do this. Because right now, we couldn't be having close to 50 gun rights cases in the courts if it wasn't some of the industry support we're getting right.

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 there - and our- collective faces?

Alan Gottlieb

Unfortunately, yes. And I've worried about this, from the day I got involved in the gun rights movement, like 50 years ago.

Because when you push people's rights to the wall and take away their freedoms, you’ll always get an equal and opposite reaction. I was worried about it way back when; but now it's gotten to the boiling point.

And I'm very much concerned about it happening from either or both sides. It's why I've probably over the years, been so diligent in watching what rhetoric we use, as well as doing everything I can to beat the other side through normal channels and means like the courts and legislatures, because when people lose their freedoms and their rights, they don't take it lightly.

And with the rhetoric from the other side, and the actions from the other side, you know, pushing outright bans, the ownership of firearms, we're reaching a boiling point.

And I've tried to explain that to our opponents on the other side, that in the long run, they're creating, you know, with what could be a very disastrous situation for our country.

They don't seem to care.

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?

Alan Gottlieb

Yeah, I think that is an accurate characterization.

My concern is, is that I really believe that some of them on the other side, want to provoke violence from our side. Because when that happens, usually you get more repression, not less.

And I'm not sure that's not part of their long game - to try and provoke violence.

And I hate to say that, but we've been debating them around the country and, you know, TV and radio shows and engaging with the people on the other side of this question. I really believe a lot of them intentionally want to provoke violence.

Question

Well, that's not exactly a positive note to end on. So we're not going to stop. Some positives, please? Can we look at at this point going forward? Leave us leave us with a positive takeaway?

Alan Gottlieb

I think the positive takeaway is that when the other side who are anti-gun rights are also, you know, anti police, anti law enforcement, you know, and prosecutors not wanting to prosecute violent criminals, cashless bail, the general public looks at all that and says, “Well, all the more reasons why we should maybe should go out and buy my first gun- to protect myself, my family and my property.”

And that’s bringing more people into our movement. Many of those people are minorities, women, you know, Asians, you know, African Americans.

I think, in the long run, they're helping us out a bit. We're bringing in a constituency much more diversified in the gun rights movement. And I think that's really a blessing that's gonna win the day for us over time.

Question

Let's include a blatant plug here for the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Citizens Committee for the right to keep and bear arms. If someone is reading this and they're thinking, “wow, I don't know enough about these people” - where do they go to learn more? How do we support what you're doing?

Alan Gottlieb

Well, particularly on the on the legal side, the Second Amendment Foundation's website is SAF.org. That’s all our court cases and our news releases about everything we do in the courts. That’s all there, including links, actual briefs. So that'd be a great place for for, you know, people who want more information to go. On the legislative side, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms- what’s going on in Congress and state legislatures.- is CCRKBA.org.

Anybody who can make any financial donations to us, or help help us in our mission be greatly appreciated. We're living in critical times right now and every dollar counts.

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?

Alan Gottlieb

Well, it's a little difficult to answer that, in general, because some cases get there quicker than others do. And, by the way, our attorneys discount their rates to us. So we don't spend as much money as other people do on litigation. The McDonald vs. Chicago case cost us about $750,000 to get to the US Supreme Court. You can pretty much look at cost like a quarter of a million dollars at the trial court level, the Appeal Court level, another quarter million dollars , then the Supreme Court level. So that gives you a rough idea.

Some cases move a little quicker.

Sometimes we're lucky. We win at the trial court level; the other side folds their tent, and you don't have to go you have to go to the appeals level or get it to the Supreme Court.

So it really depends on the case. But the three quarter million dollar figure is probably pretty consistent to get it all the way to the Supreme Court. And that’s at a discounted rate.

Question

I knew it was expensive. But I had no idea. Alan, thank you. I believe we're done.
Recent Interviews
 
Outdoor Wire - 155 Litchfield Rd., Edgartown, MA 02539
Copyright © 2023, OWDN, All Rights Reserved.