Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) approached Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) with a view toward SAF taking over the financially foundering JPFO. Many in JPFO were not pleased. There has been some badmouthing of the Second Amendment Foundation and its leader Alan Gottlieb lately. Having known Alan for decades and having served for many years on SAF’s board of trustees, I feel compelled to offer a word or two.
It was Gottlieb’s vision decades ago which, through SAF, funded much of the scholarly legal research published in respected law journals which today is recognized as authoritatively repudiating many “gun control” arguments. It was SAF that gave impetus to the two greatest US Supreme Court precedents supporting individual rights under the Second Amendment, Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald, et al v. City of Chicago. And SAF is extremely active at the grassroots level as well, as seen here on Fox News.
One commentator said the late founder of JPFO, Aaron Zelman, did not respect Alan Gottlieb and the Second Amendment Foundation. Excuse me? I knew Aaron Zelman, and recall seeing him attending and speaking at the SAF-sponsored Gun Rights Policy Conference. Aaron was no two-faced hypocrite; I’m sure he would not have supported with his attendance an organization of which he disapproved.
I’ve heard Alan and SAF criticized for their choice of lawyers. Um, excuse me? Are they talking about Alan Gura, the brilliant lawyer who won those great victories for the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court of the United States? Both Alans are Jewish, Gura presently in Tel Aviv I’m told; are there members of Jews For Preservation of Firearms Ownership who bash two of the strongest fighters for the Second Amendment who are Jews themselves? What?
Speaking only for myself, it appears to me that SAF is the ship willing to pick up the survivors of the sinking JPFO, and to get them back sailing again on the course that Aaron Zelman founded for his great organization. If members of JPFO are able to keep the original organization afloat, more power to them. If not, I would much rather see SAF take the helm and keep JPFO on course instead of watching JPFO and its accomplishments sink beneath the waves.
All who read this are invited to attend the GRPC. There is no fee, and attendees receive a substantial amount of research materials. Over two days, they’ll hear from the best and the brightest in the pro-gun movement, encompassing national and grassroots organizations alike. Information is available here. Come and talk with Alan Gottlieb and others from SAF, and judge for yourself.
It saddens me that this debate cannot be held without one side bashing the other. I support both organizations and will be attending my first GPRC this year. IMHO, the SAF and Alan Gottlieb have their role, they operate in a political environment where compromise is the ONLY way anything happens. They also operate in a legal environment where they fiercely defend (or prosecute) their side of a case. The SAF legal successes are documented and should be celebrated… that is why I contribute to them. Their political actions (i.e. Manchin-Toomey) are not to my liking because UBC absolutely cannot be compromised on. However, I talked with Mark Walters of Armed American Radio, who originally ranted mightily on Alan regarding the UBC compromise. Mark told me that after his rant, he had several hours of off-line conversations with Alan about the whys and wherefores behind his actions. While Mark did not go into detail about what he learned, he told me that there is a LOT that the public does not know or understand about the behind-the-scenes dealings on the MT bill. Mas, it sounds like you also are aware of this, and I fully intend to read the CCRKBA link you posted.
Which brings me to the JPFO situation. My disappointment is that the Board does not appear to be considering any alternatives other than the SAF combination. My sadness is that we do have a diversity of voices on our side and that diversity is generally GOOD, until it becomes bashing. Each of the voices on our side has a role and serves a specific purpose. Aaron Zelman was UNcompromising (i.e. “junkyard dog”) because he could be – JPFO does not operate in a political environment so compromise does not need to be considered. From the Aaron and JPFO perspective… “What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand” was a simple and elegant operating premise.
Alan Gottlieb and SAF have stated that JPFO will remain independent. I truly want to believe that; however, the evidence with the RKBA deal is not positive. Certainly a JPFO under SAF control will not be able to bash SAF or Alan Gottlieb, but I’m against bashing anyways. Michael Jordan once said (paraphrasing) that the success of the Bulls in the 90’s was due to each player knowing what their role was on the court and executing their role flawlessly. I believe that is what we need to understand in the RKBA community. JPFO’s fiercely independent and UNcompromising voice is necessary. And a loss or watering down of that voice is a loss for the entire community. As far as “united we stand divided we fall” – generally I agree with that. But, just because the different voices on our side promote the cause differently that should not constitute “division.” I’ll return to Michael Jordan… as long as each of the players knows their role and executes it flawlessly, we will have a winning team. NRA, SAF, GOA, JPFO, and others… our freedom, liberty, and American way of life depend on all of us working together to protect and defend our rights.
Mas, you wrote: “No, Claire, they’re your words. At 9:19 this morning in this very commentary, you wrote, “I assure you that he did indeed despise Alan Gottlieb and considered SAF to be primarily a fundraising machine that used barrages of scary mail to pull money out of people.” You wrote in the same comment, “Many, many others (including some commentors on my blog) have testified to Aaron’s opinion of Gottlieb and all his works.”
In the comment the comment you quote about fundraising, I’ve bolded the key terms. Nothing wrong with fundraising for a cause as anybody realizes. However, using a cause primarily as a cynical means to make money — different matter.
And you’re correct, I guess I did say “all his works.” I got carried away and I was wrong. Aaron despised Gottlieb and his approach to both business and gun rights, but I don’t think anyone in the gun-rights movement could despise all Gottlieb’s works. SAF funding has indeed backed important court cases.
Mas, you wrote: “No, Claire, they’re your words. At 9:19 this morning in this very commentary, you wrote, “I assure you that he did indeed despise Alan Gottlieb and considered SAF to be primarily a fundraising machine that used barrages of scary mail to pull money out of people.” You wrote in the same comment, “Many, many others (including some commentors on my blog) have testified to Aaron’s opinion of Gottlieb and all his works.”
In the comment the comment you quote about fundraising, I’ve bolded the key terms. Nothing wrong with fundraising for a cause as anybody realizes. However, using a cause primarily as a cynical means to make money — different matter.
And you’re correct, I guess I did say “all his works.” I got carried away and I was wrong. Aaron despised Gottlieb and his approach to both business and gun rights, but I don’t think anyone in the gun-rights movement could despise all Gottlieb’s works. SAF funding has indeed backed important court cases.
Add me to the list of people who would like to see some transparency exercised here. Why were JPFO’s members not apprised or consulted about the move to sell JPFO out from under them. Doesn’t the membership deserve a say about this? I just contributed a thousand dollars to JPFO less than two weeks ago so I have some skin in this game – I contributed to JPFO, not SAF (or at least, such was my intention!)
If the JPFO board has acted unilaterally towards the end of selling JPFO out from under the membership, then the membership has a right to be outraged at not being apprised of the situation.
What is the deal with the Board, exactly? Why won’t they comment?
Add me to the list of people who would like to see some transparency exercised here. Why were JPFO’s members not apprised or consulted about the move to sell JPFO out from under them. Doesn’t the membership deserve a say about this? I just contributed a thousand dollars to JPFO less than two weeks ago so I have some skin in this game – I contributed to JPFO, not SAF (or at least, such was my intention!)
If the JPFO board has acted unilaterally towards the end of selling JPFO out from under the membership, then the membership has a right to be outraged at not being apprised of the situation.
What is the deal with the Board, exactly? Why won’t they comment?
Mas wrote: “Sybil, I for one would be interested in seeing the details of the alternative plan.”
Sybil is welcome to chime in here, but I’ve been asked by others in the JPFO Rescue Group to address this.
Thank you for your willingness to hear us, Mas.
Most of what I know I’ve already written here: http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2014/08/22/sellout-jpfo-to-be-handed-off-to-saf/
I’ll try now only to hit a few important points.
ABOUT US AND OUR PROPOSAL TO THE JPFO BOARD
* First of all, I want to say that if somebody else stepped in with an even stronger idea for keeping JPFO separate, I believe everybody on the rescue team would applaud. Our only concern is that JPFO remain alive and true to Aaron’s uncompromising vision.
* Who we are: Details are only for the JPFO board, but generally I can tell you that the core group consists of two entrepreneurs who are very well-known and well-regarded in firearms-related industries and three long-time, well-known activists. Most of us have long history as JPFO supporters or associates. We are a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, with an even larger number of Jews helping the effort on the sidelines.
* We have a commitment of funding to cover JPFO’s August shortfall (the proximate cause of the hand-off to SAF). We have varied experience in marketing, advertising, fundraising & other necessities.
* We have addressed such questions as how to cut JPFO’s shockingly high overhead, how to fulfill orders, how to redesign JPFO’s outdated website, how to use social media to get more bang for JPFO’s buck and other important questions.
* Nobody outside the JPFO board will see our full plan because obviously that’s a confidential matter. However, since JPFO leadership has stonewalled (and generally not even acknowledged) our communications, we can’t YET make a full, formal plan because they’ve refused access to financial reports, contracts, and other vital documents.
* We’ve sent all three board members an outline of who we are and what we can do. We have asked them to postpone the SAF merger long enough to let us perform due diligence and present them with a formal plan.
That was a week ago. We haven’t even received a courtesy response. We stand ready to answer any question the JPFO board will ask us.
I’ll add a few more points in a following comment.
Mas wrote: “Sybil, I for one would be interested in seeing the details of the alternative plan.”
Sybil is welcome to chime in here, but I’ve been asked by others in the JPFO Rescue Group to address this.
Thank you for your willingness to hear us, Mas.
Most of what I know I’ve already written here: http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2014/08/22/sellout-jpfo-to-be-handed-off-to-saf/
I’ll try now only to hit a few important points.
ABOUT US AND OUR PROPOSAL TO THE JPFO BOARD
* First of all, I want to say that if somebody else stepped in with an even stronger idea for keeping JPFO separate, I believe everybody on the rescue team would applaud. Our only concern is that JPFO remain alive and true to Aaron’s uncompromising vision.
* Who we are: Details are only for the JPFO board, but generally I can tell you that the core group consists of two entrepreneurs who are very well-known and well-regarded in firearms-related industries and three long-time, well-known activists. Most of us have long history as JPFO supporters or associates. We are a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, with an even larger number of Jews helping the effort on the sidelines.
* We have a commitment of funding to cover JPFO’s August shortfall (the proximate cause of the hand-off to SAF). We have varied experience in marketing, advertising, fundraising & other necessities.
* We have addressed such questions as how to cut JPFO’s shockingly high overhead, how to fulfill orders, how to redesign JPFO’s outdated website, how to use social media to get more bang for JPFO’s buck and other important questions.
* Nobody outside the JPFO board will see our full plan because obviously that’s a confidential matter. However, since JPFO leadership has stonewalled (and generally not even acknowledged) our communications, we can’t YET make a full, formal plan because they’ve refused access to financial reports, contracts, and other vital documents.
* We’ve sent all three board members an outline of who we are and what we can do. We have asked them to postpone the SAF merger long enough to let us perform due diligence and present them with a formal plan.
That was a week ago. We haven’t even received a courtesy response. We stand ready to answer any question the JPFO board will ask us.
I’ll add a few more points in a following comment.
OK -this is waaay off this subject – but I believe you will all understand. Bill Gates, he of the never-ending $$-supply, has now joined the fight against us, beginning with Washington state: State.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/26/the-nra-pissed-off-the-wrong-nerd-genius.html
I’m sure I screwed up the link’s accessibility – but please, everyone, check it out.
OK -this is waaay off this subject – but I believe you will all understand. Bill Gates, he of the never-ending $$-supply, has now joined the fight against us, beginning with Washington state: State.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/26/the-nra-pissed-off-the-wrong-nerd-genius.html
I’m sure I screwed up the link’s accessibility – but please, everyone, check it out.
Continuing…
It’s vital to raise issues about the impending JPFO merger. Because completely aside from whatever anybody thinks of the merits of our Rescue Group, this deal has been handled appallingly and with complete disregard for JPFO’s legacy and the concerns of its members and donors.
* JPFO workers learned about the merger plan only on August 14 (and some were apparently never told at all). JPFO managing director Doug Schuett told two of us that SAF specifically intended to keep the entire JPFO team (other than office staff).
* On the evening of August 18, Doug told me that his earlier statement was untrue. SAF had never expressed any desire to keep the team together. It was left to me to convey that to everybody else. We do not know what SAF intends — only that the original statement was made up by the board member pushing most heavily for the deal.
* The only consistent information we’ve been given is that the deal would be finalized before the end of this month. Two weeks from start to finish! Can anybody believe such haste is good business?
* No one outside the JPFO board and SAF has been able to get any information about the terms of the deal. Not one word. All communications have simply been stonewalled.
* Life members and corporate donors have contacted JPFO only to have their emails blocked, their concerns unanswered, and their messages dismissed as “vitriol” I, personally, have heard from two corporate sponsors that JPFO won’t even answer their messages. Three of JPFO’s corporate sponsors are actively supporting the effort to keep JPFO independent.
* Whether one thinks the SAF takeover is a good thing or a bad one, the way this has been handled is disgraceful! High-handed, authoritarian, secretive, arrogant, completely lacking in both transparency and regard for JPFO’s members and donors.
For this reason alone, the merger should be halted long enough to be exposed to very, very careful scrutiny.
Continuing…
It’s vital to raise issues about the impending JPFO merger. Because completely aside from whatever anybody thinks of the merits of our Rescue Group, this deal has been handled appallingly and with complete disregard for JPFO’s legacy and the concerns of its members and donors.
* JPFO workers learned about the merger plan only on August 14 (and some were apparently never told at all). JPFO managing director Doug Schuett told two of us that SAF specifically intended to keep the entire JPFO team (other than office staff).
* On the evening of August 18, Doug told me that his earlier statement was untrue. SAF had never expressed any desire to keep the team together. It was left to me to convey that to everybody else. We do not know what SAF intends — only that the original statement was made up by the board member pushing most heavily for the deal.
* The only consistent information we’ve been given is that the deal would be finalized before the end of this month. Two weeks from start to finish! Can anybody believe such haste is good business?
* No one outside the JPFO board and SAF has been able to get any information about the terms of the deal. Not one word. All communications have simply been stonewalled.
* Life members and corporate donors have contacted JPFO only to have their emails blocked, their concerns unanswered, and their messages dismissed as “vitriol” I, personally, have heard from two corporate sponsors that JPFO won’t even answer their messages. Three of JPFO’s corporate sponsors are actively supporting the effort to keep JPFO independent.
* Whether one thinks the SAF takeover is a good thing or a bad one, the way this has been handled is disgraceful! High-handed, authoritarian, secretive, arrogant, completely lacking in both transparency and regard for JPFO’s members and donors.
For this reason alone, the merger should be halted long enough to be exposed to very, very careful scrutiny.
having a GRPC at Chicago? A city of high crime and no way to legal carry, in its self sends the wrong message. We supposed to stand by the policy of not supporting a business that states a no firearms policy. I will not attend because I would conceal carry a firearm to this conference, why not Rapid city or Sioux falls, South Dakota. This state has repository and recognizes all carry permits and has preemptive laws that are uniform unlike most states. Bring business to pro-rights states not ones that would prosecute conceal carriers from other states that do not recognize their home state permits.
having a GRPC at Chicago? A city of high crime and no way to legal carry, in its self sends the wrong message. We supposed to stand by the policy of not supporting a business that states a no firearms policy. I will not attend because I would conceal carry a firearm to this conference, why not Rapid city or Sioux falls, South Dakota. This state has repository and recognizes all carry permits and has preemptive laws that are uniform unlike most states. Bring business to pro-rights states not ones that would prosecute conceal carriers from other states that do not recognize their home state permits.
Aye, what’s the scoop Claire? It’s kinda difficult from my admittedly far-removed perspective to see the reason for all the secrecy.
#OREGON HOBO#
Aye, what’s the scoop Claire? It’s kinda difficult from my admittedly far-removed perspective to see the reason for all the secrecy.
#OREGON HOBO#
Thanks Mas!
Here’s one thing which most people forget, I don’t have to agree with another person 100%, in order for me to accept the other person or his cause.
Thanks Mas!
Here’s one thing which most people forget, I don’t have to agree with another person 100%, in order for me to accept the other person or his cause.
the essential part of this story for me is JPFO’s financial foundering (and the irony thereof), not the SAF takeover. the conflict seems to be running the organization on principle versus as a business. apparently the two models can not easily co-exist.
if the organization was truly “principled”, it should not have issue with doing what is rite: bring in volunteers to replace paid employees; cut-back on salaries, number of paid employees, office space; have fund raisers; oust the directors; change the bylaws; whatever it takes.
i don’t understand how a paying member does not have much of a say in this and instead the fate is being decided by people holding meetings in secret private meetings.
the essential part of this story for me is JPFO’s financial foundering (and the irony thereof), not the SAF takeover. the conflict seems to be running the organization on principle versus as a business. apparently the two models can not easily co-exist.
if the organization was truly “principled”, it should not have issue with doing what is rite: bring in volunteers to replace paid employees; cut-back on salaries, number of paid employees, office space; have fund raisers; oust the directors; change the bylaws; whatever it takes.
i don’t understand how a paying member does not have much of a say in this and instead the fate is being decided by people holding meetings in secret private meetings.
Mas,
Thanks for this. I’d like to put my two cents in if I may.
I’m a jew, a religious one at that, The Torah is pretty clear on of defense, as are the later commentaries, and most importantly common sense, I’m a gun owner in a non gun friendly state. When I was younger I would donate to JPFO and some other organizations, I felt their scrappy attitude was beneficial. I’m a little older now, and I have come to respect the more reserved strategies too. I respect any organization that will help in the legal fight and infighting is not going to help us, let each play his or her part.
As an aside, as we all know, my family members were proud Germans and proud Jews, decorated World War One veterans and gun owners, their guns were registered, seized and they were then registered and seized and butchered. It must never happen, as I live and breath it shall never happen , that’s the point we all agree on, whether JPFO survives on its own, or is taken over, or something else happens doesn’t matter to me, the goal is what matters to me. Keep fighting the fight Mas, and everyone on here
Mas,
Thanks for this. I’d like to put my two cents in if I may.
I’m a jew, a religious one at that, The Torah is pretty clear on of defense, as are the later commentaries, and most importantly common sense, I’m a gun owner in a non gun friendly state. When I was younger I would donate to JPFO and some other organizations, I felt their scrappy attitude was beneficial. I’m a little older now, and I have come to respect the more reserved strategies too. I respect any organization that will help in the legal fight and infighting is not going to help us, let each play his or her part.
As an aside, as we all know, my family members were proud Germans and proud Jews, decorated World War One veterans and gun owners, their guns were registered, seized and they were then registered and seized and butchered. It must never happen, as I live and breath it shall never happen , that’s the point we all agree on, whether JPFO survives on its own, or is taken over, or something else happens doesn’t matter to me, the goal is what matters to me. Keep fighting the fight Mas, and everyone on here
Claire, help me out with one thing. If the current, duly constituted JPFO board wears the bad guy hat for making a takeover deal without general membership input, how does your Rescue Group wear the good guy hat when it has not revealed its alternative takeover plan, either?
Looking forward to hearing more details from you on your group’s proposal.
Claire, help me out with one thing. If the current, duly constituted JPFO board wears the bad guy hat for making a takeover deal without general membership input, how does your Rescue Group wear the good guy hat when it has not revealed its alternative takeover plan, either?
Looking forward to hearing more details from you on your group’s proposal.
We are private individuals. Our only aim at this moment is to get the JPFO board to agree to postpone the SAF merger long enough to 1) allow us to perform our due diligence and 2) hear a proposal from us.
IF the board agrees to do that (which seems unlikely), then I am totally in favor of the board laying out BOTH proposals in detail to the JPFO membership and donors and asking which one they prefer.
In the meantime, we are merely a handful of JPFO supporters facing a large, well-funded, and ruthless organization. Giving SAF all the information about our plans while we have nothing but guesses about theirs would merely empower them while putting us at an extreme disadvantage.
If you disapprove of all secrecy, then why not focus on what SAF and the JPFO board are already, actively doing? Why not ask them to reveal the details of a deal that is, as we speak, about to be finalized with no outside input whatsover?
We are private individuals. Our only aim at this moment is to get the JPFO board to agree to postpone the SAF merger long enough to 1) allow us to perform our due diligence and 2) hear a proposal from us.
IF the board agrees to do that (which seems unlikely), then I am totally in favor of the board laying out BOTH proposals in detail to the JPFO membership and donors and asking which one they prefer.
In the meantime, we are merely a handful of JPFO supporters facing a large, well-funded, and ruthless organization. Giving SAF all the information about our plans while we have nothing but guesses about theirs would merely empower them while putting us at an extreme disadvantage.
If you disapprove of all secrecy, then why not focus on what SAF and the JPFO board are already, actively doing? Why not ask them to reveal the details of a deal that is, as we speak, about to be finalized with no outside input whatsover?
I think Roger Daltry had a few words appropriate to the subject.
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…”
and
“Won’t get fooled again!”
I think Roger Daltry had a few words appropriate to the subject.
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…”
and
“Won’t get fooled again!”
Claire, I really think it’s over the top to call SAF “ruthless.” And I still don’t see where one “pig in a poke” is righteous, and the other is bad…
Claire, I really think it’s over the top to call SAF “ruthless.” And I still don’t see where one “pig in a poke” is righteous, and the other is bad…
Claire, I should also have added just now, that the SAF board is known to the public, and your proposed slate is not at this time.
Claire, I should also have added just now, that the SAF board is known to the public, and your proposed slate is not at this time.
New topic, please? Please? Oh, well…good thing Jackie Clay isn’t beating this into the ground!
New topic, please? Please? Oh, well…good thing Jackie Clay isn’t beating this into the ground!
I certainly qualify as a gun owner who is completely ignorant of the internal machinations and personalities of BOTH the SAF and the JPFO. That ignorance is not bliss, but it does make me impartial – and able to tell you it sure appears one side of this “discussion” keeps getting very personal, while the other side attempts to keep things under control. Those who are voicing such strong personal opinions should keep in mind the vast majority of readers only know what we read. It seems there is an awful lot of posturing and choosing sides going on here, which will never solve anything.
I certainly qualify as a gun owner who is completely ignorant of the internal machinations and personalities of BOTH the SAF and the JPFO. That ignorance is not bliss, but it does make me impartial – and able to tell you it sure appears one side of this “discussion” keeps getting very personal, while the other side attempts to keep things under control. Those who are voicing such strong personal opinions should keep in mind the vast majority of readers only know what we read. It seems there is an awful lot of posturing and choosing sides going on here, which will never solve anything.
Mas,
it doesn’t matter that the SAF board is know to the public, what they have in mind for this takeover ISN’T known. What you are asking Claire and his group to do is the equivalent of telling a boxer that he has to wear a bag over his head when he enters the ring, and his opponent doesn’t, and that maybe he might be allowed to remove the bag at some future point, and maybe not.
IANAL, however, it would seem that the board may be ignoring it’s fiduciary responsibility, judging from what little is publicly known at this time.
I’m thinking it’s nearly time to break out the popcorn. This looks to be heading toward a real mess, the kind that only lawyers enjoy firsthand. And that is due to them leaving with most of the money.
Mas,
it doesn’t matter that the SAF board is know to the public, what they have in mind for this takeover ISN’T known. What you are asking Claire and his group to do is the equivalent of telling a boxer that he has to wear a bag over his head when he enters the ring, and his opponent doesn’t, and that maybe he might be allowed to remove the bag at some future point, and maybe not.
IANAL, however, it would seem that the board may be ignoring it’s fiduciary responsibility, judging from what little is publicly known at this time.
I’m thinking it’s nearly time to break out the popcorn. This looks to be heading toward a real mess, the kind that only lawyers enjoy firsthand. And that is due to them leaving with most of the money.
Comments are closed.