• White House Spits in our Face over AR-15 Ban

  • Will Obama be Forced to Swallow a Repeal of the AR-15 Ammo Ban?

  • Will Sen. McConnell force the ATF to cry “uncle” on the AR-15 Ammo Ban?

  • ATF Seeks to Suppress AR-15’s by Banning Common AR-15 Ammo

  • GOA-backed “Constitutional Carry” Bills Introduced in Congress!

    -- Urge your congressmen to cosponsor the Stutzman bill Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Legislative Action Center LINK

facebook_icontwitter_iconyoutube_icon

GOA News

  • Concealed Carry
  • Coast-to-Coast
  • Constitutional Crisis
  • United Nations
  • Rev. Schenck

Gun groups launch new push for concealed-carry legislation

Gun rights groups are gearing up for a major push to move concealed-carry legislation through the new Republican Congress….

Second Amendment advocates are throwing their weight behind the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, a bill introduced in both chambers of Congress that would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines….

Read More

Constitutional Carry Bills Advancing from Coast-to-Coast

The concept of “constitutional carry” is simple:  An individual's ability to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights shouldn't depend on a “permit” from the government.

Currently, there are six states that allow permitless carry throughout all or most of their jurisdictions.

This week in New Hampshire, the full Senate will be taking up SB 116, a constitutional carry bill which previously passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 3-1 vote.

Read More

An Unprecedented Constitutional Crisis
by Tim Macy

What if a man ascended to the presidency who was so ruthless in his desire to transform the United States to his bidding that the restraints of the Constitution became irrelevant to him?  

What if his sycophantic Attorney General excused his law-breaking, while his regulators sought to destroy his political opposition?  

What if his vicar in the Senate obliterated the Senate rules in order to pack the courts with toadies and go-fers who existed to do the President's bidding?

Read More

2nd Amendment threatened in Obama's trade plans


Take Action Today!

Contact your Senators and Representative.  Ask them to oppose giving Barack Obama the unbridled authority to impose back-door, UN-styled gun control!


UNITED NATIONS – Giving President Obama fast-track authority to conclude an international trade agreement is like playing Russian roulette with six bullets in the chamber, says one of America’s leading gun rights organizations.

Gun Owners of America is blasting a congressional proposal that empowers Obama to unilaterally negotiate international agreements as “a ‘bait and switch’ scheme that could seriously impact the Second Amendment.”

Read More

The Right to Defend Your Family is a “Pro-Life” Value
by Erich Pratt

USA Today isn't exactly a close ally of either the pro-life or Second Amendment movements. So it’s not surprising that on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the newspaper published an opinion piece by Pastor Rob Schenck trying to pick a fight between the two communities. 

That's not going to happen.

Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • College Student
  • Texas Man
  • Viral Video
  • Arby Customer
  • Throat-Slashing Psycho

College Student Says She’s Glad Her Dad Gave Her The Gun She Used To Fight Off Armed Home Invaders 

A University of Central Florida student says she’s glad her dad gave her a gun to take to school after she needed one to confront two violent home invaders who held her boyfriend at gun point and threatened her life.

Sable Nehme and her boyfriend, Nour Skargee, answered a knock at their off-campus apartment Tuesday. When they opened the door, two men burst in, WFTV reported.

One of the men pointed a gun at Skargee and ordered him to the ground.

“They said ‘we’re going to kill your girl,’” said Skargee, who also attends UCF. “That’s when I really lost hope, you know.”

Nehme told WFTV that she ran to the couple’s bedroom and tried to lock the door.

Read More

Anti-Gun Advocates Routinely Ask Why Anyone Would Ever Need More Than 10 Bullets — Texas Man Now Has a Good Reason

A man in Tomball, Texas, was startled out of his sleep by the sound of someone kicking in his front door on Monday night.

He quickly retrieved his firearm, ready defend his life and property — though he likely didn’t anticipate the intense firefight that would occur.

Two suspects and homeowner traded more than 30 shots during the aggressive home invasion, KHOU-TV reports.

Harris County Assistant Chief Deputy Mark Herman told KPRC-TV that the homeowner was “in fear for his life” when he opened fire on the suspects who invaded his home. He couldn’t confirm whether anyone was hit by gunfire during the exchange.

Read More

Viral Video: Proof That Guns Save Lives Compilation

This compilation video of news stories and videos of gun owners refusing to become victims is a great resource.  In many cases simply the presence of a gun sends the criminals scurrying. Scroll down to watch the video.

Read More

Armed Arby’s Customer Stops Knife-Wielding Robber

A Utah man who just wanted to order food at an Arby’s restaurant ended up thwarting a robbery attempt by a knife-wielding woman with a criminal history.

It happened at around noon on Sunday when, according to the Deseret News, the customer was placing his order in the drive-thru of the Vernal roast beef sandwich franchise.

When the man realized that the cashier was not responding to him he pulled out of the drive-thru, parked his truck, and went inside the store to order his food there.

In the store, one of the cashiers mouthed to him the words “We’re being robbed.”

Read More

Woman Fires Gun, Sends Throat-Slashing Psycho Running for His Life

Alleged throat-slitting psycho Ronald Kaehne was charged with two counts of attempted first degree homicide after the slasher murders he’s planned in his journal didn’t go quite the way he’d hoped, and he was forced to flee or his life before he could kill his intended victims.

Read More

As Senate Reconvenes... Veterans Disarmament Bill Offers False Hopes Of Relief For Gun Owners

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585

"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past." -- Patrick Henry, in his "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech of March 23, 1775

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Patrick Henry had it right. Forget the past, and you're destined to make the same mistakes in the future.

Gun control has been an absolute failure. Whether it's a total gun ban or mere background checks, gun control has FAILED to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

But gun control fanatics still want to redouble their efforts, even when their endeavors have not worked. Congress is full of fanatics who want to expand the failed Brady Law to such an extent that millions of law-abiding citizens will no longer be able to own or buy guns.

For months, GOA has been warning gun owners about the McCarthy-Leahy bill -- named after Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). These anti-gun legislators have teamed up to introduce a bill that will expand the 1993 Brady Law and disarm hundreds of thousands of combat veterans -- and other Americans. (While McCarthy and Leahy are this year's primary sponsors, the notorious Senator Chuck Schumer of New York was a sponsor of this legislation in years past.)

Proponents of the bill tell us that it will bring relief for many gun owners. But to swallow this, one must first ignore the fact that gun owners would NOT NEED RELIEF in the first place if some gun owners (and gun groups) had not thrown their support behind the Brady bill that passed in 1993 and were not pushing the Veterans Disarmament Bill now.

Law-abiding Americans need relief because we were sold a bill of goods in 1993. The Brady Law has allowed government bureaucrats to screen law-abiding citizens before they exercise their constitutionally protected rights -- and that has opened the door to all kinds of abuses.

The McCarthy-Leahy bill will open the door to many more abuses. After all, do we really think that notorious anti-gunners like McCarthy and Leahy had the best interests of gun owners in mind when they introduced this Veterans Disarmament Bill? The question answers itself.

TRADE-OFF TO HURT GUN OWNERS

Proponents want us to think this measure will benefit many gun owners. But what sort of trade off is it to create potentially millions of new prohibited persons -- under this legislation -- and then tell them that they need to spend thousands of dollars to regain the rights THAT WERE NOT THREATENED before this bill was passed?

Do you see the irony? Gun control gets passed. The laws don't stop criminals from getting guns, but they invariably affect law-abiding folks. So instead of repealing the dumb laws, the fanatics argue that we need even more gun control (like the Veterans Disarmament Bill) to fix the problem!!!

So more people lose their rights, even while they're promised a very limited recourse for restoring those rights -- rights which they never would lose, save for the McCarthy-Leahy bill.

The legislation threatens to disqualify millions of new gun owners who are not a threat to society. If this bill is signed into law:

  • As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be prohibited from owning firearms -- based solely on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder;
  • Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance);
  • Your kid could be permanently banned from owning a gun, based on a diagnosis under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Patrick Henry said he knew of "no way of judging of the future but by the past." The past has taught us that gun control fanatics and bureaucrats are continually looking for loopholes in the law to deny guns to as many people as possible.

GUN CONTROL'S ABOMINABLE RECORD

A government report in 1996 found that the Brady Law had prevented a significant number of Americans from buying guns because of outstanding traffic tickets and errors. The General Accounting Office said that more than 50% of denials under the Brady Law were for administrative snafus, traffic violations, or reasons other than felony convictions.

Press reports over the years have also shown gun owners inconvenienced by NICS computer system crashes -- especially when those crashes happen on the weekends (affecting gun shows).

Right now, gun owners in Pennsylvania are justifiably up in arms because the police scheduled a routine maintenance (and shut-down) of their state computer system on the opening days of hunting season this year. The shut-down, by the way, has taken three days -- which is illegal.

And then there's the BATFE’s dastardly conduct in the state of Wyoming. The anti-gun agency took the state to court after legislators figured out a way to restore people's ability to buy firearms -- people who had been disarmed by the Lautenberg gun ban of 1996.

Gun Owners Foundation has been involved in this Wyoming case, and has seen up close how the BATFE has TOTALLY DISREGARDED a Supreme Court opinion which allows this state to do what they did. In Caron v. United States (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court said that any conviction which has been set aside or expunged at the state level "shall not be considered a conviction," under federal law, for the purposes of owning or buying guns. But the BATFE has ignored this Court ruling, and is bent on preventing states like Wyoming from restoring people's gun rights.

Not surprisingly, the BATFE has issued new 4473s which ASSUME the McCarthy-Leahy bill has already passed. The bill has not even been enacted into law yet, and the BATFE is already using the provisions of that bill to keep more people from buying guns.

The new language on the 4473 form asks:

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs)....

Notice the words "determination" and "other lawful authority." Relying on a DETERMINATION is broader than just relying on a court "ruling," and the words OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY are not limited to judges. In other words, the definition above would allow a VA psychologist or a school shrink to take away your gun rights.

This is what McCarthy and Leahy are trying to accomplish, but the BATFE has now been emboldened to go ahead and do it anyway. This means that military vets could potentially commit a felony by buying a gun WITHOUT disclosing that they have Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome because a "lawful authority" has decreed that they are a potential danger to themselves or others.

No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to the McCarthy-Leahy bill. On June 18 of this year, the group stated, "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

MORE RESTRICTIONS, NOT RELIEF

Supporters, like the NRA, say that they were able to win compromises from the Dark Side -- compromises that will benefit gun owners. Does the bill really make it easier to get your gun rights restored -- even after spending lots of time and money in court? Well, that's VERY debatable, and GOA has grappled this question in a very lengthy piece entitled, Point-by-Point Response to Proponents of HR 2640.

In brief, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill.

Incidentally, even before Schumer blocked the procedure, the ability to get "relief from disabilities" under section 925(c) was always an expensive long shot. Presumably, the new procedures in the Veterans Disarmament Act will be the same.

Isn't that always the record from Washington? You compromise with the devil and then get lots of bad, but very little good. Look at the immigration debate. Compromises over the last two decades have provided amnesty for illegal aliens, while promising border security. The country got lots of the former, but very little of the latter.

If the Veterans Disarmament Bill passes, don't hold your breath waiting for the promised relief.

ACTION: Please use the letter below to contact your Senator. You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center (where phone and fax numbers are also available).

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

While the NRA does some good work in the areas of shooting competitions, firearms training, etc., THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME when they support the so-called School Safety Act, sponsored by Patrick Leahy in the Senate and Carolyn McCarthy in the House (HR 2640).

Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans." Gun owners don't want to expand the Brady Instant Check, we want to repeal it. It is simply un-American to penalize individuals (like veterans) with no due process by assuming they are guilty until proven innocent.

Anti-gun zealots are always looking to expand the number of citizens who are prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights. I don't believe that this bill will provide the relief that supporters are promising.

After all, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill.

The Leahy bill is gun control, pure and simple, and voting for it tells me you don't care about a little thing known as the Constitution.

Sincerely,

Op-Ed Articles