• Happy Independence Day!

    Gun owners should take heart because freedom is advancing Read More
  • Obama, Senators Want to Resurrect Gun Ban

    -- Seek to blame all gun owners for actions of a lone Dirt Bag Read More
  • Tell Boehner to Stop Attacking Pro-gunners!

    -- Your immediate calls are needed Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

GOA News

  • Gay Marriage & CCW
  • Genius of the Fourth
  • Pope Francis
  • SC Shooting
  • Obama Slammed

Does the Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling Set the Stage for Concealed Carry Reciprocity?

There has been a lot of interest in the Obergefell case -- decided by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2015 -- and its impact upon concealed carry reciprocity. Some have even suggested that the Court’s recent decision “mandates” reciprocity.

  

Read More

The Genius of July 4 Trumps Every Gun Control Argument

by Erich Pratt

The most amazing debate took place in the Grand Canyon State earlier this year.

Read More

Pope Francis Libels Gun Owners

by Larry Pratt

The Pope has been taking aim at the Second Amendment for some time.  Last year, he referred to arms makers as “merchants of death.” Now the Pope has questioned the Christianity of manufacturers and owners of guns

.

Read More

The President Gets it Wrong Once Again -- Guns are actually saving lives

by Erich Pratt

Just hours after the tragic shooting in a South Carolina church, President Barack Obama resumed his fanatical war on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.

 

Read More

Gun Groups Slam Obama on SC Comments

Gun-rights groups Thursday slammed President Barack Obama's call for a national reckoning on gun violence after the fatal shooting of nine people in a South Carolina church Wednesday night and his remark that "this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries."…

"Just hours after the tragic shooting in a South Carolina church, President Barack Obama resumed his fanatical war on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners," said Erich Pratt, spokesman for the Gun Owners of America.

"The president wants to blame an inanimate object — the gun," Pratt added. "But that just deflects blame away from the real culprit: gun-control policies that leave people defenseless in the face of evil perpetrators who are never effectively prevented from acquiring weapons."

[The President] acknowledged the scant sentiment within the Republican-controlled Congress for stricter gun laws, saying that he recognizes "the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now."

Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • Ex-Boyfriend
  • Not in My House
  • One Less Invader
  • Fake Gun
  • TX Woman

MAN ALLEGEDLY GOES AFTER EX-GIRLFRIEND, KICKS IN TRAILER DOOR, GETS SHOT, KILLED

On June 6, a Caseyville, Illinois man allegedly told his ex-girlfriend he was coming to get her, then kicked in her trailer door and was subsequently shot and killed.

Read More

5 Armed Men Try To Enter Detroit Home, Female Concealed Carrier Inside Says Nope

Around 3am Tuesday morning, 5 men entered a Detroit home, however they became quickly aware that they picked the wrong house.

Read More

Violent Home Invader Shot And Killed In Boulder

19-year-old Roberto Zamora attempted to break into several homes in a Boulder neighborhood before finally choosing the wrong house.

Read More

Teen With Fake Gun Shot Trying To Mug Concealed Carrier With Real Gun

After a nice meal at the Shell on Fowler Avenue, a couple were leaving when two teenagers emerged from the bushes brandishing what was thought to be an actual gun. The two teens – identified now as Reginald Smith and Jeremiah Walker – demanded the couple’s money and cell phones.

Read More

Female Concealed Carrier Shoots Knife-Wielding Robber In Houston

Don’t mess with Texas women.

A woman was “cool as a cucumber” Friday evening when she opened fire at a man who tried to rob her at a gas station in northeast Harris County, sheriff’s deputies said.

The woman, in her mid-30s, pulled into an Exxon station about 6 p.m. along FM 2100 and Saddle Creek Farms Drive.

She was in the driver’s seat when a man suddenly got into the passenger side. He pulled out a knife and demanded her cash, Harris County sheriff’s deputies said.

Read More
Q&A On The Veterans Disarmament Act
-- How the new law will affect your constituents

(January 10, 2008)

President Bush signed the Veterans Disarmament Act (HR 2640) into law this week, a bill that would disarm hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Americans -- not to mention military veterans!

The bill passed Congress last month as most Americans were preparing for the Christmas holidays. It was December 19. Most Congressmen had left town and were either at the airport or in the air returning home. They weren't in Washington, DC, because their party leadership had told them that all the major votes were over... that the only legislative business left related to non-controversial issues, such as when Congress would return from Christmas break, etc.

But it was then, with most of the Congress gone, that the House and Senate passed the Veterans Disarmament Act without a recorded vote. It was a huge deja vu, as this was the method that a previous Democratic Congress used -- together with compliant Republicans -- to pass the original Brady Law in 1993.

WHAT DOES THE LAW DO IN GENERAL?

It would be a mistake to under-react -- or over-react -- to the passage of the Veterans Disarmament Act. On the bad side, this law statutorily validates BATFE regulations which could potentially disarm millions of Americans. This is a VERY DANGEROUS turn of events which will have huge ramifications over the next several decades.

The extent to which its unconstitutional potential will be realized will be clear only over time -- and perhaps a long time -- and will depend on whether pro-gunners or anti-gunners are in power. For example, it took a full thirty years for language in the 1968 Gun Control Act to be used to disarm veterans.

On the other hand, a few modest concessions were obtained which should provide some protection to gun owners -- though NOT NEARLY ENOUGH PROTECTION TO JUSTIFY SUPPORT of this law.

So having said that, what are the implications of this legislation for Americans with psychiatric diagnoses?

Although we succeeded in forcing the deletion of the ratification of the BATF regulations, per se, section 101 (c) (1) (C) contains new language which could make someone a "prohibited person" (unable to own a gun) based solely on a medical finding (by a psychiatrist or psychologist), provided:

    * That he or she had "an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority"; and

    * In the future, that one had notice that he or she would be made a "prohibited person" as a result of the agency action (section 101 (c) (3)).

However, even these modest gains have severe limitations. Up to 140,000 veterans had their gun rights taken away as a result of a diagnosis of a mental disorder such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). But this new law does not require two important things for those 140,000 people:

1. The new law does not require that a veteran needed to have any knowledge of the ramifications of the "diagnosis" in the past -- and the fact that this diagnosis could disarm him or her for life. How many veterans suffering from PTSD simply went to Veterans Affairs, hoping to get treatment, but now face a lifetime gun ban because of the new law?

2. Also, the act does not require that the disarmed vets even knew they had a right to appeal their diagnosis. Many of the 140,000 Americans who have now lost their Second Amendment rights first received a letter from Veterans Affairs telling them that, due to their diagnosis, a "guardian" was being appointed for them to handle their affairs. As stated above, how many vets realized that this action would deem them as "mental defective" under the 1968 Gun Control Act and strip them of their gun rights?

Moreover, how many vets realized they could challenge this action by appealing the diagnosis? If they didn't realize the significance of this VA letter, most likely, the vets did nothing, as they were more concerned with getting the monetary benefits that such a diagnosis would bring. But, whether they knew these things or not, this new law would still validate the removal of their Second Amendment rights.

HOW WILL THE LAW AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS?

If a person has been subject to a psychological or psychiatric diagnosis, the following may be helpful:

    * A diagnosis by a private doctor -- with no government involvement -- will probably cause one no problems.

    * The biggest danger remains the danger for veterans, as mentioned above. And even though the language of this law could conceivably disarm adults who were diagnosed as kids with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program, seniors on Medicare with Alzheimer's, etc., we know of no active efforts to disarm persons in these cases -- yet.

    * The likelihood that new classes of people will be disarmed will be directly related to the ease of accomplishing this though a computer keyboard. If a person's file exists only on microfiche in a dusty basement cabinet, one is relatively safe for now -- although, keep in mind, the new law calls for monies to be spent on collecting and updating records like this.

    * Obviously, the question of whether a gun hater or Second Amendment supporter is in the White House on January 20, 2009, will have a lot to do with how vigorously this new statute is enforced.

WHAT CAN PEOPLE DO IF THEY’RE ILLEGITIMATELY DENIED A GUN?

In the unlikely event that a person can get their diagnosis "set aside," "expunged," or found to no longer exist, one can regain their rights. [See section 101 (c) (1) (A) & (B).]

The McClure-Volkmer "relief from disabilities" provisions which have been blocked by Congress for 15 years have been reinstated and expanded -- so that they will now exist in the broader range of state and federal agencies which this law will allow to make one a prohibited person. Pursuant to negotiations over GOA's objections, we were able to secure very modest improvements which:

    * Would allow individuals to sue to get their rights restored if the agency sat on their appeal for 365 days;

    * Would allow people to get their legal fees if they prevail against the agency in court;

    * Would prevent Congress from defunding these efforts in the same way it defunded McClure-Volkmer -- by requiring the 3% of state funds under this law be used for these "relief from disabilities" programs.

But here's the major loophole in all of this. What minimal gains were granted by the "right hand" was taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides a process for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in subsection (a)(2), the law stipulates that such relief may occur only if "the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST." (Emphasis added.)

This language sounds similar to those state codes (like California's) that have "may issue" concealed carry laws -- where citizens "technically" have the right to carry, but state law only says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry. When given such leeway, those sheriffs usually don't grant the permits!

As we have predicted before: liberal states -- the same states that took these people's rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that granting relief would be "contrary to the public interest."

--GOA--

Op-Ed Articles