• Obama Wants to Tie the UN Noose Even Tighter Around the Necks of Gun Owners

  • Recent Shootings Spur Gun Debate

  • Oppose Obama’s Proposal to Make Information-Sharing on Guns Illegal

    -- Today is the last day for submitting comments Read More
  • Gun Rights Advancing Across the Country!

  • Congress Pushes to Arm Service Members at Military Recruitment Centers

  • Momentum Building for Repealing Gun Free Zones

        Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6

GOA News

  • END THE CHECK
  • UN Gun Control
  • CA Gun Takaway
  • GOA Blasts Dems
  • GOA: Abolish Gun Free Zones

GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA: ABOLISH BACKGROUND CHECKS, DESTROY LINKED DATABASE

On August 31, Breitbart News spoke with Gun Owners of America’s (GOA) executive director, Larry Pratt, about background checks for gun purchasers, and he made clear that GOA opposed them when they were first introduced under President Bill Clinton and that GOA believes they should be abolished now.

Pratt also stressed that the database tied to them should be destroyed.

Our conversation began with a discussion of how yet another public attacker, Vester Lee Flanagan, demonstrated the impotency of background checks by passing one to acquire the gun he used to shoot and kill Alison Parker and Adam Ward in Virginia.

Pratt responded by pointing out that public attackers are not the only ones background checks fail to stop. He said, “During the last year of record, although the government has done millions upon million of background checks, they brought 14 prosecutions to court for trial–hardly a crime-fighting tool.” He said some people respond to this by pointing out that there were people who were “denied getting a gun at the point of sale,” but these people fail to note that criminals get guns in ways that completely circumvent the checks.

Read More

UN GUN CONTROL BODY SUPPORTED BY OBAMA SETS UP VETO-PROOF FRAMEWORK

Representatives attending the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in Mexico this week have set up a structure for future conferences on gun control that include a veto-proof decision making process.

According to Reuters, representatives from 130 countries gathered in Mexico, although only 72 countries have fully ratified the treaty. They determined that Geneva will be “the seat of the permanent secretariat for the ATT” and they unanimously decided that unanimous agreements would not have to be reached on gun control decisions going forward.

This gives the body a veto-proof process for making gun control decisions going forward.

Anna McDonald, director of the international gun control group Control Arms, praised the agreed-to decision making process and the role representatives at the conference see for “civic groups.”

On August 23, Breitbart News reported Gun Owners of America’s warning that officials from the Obama administration would be attending the conference, even though the U.S. Senate had not ratified the ATT.

Read More

CA CITY SEIZES WIFE’S GUNS BECAUSE HUSBAND UNDERWENT ‘PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION’

San Jose’s Lori Rodriguez says the city seized her 12 guns after her husband was forced to undergo a “72-hour psychiatric evaluation,” and she is suing the city to get back the guns....

These cases highlight the danger Breitbart News, the NRA, and Gun Owners of America have warned about in instances where domestic violence and other issues are used as a Trojan Horse for gun control. The push is insidious, and once those promoting gun control get their foot in the door, they often simply continue pushing.

Read More

GOA Blasts Anti-gun Democrats as Tyrants who Prefer Their Subjects Unarmed

 

 

 

 



 

On August 20, Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt described the Democratic Party on the federal level as “increasingly” tyrannical and focused on passing laws to take guns away from law-abiding Americans.

Pratt said, “The Democrat Party has increasingly become a party of tyranny. And you can’t be a good tyrant if there are a whole bunch of schlubs running around with guns.”

And Pratt is not wrong. The link between federal-level Democrats and a relentless push for gun control is undeniable. Obama craves it, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) continually push it, and Representatives like Elizabeth Etsy (D-CT-5th) and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA-5th) eagerly promote it.

Read More

GOA:  Abolish Gun Free Zones by Hitting Their Creators in the Pocketbook

On August 19 Breitbart News spoke with Gun Owners of America (GOA) executive director Larry Pratt and he described gun free zones as “murder magnets” that must be abolished by hitting their creators where it hurts–“in their bloody pocketbooks.”

GOA has been unflinching in their opposition to gun free zones in schools from the moment Senator Joe Biden (D-Md.) introduced them in 1990. They remain opposed to the current cacophony of “guns allowed” versus “no guns allowed” areas in schools, colleges, and businesses that we see around the country today. This confusing mix presents law-abiding citizens with certain places where self-defense is honored and certain places were law-abiding citizens check their dignity and their ability to defend themselves at the door.

Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • Two Intruders Down
  • Turn the Other Cheek
  • Father Saves Son
  • Grandma Got Her Gun
  • Intruder Shot

FL man shoots 2 intruders after finding dead dogs in his home

A Florida man returning to his Lantana home last week opened fire on two intruders he found inside, killing one and seriously injuring the other. Now the surviving suspect is charged with murder for the death of his accomplice.

Read More

ALLEGED ROBBER CORNERS FEMALE CLERK, GETS SHOT IN BUTT BY CLERK’S HUSBAND

On August 18, an alleged armed robber who cornered a female clerk was shot in the butt by the clerk’s 75-year-old husband. The husband was sitting feet in away in a chair and unnoticed by the robber until it was too late.

Read More

No charges against Oregon father who fatally shot prowler trying to break into kids’ bedroom

The Josephine County District Attorney announced Aug. 11 that no charges would be filed against an Oregon father who shot and killed a man trying to break into his Grants Pass home last month.

Read More

Elderly Woman Pulls Gun To Thwart Two Men Attempting to Rape Her

An elderly California women thwarted two home invaders with the only practical tool for the job:

Read More

Homeowner Shoots Intruder In Lake Highlands

A Lake Highlands homeowner shot an intruder Tuesday morning.

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