• 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
John McCain's Lobbying Reform Provisions Unconstitutional And Would Protect Corruption
by Mark Fitzgibbons

Editor's note: trashing the First Amendment rights of groups like GOA in 2002 with the infamous McCain-Feingold law -- better known as the Incumbent Protection Act -- wasn't enough for Sen. McCain. He's back for more in 2006 with S. 2128, the Gag Act.

Proposed regulation of the grassroots, such as Section 110 of S. 2128 (the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act), with similar provisions in counterpart bills before the House of Representatives, would harm America.

Not only does such regulation abridge freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people to peaceably assemble, to petition the Government for redress of grievances, and to exercise our respective faiths, but such regulation would actually protect the corruptive influences that these lobbying and ethics reform bills are purportedly intended to fix.

Through the grassroots, citizens across the country assemble peaceably, though perhaps not always politely, on political and social matters of importance to them. The problems Congress purports to cure through its recent efforts are the quid pro quo of legislation for gifts or other "consideration." Whatever the problems inside the Beltway, none of those problems can be blamed on too much citizen participation in public policy matters. Any efforts to regulate the grassroots, therefore, are misplaced.

The grassroots, of course, are the People. They are whom Justice William Brennan called "citizen-critic[s] of government." More than merely critics of government, the grassroots are populist means of criticizing corporations, even entire industries. They are critics of the institutional, mainstream media as well as critics of the new and alternative media. Grassroots organizations are critics even of other grassroots organizations.

S. 2128 would require registration and reporting of "paid" efforts to "stimulate" the grassroots. Section 110 of the bill defines these as efforts "to influence the general public... to contact one or more... legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials... to take specific action" on matters of public policy. "Attempts to influence" 500 or more citizens by any person or entity receiving or spending $25,000 or more in any quarter trigger these grassroots lobbying registration and reporting requirements.

The thresholds triggering registration and reporting may be met by the placement of just one media ad or just the postage for one direct mail letter mailed nationally. It is not merely that these thresholds are low; they are unconstitutional. These provisions directly violate the "constitutional rights" identified in 2 U.S.C. 1607(a) of the underlying lobbying registration statute that S. 2128 amends (not that constitutional rights need statutory recitation of the fact that they exist). What possibly could have made these constitutional rights fall out of favor since 1995, when the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities bill was first passed?

The registration requirements are a prior restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights, and the reporting requirements are burdens on such rights, with civil and even criminal sanctions in some of the legislative proposals for failure to register and report. Registration is a prior restraint because failure to register within a set period of agreeing to engage in such rights sets off penalties. Speech and press rights must therefore obtain government clearance in advance of communications being issued.

James Madison, in describing the distinction between the American version of a free printing press versus the British version, said that

    a law inflicting penalties on printed publications would have a similar effect with a law authorizing a previous restraint on them. It would seem a mockery to say that no laws should be passed preventing publications from being made, but that laws may be passed for punishing them in case they should be made.

Section 110 of S. 2128 is a prior restraint. Section 106 of the bill amending 2 U.S.C. 1606 would create substantial penalties for that to which all Americans have guaranteed and constitutionally protected rights "paramount to laws," as Madison said.

Such regulation would stifle speech, but more so, it would effectively censor small, start-up and unpopular causes already strapped for cash. These bills would treat small and unpopular citizen causes the same as large corporations hiring high-priced K Street lobbyists, and would penalize or completely shut out some of the most valuable means of citizens protecting their own freedoms.

It is well-settled law that paid efforts to engage in First Amendment rights merit no fewer constitutional protections than unpaid volunteer efforts. Journalists who receive paychecks are no less protected than unpaid bloggers.

The paid ads of the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King "communicated information, expressed opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and sought financial support on behalf of a movement whose existence and objectives are matters of the highest public interest and concern." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 266 (1964). Such "editorial advertisements," of course cost money to prepare, to place, to print and to disseminate. They are "the promulgation of information and ideas by persons who do not themselves have access to publishing facilities -- who wish to exercise their freedom of speech even though they are not members of the press." Id.

There are many other examples, too long to list in this letter, of why "paid" efforts to engage in protected First Amendment activity are not only as protected constitutionally, but are as important and as valuable as unpaid efforts. For example, paid efforts to circulate petitions are "core political speech" subject to the "zenith" of First Amendment protections. See, Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 421–422 (1988). The bottom line is that First Amendment protections of speech, the printing press, petitioning and association rights are not lost merely because it costs money to communicate in today's world of mass media.

Regulating "paid" efforts to stimulate grassroots activity merely gives the appearance that Members of Congress and their respective Republican and Democratic Party committees would prefer for their own professional political consultants to have a leg up in the marketplace of ideas and donations. Members of Congress may already send communications at taxpayer expense under their "free" franking privileges, and as 535 of the most important people in the country, easily have more access to express their views for free through the mainstream media.

Costs of compliance with quarterly reporting requirements will effectively reduce the ability of marginal grassroots efforts to communicate, and will silence cash-strapped unpopular causes. Corporations and large, established causes that are already wealthy will be able to comply. Thus, your bills would effectively silence some critics and allow the wealthier ones to communicate. Such censorship through regulation merely protects the corruptive influences inside the Beltway.

Since the apparent ethics issues are the quid pro quo, it seems that a better solution, and certainly one without constitutional prohibitions, would be to require Members of Congress who sponsor legislation or amendments to sign, under penalties of perjury, that such legislation is submitted without gifts or promises of some consideration.

The expansion of the grassroots these past 40 years has empowered Americans, and that is a good thing. The grassroots are the very antithesis of corruptive influences inside the Beltway. Whatever the solution to the complex problems of congressional ethics, a vote to regulate the grassroots would be the equivalent of a vote to protect the corruptive influences.

Op-Ed Articles