• Gun Owners of America Challenging Federal Machine Gun Ban

  • Time to Shoot Down Restrictions on Suppressors

  • Bloomberg Wastes Millions in Pushing Gun Control ... Once Again

  • Senate “Sentencing Reform” Bill Could Crack Down on Gun Owners

  • Finally, Someone Tells It As It Is

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

GOA News

  • Landry Wins
  • GOA: Will Not Comply
  • Machine Guns
  • Islamic Invasion
  • Paul Ryan

GOA-endorsed Candidate Wins in Saturday Election


Congratulations to Jeff Landry, victorious in a runoff election on Saturday to become Louisiana’s next Attorney General.  

Read More

Gun Owners of America:  Time to Let Gun Grabbers Know We Will Not Comply

On November 12, CBS NEWS reported that “White House lawyers” are examining gun laws to find an avenue where President Obama can use executive action to go around Congress and expand background checks to cover private gun sales....

Guns Owners of America’s (GOA) executive director Larry Pratt recently talked to Breitbart News about this behind-the-scenes maneuver and said it is past time for GOP leaders in Congress to stand up in clear opposition to Obama’s plans.

Read More

Gun Owners of America Files Brief Challenging Federal Machine Gun Ban






On November 2, Gun Owners of America (and its foundation) filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the federal machine gun ban, ironically passed as part of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act.

Gun Owners not only argues that possession of machine guns by Americans is compatible with the Second Amendment, we argue that Supreme Court opinions have bolstered this view. Our brief argues that the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting, but about self-defense against individuals and/or the state.

Finally, the Gun Owners’ brief ridicules those who say that fully-automatic machine guns are far too terrifying and powerful for ordinary people to own, and we take the ATF to task for its bait-n-switch tactics.

Read More

Islamic invasion pulls trigger: Europe now scrambles for guns








Austrians are arming themselves at record rates in an effort to defend their households against feared attacks from Muslim invaders.

Tens of thousands of Muslim “refugees” have poured into Austria from Hungary and Slovenia in recent months on their way to Germany and Sweden, two wealthy European countries that have laid out the welcome mat for migrants. More than a million will end up in Germany alone by the end of this year, according to estimates from the German government.

Obtaining a working firearm and ammunition in Germany, Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands is practically impossible for the average citizen. Germany, for instance, requires a psychological evaluation, the purchase of liability insurance and verifiable compliance with strict firearms storage and safety rules. And self-defense is not even a valid reason to purchase a gun in these countries.

Read More

GOA to Watch Ryan Speakership Carefully







Representative Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) 2014 gun control vote could present another obstacle to this path to the Speakership of the House.

It is certainly one more aspect of Ryan’s past that caused Gun Owners of America to warn that a Ryan Speakership would simply be “Boehner on Steroids.”

Ryan’s 2014 gun control vote came amid the emotional outpouring that followed Elliot Rodger’s May 23, 2014, Santa Barbara attack. Although Rodger passed a background check, registered his guns with the state–as is required in California–and only used ammunition magazines of 10 round or less, Ryan voted for Representative Rep. Mike Thompson's (D-CA-5th) amendment providing $20 million to expand the amount of information states are putting in the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) database.

Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • Not a Victim
  • Happy Ending
  • Don't Mess with Texas
  • Girlfriend Saves the Day
  • Armed 13 Year Old

Armed Robber And Convenience Store Clerk Draw On Each Other; Clerk Wins

An armed robber walked into the wrong convenience store early Tuesday, and soon found himself on the business end of the clerk’s handgun.

Read More

Police: Man Shot Dead After Pulling Gun on Utility Workers, Demanding Wallets

On November 16, police said a man with a gun approached three utility workers and robbed two them before being shot dead after the third man was commanded to reach into his truck for his belongings. Among the third worker’s belongings was the gun with which he shot the alleged robber.

Read More

Concealed Carrier Attacks, Overwhelms Home Invasion Crew In Texas

I’ve heard of the “one riot, one Ranger” lore in Texas, but there are apparently some “regular Joe” Texans who are cut from the same cloth.

A man in Harris County who was out for a late night walk saw that his neighbor was under attack by a home invasion crew of 4-8 men, pulled his concealed weapon, and went right after them.

Read More

Woman Retrieves Gun, Fends Off Boyfriend’s Attacker

Last week in Detroit, Michigan, Bonnie La Rose saw her boyfriend being beaten. She retrieved her gun, a .38 revolver, positioned herself between her boyfriend and the attacker, and warned him that she would shoot if he took another step toward her or her boyfriend. The attack ended.

Read More

13 Year-Old Kills Armed Home Invader In SC

This is intense:

Officials with the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office say one person is dead after a 13-year-old boy opened fire at a suspected burglar at a home on Tuesday.

CCSO officials announced late Tuesday afternoon that one of the subjects involved in the attempted burglary at an Elderwood Drive home died at Trident Hospital.

Read More

By Mike Hammond, legislative counsel to GOA
June 13, 2007

 It can hardly be any surprise that anti-gun House members worked to sneak this bill through before anyone was aware that it was going to be considered. The negotiations have left legislation which is WORSE THAN THE ORGINAL McCARTHY BILL.

The worst aspect is, in section 3(2), that it STATUTORILY FREEZES IN regulations at 27 CFR 478.11 which would make you a "prohibited person" if:

* You were found by any "lawful authority" (including a IDEA school therapist, a Medicare psychologist, or a VA doctor to:
1. Represent even a minimal suicide risk;
2. Represent even a minimal playground risk to other students; or
3. Be incapable of managing your own affairs; or
* Were referred by such "lawful authority" to a psychiatrist or psychologist to be evaluated in connection with child custody proceedings or other contexts in which professional assessment is ordered.

This means that a future hypothetical pro-gun administration would be powerless to change the regulations so that they did not apply to:

-- Veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder;
-- Kids put on Ritalin in connection with the IDEA program;
-- Seniors diagnosed with Alzheimer's in connection with Medicare's home health care assistance; or
-- Seniors (perhaps with a gun collection accumulated over a lifetime) who continue to live in their homes, but are put under guardianship by their adult children.

In the pretense of doing gun owners some huge favor, the bill explicitly recognizes, in section 101(c)(1)(C), that a psychiatrist's finding is sufficient to make you a prohibited person, so long as that finding is based on one of the three criteria listed above. And, incidentally, when a kid is put on Ritalin, mom is diagnosed with Alzheimer's, a vet is found to have post-traumatic stress disorder, or gramps is put under a guardianship, it is ALMOST ALWAYS based, in whole or in part, on one of those three factors.

The bill, in section 101(c)(2)(A) and section 105, also requires federal agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs and states to set up procedures for prohibited persons with "mental disabilities" to "clear their names." There are at least four problems with this:

1. First, prior to this bill, vets suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder were arguably not required to "clear their names." Ditto, seniors with Alzheimer's kids on Ritalin, etc. By statutorily codifying 27 CFR 478.11, this bill, for the first time, makes it statutorily mandated that these persons ARE and SHOULD BE prohibited persons under 18 USC 922 (d) & (g). So the bill makes it absolutely clear that vets, seniors, and adults who were problem kids are statutorily prohibited from owning guns (for life), and then graciously opens the possibility that they may apply for relief, in accordance with unspecified standards based wholly on the discretion of the government.

2. Second, there already is a procedure for persons to "clear their names." It was created by McClure-Volkmer and is contained at 18 USC 925(c). The problem is that, for many years, Congress, on appropriations bills, has barred anyone from using this procedure. So, having blocked procedures allowing people to "clear their names," the House is now creating redundant procedures to do the same thing. And they expect us to trust them?

3. Third, the bill states that "[r]elief and judicial review shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code." But, since Congress has blocked the implementation of section 925(c), there is at least a question of whether this new, redundant procedure would not be similarly automatically blocked, at least at the federal level.

4. Fourth, there is also a procedure for "clearing one's name" in subsection (g) of the Statues-at-Large portion of the Brady Law, when the name is erroneously submitted to NICS. The problem is that persons seeking to invoke this procedure to establish that they were incorrectly classified are routinely sent a form letter denying relief.

Ironically, a particularly dangerous person who is actually held in a mental institution may be able to obtain relief after he is "released or discharged," pursuant to section 101(c)(1)(A). But a person who is found to be suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, childhood behavioral problems, or Alzheimer's -- and who is not held anywhere (or subjected to anything) from which they can be "released or discharged" -- could never take advantage of a provision which is available to the criminally insane. And even this limited provision applies only to federal agencies, and not states.

Incidentally, if Congress appropriates NOTHING to implement this bill, the states will still be required to comply with the unfunded mandates or risk loss of DOJ funds under section 104.

All of this is on top of the usual concerns that the McCarthy bill would still require the states to turn over 90% of all information which was "relevant" to whether an individual was a prohibited person by reason of being "an unlawful user of or addicted to" any controlled substance or a mental defective (as that term will now be defined.).

Ironically, given the "tough enforcement" language being used to try to dislodge the "amnesty" bill, the new draft excludes crackdowns on illegal aliens -- a category which, more than any other, includes terrorists who have snuck into our country. But the Attorney General, without a court order, can, at his or her unilateral discretion, demand any information held by any state (or its agent) which would be "relevant" in determining who fell into other categories, including Medicare medical records, IDEA medical records, National guard medical records, drug diversion records, records of drug charges not prosecuted, etc. And, unlike the convicted serial killer, the unprosecuted marijuana smoker, veteran, or senior would not be protected merely because his records were not available electronically.

And, finally, having compiled, potentially, the biggest list of dangerous persons in existence, the records could not be used to go after terrorists or other criminals.

SUMMARY: It was not the intention of 18 USC 922 (d) & (g) to make veterans, seniors, and misbehaved kids "prohibited persons" with an FBI dossier. Any provision in 27 CFR 478.11 to the contrary is just plain wrong, and should be changed. To freeze these regulations into statutory law is simply evil.

Op-Ed Articles