• Does Your Representative Support Concealed Carry Reciprocity?

  • Will Some Pro-gun Reps. Try to Kill Constitutional Carry?

  • Should Your Right to Carry End at the State Border?

  • Gun Rights Continue to Advance

  • Congressman Asking for Help to Advance His Pro-Gun Bill

  • More Good News for Gun Rights

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6

GOA News

  • Merrick Garland really is anti-gun
  • Hillary to Thank Trump?
  • Across Borders
  • Victory Over Bloomberg
  • Don't Shred the Constitution

The usual gaggle of anti-gun suspects has come out of the woodwork to attack the “gun lobby” for its opposition to any action on behalf of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

Coupled with their typical protestations that their attacks on Second Amendment advocates are not attacks on the Second Amendment itself, their words are laden with half-truths and selectively culled “facts.”

But the truth is simple. Second Amendment issues have come before Garland, at least four times. He voted anti-gun every time.

Read More

Hillary Could Owe Donald Big if She Wins White House

If Hillary Clinton wins the White House in November, she will almost certainly have won Virginia.  And if she wins Virginia, she owes a huge debt of thanks to her old pal, Donald J. Trump.

Read More

Gun Owners of America: Right To Carry Doesn’t Stop At State’s Border


"It’s time that our laws stop punishing law-abiding citizens like Shaneen Allen, who simply want to carry self-defense guns while traveling. The Stutzman-Cornyn bills are the best way to do this, as they will protect the rights of any honest citizen who wants to carry a firearm across state lines — even citizens who live in Constitutional Carry states." - Erich Pratt, Executive Director of GOA


Read More

Gun Owners of America Claims Victory over ‘Bloomberg’s Billions’


 “For all the talk about Bloomberg’s billions, Daddy Warbucks had his lunch handed to him in Idaho and West Virginia,” GOA’s Erich Pratt told Breitbart News.


Read More

No, Senators, You Don’t have to Honor Garland’s Efforts to Shred the Second Amendment


"No, senators, you don’t have to dignify this contempt for the Constitution by meeting with [Merrick Garland].  And you don't have to give him a platform for another phony photo-op.

"If you want, Gun Owners of America will send you a bag of shredded Constitutions.  This will tell you more than Garland would about his judicial philosophy."



Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • Wife Protects
  • Mama Bear
  • Shooting Back
  • CCW Wins Again
  • Not Easy

75-year-old victim of Sultan home invasion tells what happened before 80-year-old wife killed intruder

A 75-year-old Sultan man recounted Friday how a man broke into his house and stabbed him before his 80-year-old wife shot and killed the intruder.

The stabbing victim "told deputies that he was watching TV when he saw an unknown male on his back porch," the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office said in a news release.   "He said that the suspect broke down a door to make entry to the home and, when he did, he hit the man (the resident) on the head and began stabbing him.

Read More

Mama Bearing Arms Fires Shotgun at Home Intruders

Never underestimate the fury of a mama bear defending her cubs. Or worse, a mama bearing arms to protect her children.

When two robbers broke into a woman’s home, she said her maternal instinct kicked in, and, grabbing a 12-gauge shotgun, stood to protect her young daughter from harm.

Read More

Homeowner Shoots Back at Three Armed Home Intruders

The Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office confirm three suspects are in custody after breaking into a Youngsville, LA home and shooting at the homeowner, who armed himself and returned fire.

All three men have been charged with attempted second-degree murder and aggravated burglary.

Read More

Armed Felon Dead After Allegedly Pulling Gun on Concealed Permit Holder

On April 25, an armed felon was shot and killed after allegedly pulling a gun on a concealed carry permit holder.

Read More

Cops Say Home Invaders Likely Thought Stealing From 80-Year-Old Man Would Be ‘Easy.’ Then He Pulls Out His Gun.

It began when a 23-year-old woman came to the door of an 80-year-old man asking to use his phone — and it turned out she had company.

Whitney Kabiru — along with 28-year-old Larry Shaver and 28-year-old John Grossklaus — then entered the man’s house Tuesday morning and tried to rob him, police said.“We do have information that they believed this was an old man and that this was going to be an easy way for them to get stuff that wasn’t theirs,” Chief Steve Shine of the Fairmont, West Virginia, police told WVAL-TV.

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