• Your Activism Helped Kill an Anti-Gun Bill

  • Help Stop the Attack on Concealed Carry

  • Your Effort is Grabbing the Attention of Capitol Hill Leaders

  • Will Congressional Republicans Hand Hillary/Obama an Anti-gun Victory?

  • 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?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

GOA News

  • Hillary Wants to Ban Guns
  • Gun Owners Punished
  • SCOTUS & 2A in 2016
  • Facebook Discrimination
  • Hillary's Stance May Backfire

Hillary Does Want to Ban Guns No Matter What “Politifact” Says

In response to presidential candidate Donald Trump's NRA speech on Friday, the too-clever-by-half Clinton campaign produced an admittedly confused "Venn diagram" suggesting that Americans hate guns, now comes "Politifact" to "inform" us that, in the opinion of the leftist media, Hillary Clinton would not "abolish" the Second Amendment.

Don't believe that.

Read More

How the Anti-Gun Sentencing Bill Punishes Gun Owners

 

Gun Owners of America reported recently that gun owners’ activism has resulted in the death of the anti-gun sentencing bill (S. 2123 in the Senate and H.R. 3713 in the House).

But a number of our members have expressed confusion over how it is that we reached our conclusions with respect to the anti-gun provisions of the sentencing bill (S. 2123 in the Senate and H.R. 3713 in the House).  

We concede that it is pretty easy to get confused if you're not thoroughly conversant with federal gun law.  

But here is why those bills are anti-gun. 

Read More

Supreme Court, Gun Rights Top Concerns in 2016 Elections

 The 2016 election season is the wildest in recent memory, and there’s still a long way to go until November.

After the Indiana primary in May, real estate mogul Donald Trump became the Republican presumptive nominee, wresting control from an establishment class that for years has ignored the pleas of rank-and-file voters to rein in the federal government. 

Read More

On Facebook, critics see long pattern of discrimination


Show Facebook you support GOA - click here to like us on Facebook

"Lots of gun owners have been disappointed with Facebook's policies towards gun rights, and unfortunately, Facebook is alienating a lot of [gun rights] supporters." Erich Pratt said. 


Read More

Hillary Clinton’s fierce anti-gun stance could backfire in general election


 Erich Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, said Mrs. Clinton is out of touch with reality if she thinks she can change those numbers.

“She is crazy if she thinks that advocating Aussie-style gun confiscation is going to help her win in November,” Mr. Pratt said. “Hillary is in for a rude awakening.”


Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • Trigger Finger
  • Not this House
  • Fighting Back
  • Stopping Violence
  • Better Shot

Home Intruder Dead Wrong for Targeting Wheelchair-Bound Veteran

If 22-year-old Andre Smith thought he had found an easy target in 69-year-old Eddie Frank Smith, he was dead wrong.

Read More

Mississippi Homeowner Shoots Alleged Burglar in Driveway

Lee County Mississippi Sheriff Jim Johnson says a local homeowner shot and killed 35-year-old Gary Sneed, Jr. after she caught him inside a vehicle on her driveway.

Read More

Restraining Order Fails To Stop Ex-Boyfriend But Bullets Work

Lexington police confirmed that the man who attempted to invade a woman’s home was subject to a restraining order. By the time they arrived, he was laying out in the front lawn with multiple gun shot wounds. He was evacuated to a nearby hospital in serious condition.

Read More

Concealed Carry Holder Ends Violent Outburst

A concealed carry holder in Texas was forced to make a tough decision Wednesday to end a violent outburst after a man destroyed property and threatened staff.

Read More

Homeowner Better Shot During Gun Fight With Armed Home Invaders

A homeowner proved to be better prepared than the people who invaded his home, leaving one dead and the others fleeing Wednesday night after they broke in and demanded money at gunpoint.

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