Plus, GOA needs your help to stick it to fascist states like NY and CT
“Past comments [Vivek Murthy] made in support of gun control have drawn strong opposition from the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.” -- The Huffington Post, March 17, 2014
SURGEON GENERAL PICK ON LIFE SUPPORT, THANKS TO GUN OWNERS
It's not time to declare victory yet.
But it is interesting that the White House is publicly considering delaying the vote on the Vivek Murthy nomination to be Surgeon General until after the November elections.
We alerted you in early February to the problems with this anti-gun nominee for the post of Surgeon General. As a physician and pro-Obama activist, Murthy actively advocated gun bans, magazine bans, and gun registration.
According to yesterday’s Huffington Post, Murthy’s support for a ban on semi-automatic firearms “isn’t sitting well with powerful leaders in the gun lobby” like Gun Owners of America. And today, the liberal Huffington Post said that “bellyaching” from “Gun Owners of America has given unfortunate pause to common sense in Congress.”
An unfortunate pause to common sense? Well, we did point out the Huffington Post is liberal.
Thankfully, because of the united pro-gun opposition to Murthy, ten Democrats are now considering voting against this Surgeon General nomination. Since the only Republican defection thus far is Mark Kirk of Illinois, this would be enough to defeat Murthy, even with the illegal nomination-related rules changes Democrat Leader Harry Reid enacted last November.
Interestingly, according to Saturday's New York Times, one of the options considered by the White House would be to delay the nomination until January, when, it hopes, newly reelected "red state" Democrats like Mark Begich (D-AK), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Pryor (D-AR), John Walsh (D-MT), Mark Udall (D-CO), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Mark Warner (D-VA) would be once again free to vote anti-gun.
Hopefully, gun owners will have something to say about the outcome of these and other races.
STUTZMAN RECIPROCITY BILL WOULD STICK IT TO FASCIST STATES LIKE NY AND CT
By now, you've probably heard that states like New York and Connecticut have responded to Newtown by going into "full confiscation mode:"
* New York City is sending out letters to registered gun owners, demanding that they relinquish guns holding more than seven rounds.
* In Connecticut, the Hartford Courant is insisting that the state imprison up to 300,000 gun owners who have not complied with the most recent registration demands.
All of the time, we are receiving e-mails from gun owners in these states and elsewhere, demanding that something be done about these atrocities against the Constitution.
We are working with litigators to try to challenge states such as these in court -- in the face of a judiciary which is increasingly packed by Obama with anti-gun judges.
But one thing we can do to force states like New York and Connecticut to recognize the Constitution is to pass reciprocity legislation like H.R. 578, which has been introduced by Congressman Marlin Stutzman in the House and currently has 38 cosponsors.
Why is this important?
Because, under H.R. 578, federal law would compel states like New York and Connecticut to "allow" concealed carry holders from other states to walk their streets without being compelled to submit their names to state gun registries.
To those who would argue that New York and Connecticut would violate federal law and never allow this, our response is "Make my day!" H.R. 578 would put Andrew Cuomo and Daniel Malloy in the role of constitutional bigots, standing in the school house door in order to defy federal law.
(And besides, the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the Congress does have power, under the 14th Amendment, to protect American citizens who are having their gun rights violated by states and localities.)
Some believe there is going to be an electoral revolution in Connecticut this November or a few years hence. Nothing could add more fuel to that fire than the realization of residents that people from other states have constitutional rights, but not them.
H.R. 578 is, by far, the preferable reciprocity bill, because it recognizes constitutional carry states like Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont and Wyoming -- and does not require their residents to change their laws or get permits in order to benefit from it.
Another bill (H.R. 2959), being pushed by another gun group, would require Vermont to repeal its pro-gun laws and would require residents of constitutional carry states to get optional permits. While that's not horrible, it does deter other states from adopting constitutional carry laws.
In addition, the Cornyn-Thune counterpart in the Senate, like H.R. 578, recognizes constitutional carry states -- and is the version that garnered a supermajority of 57 votes in the Senate just last year. So what would be the point in passing the less preferable version in the House, only to have it sent to an interminable House-Senate conference!
H.R. 578 is the preferable reciprocity bill. But we need to increase its current 38 cosponsors.
ACTION: Contact your Representative. Ask him to cosponsor H.R. 578. Tell him he should cosponsor H.R. 578, even if he has already sponsored a reciprocity bill which is not as good.