10/97 Citizen’s Self-Defense Act Gains Support

GOP Leaders Still Refuses to Hold Hearings

Fifty-Four-Year old John Quillen Hammiel of Temple Hills, Maryland, was attacked by two would-be muggers recently just outside his apartment. Hammiel believed the two assailants were armed (one was carrying what turned out to be a realistic-looking toy gun) but he refused to play the part of the helpless victim.

Hammiel drew his sidearm and shot and killed one of the attackers. Obviously acting in self defense, Hammiel was not charged with murder or assault. He was, however, charged for the `illegal’ act of carrying a concealed firearm.

This man, who successfully defended himself against lawless thugs, now has to defend himself in the court system.

The Citizen’s Self-Defense Act, sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), would help protect persons like Mr. Hammiel by giving a recourse in court if they are wronged by anti-gun and perhaps politically motivated prosecutors.

Rep. Bartlett’s bill, H.R. 27, which currently has 57 cosponsors, is bottled up in the Crime Subcommittee chaired by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL). While the Subcommittee has held hearings on several anti-gun proposals, it has been reluctant to move forward any substantially pro-gun legislation.

Every year, many honest citizens find themselves in the clutches of an anti-gun criminal justice system. For example, Bernie Goetz, who successfully defended himself against several youths who approached him with sharpened screwdrivers, was acquitted of all assault charges.

Nevertheless, Goetz spent eight months in prison for violating a New York City handgun ordinance.

H.R. 27 operates on the principle that a citizen cannot be imprisoned for the legitimate exercise of a Constitutionally protected right. It would serve as a safeguard against anti-gun prosecutors and ill-informed juries (as in the Goetz case).

Leadership Refuses to Push for Vote

H.R. 27 should be brought to the floor of the House or Senate and voted on. If it is defeated, or if it is vetoed by the President, at least it would have seen the light of day, and the voters would know where their elected officials stand on this important Second Amendment issue. But this bill is being shielded from public debate by Rep. McCollum and the House leadership.

Gun Owners hold the leadership responsible only for what it can accomplish. Congressional leaders are not responsible for passing legislation, but they are responsible for bringing bills to the floor for a vote. Since coming to power in 1994, the current leadership has been instrumental in bringing many anti-gun bills to the floor, while gun owners have been left out in the cold.

Gun Owners of America, with the dedicated support of its members, has been instrumental in garnishing enormous grass-roots support for H.R. 27. Please continue to work with us as we fight to get a vote on this bill in both the House and Senate.

Governor Huckabee Puts Teeth to Brady Decision;
Refuses to Register Gun Owners

AFTER THE Supreme Court ruled, in Printz v. U.S., that the federal government could not compel states to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers, President Clinton and Attorney General Reno adamantly urged state law enforcement officials to voluntarily perform the checks anyway.

While most jurisdictions are intimidated by such federal pressure, a few brave officials, like Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, have taken steps to put teeth to the Court’s decision.

Governor Huckabee Refuses Background Checks

Governor Huckabee insists that, because there is no state law authorizing a background check, yielding to the Clinton – Reno intimidation would violate the rights of Arkansas gun owners.

Gov. Huckabee should be commended by the entire pro-gun community for his stand. He seems to understand that the only persons who will voluntarily submit themselves to a background check are honest citizens, the least likely to ever commit a crime with a firearm.

The Governor’s actions support the concept that law-abiding citizens should not be subjected to a background check, while criminals roam the streets in relative freedom. Law enforcement should not be forced to divert its limited resources from real crime fighting to processing paperwork on decent citizens. But not only are background checks costly and ineffective, they are the foundation for the registration of all gun owners.

This is the real reason Gov. Huckabee is to be applauded. He is presently setting up a roadblock to gun owners registration.

Defeat Snatched from the Jaws of Victory!

Unfortunately, at the same time Gov. Huckabee is standing firm against registration, some factions within the pro-gun community are using his example as proof that the federal instant registration check should be “on-line” as quickly as possible.

In effect, since states could not be forced to conduct the background checks, the alternative being offered is to have the federal government perform the checks instead. Thus, a significant victory for gun owners and the Second Amendment may be turned into devastating defeat. We did not fight the imposition of Brady on the states only to have those very functions turned over to the federal government.

Highly respected Second Amendment attorney Stephen Halbrook, who argued the Brady case before the Supreme Court, commented that the decision is “a great victory not just for gun owners but the American people generally, because it helps stem the tide of increasing federal encroachment on the powers of the states and localities and hence on the sovereignty of this country.”

The victory that Halbrook speaks of is lost if we allow the federal government to grant permission to individuals through the background check approval system. If the instant registration check becomes a reality, gun owners would lose any ground gained by the Brady decision, resulting in a tremendous victory for gun control proponents.

Instant Check Leads to Registration

Not only does the instant check have the capability to register gun owners, it has already done so in at least one state, Ohio.

When names are checked against a federal database, all names (with their social security numbers) are coded to indicate that they are gun owners. So far, over 300,000 Ohians have had their names illegally stored by the government. Quite simply, in spite of the prohibitions in Brady and Ohio law, a gun owner registration list is at present being compiled.

That names of gun owners are being stored in a database should come as no surprise if one understands the nature of the system. The instant check laws stipulate that the names of honest gun owners cannot be stored indefinitely. But here’s the rub. Citizens are entrusting government bureaucrats, via computer databases, with the names of gun purchasers.

Citizens then expect these same bureaucrats, who are on a never-ending quest for power, so simply destroy the names. In other words, we are trusting the wolf to protect the sheep. Oh, sure, the wolf can offer protection from other wolves, i.e., criminals, but who is to stop the wolf if it decides to lunge at the sheep’s neck?

Our founding fathers understood that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They also understood that government was all about power, which led George Washington to say it was, like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

The government, through the instant registration check, purports to offer us some protection from violent criminals. It can offer no such protection because criminals will not oblige the system by subjecting themselves to a police search of their criminal history. Meanwhile, what have we lost in terms of liberty for the illusion of protection?

Governor Huckabee sets an example for others to follow. All states should follow the lead of the Arkansas Governor and refuse to treat all citizens as “guilty until proven innocent.”

Gun Owners of America has steadfastly opposed the creation of a national, instant registration check. Please stand with us to defeat what may prove to be the greatest threat to our Second Amendment liberties that we have yet to face.

Lock `Em Up and Throw Away the Key?

ONE IS A notorious gang leader, the other a well known member of a rival gang. Just the type of characters big-government types like to keep from owning guns. These gangs and others meet regularly on one or the others’ turf to see which is the biggest, strongest and toughest. And at the end of each year, the two best meet for a special match – the Super Bowl.

The gang leader is Barry Switzer, head coach of the Dallas Cowboys, the other is Alonzo Spellman, lineman for the Chicago Bears. Besides their involvement in the National Football League, the two share something else in common. Both were recently arrested for illegally carrying a firearm.

Almost everyone has heard of the Barry Switzer incident. He had placed a loaded .38 caliber handgun in his overnight bag so three kids staying in his house would not get their hands on it. He forgot the firearm was in his bag as he and the Cowboys were flying out of Dallas airport.

Switzer was stopped at the airport and detained for two hours while authorities tried to figure out what to do with this “dangerous” criminal. They finally let him go on his own recognizance. Switzer’s “offense” is a third-degree felony charge punishable by two to ten years imprisonment and up to a $10,000 fine. (Perhaps the government could learn a thing or two about being tough on crime from Cowboys’ owner Jerry Jones, who fined the rogue head coach $75,000).

The other wannabe John Derringer is Alonzo Spellman. The unfortunate 6 foot 4 inch 300 pound defensive end was stopped in his car by police in Wisconsin and acknowledged that he had a .380 in the passenger side door. After a search produced the firearm, Spellman was arrested on what is a felony offense. (The charges were later dropped because the search was determined to be illegal).

Why does a person of Spellman’s stature, who seasonally pummels men even bigger than himself to the ground, need a handgun? Simple, according to Spellman. “Guns are the equalizer of the world,” he remarked. “It’s not something where your size makes a difference anymore,” Spellman continued. “A lot of people have problems with athletes. Either they don’t like us or they don’t like the way we play. We’re riding around in a Mercedes-Benz, our salaries are in the paper and it makes me uneasy not to be protected.”

Spellman is no stranger to potentially violent situations, growing up on mean inner-city streets near Philadelphia. “I’ve been in situations all my life where it wouldn’t have been anything new to me to be approached and be able to protect myself,” he recalled.

Barry Switzer and Alonzo Spellman may be two high profile figures whose cases made the papers for a day or two, but they are representative of thousands of honest Americans who innocently run afoul of this country’s irrational gun control laws.

Gun Control Creates Victimless “Crimes”

Gun control laws, by their very nature, create an elaborate network of victimless “crimes.” Switzer and Spellman did not have malicious intent when they “broke the law.” Neither had a victim in mind, neither was in the process of some heinous crime. Ironically, they became the victims. They have been punished for doing no wrong other than taking steps to protect themselves and others.

The laws in this country should be made to protect the innocent and punish the criminals. Laws against mere possession turn things upside down, where the innocent becomes the criminal.

GOA readers are well aware of many such cases. Randy Weaver and his family was attacked by the government for mere possession of shotguns a little too short for the government’s liking. David Koresh and his followers were attacked by the government for mere possession of gun parts. Harry Lamplugh and his family were terrorized by the government for mere possession of firearms by an alleged felon. (The government never actually proved the middle-aged Lamplugh was convicted of a felony in his youth.)

These cases, and thousands more lesser-known but equally as important and unjust, are not aberrations, happening only to an unlucky few. Even before the cases mentioned, the U.S. Sensate Subcommittee on the Constitution found that the main enforcers of this nations’ gun control laws, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, had a systemic history of harassing honest gun owners. The committee found that 75% of the agencies’ cases involved basically law-abiding citizens who ran afoul, often unknowingly, of some obscure federal firearms regulation.

Gun Control Punishes Law-abiding Citizens

Could you possibly be in danger of violating some obscure gun control law? Such a likelihood is increasing. Consider just a few of the snares laid before you.

Passing within 1,000 feet of the outside perimeter of any school’s property with a firearm, loaded or unloaded, could in most cases get you five years in prison. If a person has ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime in their own home such as simply spanking a child or slapping a drunken husband in the face (both of which happened to GOA members), they cannot even touch a firearm without being subject to imprisonment.

If a person at any time in their life were convicted of a felony, they can never again be in possession of a firearm. Keep in mind that when it comes to felony convictions, one’s criminal record is never automatically expunged over time.

Also, all felons are not violent criminals. Defacing money (such as putting a penny on a railroad track or writing a phone number on a dollar bill) is a felony, but are we making this country safer by disarming such people? G. Gordon Liddy is a convicted felon, but is he a real threat to society? If the government believes a convicted criminal is so dangerous to society that such a person can never own a firearm again, we must question the wisdom of letting such a person out of prison in the first place.

What is the remedy to this problem? We could start by repealing all victimless crime gun control laws. Persons with no illegal intentions, who are only trying to protect themselves and their loved ones by exercising a precious civil liberty, should not live in fear of their own government.

Equally important, crime control should, in the overwhelming majority of cases, be left to state and local authorities. The federal government has dozens of agencies which carry firearms. People should not have to live in fear that some EPA bureaucrat with a sidearm will come crashing through their door to enforce a federal regulation. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to police our streets. Policing should be performed at the local level, by people who live in the community where they work, instead of by some faceless government worker in Washington.

Finally, states should be encouraged to adopt Vermont-style concealed carry legislation. In Vermont, which has the lowest crime rate in the U.S., any citizen of this country who is not prohibited from owning firearms may carry a concealed firearm without having to receive prior permission from the government. Such a policy would certainly protect innocents like Alonzo Spellman, arrested in a state in which he does not reside for simply being in possession of a firearm, from needless harassment and prosecution.

In the meantime, what to do with Switzer and Spellman? Some might say, “Lock’em up and throw away the key!”

But should our law enforcement officers be spending their time arresting and harassing decent citizens? If any good can come out of the embarrassment and turmoil to which high profile citizens like Switzer and Spellman have been subjected, it is that some folks just might wake up to the fact that innocent citizens are routinely victimized by the government.

Put the Heat on Your Legislators!

Order and distribute postcards defending your gun rights

GOA has provided postcards for you to take to your gun clubs, gun shows and other meetings. If you call 1-800-417-1486, you can order sets of postcards dealing with the following bills:

1. H.R. 27 — This postcard set asks your Representative to cosponsor H.R. 27, the bill that will protect citizens who use a gun in self-defense from anti-gun prosecutors and judges, even if the gun was carried without a permit or possessed without a license.

2. H.R. 1009 — Urge your Representative to cosponsor H.R. 1009, introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth. Her bill will fully repeal the Lautenberg Domestic Gun Ban passed last year — a ban which disarms millions of citizens for having committed very minor offenses and prevents them from owning guns for life.

3. H.R. 1147 — Rep. Ron Paul’s bill will repeal all the gun control (including the semi-automatic firearms ban) that passed in the 1994 crime bill. This postcard set urges cosponsorship of this important legislation.

4. S. 10 — Ask your Senators to oppose this crime bill which harasses gun owners for committing very technical, non-violent infractions of the federal gun laws. For example, S. 10 imposes draconian 20 year sentences for minor mistakes involving the mere possession of certain semi-automatics or for a parent’s loaning of his target handgun to his minor child without the absurd requirment of providing the child with a written note of authorization.

5. S. 707 — Tell your Senators to stay away from any gun legislation introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg. This Lautenberg ban prohibits the carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens, thus overriding state concealed carry and “open carry” laws.

6. Legislative “Omni-pack” — Can’t make up your mind? Get the special Legislative “Omni-pack” which will give you a sampling of all the postcards above: 10 postcards from each set, 50 postcards in all.

Each set of postcards is $6.00 for the first set of 50, $10.00 for two sets, and $2.50 for each additional set of 50 postcards. This “descending” pricing scale applies whether you are buying many different sets or just purchasing multiple packs of the same set.

Call 1-800-417-1486 and simply choose option “4” to place your order for the postcards. Make sure you specify which of the above set(s) you would like (#1-6) and please mention the bill number(s) as well.

State Legislative Reports


Republicans not so Golden in Reagan Country

Feeling their oats after re-taking control of the Golden State’s Assembly last November, anti-gun Democrats have introduced no fewer than 35 bills that would restrict and in some cases totally cancel the Second Amendment.

Among the worst bills are those prohibiting so-called “junk guns” (SB 500, Polanco), those limiting gun buyers to “one gun a month” (SB 513, Hayden), and a bill that makes it a crime for you to keep a loaded gun in your home under any circumstances if anyone under 18 would be “likely” to gain access to the firearm (AB 491, Keeley).

Several exceptionally odious bills passed the 80 member Assembly this year with only 41 votes, with the 41st vote being cast by jellyfish-spined Republicans. One so-called Republican, State Senator Bruce McPherson of Santa Cruz, not only voted for Tom Hayden’s “one gun a month” bill, he even lent his name to it as an official co-author.

“The battle to maintain our freedoms will go down to the wire this legislative session,” said Bill Saracino, Executive Director of Gun Owners of California. “If you live in our Golden State, make your voice heard with your Legislator. Many of these bills will be decided by one vote. YOU can make the difference.”


GOA members in Ohio are fighting to restore their rights

Big-government advocate Attorney General Betty Montgomery has admitted that she keeps unauthorized records on honest gun buyers, and now anti-gun State Senator Bruce Johnson (D-3) has sponsored SB 101, a bill that will make it legal for Betty Montgomery to use the background check to retain the names of prospective gun buyers who have misdemeanors!

Ohio citizens are understandably upset and are fighting to get a pro-gun amendment attached to SB 101. SB 101 has already passed the Senate and is headed for the House Floor.

Backed by an outcry of GOA members and supporters, pro-gun Senator Greg DiDonato tried to stop this new attempt to register gun owners in Ohio. His amendment, known as the Gun Rights Restoration Act (which is the same as the Young Budget Amendment submitted to the House previously) will peel back the governmental power grab of Attorney General Betty Montgomery. She will be forced to stop charging fees without authority, and to dismantle the gun control portion of her citizen database.

This legislation would protect gun owners’ privacy by prohibiting any state or local government agency or personnel from creatiing, maintaining, distributing or expanding any records on gun buyers from information obtained through the so-called Federal “Brady check.” It would also provide criminal and civil penalties for officials who illegally disseminate or retain the so-called “Brady Act” information.

At the same time, the Concealed-Carry battle is heating up in Ohio. On one side, is the Batchelder-Padgett bogus concealed-carry bill (HB 504) which crumbles under anti-gunner pressure for mandatory fingerprints, high fees ($75.00 every 3 yrs!), mandatory training and no-safety zones. This bill is the anti-gunner’s dream under cover of the “Pro-Gun” mantle, a registration system being sold as “freedom.”

Thankfully, the push for a true concealed-carry law is gaining momentum. HB 454 is a Vermont-style concealed-carry bill, being sponsored by rock-solid pro-gun Representative Ron Hood (R-57). Ron Hood worked closely with GOA to draft legislation that is simple and straightforward – a law-abiding citizen may carry a firearm for any reason except to commit a crime.

Ron Hood’s HB 454, known as the Personal Protection Act, does away with the abusive permit system concept. Fees cannot be raised by government officials, since there are none to raise, neither are there any permits nor, most importantly, any permit lists.

GOA has backed this bill from the beginning and our grassroots members and supporters in Ohio have been doing the same. Together, we can help Ron Hood make this breakthrough for our 2nd Amendment rights. Please, stay tuned.

Ohio State Rep. Ron Hood (R-57)

New Hampshire

GOA, local activists prepare for next round on Lifetime Carry (SB 66)

SB 66, the “Lifetime Carry” bill sponsored by State Senator Gary Francoeur (R-14) and strongly supported by hard-charging Senator Dave Wheeler (R-11), has not received an up or down vote in the full House. Originally, it seemed SB 66 was doomed to inaction due to House Committee sandbagging, but there is hope!

If you will recall, SB 66, a.k.a. “the Right-to-Carry Tax Cut of 1997,” extends state concealed-carry licenses to lifetime for residents. This eliminates the 4-year renewal and fee tax cycle. It will truly be a step forward for the 2nd Amendment.

Activists may remember that a very similar bill was defeated 23-1 in the Senate several years ago, but this year, after GOA members and supporters turned on the heat at the State Capitol, the same legislation passed the Senate and is now in the House, awaiting a vote!

New Hampshire pro-gunners should contact their State Representative(s), find out where he or she stands on SB 66, and report that information back to GOA.

Gun Owners of America staff, members and supporters met in Dunbarton, NH on August 16th to organize a push geared towards a recorded vote in the House, and to ensure continued success for the joint efforts of GOA and local activists. Contacting your Representative(s) is crucial to winning that recorded vote and passage of the bill.

South Carolina

GOA’s 1997 Survey Program encourages pro-gun legislative support

Already Gun Owners of America members are letting their voice be heard for the 1998 Legislative Session in Columbia. Due to a court ruling, South Carolina held special elections this year for 22 House and 8 Senate races.

Most of the races for the August 12th Primary (many seats had no primary) had at least one candidate fill out their GOA survey. Of those who answered, many answered their GOA Candidate Survey pro-gun, some 100% pro-gun.

Of the 5 races with a pro-gun candidate, 3 were won by the more pro-gun candidate and one race requires a recount.

Once again, it’s clear: standing for the 2nd Amendment is good policy and good politics.

The GOA Survey Program will continue for the General Election. Members can expect to receive GOA Survey Program Results in the next few weeks.


Gun Owners Storming the “Gates”

Washington gun owners are in the fight of a lifetime this year. The rich elite are financing an anti-gun ballot initiative, that if passed, would establish the first step to banning the private ownership of firearms.

Bill Gates of Microsoft is one of the large donors behind Initiative 676, an initiative that would place draconian restrictions upon Washingtonians and turn the state into the New York City of the West coast. Among other things, I-676 will:

* Prohibit the transfer of a handgun in any manner (including loaning a gun to a friend to shoot with you on the range) without a trigger lock device;

* Cause registration of all handgun owners by requiring a license to possess or control a handgun;

* Make any unregistered handgun contraband, subject to confiscation;

* Prohibit the sale of a handgun by a private citizen; and

* Make it a felony for an unlicensed person to possess a handgun.

As mentioned, Bill Gates of Microsoft is heavily financing this draconian gun law and has already contributed $35,000 to help its passage. Dennis Fusaro, GOA State Legislative Director, encouraged Washingtonians to mark November 4 on their calendars. “Gun owners in Washington should make sure they vote this November, and make plans to vote absentee if they know they will be traveling,” Fusaro.

What’s going on in your state?

Unfortunately, space limitations do not allow for reports on all GOA state level activities. Please call GOA headquarters for information on your state, or if there is anything we need to know. Remember YOU ARE GOA.

About Fingerprinting…

One of the key power grabs anti-gunners always seek when it comes to background checks and licensing is mandatory fingerprinting. All too often, weak-kneed “pro-gun” insiders go along. As Alabama and Virginia prove, there is no reason true pro-gunners should ever give in to such dangerous and restrictive demands:

Activists in the state of Alabama recently defeated a move by the State to institute fingerprinting for driver’s licenses. GOA was active in this battle, along with a coalition of constitutional rights groups.

GOA is aiding Virginia grassroots activists in various localities to successfully combat mandatory fingerprinting for concealed-carry licenses, even in the suburban mega-county of Fairfax. Virginia’s governor gave counties and cities a “local discretion” option this past year.

When you submit to a background check for a concealed-carry license, your fingerprints are in most cases sent to the FBI. Did you know that the FBI retains these fingerprint records until you are 99 years old? (Whether you live that long or not!)

Many US banking firms are now requiring fingerprinting in order to cash a check – even if the check is drawn on that bank!

Gun Rights Organizations Fighting Back…

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision striking down portions of the Brady law, activists across the country are seeking to recoup damages done by the unconstitutional enforcement of the law:

Gun Rights groups are planning legal action to defend gun dealers who stand up to Attorney General Betty Montgomery in Ohio by refusing to pay her unauthorized fee for background checks. These background checks also mark law-abiding gun buyers as “non-criminal inquiries” and put them into a database of prospective gun owners.

Gun buyers in Ohio and Pennsylvania are initiating class-action lawsuits against the State, rightfully demanding back the fees they were unconstitutionally charged for background checks. The Government had no authority to charge such fees. GOA feels that all gun buyers should do so. Please call GOA State Legislative Director Dennis Fusaro at (703) 321-8585 with the information about your state and advice on how to proceed. Take back what is rightfully yours!

Survey Program Started

GOA has statewide survey programs now active in Virginia, New Jersey and South Carolina. The first results (primary elections) are finished, and the general election surveys are out. If you live in one of these states and would like the results mailed to you, contact the GOA offices. (Please note that the South Carolina election is a Special Election, due to redistricting in certain areas, and not all districts are up for election at this time.

Sen. Hatch’s Juvenile Crime Bill — Before And After

Scenario S. 10 (Old) S. 10 (New)

Three guys from work regularly get together with their families (and children) for safety training and an informal target shooting competition. Although the teenagers are under continuous parental supervision, the teenagers do not possess and keep in their possession at all times a written note from the parents authorizing them to possess a handgun during these bimonthly events (required by 18 U.S.C. 922 (x)). Could the parents be treated as “criminal street gangs” under this bill and be hit with a MANDATORY MINIMUM sentence of 5 years in jail? (Sec. 203 of S. 10.)


If a parent takes his sons to handgun target practice on a particular day, without the note of authorization (as mentioned above), could S. 10 treat the parent as an organized crime figure and impose a draconian sentence of 20 years upon him for this one time event? (Sec. 206 of S. 10.)


You drive downtown and back, passing within 1,000 feet of a school in both instances, carrying a gun in your glove compartment for self-protection. Can you be sent to prison for 20 years? (Sec. 206 of S.10.)


Five adult men often go hunting together, and like to tinker with their rifles. One afternoon, they put a folding stock on one of their rifles, to make it easier to carry in the field. Another day, they put a muzzle brake on the rifle, to make the follow-up shot more accurate. Can they be hit with a MANDATORY MINIMUM sentence of 5 years? (Sec. 203 of S. 10.)


You own one of the largest firearms businesses in the country for the purchase and resale of used firearms. Unknown to you, two of the firearms in your enormous inventory are stolen. A court subsequently determines you should have conducted extensive background checks with respect to each firearm you purchased. Can you be sent to prison for 20 years? (Sec. 206 of S. 10.)


Your neighbor, who is being stalked by her violent ex-husband, asks you — a gun dealer — to sell her a handgun without complying with the Brady Bill harassment period. You agree, but, as you are walking back to obtain a blank Form 4473, you think better of it, and refuse to sell her the gun. Could you be imprisoned for the same prison sentence as if you had actually sold the gun? (Biden Amendment in Committee.)


You are found guilty of possessing an illegal machine-gun collection, having negligently made a minor misstatement under the 1934 Act. Is a court REQUIRED to order you to forfeit your collection to the government, rather than being able to sell them to a neighbor? (Biden Amendment in Committee.)


If you are a firearms manufacturer or dealer who commits more than one paperwork error, could you be treated like a Mafia hitman in the case of virtually all recordkeeping violations? (Sec. 206 of S. 10.)


As a firearms dealer, you make two careless recordkeeping errors. Can Handgun Control sue you and force you to forfeit your business? (Sec. 206 of S. 10.)



Give to Gun Owners Foundation

In many federal offices there are subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) pressures to give to the Combined Federal Campaign. Your boss may think his prestige depends upon getting everyone to kick in. The same thing happens in all too many corporations during the United Way fund-raising drive.

You may have wanted to give but couldn’t find a group that wasn’t attacking your rights, let alone defending them, on the list of participating organizations. But that has all changed!

Federal employees now are able to designate Gun Owners Foundation as the recipient of their gifts to the Conbined Federal Campaign. Use Agency Number 1054 for Gun Owners Foundation when you make your Combined Federal Campaign pledge or donation. Your gifts will go toward helping our legal assistance program protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans across the nation.

Also, if you work for a company that participates in the United Way, you too, may be able to designate that your gift be sent to Gun Owners Foundation. Many local United Way Campaigns allow Gun Owners Foundation to participate through their Donor Choice Programs. Some, however, do not. Check with your local United Way Agency. You will not only be helping people and protecting your rights, but you will also get a tax deduction.

Of course, anyone can always make a tax-deductible donation at any time to Gun Owners Foundation by sending the contribution directly to 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151.

One additional note. If you are employed by a corporation or organization which has a Matching Gift Program, please keep GOF in mind when making your donation. Thank you very much.

GOA’s Life Membership Program

In December 1995, Gun Owners of America began the Life Membership Program.

Life memberships are sought for many reasons. Some are purchased by activists with long-standing committments to the cause, while other Life Memberships have been purchased as gifts.

Our youngest Life member, Miss Allison Reeves, (right) joined in December 1995 at the age of six months. Another member, Jim Peirano, purchased Life memberships for himself, his wife and his daughter Penelope. At the time Penelope was four years old. Allison and Penelope are believed to be our two youngest Life members. Do we have any others out there?

Life Membership is available for $500.00. For those of our members over the age of 65, we offer a Senior Citizen discount. An easy payment plan is also available.

For more information about GOA’s Life membership Program write to GOA at 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 or you may call Beth Whitford at 703-321-8585.