Gun Owners Report

Amendment to End "Fast and Furious" Passes Senate

2011-10-20T08:32:00.001-07:00

Wednesday, 19 October 2011 08:26

Written by John Velleco

Sen. John Cornyn

Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn offered an amendment this week to bar taxpayer funds from being used in investigations such as the disastrous "Fast & Furious" operation, in which guns were transferred to Mexican drug cartels with the help of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). His amendment passed the Senate unanimously on Tuesday.
"Today's bipartisan effort is just the first step towards ensuring that such a foolish operation can never be repeated by our own law enforcement,” Mr. Cornyn said in a statement. “The onus is now on Attorney General Holder to hear not just today's bipartisan call for answers but the American peoples' demands that Washington be held accountable.”

Offered to the $128 billion Justice Department spending bill, the Cornyn amendment prohibits taxpayer funds from being used “to allow the knowing transfer of firearms to agents of drug cartels where law enforcement personnel of the United States do not continuously monitor or control such firearms at all times.”

Sen. Cornyn has expressed concernthat operations similar to Fast & Furious, which was based out of Phoenix, Arizona, were also being conducted in Texas.

In August, Cornyn sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, noting that "the Department of Justice has been less than forthcoming during congressional investigations into the failed Operation Fast and Furious.

Rep. Rehberg’s Legislation Protects Veterans’ Second Amendment Rights

2011-10-20T08:30:00.001-07:00

GOA Pushing for Veto-Proof Majority in Senate

The House this week adopted legislation protecting the Second Amendment rights of veterans.

Sponsored by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), the legislation requires that before a veteran can lose his or her gun rights, they must receive due process in a court of law. Rehberg offered the measure as an amendment to H.R. 2349, which passed the House on a voice vote.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) told GOA he plans to introduce a Senate version of the bill right away. GOA is working to get as many cosponsors to this legislation as possible. In the last Congress, Sen. Burr’s bill passed out of committee only to be derailed by Harry Reid and anti-gun Senate Democrats.

Veterans Disarmament Act

It might seem like a no-brainer. In America, no one—be they in the military or a civilian—should be stripped of their constitutional liberties without having their day in court, right? But it can happen, and it does happen.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) can deem a veteran as a “mental defective” for the sole reason of having a third party appointed over their financial affairs. Veterans with mental health issues such as temporary memory loss or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) commonly turn over control of their finances to a spouse or family member.

Because persons found to be “mental defectives” are prohibited from owning firearms, the names of these veterans are turned over to the FBI’s NICS system.

No crime needs to have been committed. No finding that the person is even remotely dangerous. No trial by a jury of one’s peers. A veteran can be stripped of his or her gun rights simply by the capricious action of government bureaucrats.

Ok, some may protest, but this must happen rarely. It must be an aberration, a mistake. Wrong.

Since 1999, over 150,000 honorably discharged veterans have lost their gun rights in precisely this manner. And though it’s theoretically possible to get off the list, that rarely—if ever—happens.

Gun owners who are not veterans can also be affected by the current law because the definition of “mental defective” used by the VA applies to anyone. It affects veterams particularly hard because of the ease of information sharing between one federal agency (VA) and another (FBI).

But under ObamaCare, medical records for all Americans will be made increasingly available to Washingtonbureaucrats. What safeguards are in place to ensure that those records will not likewise be abused? None.

That’s why it is vitally important that all gun owners contact their two Senators and insist that they support Sen. Burr’s Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act.

This bill ensures that a veteran cannot lose his or her gun rights without a finding in a court of law that the person is a danger to self or others.

This would mean no more “psychiatric gun bans” for vets, and it will serve notice to the federal government that the same thing will not be allowed to happen to the rest of the population.

GOA is working to get as many cosponsors as possible. Due process under the law is something even anti-gunners should support (they won’t, of course), and we are pushing to get a veto-proof majority behind this legislation.

ACTION: Please contact your Senators and urge them to cosponsor the Second Amendment Veterans Protection Act.

Click Here to Send Your Senators a prewritten email message

DOJ Considering Elimination of ATF

2011-10-02T17:58:00.000-07:00

Multiple sources, including sources from ATF, DOJ and Congressional offices have said there is a white paper circulating within the Department of Justice, outlining the essential elimination of ATF. According to sources, the paper outlines the firing of at least 450 ATF agents in an effort to conduct damage control as Operation Fast and Furious gets uglier and as election day 2012 gets closer.

ATF agents wouldn’t be reassigned to other positions, just simply let go. Current duties of ATF, including the enforcement of explosives and gun laws, would be transferred to other agencies, possibly the FBI and the DEA. According to a congressional source, there have been rumblings about the elimination of ATF for quite sometime, but the move would require major political capital to actually happen.
Read full story

Romney and Guns

2011-09-30T02:24:00.000-07:00

As Gun Owners of America looks at the Republican presidential nominees, they see several with strong pro-gun backgrounds -- Mitt Romney is not one of them.

Read more on Romney's record here.

Concealed Carry Recognition Bill Introduced in House

2011-09-26T12:54:00.000-07:00

by John Velleco

The Second Amendment truly is the “black sheep” of the Billof Rights.

Imagine traveling from your home to Massachusetts, and not being able to buy anewspaper or stay at a motel because you’re from out of state.

The ACLU would be up in…well, maybe not “arms”…but theywould sure take issue with the violation of your First Amendment rights.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, though, your right tokeep and bear arms is often checked at the state line. And it hardly raises aneyebrow among civil libertarians.

Criminals obviously don’t care if they cross state lines tocommit a crime, but honest citizens are often required by law to leave behindtheir self-defense firearm when traveling.

Pro-gun champion Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) recently introduceda concealed carry recognition bill to address this situation. H.R. 2900 allows law-abiding citizens who canlegally carry concealed in their home state to carry all across the country, aswell.

Titled “The Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE)Act,” this legislation recognizes that constitutional rights do not become nulland void at the state line.

And, most importantly, Rep. Broun’s bill is “constitutionalcarry” friendly. The SAFE Act recognizesthat while CCW permits are the “norm” in most states, constitutional carry isthe ideal.

For more than twenty years, Gun Owners of America has pushedconstitutional carry (also known as Vermont-style carry) at the statelevel. Such legislation recognizes theright to carry without having to first get the government's permission.

After all, how much of a right is protected by the SecondAmendment if citizens must first pass tests, fill out applications, takeclasses and, in many cases, be fingerprinted and photographed to obtain alicense—in essence, to prove to the authorities that they're not criminalsbefore being allowed to carry?

Vermonthad it right for over a century. Anyperson can carry a concealed firearm—whether they are a resident of the stateor not—except for use in the commission of a crime. That’s it. No registration,no paperwork, no arbitrary denials by anti-gun bureaucrats.

And the result? Vermont consistentlyranks among the safest states in the country.

And other states are finally starting to follow suit. Three states (Alaska,Arizona, and Wyoming) have passed constitutional carrylaws for their own citizens. Texas passed a modifiedversion, allowing for a concealed firearm anywhere inside one’s vehicle,including motor homes. And since 1991,constitutional carry has been allowed in more than 99% of the state of Montana.

Even with these improvements, however, reciprocal agreementsbetween states are written in such a way that an actual permit is still requiredin order to carry concealed from state to state.

And in many instances, there is NO way to legally carryconcealed in another state.

Rep. Broun’s bill addresses this issue in a way thatrespects the Constitution and in a way that recognizes the unalienable right todefend one’s life—without needing a permit from the government.

Just as GOA works to eliminate government restrictions oncarry at the state level, GOA has neversupported a bill at the national level that stops short of recognizingconstitutional carry.

After all, a bill that requires states to implement apermitting system risks setting back the efforts of the many states seeking topass real concealed carry reform.

The SAFE Act also respects the Constitution and states’ powersin that it does NOT establish national standards for concealed carry, nor doesit provide for a national carry permit or require a state like Vermont to moveto a permit system (in order for its citizens to carry out-of-state).

In fact, the Broun bill will do nothing to change what thestates already do in terms of allowing or denying their citizens their right tocarry firearms. This bill simply allowscitizens who are able to carry in their home state, to also carry in everyother state that allows concealed carry.

Another important distinction is that Rep. Broun’s bill,unlike other legislation being debated in Congress, does not rely on anexpansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The SAFE Act instead recognizes the “full faithand credit” protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.

Constitutionally-protected rights, including the right toself-defense, do not disappear at the state line. Rep. Broun’s SAFE Act will simply allowlawful gun owners who have the right carry concealed firearms in their homestate to also carry in other states.

Gun Owners of America has a prewrittenletter supporters can use to contact their own Representative and urge himor her to cosponsor Rep. Broun’s SAFE Act.

John Velleco is theDirector of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, a grassroots lobbyingorganization with over 300,000 members nationwide.

Strong Second Amendment Ally Running for Congress in Utah

2011-09-19T20:36:00.000-07:00

There is a candidate for Congress running in Utah that every gun owner should get to know. His name is Carl Wimmer, and he is a champion of the Second Amendment and of reining in the out-of-control federal government.
Carl is just an everyday average citizen who got fed up when his own state representative voted against freedom one too many times. He ran for office and—to the shock of the political establishment—Carl won.

Other legislators expected the new Rep. Wimmer to fall in line with the Republican caucus once he arrived at the state capital. But Carl had no intention of becoming just another yes man for party leaders. He got into politics to restore liberty, and his list of accomplishments thus far is impressive.Rep. Carl Wimmer

Soon after being elected, Carl helped form the Patrick Henry Caucus. The Caucus, open to state legislators across the country, asserts State’s powers against federal, unconstitutional intrusion.

One of the first issues Wimmer’s group took on in Utah was the “Firearms Freedom Act,” which states that all firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition “manufactured commercially or privately in the state to be used or sold within the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

Rep. Wimmer also authored the state’s Constitutional Carry bill. Constitutional carry restores the proper relationship of the citizen to their public servants by recognizing that We the People are the sovereigns and should not be forced to obtain government approval to exercise a constitutional right.

Carl authored the state’s Health Care nullification bill, which would protect Utah citizens from the unconstitutional mandate of the anti-gun ObamaCare law.

And he co-sponsored a land nullification bill to prevent federal control over land in the state without the consent of the Utah legislature.

Now Carl aims to take his small-government views to Washington. He is running for the new Utah congressional seat that resulted from the most recent congressional reapportionment.

Those who believe in freedom and limited government will not find a better friend than Carl Wimmer. Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund is proud to endorse his candidacy for Congress, and we encourage gun owners from across the country to put Carl on the top of their list of candidates to watch—and to support.

Please visit www.carlwimmer.com to make a contribution to his campaign and to learn more about Carl.

From Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund

Verbal shots fired in Ruidoso gunfight

2011-09-14T02:47:00.000-07:00

RUIDOSO, N.M. (KRQE) - There were powerful emotions and strong words at a city council meeting in Ruidoso, New Mexico Tuesday tonight.

Gun owners from down the road and from around the country, packed council chambers to give the mayor an earful about his executive order banning guns from village government buildings and meetings.

They ignored the ban to prove their point. Guns were very visible but the only shots fired were verbal and they were directed at the mayor.

"You are just as a much a tyrant for requiring someone to surrender their civil rights to carry a firearm in order to participate in their government as you are in asking them to surrender their right to vote or anything else,” Bob Wright said.

Speakers were given three minutes to speak and they did not hold back ,most of them with their guns holstered by their sides.

"Almost all of the mass murders in our country have occurred in areas just like you're fixing to set up, in gun free zones,” Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt, said.

Locals, activists from the NRA and the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, who flew in from Virginia, took to the podium to take a stand.

In all more than 100 people filled the council chamber to capacity, dozens of them carrying guns, despite signs that say ‘no guns allowed.’

Police were on hand but they did not stop them.

Ruidoso Mayor Ray Alborn issued the executive order banning firearms from government property and meetings a month ago, after a citizen refused to give up his gun after taking the podium.

"The police chief took it away from him, he filed a suit. At that time I realized how unprotected we in the front of the room, there's 11 of us, plus all of our citizens and employees who were at the meeting, how unprotected we were,” Alborn said.

The executive order does not apply to law enforcement.

The mayor also says there is a lot of misinformation including a rumor that the ban means people need to give up their guns the second they step on Ruidoso soil.

Critics loudly proclaim he is violating their 2nd amendment rights and that he thinks the law's on his side.

Alborn says if village council shoots down his executive order he might step down.

“My responsibility is health, safety and welfare of our employees so if we're not going to be able to do these kinds of things I’m not sure I want to be sitting in this seat,” Alborn said.

Protesters called for the mayor and the village attorney to resign. However, in the end the village council put off the vote.

No word when they might vote on the executive order.

The mayor says two state laws give him the authority to ban firearms in village buildings But the National Rifle Association says a New Mexico Supreme Court decision forbids local authorities from making piecemeal changes to the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Gunrunning farce smacks of conspiracy

2011-09-11T14:17:00.000-07:00

Bob Aldridge, certified NRA instructor

Was the real purpose of Fast and Furious – to capture Mexican cartel “big fish” or something more sinister, for example, sacrificing the lives of both Americans and Mexicans to advance the Obama administration’s anti-gun agenda?

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms’ Fast and Furious gunrunning debacle has triggered massive investigations by Congress, media and many others. Some basics are fairly clear.

More than 2,000 guns (the exact number may not be known) were allowed to “walk” with straw purchasers from various gun shops near the Mexican border. ATF commanders ordered field agents not to intercept the illegal purchasers, including Uriel Patino, who illegally bought 730 guns. When gun store owners advised ATF of the illegal sale attempts, ATF instructed them to complete the illegal sales.

Continue reading at the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette

Watauga (Texas) Councilman Wants Residents to Carry Firearms

2011-09-10T14:30:00.000-07:00

Some residents want a recall election, Russell Clements was elected in May

A city council member in Watauga has proposed that all residents in his community be authorized to openly carry firearms and those who have concealed-handgun licenses should be required to carry their guns when they are at city hall.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported Saturday that the views of Russell Clements have inspired some residents in Watauga to consider a recall election for the council member, who was elected in May.

Clements is also proposing that police should train all residents who are older than 65 or disabled -- as well as any others who are interested -- to use shotguns and pistols for home defense.

Clements, who has a concealed-handgun license, said he longs for the freedom he had when he lived in Phoenix.

"I wore a .357 on my hip," he said. "Anyone in Arizona would tell you it's not a problem. It used to be in Texas we had that opportunity, but they changed it after the Civil War."

He said the city's policy against bringing guns into city hall is stupid because it denies him, other council members and residents who attend council meetings the ability to defend themselves.

Former Councilman Mike Steele, an ex-Marine and a concealed-handgun-license holder, said insisting that people attend council meetings armed is fringe thinking.

"His recommendation about training citizens to use a shotgun and pistol in home defense is loony," Steele said. "It's not the city's job to provide firearms training to its citizens."

Longtime resident Bernard "Sarge" Bowman, who attends many council meetings, said, "If we could do a recall tonight against Mr. Clements, I would be the first in line."

But any potential recall would have to wait as the city charter says a council member must be in office at least six months before being subject to recall.

From NBC-Dallas/Fort Worth: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Watauga-Councilman-Wants-Residents-to-Carry-Firearms-129595718.html

At ATF, 200 Murders Earns Transfers to DC

2011-09-06T15:21:00.000-07:00

by Larry Pratt --

In the tradition of the Weaver family murders and the Waco inferno, ATF has now brought us “Fast and Furious” with the highest body count to date: approximately 200. At the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), that merits transfers for the four managers involved.

Fast and Furious was a project spawned at a multi-agency meeting in October of 2009 consisting of ATF, FBI, Border Patrol and Immigration, the IRS, Customs Enforcement and the Justice Department.

It began as an outgrowth of Operation Gunrunner, a typical sting operation begun in 2005 that targeted straw gun purchases. A legal buyer typically buys a gun after passing the Instant Background Check. But under Gunrunner, if something about the transaction was suspicious, ATF would surveil the purchaser until he sold the gun to a buyer who was not legally able to own a gun. At that point they would make an arrest.

But under Operation Fast and Furious, guns were, in fact, allowed to “walk” -- with no arrests being made. Most of the guns went to Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel, but some also turned up at Arizona crime scenes.

One straw buyer bought over 700 guns. Another was an FBI informant and a felon the ATF knew nothing about. He did not pop up in the background check because the FBI was fiddling with the system.

Fast and Furious was directed by the Phoenix ATF office, when William Newell was the Special Agent in Charge of that office. When Newell testified before Congress this summer -- “testilied” would be more accurate -- he mostly avoided giving direct answers.

An exasperated Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, exclaimed that he knew who Newell was: “A paid non-answerer.”

Committee member Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) asked if there had been any email exchanges between him and National Security Council member Kevin O’Reilly, who works in the White House. One of the few direct answers of the day was “Yes.”

Then Rep. Labrador asked Newell if there had been any discussion of Fast and Furious. Newell replied that “We never had any specific discussions of Fast and Furious.” Rep. Issa jumped in and said to Newell, “Answer that last question without the use of the word specific.” The answer then was, “Yes, we did discuss it sometimes.”

Newell committed perjury when he first denied that guns were allowed to walk, but then later was forced to admit that they had. Contempt of Congress, a criminal offense, could possibly result.
Another coconspirator in the Fast and Furious debacle was William McMahon, who was the Assistant Director of the Western Division. He and Newell both admitted to having made mistakes, but said they would do the same thing all over again.

It is quite disappointing to know that McMahon was assigned to the Office of Personal Responsibility -- the very office in charge of investigating Fast and Furious.

You might think that the transfers for Agents Newell and McMahon top the charts for bureaucratic chutzpah. But wait, there is more!

A third person worthy of a Washington reassignment is David Voth who was under Newell in the Phoenix office. Voth was part of the ATF team that allowed thousands of guns to “walk” into Mexico.
Last but not least, Acting Director Kenneth Melson has been transferred (read: demoted) to the Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy.

The failure of the President and the Attorney General to fire Melson and the other three officials who have been transferred to Washington means the Administration now owns the cover-up. Can you say Richard Milhouse Obama?

Ironically, the very folks who were responsible for committing various federal felonies -- involving illegal gun sales and exports -- are now the very ones telling lawful Americans, “You need more gun control!”

Specifically, ATF has told dealers in the four southwest border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to submit sales reports for anyone who, in five days or less, purchases multiple semi-auto rifles of a caliber higher than a .22.

That order itself is illegal. ATF is only permitted to require multiple sales reports for handguns. But investigators in the House of Representatives have found that email traffic within the ATF made it clear that the purpose of Fast and Furious was to put the blame for the Mexican carnage on gun stores and gun owners.

ATF clearly has no shame.

The DC headquarters of ATF, and some field offices such as the one in Phoenix, are led by criminally corrupt agents. They need to be put in jail.

Until Obama is no longer President, it is a no-brainer that Attorney General Holder, who has been complicit in this whole Fast and Furious debacle, will not order his own arrest. However, the House of Representatives could appoint an independent counsel and put him in the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, who heads up the Capitol Hill Police Force.

When the Sergeant at Arms develops a case dealing with crimes committed in the Capitol -- for example, perjury and obstruction of justice (resulting from the refusal to hand over documents and answer questions) -- the Capitol Hill Police Force could make arrests anywhere in Washington, D.C.

In addition, an Arizona prosecutor could seek indictments for people such as Newell, Voth and those above them -- charging them with aiding and abetting the murder of a federal agent. Following indictment, the accused could be extradited to Arizona.

When some Justice Department and ATF officials begin telecommuting from their suburban homes, we will know that the end is near.

There is a way. Hopefully there is a will.

Larry Pratt is the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America.

Party at ATF Over Gun Control

2011-09-03T07:01:00.000-07:00

This from the the whistleblower website cleanupatf.org:

B. Todd Jones, the new ATF Acting Director, isn't here to do any more than what Attorney General Holder instructs him to do, and people who think otherwise aren't being realistic, but Mr. Jones is--he's keeping his career job no matter what, and has virtually no skin in the game. Again, that's because Mr. Jones isn't calling the shots. Again, anybody who thinks he is needs to consider the reality of this situation.

What, specifically, is Mr. Jones' mission? That won't be clear until he actually does something, but I look for him to try and keep pushing ATF to do things the Congress and the American people have already forcefully rejected: (1) re-enact the Assault Weapons ban, and (2) outlaw the private sales of firearms. In other words, try to get an Executive Branch agency (or agencies) to do what the Congress won't and what the American people don't want.

Consider the "party" at ATF that was scheduled for ATF employees to "celebrate" the reporting of multiple sales of rifles requirement, something that was certainly concocted to please the Department of Justice masters, and an abominably stupid thing to do. It was abominably stupid because the House Appropriations Committee voted, through a rider, to not make funds available to enforce/implement that requirement, and it is abominably stupid for ANY federal agency to gratuitously piss off their appropriators. The "part" and "celebration" was deliberate--it was deliberately designed to show contempt and disrespect to the House Appropriations Committee. Not a real smart thing to do; but, again, this was done to please the Department of Justice.
Read more here.

New Questions, Possible Cover-Up, Surface in ATF Fast and Furious Probe

2011-09-02T16:45:00.001-07:00

By Jerry Seper, The Washington TimesTwo top Republican lawmakers say Arizona prosecutors “stifled” attempts by agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to interdict weapons purchased by “straw buyers” in that state that later were “walked” to drug smugglers in Mexico, and may have covered up the fact that two of those weapons were found at the scene of the killing of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Darrell Issa of California, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, told Acting U.S. Attorney Ann Scheel in Phoenix in a letter Thursday that “explicit approval” was required from federal prosecutors before any of the weapons purchased in “Operation Fast and Furious” could be stopped from leaving the country.Read more at washingtontimes.comRead more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/2/new-questions-possible-cover-surface-fast-and-furi/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz1WqGGeoBa

Another Example of Why Blanket Felon Prohibition for Guns is Bad Idea

2011-09-01T17:56:00.000-07:00

A husband and wife, both 64-years-old, face up to ten years in prison for being felons in possession of firearms. Yes, it looks like they knowingly broke the law, but sometimes the law itself is broken. Below is an article from the Billings (Montana) Gazette:
A federal jury on Wednesday convicted a Busby couple of illegally having firearms after having been convicted on marijuana charges.

The jury found Lemuel Thomas "Butch" Small and his wife, Christina Pilkington Small, both 64, guilty of being felons in possession of firearms after two-day trial.

Prosecutor Bryan Whittaker said agents with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Drug Enforcement Administration visited the Smalls on May 12, 2010, to serve Lemuel Small with a grand jury subpoena. While there, the agents saw boxes of ammunition on top of the refrigerator. Lemuel Small got upset and ordered the agents to leave, he said.

Agents returned on May 25, executed a search warrant and found four firearms and boxes of ammunition of various calibers. The search also turned up a 2004 document in which Lemuel Small acknowledged having been advised by his probation officer that as a convicted felon, he was prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition.

Other evidence included a bumper sticker that read, "I'm out of Estrogen AND I HAVE A GUN," on the refrigerator.

Prior to trial, Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull denied a request by Lemuel Small to use marijuana for medicinal purposes pending his firearms trial.

The Smalls were convicted of distributing marijuana and sentenced in 2003.

Cebull set sentencing for the Smalls on Nov. 23 and continued their release. The couple faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and a maximum $250,000 fine.

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_8a2b1f53-2799-5f43-a60c-0b5b00e382a8.html#ixzz1WkgdkBn2

National Shooting Sports Foundation Statement on BATFE

2011-09-01T11:58:00.000-07:00

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms industry – responded to the White House nomination of U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota B. Todd Jones to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) with the following statement:

As the ATF begins its leadership transition with the appointment of U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones to serve as the bureau’s acting director, NSSF looks forward to meeting with Mr. Jones and to continuing our industry’s cooperative relationship with ATF in helping them to curtail the illegal acquisition and misuse of firearms.

Though NSSF is still reviewing Mr. Jones’ record on Second Amendment-related issues, NSSF hopes to find in him an effective leader who can move the ATF forward and be supportive of the bureau’s cooperative relationship with America’s firearms industry.

One example of this cooperative relationship is the ATF-NSSF anti-straw purchasing campaign called Don't Lie for the Other Guy – a program that educates retailers on how to better detect and deter illegal purchases of firearms and warns the public that it is a serious crime to attempt such an illegal purchase.

About NSSF
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 6,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, log on to www.nssf.org.

After ouster of ATF head, where does Fast and Furious probe go now?

2011-09-01T06:43:00.000-07:00

ATF acting head Ken Melson stepped down Tuesday amid a probe into the ill-fated Fast and Furious gun tracing program. But Congressional investigators believe there's more blame to go around.

More on Fast & Furious at The Christian Science Monitor

ATF Director Gets the Boot Over Fast and Furious Scandal--Sort Of

2011-08-31T07:25:00.000-07:00

Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was removed from the top spot with the agency due to the escalating controversy over guns being allowed to walk across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of dangerous drug cartels.

But in quintessential Washington fashion, he was not summarily fired from the federal government, nor is he being likely to be prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing.

Instead, Kenneth Melson will become Senior Advisor on forensic science in the Office of Legal Policy. Getting rid of Melson, though, does not get congressional investigators off the trail of the Fast and Furious scandal.

"While the reckless disregard for safety that took place in Operation Fast and Furious certainly merits changes within the Department of Justice, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee will continue its investigation to ensure that blame isn't off-loaded on just a few individuals for a matter that involved much higher levels of the Justice Department," said Darryl Issa, chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee.

"There are still many questions to be answered about what happened in Operation Fast and Furious and who else bears responsibility, but these changes are warranted. ... I also remain very concerned by Acting Director Melson's statement that the Department of Justice is managing its response in a manner intended to protect its political appointees."

Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke also resigned amid the scandal, a severe blow to the anti-gun rising star in Democrat circles in the state.

Read more at:

Politico
FoxNews
LA Times

Opinion: Obama's stealth gun control

2011-08-27T03:45:00.000-07:00

by Chuck Norris

Not long ago, the gun control advocates Jim and Sarah Brady visited the White House. President Barack Obama reportedly told them that he was working on new gun control schemes “under the radar.”

It’s been said that guns have two enemies — rust and politicians. Rust never sleeps, and neither do those who would seek to restrict our constitutional rights. So let me tell you about a meeting you weren’t invited to, where those people were planning an attack on our rights that’s very much “under the radar.”

It happened in July at the United Nations headquarters in New York, at a meeting to draft of what they call the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.

An Arms Trade Treaty doesn’t sound bad in concept — isn’t that what the U.N. is for? The problem, however, is what U.N. diplomats consider to be “arms.” To you and me, the word means tanks, fighter jets, missiles, that kind of thing. But look no further than the U.N. plaza to see what the silk-stocking set considers “arms.” There you will find a bronze statue of a simple .38 revolver — with its barrel tied into a knot.

Remember no other country in the world enjoys America’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This is why the vast majority of U.N. diplomats believe that an arms trade treaty must reach into your gun safe and mine. There is little question that this treaty would require additional restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.

Consider the comments of a spokesman from “Project Ploughshares,” a Canadian arms control group. “From a humanitarian perspective,” the spokesman told the Canadian Postmedia News “all firearms need to be controlled, and that’s the bottom line.”

This attitude has spooked even Canada’s government, which typically embraces a disarmament agenda. During the meeting, Canada put forth a panicky petition for a hunting rifle exemption in the treaty. Mexico immediately objected.

For an administration with a secretive itch for gun control, the situation is ideal. They can let the United Nations do the dirty work of drafting onerous new restrictions on civilian firearms, then package them inside a treaty with legitimate measures to control true military armaments.

The U.N. has scheduled the treaty to be finished in July of next year — just in time to go to the Obama White House for ratification.

That’s “under the radar” for you.

But one risk of operating under the radar is that you can’t see the moves of your opponents. This is not the first U.N. gun-control rodeo for my friends at the National Rifle Association. They know treaty ratification requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Thirty-four senators would have to vote no to block the treaty.

While the rest of Washington was fixated on the debt ceiling debate, the NRA quietly marshaled opposition to the treaty among pro-gun senators.

Fifty-eight senators have now called out the president on his plan. Led by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), 45 Republicans and 13 Democrats have written two strong letters —one from members of each party — to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. All the senators have vowed to oppose any treaty that restricts civilian firearm ownership.

What’s ironic is that the United States already has the world’s pre-eminent system for regulation of true military arms sales. If the rest of the world merely adopted the U.S. regulatory regime, there would be no need for an Arms Trade Treaty.
But rather than harmonize other nations’ patchy regulations on arms transfers, the diplomatic crowd would rather force Washington to hew to its utopian vision of global disarmament.

If this were only a partisan exercise in bashing Obama and the U.N., one could be forgiven for concluding it has no substance. But 13 Democratic senators clearly think otherwise — a sign that this debate is far from over.

Chuck Norris, an actor, martial artist and author, is the honorary chairman of the National Rifle Association’s voter registration program, Trigger the Vote.

Recent Supreme Court decisions are the beginning—not the end—of Second Amendment court fights

2011-08-25T09:32:00.000-07:00

A Washington Post article points out that while gun rights supporters expected to see the victories start rolling in following the Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, the other side is the one, in fact, winning in the lower courts.This is disappointing, but not shocking.

The McDonald decision incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, while Heller's biggent win was that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The importance of this cannot be over stated. Prior to Heller, nearly every circuit court of appeals had ruled the Second Amendment to be a collective right.

But the Heller Court chose to go no farther. Specifically, the majority wrote (on page 2):

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The decision, unfortunately, gives anti-gun judges more than enough wiggle room to rule almost any gun control law—short of a total gun ban—constitutional.

Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt noted on the day of the Heller ruling that the opinion was mixed.

"Dicta in this case implies that, in the future, courts might go further than the Constitution permits in upholding some gun restrictions. Nevertheless, we are pleased that the Court has so clearly stated that individuals, apart from any membership in a militia, have the right to own and use guns for self-defense."

So we shouldn't be surprised when the other side wins some battles in the lower courts, many of which are filled with hardcore anti-gunners. The bottom line is we’ve come a long way, but we have a long way to go to see gun rights get the protections the Second Amendment demands.

John Velleco is the Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America.

Legislation Will Protect Gun Rights on Army Corps of Engineers Land

2011-08-24T19:08:00.000-07:00

Gun Owners of America is working with several members of Congress to repeal a gun ban on land controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Currently, guns are prohibited on Corps land, even when firearms possession is otherwise allowed by state law. Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH) introduced legislation—the Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act (H.R. 1865)—to allow state law to govern firearms possession.

You may recall that in July, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) offered similar language as an amendment to an appropriations bill. Gosar’s amendment passed the House on a voice vote, but its fate is uncertain as it heads to the Senate.

The Gibbs bill, as well as the Gosar amendment, is modeled after a similar measure that became law in 2009 affecting National Park Service land. Army Corps of Engineers land was not part of that bill, something the Corps was quick to point out after that law took affect.

The Corps said, in a statement: “Public Law 111-024 does not apply to Corps projects of facilities . . . [and the Army Corps] will continue to prohibit loaded concealed weapons on Corps properties regardless of the new law and notwithstanding any contrary provisions of state law.”

Rep. Gibbs’ bill will reverse the Corps’ decision.

“The Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act is a bipartisan effort to restore Second Amendment rights to law-abiding citizens while they are legally camping, hunting, and fishing on the 11.7 million acres of Army Corps recreational property,” Gibbs said. “Families and sportsmen taking advantage of this federal land should not have to worry that their legally obtained concealed weapon permit is invalid.”

Gun Owners of America applauds the efforts of Reps. Gibbs and Gosar, and will continue to push for repeal of the gun ban affecting over 400 lake and river projects, 90,000 campsites and 4,000 miles of trails controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers.

ACTION: Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to cosponsor H.R. 1865, the Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act.

Click here to send a prewritten message to your Representative.

Thief Chooses Wrong Store to Rob

2011-08-23T12:59:00.000-07:00

Man Killed in Robbery Attempt in Bramwell

Firearms Industry Files Motion in Suit Against ATF

2011-08-22T11:43:00.000-07:00

NEWTOWN, Conn., Aug. 22, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, in its federal lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for America's firearms industry, filed a motion asking the court to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the ATF from requiring 8,500 federally licensed firearms retailers along the Southwest border (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California) to report multiple sales of certain long guns. Specifically, the regulation requires retailers to report to ATF the sale of more than one semi-automatic rifle larger than .22 caliber and capable of accepting a detachable magazine that is purchased by the same individual within five consecutive business days. These commonly owned rifles, like all firearms, are lawfully sold by federally licensed firearms retailers only after an FBI background check is performed.

The NSSF lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Aug. 3. 2011, alleges that ATF exceeded its legal authority under the Gun Control Act by sending a letter imposing this new record-keeping and reporting requirement. Today's motion, if granted, would freeze the reporting requirement while the court considers NSSF's underlying lawsuit.

NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane commented on the NSSF motion: "A preliminary injunction will curtail an unlawful regulation by ATF that sets a dangerous legal precedent. If ATF can demand this information from these law-abiding retailers simply by sending a letter requiring it, then there is no record or report ATF cannot require of any licensee, anywhere in the country, simply because ATF had decided it wants to see the information. This is the proverbial 'slippery slope.' Our industry abhors the criminal misuse of firearms, whether on the streets of El Paso or in Juarez, Mexico. Though we can understand ATF's motive is to try to curtail violence in Mexico, Congress simply has not granted ATF regulatory carte blanche."

Despite its lawsuit, NSSF is encouraging all retailers to continue to cooperate with law enforcement and report any suspicious activity to the ATF.

"Members of the firearms industry take great pride in their longstanding cooperative relationship with ATF," said NSSF President and CEO Steve Sanetti. "Retailers have long been considered by ATF to be a vital source of information for law enforcement in combating illegal firearms trafficking."

Sanetti pointed out that for more than a decade the firearms industry has done its part to help prevent illegal straw purchases of firearms through its Don't Lie for the Other Guy anti-straw purchasing program. The campaign, a cooperative effort between NSSF and ATF, educates retailers on how to better detect and deter illegal purchases of firearms and warns the public that it is a serious crime to attempt such an illegal purchase. The program is active in firearm retailer shops across the country. Over the last several years the firearms industry has solely funded the roll-out of Don't Lie along the border to deter individuals from illegally purchasing firearms. See www.dontlie.org.

SOURCE National Shooting Sports Foundation

Londoners die for want of a gun

2011-08-21T20:13:00.000-07:00

Nolan Finley (Detroit News)

Defenders of the Second Amendment couldn't have asked for a greater gift than the spectacle of unarmed policemen and defenseless citizens standing by helplessly while rampaging hordes of youths burned London and beat up and murdered innocent residents.
Europhiles endlessly remind us of the superiority, compassion and refinement of the European social democracies.

But the anarchy that raged in England couldn't happen in America. At least not in my neighborhood, where every third house contains a hunter with a gun safe full of pistols, shotguns and rifles.

We've ceded many or our liberties to the government, but so far we've hung on to the right to defend ourselves and protect our families and homes. We pay our cops to do the same.

Not so in England.

Police there are armed with little more than a smile. As demonstrated by the recent riots, they are virtually powerless to counter violence.

Even such nonlethal responses as water cannons and rubber bullets are debated in Parliament.
A shocking column last week in the Wall Street Journal by law professor Joyce Lee Malcolm detailed the ridiculous lengths to which the Brits have gone to level the playing field between criminals and law-abiding citizens.

It's part of the American DNA that if hit, you have the right to hit back.

But in England, crime targets risk prison for killing or injuring an attacker. Homeowners have been charged with murder for killing an intruder.

Burglars who hurt themselves breaking into a house can sue the owner.

Police called to crimes in progress can do little but shrug and wait until the carnage is complete to dust off the victim.

We have our flaws in America. But we have the common sense to recognize the difference between those who obey the law and those who break it.

Although a few places, most notably Washington D.C., have stripped their citizens of the best means of self defense, for the most part responsible gun ownership is still an acknowledged right.

Londoners had little more than cricket bats and frying pans to fend off the marauders. Private gun ownership is limited. It's even illegal to have a knife with a blade longer than three inches.

The gun-phobic in this country blame widespread legal gun ownership for violent crime.

But in England, where only the bad guys have guns, crimes committed with handguns have increased 40 percent since they were banned in 1997.

In the 10 years since Michigan liberalized its concealed carry law, more than a quarter million residents have received weapons permits, without the predicted rise in gun violence.

But there has been an increase in the number of citizens trained and prepared to protect their communities from falling into anarchy.

nfinley@detnews.com

Nolan Finley is editorial page editor of the News. Read his recent columns and blog at detnews.com/finley and watch him at 7:30 p.m. Fridays on “Am I Right?” on Detroit Public TV, Channel 56.

Gun Control Misfire

2011-08-21T16:10:00.000-07:00

"I don't know if there's anything disproven by those numbers," says state Sen. Donald McEachin, a gun-control advocate who is evidently hoping to become the poster child for confirmation bias. McEachin was referring to Sunday's Times-Dispatch story about Virginia's law allowing concealed-carry permit holders to bring their firearms into bars and restaurants. Contrary to widespread predictions, the measure has not turned the streets into rivers of blood.

Continue reading at Richmond Times Dispatch

MORAN: Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable

2011-08-19T17:46:00.000-07:00

Senate would shoot down U.N. treaty abridging U.S. gun rights
(by Sen. Jerry Moran)

More than two centuries ago, our Founding Fathers wisely amended the U.S. Constitution to guarantee a Bill of Rights for its citizens. Rooted in freedom, our democracy has stood strong as Americans have enjoyed liberties unparalleled in the world - including the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Today, our freedoms and our country’s sovereignty are in danger of being undermined by the United Nations.

In October 2009 at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama administration voted for the United States to participate in negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) - a reversal of the previous administration’s position. This treaty purportedly is intended to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” However, by threatening to include civilian firearms within its scope, the ATT would restrict the lawful private ownership of firearms in our country.

Last month, the ATT Preparatory Committee met in New York as part of a series of meetings prior to finalizing the treaty next year for adoption. Based on the process to date, I am gravely concerned this treaty will infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners and will be used by other countries that do not share our freedoms to wrongly place the burden of controlling international crime and terrorism on law-abiding American citizens.

Proposals being considered by the committee would adversely impact U.S. gun owners. There have been regular calls for bans on the civilian ownership of guns Americans use to hunt, target-shoot and defend themselves. By requiring firearms to be accounted for throughout their life span, the ATT could lead to mandatory nationwide gun registration. Still other proposals could require the marking and tracking of all ammunition.

Forty-four U.S. senators recently joined me in sending a powerful message to the Obama administration: A U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. On July 22, we notified President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton of our intent to oppose ratification of a treaty that in any way restricts Second Amendment rights. In fact, our opposition is strong enough to block the treaty from passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate require two-thirds approval to be ratified. In notifying the Obama administration, we outlined several concerns.

First, civilian firearms and ammunition should not be included in the scope of the ATT. Preparatory meetings have made it clear that many U.N. member states aim to craft an extremely broad treaty. For example, Mexico and several countries in Central and South America have called for the treaty to cover “all types of conventional weapons (regardless of their purpose), including small arms and light weapons, ammunition, components, parts, technology and related materials.” Such a treaty would be incredibly difficult to enforce and would pose dangers to all U.S. businesses and individuals involved in any aspect of the firearms industry, from manufacturers to dealers to consumers.

Second, any regulation of the domestic manufacturing, possession or purchase of firearms and ammunition is completely unacceptable. U.N. member states regularly argue that no treaty controlling the transfer of arms internationally can be effective without controls on transfers inside a country’s own borders. At stake is our country’s autonomy and the rights of American citizens protected under the Constitution.

Finally, America leads the world in export standards to ensure arms are transferred for legitimate purposes, and its citizens should not be punished by the ATT. There is no disagreement that sales and transfers to criminals and terrorists are unacceptable, but law-abiding Americans should not be held responsible for international crime and acts of terrorism. Instead, the responsibility should be on U.N. member states that have not enforced existing laws and have failed to block illegal trafficking of arms.

Our country’s sovereignty and Second Amendment rights must not be infringed upon by an international organization made up of many countries with little respect for gun rights. As the treaty process continues, I will continue to work with my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure that any Arms Trade Treaty that undermines the constitutional rights of American gun owners is dead on arrival because our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.

Sen. Jerry Moran is a Republican from Kansas.

Presidential Race Heating Up

2011-08-19T11:53:00.000-07:00

Gun Owners of America sent survey to all the candidates. Check out the alert.

Fast and Furious Action Against Gun Onwers

2011-08-18T08:38:00.000-07:00

Tanya K. Metaksa writes for the National Association of Arms Shows, covering Fast & Furious, new BATFE regulations, shotgun import issues, and more. Read newsletter here (PDF)

Take a Break, work on your aim

2011-08-17T12:59:00.000-07:00

Left click to shoot; spacebar change view; shift key to reload

Cornyn Adds Voice to Fast & Furious Scandal

2011-08-12T18:37:00.000-07:00

Texas Senator John Cornyn added his voice to the escalating criticism on Capitol Hill over the Justice Department's Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious scandal.

According to Congressional investigators and current and former employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), thousands of firearms have been allowed to "walk" across the border into Mexico, ending up in the hands of violent drug cartels.

While much of the focus has been on guns originating in Arizona (Fast and Furious being operated out of the BATFE Phoenix office), Sen. Cornyn also wants to know about guns going across the border from Texas.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Sen. Cornyn writes, “I believe it is important that you promptly disclose the details of any past or present Texas-based ATF‘gun-walking’ program similar to ‘Operation Fast and Furious.’ My constituents deserve a full accounting of any such activities in Texas.”

Click here for the full text of Sen. Cornyn's letter.

Legal Guns Would Make Norway Safer

2011-07-28T19:48:00.000-07:00

by Michael Reagan

How long would the Norway gunman have lasted in Texas or any state where concealed-carry laws are on the books? I ran a survey while on a cruise: in Texas, 3 minutes; in Montana, 7 to 8 minutes; in Arizona, 2 minutes; and in Nevada, 3 to 5 minutes.

Had Norway not surrendered to the anti-self-defense nuts, and allowed Norwegians to protect themselves by legally carrying guns, the massacre might well have been prevented. There’s a lot of truth in the old adage that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will carry guns.

Continue reading at Townhall.com.

Cuccinelli says guns in churches are okay if they’re for self-defense

2011-04-11T14:19:00.000-07:00

By Rosalind S. Helderman

Washington Post

Virginians may carry weapons for personal protection into places of worship while religious services are being conducted, according to a new legal opinion by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R).

Virginia law bars carrying weapons in churches and other worship houses while a religious meeting is being held unless a person has “good and sufficient reason.”

In an opinion written Friday and posted on Cuccinelli’s Web site Monday, Cuccinelli indicates that the “right of self-defense lies at the heart of the right to keep and bear arms.” Therefore, he concludes that “carrying a weapon for personal protection constitutes a good and sufficient reason under the statute.”

Read entire article at the Washington Post

Bloomberg Misfires, Again

2009-11-27T16:31:00.000-08:00

by John Velleco

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg heads a group called “Mayors Against Illegal Guns.” The name is deceptive – Bloomberg is mostly interested in further restricting legal gun ownership.

His most recent tirade comes in the wake of the Fort Hood shooting. In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Bloomberg complains that the FBI is not allowed to keep a registration list of gun owners.

Federal law prohibits the government from maintaining or compiling a registration list of gun owners. President Clinton ignored the law and kept files of lawful gun purchasers (those who went through an FBI background check before they were allowed to purchase a firearm) for at least six months.

Congress rightly stepped in and required that the records of lawful transactions be destroyed within 24 hours. It is bad enough that American gun owners are presumed to be criminals until they can prove otherwise to the government, but to add to that unconstitutional requirement the ability of the government to maintain gun owner registration lists would only lead to more intrusive laws, greater restrictions on gun rights and more civilian disarmament.

Gun control laws do not reduce violent crime rates (in fact the opposite is more likely the case). But what is the government’s typical response when its gun control laws prove ineffective? The common refrain is that law was too weak, or too small, or didn’t go far enough. The solution, therefore, is to enact yet more laws.

That is exactly the position of Mayor Bloomberg. Sixteen years ago, the gun control crowd pushed the so-called Brady law, wherein all firearms transactions conducted through federally licensed dealers would be regulated. But, of course, that was not enough for them. Now anti-gunners want to maintain lists of gun owners and expand background checks to private gun sales.

Bloomberg also believes that people who are suspected of crimes should be prohibited from purchasing firearms. Anti-Second Amendment advocates like Bloomberg want to deny gun purchases to persons listed on the governments so-called terror watch list – a list that reportedly contains over 400,000 names.

Why is due process so offensive to the gun control crowd? If we can deny civil liberties to citizens on the basis of being suspected criminals, we may as well run the Constitution through a shredder.

It is a shame that Bloomberg did not take up the cause of legal gun ownership at Fort Hood. The military’s anti-self defense policy is one reason that a man armed with a couple of handguns was able to murder 14 people on a military installation.

Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone told reporters after the Fort Hood shooting that, “we don't carry weapons here, this is our home.” It may come as a surprise to many people that military installations are for the most part gun free zones. Only police are allowed to carry firearms on base – most soldiers are not allowed to carry weapons on base when not training.

Why isn’t Bloomberg outraged over the disarming of our servicemen and women on base? This is a “loophole” that can and should be closed quickly.

At the very least, those who hold a Texas concealed carry permit should be able to carry on post. That type of legal gun ownership would make the 33,000 people who reside at Fort Hood safer.

Bloomberg, of course, would not go for it because it doesn’t fit his extreme gun control agenda.

If Bloomberg’s organization were really just against the criminal misuse of firearms, its existence would be meaningless. A more fitting – and honest – title for Bloomberg’s group would be simply “Mayors Against Guns.”

Obamacare May Target Gun Owners

2009-11-25T10:17:00.000-08:00

From Townhall.com
Jillian Bandes

Who might be the next victim of Obamacare? Gun owners.

Government health care reform "will most likely dump your gun related health data into a government database ... that can preclude you from owning firearms," said Gun Owners of America, in an email notification to their members, shortly before the health care debate on Saturday. GOA said that diagnoses such as post-traumatic stress disorders or other mental illnesses could be a reason the government uses to charge you more for health insurance under the public plan, or as part of co-op regulations.

Larry Pratt, Executive Director of GOA, said the chances of Uncle Sam using his power to regulate health care based on gun ownership was even better because Kathleen Sebelius is the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency that would be in charge of specific health care regulations and their enforcment. Sebelius has a long anti-gun history, responsible for vetoes of concealed carry bills in Kansas. [More]

Brady Campaign Exploits Fort Hood Tragedy

2009-11-11T10:57:00.000-08:00

The anti-gun zealots at the Brady Campaign will not let one tragedy go by without exploiting the victims to further their gun control aims, and the recent shooting at Fort Hood is no exception.

When Brady head Paul Helmke heard of the tragedy at Fort Hood, he says, “we were in the midst of planning a response to the latest dangerous legislative proposal from the gun lobby in the United States Senate–language to automatically restore access to guns to veterans designated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department as ‘mentally incapacitated’ or ‘mentally incompetent.’”

Actually, the legislation in question, S. 669, would only safeguard two of the most fundamental of American’s Constitutional rights: due process of law and the right to keep and bear arms Since 1999, over 100,000 U.S. military veterans have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights on the basis of psychiatrists’ opinions for issues such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

(Incidentally, the alleged Ft. Hood shooter was an Army psychiatrist, one of the very people in a position to deem others too troubled to possess a firearm.)

S. 669, sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), simply requires that a veteran cannot lose his or her gun rights “without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.”

In other words, the bill would put an end to the practice of psychiatrists subjecting veterans to a lifetime gun ban. Helmke and the Brady Bunch apparently have as much respect for the Fifth Amendment (No person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”) as they do for the Second.

Helmke continues: “America has seen an epidemic of horrific gun violence at churches and synagogues, workplaces, health clubs, high schools, universities, police stations and now Army bases. This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places. Enough is enough.”

There have, indeed, been a number of violent acts at places of worship and other locations. But guess what? Many of these places are gun free zones. There is a federal “gun free schools zones” law; many states prohibit firearms in churches; law-abiding adults can carry concealed firearms in 48 states, but are prohibited from carrying a gun for self-defense in most state universities.

While it may have come as a surprise to many, the military creates its own disarmament zones. After the Ft. Hood tragedy, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone reminded reporters, “[W]e don't carry weapons here, this is our home.” Military bases are for the most part gun free zones, where only military police and other security personnel are allowed to carry firearms.

The government cannot legislate where a criminal attack will occur. It could be a school, a hospital, church, or even an Army base. Various levels of government have only succeeded in producing a morass of mandatory victim zones.

Helmke got one thing right; “Enough is enough.” Criminal safety zone laws should be repealed immediately, starting with the dangerous anti-gun policies on military installations.

Sen. Barrasso Questions OAS Nominee on CIFTA

2009-11-06T13:11:00.000-08:00

Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) questions Carmen Lomellin, nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS), on the CIFTA gun control treaty at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on November 4, 2009:

Gun Owners Victorious in Virginia!

2009-11-05T09:38:00.000-08:00

From Gun Owners of America
November 4, 2009

Congratulations to Virginia’s new Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who defeated his anti-gun opponent, Steve Shannon, with nearly 58% of the vote.

AG Cuccinelli’s win was a victory for all gun owners, as his opponent tried to make regulating private sales at gun shows a key issue in the race. Once again, the gun control position was soundly defeated at the polls.

In Virginia’s governor’s race, Democrat Creigh Deeds also touted his support for regulating private transactions of firearms at gun shows. Of course, this would be an unprecedented usurpation of individual liberty and would lead to the end of gun shows in the state. Anti-gunner Deeds fell to Republican Bob McDonnell, 59-41%, who does not support government regulation of private firearms transactions.

As a Delegate in 1993, McDonnell voted in favor of Virginia’s one-gun-a-month law, a law he now favors repealing.

In the race for Lieutenant Governor in the Old Dominion, GOA-PVF endorsed strong Second Amendment advocate Bill Bolling, who won with just over 56% of the vote.

Pro-gun candidate nearly pulls off upset in downstate race

In a repudiation of sorts to the top of the ticket for Republicans, as well as State Party Chairman Pat Mullins, was the extremely close result in a little-noticed race for the 99th District seat in the House Delegates.

Republican Catherine Crabill, supported by GOA-PVF, narrowly lost to Democrat Albert Pollard, 51-48%.

This summer, candidate Crabill gave a stirring stump speech this summer in her bid for the seat. Addressing a Tea Party rally, Crabill eloquently affirmed the need to reassert the Tenth Amendment, and if need be, the Second Amendment.

“We have the opportunity to fight this at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box,” said Crabill, urging the crowd to get out and vote.

Not a particularly controversial comment in a state whose motto, “Sic Semper Tyrannis” (Thus Always to Tyrants), is emblazoned on the state shield which depicts Lady Liberty standing with her foot in the neck of a vanquished tyrant.

Crabill’s statement was also not out of line with the founding fathers, who did not give us the Second Amendment to protect duck hunting.

Who would object to these sentiments besides an anti-gunner? Well, for openers, Republican Party Chairman Mullins. “We do not condone or support the comments Catherine Crabill has made,” Mullins said. “That kind of talk has no place in civil political discourse. She has received no assistance from the state party, nor will she in the future.”

Thanks to Pat Mullins and other Republican leaders, Crabill ran on a shoe-string budget. Surely, with just a little more support, she could have pulled off an upset.

Gun shows, "Loopholes," and the VA Attorney General Race

2009-11-01T20:00:00.000-08:00

A Washington Times Editorial:
Gun and the Virginia Election
Shannon's mudslinging doesne't stick to Cuccinelli
10/29/09

With just days to go before the election, Virginia Democrats are getting desperate. In the race to become the commonwealth's next attorney general, state Delegate Stephen Shannon is trying to tar his opponent, state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, for purportedly giving guns to convicted felons. Mr. Shannon is sending around literature with a scary picture of a violent criminal claiming: "FACT: Ken Cuccinelli, candidate for attorney general, voted to allow violent felons to purchase guns in Virginia."

We hate to break it to Mr. Shannon but this isn't going to be his Willie Horton ad. Mr. Shannon's convoluted logic goes this way: Since Mr. Cuccinelli voted against regulating the private sale of guns at gun shows, that means he supports felons having guns. Never mind that it is still illegal for felons to have guns and the senator supports that ban.

What Mr. Shannon is really referring to is the misleadingly named "gun show loophole." There is in fact no loophole. The rules for buying guns outside a gun show are precisely the same as they are at a gun show. Two types of people sell guns: registered dealers and private individuals. Registered dealers must fill out the same forms and meet the same requirements regardless of where they sell a gun. Private transfers are unregulated, but they are unregulated both inside and outside of gun shows. When pressed, most gun-control advocates admit what they really want is to regulate the private transfer of all guns, whether they are between a father and a son or anyone else.

There is no evidence that criminals use arms from gun shows to commit crimes. In 1997, during the Clinton administration, the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted a survey of 18,000 state prison inmates, the largest survey of inmates ever. Fewer than 1 percent of inmates (0.7 percent) who "possessed" a gun indicated they obtained it at a gun show.

Mr. Cuccinelli checked into all this even further. When the legislation came up in the Virginia Senate, he asked those advocating gun-show regulations to produce a single instance, ever, of an armed felony being committed in Virginia by someone who bought his gun at a gun show. According to Mr. Cuccinelli, they never came up with one. The only example they dug up was a case from 1999, a full decade ago, all the way across the country in the state of Washington.

There are real costs to these regulations. Research indicates gun-show regulations reduce the number of gun shows by 20 percent. Other recent work by economists at the University of Maryland and Harvard find that gun shows actually modestly reduce homicides and have no impact on suicides within 25 miles. Regulations that make guns more costly make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy guns for self-defense. Not a single academic study shows that regulating the sale by private individuals of their own guns reduces any type of violent crime.

Mr. Shannon's attacks on Mr. Cuccinelli are not only false; the policies that Mr. Shannon advocates would disarm law-abiding Virginians and increase crime. That's the real election issue for Virginians who care about their personal safety.

Another Second Amendment Case Heads to the Supreme Court

2009-09-30T19:33:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the City of Chicago’s ban on handguns, a case that will test the reach of the Second Amendment.

In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that: “The Second protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

That ruling shattered years of anti-gun revisionist history and misinformation that claimed the Second Amendment protected a “collective” right of the states to maintain something like the National Guard.

Heller, though, was limited in scope only to Washington, D.C., a federal enclave. The Court did not address the issue of whether states or localities can prohibit the right to keep and bear arms, or if the Second Amendment was “incorporated” to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court will consider this question in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, a suit filed immediately after the Heller decision. A lower court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the city, setting the stage for Supreme Court consideration.

The spotlight is sure to focus brightly on new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In a case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in January, 2009, Judge Sotomayor ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states.

When questioned during her confirmation hearings, Sotomayor argued that she was only following Supreme Court precedent, to which she was bound. Well, now that she is on the Supreme Court, her hands are no longer tied.

Will she now rule that the Second Amendment should not, unlike many other rights in the Bill of Rights, be incorporated to the states through the Privileges or Immunities Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Also during her confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Sotomayor was asked a straightforward question by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

“Do you believe,” the Senator asked, “that I personally have a right to self-defense?”

This did not seem to be a particularly difficult question. Sen. Coburn didn’t even ask about defending himself with a firearm. He only asked if Americans have a basic right to self-protection.

Her answer? “That’s sort of an abstract question.”

In fact, it’s hard to imagine a less abstract question. The right to keep and bear arms is afforded special protection in the Constitution precisely because it is a fundamental right.

It is a right that predates the Constitution because the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights not to create new rights, but to protect old ones -- our “unalienable” rights -- among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

John Dickison, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Pennsylvania, explained an unalienable right this way: it is something “Which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.”

And so, if our right to life is a natural right, then the right to self-protection necessarily follows from it. And self-protection, be it protection from individual criminals or a criminal government, was, to the Founders, synonymous with the right to bear arms.

Interestingly, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in great part specifically to protect the gun rights of freed slaves. After the Civil War, many states passed laws to disarm blacks who were former slaves, such as Mississippi’s post-war law: No freedman “shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition.”

Proponents of the Fourteenth Amendment argued that the amendment was necessary, in part, to stop the disarming of the freedmen -- lest they be little better off than before emancipation.
One hundred years later, in the 1960s, the Deacons for Defense armed themselves and often successfully defended themselves in areas where civil rights were still not adequately protected and blacks were targets of violence.

If the right to keep and bear arms is found not to be a “fundamental” right, people in places like Chicago and New York City will find themselves on a 21st century plantation, treated more like subjects than citizens.

Update: Wicker Amendment Sails Through Senate

2009-09-16T11:08:00.000-07:00

An amendment to end the complete gun prohibition on Amtrak trains passed overwhelmingly today in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 68-30.

The amendment, offered by Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker, was attached to the 2010 Transportation-Housing & Urban Development Appropriations bill and will simply allow firearms to be carried in checked bags on Amtrak trains in a manner that mirrors the policies of airlines (see below for more details).

The legislation now must be reconciled with the House-passed bill, which does not contain the Wicker amendment.

Rep. Joe Wilson, Real American Hero

2009-09-11T14:51:00.000-07:00

Rep. Joe Wilson's recent remark during President Obama's sales pitch on health care incited apoplectic seizures in liberals everywhere. However, this mild-mannered South Carolinian spoke out for millions of Americans.

Now, groups like Moveon.org are aggressively fundraising for Rep. Wilson's opponent in next year's election, to the tune of $750,000 in only two days.

But in addition to being RIGHT on health care (more on how health care legislation can affect your gun rights here), Rep. Wilson is a rock solid Second Amendment champion as well.

Not only does he have a great voting record on gun issues, Rep. Wilson took a leadership role in the effort to arm commercial airline pilots against terrorist attack after 9/11. After the original armed pilots legislation passed both the House and Senate in 2002, a conference committee altered the language to apply only to passenger aircraft, leaving a gaping hole in airline security. Rep. Wilson teamed up with Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) in 2003 with legislation to close the loophole.

They were successful, but government bureaucrats in the TSA who were opposed to the entire program set up tons of roadblocks in the form of unnecessary steps to make it as difficult as possible for pilots to participate in the program. Again, Rep. Joe Wilson and Sen. Bunning stepped up to the plate to protect national security with a bill to streamline the process.

Some people think Rep. Wilson's comment was impolitic. Perhaps. It is doudtful, however, that most Americans would consider the defense of truth a bad thing. S0, when the President of the United States sets out to turn this country into a socialist experiment, all the while denying it, maybe it's time for "impolitic" tactics.

Rep. Joe Wilson is an America hero who has done more to protect this country's security than most Congressmen. Let's stand behind our friend with our words and our wallets. Even the smallest contribution will help.

For freedom's sake, go here and donate what you can to Congressman Joe Wilson.

Update: Sunstein Confirmed by Senate

2009-09-10T16:30:00.001-07:00

Cass Sunstein, President Obama's radical nominee for "regulatory czar" (this guy has more Czars than the House of Romanov) sailed through confirmation today on a 57-40 vote.

Sunstein will now head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Budget and Management. He's also on the short list for the next Supreme Court opening.

The nomination had been held up for months by Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and John Cornyn (R-TX), who were concerned about, among other things, Sunstein's radical views of animal rights -- including the possibility of homo sapiens bringing lawsuits on behalf of animals and his support of a ban on hunting.

Next czar up: OSHA nominee David Michaels, another radical anti-gunner. Stay tuned.

Senate to Vote on Anti-gun Kook for "Regulatory Czar"

2009-09-09T05:07:00.000-07:00

-- Nominee favors bringing an end to hunting

(Gun Owners of America) -- Just when you thought the news about the Obama administration couldn’t get any worse, gun owners find themselves needing to rally the troops once again.

This time it’s the proposed “Regulatory Czar” who will be coming to a vote this week in the U.S. Senate.

His name is Cass Sunstein, and he holds some of the kookiest views you will ever hear. For starters, Sunstein believes in regulating hunting out of existence.

He told a Harvard audience in 2007 that “we ought to ban hunting.” And in The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer (2002), he said:

I think we should go further … the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering. It is easy to imagine a set of initiatives that would do a great deal here, and indeed European nations have moved in just this direction. There are many possibilities.

If that’s all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky.
Unfortunately, when you look at WHY he wants to restrict hunting, this is where he goes beyond extreme.

In Sunstein’s world, animals should have just as many rights as people … and they should be able to sue humans in court!

“We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are persons, or that they are not property,” Sunstein said on page 11 of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004).

Well, that’s a relief … he is at least willing to concede that animals are not persons! But he would still have animals suing humans, apparently, with more enlightened humans representing the cuddly critters.

Imagine returning from a successful hunting trip … only to find out that you’ve been subpoenaed for killing your prize. Who knows, maybe Sunstein would have the family of the dead animal serving as witnesses in court!

By the way, if you’re wondering what he thinks about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, you won’t be surprised to know that Sunstein is a huge supporter of gun control. In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America (2005), Sunstein says:

Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine…. [O]n the Constitution’s text, fundamentalists [that is, gun rights supporters] should not be so confident in their enthusiasm for invalidating gun control legislation.

Hmm, what part of “shall not be infringed” does Sunstein not understand?

Imagine the power that Sunstein could have as the Regulatory Czar -- the nickname for the person heading the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House.

As the Regulatory Czar, he could bring about changes in the regulations that affect hunting, gun control and farming. In short, he could make your life hell.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) objected to his nomination several weeks ago, preventing him from being unanimously confirmed.

That means that the Senate will now need to garner 60 votes to confirm this radical, kooky choice to the OIRA.

No doubt, many of the people our President wants to associate with are radical kooks. First, there was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright … then there was the self-avowed communist (Van Jones) who was nominated for the Green Jobs Czar … now, there’s an extreme animal rights activist who wants to take away our guns and get Bambi to sue us in court.It’s time to take a STRONG STAND against this radical administration.

ACTION: Please contact your Senators right away and urge them to vote AGAINST the Cass Sunstein nomination. CLICK HERE to send your legislators a pre-written e-mail message.

Tax Break for Firearms a Good Idea

2009-09-04T13:08:00.000-07:00

An article from Bloomberg.com notes that Louisiana shoppers will enjoy a unique tax break this weekend -- no state and local sales taxes on firearms, ammunition and most shooting and hunting accessories. The savings for sportsmen and hunters could be as high as 10%.

Critics call the temporary tax break a political gimmick, but to its many supporters the tax holiday is important symbolism that highlights the right to keep and bear arms.

“It’s a way for the state to say this is something we support and is part of our culture,” said Kathy Dycus, manager of a large retail store in Monroe.

D.C. Gun Laws

2009-09-02T19:27:00.000-07:00

Why D. C. Gun Ban Repeal is Still Needed
-- And Why Empowerment Beats Victimhood

An interesting article appeared in the Washington Post today.

Staff writer Christian Davenport, his higher-ups having been nudged to allow the project to go forward, went through the process to legally obtain a firearm in the District of Columbia.

It was not an easy (or inexpensive) undertaking.

“It took $833.69, a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam,” begins Davenport’s story.

After the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment indeed protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, District leaders promised to make it as difficult as possible for law-abiding residents to purchase and possess firearms in the city. If that was their aim, Davenport’s article confirms that they were successful.

“[I] live in the District, where the path to gun ownership, believed by some to be designed to intentionally thwart gun ownership, begins first with a trip to the police department to pick up the necessary paperwork,” says the intrepid reporter.

If the journey to exercising a constitutionally protected right must begin with a visit to the police department, can it still be considered a right, or has it been transformed into a mere privilege allowed by the government?

The disdain with which city officials hold the Second Amendment is the reason Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) offered an amendment, which passed the Senate earlier this year as part of the D.C. Voting Rights Act, to repeal many of the city’s gun laws.

That underlying bill remains bottled up in the House, where D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (who is supposedly concerned with ‘civil liberties’) is seeking to remove the Ensign amendment before the bill gets to the floor for a vote.

Back to the article. Davenport is admittedly naïve about firearms going into the project, and apparently not all that troubled by the hurdles the city places between citizens and their gun rights.

The assignment was simple: “My editor wanted me to buy a gun, to go through the process, and just do it. And then the idea was at the end of the story it would be returned.”

But after some range time (he’s not a bad shot, either: video) Davenport was hesitant to let the gun go: “I don’t know, I think it’s a nice gun. But as I started to go through [the process] I started thinking, well, maybe I should own a gun. And the more people I talked to… the more I realized maybe [a firearm] could help protect us. ”

In the end, a conflicted Davenport returned the gun (as a Post subscriber, I was not unhappy to see subscription money going toward the purchase of a firearm), wondering if that was the right decision. But he’ll also be heading back to the range to take up his “new hobby.”

Of course, there was a lot not said in the article. For instance, anti-gunners consistently act as prophets of doom whenever it becomes easier for law-abiding citizens to purchase or carry firearms.

The mere presence of a firearm, they claim, will turn otherwise rational people into homicidal or suicidal maniacs. As has been the case wherever gun restrictions have been eased, the rash of horror stories has not materialized among the District's honest gun owners.

Also, the point of the project was to go through the process to see how difficult (or easy) it would be for a law-abiding citizen to get a firearm. However, it would certainly not take more than $800 and two weeks for a criminal to get a gun.

Herding the good guys like cattle through the stockyard is not an effective use of law-enforcement resources. After all, why should the police spend so much time with people who are the least likely ever to commit a crime. Nevertheless, residents of our nation’s Capitol who simply desire to exercise their constitutional liberties (if they can afford it) are treated as if they are criminals; police station, finger prints, etc.

If leaders like the city’s mayor and council members are so concerned with firearms safety (as they claim to be) how about a firearms training program for residents? How about a program designed especially the most poor in the most dangerous neighborhoods?

Such a course could certainly be funded with private money and from groups like Gun Owners of America. The police station and finger prints would not be necessary.

Wow. Suddenly residents would be empowered to protect themselves instead of being made mandatory victims by the government.

A radical idea? Maybe, but no more radical than the of idea liberty itself.

The Second Amendment in the Old Dominion

2009-06-11T05:16:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post misses the point (as usual) on how the gun issue plays in even a Democrat primary.

In reporting on the stunning results of the Virginia Democrat primary for governor, the Post expressed surprise that Creigh Deeds, hailing from rural Bath County on the West Virginia border, was able to best “a pair of better-funded and better-positioned opponents.”

“Deeds beat Brian Moran and Terry McAuliffe in every region of the state, including vote-rich Northern Virginia, despite a pro-gun stance and relatively conservative positions that are out of line with many of the area's voters,” Anita Kumar wrote.

But as voters from all political parties know, a pro-gun position in Virginia is not a handicap. In fact, strong support for the Second Amendment is practically mandatory for a statewide win in the Old Dominion. Still, Politico notes that Moran and McAuliffe went after Deeds on one issue.

The one area where they tried — tardily, in the final days of a race in which Deeds was surging — was on guns. Both Moran and McAuliffe sought to paint Deeds as insufficiently supportive of firearms restrictions, but the attacks had little effect in a state where grass-roots Democrats have demonstrated little concern for their eaders’ apostasy on the gun rights issue.

Like the Post, elitists like Moran and McAuliffe still don’t get it on the gun issue.

In contrst, Virginia’s two Democrat U.S. Senators, Mark Warner and Jim Webb, both reached out to gun owners in their respective victories. Webb even gained some practical credibility on the issue when an aide was caught carrying a gun into the Capitol complex. Webb’s response to the incident at a press conference [story/video] did not offend many Virginia voters:

[E]veryone here knows that I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, that I have had a permit to carry a weapon in Virginia for a long time, and I believe that it's important—it's important for me, personally, and for a lot of people in the situation that I'm in, to be able to defend myself and my family. Since 9/11 for people who are in government I think in general there has been an agreement that it's a more dangerous time. Again, I'm not going to comment, again, with great specificity about how I defend myself, but I do feel that I have that right. And if you look at people in the executive branch, look at the number of people who are defending the president and other members of the executive branch, there is not that kind of protection available to people in the legislative branch. We are required to defend ourselves, and I choose to do so.

Even Barack Obama, the most anti-gun president in history (no small feat in the wake of the last Democrat president) had at least to pretend he was pro-gun, saying in Lebanon, VA:

I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in the peoples’ lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away. So if you want to find an excuse not to vote for me, don’t use that one! It just ain’t true.

Never mind that since assuming office the President has pushed for gun control on a global scale.
The Virginia gubernatorial race will be interesting. Deeds and Republican nominee Bob McDonnell faced off four years ago when they ran for State Attorney General, with McDonnell declared the winner by less than four hundred votes after a recount. McDonnell’s support for Virginia’s “one-gun-a-month” law in 1993, which Deeds opposed, no doubt influenced gun owners and sportsmen in the 2005 election.

While McDonnell certainly won’t want to highlight that vote, it remains to be seen if he’ll be forced to explain his current position on the issue, and whether he would sign a bill to repeal that law.

Sonia Sotomayor Is No Frank Easterbrook

2009-06-04T05:37:00.000-07:00

Robert Alt compares the 7th Circuit opinion in NRA v. Chicago with Sonia Sotomayor and the 2nd Circuit's ruling in Maloney v. Cuomo at National Review Online.

State Senate Passes Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act

2009-06-03T18:31:00.001-07:00

More good news from the states. The Tennessee legislature has passed a measure that exempts from federal law any firearms and/or ammunition made within the state, stays in the state, and is stamped "made in Tennessee." State law still applies to such firearms.

This bill, which passed both the house and senate and is headed to the governors desk, is similar to a law enacted recently in Montana.

The bill's sponsor, Senator Mae Beavers, said that “Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”

The Tennessee House of Representatives also voted today to override the Governor's veto of a bill that will allow law-abiding concealed carry permit holders to carry a firearm in establishments that serve alcohol. The Senate is expected to override the veto as well.

Freedom is on the march!

Sotomayor Bad on Guns

2009-06-03T05:49:00.000-07:00

(Good article on Sotomayor posted on Human Events this morning.) -- JV

by Brian Darling (06/03/2009)

President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, 2nd Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, owes the American people an explanation on her view of the Second Amendment.

Most nominees come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and refuse to answer questions about hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and the death penalty. The nominee usually says something about not wanting to prejudge future decisions that may come before the High Court.

But Sotomayor shouldn’t be allowed to skirt the Second Amendment issue, because she cosigned a decision in a case earlier this year that exhibited a dismissive and hostile view of the right to bear arms. If Sotomayor’s view becomes the view of the Supreme Court, your right to own the weapon of your choice in your home may be taken away. [Read more]

Obama Picks Anti-gun Judge for Supreme Court

2009-06-02T20:17:00.000-07:00

From Gun Owners of America

President Obama has picked an anti-gun radical to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.

Obama's pick is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who is currently on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District. There she has racked up an anti-Second Amendment record and has displayed contempt for the rule of law under the Constitution.

The Heller decision put the Supreme Court in support of the Constitutional protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms. Sotomayor, a politically correct lover of centralized government power (as long as she is part of the power elite), immediately went into counter-attack mode against the Heller decision.

Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel earlier this year which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. As she and her cohorts claimed, the Supreme Court has not yet incorporated the states under the Second Amendment. Until then, she believes, the Second only applies to the District of Columbia. [Click HERE to send a personal message to your Senators]

Radical Anti-gun Group Supports Sotomayor

2009-06-01T10:41:00.000-07:00

Yet another reason for pro-Second Amendment Senators to vote against Sonia Sotomayor:

Brady Campaign Praises Sotomayor's History of Gun Control

Coburn to Run in 2010

2009-06-01T10:28:00.000-07:00

Good news for gun owners and all freedom loving Americans. Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn announced this morning that he will seek a second term in 2010.

Dr. Coburn has been a leader on Second Amendment issues, most recently passing an amendment to repeal the National Park Service gun ban. That amendment was signed into law by President Obama as part of the credit card reform legislation.

Adnon Barqawi part II

2009-05-31T22:29:00.000-07:00

Off the charts.

Adnan Barqawi at Viginia Republican Convention (part I)

2009-05-31T21:23:00.000-07:00

This is an awesome speech, it was great to be there in person.

Obama Picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court

2009-05-28T18:18:00.000-07:00

by Larry Pratt

The gloves are off and the mask has been put aside. All of the President’s previous dissimulation to the contrary, he aims to use the Supreme Court to finish off what is left of the Constitution.

[Read entire article at Gun Owners of America]

Gun Ban Repeal Wins!

2009-05-20T19:24:00.000-07:00

After years of battling on this issue, the gun ban on National Park Service land was finally overturned by Congress.

Gun Owners of America pushed for a legislative remedy to the gun ban all through the Bush years. But each time Congressional Republicans moved a bill forward, the Bush administration claimed that they would take care of the issue "administratively." Well, that led to a series of frustrating false starts for the first seven and a half years of Bush's presidency.

Finally, late last year, the Bush Interior Department issued regulations to partially reverse the gun ban. It was "partial" because instead of simply allowing state and local law to govern firearms possession, the Bush regs (which actually didn't go into affect until January of this year) applied only to concealed carry permit holders. Millions of law-abiding gun owners who do not hold permits still could not carry in national parks. It was a step in the right direction, but overall was a disappointment to gun rights advocates.

That debate was made moot in March, when a federal judge in Washington, D.C., negated the regs entirely. The Obama Interior Department did not appeal that ruling.

Senators who sought for years to repeal the gun ban finally took control of the situation -- taking it out of the hands of unelected bureaucrats and activists judges -- and came together to fix the gun ban with legislation.

And the good news gets better. What the Congress just passed goes further than the half-way Bush regs. The legislation, sponsored by pro-gun hero Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) repeals the gun ban completely, allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense if they are otherwise able to do so by federal, state and local law. In other words, persons prohibited from owning guns can't carry in a park. If state law doesn't allow open or concealed carry, it remains prohibited. The Coburn amendment just allows for gun possession in compliance with the law of the state in which the park is located.

Kudos to Sen. Coburn for leading the effort to protect Second Amendment rights in national parks.

UN Convention on the "Rights of the Child" could jeopardize 2nd Amendment

2009-05-15T06:08:00.000-07:00

Mike Farris of ParentalRights.org highlights the little known fact of how the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child can impact you gun rights.

This is another treaty signed by President Clinton but never ratified by the Senate. Its proponents are hoping to make another run at it with Obama in the White House and Democrats in firm control of the Senate.

“Plenty of time” to replace Souter, Republicans say

2009-05-14T07:14:00.000-07:00

Leading Republicans urged Democrats not to move too quickly to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) and new Judiciary Committee ranking Republican Jeff Sessions (AL) pointed out, following a meeting with President Obama, that the average time between the appointment of the nominee and the beginning of confirmation hearings is 60 days.

Democrats say they are not bound to such a timeline and may try to push through a nominee before the August recess. It makes sense that Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) would prefer his members not have to defend a liberal, activist anti-gun nominee as they face the voters during the month-long recess.

Sen. Sessions reminded Democrats that hearings and a vote after August still leaves “plenty of time” for a new Justice to be seated before the new term that begins in October.

Gun owners would like as much time as possible to research opinions, briefs and other writings of the eventual nominee and compare those to last year's Heller decision.

President Obama claimed during the campaign that he believes the Second Amendment protects an individual right, consistent with the ruling in D.C. v. Heller. It is not unreasonable, therefore, for gun owners to insist that his nominee not hold a collectivist view of the Second Amendment.

Coburn amendment passes in the Senate!

2009-05-12T18:35:00.000-07:00

Battle over gun ban repeal likely to continue in conference

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) today offered an amendment to repeal a long-standing gun ban on National Park Service (NPS) and National Wildlife Refuge System land. The amendment passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 67-29. [Read more at Gun Owners of America]

Harold Koh, anti-gun radical, nominated for State Department post

2009-05-07T21:00:00.000-07:00

Gun Owners of America on CIFTA anti-gun Treaty

2009-04-27T19:40:00.000-07:00

2009-04-16T17:36:00.000-07:00

President Obama Continues Assault on the Second Amendment
From Gun Owners of America

President Obama is determined to eradicate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens.

In recent meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderón, the American President promised to urge the U.S. Senate to pass an international arms control treaty.

The treaty, cumbersomely titled the “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials” (known by the acronym CIFTA), was signed by President Bill Clinton, but never ratified by the Senate.

President Obama is hoping to capitalize on an increased Democrat majority and push its quick ratification. The U.S. is one of four nations that have not ratified the treaty.

If the U.S. is not in compliance with any provisions of the treaty -- such as a provision that would outlaw reloading ammunition without a government license -- President Obama would be empowered to implement regulations without Congressional approval.

Supporters of CIFTA claim the treaty is not a threat to the Second Amendment, but only a “symbolic” gesture. But symbolic of what? That America really is to blame for problems of violence and drug gangs in a foreign country? That the American government can be pressed by a foreign country to alter the Second Amendment?

If the kind of “change” that Obama wants is for the United States to take its marching orders from third world countries regarding our gun rights, we’re in big trouble. [Read more here]

Gun Control on the High Seas

2009-04-13T14:48:00.000-07:00

Americans received a special gift this Easter Sunday with the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips, who had been held hostage for several days after his ship, the Maersk Alabama, was raided by pirates.

The raiding of the Maersk created an international crisis and an around the clock media sensation. Millions of people around the globe were riveted to their TVs, praying and hoping for Capt. Phillips’ safety as the U.S. Navy moved massive vessels into the area. In the end, the brave Captain freed himself and well-trained U.S. snipers took out three of the four pirates.

The obvious question that was seldom asked during the tense standoff was, “How could so few terrorists (another word for pirates) overtake a vessel crewed by five times as many people?”
After all, couldn’t the crew have just shot the invaders as they tried to board the ship?

Maybe they could have if they had firearms onboard, but container ships like the Maersk are generally prohibited from carrying firearms because of gun laws in the countries of various ports of departure and entry. Shipping companies and crews don’t dare violate these gun bans because the penalties can be severe.

For example, in Kenya, where the Maersk was headed, the government is expected to soon make possession of an unlicensed firearm a capital offense. Currently the offense carries a long prison sentence.

And for those who might think a foreign government would never penalize a ship that was obviously armed to repel pirate attacks, consider the case of Australian businessman and yachtsman Chris Packer.

In 2004, Packer was in the midst of an around-the-world tour when his yacht was boarded by government officials at a port in Bali, Indonesia. On board were two pump-action shotguns, a rifle, two pistols and an inoperable antique firearm.

Indonesian authorities contemplated the charge of “gun running,” a capital offense. Packer’s firearms, which he declared at other Indonesian ports, were purchased specifically for defense against pirates.

Packer’s friend and former America’s Cup winner, Sir Peter Blake, was shot and killed by pirates who boarded his vessel at the mouth of the Amazon River in 2001. After that incident, Packer delayed his own planned trip to South America in order to obtain arms for protection. Packer’s vessel was twice boarded by pirates, and he believes he would certainly be dead were he not armed.

Packer spent about three months in jail in Bali, never sure he would escape the firing squad. Eventually, authorities in Bali convicted Packer on the lesser charge of not declaring his firearms upon entering the port and released him with time served.

Commercial shipping companies simply can’t risk violating the draconian gun laws of other countries, so they instead run the risk of being defenseless against pirates in hostile waters.

The outrageous but predicable result of laws that are intended to disarm criminals is that gigantic commercial vessels like the Maersk are vulnerable to attack from small groups of thugs in little motorboats.

The arguments for self-defense firearms possession are the same on the sea as they are on land -- only at sea the need is even greater.

When a criminal attack occurs, almost always the only people present are the thugs and the victims. On land, police are usually minutes away. On the sea, help can be hours or even days away. The sea-terrorists know this, and they know that mariners are normally unarmed. Ships that are able to employ armed guards have been able to repel pirates. Captain Kelly Sweeney of Washington State told FOX News that armed guards thwarted a pirate attack on a vessel he was on in the Dominican Republic.

Capt. Sweeney’s recipe for self-defense at sea? Either hire armed guards to protect the ship, or else arm the crew members.

Anti-gunners will make the same arguments about arming maritime crew members as they do about arming anyone on land. “Oh, the ships will be more dangerous with all those guns on board.” But, as we’ve learned the hard way on both land and sea, “gun free zones” simply make easy targets for criminals.

When Capt. Phillips was in the water with an attacker ready to shoot him, how was he saved? By people armed with rifles. These people happened to be on a Navy ship. If there were no military vessels in the area, the outcome could have been tragically different. As is often the case, the criminal attack ended when armed assailants were met with armed resistance.

While we can’t change the extreme anti-gun laws of other countries, the American government should insist that American-controlled vessels will not be unilaterally disarmed and that crew members will be permitted to carry firearms onboard for their own protection.

20/20 just can’t see straight when it comes to the Second Amendment

2009-04-11T07:36:00.000-07:00

The title of ABC’s 20/20 program this week was promising: “If I only had a gun.”

Finally, the title suggested, a look at the benefits of firearms ownership. A woman under attack, a homeowner being invaded, a carjack victim; if only they were armed, the outcome might have been different. They would have been able to protect themselves.

But surprise, surprise, Diane Sawyer and 20/20 had a different agenda. “If I only had a gun” was in fact a sarcastic title. What they really meant was, “Don’t think that a gun would actually help you in a time of crisis, because it won’t.”

Nothing new from 20/20 here. Ten years ago they came up with the astounding “finding” that boys will - gasp! - play with firearms given the chance. Wow, what a shock. My kids will pick up a banana and pretend it’s a gun. Kids are curious and imaginative. Parents were put on earth to protect and guide them so they are not harmed by their natural curiosity.

On Friday 20/20 picked up where they left off in 1999, giving the impression of an epidemic of accidents involving children and guns.

As every parent would agree, even one accidental gun death is one too many. Anti-gunners cannot claim the high ground of caring for children more than gun owners. But before people get so frightened that they send their guns off to the U.N. to be melted down into Volvos, let’s look at some facts.

Here are some real numbers of accidental child deaths per year:

Cause......................... Number (Ages 0-14) ....Number (Ages 0-4)
Motor-vehicle..........................2,591................................819
Drowning....................................943.................................568
Fires and flames........................593.................................327
Mechanical suffocation.............601.................................508
Ingestion of food, object...........169.................................169
Firearms.....................................86...................................19
Source: Figures are for 2000. National Safety Council, Injury Facts: 2003 Edition, at 10-11, 129.

It turns out that gun owners are among the most responsible people in all of society, and have pushed accidental firearm discharges to an all-time low. Accidental shootings have declined by over 50% over the last three decades, even as the number of gun owners has greatly increased.

Considering the above numbers, if you really want to protect children, keep them away from cars, swimming pools and matches because children are far more likely to be killed in that manner than by an accidental shooting.

But even that is only part of the story, because unlike automobiles, pools and matches, firearms can have tremendously positive results. Consider: you’re in your house with your children. The house is broken into and you find yourself face to face with a drug-crazed intruder. Do you: a) grab your car keys; b) go for a swim; c) get your gun?

People usually talk about guns being deadly weapons as if that’s a bad thing, but if you’re life is on the line would you want anything less? How many children’s lives are saved each year by armed citizens?

The 20/20 show highlighted tragic cases like the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings. What they did not mention is that mass shootings usually occur in government mandated gun free zones, aka, “criminal safety zones.” Tragedies like these are sadly compounded by the fact that there is no one on the scene able to shoot back.

Picking up on the school shooting theme, much of the 20/20 program involved an experiment purportedly showing that a person with a gun would not be able to protect himself or herself if surprised by an attack in a university setting.

Diane staged a group of “students” (played by police officers and people working for ABC) in a classroom, along with her “armed” subject. She wanted to show how that person would react when someone burst into the room and started firing.

The subjects didn’t respond like people have come to expect from watching movies. They were startled. They didn’t calmly and coolly hit their targets. One almost mistakenly hit an innocent in the chaos.

Well, it so happens that police officers often don’t perform optimally under pressure either. Columnist George Will noted over ten years ago that, “only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.”

And even if victims are not as impassive as Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson, what’s better: to be equipped with a notebook, pen and cell phone, relegated to hiding under a desk, or to be armed and at least have a chance to stop an attack?

Besides, the “nervous victim” argument for banning guns is a red herring. The reality is that attackers, too, are often startled if they meet armed resistance. That’s why criminals generally avoid victims they think might be armed.

One victim who regrets being disarmed during an attack is Suzanna Gratia Hupp, a Texas resident who watched both her parents die when a maniac crashed his truck into a restaurant and began shooting people indiscriminately. Suzanna testified that she was in a perfect position to take down the gunman, but, being a law-abiding citizen, she left her handgun in her car in compliance with Texas state law.

Given a second chance, Suzanna said she would have violated the law and saved the lives of her parents. In response to that shooting, the Texas legislature passed a concealed carry law.
Ms. Sawyer didn’t bother to get a balanced picture by interviewing Suzanna or any responsible gun owners. While the NRA declined to comment, the show’s producers didn’t bother to call Gun Owners of America. GOA’s Executive Director Larry Pratt has appeared on ABC programs dozens of times, but was never called by 20/20 to offer an opposing viewpoint.

In a particularly glaring omission, the program didn’t even mention that American citizens use firearms more than one million times per year successfully in self-defense, and that merely brandishing a weapon usually is sufficient to repel an attack.

Ms. Sawyer was also astounded at how “easy” it is to buy a firearm. She acts like it’s no big deal that the federal government regulates all gun businesses in the country.

She talked about the so-called “gun show loophole.” 20/20 producers gave the impression that the rules for buying a gun at a gun show are different than buying a gun any place else. Not true. Any person who buys a firearm from a federally licensed dealer has to undergo a government background check, whether the transaction is at a gun show or a gun store.

Private citizens, on the other hand, can buy and sell their lawfully possessed and constitutionally protected firearms to other private citizens without having to get Barack Obama’s or Eric Holder’s permission, whether the sale is at a gun show or in one’s living room. That’s why we call it a “right,” and not a privilege. What Diane calls a “loophole” is what we call “freedom.”

Those of us who cherish the First Amendment would recoil at the idea of needing a government issued permit in order to buy a newspaper or to watch 20/20. What makes such infringements acceptable for the Second Amendment?

How about cars? More people are killed in automobile accidents than with guns, but people don’t have to undergo a criminal background check to buy a car. Car ownership is not even a constitutionally protected right and automobiles don’t offer the same life saving self-defense benefits of firearms.

In another segment, 20/20 videoed foolish, ignorant college kids stumbling across firearms and not handling them in a safe manner. This is supposed to show how dangerous it is to have a gun in the home. More nonsense. Firearms are often used, though rarely fired, to repel home invaders.

In addition, the fact that people in this country can live to the age of nineteen or twenty and not know how to properly handle a firearm is just another example of how we’re moving from a self-reliant citizenry to becoming a nation of defenseless subjects.

Interestingly, anti-gunners would like to require mandatory tests and safety training for people who own guns. This might be a revelation to Ms. Sawyer: the 100 million or so gun owners aren’t the problem. It is extremely rare for a gun owner to accidently discharge a firearm. As even the 20/20 program shows, ignorant non-gun owners are the ones who can’t discern the business end of a weapon.

Here’s an idea. How about mandatory safety training for non-gun owners? Maybe every radical out there who hates guns and hates the Second Amendment should be required to take mandatory gun safety training with real guns out on the range. After all, there are over 200 million guns in this country. Anti-gunners just might come across one and they should know how to handle it safely.

Diane also showed what appeared to be a group of armed gangbangers. It’s a mystery why this would cause anyone to advocate for civilian disarmament. Criminals are always going to get weapons. Just look at England, an island nation that banned virtually all guns and has seen its gun crime rate rise dramatically!

If anything, the clips of armed violent thugs should be a reminder to non-gun owners to buy a gun, learn how to use it and be prepared, God forbid, if it’s ever needed for self-defense.

Apparently, there are some things Diane Sawyer didn’t learn at the elite Massachusetts’ college she attended. The right to keep and bear arms was not an afterthought of our Founding Fathers. They understood that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would be meaningless without the means to protect our lives and the lives of our loved ones from violent law-breakers.

Wicker Amendment Passes Senate

2009-04-03T22:00:00.000-07:00

-- Measure seeks to end gun ban on Amtrak

April 3, 2009

An amendment that seeks to reverse a gun prohibition on Amtrak trains, sponsored by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), passed the U.S. Senate late Thursday evening as part of the enormous budget bill.

Amtrak regulations prohibit firearms on both checked and carry on baggage. Sportsmen who wish to use an Amtrak carrier for a hunting trip cannot include a shotgun even in their checked luggage.

Likewise, travelers who have a permit to carry a concealed firearm cannot include a self-defense handgun in their checked luggage, even if they are allowed to carry in both the state of origin and destination.

But if such travelers were to take the trip by air, they could at least check a gun onto the aircraft by simply declaring the firearm.

No such policy exists for Amtrak passengers.

“Gun owners should not be penalized for seeking alternative means of travel,” Sen. Wicker said.

[Read entire article at Gun Owners of America]

Sen. Barrasso gets it right in El Paso

2009-04-01T18:20:00.000-07:00

-- More gun control not the answer to border violence
by John Velleco

Wyoming Senator John Barrasso took a strong stand for the Second Amendment during a recent visit to the border city of El Paso, Texas.

Sen. Barrasso, who was looking into the drug cartel violence along the Mexico border, called the issue a “serious security challenge that we cannot simply ignore.” But he was also critical of U.S. politicians who join the Mexican government in blaming guns from the U.S. for the current border troubles.

“Some have suggested that we need to ban semi-automatic assault weapons to curb the violence,” said Senator Barrasso. “I don’t understand the rationale behind disarming law-abiding citizens. Why would you disarm someone when they potentially could get caught in the crossfire?”

Indeed, officials here have been quick to use the border violence to push for sweeping new gun control laws.

According to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, “[T]here are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”

President Obama also wants to make the “expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.” And Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the original sponsor of the gun ban that was signed into law by Bill Clinton, is among those in Congress pushing for its reconsideration.

On its face, it is absurd to blame semi-automatic firearms for the violence in Mexico. The weapons used by the drug gangs are, as has been widely reported, mostly machine guns, grenades, anti-tank rockets and other arms. These are not semi-automatic firearms.

More importantly, it is outrageous to blame, disarm and punish, U.S. gun owners for problems of violence and corruption in a foreign country. Office holders in this country swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Banning semi-automatic firearms -- which are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans -- is repugnant to that oath of office.

Senator Barrasso vowed to fight the renewal of the Clinton/Feinstein gun ban.

“I will not allow our Second Amendment rights to be sacrificed. Additional gun control in the United States will not change the U.S. – Mexico border violence and smuggling problem,” Barrasso said.

Are U.S. Gun Owners Fueling Mexico’s Drug War?

2009-04-01T06:46:00.000-07:00

-- Top Ten Questions Gun Owners Need to Ask

by Erich Pratt

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently stated that resurrectingthe Clinton semi-auto ban would help stop U.S. guns from getting tothe Mexican drug cartels. Before imposing any new legislation,however, there are at least ten questions the Obama administrationshould be forced to answer.

10. Are Mexican drug dealers really standing in line at American gunstores, waiting to transport thousands of guns back into Mexico?

9. This country imposes a Brady Law background check for anyone whopurchases a gun from a gun dealer -- a law that is intended to keepguns from getting into the wrong hands. Does this mean the Brady Lawis ineffective and needs to be repealed?

8. Press reports indicate the Mexican drug cartels are compilingautomatic weapons, grenades, and grenade launchers. Since thoseweapons aren’t available to the average U.S. citizen, doesn’tthis, once again, support the old adage that “when guns are banned,only criminals will have guns”?

7. What about drugs … aren’t they illegal? Or, are we to believethe Mexican cartels are getting their drugs from American citizens,as well?

6. Even in this country, we have seen government-issued weapons beinglost, stolen or illegally sold to the criminal market. So given thefact that our government has shipped millions of guns to arm crookedmilitary and police departments in Central America over the past 50years, is it really too difficult to believe that many of those gunshave trickled into the hands of the Mexican drug runners?

5. Americans are supposed to believe that 90% of the cartels’ gunscome from the U.S. -- a factoid that is supposed to justify more guncontrol. But given the fact that 75-90% of all illegal immigrationcomes across our southern border, why does this scandal not justifyimmediate action to seal our border?

4. Many politicians assume the answer to every crime problem is topunish law-abiding gun owners. But isn’t that as silly as thinkingthat a ban on money is an appropriate response to the illegal profitsbeing made by the drug “industry”?

3. Mexico has always treated the emigration of its citizens into theU.S. as a situation that is our problem. Well, if guns really areflowing across our southern border into Mexico, shouldn’t this guntraffic be their problem?

2. The Obama administration seems to be following Rahm Emmanuel’sdictum that, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”Given this prevalent theme, doesn’t the wholeUS-guns-are-going-to-Mexico refrain seem to be a self-serving efforton Eric Holder’s part to justify his call for resurrecting theClinton gun ban?

1. Already more than 60 Democrat congressmen have issued a letter toEric Holder to object to his calls for more gun control. This isnoteworthy, since the last time an administration tried to ram asemi-auto ban down the throats of the American people -- in 1994 --millions of pro-gun Democrats crossed party lines to usher in aRepublican majority in Congress and in state legislatures across thecountry.

So the last question gun owners should ask is: “Mr.Holder, do you feel lucky?”
*********************************************************************
Erich Pratt is the Director of Communications for Gun Owners ofAmerica,
a national gun lobby with over 300,000 members. GOA is located at
8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151.

Massive Lands Bill Clears Final Hurdle

2009-03-30T09:35:00.000-07:00

Potsed at Gun Owners of America

In March, both the U.S. House and Senate finished up work on a massive, anti-gun $10 billion omnibus federal land bill.

The bill had been held up for over a year in large part due to GOA members fighting for Second Amendment rights on federal land -- YOUR land.

Currently, the Second Amendment is null and void on all land controlled by the National Park Service (NPS). While regulations promulgated in the waning days of the Bush administration partially reversed the gun ban, a federal judge recently blocked those rules from taking effect.

GOA worked closely with pro-gun members of the House and Senate to add a complete repeal of the NPS gun prohibition to the larger land bill. While these efforts delayed passage of the bill, in the end the anti-gun congressional leadership teamed up with “pro-gun” compromisers and passed the measure without protecting the Second Amendment.

In an effort to appease gun owners, language was added to the bill to protect hunting and fishing. But, as GOA pointed out to the Congress, the Founding Fathers did not pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to protect a recreational pastime.

The final attempt to protect the Second Amendment from NPS bureaucrats came on a procedural vote in the House that would have made in order an amendment, sponsored by pro-gun Reps. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Rob Bishop (R-UT), to repeal the gun ban. That motion failed by a vote of 242-180.

Not only does the gun ban remain in place, the new bill greatly expands the total amount NPS land. Since NPS-controlled parks and trails also include many busy roadways, gun owners can unwittingly find themselves in violation of the gun ban without even knowing they are on federal land.

Representatives Hastings and Bishop, along with Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), have vowed to continue their efforts to wipe this unconstitutional gun ban from the books. In the Senate, Tom Coburn (R-OK) is also pursuing repeal of the gun ban.

Gun Owner of America would like to thank the thousands upon thousands of email subscribers who repeatedly contacted their congressmen in this battle to protect the Second Amendment. Though we did not prevail at this time, we will “remember in November” those who voted against the Second Amendment.

Land Grab bill nears passage

2009-03-18T05:49:00.000-07:00

The Omnibus Land Grab Act of 2009 is, after a long battle, on its way to passage. The bill had been held up because of Second Amendment concerns for over a year.

Opponents of the bill, such as Gun Owners of America, argued that the bill did not protect the individual right to keep and bear arms on National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service land.

Instead of protecting the Second Amendment, leaders in both the House and Senate chose to insert language to protect hunting and recreational shooting on federally controlled land. While protecting the shooting sports is an admirable goal, it is no substitute for real Second Amendment protection.

The idea that the founding fathers inserted into the Bill of Rights, which was intended to safeguard individual liberty and limit the reach of government, an amendment to protect sport shooting is laughable.

Instead of repealing the gun ban on a significant amount of federal land, lawmakers inserted this:

"Nothing in this Title shall be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations, including the regulation of hunting, fishing, trapping, and recreational shooting. Nothing in this Title shall be construed as limiting access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting."

As GOA points out, this may as well be titled the “Elmer Fudd Protection Act.” This weak language does not even acknowledge the right to self protection.

So, the tens of millions of acres of land controlled by the NPS will remain “gun free zones,” with thousands more acres of parks and trails to be added by the bill.

The Senate should wrap up business on the Omnibus land bill this week. When it goes back to the House, anti-gun leaders will allow NO amendments.

Pro-gun members who want to offer an amendment to fully repeal the NPS and FSW gun bans will be told, in essence, to “Shut up, and Vote!”

Still, for most members of Congress, the good in the bill outweighs the bad. Members will be able to bring home some special pet project – a Wild & Scenic River here, a new national monument there, while turning a blind eye to their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Massive land grab bill coming to vote today

2009-03-11T06:14:00.000-07:00

March 11, 2009

Gun Owners of America opposes omnibus land bill
-- compromise language does not protect all Second Amendment rights

Today, the House intends to take up S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

This is a massive bill containing nearly 200 separate pieces of legislation.

S. 22 will, among other things, greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park Service.

This is of particular concern to gun owners. Unlike U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, which allow for state and local laws to govern firearms possession, NPS land is subject to a complete gun ban for any citizen who does not hold a concealed carry permit. Thus, expanding NPS land also spreads the agency's anti-gun regulations into more areas.

Here are just a few examples of land expansions in the bill:

* Section 5204 of the bill establishes the Washington-Rochambeau Route as a Historic Trail. This dual trail begins in Rhode Island and travels 650 miles to Yorktown, Virginia. The trail includes parts of major thoroughfares on the east coast such as Interstate 95 and US Route 1, meaning the gun ban could effect hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting gun owners each day.

* Section 5301 authorizes the federal government to buy private land adjacent to national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by the NPS, and thus be subject to the agency's anti-gun regulations.

* Section 7002 makes the birthplace of William Jefferson Clinton a National Historic Site. Perhaps it's fitting that the legacy of former President Clinton, who was responsible for so many anti-Second Amendment laws, will include yet another "gun free" zone.

There is compromise language being offered supposedly to protect hunting and sport shooting.

That is insufficient and misses the point. The founding fathers did not, in their struggle to secure essential liberties, craft the Second Amendment with the idea that it would protect hunting and recreational shooting.

Gun Owners of America urges a "no" vote and will rate a vote for this bill as an anti-gun vote.

Pro-gun Gillibrand? Don't Think So

2009-03-05T18:37:00.000-08:00

Newly minted New York Senator Kristen Gillibrand, a Democrat, has been praised and criticized up and down the Washington and New York news corridor for supposedly being a pro-gun "moderate."

After all, it was Gillibrand who said after her appointment, "I will always protect the Second Amendment. I will make sure every American has the right to own a gun." She also sported an NRA "A" rating at the time. Gun Owners of America had her more accurately rated at a "C."

Both ratings are sure to go down after her vote last week to keep the Washington, D.C. gun ban on the books.

Presumably, her vote in favor of the ban was a calculated attempt to fend off a primary challenge from anti-gun extremist Carolyn McCarthy, who won a seat in a Long Island House district on a campaign to ban guns.

It remains to be seen if Gillibrand's vote has satisfied McCarthy, but she's almost certain to face a primary anyway, as many Empire State Democrats would rather the voters, instead of the walk-on Governor, elect their Senator.

House Leaders Pull D.C. Voting Rights Act

2009-03-03T16:34:00.000-08:00

From Gun Owners of America

Great news!

Gun owners' activism is having a tremendous impact on Capitol Hill.

After the Senate passed an amendment last week to repeal the Washington, D.C. gun ban, Gun Owners of America alerted activists that the anti-gun House leadership intended to strip the amendment from the underlying bill.

The House Rules Committee had scheduled a hearing this week to craft a "rule" to bring the bill to the floor without the pro-gun amendment.

After an outpouring of opposition from gun owners, the entire bill was pulled from consideration.

The pro-gun amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), was attached to a bill that would give the District of Columbia a full voting member in the House of Representatives.

That bill, S. 160, was fraught with Constitutional problems, not the least of which is that Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution requires that representatives to the House be elected from “each State.” D.C., of course, is not a State.

If D.C. is granted a voting member of Congress, it not only guarantees the anti-gunners will gain a permanent House seat, but is also a stepping stone to gaining two anti-gun Senators as well.

Here’s the bottom line: gun owners have succeeded in slowing down an anti-gun, unconstitutional bill, while at the same time proving that there is more than enough support to repeal the D.C. gun ban.

Anti-gunners have not given up, however, and the latest move may simply be a tactical retreat by the Democrat leadership to buy time to twist more arms to pick up the votes needed to pass the D.C. voting rights bill without the gun ban repeal.

Gun Owners of America will continue to push for a complete repeal of the D.C. gun ban.

Santorum's tough talk -- too litle, too late

2009-02-28T09:07:00.000-08:00

Former Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum spoke at the conservative gathering CPAC today, making the news for criticizing former President Bush for supporting bailouts.

Fair enough criticism, but one can't help but think back to 2004. In the Pennsylvania Republican primary that year, conservative Pat Toomey came up just short (1.7%) against liberal anti-gun Senator Arlen Specter.

Then-Sen. Santorum, along with President Bush, came in strong at the 11th hour to pull Specter's bacon out of the fire. If the supposedly conservative Santorum were so concerned about the direction of the country or the Republican party, he could have backed Toomey. A Toomey victory in 2004 might have kept the multi-generational theft "stimulus" bill from passing this year.

So please, Rick, give us a break. When you were actually relevant and could have made a difference for good, you abandoned a true conservative friend.

No free ride for Specter in '10

2009-02-28T07:12:00.000-08:00

Steele open to possiblity of not supporting Specter in primary
Tue, 02/24/2009 - 23:00
From: toomeyforpennsylvania.org

In an interview with FOX News' Neil Cavuto, RNC Chairman Michael Steele he's "open" the possibility of the national party not supporting Republican Sen. Arlen Specter in a 2010 primary.

"Oh yeah, I'm always open to everything, baby," Steele answered Cavuto to the question of whether the RNC would consider not giving financial support to Specter.

Check out video here.

Victory for gun rights in the Senate

2009-02-26T15:39:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Senate voted for an amendment tonight to repeal the onerous anti-gun laws of the District of Columbia.

The amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), passed overwhelmingly on a vote of 62-36.

If the amendment survives in the House (where Democrats will try to strip it) and gets signed into law, the residents of the District will finally be done with a 34-year social experiment in civilian disarmament.

Importantly for gun owners across Americans is that the Ensign amendment also strikes the D.C. "microstamping" requirement. Beginning in 2011, the D.C. law requires that semi-automatic firearms be capable of "microstamping" each cartridge with a unique identifying marker.

Such technology, in addition to being useless as a crime fighting tool, would dramatically raise the cost of firearms.

The Ensign amendment would strip "microstamping" and the rest of the District's gun control act.

Unfortunately, the underlying bill, S. 160, is horrible.

The bill will create 2 new House seats, one for the District and one, temporarily, for Utah. This is supposedly the result of a "great" compromise.

On the one hand, adding two seats to the House (from 435 to 437) keeps an odd number of seats, thus avoiding the possibility of a tie when all members vote.

To counter the fact D.C. seat will be held by a liberal Democrat, the other seat will go to Utah, the next state in line for a seat according to the last census. Utah is Republican-leaning, so this is supposed to alleviate certain partisan concerns.

What many short-sighted Republicans are not mentioning, though, is that there's another census coming up in '10. Who's going to control that census? Oh, yeah, the Obama administration. Bye, bye Utah seat.

The bigger problem with the bill is that the U.S. Constitution requires Representatives to come from actual states, which the District of Columbia most certainly is not. Of course, statehood is the obvious next step (regardless of the result of a certain court challenge should the bill be signed into law.)

Important Gun Vote In The Senate

2009-02-24T20:03:00.000-08:00

From: Gun Owners of America
-- DC Gun Ban Repeal

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

An amendment to repeal the onerous gun ban in the District of Columbia may come to the floor of the Senate as early as tomorrow, Wednesday, February 25.

Senator John Ensign (R-NV) plans to file the amendment to the so-called D.C. Voting Rights Act.

After the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Heller striking down Washington's gun ban as unconstitutional, the city council passed a gun control law that was almost as restrictive as the old one.

To simply possess a firearm in the nation's Capitol City, a resident must:
* Take a five hour training course
* Re-register any firearms every three years
* Undergo an invasive background check every six years
* Pass a 20 question multiple choice test designed by bureaucrats based on the city's convoluted law
* Pay a registration fee
* Have all handguns undergo a ballistics test

In addition to protecting Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia, a vote on the Ensign amendment is an important test for your two Senators.

Many of the provisions in the existing D.C. gun law are also on the wish list of the anti-gunners. A vote on repealing the D.C. gun ban will be a good indication of how the Senate will vote on other gun-related issues.

Ensign's measure will be offered as an amendment to S. 160, the D.C. Voting Rights Act. The bill is designed to give Washington, D.C., full voting privileges in the House of Representatives, as well as increasing the total number of representatives from 435 to 437.

While there are many constitutional concerns with the underlying measure, the gun ban repeal simply comes down to a vote for or against the Second Amendment.

It is vital that you contact your Senators in support of the Ensign amendment because GOA is the only group that has announced it will score this vote.

ACTION: Please contact your two U.S. Senators and urge them to support the Ensign amendment to repeal the D.C. gun ban. Ask them to encourage Senate leadership to make it a priority for consideration on S. 160. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

Blunt to Run for MO Senate

2009-02-20T06:37:00.001-08:00

Roy Blunt, a seven term Representative from Missouri and one-time Republican Whip who is popular among conservatives, has announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate.

The retirement of Christopher "Kit" Bond sets up what could be the most contentious battleground Senate race in the 2010 election.

Blunt is "A-" rated on gun rights issues by Gun Owners of America and has been a consistent Second Amendment supporter during his time in Washington. It is not known yet if Blunt will have a clear shot at the Republican nomination in August of next year. Former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman, who won the 2008 Republican primary verses former Rep. Kenny Hulshof, has not indicated whether or not she will challenge Blunt.

On the Democrat side, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is not expected to face significant primary opposition.

The seat being left open by Blunt is considered a Republican stronghold, so the next Congressman from the 7th District will likely be chosen in the August, 2010, primary.

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced in Senate

2009-02-06T06:34:00.000-08:00

This week, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) introduced S. 371, "A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State."

This bill respects states' rights in that it does not establish national standards for concealed carry and, significantly, it protects states like Vermont and Alaska which do not require a paper permit (aka, government permission slip) to exercise a Constitutional right.

Cosponsors to the Thune-Vitter bill are Sens. Richard Burr (R-NC), John Ensign (R-NV), Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

Thanks to Sens. Thune and Vitter for getting this introduced.

Washington Post Perpetuates Gun Show Myth

2009-02-04T05:27:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post continues to spread the myth of the "gun show loophole."

In an article in today's paper with the subhead "Senate Keeps Gun Show Loophole Open," Post reporters erroneously report that the "Senate rejected a bill that would have required merchants who sell weapons at gun shows to first conduct background checks on the buyers."

Newsflash to the Post: there is no loophole! Licensed gun dealers perform the exact same background check on buyers whether they are at their store or at a gun show. What the Post is referring to are private sales at gun shows, which they and other anti-gunners are eager to regulate.

If they succeed in regulating private sales at gun shows, that opens the door wide for regulating all private transactions of firearms, which in turn lays the groundwork for complete gun owner registration (something the President and his new anti-gun Attorney General have long advocated).

ACORN Not Just Stealing Elections

2009-02-04T01:17:00.000-08:00

ACORN, MoveOn.org Could Receive Billions of Dollars
"Economic Stimulus" Designed to Aid Anti-gun Radicals

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the far left anti-gun group under investigation for voter fraud, could be eligible to receive millions, if not billions, of dollars from the economic bailout bill that passed out of the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

ACORN was an aggressive supporter of Barack Obama -- who had served as the group's legal counsel and even trained ACORN in "community organizing" -- in the presidential election. The Obama campaign even paid the group $800,000 for "voter turnout," the very activities that came under scrutiny by the FBI.

In October 2008, ACORN's Las Vegas office was raided by law enforcement agents investigating voter registration fraud. According to the Nevada Secretary of State's office, voter information submitted by the group included nonexistent names, false addresses, duplicate filings and even the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys.

In addition to turning in massive amounts of fraudulent voter registration forms leading up to the 2008 elections, ACORN is also involved in anti-Second Amendment activism. For instance, a New Jersey ACORN chapter supported a one-gun-a-month ordinance in Jersey City, a law that was struck down last year by an appeals court for violating the State's preemption law. [read entire article]

Michael Steele on the Second Amendment

2009-02-01T14:50:00.000-08:00

Members of the Republican National Committee elected Michael Steele as their party chairman.

Steele, former Lt. Governor of Maryland, was not the first choice of gun owners.

From ontheissues.org:

Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?

A: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you're going hunting? That's overkill. But I don't think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that. But what's the point of passing gun laws if we're not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, that's where you need to start. We've got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it's about how we enforce the law.

Are we supposed to be happy that Steele doesn't support a total ban on guns? How about no more gun control, period. And, instead of enforcing all those unconstitutional gun laws that are on the books already, how about repealing them instead?

Republican party leaders appear to be taking gun owners for granted, again. David Codrea writes about the Riddle of Steele.

Eric Holder Unfit to Serve

2009-01-29T22:42:00.000-08:00

From RedState.com

Posted by Brian Darling

Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Holder - Only Two Conservatives Said No

Excerpt:
Disrespect for Constitutional Rights - Holder’s view of the Second Amendment is abysmal. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) wrote an excellent Op Ed in the Casper Star-Tribune where he explained that he will vote no on the nomination of Holder because “we don’t ask for much from Washington. We do ask that Washington limit its intrusion on our land, water and especially our Second Amendment rights. That’s not a lot to ask in the grand scheme of Washington, but it is critically important to the constituents who sent me to fight for them.” In Holder’s last stint at the Justice Department he was on record supporting a long list of gun control initiatives: A three-day waiting period for handgun purchases; one-gun-a-month purchasing limits; licensing and registering of all gun owners; mandatory smart gun technology; and, regulating gun shows. Don’t forget the Holder supported lawsuit against the gun industry and an Op Ed he wrote in 2001 where he argued that every firearm transaction should be regulated by bureaucrats in D.C. in a column titled “Keeping Guns Away from Terrorists.”

John Velleco of Gun Owners of America told me, “Eric Holder is not the type of person who should be confirmed to a position that carries the responsibility of enforcing most of the gun control laws in this country, because just last year he agreed that the Second Amendment does not protect and individual right to own a gun.” Gun Owners of America has alerted every United States Senator that they are scoring this vote for their 2010 congressional rating.

Eric Holder Passes Out of Committee

2009-01-29T05:24:00.000-08:00

Eric Holder, President Obama's choice for U.S. Attorney General, passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 17-2.

Holder, a former Deputy AG in the Clinton administration, has a long record of anti-Second Amendment activism. Read GOA's testimony here.

The full Senate is expected to take up the Holder confirmation on Monday. Gun Owners of America will rate the vote for its 2010 Congressional Scorecard.

A Tribute to Jim Boulet

2009-01-19T15:29:00.000-08:00

I’ll always remember the first time I submitted an article for Jim Boulet’s approval. Within seconds, he struck big red slashes across entire paragraphs. It was certainly not what I expected, having worked all weekend to get that piece just right.

That was back in 1993 and Jim had recently convinced his boss to hire me on as a research assistant. It was a job of endless clipping, copying and filing. Anyone who knew Jim would understand the Sisyphean nature of the task. I was happy to get a break from the enormous pile of newspapers and magazines to actually do some writing.

Needless to say, getting bled all over by Jim’s pen was not a pleasant experience. But don’t get the wrong impression. Jim was a kind natured person. Deconstructing other people’s ideas was just what he did every day.

Jim was a fast reader, thorough researcher, and had the wordsmith capability to put cogent arguments together quickly. Jim’s work at English First frequently brought him into contact with the highest level officials from the White House and the Congress, and none were spared his incisive (but always soft spoken) questioning over Clinton Executive Order 13166 or some other language-related issue.

Often at weekly meetings, some important figure in Washington would hand out a thick impressive looking report only to be pinned down by Jim about something “on page 76 in the second paragraph….”

Right up to the end Jim was working, his hospital room littered with magazines. He was anxious to get a laptop brought to him so he could continue writing. The day he passed away, his doctor at the hospice told me that the previous evening Jim regained consciousness for a few minutes and made some “joke” about writing a report about Barack Obama. I had to chuckle to myself. Jim wasn’t joking at all -- he was working.

Jim was always working, even as his days were winding down. But his work did not define the man. That was not who Jim was; that was only what he did.

Over the course of 17 years I was privileged to get to know Jim as more than a colleague, but as a close personal friend.

By far what was most important to Jim was his faith in the Lord Jesus. Like Enoch of the Old Testament, Jim walked closely with God. A notable attribute of Jim was how easily and quickly he would pray. It was not uncommon to be talking to Jim about a particular problem and right in the middle of the conversation for him to say a prayer.

Another glimpse into his heart occurred almost exactly one year prior to Jim’s own hospitalization. I was in the hospital myself, in a coma with little hope of surviving. I learned later that Jim was a frequent but quiet presence at the hospital. Many times he walked my wife out to the parking lot at midnight, paying for her parking. He would always bring water and things to share with other visitors. He always prayed and always offered a hopeful word to my family and friends. Of course, Jim never mentioned to me any of those things.

When I finally woke up after a month or so, Jim never visited without a gift; books and CDs and work-related news to keep me in the loop.

Jim also dearly loved his parents and wore the suffix “Jr.” with pride. He would talk with his folks frequently and enjoyed sending home articles about his Dad’s beloved Detroit Lions.

He would comment that visiting his parents was like going to “boot camp.” Jim, of course, was not the neatest person nor did he have healthy eating habits or a finely tuned physique. His parents are the opposite. I joked with Jim that the apple fell from the tree and rolled down a long, steep hill. Having had the pleasure of meeting Jim Sr. and Betty, though, it became apparent from whence came the kindness, gentleness and pleasant demeanor.

Jim’s parents have lost a devoted son, those of us who knew him have lost a dear friend, and (I don’t say this lightly) the conservative movement in this country has lost one of its strongest voices in Washington.

A real unsung hero was Jim Boulet. I’m sure there will not be another like him.

John Velleco
Gun Owners of America

GOA Testimony on Holder

2009-01-15T11:20:00.001-08:00

Here is testimony we prepared for the Judiciary Committee hearing on the confirmation of Eric Holder for Attorney General.

Ultimately the Committee chose not to allow a pro-Second Amendment organization to testify, but the information might be of interest nonetheless.

Complete written testimony

2009-01-13T19:40:00.000-08:00

Here's the text of an interview with RedState.com

2nd Amendment Views Disqualify Holder

Posted by Brian Darling (Profile)

Tuesday, January 13th at 12:29PM EST 2 Comments

Below is an interview I conducted exclusively for Red State with John Velleco, Director of Federal Affairs, for Gun Owners of America. Gun Owners of America, a national organization with about 300,000 member, is described by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) as the “only no compromise gun lobby in Washington.” Gun Owners of America has declared that they will score a vote on the nomination of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General. Holder will be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee this Thursday, January 15th at 9:30 am.

Velleco:
The nomination of Eric Holder is a cynical slap in the face to all gun owners. Holder’s active opposition to the right to keep and bear arms disqualifies him from being the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land.

Brian Darling, Red State: John, thanks for agreeing to be interviewed by Red State about the nomination of Eric Holder to the next Attorney General. It is widely known that Holder signed a brief supporting the District of Columbia handgun ban and argued that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. Do you have any other examples where Eric Holder evidenced his hostility to the Second Amendment?

John Velleco of Gun Owners of America: Yes. President-elect Obama could not have come up with a more divisive anti-Second Amendment nominee. Eric Holder supports a 3-day waiting period for handgun purchases, one-gun-a-month purchase limits, licensing and registration of all gun owners, and more restrictions on law abiding citizens.

Holder was Janet Reno’s go-to guy on gun control issues. In 1999, Holder supported sweeping new gun control laws, urging Congress not to cave in to “the special interest that value the cold hard steel of guns more than the lives of children, neighbors and police officers.”

In 2000, Holder was instrumental in the Clinton Administration’s effort to strong-arm firearms manufacturers into voluntarily accepting regulations that were stalled in Congress. In a legislation-by-extortion scheme, the federal government filed suit against gun makers but offered to drop the suit if the companies would accept the demands of the administration. Thankfully, the program died when Clinton left office.

After he returned to private practice, Holder continued to advocate for more anti-gun laws. After 9/11, Holder argued in a Washington Post op-ed that Congress should close the misnamed gun show “loophole,” even though the terrorists were armed with box cutters that could be purchased at any hardware store.

Darling, RS: Holder has an impressive resume — former Deputy Attorney General under President Bill Clinton, Acting Attorney General for a short period for President Bush, U.S. Attorney and a federal judge. He is clearly qualified by virtue of his experience. How would you explain to Senators why Holder’s position on the Second Amendment disqualifies him from being Attorney General?

Velleco, GOA: Obviously, Holder has an impressive and extensive resume. But he apparently disagrees with the incoming President and the Supreme Court on a core constitutionally protected liberty. Namely, Holder believes that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right to keep and bear arms. Holder’s active opposition to the right to keep and bear arms disqualifies Holder from being the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land.

Darling, RS: What will GOA do to oppose the confirmation of Eric Holder?

Velleco, GOA: We have asked our members to contact their own Senators, urging them to vote “No” on Holder. In addition, we will score any vote on Holder for our 2010 Senate rating.

Darling, RS: President-elect Barack Obama stated on the campaign trail that “there is an individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to commonsense regulation.” Is the Holder nomination consistent with this promise by Obama when he was on the campaign trail?

Velleco, GOA: No, Barack Obama seems to have abandoned any pretense that he will “govern from the middle,” particularly concerning gun rights. Obama’s nomination of Holder shows that Obama may not support the Second Amendment as an individual right and calls into question statements he made on the campaign trail. The nomination of Eric Holder is a cynical slap in the face to all gun owners, and will be viewed as such by the pro-gun community.

Darling, RS: Thanks John.

2009-01-04T07:43:00.000-08:00

If the U.S. Senate decides not to seat Roland Burris, embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's final answer to fill President-elect Obama's senate seat, it will be no great loss for American gun owners.

Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune highlights some of Burris' anti-Second Amendment extremism:

A longtime advocate of a national handgun ban, Burris organized Chicago's first Gun Turn-in Day in 1993. But when he ran for governor the following year, he admitted that he owned a handgun ("for protection,") and did not hand it over to police as he urged others to do."He had simply forgotten about it," his spokesman said at the time—a claim that, if believable, suggested Burris was not exactly the model for conscientious gun ownership. "Honey, didn't I used to have a pistol around here? Any idea where it might be?"

2008-12-17T13:34:00.000-08:00

U.S. Attorney General nominee Eric Holder has an atrocious record on gun rights, including his signing on to an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the D.C. gun ban case arguing in favor of the City's position. Brian Darling of the Heritage Foundation included, in his weekly column for Human Events, information on Holder's anti-gun views. Full article linked below:

Put a Hold on Holder's Nomination
by Brian Darling (more by this author)
Posted 12/15/2008 ET
A conservative senator would be a true American hero if he or she would put a hold on -- i.e., threaten to filibuster -- the nomination of Eric Holder to be the next attorney general. Let me be clear: I don’t believe that conservatives should use the filibuster to block Holder. But I do think the filibuster is an excellent procedural tool to force a needed debate. Senators should explore Holder’s views on the right to bear arms and the Elian Gonzales raid before they consent to his appointment.

Also, see more at NRO: Eric Holder and the Phantom Terrorists at U.S. Gun Shows

Gun groups don’t trust president-elect

2008-12-08T17:52:00.000-08:00

President-elect Obama said on Sunday's Meet the Press:

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the Second Amendment," he said. "So, lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I've said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. And I think that people can take me at my word."

The Hill newspaper noted that several gun rights groups are more inclined to look at the incoming President's actual record on the issue -- a record that has American gun owners bracing for the worst:

[John Velleco, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America] said Obama’s choice of aides and officials have given gun owners several reasons to fear that the Obama administration “will be the most anti-gun in history.”

Velleco said Vice President-elect Biden, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993 and 1994, was instrumental in the passage of both the Brady Bill and the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and he noted that incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, as a member of the Clinton administration, advocated for the assault weapons ban on Capitol Hill.

“It’s not only Obama who’s a huge concern, but it’s the people he’s surrounding himself with,” Velleco said.

Fleming Wins in Louisiana!

2008-12-07T07:45:00.000-08:00

By the narrowest of margins, Dr. John Fleming won a grueling special election in Louisiana's Fourth Congressional District.

Dr. Fleming, a member of Gun Owners of America, is a 100% gun rights supporter. His opponent also claimed to be pro-gun, but refused to respond to the GOA questionnaire and had the support of the extreme anti-gun wing of the Congressional leadership.

Two other lesser known candidates garnered about 4% combined. According to the Shreveport Times, the two candidates likely took votes away from Fleming.

Dr. Fleming will be a welcome addition to the new Congress, as we prepare for the most anti-gun administration in history, augmented by the radical anti-gun leadership in the House (Pelosi, Hoyer) and Senate (Reid, Durbin).

Gun Owners Dodge a Bullet

2008-12-04T07:04:00.000-08:00

One More Important Louisiana Race in 2008

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Pl Suite 102Springfield VA 22151
(703) 321-8585 http://www.goapvf.org/

December 3, 2008

Gun owners across the country dodged a bullet thanks to Sen. Saxby Chambliss' victory in Georgia on Tuesday.

The result of that election means that anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will not get to the magic number of 60, essentially the number of votes needed for one party to rule unilaterally.

But there's still one race remaining this year in Louisiana.

John Fleming, a member of Gun Owners of America, is running in Louisiana's Fourth Congressional District in a special election THIS SATURDAY, December 6.

John Fleming is a medical doctor who served as a Medical Officer in the United States Navy.

Dr. Fleming is an unwavering Second Amendment advocate who answered the GOA questionnaire 100% in favor of your gun rights.

Dr. Fleming's opponent refused to respond to the GOA candidate questionnaire. GOA's experience over three decades and tens of thousands of campaigns is that candidates often hide anti-gun views by not answering a gun related survey.

Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that Dr. Fleming's opponent -- while claiming to support the Second Amendment -- is backed by the extreme anti-gun leadership in Washington. People like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and other GOA "F" rated representatives are pouring in money and ground troops to try to eke out one last anti-gun victory in 2008.

Dr. Fleming, who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, will not be beholden to any anti-Second Amendment forces in Washington.

This is the last congressional election of 2008 and could result in one of the strongest supporters of your gun rights in the entire Congress.

I urge you to get involved in this race in the last few days before the December 6 election.
Please visit http://www.flemingforcongress.com/ to contribute to Dr. Fleming's campaign.

If you live in or around the Fourth District (Shreveport, DeRidder, Natchitoches), please consider helping by making phone calls, putting out signs, or lending a hand on Election Day.

You can use the contact form at http://www.flemingforcongress.com/contact.php to let the campaign know that you are interested in volunteering for the campaign.

This is an important race for gun owners and sportsmen. The Fourth District has been in pro-gun hands for years, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi sees this as an opportunity to gain one more seat to strengthen her leadership position.

With President-elect Barack Obama and anti-gun leadership in both the House and Senate all converging on Washington in January, it is imperative that we have strong Second Amendment leaders like John Fleming to stand up and protect your right to keep and bear arms.

I urge you to visit http://www.flemingforcongress.com/ to support the Fleming campaign in this important fight for freedom.

Sincerely,

Tim Macy
Vice Chairman

****************************
Paid for by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund is a Project of Gun Owners of America.
****************************

On Burress, Bloomberg, and Ditka

2008-12-02T15:17:00.000-08:00

by John Velleco

In Super Bowl XLII, New York Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress made the game-winning catch that ended the New England Patriots’chance for a perfect season.

A few days ago, thanks to an extreme error, Burress brought his own season, and very possibly his career, to an abrupt end.

Early Saturday morning, the normally sure-handed Burress fumbled a handgun and accidentally shot himself in the thigh while illegally carrying a gun in a New York City night club. He faces the possibility of spending the next few years in prison.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a man obsessed with taking away peoples’ Second Amendment rights. He hates guns and, for the most part, doesn’t allow anyone but the police and his own bodyguards to carry firearms in the city.

Burress’ mistake gives the Mayor more ammunition to spread his lunacy. He has called for Burress’ head on a platter, and he has the tools to accomplish the task.

A 2007 law Bloomberg helped push through the state legislature makes illegally carrying a loaded handgun a Class 3 felony that carries a three-and-a-half year mandatory minimum prison sentence.

It is a stupid and dangerous law that should be repealed. The Supreme Court ruled recently that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. The right to own a firearm without the ability to carry a gun for protection truncates the essence of theSecond Amendment.

Law-abiding citizens should be encouraged to own firearms, be trained how to use them, and carry them for the protection of themselves, their loved ones and others. This would make our neighborhoods and our streets safer, as criminals would have to be much more selective in choosing victims.

There are plenty of laws on the books to punish people who misuse firearms (or baseball bats or knives, for that matter). And there are endangerment laws to deal with idiots who don’t know how to properly handle a firearm.

But whether one agrees with New York’s law or not, it’s still incumbent upon the individual to know and follow it nonetheless.

News reports indicate that Burress may have previously held a Floridapermit to carry a concealed firearm, but even if that were the case, the permit would not be valid in NYC. It was Burress’responsibility to know this and to carry his firearm legally (not to mention safely).

This country’s millions of concealed carry permit holders -- hands down the most law-abiding segment of society -- are well versed in the often convoluted gun laws and are meticulous in exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

Elitists like Mayor Bloomberg and President-elect Barack Obama look down their noses at “bitter” gun owners, yet every day millions upon millions of citizens carry firearms legally and safely and somehow manage to keep themselves out of the headlines, the hospital and prison.

Perhaps even more reckless than Burress’ incident were comments made by legendary NFL player and coach Mike Ditka. According toDitka, no NFL players should be allowed to own a gun, period.

Were it left up to Ditka, “I will have a policy, no guns, any NFL players we find out, period, you’re suspended.”

C’mon Coach! No Constitutional rights? No legitimate self-defense? No sporting, hunting or target shooting? Does "Da Coach" really think that all NFL players are as reckless as Burress?

Iron Mike, who considered running against Barack Obama for U.S.Senate in 2004, likes to call himself a conservative, but he’s all mixed up on the gun issue. If the NFL wants to get serious about criminal activity, stop protecting players when they break the law and institute conduct policies that deal with actual conduct and are not designed to strip away constitutional liberties.

In professional sports, as in the rest of society, criminals should be treated as such. Responsible athletes (the vast majority) should not be punished for the actions of a few irresponsible players.

***********************************
John Velleco is the Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, a national gun lobby with over 300,000 members.
GOA is located at 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151 and at http://www.gunowners.org.
***********************************

Tax Break for Firearms a Good Idea

2008-11-29T11:09:00.000-08:00

South Carolina shoppers enjoyed a unique tax break this Black Friday -- no state sales tax on handguns, shotguns and rifles.

Critics call the temporary tax break “gimmicky.” The sponsor of the measure, however, looks at it more as symbolism.

“It’s to bring recognition that the Second Amendment of the Constitution is every bit as important as the First Amendment,” said Rep. Mike Pitts. “It’s very much symbolic.”

Call it what you will -- gimmick or symbol -- getting people thinking about guns and taxes isn’t a bad idea.

It recognizes the important role firearms have played in this country’s history. Indeed, our forefathers, clinging to their religion and their guns, fought off the yoke of tyranny so that liberty could flourish.

The tax break on firearms can also serve as a reminder of how tax laws have been used as a form of gun prohibition.

While the South Carolina tax break dealt only with the State’s sales tax, it is instructive to recall that the first significant gun control law passed in the 20th century was essentially a tax measure. The 1934 National Firearms Act, coming just after the repeal of prohibition (and with a lot of bureaucrats possibly heading to the unemployment line), levied a $200 tax on automatic firearms and a few other weapons. The NFA was essentially a gun ban by taxation, as it put the cost of firearms covered by the Act out of reach of most people.

President-elect Obama also likes the idea of certain confiscatory taxes. Obama supports a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition -- and don’t think for a second that the money is intended for hunter education and wildlife preservation.

South Carolina may be on to something here. Privately owned firearms not only have played an important role in our history, but are important in our present and will be in the future as well.

Ponder the reality of terrorism on our home land. We’ve been attacked before and it probably will happen again in the future. If a tax break on firearms encourages people to buy a gun for the protection of themselves and their loved ones, our homeland will be just that much safer.

All Eyes on Georgia Senate Race

2008-11-27T20:38:00.000-08:00

From Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund

Your gun rights may be hanging in the balance, depending on the outcome of elections in Minnesota and Georgia.

The Democrats currently control 58 seats in the Senate. If they get to 60 (the number needed to overcome a filibuster), it will be nearly impossible to stop the gun control agenda of incoming President Barack Obama.

The Minnesota Senate race between radical anti-gunner Al Franken and pro-gun Sen. Norm Coleman is coming down to the provisional and absentee ballots. Sen. Coleman’s lead of fewer than 200 votes is slipping away, while Franken and his legal team are busily trying to steal the election.

With the growing possibility of Democrats getting to 59 Senate seats, all eyes are now focused on Georgia.

Pro-gun Senator Saxby Chambliss is in a tight December 2nd run-off election.

Saxby is "A" rated by Gun Owners of America. His opponent, Jim Martin, refused to respond to the Gun Owners of America candidate survey, but he has an anti-gun record from his days in the Georgia State House.

No wonder that Sen. Charles Schumer, the anti-gun extremist from New York, is so excited about this race. Schumer, who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is pouring tons of money into Martin's campaign.

But the stakes are much higher than just getting another anti-gun Senator. If Democrats can get to the magic number of 60, the minority Senators will lose their ability to stop any gun control legislation that is anointed by the leadership. Therefore, a world of possibilities opens up for anti-gun Senators like Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Frank Lautenberg.

President-elect Obama and the Senate leadership know what is at stake in Georgia. That’s why they’re descending on the state by the thousands and pouring in millions of dollars.

Pro-gunners need to do the same. If Saxby loses this seat, there will be dire ramifications for years to come. Without the ability to stop the anti-gun leadership, we could see:
· The reauthorization of the Clinton gun ban;
· Legislation to close down gun shows;
· A ban on .50 caliber rifles;
· Massive expansions of the NICS background check system;
· More and more gun stores put out of business;
· Ratification of an anti-gun UN treaty;
· Lock-up-your-safety requirements like personalized handguns, and more.
Gun owners, sportsmen and anyone concerned about the erosion of liberty in this country should engage in this battle in Georgia.

If you live in or near Georgia and can volunteer to make calls, knock on doors, etc, please call or email the Chambliss campaign right away. Go to http://www.saxby.org/ for contact information.

Saxby also needs the financial resources to reach as many voters as possible in the final days before the election. Please go to www.saxby.org/contribute.aspx to contribute to the Chambliss campaign.

This race is extremely close. Senator Saxby Chambliss has stood with gun owners in the U.S. Congress. It's time for us to stand with Saxby now. Please visit http://www.saxby.org/ to help Sen. Chambliss win this election.

Paid for by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund is a Project of Gun Owners of America.

Gun Sales Up -- Bad News for Criminals

2008-11-13T09:10:00.000-08:00

One consequence of Barack Obama’s election as president may be that the country has gotten a little bit safer from violent criminals.

Firearms sales are rising along with fears that the new administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress will pursue a bold anti-gun agenda, including reinstating the Clinton “assault weapons” ban, requiring mandatory childproofing on firearms, and weakening gun owners’ privacy protections.

According to the FBI, gun sales were about 15 percent higher this October than the same month in 2007. This is bad news for criminals and good news for law-abiding citizens, gun owners and non-gun owners alike.

Contrary to anti-gun hysteria, as gun ownership rates increase, crime rates generally go down.

Economist John Lott exhaustively analyzed crime date from all 3,054 U.S. counties over a period of 15 years. His findings are summed up in the title of his book: More Guns, Less Crime.

Dr. Lott’s research corroborates what is simply common sense for many people. Fewer restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ ability to acquire, possess and carry firearms levels the playing field with the criminal.

As Dr. Lott points out, an increase in the number of armed potential victims raises the cost of doing “business” for the criminal, thus serving as a deterrent for some criminals. Most criminals are not completely irrational. Surveys of inmates show that criminals avoid armed victims, or situations where there is a high probability that the victim might be armed.

An increase in gun ownership among decent people, and in particular higher numbers of concealed carry permit holders, benefits more than gun owners. Criminals don’t know who exactly is getting a concealed carry permit or who is heading to the gun store for a self-defense firearm, thus raising the level of uncertainty in the criminals’ minds.

So while gun owners and sportsmen are bracing for the most anti-Second Amendment President in history and an onslaught of anti-gun legislation coming out of the new Congress, at least there is some initial good news for the country.

Gun Rights in Peril

2008-11-06T14:46:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama in the White House; many pro-gunners out of Congress
Gun Owners of America

8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102

Springfield, VA 22151

(703)321-8585

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Based on his voting record in the Illinois state senate and in the U.S. Senate, President-elect Barack Obama will be the most anti-Second Amendment president in the history of America.

In January, the new President will govern alongside congressional leadership, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who are also extremely hostile to gun rights and who now enjoy greatly expanded majorities.

There can be little doubt about the direction in which gun rights are headed. The questions are how far will the anti-gunners go and how fast will they move?

Many comparisons have been made to the first two years of the first Clinton Administration, in which one party controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Almost all experts agree that it was Clinton's overreaching on issues like gun control that cost his party control of Congress. Barack Obama will start out governing with even larger majorities than did Clinton.

Obama ran a campaign high on rhetoric and short on specifics. The President-elect claims he will govern from the middle, but the question for gun owners is which Obama will show up at the White House -- the "centrist" from the campaign trail, or the radical anti-Second Amendment extremist who supports gun bans, waiting periods for firearm purchases, one gun a month restrictions, and more?

His party's large gains in the Congress give the incoming President more room to maneuver with a radical agenda.

An equally important question is the outlook for gun rights in the new Congress. That Obama will sign any anti-gun bill that gets to his desk is a certainty. But what can gun owners expect from the new Congress?

Hopes of Congressional restraint on gun issues dimmed with each election return as Pelosi's and Reid's majorities grew to historic proportions.

While there are many moderately pro-gun Democrats in Congress, they're not the ones calling the shots. The leadership is completely in the anti-gun camp, so expanding their majority would have a negative impact on gun rights regardless who filled those seats.

Unfortunately, though, many seats that flipped parties also went from strong pro-gun to strong anti-gun. Gun owners suffered heavy losses in the Senate. Here's a look at five Senate seats that switched parties (all switches went from Republican to Democrat).

Colorado -- The retirement of A-rated Senator Wayne Allard set up a battle between anti-gun Rep. Mark Udall and pro-gun former Rep. Bob Schaffer. This is one of three senate seats that flipped from "A" to "F."

New Hampshire -- Pro-gun Senator John Sununu was defeated by F-rated former governor Jeanne Shaheen, another "A" to "F" shift.

New Mexico -- Long-time Senator Pete Domenici, who was D-rated and usually voted against gun owners, was replaced by F-rated Congressman Tom Udall. Udall defeated A-rated Representative Steve Pearce, making this a big loss for gun owners.

North Carolina -- Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole ran as a pro-gun control candidate for president in 2000. Since being elected to the Senate from the Tar Heel state, however, Mrs. Dole compiled a good pro-gun record. Dole's defeat at the hands of F-rated anti-gunner Kay Hagan is a dramatic flip for gun rights.

Virginia -- F-rated Republican John Warner retired. Former governor Mark Warner (no relation) trounced "A" rated Jim Gilmore, also a former governor. Either of the candidates would have been an improvement over the retiring Senator, but Mark Warner refused to answer the
GOA survey and has a mixed record on gun issues.

In the battle for the U.S. House of Representatives, gun owners also were hit hard.

Of the 18 incumbents who were defeated, 15 were pro-gun (only two were replaced by a pro-gunner). Of particular disappointment to gun owners were the losses of Republican representatives Marilyn Musgrave (CO-4), Tom Feeney (FL-24), Bill Sali (ID-1), and Tim Walberg (MI-7). These representatives were among the most ardent Second Amendment supporters.

In the 32 open House seats, the results were mixed. Thirteen seats went to A-rated candidates, while six went to F-rated anti-gunners. Nine new congressmen are "Not Rated," meaning they have no record and refused to fill out a GOA questionnaire. Four new members fall somewhere in the middle, leaning toward a pro-gun position but no guarantees. Note: a handful of close races across the country are obviously headed for recounts, but this is how things look at the moment.

The A-rated winners in open seat elections are: Tom McClintock (R-CA) (this race is still subject to change), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Bill Posey (R-FL), Mike Coffman (R-CO), Debbie Halvorson (D-IL), Aaron Schock (R-IL), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Erik Paulsen (R-MN), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Christopher Lee (R-NY), Glenn Thompson (R-PA), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). These representatives will have their work cut out for them, as the new Congress has moved decidedly in the anti-gun direction and many pro-gun leaders were defeated.

All in all, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can’t help but be emboldened by their gains and there can be no denying that gun control legislation is on their agenda.

So what can gun owners and sportsmen do to help prevent a gun control tidal wave? Get involved and stay engaged!

Gun Owners of America will continue its efforts as Capitol Hill's no-compromise gun lobby. But GOA's effectiveness depends on your activism. Please continue to send the e-mails to your congressmen, and forward GOA Action Alerts to pro-gun friends.

If you are not a member of Gun Owners of America, please join today so that you can start receiving our newsletters and other important gun rights information.

The entire Congress needs to know that we're watching, and if they attempt to ban even one firearm or expand unconstitutional gun control in any way they will pay at the polls in the next election.

Gun Owners of America Releases Congressional Voter Guide

2008-10-20T06:50:00.000-07:00

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585

October 20, 2008

Election will produce tremendous impact on gun owners' rights

With the election just two weeks away, Gun Owners of America has a powerful tool to keep gun owners informed about the Second Amendment positions of candidates for federal office.

The Gun Owners of Amercia 2008 Candidate Rating is now available at goapvf.org.

Many gun owners are familiar with the differences between the candidates for president, but how well do they know the views and actions of those who are running at the congressional level?

On the campaign trail, almost no candidates for Congress admit to being against gun rights, making the tasks of compiling the Gun Owners of America congressional candidate rating both more difficult, and more important.

GOA determines grades for candidates first based on any past voting record. Then, all candidates receive a detailed questionnaire. But what about those with no record and who were not open enough to return a questionnaire that would reveal their true colors?

In past elections such candidates could be assigned grades by simply going to a campaign website. Learning what a candidate thought about issues like banning "assault weapons" and waiting periods for handgun purchases was lurking behind a button labeled "gun control."

Not any more. For one thing, it's virtually impossible to find a link that says "gun control" on any campaign website. If a candidate mentions gun rights at all (and most don't) it is usually in the context of "protecting Second Amendment rights."

A reader will find comments such as this one, referring to the recent Supreme Court decision striking down the gun ban in the nation's capital:
"I agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation last week that an absolute prohibition against gun ownership violates the Second Amendment right for citizens to bear arms."

That may sound good at first blush, but a careful reading will reveal that this statement -- made by a former mayor who had considered joining other cities in suing gun makers out of existence in 1999 -- is almost meaningless.

Facing this kind of doublespeak, it is especially important that voters take advantage of tools like the 2008 Gun Owners of America voter guide.

The stakes are high in this election, as they always are. The main focus is on the presidential race. If elected, Barak Obama would be the most anti-gun president this country has ever seen, and his vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden is just as bad. John McCain has been all over the map on the gun issue, but he did choose a stellar pro-gun running mate in Sarah Palin.

While the White House may be up for grabs, liberal Democrats are in firm control of both chambers of Congress. With all the media attention on the race at the top of the ticket, it is important to remember that it is in the Congress where most of the battles over gun rights occur.

GOA hopes you will make use of this valuable tool and share it with your family and friends. Please distribute this e-mail far and wide. Thank you!

House Passes Bill To Repeal D.C. Gun Ban-- Action now needed in the U.S. Senate

2008-09-17T19:13:00.000-07:00

Gun Owners of America

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives opted to pass Representative Childers' D.C. gun ban repeal instead of the anti-gun bill sponsored by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton -- which would have allowed D.C. to continue enacting gun control.

The bill now goes to the Senate, but unless there is a ton of pressure put on Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the bill will languish in committee.

Thankfully, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) is spearheading an effort to get a vote on the House-passed bill. She is asking her fellow Senators to cosponsor a letter which she will then deliver to Sen. Reid.

The Hutchison letter points out that, "In DC v. Heller, the court affirmed that the District of Columbia's ban on ownership of handguns was an unconstitutional restriction on that right."

After noting that D.C. has continued to deprive its residents of their Second Amendment rights for more than 30 years, the letter asks Sen. Reid "to ensure that D.C. residents do not have to wait any longer to realize their constitutional rights by allowing the full Senate to consider H.R. 6842 before the 110th Congress concludes."

(Norton's bill was the original HR 6842, but it now contains the Childers pro-gun language instead -- thanks in no small part to your efforts.)

There are not many days left before Congress recesses for the remainder of the year, and Sen. Reid is expected to try to run out the clock on the D.C. repeal bill. That's why it’s important to act quickly and contact your own two U.S. Senators.

This is the last chance we have this year to put some teeth into the Supreme Court's decision in Heller. Gun Owners of America will score the signing of this letter in its upcoming congressional rating.

ACTION: Please contact your two Senators and ask them to cosign the Hutchison letter to Senator Reid. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Senators at 202-224-3121 or toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I was happy to see that the House of Representatives voted for the Childers substitute language which will repeal the D.C. gun ban (HR 6842).

I recognize that there is not much time left in the legislative session, and so I hope you will do everything in your power to pressure Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring up HR 6842 for a vote.

Hence, I urge you to cosign by Friday the Hutchison letter which urges Reid "to ensure that D.C. residents do not have to wait any longer to realize their constitutional rights by allowing the full Senate to consider H.R. 6842 before the 110th Congress concludes."

Gun Owners of America will score the signing of this letter in its upcoming congressional rating.

Please let me know how you intend to act.

Sincerely,

Imminent Vote In Congress To Repeal DC Gun Ban

2008-09-11T10:56:00.000-07:00

DC digs in its heels, even while other communities are repealing their gun control

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585

Thursday, September 11, 2008

The Heller earthquake continues to send tremors through gun control communities in middle America.

Following the Supreme Court's U.S. v. Heller decision in June, at least one town in West Virginia and two jurisdictions in Illinois have been forced to reconsider their gun control laws. The latter two -- in Wilmette and Morton Grove, Illinois -- repealed their handgun bans in July.

But while some communities have "seen the light," others continue to dig in their heels. Take Washington, DC, where the city council has thumbed its nose at the Court's ruling and has redrafted its registration law to impose a burdensome 12-step process that, as summarized in one legislative report, involves "multiple trips to gun dealers and government offices, fingerprinting, a written exam, and ballistic testing."

At a minimum, some officers believe this process will take 14 days. But a more realistic assessment was offered by DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier who said the process "could take months."

In response, the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote soon on legislation to simply repeal the DC gun ban -- a vote that could come as early as today.

HR 6691, introduced by Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS), would repeal much of the gun control in the District -- including the ban on semi-auto pistols and rifles, and the registration requirements which require residents to get permission from the city council before they can own a weapon.

The Childers bill will also strike the "trigger lock" provision which endangers gun owners by forcing the lucky ones who successfully jump through the 12-step process to render their guns unusable for immediate defensive purposes.

Faced with a discharge petition that had gained tremendous momentum -- in large part, thanks to your efforts which was a response to an earlier GOA alert -- the Democratic leadership realized that a bill to repeal the DC gun ban was definitely going to be brought out of committee and passed on the House floor. So the anti-gun leadership decided that the place to kill the bill was in the Senate.

Consider what news reports are saying:

"Although the bill is expected to pass in the House, possibly as soon as this week, its fate is less clear in the Senate," reported The Washington Post this past Tuesday. "It has won the backing of 48 [House] Democrats, many facing reelection in strongly pro-gun areas, and is expected to pick up broad support among Republicans."

Remarkably, the Post is right. (A stopped clock is also right twice a day.) The Democrats are trying to "have their cake and eat it too" by protecting Democrats from rural districts -- allowing them to vote pro-gun -- but then letting the bill die in the Senate.

That's why GOA is encouraging members to contact their two senators at this time.

ACTION: Please urge your senators to demand a vote on repealing DC's gun control. While we certainly don't want to discourage you from contacting your Representative, the main battle is going to be in the other chamber, so please make sure you contact both of your senators.

You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center (where phone and fax numbers are also available).

----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Senator:

I am glad to see that the House is taking up HR 6691, a bill introduced by Mississippi Democrat Travis Childers. His bill would help enforce the recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Heller. It would do so by repealing the gun ban in the District -- including the ban on semi-auto pistols and rifles, and the registration requirements which require residents to get permission from the city council before they can own a weapon.

The Childers bill will also strike the "trigger lock" provision which endangers gun owners by forcing the lucky ones who successfully jump through the 12-step process to render their guns unusable for immediate defensive purposes.

Regardless of what happens to HR 6691, I would implore you, in the strongest possible terms, to urge Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to schedule a vote on repealing the DC gun ban. Thank you.

Sincerely,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Doubles Down on Gun Control

2008-08-23T16:51:00.000-07:00

Biden “Clings” to Gun Control

Democrats are hopeful that Sen. Barak Obama’s running mate, Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, brings to the ticket international policy experience and blue collar appeal that Obama lacks.

Obama and other party leaders are going to soon find out just how out of touch "Average Joe" Biden is with most Americans, particularly with regards to the Second Amendment.

As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the early 1990s, Biden oversaw some of the most massive expansions of gun control in the history of the United States. Biden was an early and chief proponent of the Brady bill, which required a five day waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. The Brady bill would not have passed without Biden strong-arming Republican minority leader Bob Dole and getting the Brady bill through the Senate 1993.

One of Biden’s chief claims to fame, as noted on his own senate website, is authoring the 1994 Crime Bill with its so-called assault weapons ban, a gun prohibition that actually banned over 180 types of common semi-automatic firearms.

Interestingly, then-President Clinton admitted to the editors of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer newspaper that gun control votes cost his party 20 seats in Congress in the 1994 elections, the year Republicans took control of the House and Senate.

When the semi-auto ban ‘sunset’ in 2004, Sen. Biden didn’t celebrate with the majority of ‘middle America’. Instead, he continues his fight against the Second Amendment, and is currently the author of a bill to renew the unpopular gun ban.

Obama may be giddy with the thought that he has selected someone to reach out to hard-working middle class Americans. But he has made a serious miscalculation about Biden’s blue collar, moderate bona fides. He’s going to learn that most Americans love liberty, cherish freedom, and, to borrow a phrase, "cling" to their Second Amendment rights. On that score, Biden is no "Average Joe."

Washington, D.C. City Council Ignoring Supreme Court Ruling-- Discharge petition filed on gun ban repeal

2008-07-29T04:17:00.000-07:00

Gun Owners of America -- Monday, July 28, 2008

In open defiance of the Supreme Court's decision striking down the Washington D.C. gun control law, the City Council passed an "emergency" law that keeps in place almost all of the law that was ruled unconstitutional.

For example, though the Court ruled specifically that the city's ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment, most handguns still cannot be registered because D.C. bureaucrats classify semi-automatic pistols as "machine guns.

Even Dick Heller, who brought the case against Washington's gun ban, was rejected when he tried to register his handgun because any "bottom loading" firearm is a "machine gun" according to the D.C. police.

Similarly, while the Court found that "the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a "trigger lock" is unconstitutional, the city kept in place the "lock up your safety" law unless the resident is in immediate danger.

The D.C. Council is thus rendering the Supreme Court victory for gun rights meaningless, while leaving residents defenseless.

Congress needs to repeal the District's gun control law to ensure that the Supreme Court decision is not a hollow victory.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority and responsibility to govern the District. It can simply repeal the District's onerous gun law.

Not surprisingly, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has no intention of allowing the D.C. gun ban repeal legislation to come to the floor, even though it is cosponsored by more than half of the members of Congress.
free the bill from the Speaker's death grip, Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) has filed a discharge petition to bring the bill directly to the floor. Rep. Souder needs 218 cosigners for the petition to be successful. There are currently 109 signers.

There are not many days left in this legislative session, so it is vital that the discharge petition moves quickly. Please contact your representative and urge him or her to support the repeal of the D.C. gun ban and to sign the Souder discharge petition.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Reps. the pre-written e-mail message below. You can also go to House.gov to contact your Rep.

----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Representative,

The Washington, D.C. city council is making a mockery of the recent Supreme Court decision supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Though the Court ruled the city's handgun ban unconstitutional, DC is still making it illegal to own most handguns. The Court also ruled that the District's gun lock and gun storage law violates the Constitution, but under the city's new "emergency" gun law, firearms must be kept inoperable unless there is an immediate danger to residents.

Representative Mark Souder has filed a discharge petition to bring a bill to repeal the District's gun laws to the floor for a vote.

Please stand up for the Second Amendment and sign the Souder discharge petition.

Sincerely,

Rep. Sali Fighting for Gun Rights on Park Service Land

2008-07-24T11:07:00.001-07:00

Gun Owners of America Applauds Rep. Sali’s Effort against Gun Ban
-- Idaho Congressman offers amendment to protect gun rights in National Parks

(Springfield, VA) – Gun Owners of America applauds Rep. Bill Sali (R-ID) for his efforts to protect Second Amendment rights on National Park Service land.

Rep. Sali offered and amendment during a hearing of the National Resources Committee on H.R. 5853, a bill to expand the boundary of the Minute Man National Historical Park in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to include Barrett's Farm.

Minutemen stashed arms and ammunition at Colonel James Barrett’s farm and turned back, and then used them to turn back Redcoat troops in the first victory for America in the Revolutionary War. It turns out our own National Park Service is also against firearms at the site.

Carrying firearms on land controlled by the NPS is currently prohibited, even if the state in which the land is located allows firearms. The Interior Department recently proposed new rules to partially reverse the gun ban, but they have not yet taken effect. If and when they do go into effect, most gun owners would still not be allowed to possess firearms on these lands because, among other problems with the rule, open carry would remain prohibited.

Rep. Sali’s amendment simply would require that state and local law govern firearms possession on the new land to be controlled by the NPS.

“The Founding Fathers fought and died for the freedoms we still enjoy today,” said Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America. “One of the foremost of those freedoms was the rights to keep and bear arms. It is sadly ironic that the NPS would disarm citizens at a site where firearms played such an important role in our nation’s history. We applaud Congressman Sali’s effort to defend the Second Amendment against the anti-self defense regulations of the National Park Service,” Pratt said.

Rep. Sali offered similar amendments today on three additional NPS bills, dealing with: the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River; the National Trails System Act; and the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail. The Sali amendments did not prevail in Committee. Rep. Sali has not ruled out bringing these amendments up again when the bill reaches the House floor.