• Much to be Thankful for This Thanksgiving

  • The Lawbreaker in Chief Violates the Law Once Again

    -- How the President’s illegal amnesty will affect your gun rights Read More
  • GOA Aims to Torpedo the Maryland “Assault Weapons” Law

  • Republican Leadership Prepared to Relinquish all (Gun) Policy Decisions to Democrats … for the Next Ten Months!

  • Harry Reid to Take One Last Shot at the Second Amendment in the Lame Duck Session

  • Sen. Harry Reid Falls from His Throne

    House Reinforced with Pro-gunners Read More
  • GOA Case Goes Before the U.S. Supreme Court

    -- While on the political scene, GOA exposing lying politicians Read More
  • GOA Countering the Anti-gun Left’s New Strategy

    -- Plus, GOA publishes its 2014 Voter Guide   Read More
  • Does the Obama Administration Consider YOU a Terrorist?

    Plus, it’s payback time for gun owners; get the GOA Voter Guide! Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Legislative Action Center LINK

facebook_icon twitter_icon youtube_icon

GOA News

  • Good ol' NJ!
  • William Grigg
  • Beware of “Swatting”
  • The Push
  • Stop Tragedy's

Own a Gun, Go to Jail, Welcome to New Jersey!

What happened to Shaneen Allen should be synonymous for all that is wrong with gun control laws.  Allen is the Pennsylvania gun owner who ran afoul of New Jersey’s vicious attitude toward gun owners.

This young single mom twice had been the victim of crime in Pennsylvania and so she obtained a concealed carry permit.  A week later, mistakenly thinking that her permit protected her in New Jersey, Allen told a cop during a traffic stop that she had a gun in the car.  That got her 40 days in jail and meant that she was, subsequently, facing three to ten years if convicted on the charges.

Read More

A Response to William Norman Grigg 

Will Grigg has taken umbrage at my views about the Muslim murderer who beheaded a woman at the Vaughan Foods plant where they had both worked.

Adam Nolton had converted to Islam and became an offensive salesman for his newfound religion.  He became very agitated when coworkers were not interested in converting to Islam.  He was let go because he was so disruptive.

Read More

By now most gun owners are aware of anti-gun groups, such as Everytown for Gun Safety and other Michael Bloomberg affiliates, which are lobbying local and national business owners to ban open carry from their places of business. These groups have pushed stores to display signs which depict “No guns allowed” in order to ban concealed carriers as well.

Read More

America Is Pushing Back 

The more that some public officials overstep their authority, the more that voters -- and others -- are stepping up and saying, “Stop!”

The 2014 congressional elections represented a collective shout by voters to politicians and bureaucrats to back off.  Way off.

Read More

Arm the GI’s and Stop Inviting Tragedy 

“Never again.”  

Those words are written in five different languages at the abandoned Dachau prison camp, a testimony to everyone who visits there that such an atrocity will never again be tolerated.

It’s wonderful to hear this “never again” kind of determination.  But it defies logic that the Obama Administration refuses to adopt a similar attitude in solving this ever-daunting question:  Why do mass shootings keep occurring in gun-free zones?

Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • Alabama CCW
  • Guns=Saftey
  • .45
  • Knife vs Gun
  • 82yr Old

Concealed Carrier in Alabama Saves Wife From Group of Armed Robbers, Shoots One in the Nose

A concealed carrier in Hartford, Alabama saved himself and his wife from a group of armed robbers over the weekend.

The couple was returning to their home on Friday night when they were approached by a group of armed men.

The husband, fearing for their safety, drew a firearm and opened fire on the men.

One of the suspects was shot in the nose.

The suspect suffered from non life threatening injuries and is being treated an area hospital.

Guns Save Lives

Read More

Gallup: Record 63% Say Having Gun Makes Home Safer

Sixty-three percent of Americans questioned in a Gallup survey conducted in October and released this month said they believe having a gun in their house makes it a safer place to be.

“A record-high percentage in U.S. say guns makes homes safer,” said Gallup in its analysis of the survey. The organization has polled on this issue in five surveys going back to 1993 (although the question in the 1993 survey was somewhat different than in later surveys).

CNS News

Read More

Father of five with a .45 fatally shoots intruder armed with 9mm

A father of five opened fire on an armed intruder who entered his Nashville home in broad daylight Tuesday morning.

John McCormick was home with his wife and five children when the suspect, who was armed with a 9mm handgun and had his face covered with a bandanna, walked in through an unlocked door at about 9 a.m. The suspect then demanded cash and other valuables, according to reports from local media.

“He said, ‘I’ve been itching to bust somebody,'” McCormick told reporters.

Guns

Read More

Clerk with gun fends off robber with knife

LANCASTER – A store clerk said she feared for her life when she fired a shot at a steak knife-wielding masked man attempting to rob the store before he ran out Monday night, she told Lancaster police.

"I fired one shot at him and I missed him," the City Center Drive Thru clerk said, sounding scared and breathless during the 911 call.

The clerk described the masked man as about 5 feet 7 inches tall with a medium build, wearing black sweatpants and a gray hooded sweatshirt with a mask that also seemed to be made out of sweatshirt material with two eye holes cut out. She said it looked like the man was wearing sunglasses under the mask.

Lancaster Eagle-Gazette

Read More

82 Year Old Homeowner Shoots Female Home Invader, Second Suspect Captured

An 82 year old man in Mississippi used a .38 caliber handgun to defend himself from a woman and her boyfriend who claimed they were delivering meals as a ploy to attempt to gain access to the man’s home.

According to local media reports,

That woman had come to his home several times in the past couple of weeks.

Guns Save Lives

Read More
Q&A On The Veterans Disarmament Act
-- How the new law will affect your constituents

(January 10, 2008)

President Bush signed the Veterans Disarmament Act (HR 2640) into law this week, a bill that would disarm hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Americans -- not to mention military veterans!

The bill passed Congress last month as most Americans were preparing for the Christmas holidays. It was December 19. Most Congressmen had left town and were either at the airport or in the air returning home. They weren't in Washington, DC, because their party leadership had told them that all the major votes were over... that the only legislative business left related to non-controversial issues, such as when Congress would return from Christmas break, etc.

But it was then, with most of the Congress gone, that the House and Senate passed the Veterans Disarmament Act without a recorded vote. It was a huge deja vu, as this was the method that a previous Democratic Congress used -- together with compliant Republicans -- to pass the original Brady Law in 1993.

WHAT DOES THE LAW DO IN GENERAL?

It would be a mistake to under-react -- or over-react -- to the passage of the Veterans Disarmament Act. On the bad side, this law statutorily validates BATFE regulations which could potentially disarm millions of Americans. This is a VERY DANGEROUS turn of events which will have huge ramifications over the next several decades.

The extent to which its unconstitutional potential will be realized will be clear only over time -- and perhaps a long time -- and will depend on whether pro-gunners or anti-gunners are in power. For example, it took a full thirty years for language in the 1968 Gun Control Act to be used to disarm veterans.

On the other hand, a few modest concessions were obtained which should provide some protection to gun owners -- though NOT NEARLY ENOUGH PROTECTION TO JUSTIFY SUPPORT of this law.

So having said that, what are the implications of this legislation for Americans with psychiatric diagnoses?

Although we succeeded in forcing the deletion of the ratification of the BATF regulations, per se, section 101 (c) (1) (C) contains new language which could make someone a "prohibited person" (unable to own a gun) based solely on a medical finding (by a psychiatrist or psychologist), provided:

    * That he or she had "an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority"; and

    * In the future, that one had notice that he or she would be made a "prohibited person" as a result of the agency action (section 101 (c) (3)).

However, even these modest gains have severe limitations. Up to 140,000 veterans had their gun rights taken away as a result of a diagnosis of a mental disorder such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). But this new law does not require two important things for those 140,000 people:

1. The new law does not require that a veteran needed to have any knowledge of the ramifications of the "diagnosis" in the past -- and the fact that this diagnosis could disarm him or her for life. How many veterans suffering from PTSD simply went to Veterans Affairs, hoping to get treatment, but now face a lifetime gun ban because of the new law?

2. Also, the act does not require that the disarmed vets even knew they had a right to appeal their diagnosis. Many of the 140,000 Americans who have now lost their Second Amendment rights first received a letter from Veterans Affairs telling them that, due to their diagnosis, a "guardian" was being appointed for them to handle their affairs. As stated above, how many vets realized that this action would deem them as "mental defective" under the 1968 Gun Control Act and strip them of their gun rights?

Moreover, how many vets realized they could challenge this action by appealing the diagnosis? If they didn't realize the significance of this VA letter, most likely, the vets did nothing, as they were more concerned with getting the monetary benefits that such a diagnosis would bring. But, whether they knew these things or not, this new law would still validate the removal of their Second Amendment rights.

HOW WILL THE LAW AFFECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS?

If a person has been subject to a psychological or psychiatric diagnosis, the following may be helpful:

    * A diagnosis by a private doctor -- with no government involvement -- will probably cause one no problems.

    * The biggest danger remains the danger for veterans, as mentioned above. And even though the language of this law could conceivably disarm adults who were diagnosed as kids with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program, seniors on Medicare with Alzheimer's, etc., we know of no active efforts to disarm persons in these cases -- yet.

    * The likelihood that new classes of people will be disarmed will be directly related to the ease of accomplishing this though a computer keyboard. If a person's file exists only on microfiche in a dusty basement cabinet, one is relatively safe for now -- although, keep in mind, the new law calls for monies to be spent on collecting and updating records like this.

    * Obviously, the question of whether a gun hater or Second Amendment supporter is in the White House on January 20, 2009, will have a lot to do with how vigorously this new statute is enforced.

WHAT CAN PEOPLE DO IF THEY’RE ILLEGITIMATELY DENIED A GUN?

In the unlikely event that a person can get their diagnosis "set aside," "expunged," or found to no longer exist, one can regain their rights. [See section 101 (c) (1) (A) & (B).]

The McClure-Volkmer "relief from disabilities" provisions which have been blocked by Congress for 15 years have been reinstated and expanded -- so that they will now exist in the broader range of state and federal agencies which this law will allow to make one a prohibited person. Pursuant to negotiations over GOA's objections, we were able to secure very modest improvements which:

    * Would allow individuals to sue to get their rights restored if the agency sat on their appeal for 365 days;

    * Would allow people to get their legal fees if they prevail against the agency in court;

    * Would prevent Congress from defunding these efforts in the same way it defunded McClure-Volkmer -- by requiring the 3% of state funds under this law be used for these "relief from disabilities" programs.

But here's the major loophole in all of this. What minimal gains were granted by the "right hand" was taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides a process for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in subsection (a)(2), the law stipulates that such relief may occur only if "the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST." (Emphasis added.)

This language sounds similar to those state codes (like California's) that have "may issue" concealed carry laws -- where citizens "technically" have the right to carry, but state law only says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry. When given such leeway, those sheriffs usually don't grant the permits!

As we have predicted before: liberal states -- the same states that took these people's rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that granting relief would be "contrary to the public interest."

--GOA--

Op-Ed Articles