• The Liar-in-Chief Goes After Guns Once Again

  • Your Activism is Killing Gun Control

  • House to vote on Gun Control This Week

  • CNN and Harry Reid are Not Happy with GOA

  • Victory in Colorado & Oklahoma; McCain on the Run

  • Victory So Far…

  • Still Time to Oppose the Latest Anti-Gun C.R.A.P. Amendment

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

GOA News

  • AG Reinforces AWB
  • Gun Free Zones
  • Pro-Gun Short Film
  • Open Carry in Ohio
  • Praesidium

Attorney general launches new crackdown on rifles.


"Maura Healey is likely to embarrass herself as much as the legislators who voted for the state’s gun ban already have,”  Larry Pratt GOA Executive Director Emeritus said.


Read More

The Stupidity of Gun Free Zones


"Because I value human life, I want to protect myself and others from people who are evil," Jordan Stein said.


Read More

Film exposes 'gun-free zones' as 'unarmed-victim zones'


Gun Owners of America has released a short film portraying the real problem that governments, schools and others are trying to address by banning guns in specific areas, what critics describe as “unarmed victim” zones.


Read More

Open Carry in Ohio


Pratt said his bigger concern is that people with valid permits to carry concealed guns will not be allowed to take their weapons into the convention hall. 


Read More

WATCH: Short Film ‘Praesidium’ Highlights Danger Of Gun-Free Zones

Gun Owners of America has teamed up with production company Reel Clef to release the short film Praesidium, a film that powerfully highlights the dangers of gun-free zones and the need for armed self-defense.

Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • Robbery Stopped
  • Open Carry
  • Media Silent
  • Armed Woman
  • Armed Homeowner

Robber with AK-47 shot by Waffle House customer, DeSoto police say

DeSoto police have identified the suspect in an aggravated robbery at a Waffle House last week.

About 2:30 a.m. Thursday, police were called to the Waffle House in the 1500 block of North Beckley Avenue, where they found a man shot in the parking lot.

Read More

Oregon Open Carrier Stops Armed Robbery

An Oregon open carrier stopped an armed robbery suspect who demanded money at knife point. Out for a stroll with his girl, Jason Rorex ran into someone who’d inadvertently brought a knife to a gunfight. As kezi.com reports, when a miscreant demanded Rorex’s money,

Read More

This Concealed Carrier Just Stopped A Mass Shooting At A Night Club, And The Media Remained Silent

On June 12, a Muslim terrorist attacked a gay night club called Pulse in Orlando, Florida, killing 49 and wounding 53 in a three-hour ordeal that was the nation’s most drawn-out mass killing, and the deadliest domestic terror attack since 9/11.

Read More

Home Invader Poops Himself, Hides Behind Door After Being Shot by Armed Woman

A man in Ocala, Florida is recovering from a gunshot wound today after being shot by an armed homeowner during a home invasion. 27 year old Victor Alex Etherington is currently in intensive care at an area hospital.

Read More

Bad Guy Makes Fatal Mistake Of Raising His Gun To An Armed Homeowner

When confronting a stranger in your own home, the shock of seeing a gun leveled at you in the dark of night is probably greater than you wondering whether or not it’s a BB gun. That’s understandably what likely went through the mind of one Oklahoma City homeowner who confronted not one but three individuals breaking into his home at approximately 12:35 am. For Robert Sango, the 24-year-old holding the BB gun, it was a fatal underestimation of his prey.

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