• GOA Publishes its 2016 Congressional Rating

  • Are You Registered?

  • Republican Leaders Capitulate to Obama; Trump Stumbles in Debate

  • Constitutional Carry Continues Advancing, and Other Great News for Gun Owners!

  • Obama moves to Transfer Effective Control of the Internet to the United Nations

  • Keep Up the Pressure for Concealed Carry Reciprocity

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6

GOA News

  • Clinton’s Five Point Plan
  • Obama’s Parting Shots
  • GOA's Legal Defense Team Goes to Bat
  • Gun-Show Customers’ License Plates
  • Trump Agrees with Clinton

Tim Macy: Hillary Clinton’s Five Point Plan to Destroy the Second Amendment

"If Hillary wins, you can all but kiss the Court's recognition of that individual right goodbye. But Hillary Clinton’s attack on the Second Amendment involves more than just stacking the courts with anti-gunners." - Tim Macy, Chairman of Gun Owners of America

Read More

Obama’s Parting Shots

"Obama administration moves to put gunsmiths out of business,” GOA said in a headline. “Gun owners understand that, notwithstanding the Obama administration’s dishonest protests to the contrary, the clear intention of this regulation is to effectively make gunsmithing illegal.”

Read More

GOA's Legal Defense Team Goes to Bat for Constitutional Rights of Gun Owners

"GOA's legal team has submitted an amicus brief in this Supreme Court case, Manuel v. Joliet, on the basis that protecting the Fourth Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans will ultimately protect the rights of gun owners to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Read More

Gun-Show Customers’ License Plates Come Under Scrutiny

"Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said his group also opposes such surveillance. “Information on law-abiding gun owners ends up getting recorded, stored, and registered, which is a violation of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act and of the Second Amendment,” Mr. Pratt said."

Read More

Donald Trump Agrees with Clinton that People on Watch Lists Should Potentially be Barred from Buying Guns

“The problem with secret government watch lists is that they are full of non-criminals,” [GOA's Erich] Pratt said. “No one should lose their rights, including those protected by the Second Amendment, without being convicted in a court of law.”

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.


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.


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.


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."


Self-Defense Corner

  • Armed Robber Becomes Target
  • Bank Robbery Foiled
  • Homeowner Shoots Burglar
  • Vet Shoots Intruder
  • Pastor Saved By Wife

Armed Robber Goes To Walmart, Becomes Target

An armed robber went up to a Walmart employee sitting in his car before his shift started, pulled a weapon, and told the employee to, “give him everything.”

Read More

Concealed Carrier Defends Himself And Others Against Bank Robber

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA — A concealed carrier was waiting patiently to deposit a check at a local branch of Wells Fargo when a bank robber rudely cut in front of him. The bank robber allegedly told all the customers to get in the corner and wait while he turned his attention to the bank teller. After complying with the bank robber’s initial request, the concealed carrier drew his pistol and fired a shot — missing the bank robber and hitting the couch behind him.

Read More

Texas Homeowner Shoots Burglar — Burglar Confesses To Crime While Being Treated For Gunshot

DALLAS, TEXAS — James Nero, 30, broke into a Dallas man’s home in broad daylight and was shot by the homeowner. He fled the scene but later was forced to surrender to police in order to seek treatment for his gunshot wound. He confessed to attempting to burglarize the man’s home and was charged by Dallas police.

Read More

71-Year-Old Disabled Vet Shoots Home Invasion Suspect

A 71-year-old disabled veteran protected himself, shooting and wounding a home invasion suspect who refused to stand still when ordered to freeze.

Read More

Pastor’s Wife Shoots Would-Be Robber Who Beat Her Husband with Rifle

On September 15 a pastor’s wife in Philadelphia opened fire on an alleged assailant as her husband yelled, “Shoot him, Shoot him.”

Read More

GOA Media Clips




The Lie Behind Gun Free Zones | Video

Limited Time Offer

1 oz., .999 pure silver coin.

Gun News