• 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
John McCain's Lobbying Reform Provisions Unconstitutional And Would Protect Corruption
by Mark Fitzgibbons

Editor's note: trashing the First Amendment rights of groups like GOA in 2002 with the infamous McCain-Feingold law -- better known as the Incumbent Protection Act -- wasn't enough for Sen. McCain. He's back for more in 2006 with S. 2128, the Gag Act.

Proposed regulation of the grassroots, such as Section 110 of S. 2128 (the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act), with similar provisions in counterpart bills before the House of Representatives, would harm America.

Not only does such regulation abridge freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people to peaceably assemble, to petition the Government for redress of grievances, and to exercise our respective faiths, but such regulation would actually protect the corruptive influences that these lobbying and ethics reform bills are purportedly intended to fix.

Through the grassroots, citizens across the country assemble peaceably, though perhaps not always politely, on political and social matters of importance to them. The problems Congress purports to cure through its recent efforts are the quid pro quo of legislation for gifts or other "consideration." Whatever the problems inside the Beltway, none of those problems can be blamed on too much citizen participation in public policy matters. Any efforts to regulate the grassroots, therefore, are misplaced.

The grassroots, of course, are the People. They are whom Justice William Brennan called "citizen-critic[s] of government." More than merely critics of government, the grassroots are populist means of criticizing corporations, even entire industries. They are critics of the institutional, mainstream media as well as critics of the new and alternative media. Grassroots organizations are critics even of other grassroots organizations.

S. 2128 would require registration and reporting of "paid" efforts to "stimulate" the grassroots. Section 110 of the bill defines these as efforts "to influence the general public... to contact one or more... legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials... to take specific action" on matters of public policy. "Attempts to influence" 500 or more citizens by any person or entity receiving or spending $25,000 or more in any quarter trigger these grassroots lobbying registration and reporting requirements.

The thresholds triggering registration and reporting may be met by the placement of just one media ad or just the postage for one direct mail letter mailed nationally. It is not merely that these thresholds are low; they are unconstitutional. These provisions directly violate the "constitutional rights" identified in 2 U.S.C. 1607(a) of the underlying lobbying registration statute that S. 2128 amends (not that constitutional rights need statutory recitation of the fact that they exist). What possibly could have made these constitutional rights fall out of favor since 1995, when the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities bill was first passed?

The registration requirements are a prior restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights, and the reporting requirements are burdens on such rights, with civil and even criminal sanctions in some of the legislative proposals for failure to register and report. Registration is a prior restraint because failure to register within a set period of agreeing to engage in such rights sets off penalties. Speech and press rights must therefore obtain government clearance in advance of communications being issued.

James Madison, in describing the distinction between the American version of a free printing press versus the British version, said that

    a law inflicting penalties on printed publications would have a similar effect with a law authorizing a previous restraint on them. It would seem a mockery to say that no laws should be passed preventing publications from being made, but that laws may be passed for punishing them in case they should be made.

Section 110 of S. 2128 is a prior restraint. Section 106 of the bill amending 2 U.S.C. 1606 would create substantial penalties for that to which all Americans have guaranteed and constitutionally protected rights "paramount to laws," as Madison said.

Such regulation would stifle speech, but more so, it would effectively censor small, start-up and unpopular causes already strapped for cash. These bills would treat small and unpopular citizen causes the same as large corporations hiring high-priced K Street lobbyists, and would penalize or completely shut out some of the most valuable means of citizens protecting their own freedoms.

It is well-settled law that paid efforts to engage in First Amendment rights merit no fewer constitutional protections than unpaid volunteer efforts. Journalists who receive paychecks are no less protected than unpaid bloggers.

The paid ads of the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King "communicated information, expressed opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and sought financial support on behalf of a movement whose existence and objectives are matters of the highest public interest and concern." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 266 (1964). Such "editorial advertisements," of course cost money to prepare, to place, to print and to disseminate. They are "the promulgation of information and ideas by persons who do not themselves have access to publishing facilities -- who wish to exercise their freedom of speech even though they are not members of the press." Id.

There are many other examples, too long to list in this letter, of why "paid" efforts to engage in protected First Amendment activity are not only as protected constitutionally, but are as important and as valuable as unpaid efforts. For example, paid efforts to circulate petitions are "core political speech" subject to the "zenith" of First Amendment protections. See, Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 421–422 (1988). The bottom line is that First Amendment protections of speech, the printing press, petitioning and association rights are not lost merely because it costs money to communicate in today's world of mass media.

Regulating "paid" efforts to stimulate grassroots activity merely gives the appearance that Members of Congress and their respective Republican and Democratic Party committees would prefer for their own professional political consultants to have a leg up in the marketplace of ideas and donations. Members of Congress may already send communications at taxpayer expense under their "free" franking privileges, and as 535 of the most important people in the country, easily have more access to express their views for free through the mainstream media.

Costs of compliance with quarterly reporting requirements will effectively reduce the ability of marginal grassroots efforts to communicate, and will silence cash-strapped unpopular causes. Corporations and large, established causes that are already wealthy will be able to comply. Thus, your bills would effectively silence some critics and allow the wealthier ones to communicate. Such censorship through regulation merely protects the corruptive influences inside the Beltway.

Since the apparent ethics issues are the quid pro quo, it seems that a better solution, and certainly one without constitutional prohibitions, would be to require Members of Congress who sponsor legislation or amendments to sign, under penalties of perjury, that such legislation is submitted without gifts or promises of some consideration.

The expansion of the grassroots these past 40 years has empowered Americans, and that is a good thing. The grassroots are the very antithesis of corruptive influences inside the Beltway. Whatever the solution to the complex problems of congressional ethics, a vote to regulate the grassroots would be the equivalent of a vote to protect the corruptive influences.

Op-Ed Articles