• Will Obama be Forced to Swallow a Repeal of the AR-15 Ammo Ban?

  • Will Sen. McConnell force the ATF to cry “uncle” on the AR-15 Ammo Ban?

  • ATF Seeks to Suppress AR-15’s by Banning Common AR-15 Ammo

  • GOA-backed “Constitutional Carry” Bills Introduced in Congress!

    -- Urge your congressmen to cosponsor the Stutzman bill Read More
  • Marco Rubio Introduces Bill to Destroy Operation Choke Point

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Legislative Action Center LINK

facebook_icontwitter_iconyoutube_icon

GOA News

  • Concealed Carry
  • Coast-to-Coast
  • Constitutional Crisis
  • United Nations
  • Rev. Schenck

Gun groups launch new push for concealed-carry legislation

Gun rights groups are gearing up for a major push to move concealed-carry legislation through the new Republican Congress….

Second Amendment advocates are throwing their weight behind the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, a bill introduced in both chambers of Congress that would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines….

Read More

Constitutional Carry Bills Advancing from Coast-to-Coast

The concept of “constitutional carry” is simple:  An individual's ability to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights shouldn't depend on a “permit” from the government.

Currently, there are six states that allow permitless carry throughout all or most of their jurisdictions.

This week in New Hampshire, the full Senate will be taking up SB 116, a constitutional carry bill which previously passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 3-1 vote.

Read More

An Unprecedented Constitutional Crisis
by Tim Macy

What if a man ascended to the presidency who was so ruthless in his desire to transform the United States to his bidding that the restraints of the Constitution became irrelevant to him?  

What if his sycophantic Attorney General excused his law-breaking, while his regulators sought to destroy his political opposition?  

What if his vicar in the Senate obliterated the Senate rules in order to pack the courts with toadies and go-fers who existed to do the President's bidding?

Read More

2nd Amendment threatened in Obama's trade plans


Take Action Today!

Contact your Senators and Representative.  Ask them to oppose giving Barack Obama the unbridled authority to impose back-door, UN-styled gun control!


UNITED NATIONS – Giving President Obama fast-track authority to conclude an international trade agreement is like playing Russian roulette with six bullets in the chamber, says one of America’s leading gun rights organizations.

Gun Owners of America is blasting a congressional proposal that empowers Obama to unilaterally negotiate international agreements as “a ‘bait and switch’ scheme that could seriously impact the Second Amendment.”

Read More

The Right to Defend Your Family is a “Pro-Life” Value
by Erich Pratt

USA Today isn't exactly a close ally of either the pro-life or Second Amendment movements. So it’s not surprising that on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the newspaper published an opinion piece by Pastor Rob Schenck trying to pick a fight between the two communities. 

That's not going to happen.

Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • College Student
  • Texas Man
  • Viral Video
  • Arby Customer
  • Throat-Slashing Psycho

College Student Says She’s Glad Her Dad Gave Her The Gun She Used To Fight Off Armed Home Invaders 

A University of Central Florida student says she’s glad her dad gave her a gun to take to school after she needed one to confront two violent home invaders who held her boyfriend at gun point and threatened her life.

Sable Nehme and her boyfriend, Nour Skargee, answered a knock at their off-campus apartment Tuesday. When they opened the door, two men burst in, WFTV reported.

One of the men pointed a gun at Skargee and ordered him to the ground.

“They said ‘we’re going to kill your girl,’” said Skargee, who also attends UCF. “That’s when I really lost hope, you know.”

Nehme told WFTV that she ran to the couple’s bedroom and tried to lock the door.

Read More

Anti-Gun Advocates Routinely Ask Why Anyone Would Ever Need More Than 10 Bullets — Texas Man Now Has a Good Reason

A man in Tomball, Texas, was startled out of his sleep by the sound of someone kicking in his front door on Monday night.

He quickly retrieved his firearm, ready defend his life and property — though he likely didn’t anticipate the intense firefight that would occur.

Two suspects and homeowner traded more than 30 shots during the aggressive home invasion, KHOU-TV reports.

Harris County Assistant Chief Deputy Mark Herman told KPRC-TV that the homeowner was “in fear for his life” when he opened fire on the suspects who invaded his home. He couldn’t confirm whether anyone was hit by gunfire during the exchange.

Read More

Viral Video: Proof That Guns Save Lives Compilation

This compilation video of news stories and videos of gun owners refusing to become victims is a great resource.  In many cases simply the presence of a gun sends the criminals scurrying. Scroll down to watch the video.

Read More

Armed Arby’s Customer Stops Knife-Wielding Robber

A Utah man who just wanted to order food at an Arby’s restaurant ended up thwarting a robbery attempt by a knife-wielding woman with a criminal history.

It happened at around noon on Sunday when, according to the Deseret News, the customer was placing his order in the drive-thru of the Vernal roast beef sandwich franchise.

When the man realized that the cashier was not responding to him he pulled out of the drive-thru, parked his truck, and went inside the store to order his food there.

In the store, one of the cashiers mouthed to him the words “We’re being robbed.”

Read More

Woman Fires Gun, Sends Throat-Slashing Psycho Running for His Life

Alleged throat-slitting psycho Ronald Kaehne was charged with two counts of attempted first degree homicide after the slasher murders he’s planned in his journal didn’t go quite the way he’d hoped, and he was forced to flee or his life before he could kill his intended victims.

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