• 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
McCain's Constitution
by George Will
as seen at Townhall.com

Presidents swear to "protect and defend the Constitution." The Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." On April 28, on Don Imus' radio program, discussing the charge that the McCain-Feingold law abridges freedom of speech by regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech, John McCain did not really reject the charge:

    I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government.

Question: Were McCain to take the presidential oath, what would he mean?

In his words to Imus, note the obvious disparagement he communicates by putting verbal quotation marks around "First Amendment rights." Those nuisances.

Then ponder his implicit promise to "complete the job" of cleansing Washington of corruption, as McCain understands that. Unfortunately, although McCain is loquacious about corruption, he is too busy deploring it to define it. Mister Straight Talk is rarely reticent about anything, but is remarkably so about specifics: He says corruption is pandemic among incumbent politicians, yet he has never identified any corrupt fellow senator.

Anyway, he vows to "complete the job" of extirpating corruption, regardless of the cost to freedom of speech. Regardless, that is, of how much more the government must supervise political advocacy. President McCain would, it is reasonable to assume, favor increasingly stringent limits on what can be contributed to, or spent by, campaigns. Furthermore, McCain seems to regard unregulated political speech as an inherent invitation to corruption. And he seems to believe that anything done in the name of "leveling the playing field" for political competition is immune from First Amendment challenges.

The logic of his doctrine would cause him to put the power of the presidency behind efforts to clamp government controls on Internet advocacy. This is because the speech regulators' impulse is increasingly untethered from concern with corruption. It is extending to regulation in the name of "fairness." Bob Bauer, a Democratic lawyer, says this about the metastasizing government regulation of campaigns:

    More and more, it is meant to regulate any money with the potential of influencing elections; and so any unregulated but influential money, in whichever way its influence is felt or achieved, is unfair. This explains the hand-wringing horror with which the reform community approached the Internet's fast-growing use and limitless potential.

This is why the banner of "campaign reform" is no longer waved only by insurgents from outside the political establishment. Washington's most powerful people carry the banner: Led by Speaker Dennis Hastert, and with the president's approval, the Republican-controlled House recently voted to cripple the ability of citizens' groups called 527s (named after the provision of the tax code under which they are organized) to conduct independent advocacy that Washington's ruling class considers "unfair."

Which highlights the stark contradiction in McCain's doctrine and the media's applause of it. He and they assume, simultaneously, the following two propositions:

Proof that incumbent politicians are highly susceptible to corruption is the fact that the government they control is shot through with it. Yet that government should be regarded as a disinterested arbiter, untainted by politics and therefore qualified to regulate the content, quantity and timing of speech in campaigns that determine who controls the government. In the language of McCain's Imus appearance, the government is very much not "clean," but is so clean it can be trusted to regulate speech about itself.

McCain hopes that in 2008 pro-life Republicans will remember his pro-life record. But they will know that, regarding presidents and abortion, what matters are Supreme Court nominees. McCain favors judges who think the Constitution is so radically elastic that government regulation of speech about itself is compatible with the First Amendment. So Republican primary voters will wonder: Can President McCain be counted on to nominate justices who would correct such constitutional elasticities as the court's discovery of a virtually unlimited right -- one unnoticed between 1787 and 1973 -- to abortion?

McCain told Imus that he would, if necessary, sacrifice "quote First Amendment rights" to achieve "clean" government. If on Jan. 20, 2009, he were to swear to defend the Constitution, would he be thinking that the oath refers only to "the quote Constitution"? And what would that mean?

--------
George F. Will is a 1976 Pulitzer Prize winner, whose columns are syndicated in more than 400 magazines and newspapers worldwide.

Op-Ed Articles