• Gun Rights on the Chopping-Block as Early as Next Week

  • Massie Bill Would Keep Our Kids Safe

  • Battle over Loretta Lynch Nomination Gets ‘Curiouser and Curiouser’

    -- Call, email and show up at Town Hall meetings of your Senators Read More
  • Pro-gunners Squeak Out a 2-0 Victory in the Senate

    -- Rubio & Jordan introduce bill to repeal D.C. gun ban Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Legislative Action Center LINK

facebook_icontwitter_iconyoutube_icon

GOA News

  • Against Lynch
  • Guns
  • Shut Down UN
  • CCW Reciprocity
  • Budget Battle

Demand that Loretta Lynch require 60 votes in order to invoke cloture on her nomination!

Senator Mitch McConnell
Majority Leader
United States Senate
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1702

Read More

We Like Our Guns 

Independence Day is still a few months away, but that didn’t stop Americans from recently celebrating a fantastic anniversary.

Read More

GOA-backed Amendment Could “Potentially Shut Down Parts of the United Nations”

Several gun owner rights victories have occurred recently in the united States Senate, including a vote that shut down the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. Among those victories is Senator Jim Inhofe's amendment, which Gun Owners of America claims has the potential to shut down parts of the United Nations if they stay on course with the ATT.

First, Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) added a committee amendment to deal with Obama's DOJ and their anti-gun Operation Choke Point. As a result, the bill wasn't even taken out on the floor of the senate. Well done, Senator Crapo.

Read More

Constitutional Carry Reciprocity Advances 2nd Amendment Rights

Recently, some of our good friends issued a statement criticizing federal reciprocity legislation.  We agree with them that the Nugent bill (H.R. 402) has problems, because it would force Americans in “constitutional carry” states to obtain permits in order to exercise their God-given rights. 

Read More

GOA rallies its members as gun debate heats up in Senate budget battle

Gun rights groups are rallying their members behind a series of budget measures aimed at strengthening the Second Amendment and restricting gun control efforts. 

As the Senate debates the federal government’s 2016 budget, Republicans and gun advocates are pushing for a number of amendments that would expand concealed-carry laws and block the Obama administration from issuing what opponents call a “backdoor” ban on guns.

Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • Detroit Woman
  • Shoots Suspect
  • 30+ Shots
  • Defensive Gun Use
  • Intruder Shot

Detroit woman shoots at 3 intruders; 1 in custody, 2 on run

DETROIT - A woman on Detroit's east side shot at three males who were breaking into her home Tuesday afternoon, striking one of them.

Detroit police say one person -- the person who was shot -- is in custody while they are actively searching for the other two.

Read More

Man Intervenes for Wheelchair-Bound Neighbor, Shoots Suspect

On March 3, a Little Rock, Arkansas, man witnessed two suspects allegedly breaking into the home of his neighbor, who is “elderly and wheelchair-bound.” He armed himself and intervened, shooting one of the suspects.

According to Arkansas Matters, when the armed citizen–Charles Dorsey–saw two suspects breaking into his neighbor’s home, he “asked his sister to call 911.”

Read More

Magazine Capacity Matters – Homeowner Exchanges 30+ Shots With Home Invader

This story is a perfect example of why magazine capacity matters. Sure, most of the defensive gun uses we report on this site are over and done with just a few rounds (or no rounds fired at all). However, there are situations where you might find yourself in a battle for your life and every round in that magazine will count.

Read More

Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Terminal Recidivism Edition

Years before a coroner pronounced 31-year-old Jermoid Wheeler dead after trying to break into a home, he had been sentenced to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery. He was given credit for time served and released in June 2014, after serving just half of his term. According to court documents, Wheeler’s criminal record dates all the way back to 2004 and includes drug charges, domestic abuse and armed robbery . . .

Read More

Police: Homeowner exercised ‘constitutional right’ when he shot intruder

A Columbus, Ohio, homeowner fatally shot a man after he kicked in his front door Friday morning, and police say the man was most likely justified in his actions.

The 71-year-old homeowner called 911 just after before noon, according to reports from local media.

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