• Does Your Representative Support Concealed Carry Reciprocity?

  • Will Some Pro-gun Reps. Try to Kill Constitutional Carry?

  • Should Your Right to Carry End at the State Border?

  • Gun Rights Continue to Advance

  • Congressman Asking for Help to Advance His Pro-Gun Bill

  • More Good News for Gun Rights

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6

GOA News

  • Merrick Garland really is anti-gun
  • Hillary to Thank Trump?
  • Across Borders
  • Victory Over Bloomberg
  • Don't Shred the Constitution

The usual gaggle of anti-gun suspects has come out of the woodwork to attack the “gun lobby” for its opposition to any action on behalf of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

Coupled with their typical protestations that their attacks on Second Amendment advocates are not attacks on the Second Amendment itself, their words are laden with half-truths and selectively culled “facts.”

But the truth is simple. Second Amendment issues have come before Garland, at least four times. He voted anti-gun every time.

Read More

Hillary Could Owe Donald Big if She Wins White House

If Hillary Clinton wins the White House in November, she will almost certainly have won Virginia.  And if she wins Virginia, she owes a huge debt of thanks to her old pal, Donald J. Trump.

Read More

Gun Owners of America: Right To Carry Doesn’t Stop At State’s Border


"It’s time that our laws stop punishing law-abiding citizens like Shaneen Allen, who simply want to carry self-defense guns while traveling. The Stutzman-Cornyn bills are the best way to do this, as they will protect the rights of any honest citizen who wants to carry a firearm across state lines — even citizens who live in Constitutional Carry states." - Erich Pratt, Executive Director of GOA


Read More

Gun Owners of America Claims Victory over ‘Bloomberg’s Billions’


 “For all the talk about Bloomberg’s billions, Daddy Warbucks had his lunch handed to him in Idaho and West Virginia,” GOA’s Erich Pratt told Breitbart News.


Read More

No, Senators, You Don’t have to Honor Garland’s Efforts to Shred the Second Amendment


"No, senators, you don’t have to dignify this contempt for the Constitution by meeting with [Merrick Garland].  And you don't have to give him a platform for another phony photo-op.

"If you want, Gun Owners of America will send you a bag of shredded Constitutions.  This will tell you more than Garland would about his judicial philosophy."



Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • Stopped with Shotgun
  • Stopped at the Door
  • Not Today
  • Held at Gunpoint
  • Not this Time

Armed Robbers Stopped by 11-year-old Girl With a Shotgun Sentenced

A man and woman who committed an armed robbery stopped by a shotgun wielding 11-year-old girl have been sentenced in Michigan.

Read More

Woman fatally shoots man kicking in front door while waiting for police

A Kansas City homeowner, who said she feared for her life, shot and killed a man after he kicked down her door late Wednesday night.

Read More

Salon Employee Pulls Gun on Armed Robber: “Not Today!”

A man committing what police believe was a string of robberies throughout Dayton and Kettering, Ohio was free to continue his crime spree, hitting several local businesses within a span of about fifteen minutes without any opposition.

Read More

Armed Citizen Holds Church Burglary Suspect at Gunpoint

On April 4 Tampa, Florida’s WFLA published video of a church maintenance worker holding a suspected church burglar at gunpoint until police arrived.

Read More

Elderly Man On Oxygen Tank Retrieves Gun, Shoots Alleged Intruder

On March 31 an elderly man on oxygen was allegedly attacked by two men in his home, but he stopped the attack by grabbing his gun and shooting one of the suspects in the abdomen.

Read More

The Veterans Disarmament Act DOES Change Federal Law

Those who want to claim that there is no "Veterans Disarmament Act" ignore, first of all, that up to 140,000 veterans have ALREADY BEEN DISARMED by using twisted interpretations of the federal code. That figure was released on August 1 by Congress' own research team -- the Congressional Research Service.

Furthermore, the so-called "school safety" bill that Senators Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer are pushing would LEGITIMIZE the very practice that began with President Clinton, when his administration began adding military vets onto the NICS roles. (The bill is numbered H.R. 2640 in the House and S. 2084 in the Senate.)

The fact is, this legislation rubber-stamps illegal regulations -- that have been issued by the BATFE -- which go far beyond current statutes. The net result is that Section 203(2) of S. 2084 ends up outlawing guns for millions of people (including veterans) who are not "currently prohibited" from owning guns.

BATFE's illegal regs can be found at 27 C.F.R. 478.11. These regs state that a person is permanently prohibited from owning a gun if "any lawful authority" (including a government psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) holds that he represents "any" risk to himself or others or is unable to manage his affairs. And in a letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE states that "any danger" -- not just a "substantial" or "imminent" danger -- is enough to make you a "prohibited person."

While this standard is INCONSISTENT with the existing federal code (see 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4)), it would become the statutory law of the land if H.R. 2640 or S. 2084 is passed. This is because both bills hold that whatever BATFE regulations are pending at the time the legislation is passed into law would automatically have the force of statutory law.

Section 203(2) in the Senate bill -- and Section 3(2) in the House bill -- codifies rogue BATFE interpretations and makes them the statutory law of the land. Both sections state, "The terms 'adjudicated as a mental defective,' 'committed to a mental institution,' and related terms HAVE THE MEANINGS GIVEN THOSE TERMS IN [BATFE] REGULATIONS implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act." [Emphasis added.]

The history of this debate goes back to the 1968 Gun Control Act, which makes an individual a "prohibited person" if he is "adjudicated as a mental defective." That law did not make a person a prohibited person because he or she was merely diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, Alzheimer's, ADHD, bipolar disorder, and so forth by a government psychologist or psychiatrist in the VA, Medicare, or the IDEA program. However, that would all change with the Veterans Disarmament Act, as it will CODIFY regulations that BATFE has issued.

One should also understand that two legal terms have been radically redefined in the Veterans Disarmament Act to carry out this vicious attack on veterans' gun rights.

One term relates to who is classified a "mental defective." Forty years ago that term meant one was so incapacitated that he was adjudicated "not guilty" in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, "mental defective" has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.1

The second term is "adjudicate." In the past, one could only lose one's gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court -- in other words, only after constitutional "due process." Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one’s accuser. Now, adjudication in the Veterans Disarmament Act would include a "determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" (namely, government-sanctioned psychiatrists).2

Some supporters of the bill have argued that, under the rules of "ejusdem generis," the phrase "lawful authority" could not include individual psychologists, etc. There are two answers to this:

* The first is that a significant portion of the nearly 140,000 veterans have had their names placed in NICS without a finding by any court or magistrate. And the problem is still going on today with other honorable veterans. We don't need for people to tell us that it couldn't happen, because it is happening -- tens of thousands of times.

* The second is that, if "lawful authority" cannot be interpreted to mean individual psychologists, psychiatrists, etc., we presume then that Chuck Schumer and Carolyn McCarthy will have no problem with a GOA amendment providing that an "adjudication" can be made only by a court, magistrate, or other judicial branch authority offering due process.

GOA believes that the Clinton and Bush administration's actions in illegitimately turning over the names of roughly 140,000 veterans (suffering from PTSD, etc.) was an illegal act, which should be condemned, reversed, and prosecuted. It should not be rubber-stamped by legislation which would take this illegality and statutorily validate it and future similar illegal acts.

 


1 As stated above, the Veterans Disarmament Act stretches the definition of "mental defective" by codifying the BATFE regs which state that a person is permanently prohibited from owning a gun if "any lawful authority" (including a government psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) holds that he represents "any" risk to himself or others or is unable to manage his affairs. The BATFE letter of May 9, 2007 makes this additionally clear, as they state that "any danger" -- not just a "substantial" or "imminent" danger -- is enough to make you a "prohibited person."
2 Again, because the Veterans Disarmament Act codifies BATFE's regulations (at 27 C.F.R. 478.11), statutory law would now allow a person to be deemed as a "mental defective" from the "determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" -- in other words, no longer just by a court adjudication.

Op-Ed Articles