http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=367&issue=047

But there’s a price to pay for all this. Part of that price is that misinformation travels just as fast as the truth. We see this every day at NRA-ILA, where our staff answers hundreds of phone calls, letters and especially e-mails. Many are from people trying to get the scoop on the latest wild story they’ve heard.

In the last few weeks, for example, NRA has received hundreds of e-mails warning us about “S.B. 2099,” a bill that would supposedly require you to report all your guns on your income tax return every April 15.

Like many rumors, there’s only a small grain of truth in this one. It turns out someone’s recycling an old alert that wasn’t even accurate when it was new. There actually was a bill called S. 2099 that would have taxed handguns--nine years ago. It was introduced by anti-gun Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and it would have included handguns under the National Firearms Act’s tax and registration scheme. This has nothing to do with anyone’s Form 1040, of course.

Fortunately, S. 2099 disappeared without any action by the Senate, back when Bill Clinton was still in the White House. We reported about it back then in our Grassroots Alert, just as we report about new anti-gun bills every week. But today, this old news is just a distraction from real threats.

Other stories cross the line from rumor to hoax. One claimed that an “executive order” would ban gun ownership by people over 60. (The “news story” even quoted a nonexistent law professor claiming the idea would be constitutional.) Another claimed that Smith & Wesson would be seized in a government bailout scheme. (Thanks to the post-election surge of gun shopping, Smith & Wesson and other gun manufacturers are doing just fine.)

It turns out that what these two stories have in common is their source. They appeared online, on a blog where they were labeled as “satire.” Unfortunately, a lot of people didn’t read the fine print.

I could go on with more examples, such as the claim that February’s economic stimulus bill was full of anti-gun provisions. (For the record, it wasn’t.) But I’ll close with one that’s near and dear to all shooters: the ammunition shortage.

We all know that ammunition’s been getting more expensive, and lately some calibers can be hard to find at any price. Naturally, according to the Internet buzz, there must be a conspiracy.

As this particular conspiracy theory goes, the government has told ammunition companies that they won’t get government contracts unless they restrict sales to private citizens. That’s similar to a concept once pushed by Bill Clinton’s housing secretary, Andrew Cuomo, who thought the federal government should buy guns only from manufacturers who agree to a “code of conduct” dreamed up by anti-gun groups.

Fortunately, this time fiction is stranger than truth. Ammunition is scarce because--surprise!--people like you and me are buying a lot of it. Far from cutting back, manufacturers are running three shifts a day to keep up with the demand.

Eventually, things may get back to normal. But in the meantime, the only place busier than the ammo factories is--you guessed it--the rumor mill.

Senator Baucus Thinks You're Too Dumb to Understand Legislation
-- Don't let your two U.S. Senators go along with his arrogance

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org

Friday, October 2, 2009

It didn't seem like such an unreasonable request. Before the Senate Finance Committee passes one of the most important pieces of legislation in our lifetime, we (the American people) wanted to see two things:

* First, the actual language of the latest anti-gun ObamaCare bill.

* Second, a definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reading of the cost of the legislation, based on its specific language.

But, incredibly, this simple request is too much for Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who intends to force the committee to vote on the bill with nothing but a "quickie guesstimate" of the cost -- a "guesstimate" which CBO will have to reach WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION.

That's right. The committee has virtually finished consideration of the health care bill -- the most important in our lifetime -- AND THERE IS STILL NO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.

Shouldn't we at least have a cost estimate that is based on what is actually in the bill? Yes, but a full CBO cost estimate would take two weeks -- and this is inconsistent with efforts by liberal Democrats to cram this bill quickly down the throats of the American people.

Moreover, don't you realize that "legislative language is very complex" and the American people are just too stupid to understand it.

Well, are the members of the committee too stupid as well? And what about the CBO? Is it too stupid?

A Third World country would be embarrassed by the sleaze, corruption, and fraud being used to pass the most expansive government intrusion into health care of our lifetime.

It's time to put an end to these disgusting tricks.

ACTION: Call your two U.S. Senators. Ask them to oppose any ObamaCare legislation -- at least until we have two things:

1. The actual legislative language.

2. A definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reading of the cost of the legislation, based on what's in the bill.

You can call your two Senators toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

You can also use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I would urge you, in the strongest terms, to resist considering any health care bill from the Senate Finance Committee until we have at least two things:

* First, the actual legislative language.

* Second, a definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of the cost of the legislation, based on legislative language.

It has been reported that, incredibly, this simple request is too much for Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who intends to force the committee to vote on the bill with nothing but a "quickie guesstimate" of the cost -- a "guesstimate" which CBO will have to reach WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION.

It is unfathomable to me that the committee has virtually finished consideration of the health care bill -- the most important in our lifetime -- AND THERE IS STILL NO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.

Contrary to Senator Baucus' assumptions, the American people are not too stupid to understand legislation which will affect whether they live or die.

Neither are the members of the committee nor the CBO.

A Third World country would be embarrassed by the sleaze, corruption, and fraud being used to pass the most expansive government intrusion into health care of our lifetime.

Please vote against the legislation under these circumstances.

Sincerely,

-----------------------------

Olofson Update

You may recall that Gun Owners Foundation is taking David Olofson's case to the Supreme Court. Olofson was railroaded by the federal government. The feds claim that when David loaned a friend a semi-auto AR-15 that malfunctioned at the range, he was guilty of illegally transfering a machine gun. A major step on the road to the Supreme Court has now been taken, as GOF has filed its Petition for Certiorari. You can read that document at: http://gunowners.com/Olofson-Petition-for-Certiorari.pdf

============================================

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Monday, June 29, 2009

Gun Owners of America applauds immediate past NRA President Sandy
Froman, who stepped up to the plate last week with a call to arms for
all NRA members to vigorously oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor
to the Supreme Court. (See the article below).

GOA has been calling on our members to oppose this nomination since it
is clear that Sotomayor is anti-Second Amendment and wants to legislate
from the bench.

The official position from current NRA leadership is to take a "wait and
see" approach to the Sotomayor nomination which may well allow her to
wiggle through and be confirmed.

GOA calls on all pro-gunners across America to urge NRA leadership to
join in this critical fight to protect the Constitution -- and
especially our gun rights.

-- GOA Vice-Chairman Tim Macy

----------------------------------------

NRA Members Must Oppose Sotomayor
by Sandy Froman

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's first nominee to the
U.S. Supreme Court, has a narrow view of the Second Amendment that
contradicts the Court's landmark decision in District of Columbia v.
Heller. A heated debate has started in the U.S. Senate over her
opposition to the right to keep and bear arms. This issue, which has
decided the fate of presidential elections, could also decide her
nomination. Gun owners, and especially the members of the National Rifle
Association, must aggressively oppose Judge Sotomayor's confirmation to
the Supreme Court.

On June 24, senators began speaking on the floor of the Senate
expressing grave concerns over Judge Sotomayor's Second Amendment
record. Senator Jeff Sessions R-AL, the Ranking Member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, pointed out that although her record on the issue
is "fairly scant," she has twice stated that the Second
Amendment is not
a fundamental right. Senator Sessions also noted that in Second
Amendment and other constitutional cases, Sotomayor's analysis of
important constitutional issues has been lacking suggesting "a troubling
tendency to avoid or casually dismiss difficult Constitutional issues of
exceptional importance." Sotomayor's view on the Second Amendment
clearly reflects an extreme anti-gun philosophy, and some Democrat
senators from pro-gun states are justifiably nervous.

Last year, the Supreme Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear firearms.
But that ruling was a fiercely-contested, 5-4 split decision. Justice
Kennedy joined the four conservatives on the Court to make the majority,
with the four liberal justices writing passionate dissents about how the
Second Amendment does not apply to private citizens.

Bluntly speaking, the Second Amendment survived by a single vote. Had
one justice voted differently, the Second Amendment would have been
erased from the Bill of Rights forever. Today in the Supreme Court, the
right to bear arms hangs by a single vote.

The next question the Supreme Court will decide is whether the Second
Amendment is a "fundamental right" that applies to cities and
states,
thus preventing them from restricting gun rights. Even the liberal
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held earlier this year in Nordyke v. King
that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, yet Judge Sotomayor
disagrees.

When Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, it
belied his flowery rhetoric about respecting our constitutional gun
rights. Out of almost 200 federal appeals judges in this country, Judge
Sotomayor is one of only six to weigh in (after the Heller case) to hold
that the Second Amendment only limits federal actions. If your state or
city chooses to ban all guns or take away the ones that you already have
in your home for hunting and self-defense, Sonia Sotomayor says the
Constitution can't help you.

This position becomes all the more radical when it's revealed how she
reached this conclusion. Only six judges have denied gun rights against
the states. Of these, three did so in a recent Seventh Circuit case, NRA
v. Chicago, writing a detailed opinion that the Second Amendment doesn't
apply to the states because they thought an old 1800s Supreme Court case
tied their hands on the issue, and they commended the case up to the
Supreme Court after long and scholarly consideration. Judge Sotomayor
and two of her liberal colleagues, however, wrote only a single
paragraph on the whole issue when deciding their own New York case,
Maloney v. Cuomo. In one paragraph, she said the Second Amendment gives
people no rights at all when it comes to state or city laws. She gave no
explanation, and made no call for Supreme Court action.

Then we find that this has been a consistent belief for Sotomayor. In a
case before her in 2004, she and her colleagues concluded that there is
no fundamental right in the Second Amendment but provided no substantive
analysis to justify this conclusion. Throughout her career, Judge
Sotomayor's record is one of consistent opposition to the private
ownership of firearms.

America has almost 90 million gun owners who value their rights. And of
these, no one does more to protect the Second Amendment than the four
million members of the National Rifle Association.

I served as an officer of the NRA for nine years, including a two-year
term as president. I saw NRA members turn the tide on Election Day 2000
to defeat Al Gore. We fought again to help defeat John Kerry in 2004. We
can do the same with Sonia Sotomayor, if we call our U.S. Senators and
tell them to vote against this anti-gun judge. No fewer than fourteen
Democrat senators have solid records on the Second Amendment, and we
must urge them to oppose this nominee.

Next year, the Supreme Court is likely to take up NRA v. Chicago, which
will decide whether the Second Amendment applies to states and cities
like it does the federal government. This case is as important as
Heller, and will massively impact gun rights forever.

We already know where Judge Sotomayor stands. It's time to tell the
Senate, "Vote No! on Sonia Sotomayor."

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

"I will be talking [to Judge Sotomayor] about the question of
foreign law and the question of [her] commitment to the Second
Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms.... President Obama, who
nominated Judge Sotomayor, has a rather limited view of what the Second
Amendment guarantees." -- Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), June 2009

Monday, July 13, 2009

Today, the U.S. Senate commences hearings on Justice Sonia Sotomayor,
who was nominated by President Obama to replace the retiring Judge
David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

In many ways, Sotomayor's views are out-of-step with our American
heritage and with the views of Americans in general. For example,
Sotomayor believes that our fundamental law is constantly evolving and
that rights are constantly changing with the times.

But should we be surprised? The President who nominated her holds some
of the most radical views ever held by a resident of the White House.
His take on the Constitution -- and the Second Amendment in particular
-- has stationed him to the far left on the political spectrum.

Consider just a small snapshot of his record over the years:

* As President, Obama has nationalized much of the car and banking
industry and is now looking to do the same with health care. Even the
Marxist President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, joked on live television
last month that he and Fidel Castro need to be careful or else "we
are going to end up to [Obama's] right."

* As a U.S. Senator, Obama was ranked by the National Journal in 2007
as the most liberal legislator in that chamber. Realize that such a
ranking put Obama to the left of 99 other Senators -- including an
open, self-avowed socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

* Like many socialists, Obama has supported some of the most extreme
positions on gun control: supporting a ban on handguns, opposing the
repeal of the draconian DC gun ban, opposing the right of self-defense
for residents in the Chicago suburbs, and much more.

Obama's brand of far-left politics sees the Constitution as moldable as
a ball of wax. In a 2001 interview, he criticized earlier Supreme
Courts for "never ventur[ing] into the issues of redistribution of
wealth.... It didn't break free from the essential constraints that
were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

Sotomayor appears to have the same view of our highest document, as she
stated in 1996 that law is not "static and predictable," but
"constantly overhaul[ed] and adapt[ed] [by lawyers and courts] to
the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political
conditions."

ACTION: Please urge your two Senators to vote AGAINST the Sotomayor
nomination. Tell them to cast a pro-gun vote on EVERY vote related to
Judge Sonia Sotomayor (whether it's a vote on sustaining a filibuster
or a vote on final passage).

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's views are out-of-step with our American
heritage and with the views of Americans in general. Not surprisingly,
the Rasmussen polling firm reported on July 1 that more Americans
oppose her nomination than support her.

Sotomayor believes that our fundamental law is constantly evolving and
that rights are constantly changing with the times. But a majority of
Americans disagree. Multiple polls have found that almost
three-fourths of all Americans believe that the Second Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution protects the rights of "individuals" to own
guns. Not so for Judge Sotomayor:

* She ruled in United States v. Sanchez-Villar (2004) that "the
right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

* And earlier this year, Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel
which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not
apply to the states. This makes her more liberal than the Ninth
Circuit, which stated in the Nordyke case in April that the Second
Amendment does apply to the states.

Please cast a pro-gun vote on EVERY vote related to Judge Sonia
Sotomayor (whether it's a vote on sustaining a filibuster or a vote on
final passage).

I would like to hear back from you on this. Although rest assured, Gun
Owners of America will keep me up to date on any further developments.

Sincerely,

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

The U.S. Senate must vote NO on Judge Sonia Sotomayor!

In defending her decision that the states could enact any form of gun
control they wished -- with absolutely no regard to the Second
Amendment -- Judge Sonya Sotomayor has developed a new love for
Nineteenth Century court opinions.

Demonstrating that she was programmed in her responses, Sotomayor
defended one of her earlier legal opinions by citing "footnote
23" of Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in the DC v. Heller case
last year.

But, when pressed by questioner Orrin Hatch yesterday, Sotomayor could
not recite the contents of that footnote or the holdings of the cases
which it cited. As it turns out, the footnote on which Sotomayor
claims to rely, cited -- without approval -- two Nineteenth Century
cases which rejected the notion that the Second Amendment was
'incorporated' to apply to the states.

But those were also the days when the Supreme Court held that the
rights protected in the First Amendment did not apply to the states.
Apparently, Sotomayor wants to base her anti-gun philosophy on
antiquated decisions from an era when the U.S. Supreme Court was
spitting out racist decisions.

Her answers got even worse today when Republican Senator Tom Coburn of
Oklahoma asked her, point blank, "Is there a constitutional right
to self-defense?" Sotomayor said that was an "abstract
question" and that she couldn't think of a Supreme Court case that
addressed that issue.

Coburn said he didn't want a legal treatise on what Supreme Court
holdings have said, rather, he wanted her own personal opinion.
Sotomayor would not answer the question, although when pressed, she
equated self-defense with vigilantism!

Folks, do you see how important it is to stop this nomination? GOA
mailed its members postcards opposing Sotomayor not too long ago.
Please make sure you have mailed those in. We need a multi-pronged
offensive right now where our Senators are receiving snail mail, email
and phone calls.

And, we need ALL PRO-GUN ORGANIZATIONS to take a stance AGAINST this nominee.

Organizational spokesmen can talk a good game and say they have serious
"concerns" about Sotomayor. That's all well and good. But
unless those organizations (big and small) rate each Senator's vote on
Sotomayor -- when she's clearly anti-gun -- then those supposed
"concerns" are just meaningless.

Senators have to hear from ALL the pro-gun organizations -- big and
small -- that they are going to rate this vote during the 2010
election. Otherwise, those organizations are just Paper Tigers.

We can't let this anti-gun judge infiltrate U.S. Supreme Court! She is
dangerous on so many levels -- but, especially, on Second Amendment
rights.

GOA considers her nomination to be of the most important gun votes in
the HISTORY of the US Senate. We can't think of any other nominee in
recent history who has taken such a horrid stand on the basic right of
self-defense.

She says that she will follow the precedent in the DC v. Heller (2008)
case. But even if she does, that only means that she will vote to
apply the Second Amendment in Washington, DC. She has already ruled
this year in Maloney v. Cuomo that the amendment doesn't apply to where
you live.

-- Tim Macy, Vice-Chairman of Gun Owners of America

ACTION: We need to "pull out the stops" to defeat this
nominee. Please contact your two U.S. Senators today and urge them to
VOTE NO on Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Even though President Obama is extremely anti-gun, I still started with
an open mind regarding his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. But
after her testimony these past two days, there is no way that she
should be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When asked by Senator Tom Coburn if there was a right to self-defense,
Sotomayor said that was an "abstract question." Sotomayor
would not answer directly, although when pressed, she equated
self-defense with vigilantism!

How can the Senate confirm a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court who does
not believe in the rights that are EXPLICITLY stated in the Bill of
Rights?

I also want you to know that Gun Owners of America will heavily score
any vote related to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor -- whether
it's a vote on cloture or final passage -- for its rating in 2010.

Moreover, GOA is going to publish its rating so that millions of
Americans can see how their Senators voted on this most important vote.

GOA has told me that it considers the Sotomayor nomination to be one of
the most significant gun votes in the HISTORY of the US Senate, as
there has been no other nominee in recent history who has taken such a
horrid stand on the basic right of self-defense.

Sincerely,

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Friday, July 17, 2009

A vote to protect your right to travel out-of-state with a firearm could
come to a vote next week -- even as early as Monday!

Senators John Thune and David Vitter are the sponsors of S. 845 -- a
bill that will establish concealed carry reciprocity amongst the several
states.

Senators Thune and Vitter offered the bill as an amendment (#1618) to
the Department of Defense authorization bill (H.R. 2647).

This provision will use the constitutional authority allowing Congress
to enforce "full faith and credit" across the country, so that each
state respects the "public acts, records, and judicial
proceedings" of
every other state (Article IV).

The benefit of the Thune/Vitter legislation is that -- unlike other,
competing measures -- it would protect the right of any U.S. citizen to
carry out of state (regardless of whether he possesses a permit), as
long as he is authorized to carry in his home state. This is important
because of states like Vermont and Alaska, where residents can carry
concealed without prior approval or permission from the state... in
other words, without a permit!

ACTION: Please urge your Senators to vote YES on the Thune/Vitter
concealed carry reciprocity amendment that will be offered to the
Department of Defense authorization bill and NO on any modifying
amendments. This vote could come as early as Monday, so please act on
this right away!

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Please support the Thune/Vitter amendment to the Department of Defense
authorization bill. This amendment will protect the right of citizens to
carry firearms outside of their home state without violating the rights
of the other states. Thus, the reciprocity language masterfully protects
the principle of federalism while also promoting Second Amendment
rights.

A person's right to defend himself and his family should not end at the
border of his state.

I urge you to vote for the Thune/Vitter concealed carry amendment and to
oppose any modifying actions that seek to weaken their amendment.

Sincerely,