Ohio Lame-Duck Session in Question, Two Important Pro-Gun Bills Hang in Jeopardy!

Before the summer recess, the Ohio Senate passed Senate Bill 239 and Senate Bill 247. These bills now are now are before the House of Representatives for consideration. However, because the November election which resulted in the change of party power, the Democratic controlled House of Representatives recently announced the possible cancellation of the November lame-duck voting schedule thus killing both pro-gun initiatives.
Read More



Pennsylvania: Castle Doctrine Concurrence Vote in Jeopardy!

Three weeks ago, the Pennsylvania Senate passed House Bill 1926 by a vote of 45 to 4. As reported earlier, HB1926 contains State Senator Richard Alloways (R-33) Castle Doctrine amendment. This language would permit law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their homes and any places outside of their home where they have a legal right to be. If enacted, this law would also protect individuals from civil lawsuits by the attacker or the attackers family when force is used. Intending to wrap up the remaining business for the year, the State Legislature returned to Harrisburg today, will remain for tomorrow Tuesday, November 9 and return again for a few days next week. However, in response to the November 2 election and resulting change of party control in the State House of Representatives, the currently Democratic controlled House announced the cancellation of the November voting schedule.
Read More



Clinton gets gun ban exemption
- The Manila Times (Philippines)
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has granted the gun ban application of former United States President William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton. The Manila Times was able to obtain a one-page certificate of authority issued by the Comelec where the Committee on the Ban on Firearms and Security Personnel (CBFSP) for the October 25, 2010 Barangay (village) and Sangguniang Kabataan (Youth Council) elections, chaired by poll body Commissioner Lucenito Tagle, granted the gun ban exemption to a large number of Clinton's security personnel from the US Protective Service Agents.
Read More | Read Other News



Texas: Right-to-Carry in houses of worship
- KETK (Tyler, Texas)
There's growing concern about the freedom licensed concealed carry Texans have when it comes to where exactly they can carry. One big question: what about carrying in worship services?
Read More | Read Other News



Texas: Right-to-Carry on campus
- KVII (Amarillo, Texas)
Some students think that having their gun on campus would help prevent casualties in situations like the Virginia Tech tragedy. "Well when you go through the process of getting a concealed hand gun license you go through a course of conflict resolution in deciding when to use your fire arm because that is the last line of defense you wanna use, if someone is stupid enough to do that first they shouldn't have a license in the first place. If the federal government gives you a license you should be allowed to carry where ever," said Jay Gurley, a WTAMU student.
Read More | Read Other News



Colorado: Boulder proposes gun controls
- The Daily Camera (Boulder, Colo.)
The city's agenda also steps into another national issue -- gun control. According to the proposal, the city would oppose any legislation that would expand Colorado's "Make My Day Law," which provides a legal defense for people who use force, including deadly force, against intruders on their property. The city might also oppose legislation that limits the ability of local governments to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in public facilities. The city cannot restrict people with permits from carrying handguns concealed in places such as the Municipal Building, but it can restrict open carry.
Read More | Read Other News



Washington: State proposes hunting, fishing license increase
- The Vancouver Columbian (Wash.)
State wildlife officials have drafted a blueprint for the first across-the-board increase in hunting and fishing license fees in 14 years.
Read More | Read Other News



California: State quietly studying proposal to end hunting ban in game refuges
- The Contra Costa Times (Calif.)
A century ago, when more families relied on hunting to put meat on the dinner table, it was a bold idea: set aside large swaths of land where killing animals was banned, so that deer and other wildlife could multiply and repopulate. Now, however, the California Department of Fish and Game says those refuges are a dismal failure, and it's quietly studying a plan that could end the hunting restrictions in 19 refuges across the state.
Read More | Read Other News



Sunday hunting in Maine is long overdue
- The SeaCoast Online (Northern New England)
It's time that Maine opened Sundays up to hunting. Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire all have legal hunting on Sundays, so what is Maine's problem?
Read More | Read Other News

Senate to Vote on Anti-gun Kook for 'Regulatory Czar'
-- Nominee favors bringing an end to hunting

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

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Just when you thought the news about the Obama administration couldn't get any worse, gun owners find themselves needing to rally the troops once again.

This time it's the proposed "Regulatory Czar" who will be coming to a vote this week in the U.S. Senate.

His name is Cass Sunstein, and he holds some of the kookiest views you will ever hear.

For starters, Sunstein believes in regulating hunting out of existence. He told a Harvard audience in 2007 that "we ought to ban hunting." And in The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer (2002), he said:

I think we should go further ... the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering. It is easy to imagine a set of initiatives that would do a great deal here, and indeed European nations have moved in just this direction. There are many possibilities. (Italics are his emphasis.)
If that's all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky. Unfortunately, when you look at WHY he wants to restrict hunting, this is where he goes beyond extreme.

In Sunstein's world, animals should have just as many rights as people ... and they should be able to sue humans in court!

"We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are persons, or that they are not property," Sunstein said on page 11 of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004).

Well, that's a relief ... he is at least willing to concede that animals are not persons! But he would still have animals suing humans, apparently, with more enlightened humans representing the cuddly critters.

Imagine returning from a successful hunting trip ... only to find out that you've been subpoenaed for killing your prize. Who knows, maybe Sunstein would have the family of the dead animal serving as witnesses in court!

By the way, if you're wondering what he thinks about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, you won't be surprised to know that Sunstein is a huge supporter of gun control.

In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America (2005), Sunstein says:

Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine.... [O]n the Constitution's text, fundamentalists [that is, gun rights supporters] should not be so confident in their enthusiasm for invalidating gun control legislation.
Hmm, what part of "shall not be infringed" does Sunstein not understand?

Imagine the power that Sunstein could have as the Regulatory Czar -- the nickname for the person heading the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House.

As the Regulatory Czar, he could bring about changes in the regulations that affect hunting, gun control and farming. In short, he could make your life hell.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) objected to his nomination several weeks ago, preventing him from being unanimously confirmed.

That means that the Senate will now need to garner 60 votes to confirm this radical, kooky choice to the OIRA.

No doubt, many of the people our President wants to associate with are radical kooks. First, there was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ... then there was the self-avowed communist (Van Jones) who was nominated for the Green Jobs Czar ... now, there's an extreme animal rights activist who wants to take away our guns and get Bambi to sue us in court.

It's time to take a STRONG STAND against this radical administration.

ACTION: Please contact your Senators right away and urge them to vote AGAINST the Cass Sunstein nomination. You can 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:

I urge you to vote AGAINST Cass Sunstein as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as I am very concerned about the impact this "Regulatory Czar" would have upon firearms and hunting.

Sunstein told a Harvard audience in 2007 that "we ought to ban hunting." If that were all Sunstein believed, he would be dangerous and extreme, but not necessarily kooky. Unfortunately, in Sunstein's world, animals should have just as many rights as people ... and they should be able to sue humans in court!

Moreover, he is a firm supporter of gun control. In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America (2005), Sunstein says that, "Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine."

I wouldn't be surprised if Sunstein is part of the small minority -- 11% of Americans, according to a Zogby/O'Leary poll in August -- who opposes licensed concealed carry.

I hope you will understand that Cass Sunstein's views are WAY OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM of American thought and that you should vote NO on this radical, kooky nomination.

Sincerely,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Larry Pratt News Hour (formerly Live Fire ) is carried by the Information Radio Network on Saturdays (rebroadcasts Sundays). The show is simulcast on the web at http://irnusaradio.com/ and previous episodes are archived at http://irnusaradio.com/our-programs/live-fire with a number of listening formats, including podcasts, supported.

Recent guests and topics, among many others, have included:

* Jim Kouri -- Police Against Socialized Medicine

* Hilmar von Campe -- Former Hitler Youth on the Totalitarian Lie

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

Baucus Health Care Draft to Fine Reluctant Gun Owners up to $3,800

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

Thursday, September 10, 2009

By now, members of Gun Owners of America should have received pre-written postcards opposing the anti-gun health care bills that are floating around on Capitol Hill.

Please send in those postcards -- as it's very important for legislative offices to see mounds of gun owners' mail being dumped on their desks!

Now that Congress is back in session -- and the President has given his televised push on health care -- it is time for us to redouble our efforts.

To review the bidding:

Every major health care bill being considered in Congress would require many (if not most) Americans to be covered by insurance policies written by the Obama administration -- so-called ObamaCare.

Among other things, ObamaCare will almost certainly require, by regulation, that all gun-related medical data be fed into a federal health database -- pursuant to a $20 billion program Obama insisted be included in the $787 billion stimulus bill.

So, as a gun owner who doesn't want this data to be trolled by the BATFE from a federal database, you might say:

* "I'm not going to buy an ObamaCare policy."

or

* "I'm going to buy the type of insurance that I want to buy."

Well, anti-gun Democrat Max Baucus (D-MT) has a question for you: "How would you like to pay a $3,800 a year fine?"

That's right. In a legislative draft released this week, Baucus would fine you up to $3,800 for not buying precisely the insurance policy which Barack Obama orders you to buy.

So, what's going to be required under ObamaCare? And how much is it going to cost?

Baucus isn't going to tell you that until after the bill is passed . We do know that, under the Baucus draft, a lower middle income family could be forced to pay up to 13% of its income to buy an ObamaCare policy. And, presumably, a middle income family would be required to spend much, much more.

Take into consideration that the Baucus draft -- with its $3,800 per year fines and its ObamaCare -related gun databases -- is the so-called "conservative" bill. This is the one that they're trying to get Republicans to sign onto because it's so "conservative." The final Pelosi-written conference report will be much, much worse.

Incidentally, Obama opposed forcing Americans to purchase government-approved insurance during the campaign, but guess what? He lied.

ACTION:

1. Write your Senators. Ask them to oppose the anti-gun Baucus draft, with its requirement that Americans purchase an Obama-approved insurance policy or pay a $3,800 annual fine. This legislative draft has not yet been publicly released; however, several news agencies have reported on its key features -- and these reviews are widely available on the Internet.

You can 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.

2. Distribute this email far and wide. There are people that you know who should be involved in the fight against socialized health care who are just sitting on the sidelines. Please forward this email to them and get them involved in the fight!

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

Dear Senator:

Please oppose the open-ended anti-gun mandates contained in the Baucus health draft. Among other things, Baucus-mandated policies, which would have to be approved by the Obama administration, will almost certainly require, by regulation, that all gun-related medical data be fed into a federal health database -- pursuant to a $20 billion program Obama insisted be included in the $787 billion stimulus bill.

So, what if a gun owner insists on buying the type of insurance he wants to buy? Sen. Baucus would fine him up to $3,800 a year.

That's right. In a recently released draft, Baucus would fine gun owners up to $3,800 for not buying precisely the insurance policy which Barack Obama orders them to buy. So, what's going to be required by this Baucus-mandated policy? And how much is it going to cost?

Baucus isn't going to tell us that until after the bill is passed . We do know that, under the Baucus draft, a lower middle income family could be forced to pay up to 13% of its income to buy an ObamaCare policy. And, presumably, a middle income family would be required to spend much, much more.

Incidentally, Obama opposed forcing Americans to purchase government-approved insurance during the campaign.

In short, please oppose the anti-gun, anti-freedom Baucus "compromise" and please let me know exactly where you stand on this issue.

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

"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,

Sotomayor Takes Axe to Second Amendment
-- Won't answer whether she believes there's a right to self-defense

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,