Archive for April 7th, 2008

Post Office bans harmless items

April 7, 2008

The U.S.P.S. has waded into the gun control debate with all the grace of a walrus and the intelligence of a tick. Truly, this a great example of an old saying; “Stupid is as stupid does.”


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

Friday, April 4, 2008

The Post Office is wading into the gun control debate.

That’s right, the U.S. Postal Service is trying to keep people from shipping
replica or inert munitions through the mail.

They have no authority in the law, since Congress has kept for itself the
power to decide what can and cannot be shipped. But the Post Office is
trying to say that replica or inert munitions are hazardous!

Gun Owners of America’s attorneys just found out about this outrageous
proposal which was issued by the Post Office. Although the deadline for
postmarking is Monday, April 7, our attorneys say that e-mails and letters
should be sent anyway.

If you are a re-enactor or collector of replica or inert munitions, you are
in the Post Office crosshairs. If you are not directly involved in this,
you should still be outraged that a bunch of bureaucrats are trying to
further restrict Second Amendment activity.

By the way, there is one interesting dimension to all of this: Canada wants
the US to help shut off shipment of these items into Canada. So it looks
like our bureaucrats are eager to appease other governments by changing our
laws to make them as bad as our neighbors’.

You can read the Postal Service proposed regulations here:

You can read GOA’s comments to the Postal Service here:

ACTION: Please send your comments to the Post Office ASAP. The letter must
be postmarked by Monday, April 7, 2008. Here’s the contact information.

TITLE: 73 Fed. Reg. 12321: New Standards Prohibit the Mailing of Replica or
Inert Munitions


Manager, Mailing Standards
United States Postal Service
475 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W., Room 3436
Washington, DC 20260-3436

A New, Broader “Assault Weapons” Ban Nationwide

April 7, 2008
Setting The Stage Locally For A New, Broader “Assault Weapons” Ban Nationwide
Friday, April 04, 2008
 If you don’t live in a state that has an “assault weapon” ban, that issue might be off your radar screen these days. After all, the federal ban–on standard-capacity magazines and semi-automatics with a certain combination of cosmetic features–has been defunct for nearly four years. 

But anti-gun politicians and news media at the state level are ginning up for a 2009 campaign to enact a ban like that proposed by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), because they know that both of the front-runners for the Democrat Party presidential nomination would sign such a ban into law in a New York minute. 

Knowing that the political landscape could be decisively different in 2009, anti-gun politicians and news media are currently trying to resurrect the “assault weapon” issue at the state level, to place it back on the political front burner.

First, newspapers began clamoring for a ban in Florida. Now, the Associated Press (AP) is trying to bolster support for a ban introduced in Louisiana, alleging an increase in crimes with AK-47-type rifles, based entirely upon BATFE firearm tracing data–even though the Congressional Research Service has repeatedly said traces cannot be used to determine how often any type of gun is used in crime. For some reason, AP also devoted attention to the fact that fully-automatic AKs are used by combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though that is irrelevant to semi-automatic AKs branded with the phony “assault weapon” name.  AP also claimed that AKs fire high-velocity ammunition, even though 7.62×39 is almost the lowest velocity .30 caliber rifle round in existence, similar to, but less powerful than, the modestly powered .30-30 Winchester, the most popular deer rifle in U.S. history. 

Needless to say, even though the “assault weapon” issue is more than 20 years old, reporters still are not getting it right, either because they are biased or because they are too lazy to research the subject. NRA members can help set the record straight by sending letters to the editors of their local newspapers.  For information on writing letters to your local newspaper, please click here.



Obama, back in the saddle again

April 7, 2008
On The Campaign Trail, Obama Climbs Back On His Anti-Gun Horse
Friday, April 04, 2008
With the Democratic Presidential nomination process turning into what would have been an unthinkably close race only a few months ago, we continue to see the political contenders pulling out all of the rhetorical stops to distinguish themselves as the “candidate of choice” for their constituency.  We also continue to see the candidates test the limits of credibility in the process. 

Last month, we reported on the hypocrisy of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.  We detailed his advocacy of a law to forbid federally licensed gun dealers from legally selling constitutionally-protected products (firearms) in huge geographical areas, without holding purveyors of pornography to the same standard.  Apparently, Obama is in the habit of saying and doing whatever he feels is politically expedient at the time, and for his particular audience.  Well, he’s at it again, and changing horses in the middle of the campaign stream. 

While on the campaign trail earlier this year, Obama tried to reassure pro-gun voters by telling them, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.”  But an April 3 article in reports that Obama in now embracing his well-documented anti-gun leanings.  “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” he told the Pittsburgh Tribune.  “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could [get shot during] altercations.”  Obama went on to discuss, “…cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks…,” and, “…reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]….” 

It obviously comes as no surprise that Obama is anti-gun.  In fact, as with Hillary, we are so well aware of Obama’s hostility toward the Second Amendment that in the 2004 elections, NRA’s Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) issued Obama a well-deserved “F” grade.  What’s surprising is that he thinks he can slowly change his message and we won’t notice.  Incidentally, in taking his latest position, Obama is opposing the law in 48 of our 50 states, which afford law-abiding citizens a means to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection.

In truth, both candidates’ records are well documented and show, unquestionably, that they’re both anti-gun.  (Neither joined more than 300 of their congressional colleagues in signing a brief in the Heller case in support of the Second Amendment.)  For either to now try to convince us otherwise is ridiculous.


More on Obama

April 7, 2008

Barack Obama, who informs campaign audiences that he taught constitutional law for 10 years, might be expected to weigh in on the historic Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are pondering whether the 1976 District of Columbia law effectively prohibiting personal gun ownership in the nation’s capital is constitutional. But Sen. Obama has not stated his position. Obama, disagreeing with the D. C. government and gun control advocates, declares the Second Amendment’s ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ applies to individuals, not just the ‘well-regulated militia’ cited in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local ‘common sense’ restrictions on firearms. Does the Draconian prohibition for Washington, D. C., fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance.” —Robert Novak

SOURCE: Patriot Post

%d bloggers like this: