Archive for May 8th, 2009

Thugs in the White House

May 8, 2009

Noted economist John Lott unloads on the White House.

Read it HERE

Tom Ridge Drops Out as Pressure Against his Candidacy Intensifies!

May 8, 2009

Tom Ridge Drops Out as Pressure Against his Candidacy Intensifies!
— Plus, gun owners gain ground in opposition to Health Care Gun Ban

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, May 8, 2009

Earlier this week, GOA alerted email activists that certain prominent
Republicans were pushing former Department of Homeland Security Director
Tom Ridge to run against pro-gunner Pat Toomey in a Pennsylvania
primary.

GOA members flooded the Republican National Committee (RNC) office with
phone calls and emails, highlighting a few of Tom Ridge’s anti-gun
actions:

* As a Congressman, he provided the pivotal vote to pass the Clinton
semi-auto ban.

* As Governor, he signed into law the infamous Act 17, which registered
and taxed long gun buyers and placed other restrictions on Keystone
State gun owners.

* As the first director of DHS, Ridge opposed arming commercial airline
pilots in defense of terrorism.

In contrast, former Rep. Pat Toomey stood 100% for the rights of gun
owners.

GOA also sent a letter to every RNC official nationwide, assuring them
that gun owners and sportsmen would not accept an anti-gun candidate
like Tom Ridge.

Well, good news! Tom Ridge “decided,” with the help of
activism like
yours, to stay out of the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate race. He withdrew
his name yesterday.

That means Pat Toomey, who has been endorsed by Gun Owners of America
Political Victory Fund, could face Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen
Specter next November.

Specter, you may recall, provided crucial support to confirm gun-hating
Attorney General Eric Holder; was one of two Republicans to vote against
arming commercial airline pilots; and singlehandedly passed the
so-called economic “stimulus” bill, which contained several
provisions
of grave concern to gun owners.

Update on Health Care Gun Ban

Two weeks ago, GOA asked you to urge your Representative and Senators to
vote against the budget resolution conference report. The vote was a
key battle in the larger war over whether to create a national health
database which would allow BATF to troll your medical records for
information about whether your mental state subjects you to a gun ban.

Well, it looks like we took a couple of small steps forward, even though
the resolution passed the House and the Senate. The Senate only passed
the resolution by a 53-43 vote, which means that despite the pleas of
the Obama administration — thanks to your efforts — all Republicans,
plus Specter, Bayh, Nelson of Nebraska, and Byrd voted against the
conference report.

This means that, with all senators present, we are only about a half
dozen votes away from defeating the vast, hugely controversial health
package when it comes up for a final vote in September or October. And,
when the package is unveiled later this summer, we will have a good shot
at picking up the additional votes we need, based on its controversial
details.

****************************

Got Form Letters?

Recently, several legislators such as Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia have
been sending activists interesting form letters whenever those activists
contact them via GOA’s Legislative Action Center. Essentially, the form
letters state that a detailed reply will not be forthcoming because the
e-mail was generated through an “outside third party website,” or
include similar sentiments. This has some GOA supporters understandably
concerned that they are being ignored.

Rest assured, our contacts on Capitol Hill report that GOA-generated
e-mail IS being received and the contents noted by staff of the offices
in question. If the legislators choose to respond with a nothing-burger
form letter, fine. They know they have to pay attention to gun owner
concerns when the votes are taken. So please do not be discouraged if
you receive a less-than-forthcoming response. Your views are being
heard.

****************************

Just a note. So far I have received real responses from the Wyoming legislators. 😀

Gitmo

May 8, 2009

Do you feel safer now..?

Enzi, Barrasso: loop holes threaten gun rights

May 8, 2009

I love my new state! It is also a plus that I have no problems at all with all three of our Federal legislators! So far at least!

Enzi, Barrasso: loop holes threaten gun rights

Support bill to stop gun carry inconsistencies in national parks

May 6, 2009


Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Mike Enzi and John Barrasso, both R-Wyo., are pushing to protect second amendment rights in every corner of the nation, including a corner of Wyoming – Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.

Both senators are co-sponsoring the Preservation of the Second Amendment in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges Act, S. 816, which would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons in national parks if the concealed weapons permit holder is authorized to do so on similar state lands in the state in which the national park or refuge is located.

“The Wyoming delegation has fought to open up national parks to responsible gun owners in the past and we won that fight. While the appeal of the rule to allow guns in national parks is a small setback, the pressure to do what is right and preserve second amendment rights in and out of national parks will not stop. The Wyoming delegation is turning up the heat,” said Enzi.

“The second amendment is a cherished right, and a value we hold dear in Wyoming,” said Barrasso. “Unfortunately the courts and gun control crowd in Washington are scheming to hijack our second amendment rights.”

Representative Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo.,is a co-sponsor of the House version, H.R. 1684.

In December 2008, a rule was implemented to allow concealed weapons in national parks and refuges. That rule was then challenged in court when President Obama took office and the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C. ruled that an environmental study is needed before the new rule change can be accepted.

While the courts wait for a final decision on the environmental study Enzi and Barrasso are working to add co-sponsors to the bill to ensure Wyoming gun owners are not left in limbo.

H.R. 2324 more of the same old same old

May 8, 2009

The usual haters of freedom and liberty are back at it despite what the impostor in chief says about interfering with the rights of the people. Using the same tired old arguments and the same tired old lies the anti-liberty crowd is back to finding a cure for a problem that doesn’t exist.

On May 6, at a press conference with Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, U.S. Representatives Michael Castle (R-Del.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 2324–the “Gun Show Loophole Closing Act.” Masquerading as reform, H.R. 2324 would impose severe bureaucratic restrictions aimed at shutting down gun shows.

The bill is essentially a re-introduction of the failed H.R. 96, introduced in the 110th Congress. Despite changes from the Lautenberg juvenile justice amendment of 1999, on which the measure is based, H.R. 2324 fails to address gun owners’ most significant concerns. In several areas it is even more restrictive than past attempts to regulate gun shows. H.R. 2324 would create gun owner registration, massive new government red tape, and allow harassment of gun show organizers, vendors and attendees. The bill also ignores a glaring problem–multiple government studies prove gun shows are not a source of “crime guns.”

Anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced a companion bill (S. 843) in the U.S. Senate in late April.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to strongly oppose H.R. 2324; and please be sure to contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to strongly oppose S. 843! You can call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121.

SOURCE

Apparently, they haven’t heard the news…

WASHINGTON — Amid a wave of publicity about drug-related gun violence along the Mexican border and police killings in U.S. cities, an increasing number of Americans oppose new government efforts to regulate guns.

Recent nonpartisan polls show shrinking support for new gun-control measures and strong public sentiment for enforcing existing laws instead. So strong is the shift in public opinion that a proposed assault-weapons ban — once backed by 3 in 4 Americans — now rates barely 1 in 2.

Frank Newport, the editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, told reporters Tuesday that “every bit of data is showing us that Americans are getting more conservative about gun control.”

A CNN poll conducted in April found that 39 percent of Americans wanted stricter gun-control laws, down from 50 percent in 2000.

Forty-six percent said the gun laws should stay as they are, while 15 percent said they should be loosened — up from 9 percent in 2000.

When asked to identify the best way to reduce gun violence, 61 percent of Americans said stronger enforcement of existing laws, while 27 percent opted for stronger laws, according to an ABC News-Washington Post poll, also conducted in April.

Even an assault-weapons ban is not the political “sure thing” it once was. An April 23-26 poll by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found that support for curbing the sale of assault weapons and semiautomatic rifles has dropped from 75 percent in 1991 to 53 percent today.

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said the latest polls confirm what his gun-rights group has been saying all along.

“We have adequate gun laws on the books to address every situation,” he said.

The shifting public mood on gun issues is one reason the Democratic administration is not trying to reinstate the assault-weapons ban that Congress let expire in 2004.

Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs says President Barack Obama believes that “we can make a significant dent in gun violence . . . through enforcement of the existing laws.”

Elected officials in California and Pennsylvania have responded to the killings of four police officers in Oakland, Calif., and three in Pittsburgh by calling for restoration of the decade-long ban.

Gun-control advocates have also pushed to revive the ban as a way to stem the flow of firearms illegally smuggled from the United States into Mexico.

But despite support for limits from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, Congress seems unlikely to act.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, called diminished public support for gun-control measures “a good thing.”

He said the recent poll findings will help lawmakers “resist pressure from this administration to pass more gun-control legislation.”

SOURCE

Killing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAPP)

May 8, 2009

Is this “Aiding and abetting” an invasion of the United States? I am of a mind that it is in fact nothing less than that. Unfunded mandates from the federale’s is nothing new but this takes it to new heights as the impostor in chief and his crime partners still refuse to enforce our laws. At least the ones that they decided are not worth enforcing. Our borders need to be secure, period. This is not an issue about citizens of a failed state called Mexico, it is about national security. American national security. Congress determined some time back that terrorist’s were indeed among us, with many of them gaining access to the United States via the people pipeline from Mexico. Yet Congress does nothing about it. The nation is in a deep recession, if not depression, and yet Congress does nothing about illegals coming into America and working here when Americans and legal immigrants go without any work, much less meaningful employment.

Use the GOA or NRA web pages to contact your elected representatives and tell them what you think about this horrid set of affairs.

Hat Tip to Anthony for bringing this to our attention!

Obama budget nixes aid for jailing illegal immigrants

Posted: 05/08/09 09:24 AM [ET]
President Obama voted in the Senate to provide additional funding for a program targeted for elimination by his budget that provides states a federal subsidy to offset the costs of jailing illegal immigrants.

Killing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAPP) would save $400 million, according to Obama’s budget for fiscal 2010 released Thursday. It’s one of the largest non-defense discretionary cuts proposed in the president’s budget.

The program is popular with border-state politicians on Capitol Hill, however, making its elimination a tough sell to lawmakers, particularly from California.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has repeatedly pushed for additional funding for the program, and lawmakers from other states that have costs associated with illegal aliens have also offered support.

A bipartisan trio of House members from California have drafted a letter urging the House Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies to restore funding for the SCAAP program. The three members, Reps. Mike Honda (D), Adam Schiff (D) and Jerry Lewis, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, are also asking the rest of the California House delegation to sign the letter, Honda’s office said.

As an Illinois senator, Obama co-sponsored an amendment offered by then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), now Obama’s secretary of state, that would have provided additional funding for the program. It also would have established a grant program to defray local government healthcare and education costs for non-citizens.

“Each year, the SCAAP program is underfunded,” Clinton said in 2006 comments urging support for her amendment. She cited a 2005 Government Accountability Office study that found local governments get only 25 percent of their costs reimbursed through the program.

“Throughout our country and in my state, there are counties and municipalities that are covering the costs of dealing with education, healthcare, and law enforcement without adequate or any federal reimbursement,” Clinton said. “So we have left our local and state governments to fend for themselves. They should not be left to bear these costs alone because it is not they who are making federal immigration policy.”

Another Obama Cabinet member, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, then a senator from Colorado, was also a co-sponsor.

Obama voted for the amendment, but it was defeated 43-52.

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that has called for tougher border security, predicted it is “very unlikely” that Obama’s proposal to cut the program will be accepted by Congress. He noted that the Bush administration repeatedly tried to zero out the program, but always ran into opposition in Congress.
“It’s hard to justify getting rid of it honestly,” Krikorian said. “It’s a necessary program because the federal government is reimbursing states and localities for the federal government’s own mistakes.”

Krikorian, like Clinton in 2006, argued immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and if state and local jails are incarcerating illegal immigrants, it is because of failed federal policies.

According to the fiscal 2010 budget, Obama’s administration thinks resources used for the program could be better used to enhance federal efforts to curb illegal immigration.

“In place of SCAAP, the administration proposes a comprehensive border enforcement strategy that supports resources for a comprehensive approach to enforcement along the nation’s borders that combines law enforcement and prosecutorial efforts to investigate arrest, detail, and prosecute illegal immigrants and other criminals,” the budget states.

It emphasizes that the budget will provide funding for an additional 20,000
Border Patrol agents, and an additional $1.4 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement programs to support the quick identification and removal of illegal aliens who commit crimes in the U.S.

The Office of Management and Budget did not respond when contacted about this story.Should Obama’s budget cut all subsidies to states for jailing illegal immigrants? Sound off here!