Archive for September, 2009

Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina

September 15, 2009

It is said that timing is everything. Mr. Wilson may have failed to properly lead the bird. However, the target was clear, and I might add appropriate.

A Pro-Gun Stalwart Comes Under Attack
— Please stand with Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Pl, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
http://www.goapvf.org

Monday, September 14, 2009

Even if you missed the President’s speech to the Congress on health care last week, you certainly have seen the news following the event.

Most notable was the fact that pro-gun congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina — rated “A” by GOA — decided to call out the President because of his… well, shall we say… his failure to communicate truthfully.

No matter what you think about the time and place Wilson chose to tell President Obama “You lie,” the facts are on Joe Wilson’s side.

The President lied repeatedly throughout his speech.  Even the Associated Press — hardly a bastion of conservatism — noted that the President failed to accurately articulate the truth in several instances.

Wilson’s opponent, however, is trying to use the national attention on Wilson to raise money for his campaign.  In fact, Wilson’s opponent says he raised over $1 million in the first 48 hours following the speech.

It’s up to the pro-gun community to respond in kind and help Wilson through this difficult time.  But first, who is Rep. Joe Wilson and what has he done for gun owners?

Not only has he consistently supported the Second Amendment with his votes, he has also cosponsored needed gun rights legislation.  This year, he has cosponsored two reciprocity bills in the House — including the GOA-supported HR 1620, which protects Vermont-style carry — plus a bill that removes certain restrictions on the interstate sale of firearms.

In previous years, Wilson was the chief sponsor of the Citizen’s Self-Defense Act, a bill that would protect individuals who successfully defend themselves or others from violent attack, only to find themselves in the clutches of anti-gun prosecutors.

And when a conference committee watered down GOA’s language to arm airline pilots following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Rep. Wilson stepped up to the plate.  He successfully pushed through legislation to allow all commercial pilots (not just passenger pilots) to carry guns.  Further, when TSA bureaucrats dragged their feet once armed pilots became the law of the land, Wilson authored yet another bill that streamlined the certification process.

Here’s the bottom line:  Joe Wilson couldn’t stand listening to the President dish out lie after lie.  He says his emotions got the best of him, and he yelled “You lie” in the midst of a presidential address.  He regrets the time and place he did it… but he is not sorry for what he said.

He was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.  He did what millions of Americans — many people like you — would have loved to do.  How many of us would like the chance to tell the President, to his face, to stop lying?

It’s ironic.  The President stood there on national television and said his opponents were lying.  But when Joe Wilson countered that it was the President who was, in fact, lying… it was Wilson who came under attack from the liberal media.

That’s why we need to stand with Rep. Joe Wilson.  If we lose a pro-gun stalwart because of his willingness to call out the President on his lies, it will be a crying shame.

You can contribute to the Wilson campaign by going online at https://www.completecampaigns.com/public.asp?name=Wilson&page=2

Even if it is a contribution of solidarity — only $5 or $10 — it will be worth it.  But if you can afford more, please do so.

Wilson is in for a tough race because the left-wing, anti-gun movement smells blood and they will pour even more money into this race.

Representative Wilson deserves all the help we can give.  Let him know that gun owners are standing with him!

Tim Macy
Vice Chairman

SOURCE

Cass Sunstein: Liberal Nutcase in a position of power!

September 14, 2009

Something tells me that this elitist known as Cass Sunstein is going to become an ongoing theme here. Time will tell, but it sure looks that way. He stands for just about everything everyday Americans dislike, and he appears to hate the things that those same Americans love. Maybe I should add a new category? Czar Wars?

Sales of firearms in the United States have skyrocketed since November 4, 2008.   It’s no secret the election of Barrack Obama to the highest office in the free world caused grave concern among gun owners.

Liberals scoff at the notion that Obama would attempt to disarm the United States population.   However, this is the man who can be heard in an address to a group in San Francisco on a clandestine recording say, in reference to rural America, “…they cling to their guns and their religion.”

Perhaps Obama isn’t making any speeches about disrupting the lifestyle of rural America these days, but he’s certainly putting people in place to do it for him.    The number one candidate for that kind of hit work on sportsmen in the United States is Cass Sunstein.   Sunstein is a professor from Harvard University, who formerly worked with Obama at the University of Chicago.  He’s now tapped to become head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Sunstein’s nomination raises the hackles of sportsmen’s groups nationwide.    He’s widely known for a blatant disdain for the Second Amendment.   He’s even more passionate about animal rights, so much so, he advocates the rights of animals to be granted protected status in the nation’s courts.   More to the point, he believes animals should have the right to sue people.   He’s on the record in favor of an end to all hunting.

A few short years ago, people like Sunstein existed, but rarely were in positions of power.  They were people who took such amazingly over the top positions, but were generally regarded as freakish and weird.  Such is the danger of the Obama appointment.  If confirmed as “Regulatory Czar” to the White House, Sunstein would become the gatekeeper for White House policy for the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.   A man who’s an avowed hater of hunting and guns would be writing the fine print in the Obama Administration’s policies for how those federal agencies would create rules and restrictions.

Wondering how that affects you?

The FBI and ATF are the key agencies who deal with albeit limited regulation of firearms ownership.  There is still the Second Amendment.  However, they conduct the instant background checks and make the decision on whether you are of legal status to buy a gun—or not.

Moreover, the oversight with Department of the Interior is vast.  The agency controls millions of acres of public lands now open for hunting.  How long it will last under such leadership is a mystery.   The National Park Service falls under Interior’s purview.  Already, the Obama Administration has moved toward removing all lead bullets and fishing tackle from Park Service property.   Presently regulation covers Park Service employees only, but there’s a clear desire by higher ups to extend such restrictions to public users.

Where does this end?    Coalitions of sportsmen and conservation groups have teamed to battle Sunstein’s confirmation in the Senate.  The US Sportsman’s Alliance and National Wild Turkey Federation are leading the charge and lobbying heavily on the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus to close ranks and oppose the nomination.  Those two groups are backed by a host of other organizations who convinced one Senator, Republican Johnny Isackson of Georgia, to push for a “hold” on the nomination.

The Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus is a coalition of Congressional members, both Democrat and Republican, who align themselves in defense of issues threatening hunting, fishing, trapping, shooting, and other such activities.  Sadly, the CSC’s clout appears to be withering.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid staged a vote, over the objections of those constituency groups, to end debate of Sunstein’s nomination.    Twenty-two of the 63 Senators who voted in favor of cutting off debate were members of the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus, including U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.   Senator Robert Byrd is not a member of the CSC, but also voted in favor of ending debate and moving the nomination forward.

“We are disappointed with the outcome of tonight’s vote, especially that so many members of the Senate claiming to be pro-sportsman voted in favor of a nominee who has expressed that recreational hunting could be banned,” stated USSA President and CEO Bud Pidgeon through a press release.  “Nonetheless, the USSA and our partners had an obligation to fight this appointment. Sportsmen all across America will clearly be able to see which senators, along with Sen. Isakson, were willing to stand up for them.”

Sunstein doesn’t have the job yet, but this week’s vote was a strong indication he’s looking more and more likely to be the man wielding power over rules governing hunting, fishing, and firearms ownership in the near future.  If confirmed, he would answer only to his boss, President Obama and not to the millions of sportsmen and women across the United States.

Still wondering why the firearms industry has been thriving while the rest of nation’s industries have been stalled amid the recession?

source

update to the story; I believe that this whack job was in fact confirmed.

Justice Stevens and the NRA

September 14, 2009

When is half a glass is better than no glass? McCain Feingold was, and remains, a constitutional nightmare irrespective of how this case turns out. Read on…

During Wednesday’s extraordinary Supreme Court oral argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, some of the more remarkable moments came when Justice John Paul Stevens repeatedly referred, with approval, to a brief filed in the case by the National Rifle Association. Not a pairing you might expect, but Stevens saw in the brief a possible way to rule on the case narrowly, without totally upending major Court precedents on corporate and union spending in election campaigns.

The NRA brief, authored by Charles Cooper of Cooper & Kirk in D.C., joined the opponents of spending restrictions by agreeing with Citizens United that the precedents, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and a section of McConnell v. FEC, should be overturned. But Cooper also suggested a more limited alternative that caught Stevens’ eye: reversing those precedents only to the extent that they permit the government to restrict campaign spending by non-profit advocacy groups — like the NRA, he said — that use individual donations to fund political speech. That would have the effect of striking down the so-called Wellstone Amendment in the McCain-Feingold law, which included such non-profit groups in the ban on campaign spending. Cooper says the amendment was specifically aimed at keeping the NRA from using its treasury funds in campaigns, and sticks out like an “unconstitutional sore thumb.” By excising the Wellstone Amendment from the law, Cooper said, the Court would strike a blow for the First Amendment and allow “non-profit groups like the NRA, the Sierra Club, and the ACLU, to speak to their hearts’ content” during campaigns.

“I’m delighted that the points we made got Justice Stevens’ attention, or any other members of the Court,” said Cooper. Asked in jest if the NRA would welcome the liberal Stevens as a member, Cooper laughed and said, “With open arms, I am sure.”

Stevens first cited the NRA solution just as Citizens United’s lawyer Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher was ending his time at the podium. “No one has commented” on the NRA brief, Stevens said, but he was bringing it up in response to Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s suggestion earlier that “there are narrow ways of resolving the problem before us.” Stevens asked Olson if he would comment on the brief during his rebuttal, and after some back and forth, Olson said he would do so.

Next, Stevens raised the NRA brief in a question to Olson’s adversary Solicitor General Elena Kagan. In response, she allowed that Citizens United is “an atypical plaintiff” as an ideological non-profit corporation, but the discussion took another turn before she fully answered Stevens’ question. Stevens came back to it again, and ultimately Kagan acknowledged that striking down the Wellstone Amendment would be “certainly a narrower and I think better solution” than invalidating the entire statute that pertains to corporate and union spending.

When Olson rose again for his rebuttal, Stevens soon asked him again about the NRA brief. Earlier in the case Olson had shifted the case into high gear by explicitly asking the Court to overturn the Austin and McConnell precedents. The oral argument to that point had clearly put that goal within reach, so Olson was not, it appeared, settling for a half- or quarter-loaf.

“It would not solve the problem,” said Olson, adding that even without the Wellstone Amendment his client might still be covered by the law. To nail down the point, Stevens persisted: “You do not endorse the NRA’s position?” To which Olson replied, “No we don’t.”

In an interview Cooper stressed that his preference, like Olson’s, would be to overturn Austin and McConnell broadly. “That’s an argument we have made robustly,” Cooper said. But the narrower solution, he said, would serve his client’s interest, as well as that of other non-profit advocacy groups, without disturbing the restrictions on the main target of campaign legislation: business corporations. “With a group like ours, our purpose is advocacy,” said Cooper. “It’s not the cash register, it’s the ballot box.” The First Amendment, he said, should not stifle such speech.

Footnote: Cooper did not attend the argument Wednesday. He was in California at the time, working with his clients, supporters of Proposition 8 which overturned a California Supreme Court ruling that would have allowed same-sex marriage. One of his adversaries in the litigation over the proposition: Ted Olson.

SOURCE

DOW TO OFFER HUNTING MARKSMANSHIP CLASS SEPT. 26-27

September 14, 2009

If you are new to hunting a course like this can save you years of frustration. Hat tip to the Colorado Division of Wildlife!

MONTE VISTA, Colo.–The Colorado Division of Wildlife will host a Hunting Marksmanship Class in Monte Vista on Sept.  26-27. The class will take place at the Division of Wildlife Monte Vista Service Center, 0722 South Road 1 East.

The purpose of the class is to teach adult big game hunters how to refine and apply their basic marksmanship skills to become better hunters.  Topics include proper zeroing and marksmanship techniques, range estimation, shot placement and equipment.  This class will include a shooting session at the Rio Grande Sportsman’s Range.  Hunters of all skill levels are welcome to attend.

Participants must bring their own centerfire rifle (preferably the rifle used to hunt big game) and ammunition with a minimum of 30 to 40 rounds. This class will be limited to 20 participants and filled on a first-come, first-served basis.

There will be three sessions: morning classroom on the 26th for all participants, a range session during the afternoon of the 26th for half of the class, and a range session on the morning of the 27th for the remaining participants.

To register, please call the DOW Monte Vista Service Center at (719) 587-6900.

For more information about Division of Wildlife go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us.

UNCOMPAHGRE PLATEAU MOUNTAIN LION RESEARCH AREA MEETINGS

September 14, 2009

In addition to this there is a very good course at the DOW about Mountain Lions. See link at the end;

MONTROSE, Colo.– The Colorado Division of Wildlife will be holding meetings to discuss the upcoming lion hunting season in the research area on the south end of the Uncompahgre Plateau in portions of Game Management Units (GMUs) 61, 62, and 70.

Discussion will include quotas, season dates, a permit system for the research area and how hunters can participate in the research effort.  As time allows, biologists will discuss lion management outside of the research area.

The meetings are aimed at mountain lion hunters.  General lion information will not be discussed.  Mountain lion hunters are invited to ask questions and discuss issues with DOW staff.

The first meeting will be at 7 p.m., Sept. 16 at the Delta Montrose Electric Association building in Montrose, 11925 6300 Rd.  The second meeting will be at 7 p.m., Sept. 17 at the Redvale Community Center in Redvale.

For more information, especially if you cannot attend the meeting, contact Brad Banulis or Ken Logan at the Montrose DOW office at (970)252-6000.

For more information about Division of Wildlife go to: http://wildlife.state.co.us.

Clearing up a misconception

September 14, 2009

Quote of the Day: “There are some bills we don’t need to read, we already know how we’re going to vote.” – Rep. Henry Brown

Does DownsizeDC.org agree or disagree with this statement? The answer may surprise you . . .

Subject: Clearing up a misconception about the Read the Bills Act

The partisans on both sides are using “reading the bill” as a sign of moral superiority. They’re jabbing each other over who’s read the healthcare bill more carefully, as the Joe Wilson controversy indicates.

As originators of the Read the Bills meme, we consider this a sign of progress. It means that public pressure in support of our idea is both working and growing. Now, if only the Democrats and Republicans in Congress would stop using our idea to grandstand, and would instead pass DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act (RTBA)!

But the debate over which side has read the healthcare bill more carefully raises a question: should members of Congress who intend to vote AGAINST a bill still be required to read every word of it?

We think it would be helpful for them to do so, especially when it comes to debating why the bill should be defeated, but we don’t think those who intend to vote NO on a bill should be required to read it.

No one needs to justify opposing a bill that will invade your life, your liberty, or your property. Opponents don’t have to prove they know every clause and subsection.

One bad clause may be sufficient to put down the bill and go vote against it.

The onus is always on those who support a bill to justify it.

This gives us an opportunity to clear up a common misconception among members of Congress . . .

Several of them think that DownsizeDC.org’s RTBA would require all members to read every word of every bill that comes to a vote. It doesn’t. It only requires those who vote in favor of a bill to have signed an affadavit affirming they have read the bill, or heard it read.

Those who oppose a bill because they think its key points are bad, aren’t asked to sweat the details.

The RTBA’s purpose is to force a bill’s supporters to have a basic knowledge of what it is they’re passing. This basic knowledge can only come from reading the bill. This simple requirement would . . .

* Prevent politicians from blithely supporting bills just because they sound like they have good intentions
* Require politicians to take responsibility for their vote — they could no longer hide behind the excuse that they “didn’t know that was in the bill”
* Make politicians more concerned to make sure that a nice-sounding bill won’t have unintended consequences

We therefore agree with the Quote of the Day above — at least in one sense. If Representative Brown already knows he’s going to oppose a bill, the RTBA won’t require him to read it. But he, and all members of Congress, must read every bill they intend to support.

Use our Educate the Powerful System to tell your Congressional employees to pass DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act.

Use your personal comments to tell them that, contrary to their possible misconception, the RTBA only requires them to read bills they support, not bills they oppose. Also remind them that if they pass the healthcare bill without reading it first, they will pay a steep political price.

You can send your letter to Congress here.

Thank-you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army. To see how fast your Army is growing, please check out the Keeping Score report below my signature.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

KEEPING SCORE REPORT

Your Downsize DC Army grew by 22 net new members since our last report. This brings our total growth for the year to 3,802. The Downsize DC Army now stands at 28,148, nearly 15% of the way between 28,000 and 29,000.

YOU can make the army KEEP GROWING by following our quick and easy instructions for personalized recruiting.

SOURCE

‘CZAR’ Sunstein Shoots Himself In The Foot

September 12, 2009

Gun Hater Lautenberg Proposes “Extraordinary Powers” Be Given To the U.S. Attorney General To Limit Gun Sales.

Obama and the White House are looking the other way as Lautenberg seeks to ban guns from 1,000,000 US citizens on a secret FBI terrorist watch list. Obama has deliberately and repeatedly lied to America’s 90 million gun owners across the country when he insisted that he would not try to take away anyone’s firearms. Now Obama’s silence endorses Lautenberg’s latest attempt at banning guns.

Lautenberg has now introduced bill S. 1317 that would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. We must defeat this bill from giving extraordinary powers to limit gun sales to the Attorney General.

Lautenberg To Reveal Names on Secret List

The names of the people on the watch list are secret, and Lautenberg said he was frustrated by the F.B.I.’s refusal to disclose to investigators details and specific cases of gun purchases beyond the aggregate data.

Gun hater Lautenberg requested the gun grab study from the Government Accountability Office. He is using statistics, compiled in the report that is scheduled for public release next week to invade US citizen’s privacy and put more restrictions on the Second Amendment.

Lautenberg said he wanted a better understanding of who is being allowed to buy guns.

How you ask? Trial by innuendo and misinformation that has put 1,000,000 Americans and maybe even you on a terrorist watch list without your knowledge by saying: people placed on this government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, and will also be stopped from buying a gun.

Lautenberg wants gun purchases stopped for just being on the list. Current law states federal officials must find some other disqualification of a would-be gun buyer, like being a felon, an illegal alien or a drug addict.

Is your name on the list and can you get it removed?

The government’s consolidated watch list, used to identify people suspected of links to terrorists, has grown to more than one million names since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It also has drawn widespread criticism over the prevalence of mistaken identities and unclear links to terrorism.

A CNN story raises questions about mistaken identities on the list – James Robinson is a retired Air National Guard brigadier general and a commercial pilot for a major airline who flies passenger planes around the country.

James Robinson is a retired brigadier general and a commercial pilot. His name is on the terrorist “watch list.”

He has even been certified by the Transportation Security Administration to carry a weapon into the cockpit as part of the government’s defense program should a terrorist try to commandeer a plane.

But there’s one problem: James Robinson, the pilot, has difficulty even getting to his plane because his name is on the government’s terrorist “watch list.”

That means he can’t use an airport kiosk to check in; he can’t do it online; he can’t do it curbside. Instead, like thousands of Americans whose names match a name or alias used by a suspected terrorist on the list, he must go to the ticket counter and have an agent verify that he is James Robinson, the pilot, and not James Robinson, the terrorist.

“Shocking’s a good word; frustrating,” Robinson — the pilot — said. “I’m carrying a weapon, flying a multimillion-dollar jet with passengers, but I’m still screened as, you know, on the terrorist watch list.”

History Repeating Itself?

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.”

Lautenberg Must be Stopped

Recently Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have joined Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and victims and family members of the Virginia Tech tragedy, to introduce legislation to eliminate the private transfers of firearms and close the nation’s “gun show loophole.”

This Senate bill is in the Judiciary Committee, chaired by anti-gun liberal Democrat Leahy. Lautenberg’s gun hate is well documented and he says you are irrational if you support private gun sales.

“There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole. The reason it’s still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington” Sen. Lautenberg said ignoring the Constitution.


Lautenberg and the Gun Grabbers in the Senate are now tying to use the GAO to justify putting Americans on a secret gun ban list.

LAUTENBERG’S MOTIVES

Motives for his latest gun ban to are twofold:

  • First, he is taking small steps to enact gun control legislation this is just one step.
  • Second, eradicate the gun culture altogether.

All that seems to be on the minds of the Anti-Gun Senators and at the offices of gun control extremists is figuring out how to invade your privacy to erode and eventually destroy the right, and the means, of self-defense.

Now the Anti-Gun Coalitions are trying to use a self supporting GAO study to destroy the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms to protect themselves under the law. They are attacking and hiding behind an Anti-Terrorist Agenda while getting political and financial support from:

George Soros a Hungarian-born billionaire bank rolling efforts with his check book and spending more that $100 million to destroy the Constitution.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) admitted that “guns would be banned and confiscated” if she could have her way.

The United Nations actively pushes globalism seeking to disarm all Americans.

We must Stop the Anti-Gun Coalition and get ready for the biggest gun control fight of the year from coast to coast. We can not do that without your support.

Stand up against this attack! Stand up for the right to not only defend yourself, but to defend your family, your children, your friends, and your classmates!

Like all other threats against our freedoms, we must rise and defeat this bill from giving extraordinary powers to limit gun sales to the Attorney General.

In order to stop Lautenberg and his fellow gun-grabbers-we need to let the Congress know with thousands of faxes telling them to leave guns alone.

Americans like you who understand what our Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation…and who are willing to fight to defend our Constitution and for what it stands.

So please, help the Citizens Committee and me defeat those who wish to gut and trash the United States Constitution.

Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOU’RE OUTRAGE at ongoing efforts to take guns away!

CALL PRESIDENT Obama, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of all GUN BANS.

DO NOT BE SILENCED – MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Senators right away!

Source: CCRKBA without all the spam…

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

September 12, 2009

Remember, you heard it here long ago…

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.

Click here to use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center 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,

SOURCE

Can you spell treason? I knew ya’ could! : Lautenberg S. 1317

September 12, 2009

Senator Lautenberg, after having sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America used deceit and dishonor to inflict what is perhaps the most destructive set of law that the American people have ever had to endure. He did so by directly imposing ex post facto law upon the people of America. That, ladies and gentlemen, is called treason, in the legal sense, as well as in the moral sense.

Once again, the race for liberty is on people. As I have been posting here and across the internet the health care debacle is nothing more than a smoke screen. These things are called “false flag operations.” Designed to catch your awareness so that other things may be done while your attention is concentrated elsewhere. These… Czars, they are appointed, not vetted by the people at all, and only on occasion by our elected representatives. Americans having Czars? How many citizens of America are ethnic Russians? One hell of a lot! They left Russia as well as the peoples paradise called the Soviet Union for a reason.

Now? We are dealing with what?

A full blown nut case!

Radical ‘Regulatory Czar’ Could Pose Problems for Gun Owners

— While BATFE is ready to step up efforts at spying on gun owners

Friday, September 11, 2009

Yesterday, another radical extremist joined the ranks of the Obama administration.

Cass Sunstein, who is an old friend of Barack Obama, is now our new Regulatory Czar.  You will recall that he is the guy who wants animals to sue hunters and other Americans.

He also supports gun control.

While his nomination as head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs passed the Senate by a 57-40 vote yesterday, the REAL vote was actually much closer — losing only by three votes.

That vote occurred on Wednesday, when Republicans tried to kill his nomination using a filibuster — a procedure which required Democrats to muster 60 votes.  Every Democrat (except for three) voted for Sunstein.  The three Senators who voted against Sunstein on the filibuster were Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and James Webb (D-VA).

Unfortunately, a handful of Republicans crossed party lines to help Sunstein overcome the procedural roadblock.  The Republican traitors who crossed party lines on Wednesday were Senators Bob Bennett (UT), Sue Collins (ME), Judd Gregg (NH), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Richard Lugar (IN) and Olympia Snowe (ME).

Dishonorable mention goes to Republican-turned-Democrat Senator Arlen Specter (PA) who voted for Sunstein — as well as Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR), who waited until the end of the voting period to finally cast his ballot against Sunstein.

Regarding Pryor, you will remember that in August, he waited until the last minute to cast his vote in favor of the concealed carry reciprocity amendment.  When it became clear the anti-gunners had a comfortable margin of victory, Sen. Pryor actually switched his vote at the last minute.

GOA members will be receiving a newsletter soon that shows an actual picture of the Senate tally sheet, which documents Pryor’s vote switch.  (Not receiving GOA’s newsletter?  Click here and become a GOA member today!)

The cloture vote on Wednesday — ending the filibuster on Sunstein — was 63-35.  You can see how your two Senators voted on the filibuster and on final passage by going to the GOA Vote Tracking section.

As the Regulatory Czar, Sunstein will provide the final touches on new federal regulations.  No firearm or ammunition needs to be banned outright — that would be too transparent.  As the coauthor of Nudge (2008), Sunstein has already laid out how “choice architects” should carefully guide (or nudge) Americans into making better choices.

So with a little regulation here … a little regulation there … Sunstein can strengthen the iron fist of the federal gun police (otherwise known as the BATFE).  Or, he can implement additional federal requirements which will result in firearm and ammunition manufacturers paying more for their merchandise.

Of course, these costs will be passed on to the consumer as new “taxes” that will “nudge” Americans away from purchasing firearms or engaging in the shooting sports.

In short, be prepared for more “change” from Washington and less spare change in your pockets.

Be vigilant about BATFE spying!

GOA has received a report from a very well-known journalist at a big newspaper that the FBI and BATFE are teaming up together to get off-the-record information on gun owners.  The project, known as Vigilant Eagle, involves federal agents going to gun stores and doing “meet and greets” with shop owners in the hopes of obtaining informal information on people buying guns.

If you are a shop owner who is contacted by the FBI or BATFE as part of this program — or if you are a gun owner who becomes aware that this program is going on in your area — please contact GOA by clicking here and giving us the details of what you know.  The journalist wants to run a story exposing Vigilant Eagle to the entire country.

MAIG: Bloomberg Follies

September 12, 2009
Gun Owners Tell Mayors The Truth About “Mayors Against Illegal Guns”
Friday, September 11, 2009

When New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino–both virulently anti-gun mayors–formed a new anti-gun group a few years ago, they envisioned the creation of a powerful force to lobby for new gun control laws.  But in assembling their coalition, they failed to take two important things into account:  first, the response of gun owners to this new threat, and second, that many mayors would not take kindly to being misled regarding the real purpose of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG.)

Over the past few years, even as they continue to claim they are only concerned with “illegal” guns, MAIG has worked to impose new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners by regulating guns shows, supporting reckless lawsuits against the firearm industry, and opposing the right of self-defense for law-abiding Americans with carry permits.  Mayor Bloomberg, who sets the agenda for this radical group, is dedicated to the passage of highly restrictive gun laws. In an appearance on “Meet the Press,” Bloomberg announced that he would raise money to counter the influence of the NRA.

But there is a growing glitch in Bloomberg’s plan.  More and more mayors are discovering the real purpose of MAIG, and are removing their names from the group’s list.  After hearing from their constituents, over 40 mayors have resigned from the group since it’s inception.

A number of mayors have provided the same reason for leaving the group:  MAIG was not what they represented themselves to be.  In her letter of resignation, Mayor Patricia Shontz (R) of Madeira Beach, Florida wrote, “I am withdrawing because I believe the MAIG is attempting to erode all gun ownership, not just illegal guns.  Additionally, I have learned that the MAIG may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership.”  She goes on to add, “It appears the MAIG has misrepresented itself to the Mayors of America and its citizens.  This is gun control, not crime prevention.”

Mayor Shontz’s concerns were echoed by Mayor Josh Nowotarski (D) of Mount Penn, Pennsylvania, who wrote, “I recently learned of the misrepresentations of the group and regret having joined in the first place.”

These sentiments were shared by a number of other mayors who have removed their name from the MAIG list.

Is your mayor a member MAIG?  Click here to find out.

If your mayor is listed, contact the Mayor’s office and let them know the truth about MAIG and ask them to resign.  If they say they are on the list in error, let them know they need to contact MAIG and have their name removed.  If your mayor agrees that MAIG is not a group that he or she wants to belong to, encourage your mayor to resign and let NRA-ILA know that they have done so.  Help your mayor make the right choice between protecting our Second Amendment rights or continuing to be associated with those who actively oppose and undermine your firearms freedom.