Posts Tagged ‘Gun Control’

“No Confidence” in Holder Resolution

January 28, 2012

Attorney General Eric Holder — recently caught lying under oath concerning his knowledge of his department’s Fast and Furious program — may be moving a step closer to the inside of a jail cell.

On Thursday, February 2nd, Chairman Darrell Issa’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold another hearing on the disastrous Fast and Furious operation.

Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar, a member of that committee, is also pushing a resolution of “no confidence” in Holder’s management — or lack of management — of the Justice Department.

That resolution, H. Res. 490, provides a course of action for the momentum generated by that hearing.

H. Res. 490 finds that, as a result of “Holder’s failure to properly control, monitor, or establish Operation Fast and Furious, it is likely Mexican nationals were killed or wounded by weapons sold through this scheme” — and that the victims of Holder’s incompetence included U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

It goes on to resolve that the House has “lost confidence” in Holder, which is, basically, a call for him to resign.

Clearly, the Justice Department believes it can stonewall Issa’s inquiry and bull its way through questions concerning its criminal malfeasance. Adoption of the Gosar resolution would make it much, much more difficult to do so.

ACTION: Contact your Representative and urge him or her to cosponsor H.Res. 490. Click here to send a prewritten message to your Rep.

 

 

“arbitrary or capricious,” without any doubt!

January 23, 2012
Federal Court Supports Illegal Obama Multiple Sales Regs
First, the good news: Fox News is reporting that due to an amazing outpouring of opposition, the vote on the so-called anti-piracy legislation — which could muzzle websites like GOA’s — has been postponed. Thank you all for your activism … and please stay tuned to further updates on this issue.
Now for the bad news: You know what they say about Friday the 13th.
Well, this past Friday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a setback to gun owners. The issue involved a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s illegal multiple sales regulations. [NSSF v. Jones, Acting Director, BATFE.]
Through those regulations, Obama has demanded, by regulatory fiat, that firearms licensees in four southwestern states report multiple sales of certain long guns to the federal government.
In upholding this action, Judge Rosemary Collyer -– a Bush appointee! –- ignored the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case, and the clear language of federal law.
Of course, this once again underscores the danger of putting all our eggs in the “court basket.” It’s not a bad idea to challenge unconstitutional measures in the courts, but it’s problematic if we look to them as being the ultimate defenders of our gun rights. Clearly, they are not.
Among other things, Judge Collyer ignored the obvious language of the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act, which prohibits the ATF from demanding any information on gun owners other than information explicitly allowed by statute.
Specifically, the section states: “Such [licensees] shall not be required to submit to the Attorney General reports and information with respect to such records and the contents thereof, except as expressly required by this section.” (18 U.S.C. 923(g)(1))
Paragraph (g)(5) allows the Attorney General to demand information by issuing a “demand letter,” but participants in the drafting of McClure-Volkmer affirm that this was not intended to trump the paragraph (1) limitation, in order to statutorily mandate reporting requirements.
To interpret paragraph (g)(5), as Obama and Attorney General Holder have interpreted it, is to say that there are NO limits on the information the Attorney General can demand -– up to and including every 4473 in the country.
In opening this door, Collyer cited much narrower decisions in the Fourth and the liberal Ninth Circuit, but expanded them beyond any judicial precedent. Citing a test that looked at whether the ATF’s action constituted a “clear error of judgment” or was “arbitrary or capricious,” Collyer gave all of the benefit of the doubt to Obama -– and none to the Second Amendment, which wasn’t even considered in her 21-page opinion.
The decision will presumably be appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals -– a supposedly “conservative” circuit that nevertheless upheld ObamaCare.
But the larger issue is this: Congress can block these regulations by simply cutting off the money to implement them. Last fall, we demanded that the House include such a prohibition in its giant money bill. But congressional leaders ignored the Second Amendment community on this and a variety of other pro-gun issues, including defunding ObamaCare.
It is late in the game. But there is still an opportunity to prohibit funding for the multiple sales regulations on the annual Department of Justice Appropriations bill and the “continuing resolution” which will inevitably follow around September 30.
True, a lot of damage will have been done by that point. But we cannot allow to stand the precedent that the Attorney General can seize any and all gun-related information, simply by saying he wants it.

Legislation could potentially shut down gun websites; Big Brother knows best…

January 18, 2012

Yet another attempt to control the free flow of information. Or is it the legitimate government function of enforcing laws against theft..?

I happen to agree with the principles involved, as far as theft of intellectual property goes. However, these laws, as proposed? No damned way period! Read on…

By now, you are no doubt aware that several websites have either gone totally or partially “dark” today in protest of the pernicious internet legislation that will be coming to a vote next week.  Wikipedia and Google are just two of the websites which are protesting in this manner.

And while you may have not paid much attention to this story, you need to know that the “muzzle the web” legislation these sites are protesting could also affect your ability to get gun-related information on websites like GOA’s.

The reason is that S. 968 could, in its final form, allow the Brady Campaign to partially shut down our GOA website and our organization (plus many other pro-gun websites) with a series of factually accurate, but legally frivolous complaints.

The Senate bill and its House counterpart have accurately been called “a direct attack on the underpinnings of the web.”

True, many of the most serious “gun problems” are in the House counterpart.  But the reality is this:  We are within a few votes of killing the whole concept next week in the Senate with only 41 Senate votes.

But if we allow the so-called “anti-piracy” bill to go forward on the HOPE that the worst provisions will not make it into the final version -– and we fail to eliminate them -– the bill may be unstoppable.

Here are the “gun problems,” as we see them:

Section 103(b)(1) of H.R. 3261 allows any “holder of an intellectual property right” to demand that PayPal and other payment and advertising services stop providing services to organizations like ours, thereby shutting off our income.

How would they do this?  Perhaps by arguing that we were stealing their intellectual property by quoting their lying misrepresentations in our alerts.

Is this legally frivolous?  Sure it is.  But the Brady Campaign is the King of Frivolous Complaints:

* Remember when the Brady Campaign asked the Federal Election Commission in 2007 to shut down GOA’s ability to post its candidate ratings on the Internet?  They claimed that we were in violation of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act.  Thankfully, the FEC ruled in GOA’s favor, thus enabling us to continue posting candidate ratings without restraint.

* Remember when the Brady Campaign got 36 state and local jurisdictions to bring frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers –- not in the expectation of winning, but to drain the resources of the manufacturers in order to halt the manufacture of guns in America?

This “muzzle the web” legislation will throw the doors open to even more frivolous complaints.  Could we defend ourselves?  Yes, we could.  We could file a counter notification under section 103(b)(5) and spend years defending ourselves.  But the one thing we did learn during the 36 frivolous lawsuits is that the anti-gun forces in America have very deep pockets.

And the other problem is that, under section 104, our Internet providers would be insulated from liability for shutting us down.  But they would receive no comparable insulation from legal liability if they refused to cut us off.

The Senate version, S. 968, has been amended, at the behest of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley and others, to provide many protections which were not in its initial form.

Under section 3, the Attorney General would go to court and would have to claim that, because of a hyperlink to an offending site, we were “primarily” engaged in the theft of intellectual property.

We would feel a lot better about these protections if the Attorney General were not Eric Holder, a ruthless ideologue who has demonstrated that he will go to any lengths to destroy the Second Amendment.

So the bottom line is this:  H.R. 3261 and S. 968

would potentially empower the Brady Campaign and Eric Holder to go after our Internet site.  To do so, they would have to make the same frivolous arguments and engage in the same lawless activity that they have done so often in the past.

But -– given that we’re within a few votes of snuffing out that risk by killing the bill in the Senate -– we believe it’s the better course of action to do so.

Click here to contact your senators.

SOURCE

Fresh Air from Utah; No, not Romney you silly liberal!

January 15, 2012
Two pro-gun conservatives recently announced they were running against Utah Senator Orrin Hatch.
This is welcome news for gun owners. In a Senate career that has lasted more than thirty five years, Hatch has not been a particularly good friend of the Second Amendment.
During negotiations over the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Firearms Owners Protection Act — designed to protect gun owners from abuses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms — Hatch sat at the negotiating table next to officials of the ATF and argued against the pro-gun positions of Sen. Jim McClure.
Though a senior member of the Senate, Hatch did nothing to block camels-nose legislation slammed through by Republican leader Bob Dole in the late 1980s to regulate armor-piercing bullets and outlaw non-existent “plastic guns.”
As ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993-4, Hatch refused to filibuster the Brady Law, even though it would have been possible to kill it.
He supported the 1996 Lautenberg amendment to impose a lifetime gun ban on people guilty of “domestic misdemeanors” – a term so amorphous that it could apply to spanking your kid or engaging in a verbal argument.
In the wake of the Columbine shooting, Hatch voted for amendments which would have effectively banned gun shows, made it more difficult to keep a loaded gun in your home for self-defense, and codified the Bush-era semi-auto import ban.
This package of legislation was stopped in a conference committee only after Hatch and others were pummeled relentlessly by tens of thousands of GOA activists.
In 2007, Hatch supported the Veterans Disarmament Act—which could strip the Second Amendment rights of honorably discharged veterans who seek professional counseling following traumatic wartime experiences.
Over the following two years, while GOA was working with pro-gun Senators to repeal the gun ban in national parks, Hatch voted against repeal before voting for it in 2009.
Last year, Hatch opposed an amendment offered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to exempt gun buyer information from the Obama administration’s virtually unlimited ability to seize “business records” under the reauthorization of post-9/11 legislation.
Sen. Hatch hasn’t exactly stood up to the Obama administration, either. He voted in favor of regulatory “czar” Cass Sunstein, who favors a ban on hunting and who would grant animals legal protections in court.
And, despite repeated pleas from GOA members, he voted to confirm Eric Holder as Attorney General. In addition to being mired in the Fast and Furious scandal, Holder was the point man on gun control for President Bill Clinton and is a vocal supporter of banning many semiautomatic firearms.
Thankfully, Orrin Hatch is facing a serious challenge in this year’s Republican convention.
Former State Senator Dan Liljenquist is a stalwart pro-gun conservative who understands the dangers of compromising with the likes of President Obama.
And State Rep. Chris Herrod also jumped in the race because, he said, “we don’t have much time to fix our challenges” as a nation. Both Herrod and Liljenquist are “A” rated on gun rights issues.
The candidates will face off in the state Republican convention in April. If no candidate receives more than 60 percent of the delegate votes, the top two vote-getters will run in a June primary.
Gun Owners of America welcomes the challenge to a Senator with a long history of compromising on Second Amendment rights.

Election 2012: Which candidates really believe like those that send them to foggy bottom do?

January 8, 2012

We often see in candidates the populist notion, or action that shows them to be followers of the wind. Bill Clinton being the most famous of those that rule by polls. Polls can, and are twisted by those that put the damned things together. Like statistics, they can always be manipulated to show whatever bias the pollster wishes to convey to further their position. Be that the NRA (full disclosure I am a Life Member.) or NOW.

However, answering questioneres about a subject can provide insights into a candidate. What follows is from an email from a pro gun advocacy group, NAGR, with a link following so that you may join or donate to the cause should you choose to do so.

With the Iowa caucuses just a few days behind us, and with New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada choosing their Republican candidates soon, I wanted to write to you and give you a quick update on the NAGR Presidential Survey program.

As you know, NAGR has mailed every candidate for President an official NAGR Gun Rights Survey.

Ron Paul is the only remaining Republican candidate who has returned his survey 100% in favor of gun rights.

Over the last few weeks and months, I’ve asked you to call the campaigns of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to demand that each candidate return their gun rights survey 100% in favor of the Second Amendment.

Believe me, your calls worked. Repesentatives from each of those campaigns called NAGR offices, demanded we instruct our members and supporters to stop calling and to send them a survey.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry were hurt severely in Iowa because they stonewalled gun owners by refusing to return their surveys, and I think the longer that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney ignore gun owners, the more it will hurt them as well.

Each candidate has the NAGR Presidential Survey in hand. However, we didn’t stop the calls, and we won’t. Each of the remaining candidates needs to know that gun owners have a powerful voice and we will assume that silence is a sign that they are hiding an anti-gun position.

I have serious concerns about Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Perry. It’s their records that worry me.

Let me take a minute or two right now to remind you about the positions of the four Presidential candidates who have so far refused to return their National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey.

Mitt Romney:

So far Mitt Romney has refused to respond to his NAGR gun rights survey, perhaps because when Mitt Romney was Governor of ultra-liberal Massachusetts he signed a bill to ban an entire class of firearms.

Would he do the same thing — or even worse — as President of the United States? His record indicates that he would.

Mitt Romney supports the Brady Registration Act, mandatory 5-day waiting periods, mandatory firearms ID cards, the Federal Feinstein Gun Ban (so-called “assault weapons ban”) and he signed the Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban in 2004.

He even went as far as to say that he supported Massachusetts’ tough anti-gun laws: “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them… I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

And to throw fuel on top of Mitt Romney’s anti-gun fire, he received the endorsement of John McCain this week, who himself has recorded promotional commercials for anti-gun groups hell-bent on restricting our Second Amendment rights.

Rick Santorum:

If you’ve watched any of the Presidential debates, you’ve noticed that Rick Santorum claims time and again to be a “fighter” who has “led on conservative issues.”

Rick Santorum’s record on the Second Amendment, however, tells a different story.

In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

He voted for a bill in 1999 disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns… but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows.

In 2000, Santorum voted to force pawn shops to require a background check on anyone coming into the store to sell a firearm.

And then he voted with gun-controlling Democrats Dianne Fienstein and Frank Lautenberg to mandate locks on handguns in 2005.

But worst of all, Rick Santorum has a storied history of bailing out anti-gun Republicans facing reelection.

Rick Santorum came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate.

He also supported and openly campaigned for anti-gun New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman.

It certainly appears that Rick Santorum has no regrets about his past anti-gun record. Worse, it appears he’d be happy to continue along this path as President.

Newt Gingrich:

For those who have followed Newt Gingrich’s career, the revelation that he talks out of both sides of his mouth won’t be a surprise.

Despite claiming to be pro-gun, Newt Gingrich’s reign as Speaker was downright hostile to our Second Amendment rights.

Newt supports the Brady National Gun Registry, a national biometric thumbprint database for gun purchasers, the Lautenberg Gun Ban and the “Criminal Safezones Act.”

Newt doesn’t think the Brady Instant Gun Registry goes far enough — he wants thumbprints:

“I think we prefer to go to instant check on an immediate basis and try to accelerate implementing instant checks so that you could literally check by thumbprint… Instant check is a much better system than the Brady process.” — June 27, 1997

Gingrich may claim to be pro-gun . . .

But his record indicates otherwise, and his refusal to answer his NAGR survey should give any Second Amendment supporter cause for concern.

Rick Perry:

Texas Governor Rick Perry has received an earful from NAGR members over the past several months for refusing to return his Candidate Survey.

His strategy seems to be to tell gun owners “trust me” while keeping completely silent on what he would do about our gun rights if elected President.

Over the years, gun owners have learned that this is a failed strategy.

George H.W. Bush ran as a pro-gun candidate for President in 1988, but when elected, things changed.

First, he signed an Executive Order banning the importation of so-called “assault weapons.”

Not only that, but it was under President Bush that “Operation Triggerlock,” which dramatically increased funding and power for the BATFE, was implemented.

Of course, as Governor of Texas, Rick Perry did make some minor improvements in state law for gun owners.

It is, however, one thing to act pro-gun as Governor of a state like Texas and quite another to be a pro-gun President of the United States.

Please keep up the pressure on these four Presidential candidates who continue to stonewall gun owners.

Give each campaign a call and demand the candidates return their National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey — at once:

Mitt Romney: 857-288-3500

Rick Santorum: 603-518-5199

Newt Gingrich: 678-973-2306

Rick Perry: 855-887-5627

You and I know that we have the most anti-gun President in the history of our country right now in the Oval Office . . .

. . . but perhaps even more dangerous would be a Republican with a proven anti-gun history cutting backroom, anti-gun deals.

National Association for Gun Rights

Merry Christmas; Some Nitwit always has to screw things up

December 26, 2011

Christmas, a day of thanks for our blessings. Irrespective of how one thinks in terms of religion, or faith. Gift giving and so on are but the shallow things involved. In Kantian Ethics we think in terms of final right, or wrong. Good, or evil, doing what is right, moral, and correct because that is what one should do. Not for reward, just because it is the correct thing to do. Even when no one else is watching.

But? Someone, or group always has to screw things up. Muslims stage an attack on innocent people in Nigeria. Some freak shoots up three generations of a family after opening presents, and I am sure that by later today there will be even more atrocities reported.

All of these things usually end up in some insane call for even further restrictions on the freedoms and liberties of the individual. Most often when those very freedoms may have prevented, or lessened the horrors released upon the victims.

More laws will be demanded by those that endure the pain of loss, as well as those with an anti freedom agenda. Any time that a law is passed it ultimately results in a loss of freedom in exchange for some perceived security. Ben Franklin summed that up for us all quite a few years ago. But? Does anyone listen these days to a dead old white man..?

Mark my words, there will be calls for extreme gun control laws in Texas as a result of the tragedy that happened just outside Dallas. But the control freaks will not say a word about what happened in Niger, where, at least legally, no one can own a weapon other than Police and Military, and, yes, you guessed it… Those with the right connections! Further, you can bet your bottom peso that the obama’s reported promise of assistance in fighting the terrorist’s will come with a price tag of some sort. Most probably involving more and liberty damaging policies, procedures, laws, or treaties…

I submit, yes, even after all these years here on WordPress, that individual freedom and liberty could have prevented or greatly lessened the degree of  both the above noted tragedies. It is called a 45 Colt or 12 gauge Shotgun in the hands of a brave, willing and trained person. Yes, my Marine and Ranger Brothers will chastise me for saying that, but? Simply put, a rifle was not needed to put a stop to the nonsense!

Political correctness be damned!

Grilled Holder for lunch? Fast and Furious; Dead Americans and dead Mexicans. All for political gain.

December 13, 2011

Nearly a year ago I posted here about Operation Gun Runner, also known as Fast and Furious. I speculated at the time that the real reason for this botched operation was not for any noble cause. Nope, it was to justify the passing of ever more restrictions on your inalienable rights. Well, I suppose that the usual suspects had to come up somehow with a justification for their ninety percent lie…

The government’s “gun walking” scandal heated up a Capitol Hill hearing this week.

Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing on the Department of Justice, but Operation Fast and Furious dominated the discussion.

Holder, as he has already done numerous times in testimony before Congress, coninued his practice of stonewalling and deflecting blame for the failed scheme that led to thousands of firearms “walking” across the border into Mexico and into the hands of violent drug cartels.

Committee members grilled Holder on misleading Congress, not dealing appropriately with the individuals who called the shots on Fast and Furious and, even worse, for using the guns that the government allowed to “walk” to Mexico as an excuse for greater gun control in the U.S.

Fast and Furious Leading to More Gun Control

From his opening statement, Rep. Daryl Issa (R-CA), a chief congressional investigator looking into Fast and Furious, made clear that gun control, not crime control, is really the main objective of the Obama administration.

Rep. Issa pointed to recent ATF regulations to register many long-gun purchasers in southwest border states:

The idea that regulations, without any approval of Congress, to create databases in the southwestern states…clearly shows that, in fact, this administration is more interested in building databases, more interested in talking about gun control than actually controlling [the Fast and Furious guns].

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), a strong ally of gun owners, further pressed the point, assuring Holder that:

If the American people learned that the motivations for [Fast and Furious] was somehow to make a case to deprive them of their Second Amendment rights or to make a case to further the Department’s ability to further regulate gun rights within the United States, that would make them very angry.

Rep. Franks went on to read from an email between Mark Chait, ATF Field Operations Assistant Director, and Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious.  Chait wrote:

Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same [licensed gun dealer] and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.

The demand letter Chait was referring to is a regulation (which is in violation of federal laws protecting gun owners’ privacy) requiring more than 8,500 firearms dealers in four states to report multiple sales of long guns to the ATF.

In other words, the Justice Department helped to create a huge mess, and is now seeking more authority to regulate firearms to clean it up.  At the same time, the Department has taken no action to hold anyone accountable within the government.

No Accountability at ATF

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) questioned the Attorney General about holding specific people responsible for the government’s actions.

“Who is the person in the United States government that made the decision…to facilitate the guns going to Mexico,” Rep. Poe asked Holder, who claimed not to know.

After the hearing, Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren brought up that question to committee member Steve King (R-IA).

“Whoever was so stupid to authorize this operation…is still sitting there with the Justice Department because no one will tell us who the one is with such flawed judgment,” Van Susteren said.

King replied that, “If Eric Holder will not identify that person or answer that question, you have to wonder if Eric Holder isn’t the person.”

Holder remains defiant, and has rebuffed calls to step down or to fire those involved.

GOA Petitions Congress to Get ATF off the Backs of Gun Owners

 

President Obama and his Attorney General are clearly going after American gun owners, and they will stop at nothing to achieve their goal of more gun control.

Eric Holder should be fired immediately for his mishandling of Fast and Furious, and then further investigated for possible criminal wrongdoing.

 

But there needs to be more done, which is why GOA is urging Congress to take firearms out of the ATF’s jurisdiction.

The Fast and Furious scandal is not an isolated incident, but just the latest in a long string of abuses by the agency.  As far back as 1982, a Senate committee noted that ATF “has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens.”

But even in light of its many documented abuses, the agency has continued to grow in its budget, personnel, and mission.

This rogue, unconstitutional agency is dedicated to infringing on Americans’ fundamental right to keep and bear arms. And left unchecked, they will regulate it right out of existence.

If you haven’t already signed the petition, please do it today.  Citing a long string of agency abuses, it asks the Congress to exercise its constitutional authority to get the ATF out of the firearms business.  The petition goes directly to your Representative and two Senators.

The ATF has abused the rights of gun owners for far too long.  If enough Americans make their voices heard, we can do away with this unconstitutional agency.

So please, click here to sign the petition today, and then help spread the word.

SOURCE

Grilled Holder on the menu..? Democrats commit murder to further agenda

December 10, 2011

The government’s “gun walking” scandal heated up a Capitol Hill hearing this week.

Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing on the Department of Justice, but Operation Fast and Furious dominated the discussion.

Holder, as he has already done numerous times in testimony before Congress, coninued his practice of stonewalling and deflecting blame for the failed scheme that led to thousands of firearms “walking” across the border into Mexico and into the hands of violent drug cartels.

Committee members grilled Holder on misleading Congress, not dealing appropriately with the individuals who called the shots on Fast and Furious and, even worse, for using the guns that the government allowed to “walk” to Mexico as an excuse for greater gun control in the U.S.

Fast and Furious Leading to More Gun Control

From his opening statement, Rep. Daryl Issa (R-CA), a chief congressional investigator looking into Fast and Furious, made clear that gun control, not crime control, is really the main objective of the Obama administration.

Rep. Issa pointed to recent ATF regulations to register many long-gun purchasers in southwest border states:

The idea that regulations, without any approval of Congress, to create databases in the southwestern states…clearly shows that, in fact, this administration is more interested in building databases, more interested in talking about gun control than actually controlling [the Fast and Furious guns].

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), a strong ally of gun owners, further pressed the point, assuring Holder that:

If the American people learned that the motivations for [Fast and Furious] was somehow to make a case to deprive them of their Second Amendment rights or to make a case to further the Department’s ability to further regulate gun rights within the United States, that would make them very angry.

Rep. Franks went on to read from an email between Mark Chait, ATF Field Operations Assistant Director, and Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious.  Chait wrote:

Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same [licensed gun dealer] and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.

The demand letter Chait was referring to is a regulation (which is in violation of federal laws protecting gun owners’ privacy) requiring more than 8,500 firearms dealers in four states to report multiple sales of long guns to the ATF.

In other words, the Justice Department helped to create a huge mess, and is now seeking more authority to regulate firearms to clean it up.  At the same time, the Department has taken no action to hold anyone accountable within the government.

No Accountability at ATF

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) questioned the Attorney General about holding specific people responsible for the government’s actions.

“Who is the person in the United States government that made the decision…to facilitate the guns going to Mexico,” Rep. Poe asked Holder, who claimed not to know.

After the hearing, Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren brought up that question to committee member Steve King (R-IA).

“Whoever was so stupid to authorize this operation…is still sitting there with the Justice Department because no one will tell us who the one is with such flawed judgment,” Van Susteren said.

King replied that, “If Eric Holder will not identify that person or answer that question, you have to wonder if Eric Holder isn’t the person.”

Holder remains defiant, and has rebuffed calls to step down or to fire those involved.

GOA Petitions Congress to Get ATF off the Backs of Gun Owners

 

President Obama and his Attorney General are clearly going after American gun owners, and they will stop at nothing to achieve their goal of more gun control.

Eric Holder should be fired immediately for his mishandling of Fast and Furious, and then further investigated for possible criminal wrongdoing.

 

But there needs to be more done, which is why GOA is urging Congress to take firearms out of the ATF’s jurisdiction.

The Fast and Furious scandal is not an isolated incident, but just the latest in a long string of abuses by the agency.  As far back as 1982, a Senate committee noted that ATF “has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens.”

But even in light of its many documented abuses, the agency has continued to grow in its budget, personnel, and mission.

This rogue, unconstitutional agency is dedicated to infringing on Americans’ fundamental right to keep and bear arms. And left unchecked, they will regulate it right out of existence.

If you haven’t already signed the petition, please do it today.  Citing a long string of agency abuses, it asks the Congress to exercise its constitutional authority to get the ATF out of the firearms business.  The petition goes directly to your Representative and two Senators.

The ATF has abused the rights of gun owners for far too long.  If enough Americans make their voices heard, we can do away with this unconstitutional agency.

So please, click here to sign the petition today, and then help spread the word.

Gun Runner get’s really Fast and Furious

December 6, 2011

A rogue agency, lead by rogues, populated by rogues? Just what do people expect? Any truly legitimate duties assigned to them should be turned over to the FBI. Like that will happen under the epic failure known as obama.

The congressional investigation into the gunrunning scandal known as Fast and Furious is in full swing this week, with the House Judiciary Committee to hold a round of hearings on Thursday.

More and more reporters in the mainstream media are now taking a closer look at the scandal, which GOA first began alerting members to in January.  Under the program, thousands of guns purchased with federal tax dollars were allowed to “walk” into Mexico, at which point they disappeared into the hands of violent drug cartels.

Just this week, the New York Times reported that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is involved in an enormous, multi-million dollar money laundering scheme aimed, like Fast and Furious, at Mexican drug cartels.

But neither program has resulted in significant arrests (not to mention convictions) of drug kingpins, and no cartels have been brought down after several years of activities by agencies spread across the federal bureaucracy.

One former DEA official expressed frustration to the Times, noting that, “My rule was that if we are going to launder money, we better show results.  Otherwise, the D.E.A. could wind up being the largest money launderer in the business, and that money results in violence and deaths.”

This news infuriated Rep. Darrell Issa, the powerful chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, who announced that his investigation will be expanding to include the activities of the DEA “money-running” scandal.

In a blistering letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Rep. Issa takes Holder to task for arming drug cartels with thousands of firearms, and bankrolling their operations with millions of American taxpayer dollars—perhaps, even hundreds of millions of dollars.

Issa wrote to Holder that the DEA revelation “again calls your leadership into question.  The managerial structure you have implemented lacks appropriate operational safeguards to prevent the implementation of such dangerous schemes.  The consequences have been disastrous.”

With every news report, more and more information leaks out from a Justice Department that seems intent on stonewalling and misleading the Congress.  GOA is keeping the pressure on congressmen to call for Holder’s resignation and to pursue possible criminal wrongdoing by government bureaucrats.

GOA leaders will be attending Thursday’s hearing and will be briefing the media on this burgeoning scandal.

It is also important to continue to remind the politicians that, according to the testimony of many current and former ATF officials, one of the goals of Fast and Furious was to bolster the case for more gun control laws here at home.

SOURCE

Which old Witch?

December 5, 2011

Harry Reid Attempting to Ram Through Another Judge

 

With the help of tons of emails from Gun Owners of America members that poured into the Senate earlier this year, a gun-hating Obama judicial nominee had been kept from coming to the floor for a vote.

 

But thanks to good old Harry Reid, who likes to pretend he supports gun rights, that nominee is coming up for a vote on Tuesday.

 

Using his power as Majority Leader, Senator Reid made a procedural move last week to force a vote on Caitlin Halligan, formerly the solicitor general of New York and an avid leader in the effort to destroy firearms manufacturers using frivolous litigation.

 

Click here to send your Senators a pre-written letter.

 

Reid scheduled the on Halligan vote for this Tuesday, December 6. Consider it an early Christmas present for his anti-gun pals.

 

Gun Owners of America began in February briefing Senate members on the dangers of confirming Halligan to a seat on the D.C. Court of Appeals — sometimes called the second highest court in the land.

 

As New York’s solicitor general, Halligan was one of the chief lawyers responsible for New York’s baseless and politically motivated efforts to bankrupt gun manufacturers using frivolous litigation. In so doing, Halligan proved that she places liberal political activism above fealty to the law.

 

Halligan’s public hatred for firearms was only matched by her zealotry inside the courtroom. In a speech on May 5, 2003, Halligan called for “handgun manufacturers [to be held] liable for criminal acts committed with handguns.”

 

Certainly, no other manufacturer of another item — whether it be cars, baseball bats, or anything else — would be held liable for the criminal misuse of its product. And, as Halligan well knows, the application of that principle to firearms would surely eliminate the manufacture of firearms in America.

 

After attempts of legal extortion of the firearms industry were repudiated by a bipartisan vote in Congress, Halligan’s office did not let up on attacking gun rights, signing a brief calling for New York courts to declare the federal Gun Makers’ Protection Act unconstitutional.

 

Finally, Halligan, in written testimony submitted to the Senate in connection with her nomination, attempted to conceal the extent of her anti-gun animus.

 

Halligan’s failure to provide information that would clarify her statements, thus keeping her testimony from being misleading, constitutes “fraud” against the Senate. As such, the only role she should play in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is the role of a defendant.

 

But, of course, none of this matter to Harry Reid. He already did his part getting two strident anti-gun Obama judges onto the Supreme Court, and now he’s doing what he can to pack the Appeals Courts with radical leftists as well.

 

We have to stop this Reid/Obama court-packing scheme. Please act now, as the vote is scheduled for this Tuesday.

 

Click here to send your Senators a prewritten email message.