GOA

Uncategorized

A Roundup Of Other Gun Right Organizations Reactions To BATFE Announcement

March 11, 2015 by 2 Comments

It should be noted that it was not just the NRA that opposed the BATFE proposed framework and the ban on M855 5.56 bullets. There were a lot of gun rights organizations involved. I will say what I think really got BATFE’s attention were the letters from the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees signed by a majority of the members of both houses of Congress. For that, I do give the NRA-ILA a lot of credit because I’m sure they had a lot to do with it.

From the NSSF:

ATF announced today that it will not move forward with its proposed framework to ban commonplace 5.56 M855 “green tip” ammunition at this time while it reviews the record number (more than 80,000) comments it has received so far. ATF will continue to accept comments through March 16. NSSF, as the trade association for the firearms industry, looks forward to engaging in a dialogue with ATF to address this issue that led to the now withdrawn proposal. Our industry members hope to meet consumer demand in bringing alternative ammunition products to the market and to continue to sell the popular M855 rifle target ammunition. NSSF continues to strongly urge ATF to grant 32 long-pending petitions to exempt alternative rifle ammunition designed and intended for the hunting market.

From Gun Owners of America:

In
a stunning new development, the ATF has announced today that it will
“formally delay” the implementation of its ammo ban, in the face of
80,000 comments which were overwhelmingly negative.Last month, Obama’s ATF had proposed a rule to effectively ban AR-15’s by banning the common AR-15 “green tip” ammunition.Supposedly,
gun owners had until March 16 to send comments to ATF. But then, lo and
behold, the AR-15 ammunition in question turned up (last week) on an
ATF list of ammunition indicating that it had ALREADY BEEN BANNED. Oops!The ATF
claimed this was a “publishing error.”  But the only “error” the lying
agency made was to telegraph its firm intention before the comment
period was closed.  It was like the bizarre world of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland:  First the sentence; then the trial.ATF cries “uncle” after getting hammered from the publicThe agency
is now crying “uncle,” in the face of thousands upon thousands of
negative comments from gun owners all around the country — including
more than 200 congressmen.The agency said today:Although
ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith
interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement,
industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to
date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve
further study.A “good faith interpretation”?  Well, that’s laughable.  But realize the agency says the issue deserves “further study.”So now the
question becomes:  Is this a genuine retreat, or just a “tactical
retreat,” as we saw with Operation Choke Point?  In that case, the
federal government removed gun dealers from its “risky business list,”
but continue to persecute them under that program on a case-by-case
basis.And, finally, what about the ban on Russian-made 7N6 ammo, which is not reversed by ATF’s reversal?Our answer
to both of these questions is that we need to keep up the pressure —
and not trust ATF’s purported “change of heart.”GOA will keep watching the ATF and alert you to any future attempts to slip a ban by the American people. Your grassroots efforts have been phenomenal!!!

From the Second Amendment Foundation:

BELLEVUE, WA – While overwhelming public pressure has suddenly caused the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to postpone action on a proposed ban on M855 ammunition for modern sport-utility rifles, the Second Amendment Foundation said the battle is not over in defense of firearms rights.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, who launched a television and radio campaign Monday to derail the proposal, was gratified to learn from an ATF statement that more than 80,000 comments had been received from the public.

“We are delighted to have been a part of the effort to stop this proposal in its tracks,” Gottlieb said. “The grassroots responded to a serious threat, and the negative reaction on Capitol Hill from both the House and Senate – no doubt spurred by constituent calls and letters – have, at least for now, put the brakes on a bad idea.

“However,” he continued, “we are encouraging the nation’s gun owners to remain vigilant. Our initial radio and television advertisements will run through this week, reminding grassroots activists that the Obama administration is not likely to abandon its gun control efforts. Frankly, this may just be the end of Round One.”

SAF general counsel Miko Tempski sent a letter threatening legal action, which for sure had an impact, to ATF Director B. Todd Jones.

“This is a great victory but the battle is not over,” Gottlieb cautioned. “The Obama administration will try to rework this ban proposal and we will see it back sooner than later. Now is the time to double our efforts and drive a permanent stake through the heart of any ammo ban.”

From the Firearms Policy Coalition:

March 10, 2015 (WASHINGTON, D.C.) — In the face of overwhelming public opposition, the Obama Administration is running away from yet another gun control scheme. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had proposed regulations that would have banned M855 5.56×45 ammunition as “armor piercing.”

But the Bureau published a tweet this morning saying, “You spoke, we listened.”

Second Amendment gun rights advocates are hailing the move, calling it a victory for common sense and the Constitution.

“Millions of law-abiding American gun owners won today,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition. “Freedom ultimately prevailed in our fight with the ATF because the Constitution, the truth, and the law are on our side.”

In a public notice also published on its website today, the federal agency said that it had already received “more than 80,000 comments” opposing the framework that would ban the ammunition commonly used by shooters in AR-15 platform modern sporting rifles, and that “ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework.”

However, gun rights leaders are careful to note that the ATF can easily reverse course again, prompting calls for gun owners across the nation to continue sending ATF comments in opposition to the ammunition regulations.

The ATF’s notice indicated that the Obama Administration might look to propose other, similar ammunition regulations, possibly “through additional proposals and opportunities for comment.”

“While we’re pleased to see that the Obama Administration and ATF listened to the American people for once, it’s clear to us that this fight isn’t over,” Combs warned. “Gun owners must continue to be vigilant in their defense of the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.”

“As the M855 ammo ban debacle proved, the federal government will run over Second Amendment rights any chance it gets. We can’t take our eye off the ball for one second.”

Firearms Policy Coalition noted the strong coalition effort to stop the M855 ammunition regulations, especially through other gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

“Today’s positive outcome shows what we as a culture can do when we combine forces and work together,” explained Combs. “I look forward to many more opportunities to show the gun prohibitionists what real grassroots looks like.”

Over 32,000 letters were sent to the ATF through Firearms Policy Coalition’s Take Action activism platform at ammoban.org and stopATF.org, which will continue to allow people to submit public comment letters to the agency.

UPDATE: While not a gun rights organization, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is on our side. Here is his response to the BATFE announcement.

WASHINGTON – ‎One day after Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, led 52 Republican colleagues in condemning a proposal limiting access to rifle ammunition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) today announced it would not finalize the plan. All senators were invited to join the letter.

“I’m pleased to see that the ATF has now decided to abide by congressional intent of the law, and its exemption protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. ATF’s original proposal to short-circuit the exemption and limit access to rifle ammunition was an affront to the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and it was met with stiff rebuke. I will continue to stand up for the rights of law-abiding Americans and the constitutional protections they are guaranteed,” Grassley said.

The ATF proposal was inconsistent with a 1986 Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act exemption protecting the ammunition primarily used for sporting purposes, such as hunting and target shooting.

I thank the senator and those senators that signed his letter to BATFE Dir. B. Todd Jones. My question is why supposed Second Amendment supporters such as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), and Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) did not sign the letter. There were Democrats in the House that signed Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s letter.

Uncategorized

GOA To Manchin and Toomey – Hell No!

April 10, 2013 by 2 Comments

The Gun Owners of America was even less kind to Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) than the NRA-ILA. They called it a sellout that was worse than the “Feinstein gun ban”. I’m not sure I’d agree on that but it most certainly is not the panacea envisioned by the good senators.

GOA is calling the bill the “See a Shrink, Lose your Guns” bill. Their release is below:


Urgent action required. It is urgent that every gun owner call their Senators today and demand that they oppose the “See a Shrink, Lose your Guns” sell-out bill that is being authored by Senators Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Manchin (D) – but which also has Chuck Schumer’s fingerprints all over it. Call immediately at 202-224-3121.

See a Shrink, Lose your Guns. The anti-gun “ranters” have spent the last week telling us that Republican Senators can’t filibuster Harry Reid’s gun control bill; that they can’t cut off debate to a bill they haven’t seen yet. “Let the bill come up,” they say. “We need to see the bill” before Senators can vote against cloture to proceed to it.

Well, we’ve seen the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out, and it’s worse than the Feinstein gun ban, which will reportedly be tied to it and offered simultaneously in a Senate procedure known as an “amendment tree.”

Toomey and Manchin will claim that their bill only covers “gun show sales” and Internet sales. But if you’ve ever talked about your gun and /or let it be known you’d like to sell or buy a gun on the Internet, this language covers you. If you advertise your gun in the church bulletin and the bulletin is put on the Internet, you’re covered.

The only exemption is for sales that are sold exclusively by word of mouth. The increased number of background checks would likely exacerbate the system breakdowns (inherent to NICS) which have shut down gun shows over and over again. It would mean that Americans who were illegally denied firearms because their names were similar to other people’s would effectively be barred from owning a gun. (We would never tolerate such delays for voting rights or other freedoms that we are guaranteed.)

And for those Republicans who think they’re going to be able to offer their useless amendments, guess what? Reid is reportedly going to use a procedure to block out all amendments (called an “amendment tree”). And there are plenty of Senators standing in line to make sure that the Senate doesn’t give “unanimous consent” to let those Republicans offer their amendments.

So if you live in a rural area, you’re effectively barred from selling or buying a gun – or it at least becomes very, very difficult.

Incidentally, the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer “national registry” language is full of holes. There will be a national gun registry as a result of this sell-out.

But that’s not the worst part. Under an amendment in the bill to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), you could have your guns taken away because your private shrink thinks you’re “dangerous” and could send your name directly to the FBI Instant Check system.

Did you think it was terrible that 150,000 military veterans had been added into the NICS system because they’d seen a VA shrink about their PTSD? Well guess what? Now it’s going to happen to the rest of the population … by the millions!

And the next step, of course, will be to begin to sue psychiatrists that don’t send every single patient’s name to the Instant Check system, and to make sure that their lives are ruined if they don’t send a patient to NICS and anything goes wrong.

The bottom line: “See a shrink; lose your guns.”

All of this will reportedly be on an amendment tree with the Feinstein gun ban and magazine bans.

Repeal of gun owner protections. In addition, Toomey no doubt unintentionally agreed to repeal one of the most important protections for gun owners that was included in the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act – the provision that would allow you to take an unloaded, locked-up gun through states like New York without being stopped. Under a new subsection (c), the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer bill would require you to “demonstrate” to the satisfaction of New York police where you were coming from and where you are going to. And, if you don’t do that to their satisfaction, they can arrest you.

Please keep in mind, nothing in this bill would have stopped Newtown dirtbag from killing his mother and taking the firearms that she owned and perpetrating the horrible crimes that he committed.

Nothing is this bill would actually make children safer at schools. There is nothing that will actually keep bad guys from stealing or illegally acquiring guns, but there’s plenty that will threaten our gun rights!

ACTION: Contact your two senators immediately. Tell them the “see a shrink; lose your guns” sellout is even worse than the Feinstein gun ban which will reportedly be on the same amendment tree with it. Distribute this alert far and wide.

Time is short, so if you call – at 202-224-3121 – you may click below to see the pre-written letter and use the contents to help direct your comments.

Click here to send your Senators a prewritten email message.

Uncategorized

GOA On The Senate Judiciary Bill Mark-Ups

March 7, 2013 by

The Gun Owners of America have sent out a notice about the bills that will be voted on in the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow. While they mention S. 443, I’m wondering if this bill will be substituted for the S. 54 which is on the agenda. I don’t always agree with GOA but I think are correct about S. 443 being more dangerous than S. 150 which doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being enacted.


Senate “Deal” Would Impose
Even More Gun Bans
Gifts, gun raffles and multiple sales of guns would be effectively banned

Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will mark up four bills arising out of the Newtown tragedy:

* The Feinstein bill — which would ban millions of shotguns, rifles, handguns and magazines that Americans can legally own — but which will probably die on the Senate floor.

* The universal gun registry — which may also die on the Senate floor — unless a last-minute deal with Sen. Tom Coburn brings it to life.

* Legislation by Barbara Boxer, which throws away $100,000,000 on school safety studies, but doesn’t immediately mention guns.

* And, currently the biggest danger, the Leahy-Gillibrand-Kirk bill, which has ominously been labeled a “gun trafficking” bill.

In regard to this latter piece of legislation (S. 443), the bill is being sold inside the Beltway as a bipartisan “compromise” because anti-gun Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) is a cosponsor of it.

But S. 443 would dramatically threaten to put gun owners in jail with horrendously long sentences for the most minor of infractions.

Essentially, the bill would impose a 15-year prison sentence for “negligent multiple sales by a dealer,” “negligent gifting” or “negligent raffling.”

Increasingly, there are more and more individuals who are “prohibited persons” for non-violent reasons — for instance, they smoke marijuana or they are military veterans suffering from maladies such as PTSD.

But if S. 443 is passed, any person who sells to such prohibited persons two or more firearms … or gives them a firearm as a gift … or raffles a firearm (where they are the recipient) … does so only at the considerable risk of spending 15 years in a federal penitentiary.

You don’t need to know the person is a prohibited person under either example. Nor does the recipient need to know they’re a prohibited person.

In fact, you don’t need to do anything more than plan (“conspire”) to transfer the gun. In addition, the recipient doesn’t need to be on the NICS list to be a prohibited person.

Not only that, under section 4 of the bill, if you even “intend” to sell a firearm to a person who turns out to be a marijuana smoker — or one of the prohibited military veterans suffering from PTSD — you become a prohibited person yourself.

Go here to read the entire analysis of S. 443.

When all is said and done, this bipartisan “compromise” is as bad as the Feinstein gun ban (S. 150).

ACTION: Click here to demand that your U.S. Senators oppose the Leahy-Gillibrand-Kirk bill (S. 443).

Uncategorized

GOA Grades For North Carolina

October 6, 2012 by

Because different gun rights organizations place different emphasis on things, I thought it would be useful to also provide the Gun Owners of America rankings for the North Carolina congressional races. It is also a response to one of the comments from yesterday’s post of the NRA-PVF endorsements/grades.

Here are the GOA-PVF grades for the North Carolina congressional races. One thing to notice is that they include all candidates on the ballot including Libertarians and known write-in candidates. Checking the list of GOA-PVF endorsements, at this time they have no endorsed candidates running in North Carolina.

U.S. HOUSE
DISTRICT
NAME
PARTY
RATING
1
Butterfield
D
F
1
DiLauro
R
NR
1
Holloman
L
A
2
Ellmers
R
A
2
Irving
L
A
2
Wilkins
D
NR
3
Anderson
D
NR
3
Jones
R
B
4
D’Annunzio
R
A
4
Price
D
F-
5
Foxx
R
A
5
Motsinger
D
F
6
Coble
R
A
6
Foriest
D
D
7
McIntyre
D
B
7
Rouzer
R
A
8
Foreman
WI
NR
8
Hill
L
NR
8
Hudson
R
A
8
Kissell
D
C-
9
Campbell
L
NR
9
Pittenger
R
A
9
Roberts
D
NR
10
Keever
D
F
10
McHenry
R
A
11
Meadows
R
A
11
Rogers
D
NR
12
Brosch
R
A
12
Watt
D
F
13
Holding
R
A
13
Malone
D
NR
Uncategorized

Just Like A Bad Meal It Keeps Repeating

July 16, 2012 by

Just as a bad meal keeps repeating on you due to indigestion, so do the Democrats in the Senate keep bringing forth the DISCLOSE Act. After passing the House in the last Congress, it died in the Senate. It has been resurrected by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). He introduced S.3369 this past Tuesday and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has scheduled it for a vote today. That is mighty fast action for a Senate that hasn’t bothered to pass a budget for the past three years.

Unlike in 2009, the NRA is opposing this bill. In fact, they are making a record vote for future candidate evaluations.

Next week, the United States Senate will once again take up the latest version of the DISCLOSE Act, in yet another attempt to curtail the First Amendment rights of Americans. The bill, S. 3369, has been fast-tracked on the Senate calendar and is set for a vote on Monday, July 16.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), as well as all members of the Senate, expressing the NRA’s steadfast opposition to the legislation.

“Due to the importance of the fundamental speech and associational rights of the National Rifle Association’s four million members,” Cox wrote, “and considering the blatant attack on those rights that S. 3369 represents, we strongly oppose the DISCLOSE Act and will consider votes on this legislation in future candidate evaluations.”
You may read the full text of the letter here.
Provisions of the DISCLOSE Act that violate First Amendment rights include disclosure provisions that require organizations to turn membership and donor lists over to the government. In recent weeks, we have seen media attacks on political donors that illustrate the danger this legislation poses, and that expose its true intent: to stifle free speech.Also, the bill would create complicated regulation of political spending and campaign activity, creating immense costs to comply with the law and cause a severe chilling effect on free speech.

While the act would have minimal impact on some institutions, such as labor unions, its biggest impact would be limiting the ability of the American people to join together to make their voices heard on issues of every sort. It would also magnify the power of the mainstream media, severely limiting the information available to the American people and threatening the integrity of our electoral process.

Please contact your United States Senator before the Monday vote and urge him or her to vote against this assault on our First Amendment rights. You can find contact information for your U.S. Senators by using the “Write Your Representatives” tool at http://www.nraila.org/. You may also contact your Senators by phone at (202) 224-3121.

GOA or Gun Owners of America is also in strong opposition this bill. Leave it to the Democrats to find a way to unite the NRA and GOA. The GOA release is below:

Anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) really does not want gun owners’ voices to be heard in Washington, D.C.

Democrat leaders have scheduled a vote for Monday, July 16, on the so-called DISCLOSE Act.

You may recall that the DISCLOSE Act passed the House in 2010 but died in the Senate after an intense lobbying effort by Gun Owners of America and other groups.

The bill coming to the floor on Monday, S. 3369, sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, puts severe and unconstitutional limits on GOA’s ability to hold individual congressmen accountable in the months leading up to an election.

Instead of protecting the most important type of speech protected by the First Amendment — political speech — this bill would force groups like GOA to “disclose” the names of donors in certain political advertisements.

Since Gun Owners of America is not willing to disclose its membership lists to the Federal Election Commission, we could be prohibited from running radio or TV ads exposing a federal candidate’s voting record during the election season.

This is just another attempt by pathetic, anti-gun politicians like Harry Reid to save their jobs before the political earthquake in November strikes. Indeed, if GOA candidates are victorious in Senate races in November, Harry Reid will no longer be the Majority Leader.

And, as has been the case so often with Reid, there have been no committee hearings to debate the merits of the bill, thus the American people have no opportunity to see just how egregiously DISCLOSE violates the Constitution. In fact, the bill was introduces less than a week ago.

Please urge your Senators to protect ALL of the Bill of Rights. Remind them that your ability to protect the Second Amendment relies on the safeguards of the First Amendment.

ACTION: Contact your Senators and urge them to oppose the DISCLOSE Act. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Senators a pre-written e-mail message.

UPDATE: The Republicans actually hung together for once and prevented the Democrats from invoking cloture on the debate of the DISCLOSE Act. The vote was 51-44 and it needed 60 to pass. As to why the Democrats brought the bill forward at this time, the Daily Caller has this explanation.

Democrats revived the act during a presidential election campaign in which political action committees and nonprofit organizations, funded by deep-pocketed and largely anonymous contributors, are dominating the airwaves with largely negative political ads.

Uncategorized

A Potential Competing National Reciprocity Bill

March 14, 2012 by 5 Comments

The Gun Owners of America sent out an alert yesterday publicizing an alternative reciprocity bill to S. 2188 as introduced by Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Mike Crapo (R-ID). This alert is showing up on a number of forums and other gun-related websites.

From the GOA Alert:

Great news!

Pro-gun Senate champions John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) have decided to stand their ground on their concealed carry reciprocity legislation, despite pressure from gun rights compromisers to weaken the bill.

Specifically, Senators Thune and Vitter are sticking with their version of the bill, which recognizes the right to carry concealed by residents of “Vermont-style” and “Constitutional Carry” states.ThuneVitter

Such states do not require residents to obtain the government’s permission before carrying a firearm for self-protection. There are currently 17 states that have either enacted legislation in the past or have introduced “Constitutional Carry” laws in their legislatures this year.

Current law:

Vermont
Alaska
Arizona
Montana
Wyoming

Considering legislation:

Colorado
Georgia
Iowa
Kentucky
Maine
New Hampshire
Ohio
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota (on governor’s desk)
Virginia

More states are being added to the list all the time. The Thune-Vitter legislation will fully recognize gun owners’ rights in these states.

A competing bill, however, pulls the rug out from under “Constitutional Carry.” Sponsored by Senators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), the compromise bill still requires a government permit for reciprocity, regardless of state law.

So while the states are moving in the direction of more freedom, the Begich and Manchin bill would keep even the most pro-gun states tied to a permitting system. Why are they doing this? After all, criminals don’t get in line at the police station to get a permit. It’s the law-abiding gun owners who go through the process of proving their innocence before being “allowed” to carry a firearm.

The GOA Alert allows the reader to send a pre-written message to their senators urging them to support the Thune-Vitter bill and to oppose the “compromise” S. 2188.

There is only one problem with this – no Thune-Vitter national reciprocity bill has been introduced yet. When I first read the alert, I checked the Library of Congress’ Thomas website and then I checked the official websites of both Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). None of the above sites had any information of any such bill.

To get to the bottom of this, I sent an email to GOA and was pleased to get a quick response from Erich Pratt. He said in his reply, “There is not a bill number yet.  The Senators are in the process of circulating “Dear Colleague” letters and getting cosponsors. We’ll let you know as soon as we find out.”

Until I see the actual text of any Thune-Vitter national reciprocity bill along with an assigned bill number, I don’t plan to ask my senators to support the bill and to oppose S. 2188. It would only confuse their staff and make me look foolish. While you are free to do what you want, my advice is to take a wait and see attitude. As it is, without some slick maneuvering on the part of our allies in the Senate, no national right-to-carry reciprocity bill will get a on-the-record up-or-down vote.

Uncategorized

Only Caitlin Halligan Could Unite The NRA-ILA And The GOA In Opposition

December 6, 2011 by 1 Comment

Caitlin Halligan is Obama’s nominee for a seat on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She formerly served as Solicitor General for the State of New York from 2001 until 2007 under then-NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. Her nomination is being filibustered in the Senate due to her leftist views on abortion and gun rights. Tomorrow, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is calling for a cloture (end of debate) vote on Halligan’s confirmation.

Pravda on the Potomac aka the Washington Post has endorsed her. Meanwhile, the Joyce-funded Media Matters for America is trying to say that Halligan’s anti-gun rights actions were in the past and now she supports the Second Amendment. I seem to remember that the “Wise Latina” Justice Sonya Sotomayor made similar comments during her confirmation battle and then dissented on the McDonald case.

Accordingly, the NRA-ILA released this letter that was sent today to every senator.

December 5, 2011

Dear Senator:

I am writing to express the National Rifle Association’s opposition to the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Our opposition is based on Ms. Halligan’s attacks on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Specifically, she worked to undermine the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), enacted in 2005 with strong bipartisan support. This legislation was critically important in ending a wave of lawsuits sponsored by anti-gun organizations and governments, which sought to blame firearms manufacturers and dealers for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties. This bill was an essential protection both for the Second Amendment rights of honest Americans and for the continued existence of the domestic firearms industry as a supplier of arms for our nation’s defense.

Among the governments that sued the industry was the state of New York. This case was pending while Ms. Halligan was New York’s solicitor general, and she strongly supported the litigation both inside and outside the courtroom.

Ms. Halligan represented the state in its 2001 lawsuit against numerous gun manufacturers, in which the state argued that the legal sale of handguns created a “public nuisance” under state law. In a 2003 speech while that case was pending, Ms. Halligan claimed that the PLCAA “would likely cut off at the pass any attempt by States to find solutions—through the legal system or their own state legislatures—that might reduce gun crimes or promote greater responsibility among gun dealers.” That statement was simply wrong. The legislation then under debate—like the version that finally passed two years later—only prohibited lawsuits “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse” of firearms or ammunition by third parties. It exempted traditional tort actions against gun makers. The bill most certainly did not restrict the actions of state legislatures, as the introduction of numerous anti-gun bills in the New York legislature proves each year.

Ms. Halligan also claimed the PLCAA “would make the gun industry the only industry in the country to be so broadly shielded from lawsuits.” In fact, Congress had previously passed targeted liability protection for many industries and other enterprises, ranging from aircraft manufacturers to food banks to makers of medical implants.

After passage of the PLCAA, Ms. Halligan participated in the legal attack on the PLCAA. The state filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit supporting New York City’s attack on the law’s constitutionality. The arguments in that brief were ultimately rejected by the Second Circuit, as they have been by every other appellate court (and every federal court at any level) that has considered the issue.

Given Ms. Halligan’s clear opposition to a major federal law that was essential to protecting law-abiding Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, as well as an important industry that equips our military and law enforcement personnel, we must respectfully oppose her confirmation, including the vote on cloture.

We greatly appreciate your attention to our concerns. If you have any questions, please contact NRA Federal Affairs at (202) 651-XXXX.

Sincerely,

Chris W. Cox
Executive Director
NRA Institute for Legislative Action

The Gun Owners of American is also standing strong against the confirmation of Halligan and has issued an alert to their members that says in part:

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.

To facilitate contacting your state’s senators, GOA has set up a CapWiz letter generator that will send either an email or printed letter to them. It can be found here and I would urge you to select “by email” as the vote is tomorrow.

In an interesting coincidence, Halligan graduated in the same law school class (Georgetown University Law Center, 1995) as Alan Gura. I would have to say that Gura was more successful in his advocacy for the Second Amendment than Halligan was in her attempt to sue the firearms industry out of business and we can all be thankful for that.

Uncategorized

GOA on Traver Nomination

November 30, 2010 by 5 Comments

Gun Owners of America has weighed in on the nomination of Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. I am a bit surprised that they waited so long to issue a statement given that the NRA and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms issued strong statements within a few days of the nomination.

From GOA:

Obama Nominates Rabid Anti-gunner to Head the ATF
— Ask your Senators to Support a Filibuster

Monday, November 29, 2010

It was not a good sign that Barack Obama kept his nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives a secret until after the midterm election –- and then quickly announced that anti-gun zealot Andrew F. Traver would be named to fill the slot.

After being blasted before November 2’s election by the liberal New York Times for failing to beef up the ATF by appointing a director –- for fear of the wrath of the “gun lobby” -– Obama gets right past the election and, presto chango, a nominee appears. How ’bout that?

And not just any nominee.

As special agent in charge of Chicago’s ATF field division, Traver had taken the lead in calling for a ban on semiautomatic firearms.

And Chicago, of course, has been the epicenter of anti-gun government activism. It is not surprising that Traver has also been active in the virulently anti-gun International Association of Chiefs of Police, which has worked to empower Handgun Control-type activists and has commissioned panels to:

* support one-gun-a-month and lock-up-your-safety laws, as well as “ballistic fingerprinting” files on all firearms;

* espouse an “effective” ban on .50-caliber firearms, and a redefinition of “armor-piercing” ammunition that could effectively ban handgun use;

* mandate gun-destruction policies for law enforcement and enhanced funding to go after guns;

* prohibit all private gun sales and make “prohibited persons” out of a much wider variety of persons committing simple misdemeanors;

* back a repeal of the Tiahrt amendment; and,

* allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry (through agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Food and Drug Administration).

It is disconcerting that ANY organization espousing these views would be taken seriously. That an activist in such an organization would be put in charge of the ATF is truly troubling.

On their website, they have a pre-written letter that you can use to request your state’s Senators oppose the Traver nomination. It can be sent as an email directly from their site.

While good in signaling raw numbers opposed to the nomination, I don’t think that is the most effective means of getting the message across. A personal letter hand delivered to the local office would have much more impact in my opinion. I think if you include with that letter a folder containing the statements of the NRA, CCRKBA, and GOA along with other information on Traver to bolster your argument it would add to the impact.

In the pre-9/11 and pre-anthrax days, a handwritten letter sent to the Senator’s office would have sufficed. With all the mail, email, and faxes that they receive daily, I think even that gets lost in the shuffle. It is much harder to ignore a person standing in front of your staff than it is one letter or email out of thousands received in a day.