goa nl 4-3-04...goa uncovers unholy alliance, backroom deals continued on page 2 goa’s john...

Gun OwnersTHE

32 YEARS OF NO COMPROMISE – 1975-2007

Volume XXVIII, Number 2 • July 20, 2007

by Erich Pratt with John VellecoThe fireworks started early this year

on Capitol Hill, after House Democratssnuck a massive expansion of the BradyLaw through the House.

It was June 13 — exactly threeweeks before Independence Day —when it was a Wednesday like any otherday. Representatives were attendingcongressional hearings, meeting withconstituents, perhaps devising clevernew ways to pick our pockets.

At 8:30 in the morning, an emailwent out to House Republicans indicat-ing that a gun control bill, recentlyintroduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy(D-NY), was on the Suspension Calen-

dar (normally reserved for ‘non-contro-versial’ bills).

Many Representatives didn’t see thatemail until it was too late. Less thanthree hours later, the bill had passed bya voice vote. In other words, it passedwith only a handful of Representativesin the chamber. There was no recordedvote!

The bill in question, H.R. 2640, is amassive expansion of the Brady GunControl law, the subject of many previ-ous alerts and mailings by Gun Ownersof America.

Its passage in the House is a case

study in backroom dealmaking, unholyalliances and deceit. Asausage factory in athird world countrywith no running waterhas nothing on today’sU.S. Congress.

The WashingtonPost reported on June10 that a deal had beenstruck between theNRA leadership and Democrat leadersin the House. The headline read:“Democrats, NRA Reach Deal onBackground-Check Bill.”

That set off a chain reaction of fire-

works throughout the pro-gun commu-nity. Who was party to this ‘deal,’ andhow many of our rights were beingused as bargaining chips?

The McCarthy bill, at the time,looked to be going nowhere. The gen-eral consensus among pro-gun Con-gressmen was that any gun bill offeredby McCarthy was simply DOA.

After all, if there were such a thingas a single-issue Member of Congress,it would have to be McCarthy. Rep.McCarthy ran for office to ban guns;Hollywood made a movie about herefforts to ban guns; and she is currently

the lead sponsor of a bill that makes theold Clinton gun ban pale by compari-son.

Even many Democrats wouldn’t gonear a McCarthy gun bill. They havelearned that supporting gun control is alosing issue. Enter Rep. John Dingell(D-MI), the so-called Dean of theHouse, having served since the Eisen-hower administration. Dingell is also aformer NRA Board member, and was inthat capacity tapped to bring the NRAleadership to the table.

Democrats sneak McCarthygun control bill through the House!

GOA Uncovers UnholyAlliance, Backroom Deals

Continued on page 2

GOA’s John Velleco debated the issue of gun control severaltimes on MSNBC in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings thisApril. Since then, GOA has been on the front lines, leading theopposition against those who want to exploit the shootings as anexcuse for passing more gun control.

“Another gun rights group, the Gun Owners of America, isadamantly opposed to the [McCarthy] legislation. It saidthe measure would allow the government to trample privacyrights by compiling reams of personal information andpotentially bar mentally stable people from buying guns.”

– Associated Press, April 21, 2007

Inside:• GOA in the media

(page 3)

• Where do the presi-dential candidatesstand? (page 4)

• GOF in the courts(page 5)

• What’s going on in our National Parks?(page 7)

The Gun Owners is published by Gun Owners of America, Inc. 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 (703) 321-8585

July 20, 2007 • The Gun Owners /

The end result of the negotiationswas that this small clique among theNRA leadership gave the bill the sup-port it needed to pass.

But why was it necessary to pass thebill in such an underhanded fashion? Ifthis is such a victory for the SecondAmendment, why all the secrecy? Whywas a deal forged with the anti-gunDemocrat House leadership, keepingmost pro-gun representatives in thedark? Why was the bill rammedthrough on the Suspension Calendarwith no recorded vote with which toidentify those who are against us?

For starters, it would be a hard sellindeed for the NRA leadership toexplain to its members what they wouldgain by working with McCarthy. If thislegislation had gone before the NRAmembership for a vote, it would havebeen rejected. For that matter, if it wentthrough the House in the regular fash-ion, with committee hearings andrecorded votes, it would have beendefeated.

Consider also what the bill is: guncontrol! The lead sentence in an Asso-ciated Press article accurately statedthat, “The House [on June 13] passedwhat could become the first major fed-eral gun control law in over a decade.”

The bill’s supporters can talk all theywant to the contrary, but forcing thestates to hand over to the federal gov-ernment millions of records of Ameri-cans for the purpose of conducting abackground check is certainly an expan-sion of gun control.

McCarthy to deny guns to law-abiding citizens

The McCarthy bill that passed willdramatically expand the dragnet that iscurrently used to disqualify law-abidinggun buyers. So much so, that hundredsof thousands of honest citizens whowant to buy a gun will one day walkinto a gun store and be shocked whenthey’re told they’re a prohibited pur-chaser, having been lumped into thesame category as murderers and rapists.

This underscores the problems thathave existed all along with the BradyLaw. At the time it was passed, some

people foolishly thought, “No big deal.I’m not a bad guy. This law won’taffect me.”

But what happens when good guys’names get thrown onto the bad guys’list? That is exactly what has hap-pened, and no one should think that theattempts to expand the gun controlnoose are going to end with theMcCarthy bill (HR 2640).

Speaking to the CNN audience onJune 13, head of the Brady Campaign,Paul Helmke, stated that, “We’re hope-ful that now that the NRA has comearound to our point of view in terms ofstrengthening the Brady backgroundchecks, that now we can take the nextstep after this bill passes [to imposeadditional gun control].”

Get it? The McCarthy bill is just afirst step.

Military vets on the chopping block

So what does HR 2640 do? Well, asstated already, this is the most far-reaching gun ban in years. For the firsttime in history, this bill takes a giantstep towards banning one-fourth ofreturning military veterans from everowning a gun again.

In 2000, President Clinton addedbetween 80,000 - 90,000 names of mili-tary veterans — who were sufferingfrom Post Traumatic Stress (PTS) —into the NICS background check sys-tem. These were vets who were havingnightmares; they had the shakes. SoClinton disqualified them from buyingor owning guns.

For seven years, GOA has been argu-ing that what Clinton did was illegiti-mate. But if this McCarthy bill getsenacted into law, a future Hillary Clin-ton administration would actually havethe law on her side to ban a quarter ofall military veterans (that’s the numberof veterans who have Post TraumaticStress) from owning guns.

Now, the supporters of the McCarthybill claim that military veterans — whohave been denied their Second Amend-ment rights — could get their rightsrestored. But this is a very nebulouspromise.

Visit a shrink, lose your gun rights forever?

The reason is that Section101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides explic-itly that a psychiatrist or psychologistdiagnosis is enough to ban a person forever owning a gun as long as it’s predi-cated on a microscopic risk that a per-son could be a danger to himself or oth-ers.1

How many psychiatrists are going todeny that a veteran suffering from PTSdoesn’t possess a microscopic risk thathe could be a danger to himself or oth-ers?

And even if they can clear the psy-chiatrist hurdle, we’re still looking atthousands of dollars for lawyers, courtfees, etc. And then, when veterans havedone everything they can possibly do toclear their names, there is still theSchumer amendment in federal lawwhich prevents the BATFE from restor-ing the rights of individuals who arebarred from purchasing firearms.

If that amendment is not repealed,then it doesn’t matter if your state stopssending your name for inclusion in theFBI’s NICS system ... you are stillgoing to be a disqualified purchaserwhen you try to buy a gun.

So get the irony. Senator Schumer isthe one who is leading the charge in theSenate to pass the McCarthy bill, andhe is “generously” offering military vet-erans the opportunity to clear theirnames, even though it’s been hisamendment that has prevented honestgun owners from getting their rightsback under a similar procedure createdin 1986!

But there’s still another irony.Before this bill, it was very debatable

GOA Uncovers UnholyAlliance, Backroom DealsContinued from page 1

Continued on page 3

Senator Schumer is the one who is lead-ing the charge in the Senate to pass theMcCarthy bill, and he is “generously”offering military veterans the opportuni-ty to clear their names, even though it’sbeen his amendment that has preventedhonest gun owners from getting theirrights back under a similar procedurecreated in 1986!



(in legal terms) whether the militaryvets with PTS should have been addedinto the NICS system ... and yet manyof them were — even though there wasno statutory authority to do so. Beforethis bill, there were provisions in thelaw to get one’s name cleared, and yetSchumer made it impossible for thesemilitary vets to do so.

Now, the McCarthy bill (combinedwith federal regulations) makes itunmistakably clear that military vetswith Post Traumatic Stress should beadded as prohibited persons on thebasis of a “diagnosis.” Are these vetsnow going to find it any easier to gettheir names cleared (when the law saysthey should be on the list) if they werefinding it difficult to do so before (when

the law said they shouldn’t)?Add to this the Schumer amendment

(mentioned earlier). The McCarthy billdoes nothing to repeal the Schumeramendment, which means that militaryveterans with PTS are going to find itimpossible to get their rights restored!

The slippery slope of gun control

Do you see how Congress is slowly(and quietly) sweeping more and moreinnocent people into the same categoryas murderers and rapists? First, anti-gun politicians gain a toehold by gettinginnocuous sounding language into thefederal code. Then they come backyears later to twist those words in themost contorted way possible.

Consider the facts. In 1968, Con-gress laid out several criteria for ban-ning Americans from owning guns — aperson can’t be a felon, a drug user, anillegal alien, etc. Well, one of the crite-

ria which will disqualify you from own-ing or buying a gun is if you are “adju-dicated as a mental defective.” Now, in1968, that term referred to a personwho was judged not guilty of a crimeby reason of insanity.

Well, that was 1968. By 2000, Presi-dent Bill Clinton had stretched that def-inition to mean a military veteran whohas had a lawful authority (like ashrink) decree that a person has PTS.Can you see how politicians love tostretch the meaning of words in the law... especially when it comes to banningguns?

After all, who would have thoughtwhen the original Brady law was passedin 1993, that it would be used to keeppeople with outstanding traffic ticketsfrom buying guns;2 or couples withmarriage problems from buying guns;3or military vets with nightmares frombuying guns?4


Continued on page 5

GOA in the Media

John Velleco pulled double-duty in April -- briefing Con-gressional offices on the dangers of expanding the BradyLaw, but then appearing on MSNBC several times, as wellas on C-Span's Washington Journal (pictured above).

GOA's Larry Pratt appeared on a wide variety of TV out-lets, talking the offensive against gun control into both theEnglish and Spanish-speaking communities. He chal-lenged the need for more gun control on MSNBC (picturedabove), CNN and CourtTV -- but continued the debate inSpanish, appearing on Univision. Pratt spent long hoursin the weeks following the Virginia Tech murders, defend-ing Second Amendment rights all across the country andadvocating the need to have more citizens carrying con-cealed firearms.

GOA representatives appeared in several hundred media out-lets across the country (newspaper articles, radio talk showsand TV debates) in the two weeks following the Virginia Techmassacre this April. The pictures here are just a snapshot ofsome of the things Gun Owners of America was doing todefend the rights of gun owners in the public forum. Readerscan see some of the TV debates for themselves by going towww.gunowners.org/svtb.htm on the GOA website.

GOA Director of Communications Erich Pratt (left)went head-to-head against the leader of the Brady Cam-paign on CNN with Anderson Cooper in April. Prattalso appeared on several talk radio stations, includingthe nationally-syndicated Michael Reagan show.



by John VellecoThe 2007 version of Rudy Giuliani

defends his past support of gun controlas a necessary evil to fight crime in abig city.

When pressed about his views of theSecond Amendment by Sean Hannity ofFox News, Giuliani attempted to tapdance around his gun control recordwithout alienating the 290 million peo-ple who don’t live in New York City.

The former mayor told Hannity thatgun control was “appropriate” for thecity, but that states and cities should beallowed to make those decisions locally.

“So,” Hannity continued, “you wouldsupport the state’s rights to choose onspecific gun laws?”

“Yes, I mean, a place like New Yorkthat is densely populated, or maybe aplace that is experiencing a seriouscrime problem, ... maybe you have onesolution there and in another place,more rural, more suburban, other issues,you have a different set of rules.”

Apparently, in Giuliani’s Americalaw-abiding citizens in large citieswould not enjoy the same constitutionalliberties as the rest of the country.Why? Are city dwellers not as trust-worthy as country folks? Are metro-Americans not deserving of the right toself-protection?

Disarming citizens because they livein a high crime area is taking away themost effective means of self-defensefrom the people who need it most. Cre-ating mandatory victims is no way tofight a crime problem.1

If Giuliani’s gun control agenda wasreally limited ‘only’ to big cities, thatwould be disturbing enough. But therecord shows that the Mayor continual-ly tried to export his gun control agendato the rest of the nation.

The new Giuliani of state’s rightssimply does not square with the Mayorof the ‘90s.

In 1993, before even being sworn inas mayor, Giuliani met with then-Presi-dent Clinton at the White House to dis-cuss national gun registration. Giuliani

supported the Brady bill, which hadrecently passed, but argued that it didn’tgo far enough.

The President, largely crediting Giu-liani for the idea, enthusiastically sentAttorney General Janet Reno off todevelop a gun licensing and registrationsystem.2

The Clinton-Giuliani scheme wasslowed only by the Republican Revolu-tion of 1994.

In May of 1994, as the battle overthe ban on certain semi-automaticfirearms reached its height, Giulianithrew his support behind the ban. Onthe eve of the final vote, he noted thatso-called assault weapons “have nolegitimate purpose.”3

When the ban passed, Giuliani com-mented that, “This is an important steptowards curtailing the indiscriminateproliferation of guns across thenation.”4 [Emphasis added.]

When a lunatic attacked innocentcivilians at the Empire State Building in1997, Mayor Giuliani used the tragedyto again push for gun control beyondhis city’s limits.

“We need a federal law that bans allassault weapons, and if in fact you do

need a handgun you should be subject-ed to at least the same restrictions —and really stronger ones — that existfor driving an automobile,” the Mayorsaid.

“The United States Congress needsto pass uniform licensing for everyonecarrying a gun.”5

When the Mayor did focus on Citygun laws, which already were amongthe most stringent in the country, hiseffort was only to further disarm thelaw-abiding.

In 1998, Giuliani pushed a proposalthat would require gun owners to use

trigger locks on all firearms, thus ren-dering the guns useless in the even ofan emergency. Such a law would beenforced, said the Mayor, through“criminal penalties and the revocationof gun permits.”6

If Giuliani had a federalist conver-sion, it did not occur in his first sixyears as mayor, for in 2000, he againtook his gun control show on the road.

In becoming the first Republicanmayor to launch a city lawsuit againstgun makers, Giuliani complained that

“less restrictive gun laws in other partsof the country” exacerbated the crimeproblem in New York City.7

Giuliani is not only a long-time sup-porter of gun control, but his supportwas convenient to leading anti-gunDemocrats eager for the appearance ofbipartisanship.

In the midst of the fight over the1994 crime bill and semi-auto gun ban,Giuliani escorted President Clinton toMinnesota to stump for the bill. TheMinneapolis Star-Tribune noted that,

Rudy’s Gun Control Agenda

Republican presidential contender, RudyGiuliani, is trying to distance himselffrom his gun control record.

“When the Republican-controlled Congress tried to repealthe gun ban, Giuliani made the trip to Washington to testifyagainst the repeal effort.”

Continued on page 6

1 Interestingly, when Giuliani addressed the conservative CPAC group in Marchof this year, he credited the decline in New York’s crime rate, which was signifi-cant, not to gun control but to the implementation of certain policing strategiesbased on James Q. Wilson’s Broken Windows theory. Though not without con-troversy, New York police officials took petty crime more seriously, based on thebelief that petty criminals would eventually turn into more dangerous and violentcriminals.

2 Washington Times, December 8, 19933 Newsday, May 3, 19944 Newsday, May 6, 19945 http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/97a/me970302.html6 Mayor Proposes a Law Requiring Trigger Locks on All Guns; The New YorkTimes, May 19, 19987 http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2000a/weekly/wkly0626.html



Gun Ownersof America (GOA) and its foundation(GOF) are continuously involved inlegal cases around the country, helpingto defend the rights of gun owners.Here are three of our most recent, high-profile cases — one of which is beforethe U.S. Supreme Court.

Brady Campaign continuing attackagainst GOA. In November 2006, theBrady Campaign asked the FederalElection Commission to investigateGOA’s practice of posting its candidateratings on the Internet. The BradyBunch is challenging GOA’s right to dothis under the infamous McCain-Fein-gold Incumbent Protection Act.

While this case is pending, GOF hasfiled an amicus (friend of the court)brief before the U.S. Supreme Court ina similar case — the outcome of whichwill directly impact upon the Brady’s

case against GOA. Should the SupremeCourt rule in favor of GOA’s position, itis expected that the FEC will dismissthe Brady’s complaint against GOA.

GOF fighting the Lautenberg gunban. Gun Owners Foundation is fight-ing the Lautenberg misdemeanor gunban in the federal courts. The casestems from the state of Wyoming,which allows partial expungement ofthese Lautenberg misdemeanors(offenses which include pushing, shov-ing or yelling in the home) for the pur-pose of buying a firearm or getting aconcealed carry permit.

The federal district court ofWyoming initially ruled against GOF’sposition, stating that the Wyoming lawviolated federal law. The court over-looked a Supreme Court case (Caron v.United States) which says that states arefree to expunge records in any manner

they choose — as long as the convic-tion occurred in the same state.Wyoming has given notice that theywill appeal this ruling, so GOF willseek to file another friend of the courtbrief on behalf of the Cowboy State.

GOF defending border agentsagainst gun charge. GOF has filed anamicus brief on behalf of unjustly con-victed Border Patrol agents, IgnacioRamos and Jose Alonso Compean.GOF got involved because these agentsreceived 10-year sentences whichderived from “firing a gun during thecommission of a crime.” GOF attor-neys discovered that this is not a crimeunder federal law — it can only be usedas a sentencing enhancement. If theappeals court agrees to consider thispoint, which was not raised during thetrial, they will almost certainly set theagents free. n

Gun Owners Foundation in the Courts

Isn’t a lifetime gun ban forADD a bit extreme?

So if you thought the Brady Lawwould never affect you because you’re a“good guy,” then think again. Militaryvets are in trouble, and so are your kidswho are battling Attention Deficit Dis-order (ADD). Everything that has beenmentioned above regarding military vet-erans, could also apply to these kids.

Do you have a child in the IDEAprogram — a.k.a., Individuals with Dis-ability Education Act — who has beendiagnosed with ADD and thought to besusceptible to playground fights?Guess what? That child can be bannedfor life from ever owning a gun as anadult. The key to understanding thisnew gun ban expansion centers on ashrink’s determination that a person is arisk to himself or others.

You see, legislators claim they wantto specifically prevent a future Seung-Hui Cho from ever buying a gun andshooting up a school. And since Chohad been deemed as a potential dangerto himself or others, that has becomethe new standard for banning guns.

But realize what this does. In the

name of stopping an infinitesimal frac-tion of potential bad apples from own-ing firearms, legislators are expandingthe dragnet to sweep all kinds of goodguys into a permanent ban. It alsoignores the fact that bad guys get illegalguns all the time, despite the gun laws!

So back to your kid who might haveADD. The BATFE, in an open letter(dated May 9, 2007), said the diagnosisthat a person is a potential risk doesn’thave to be based on the fact that theperson poses a “substantial” risk. It justhas to be “any” risk.

Just any risk, no matter how slight tothe other kids on the playground, is allthat is needed to qualify the kid onRitalin — or a vet suffering PTS, or ahusband (going through a divorce)who’s been ordered to go through ananger management program, etc. — fora lifetime gun ban.

This is the slippery slope that guncontrol poses. And this is the reasonHR 2640 must be defeated. Even as wedebate this bill, the Frank Lautenbergsin Congress are trying to expand theNICS system with the names of peoplewho are on a so-called “governmentwatch list” (S. 1237).

While this “government watch list”supposedly applies to suspected terror-ists, the fact is that government bureau-crats can add ANY gun owner’s name

to this list without due process, withoutany hearing, or trial by jury, etc. That’swhere the background check system isheaded ... if we don’t rise up togetherand cut off the monster’s head rightnow. n

Mike Hammond also contributed to thisarticle.1 Section 101(c)(1)(C) of HR 2640 makes itexplicitly clear that the diagnosis from a psychol-ogist or psychiatrist is enough to ban a personfrom owning a gun. But to fully grasp this, onehas to look at Section 101, while also going tofederal regulations via Section 3 of the bill. Pleasego to the URL below for more information.2 As a government report at the URL below docu-ments, the Brady law has been used to illegiti-mately deny firearms to people who have out-standing traffic tickets. 3 Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, coupleswith marriage problems or parents who have usedcorporal punishment to discipline their childrenhave been prohibited from owning guns for life.See the URL below.4 Several articles listed at the URL below havepointed to the fact that military vets with PTShave been added to the NICS system.


GOA has built a special section on its website to inform gun owners of the dangers in McCarthy’s Bradyexpansion bill. Please go towww.gunowners.org/netb.htmto learn what are the specifics of the bill, who are its main supporters,what are answers to claims made byproponents of the bill, who faces thegreatest risk of being disqualified forbuying a gun, and more.



Second Amendment Used to Dump Gun Lawby Larry Pratt

Judge Laurence H. Silberman haswritten a landmark legal decision usingthe Second Amendment to overturn theDC gun ban. The case is known asParker v. District of Columbia.

Overturning the gun ban in ournation’s capital will have the effect ofreturning the law to where it was before1976 (when guns were available, butstill highly restricted). The pre-1976statute will once again reign in D.C. ifone of two things happen — either theDistrict fails to appeal the Parker deci-sion or the Supreme Court upholds it.Under either scenario, people in D.C.will once again be able to buy a hand-gun and keep it in their homes.

Judge Silberman’s decision in Marchprovides a platform for the next chal-lenge to other anti-gun laws in the Dis-trict. DC officials are hardly likely towant to clean up the rest of their anti-gun, anti-self defense mess that is stillon the books following the Parker deci-sion. Their priorities can be clearlyseen by contrasting their reaction to twoevents.

The elitists in DC are outraged bythe Parker decision and are accusingthe justices of judicial activism. (When-

ever courts don’t follow the law anddecide in a case in their favor, however,elitists are often quick to claim that theConstitution is a “living document” andjudges should be free to interpret it inany way that advances their view of abetter society.)

Those same DC officials were totallyunconcerned, however, when plaintiffShelly Parker was being attacked in herhome. She wanted to sue the District toget rid of the handgun ban because drugdealers in her neighborhood had tried tobreak into her home. When they did,

one of them shouted: “I will kill you!And I live on this block, too.” PerhapsDC officials are afraid that the thugmight have been shot if Ms. Parker hada gun?

It seems more than our elite rulerscan understand. They have 24/7 policeprotection — armed police protection.They experience no crime problem. So,why should the rest of us need a gun? Since the DC officials are not likely to“get it” regarding the problem the restof us have with crime, Congress needsto step up to the plate and exercise itsconstitutional responsibility.

Congress should get rid of the pre-ban gun control laws in DC and legis-late a concealed carry law similar to theone in neighboring Virginia. Thereshould be no permit required at all, as isthe case now in Vermont and Alaska,but at least a fairly workable law suchas Virginia’s would be a big step for-ward.

If DC residents could legally carryconcealed firearms (the way crooks arealready doing illegally), watch forcrime to plummet. The only people whowould really suffer from getting rid ofthe rest of DC’s gun laws would be thecrooks. n

DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton toldThe Washington Post in 2002 that theDistrict should pull out all the stops to“preserve our valuable handgun banlaw” — a statement which ignores thefact that the only people who find it truly“valuable” are the criminals.

“Clinton seemed especially proud that New York’s RepublicanMayor Rudolph Giuliani, as well as Philadelphia’s DemocraticMayor Edward Rendell, agreed to accompany him on his trip.”8

New York Senator Chuck Schumer also gleefully acceptedGiuliani’s support of the semi-auto ban. According to a Newsdayarticle, Schumer hoped Giuliani would “sway some skittishRepublicans.”9

The following year, when the Republican-controlled Congresstried to repeal the gun ban, Giuliani made the trip to Washingtonto testify against the repeal effort.

So, if the new Rudy Giuliani in fact supports state’s rights inthe area of gun control, it is a dramatic shift from the policies hehas been advocating for over a decade.

This flirtation with federalism is merely a façade, however, forin the recent interview with Sean Hannity, Giuliani assured gunowners that he supports only gun control laws that are “reason-able and sensible.” He then went on to defend his support of theBrady bill and the semi-auto ban, which are neither.10 n8 Minneapolis Star-Tribune, August 13, 19949 Rudy used by Dems to push gun control; Newsday 5/3/199410 Hannity and Colmes, February 5, 2007

Rudy’s Gun Control AgendaContinued from page 4 Where do the Candidates

Stand on Gun Rights?

Go to GOA’s website at www.gunowners.org/pres08 to findout where presidential contenders — both Republican andDemocrat — stand on Second Amendment rights.



have jeopardized his graduate career.Now Rep. McCarthy has proposed

more gun control as an answer to thegun ban that failed at Virginia Tech.McCarthy wants to empower the U.S.Attorney General to compel the states(who will be paid a billion dollars) tosubmit all relevant information aboutindividuals that might disqualify themfrom buying a gun.

The most obvious objection to thisproposal is that keeping crooks frombuying guns at stores does not keepcrooks from getting guns. There are nogun stores in Washington, DC, yetcrooks get guns there quite easily. Thesame is true (with few exceptions) inEngland, an island with a gun ban. Nostores there either, but lots of illegalguns. And lots of crime — more thanin the U.S. according to a UN study ofthe 17 most industrialized nations.

Rep. McCarthy’s bill would launch amassive data mining of all Americans,not just gun owners. In order to makesure that illegal aliens are not gettingguns, the “relevant” informationrequired by the bill will have to includestate tax returns, education records, andlibrary usage records. And don’t forgethealth records. After all, those gettingtreated for free without insurance atemergency rooms might often be illegalaliens.

So, for Rep. McCarthy, it is okay tobuild a data base from state records onall Americans, not just those who mightsometime buy a gun. But she hasanother message for the Bush adminis-tration’s probing of personal recordsand listening in on calls of suspectedterrorists. In that case, privacy is para-mount. Frankly, Rep. McCarthy is ahypocrite.

But let us not forget that even ifMcCarthy succeeds in her endeavor —and she might because the NRA hasbeen supporting her bill (H.R. 297) —it will not keep guns from getting intothe hands of criminals. She may keepcriminals from buying guns at stores,but certainly criminals will get theirguns elsewhere. There are no gunstores in Washington, D.C., but that hasnot kept criminals from getting all the

guns they want.I know that McCarthy will answer

that last point by blaming the ease ofgetting guns in Virginia for the stagger-ing murder rate in Washington, D.C.What she has never explained is whyWashington has had a murder rate of 35per 100,000 in 2004, whereas the urbancounty of Fairfax (across the PotomacRiver with virtually twice the popula-

tion of Washington) had at the sametime a murder rate of less than one per100,000.

Kind of interesting, isn’t it. Theguns seem to behave themselves betterwhere they’re legal and there are a lotof them around. Since guns themselvesaren’t the problem, we should stopimpeding honest citizens so that GoodSamaritans can do their job. n

VA Tech: Refusing toLearn the LessonContinued from page 8

National Park Service Refuses to Overturn Gun Ban

In defending a National Parks gun ban, a bureaucrat in the Interior Depart-ment took several shots at gun owners this past January. Her letter, whichlooks like it could have borrowed talking points from the Brady Campaign,not only claims that right to carry laws have failed to reduce crime, it statesthat armed citizens put others at greater risk.



by Larry PrattWhen an evil man (let us not

use his name) gunned down 32unarmed victims at VirginiaTech, gun control advocatesbegan clamoring within hoursfor more gun control. But howmore gun control would havehelped is not intuitively obvious,

especially since the campus was already supposed to be agun free zone. What more gun control can you have than atotal ban such as the one in force at Virginia’s public univer-sity campuses (and probably most, if not all of the privateones, too)?

The lesson learned from the Virginia Tech massacreshould have been that similar murder sprees in the last tenyears had been cut short — by armed citizens. One involveda high school principal in Mississippi. Another, five yearsago, involved two students at a Virginia law school. In bothcases, the good guys ran off campus (the gun free zones) toget guns from their vehicles and run back to confront andsubdue the killer.

Episodes like these should have taught us that our countryneeds to make it easier for Good Samaritans to save lives.Instead, Virginia Tech continued its gun ban on campus. Theassumption is that such rules and laws prevent crime. Themistake is to assume that laws prevent criminals from com-mitting their deeds. Laws spell out what will be (or shouldbe) the consequences for breaking the law. Laws do notdeter criminals.

Average people may be deterred by laws, but criminals, bydefinition, are not. We must seek legislation that will workto empower people, not disarm them. We must understandthat gun free zones are in reality criminal safe zones.

There is a tendency to think that in our modern society weshould leave defense of individuals to trained first respon-ders. I would agree, but only if we can all agree who thefirst responders really are. They are the victims, who arealways present at the scene of a crime. There were victims atVirginia Tech who did seek to foil the murderer, but theydied, in large part, because they were unarmed.

On the other hand, there were lots of cops on campuswhen the massacre began because they were investigating the

first two murders that had been committed over two hoursearlier. That presence did the next 30 victims no good. Thecops responded immediately when shots were heard as themassacre began. But all they could do to help was bringbody bags and note pads. They were clearly not first respon-ders, and it is unfair to call them that.

I have debated Rep. Carolyn McCarthy about this issue.She was horrified to hear the proposal that individuals withpermits to carry concealed firearms should not be barredfrom doing so on campuses. She threw up the bromide aboutdrunken frat parties and armed students not mixing together.

What McCarthy was saying was merely the collegiate ver-sion of the standard objection to concealed carry of firearmspermitted elsewhere in society. Every time those laws havebeen debated we have been warned that bars will resemblethe Wild West (at least as it is depicted in the movies) andthat road rage will turn roads red from running gun battles.But it never happens.

Studies of those with concealed carry permits have foundthat they are the folks in the population with the lowest crimerates of all — even lower than the cops. They are preciselythe ones who we should want on campus. (In Virginia andmost states, they need to be at least 21 years old.)

The Virginia Tech murderer did not choose to vent hiscriminal hatred in the adjacent town of Blacksburg for a sim-ple reason — the shooter might have been gunned down byan armed citizen. Instead, he chose to murder as many aspossible where he would be as safe as he could be for as longas possible — the campus.

A student wrote a letter to the editor of a local paperexplaining that he has a concealed carry permit. He had cho-sen not to carry the gun on campus because he did not wantto get caught and thus jeopardize his graduate career. Sincethe shooting, he said that he had been rethinking his decision.After all, if he had been killed in the massacre, that would

VA Tech:Refusing to Learn the Lesson

Studies of those with concealed carry permits have found that they are the folks in the population with the lowest crime ratesof all – even lower than the cops.

Sen. H.L. Richardson (Ret.)Founder and Chairman

Tim MacyVice-Chairman

The Gun Owners publication is not copyrighted.Copies may be made freely, but it is requestedthat attribution be made together with GOA’saddress, phone number and web site location.

GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102Springfield, Virginia 22151703-321-8585Web Site: http://www.gunowners.org

Larry PrattExecutive Director

Erich PrattDirector of Communications

John VellecoDirector of Federal Affairs

Continued on page 7

goa nl 4-3-04...goa uncovers unholy alliance, backroom deals continued on page 2 goa’s john...

Documents