New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg heads a group called “Mayors Against Illegal Guns.” The name is deceptive – Bloomberg is mostly interested in further restricting legal gun ownership.

His most recent tirade comes in the wake of the Fort Hood shooting. In an op-ed­ in the Washington Post, Bloomberg complains that the FBI is not allowed to keep a registration list of gun owners.

Federal law prohibits the government from maintaining or compiling a registration list of gun owners. President Clinton ignored the law and kept files of lawful gun purchasers (those who went through an FBI background check before they were allowed to purchase a firearm) for at least six months.

Congress rightly stepped in and required that the records of lawful transactions be destroyed within 24 hours. It is bad enough that American gun owners are presumed to be criminals until they can prove otherwise to the government, but to add to that unconstitutional requirement the ability of the government to maintain gun owner registration lists would only lead to more intrusive laws, greater restrictions on gun rights and more civilian disarmament.

Gun control laws do not reduce violent crime rates (in fact the opposite is more likely the case). But what is the government’s typical response when its gun control laws prove ineffective? The common refrain is that law was too weak, or too small, or didn’t go far enough. The solution, therefore, is to enact yet more laws.

That is exactly the position of Mayor Bloomberg. Sixteen years ago, the gun control crowd pushed the so-called Brady law, wherein all firearms transactions conducted through federally licensed dealers would be regulated. But, of course, that was not enough for them. Now anti-gunners want to maintain lists of gun owners and expand background checks to private gun sales.

Bloomberg also believes that people who are suspected of crimes should be prohibited from purchasing firearms. Anti-Second Amendment advocates like Bloomberg want to deny gun purchases persons listed on the governments so-called terror watch list – a list that reportedly contains over 400,000 names.

Why is due process so offensive to the gun control crowd? If we can deny civil liberties to citizens on the basis of being suspected criminals, we may as well run the Constitution through a shredder.

It is a shame that Bloomberg did not take up the cause of legal gun ownership at Fort Hood. The military’s anti-self defense policy is one reason that a man armed with a couple of handguns was able to murder 14 people on a military installation.

Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone told reporters after the Fort Hood shooting that, “[W]e don’t carry weapons here, this is our home.” It may come as a surprise to many people that military installations are for the most part gun free zones. Only police are allowed to carry firearms on base – most soldiers are not allowed to carry weapons on base when not training.

Why isn’t Bloomberg outraged over the disarming of our servicemen and women on base? This is a “loophole” that can and should be closed quickly.

At the very least, those who hold a Texas concealed carry permit should be able to carry on post. That type of legal gun ownership would make the 33,000 people who reside at Fort Hood safer.

Bloomberg, of course, would not go for it because it doesn’t fit his extreme gun control agenda.

If Bloomberg’s organization were really just against the criminal misuse of firearms, its existence would be meaningless. A more fitting – and honest – title for Bloomberg’s group would be simply “Mayors Against Guns.”

Gun Owners of America

– Vote is scheduled for Saturday night

Friday, November 20, 2009

Tomorrow will be as important a day as any in our lifetimes in determining whether the anti-gun health care bill moves forward.
The key vote will be on shutting down a Republican filibuster of the ObamaCare bill, HR 3590.  In the Senate, we are faced with a health care bill that:
* Costs $2.5 trillion during its first ten years of full implementation (2014-2023);
* Increases insurance premiums and imposes $376 billion in tax increases — many on the middle class; and
* Cuts Medicare by $465 billion, while increasing health costs by over $100 billion.
Fox News is reporting today that the word “tax” appears 183 times in the health care bill.  Is Obama serious?  Is that what he and Reid want to do to us in the midst of a recession?
Of course, all this increased spending — and taxes — means that you will have less money to spend on pursuing your real passions:  like providing for your family and purchasing guns and ammunition!

The strategy in the Senate is to cram this bill down the American people’s throats before we have a chance to fully read and evaluate it.  And the vote on Saturday at 8:00 p.m. will determine whether, at least initially, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be able to get away with this.

Gun Owners of America has already gone into several states represented by key Democrats who will be central to the Saturday vote.  But this is sufficiently important that all 100 senators need to know where we stand.

Finally, as we have mentioned several times in the past, the mandates in the legislation will most likely dump your gun-related health data into a government database that was created in section 13001 of the stimulus bill.  This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned… or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms.

And, the special “wellness and prevention” programs (inserted by Section 1001 of the bill as part of a new Section 2717 in the Public Health Services Act) would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles — and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius from decreeing that “no guns” is somehow healthier.

We all need to contact our Senators right away.
Do you want left-wing bureaucrats appointed by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid determining whether you should own a gun via the health care system?
If not, then you need to call right away.  Our gun rights — and the fate of our economy — are hanging in the balance.

ACTION: Call your two U.S. Senators.  Please urge them to vote against “cloture” on the “motion to proceed” to HR 3590.

You can call your Senators toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.  The phones are ringing off the hook right now on Capitol Hill.  More likely than not, you will have to try several times because the circuits have been overloaded.

But don’t be discouraged… keep calling!
Also, ask your wife, your relatives, your neighbors, your church — everyone, short of your dog — to do the same.  This is crunch time!
NOTE:  The alternate, non toll-free, number is 202-224-3121.

—– TALKING POINTS —–

1) Support the filibuster of HR 3590 by voting NO on cloture.

2) Socialized health care is too expensive.  I would rather spend my money the way I want to spend it!

3) Increasing my taxes during a recession is insane.

4) This bill will threaten to register me as a gun owner, because the mandates in this bill will force my medical information into the database that was created by the stimulus bill.

5) Vote NO on this bill!

Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms is incorporated as against the States by
the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or
Immunities or Due Process Clauses.

Please Click the Link Below to view the Amicus Brief Draft

AB Draft 11 11 09 – McDonald v City of Chicago

However, just when these people needed guns the most, New Orleans’s Police Superintendent ordered the confiscation of firearms, allegedly under a state emergency powers law. “No one will be able to be armed,” he said. “Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.”2 (Fortunately, an NRA lawsuit brought an end to the seizures-along with a far-fetched denial that confiscation had ever been ordered. Following this, Judge Carl J. Barbier, presiding over the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, held New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Chief Warren Riley in contempt for “failure to provide initial disclosures and to compel answers to discovery” during NRA’s injunction against the City for their illegal gun confiscations.)

Of course, no one condones the mindless violence of those who would loot a helpless city, or shoot at rescue workers. But one reason for the citizens to retain a legal right to arms, is precisely because the government has no legal duty to protect them.3 Legislative bodies can, and should, act to protect the self-defense rights of citizens at the times when those rights are most important.

Unfortunately, many states have “emergency powers” laws that give the government permission to suspend or limit gun sales, and to prohibit or restrict citizens from transporting or carrying firearms. In some states, authorities are authorized to seize guns outright from citizens who’ve committed no crime–and who would then be defenseless against disorder.

The movement to change these laws is gaining speed. Just two months after Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana legislature–with only one dissenting vote–adopted a resolution declaring “the policy of the state of Louisiana to protect and uphold the citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in their residences, businesses, and means of transport, and on their persons,” condemning the seizure of firearms from New Orleans citizens, and announcing it planned to amend Louisiana’s emergency powers law “to rectify the denial of these rights.”4 Since then, 21 additional states have joined Louisiana by passing laws to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners by prohibiting the confiscation of firearms during a time of emergency.

Congress and President Bush also saw the need to act to protect gun owners’ rights during emergencies. H.R. 5013, the “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act,” was introduced in the House by Congressman Bobby Jindal (LA – 1) and passed the House on July 25, 2006 with a broad bi-partisan margin of 322-99. Senator David Vitter (R-La) introduced the Senate version of the bill and added it as an Amendment to Homeland Security Appropriations, which passed the United States Senate by 84-16, the largest margin of victory for a NRA-backed measure. On October 9, 2006, President George W. Bush signed this legislation into law.

In the past, America has balanced emergency needs with respect for constitutional rights. Months before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Congress passed the Property Requisition Act of 1941, which allowed the President, as a last resort, to seize needed war materials “upon the payment of fair and just compensation.”5 The Congress, concerned about the prospect of gun confiscation, included language to prohibit registration or seizure of privately owned firearms. America and its allies went on to win the greatest armed conflict in history. Today, Congress and the state legislatures should follow that lead.

Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.