Check out the sale section, new sale running on Savage Rifles now through February 28th.
McDonald vs. The City of Chicago.
Will Your Gun Rights Live or Die?
By Kirby Ferris
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
Copyright JPFO 2010
Coming up in our lives is perhaps the most critical Supreme Court decision in a century. Sometime towards summer of this year the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is going to decide on the case McDonald vs. The City of Chicago. Oral arguments begin March 2nd. The implications are immense.
A favorable ruling for McDonald would overthrow the Chicago ban on handgun ownership and would open the floodgates for an immense wave of (likely successful) pro-gun lawsuits against American cities, counties, and States.
Second Amendment advocates felt that a win in the Heller decision was vitally important for gun owners (JPFO filed a “friend of the court” brief in Heller). Well, McDonald is Heller on steroids.
McDonald is Heller on steroids.
A victory for gun owners could profoundly change the face of our nation. State by State by State, gun prohibitionists could finally be rousted out and smashed into impotence. Remember that Heller only dealt with guns in the District of Columbia. Let us remind ourselves: D.C. is not a State.
JPFO has also filed a “friend of the court” brief on McDonald. Go here to read the brief in full. The ramifications of this ruling could either impact the Second Amendment for the better … or for the absolute worst.
What McDonald does is attempt to persuade the Supreme Court to bring the Second Amendment under the “protection” of the 14th Amendment. This is called “incorporation” in legalese.
Here is the immediately relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
SCOTUS has opined, over decades of decisions, that, because of the 14th Amendment, the States must obey the First Amendment. The high court has also found the same for the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as other specific sections of the Bill of Rights.
… the States must obey the First Amendment.
However, until the Heller case, SCOTUS, since 1939, had literally kept 2A off the table, an untouchable “States Rights” issue. But Heller forced 2A right up to the front burner. The Supreme Court rather obviously had to pay attention to Heller, as D.C. is its immediate jurisdiction. So many pro-gun strategists see Heller as the “wedge” needed to open to door to McDonald.
But, as with all things legal, there are some unsettling ramifications. McDonald would undeniably give added power to the Federal government. No increase in federal power has ever benefited gun ownership. One need look no further than the “Gun Control Act of 1968” and the BATFE, with its draconian registration and “tracing” schemes, to understand this reality.
No increase in federal power has ever benefited gun ownership.
But in McDonald, it would seem, this added federal power, because it would add support to the individual right to gun ownership, would most likely be a positive thing. After all, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in all the States have actually been nurtured (or at least certainly not hindered) by “incorporation” under the 14th Amendment.
It seems a relatively safe bet that States with existing pro-gun stances would not be restricted by a positive McDonald decision. Or so we assume.
What is obvious is that the gun prohibitionists do not like what they see coming down the pike with McDonald. Are they hoping for a miracle?
Are they hoping for a miracle?
What could happen between now and the end of March to toss McDonald into disarray? Several events come to mind:
1. What if a horrific “lone gunman” massacre takes place?
Remember, both Australia and New Zealand reacted hysterically against gun ownership under such circumstances. And don’t ever forget that Patrick Purdy’s schoolyard slaughter in Stockton, CA was the emotional fuel that launched the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban”.
Could such another appalling event result in the inclusion of “weasel clauses” in the language of a McDonald verdict, or even a complete victory for gun prohibitionists?
Look to the pitifully anti-gun Anti Defamation League for an indication of how such a horrific (yet convenient) tragedy might be scripted.
The ADL is shrill in its concern about “white supremacists”. Therefore look for a “lone gunman” to be white. For the “shock and awe” psychological effect to be truly wrenching, the unarmed victims will have to be either blacks … or Jews. The ADL and its ilk desperately need to be able to wring their hands in perversely satisfied anguish and scream out: “We told you so! We told you so!” or…
2. What if one of the Justices who voted in favor of Heller (and can therefore be assumed to vote favorably in McDonald) was to die between now and March?
Heller was a five to four win. What if a “pro-gun” Supreme Court justice was to die, or be killed, before McDonald is decided? What if Barack Obama is then able to bring forth a rabidly anti-gun candidate as a replacement before McDonald is decided? Are there enough votes in the Senate to deny such an appointment? Don’t bet on it.
What if a “pro-gun” Supreme Court justice was to die, or be killed, before McDonald is decided?
3. What if a prominent politician, bureaucrat, spokesperson, or worshipped celebrity is reportedly killed by a “lone nut case”?
4. What if another terrorist attack occurs? Mass casualties would create the perfect excuse for martial law, and an end run around the Constitution, making any decisions by the Supreme Court irrelevant.
Anybody familiar with the American history of clandestine government and elite class (establishment) activities since WWII should not be shocked if any of the above mentioned scenarios occur.
Yes, friends of freedom, crucial times are upon us. Pay very close attention, and redouble your effort to save the Second Amendment. JPFO has plenty of “intellectual ammunition” on our site waiting for you to use, such as its ground breaking award winning films “2A Today for The USA” and “No Guns for Negroes“. Be sure also to visit the “Freedom Flyer” page for links to some of JPFO’s most important material.
Proof: More guns = less crime
Proof: More guns = less crime
Posted: January 16, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010
There it was. Good news on New Year’s Day on the front page of the Washington Post.
“Homicide totals in 2009 plummet in District, Prince George’s,” the headline read.
In a story that likely got lost amid the holiday revelry, the paper reported that the nation’s capital in 2009 experienced its lowest number of homicides in 45 years. In case you can’t do the math real quick, that previous year would be 1964.
And for those too young to remember, 1964 was pretty much the end of an era. It was before the riots, before the Vietnam War was seriously escalated to become a national dividing point, before the drug explosion.
So what happened in Washington, D.C., in 2009 that might account for such a dramatic decline in homicide deaths?
Hmmmmm. Let me see. Nothing comes to mind.
Oh, wait a minute! Wasn’t 2009 the first full year following the overturning of Washington’s gun ban by the Supreme Court in the Heller case?
Could that have something to do with it?
Apparently the Washington Post newsroom didn’t think so. It was not even mentioned in the New Year’s Day story – not even as an afterthought. That should tell you something about the political culture and worldview in elite newsrooms of America’s major metropolitan newspapers.
But think about it!
Once again, we have more real-life evidence of the theory so well articulated by John R. Lott in his breakthrough book, “More Guns, Less Crime.”
Remember what was predicted by the naysayers following the Heller case?
They foresaw blood in the streets. They believed a sort of citywide Armageddon would ensue. They prophesied gloom and doom. In fact, even in his Supreme Court dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued the gun ban was necessary for public-safety reasons because “guns were ‘responsible for 69 deaths in this country each day.'”
What Breyer didn’t understand was that guns are not responsible for any deaths. People are. Bad guys are. Murderers are. And when those guys have a virtual monopoly on force, because law-abiding citizens can’t bear arms, that’s when blood flows in the streets.
For 20 years before the Heller decision, Washington was known alternately as the murder capital of the country and the “District of Criminals.”
But something happened to make 2009 different. There was a significant drop in violent crime and property crime. The sharpest drop was in homicides – 25 percent. There was a 16 percent drop in sexual assaults and a 10 percent decrease in car thefts.
Can anyone point to another factor?
Was it Barack Obama’s anointing presence? I don’t think so.
It was Heller.
By the way, you probably also heard the news that 2009 was a banner year for gun sales nationwide. Americans, in fear Obama and the Democrat-dominated Congress would move quickly to limit their ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights, went out and got guns while they could.
These folks braved the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression to go out and buy firearms, which are not cheap. They also bought ammunition, which is getting more expensive all the time.
And guess what resulted?
Were more people killed by guns as the gun-control freaks always predict?
Nope.
Just the opposite.
According to the FBI’s uniform crime report, law-enforcement agencies across the country experienced a decrease in violent crime for the first six months of 2009 from the same period the year earlier. Violent crime, which includes homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, decreased by 4.4 percent. The complete annual report is not yet released.
But, mark my words, when it is out it will show violent crime down throughout America – because more people have guns.
The Bushmaster ACR
Breaking News: Federal Lawsuit Claims Remington ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle) Violates RDMI (Alex Robinson of Robinson Armament) Patent
By David Crane
defrev (at) gmail (dot) com
January 15, 2010
Updated on 1/16/10
On January 4th, 2010, DefenseReview published a quick piece on the new “leaked” Remington ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle) video. Well, something rather interesting has since occurred involving the ACR. According to RFC Express, a website covering “US Federal District Court, Recently Filed Cases”, a company designated as “RMDI, LLC” is listed as the Plaintiff in a federal lawsuit (Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-00029-DAK) vs. Defendant(s) Remington Arms Company, Inc., Bushmaster Firearms, Rock River Arms, and MagPul Industries. The “COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT” federal lawsuit was, according to RFC Express, just filed on Thursday, January 14, 2010 (yesterday) in a Utah District Court. Remington and Bushmaster are part of the Freedom Group, which is owned by Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
RMDI, LLC is a limited liability company owned by Alex Robinson of Robinson Armament (ROBARM), maker of the XCR Modular Weapon System tactical rifle series. DefenseReview has been informed by Alex Robinson that the lawsuit involves a patent that Mr. Robinson has on an “ambidextrous magazine release (a.k.a. ambidextrous mag release) and bolt hold-open”, and that thefirearms involved in the alleged patent infringement/violation are the Remington ACR (previously known as the Bushmaster ACR) 5.56mm NATO (5.56×45mm NATO)/.223 Rem. tactical rifle, MagPul Masada ACWS (from which the ACR was derived and developed), Rock River Arms (RRA) LAR-8 7.62mm NATO (7.62mm NATO)/..308 Win. rifle, and the MagPul Massoud 7.62mm NATO/.308 Win. rifle. The official lawsuit document confirms this.
The official lawsuit document, which Defense Review has purchased and downloaded from the RFC Express website, states that the lawsuit is over U.S. Patent No. 7,596,900 (the “’900 patent”) entitled “Multi-Caliber Ambidextrously Controllable Firearm,” issued on October 6, 2009 to inventors Alexander J. Robinson, Darin G. Nebeker, and Jon C. Holway. It further states that “Defendants are liable for infringement of the ’900 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.”
The lawsuit document continues:
“Upon information and belief, one or more of the Defendants’ acts of infringement
were made or will be made with knowledge of the ’900 Patent. Such acts constitute willful
infringement and make this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285 and entitle RMDI to enhanced damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
There’s a Chinese saying “May you live in interesting times.” This situation should help make for an interesting SHOT Show 2010. Speaking of SHOT, you’ll be able to find Alex Robinson/Robinson Armament at the Serbu Firearms booth (#20034). Serbu makes the Serbu BFG-50 single-shot bolt-action .50 BMG rifle, Serbu BFG-50A mag-fed semi-auto .50 BMG tactical rifle, and Serbu SUPER-SHORTY 12-gauge tactical/combat shotgun.
Click here to view the original/official PDF version of the official lawsuit document.
The following is a copy of the federal lawsuit, in its entirety.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -1-
JAMES B. BELSHE (USB No. 9826)
jbelshe@wnlaw.com
CLINTON E. DUKE (USB No. 9784)
cduke@wnlaw.com
AMBER B. LEAVITT (USB No. 11412)
aleavitt@wnlaw.com
WORKMAN | NYDEGGER
1000 Eagle Gate Tower
60 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: (801) 533-9800
Facsimile: (801) 328-1707
Attorneys for Plaintiff RMDI, LLC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
RMDI, LLC, a Utah limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
REMINGTON ARMS CO., INC., a North
Carolina corporation, BUSHMASTER
FIREARMS INT’L, LLC, a Maine limited
liability company, ROCK RIVER ARMS, INC.,
an Illinois corporation, and MAGPUL
INDUSTRIES CORP., a Colorado corporation,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-00029-DAK
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT
Honorable Judge Dale A. Kimball
RMDI, LLC (“RMDI”) brings this action against defendants Remington Arms Co., Inc.,
Bushmaster Firearms Int’l, LLC, Rock River Arms, Inc., and Magpul Industries Corp. (collectively
referred to hereafter as “Defendants”), and for good cause of action alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. RMDI, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
Utah with its principal place of business in North Salt Lake City, Utah.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -2-
2. On information and belief, Remington Arms Co., Inc. (“Remington”) is a North
Carolina corporation with headquarters in Madison, North Carolina, has designated its registered
agent for purposes of service of process as CT Corporation System, 150 Fayetteville Street, Box
1011, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601, and is doing business in this judicial district.
3. On information and belief, Bushmaster Firearms Int’l, LLC (“Bushmaster”) is a
Maine limited liability company with headquarters in Windham, Maine, has designated its registered
agent for purposes of service of process as National Registered Agents, Inc., P.O. Box 509,
Readfield, Maine 04355, and is doing business in this judicial district.
4. On information and belief, Rock River Arms, Inc. (“Rock River Arms”) is an Illinois
corporation with headquarters in Colona, Illinois, has designated its registered agent for purposes of
service of process as Mark A. Larson, 1042 Cleveland Road, Colona, Illinois 61241, and is doing
business in this judicial district.
5. On information and belief, Magpul Industries Corp. (“Magpul”) is a Colorado
corporation with headquarters in Longmont, Colorado, has designated its registered agent for
purposes of service of process as Douglas Wayne Smith, 400 Young Court #1, Erie, Colorado
80516-8441, and is doing business in this judicial district.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the provisions of the Patent
Laws of the United States of America, Title 35 of the United States Code.
7. Subject-matter jurisdiction over RMDI’s claims is conferred upon this Court by 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
8. On information and belief, Defendants have solicited business in the State of Utah,
transacted business within the State of Utah and attempted to derive financial benefit from residents
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -3-
of the State of Utah, including benefits directly related to the instant patent infringement cause of
action set forth herein.
9. On information and belief, Defendants have placed their infringing products into the
stream of commerce throughout the United States, which products have been offered for sale, sold
and/or used in the State of Utah and/or in the District of Utah.
10. More specifically, on information and belief, Defendants have offered for sale and/or
sold their products through various retailers located in Utah, including, but not limited to,
Gallenson’s, Basin Sports, Good Gun Guys, Hammerback Guns, Kent Shooters Supply, Lee’s Gun
Shop, “Get Some” Guns & Ammo, Smith and Edwards, Big 5, and Cabela’s.
11. Defendants, directly or through their subsidiaries, divisions, groups or distributors
have committed acts of infringement in this judicial district, are subject to personal jurisdiction in
this judicial district, and/or are doing business in this judicial district.
12. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and/or 1400.
ACCUSED PRODUCTS
13. Remington, directly or through its subsidiaries, divisions, groups or distributors,
makes, sells and/or offers for sale or allows others to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale infringing
products, including, but not limited to, the product identified as the Adaptive Combat Rifle, or ACR.
14. Bushmaster, directly or through its subsidiaries, divisions, groups or distributors,
makes, sells and/or offers for sale or allows others to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale infringing
products, including, but not limited to, the product identified as the Adaptive Combat Rifle, or ACR.
15. Rock River Arms, directly or through its subsidiaries, divisions, groups or
distributors, makes, sells and/or offers for sale or allows others to make, use, sell and/or offer for
sale infringing products, including, but not limited to, the product identified as the LAR-8.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -4-
16. Magpul, directly or through its subsidiaries, divisions, groups or distributors, makes,
sells and/or offers for sale or allows others to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale infringing
products, including, but not limited to, the products identified as the Masada and the Massoud rifles.
17. Defendants’ products listed in paragraphs 13-16 above are collectively referred to
hereafter as “the Accused Products.”
18. The Accused Products do not necessarily represent an exhaustive list, and additional
products may be added pending further discovery.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
PATENT INFRINGEMENT
19. On October 6, 2009, U.S. Patent No. 7,596,900 (the “’900 patent”) entitled “Multi-
Caliber Ambidextrously Controllable Firearm,” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, was
duly and legally issued to the inventors Alexander J. Robinson, Darin G. Nebeker, and Jon C.
Holway.
20. RMDI is the owner by assignment of all right, title and interest in and to the ’900
patent, including the right to sue for and recover all past, present and future damages for
infringement of the ’900 patent.
21. Upon information and belief, Defendants, directly or through their subsidiaries,
divisions, groups or distributors, have infringed and continue to infringe the ’900 patent by making,
using, selling and/or offering to sell, or inducing or contributing to the infringement of the ’900
patent in the United States, including in the state of Utah, one or more of the Accused Products that
are covered by one or more of the claims of the ’900 Patent, including, but not limited to, claim 1 of
the ’900 Patent.
22. Defendants are liable for infringement of the ’900 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -5-
23. Defendants’ acts of infringement have caused damage to RMDI, and RMDI is
entitled to recover from the defendants the damages sustained by RMDI as a result of the
Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
24. As a consequence of the infringement complained of herein, RMDI has been
irreparably damaged to an extent not yet determined and will continue to be irreparably damaged by
such acts in the future unless the defendants are enjoined by this Court from committing further acts
of infringement.
25. Upon information and belief, one or more of the Defendants’ acts of infringement
were made or will be made with knowledge of the ’900 Patent. Such acts constitute willful
infringement and make this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285 and entitle RMDI
to enhanced damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, RMDI prays for the following relief:
A. Judgment that Defendants have each infringed the ’900 Patent;
B. An order requiring Defendants to account for and pay to RMDI all damages
caused by their infringement of the ’900 Patent, whether lost profits or a reasonable royalty, and
to enhance such damages by three times in light of Defendants’ willful infringement, all in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;
C. Entry of a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 enjoining
Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons in active concert or
participation with them from further acts of patent infringement;
D. An order that RMDI be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the
damages caused to it by reason of Defendants’ patent infringement;
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -6-
E. A declaration by the Court that this an exceptional case and that RMDI be granted
its reasonable attorneys’ fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285;
F. An award of costs to RMDI; and
G. Any other relief that the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
RMDI demands trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.
Dated: January 14, 2010. WORKMAN | NYDEGGER
By: /s/ James B. Belshe
James B. Belshe
Clinton E. Duke
Amber B. Leavitt
Attorneys for Plaintiff RMDI, LLC
GOA’s State of the Union Update on Gun Rights — Despite intense opposition, GOA members made giant strides in 2009
| GOA’s State of the Union Update on Gun Rights — Despite intense opposition, GOA members made giant strides in 2009 Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert “The real gun lobby in Washington is the GOA.” — Senator Tom Coburn, August 14, 2009 Thursday, January 14, 2010 By the end of the month, President Barack Obama is expected to give the State of the Union address. Oh, what a year it’s been. It was almost a year ago that President Obama took his oath of office. But soon after he raised his right hand and promised to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, Americans became engaged in the fight of their lives to safeguard their liberties. The extremist Obama administration began pushing an anti-gun, socialistic agenda of the kind that most Americans have not seen in their lifetimes. The President began placing gun-hating radicals in high positions of power — both in the executive department and in the courts — and he pushed a socialistic gun control agenda that kept gun owners busy throughout 2009. Yet through it all, Gun Owners of America rallied the troops to oppose the President each and every step of the way. Some battles we lost. Others we won. Some are still at a stalemate. Regardless, this 2009 review should encourage you. It shows that even though every institution in Washington is slanted against us, we can slow down, stop or reverse the march towards gun control. And, yes, Gun Owners of America has won some incredible victories. In some cases, our organization fought these battles alone — although in truth, we haven’t been alone because we represent thousands upon thousands of active gun owners like you who are all determined to preserve our liberties. In 2010, we need you to stay with us. It takes less than five minutes to go to http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm and sign up. By doing so, you will be joining — in the words of Senator Tom Coburn — the “real gun lobby in Washington.” The fight will be intense for another year — at least until the elections this November. We need you to stand with us to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Until then, get ready for 2010 and be encouraged by what we accomplished together in 2009. January – February * President Obama nominates an anti-gun radical, Eric Holder, to the office of Attorney General. GOA releases several alerts to mobilize the grassroots against Holder, and fights a lonely (uphill) battle against the nomination — as GOA is the only national gun rights organization lobbying against Holder. In the end, Holder is confirmed, but not without cost to the President. The fight over Holder represents the first step in a long effort to expose the President’s vulnerabilities, as his Approval Index drops more than 10 points during his first two weeks in office. Leading up to the inauguration, Barack Obama was practically deified by many around the country, but now he is increasingly seen as being unable to shoot straight in selecting cabinet members. By the end of the year, the President’s support will have dropped well below 50 percent. * In a raw power grab, congressional Democrats try to gain three more seats in Congress (one in the House and two in the Senate) by bringing up the DC Voting Rights Act for a vote. Three more legislators from Washington, DC would, undoubtedly, mean three more ferocious anti-gunners in Congress. But GOA works with Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada to attach a provision to the bill repealing the DC gun ban. The Ensign amendment passes in the Senate, causing the overall Voting Rights bill to be extremely distasteful to House Democrats. The bill passes the Senate, but is pronounced D.O.A. in the House. * GOA’s Larry Pratt appears on Fox Cable News’ Glenn Beck program to highlight the dangers of HR 45, a bill that would ban the possession of handguns unless gun owners registered themselves like sex offenders. March – April * Following Larry Pratt’s appearance on Fox’s Glenn Beck show, GOA begins its campaign against HR 45, mobilizing gun owners across the nation to inundate Representatives with thousands of postcards against the gun registration bill. The legislation gains much fanfare in the pro-gun community, and in the Congress the bill remains locked up in committee. * Even though many in the conservative movement think the passage of a socialized health care is inevitable, GOA issues its first of many alerts to warn gun owners about the dangers contained in the ObamaCare legislation. May – June * The members of GOA once again fight a solo battle (among national groups) in the effort to repeal the Reagan-era gun ban in the National Parks. Gun Owners rallies the troops, asking them to contact their Senators in favor of a repeal amendment authored by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). The amendment passes the Senate and is signed into law by Memorial Day. Senator Coburn praises the efforts of GOA members, saying that: “Gun Owners of America was the most consistent and loudest voice on Capitol Hill in support of the effort to repeal the National Park Service gun ban.” * Gun Owners of America works in Tennessee to enact the nation’s first Firearms Freedom Act, a law mandating that guns which are made (and stay) in the state are exempt from federal gun restrictions. Tennessee’s law is the first of its kind to become law, even though Montana was the first state to take up the issue. Tennessee’s law went into effect in June of last year; Montana’s law in October. * Gun Owners of America engages in a grassroots campaign to lobby squishy Republican Senators who are trying to reach a compromise on ObamaCare. GOA’s message is: We don’t want any socialized health care that can be used to infringe upon the rights of gun owners. This campaign would ultimately be successful as every Republican would soon announce their opposition to — and vote against — the health care bill. * The media begins picking up on GOA’s campaign against ObamaCare. The newspaper of record on Capitol Hill reports that, “The Gun Owners of America group, which boasts more than 300,000 members, has been warning its ranks that the proposed healthcare legislation would compile the information of Americans into a government database.” (The Hill, August 21, 2009.) * Another media outlet reports that, “Gun Owners of America (GOA) has been alone on the national stage in warning of the dangers of centralized health care to the rights of gun owners.” (Examiner.com, September 3, 2009) * GOA spearheads a victorious campaign to support the Amtrak amendment in the U.S. Senate. This amendment, offered by Republican Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, allows law-abiding gun owners to safely and legally transport firearms when they travel on Amtrak. The amendment is successfully attached to the transportation bill by a filibuster-proof margin of 63-35 and is later signed into law (in December). October – November * Gun Owners of America mounts an all-out offensive to rally gun owners to oppose the ObamaCare bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill passes narrowly by five votes. * Given the increased media attention of GOA’s position — and the narrow vote in the House — the White House launches a broadside against GOA’s arguments, claiming there are no gun rights threats in the health care bill. GOA publicly responds to the White House’s erroneous claims right before the Thanksgiving break. Ironically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will affirm GOA’s position less than a month later by including an amendment in the Senate version of the bill supposedly designed to allay gun owners’ concerns. While the Reid “fix” will help in some small ways, it still leaves the majority of GOA’s concerns unaddressed. * Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation file an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of four Chicago residents who are seeking to invalidate a city ordinance prohibiting them from owning or possessing a handgun in their own home (McDonald v. Chicago). Oral arguments before the Court are scheduled for March 2, 2010. December * The very liberal Slate magazine ruefully declares: “Score one for the Gun Owners of America” (December 20, 2009). Slate’s declaration recognizes the fact that Majority Leader Harry Reid has tried to appease gun owners by placing a pro-gun “fix” in the bill. But as mentioned earlier, the “fix” is more of a first step, as it falls short of addressing all the problems GOA has with the bill. Senate Democrats later overcome a Republican filibuster with no votes to spare. But despite this defeat, the ObamaCare legislation still has a long way to go. GOA will continue to fight this bill — and all other attempts to enact gun control at the federal level — in 2010. GOA will also be ramping up its efforts at the state level this year, most notably in leading the charge for Firearms Freedom and genuine (Alaska-style) carry reform. PLEASE CONTINUE TO STAND WITH GOA THIS YEAR! The ability of GOA to continue putting pressure on politicians depends on loyal activists like you. GOA has been the national leader when it comes to opposing the gun control in the socialized health care bill. But don’t just take our word for it… listen to what others have been saying. The media has declared that Gun Owners of America “has been alone on the national stage” and has “scored” legislative victories for gun owners. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) said that, “GOA has led the national gun rights organizations in actively opposing Mr. Holder’s nomination….” Our philosophy is to fight gun control without compromising our rights. That’s why Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has called GOA the “only no-compromise gun lobby” in the nation’s capital. We can only continue fighting for your rights as long as you continue to fight with us. You can stand with us today by joining GOA or renewing your existing membership at http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm Thank you for your support! Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable. To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to: http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location. To unsubscribe send a message to gunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject line or click on the link at bottom. Problems, questions or comments? Please visit http://gunowners.net/cgi-bin/ttx.cgi?cmd=newticket or call 703-321-8585 during normal east coast business hours. |
| If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here. |
New website up….construction ongoing!
In an effort to make our site more informative and easy to use we have designed this new site, check back for updates often to see the new changes and read the news.
Some of the new features of the site will include current events posts, reviews of products, sales, and more to come!
Please look around and feel free to leave comments or suggestions.