GOA NL 11-4-04December 21, 2007 • The Gun Owners/Page 3 October and ruled that GOA had not violated anything in federal law (includ-ing the Incumbent Protection Act). In 2002, the

Gun OwnersTHE

32 YEARS OF NO COMPROMISE – 1975-2007

by Erich Pratt

“Gun Owners of Americahas remained a steadfastally. Their unwaveringdefense of our rights as Americans is commendable.”

— Senator Tom Coburn

First, there was Gun Owners ofAmerica and a myriad of state gunrights organizations.

Then, the Military Order of the Pur-ple Heart weighed in.

Later, there was the AmericanLegion.

The list of groups that haveexpressed strong concerns over the Vet-erans Disarmament Act continues grow-ing, even while Senators in our nation’scapital are continuously being bom-barded by thousands upon thousands ofpostcards and e-mails from grassrootsgun owners like yourself.

With your help this year, Gun Own-ers of America has led the coalitionagainst this noxious legislation (H.R.2640 and S. 2084).

GOA has also worked closely withRepublican Senator Tom Coburn (OK)who has placed a “hold” on the senateversion of the bill, which is beingpushed by Senator Chuck Schumer ofNew York. The “hold” is a parliamen-tary procedure that delays or temporari-ly blocks legislation from advancing.

Your efforts have immenselystrengthened the hand of SenatorCoburn. In an article entitled,“Coburn’s block may change strategyfor gun bill,” a Capitol Hill-based news-paper reported in October that frustra-

tion is building over Coburn’s “hold” onthe legislation.

“We’ve tried to negotiate,” Schumersaid, adding that talks with Coburn are“not getting that far. We might have tobring it to a vote.”

But the newspaper article in The Hillstated that taking a recorded vote on theVeterans Disarmament Act could “com-plicate its initially strong prospects” ofpassage. As reported in The Hill:

The National Rifle Association(NRA) supports the bill, which itsboard member and House Energyand Commerce Committee ChairmanJohn Dingell (D-Mich.) helped tocraft, but the Gun Owners of Ameri-ca (GOA) has backed Coburn andmobilized its grassroots against themeasure....

Coburn also has objected to whathe and the GOA — which dubbedthe bill the “Veterans Disarmament

Act” — believe is the risk of inad-vertently placing veterans treated formental illness into the background-check system, thus endangering theirability to buy a gun.

The Military Order of the PurpleHeart and the American Legion bothhave backed Coburn’s effort.But GOA Executive Director LarryPratt said his group remains opposedto the background-check system ingeneral, viewing it as an infringe-ment on the civil liberties and priva-cy of gun owners. “This would bean objection we’d have even after allthese [concerns of Coburn’s] aretaken care of,” Pratt said.

Coburn stalls gun bill in SenateBecause of Coburn’s actions, the Vet-

erans Disarmament Act has been stalledin the Senate for some time. But notcontent to remain silent, Sen. Coburnsent a pointed letter to officials at theDepartment of Veterans Affairs, askingthem to justify their actions.

Coburn states that Veterans Affairscontinues to send the names of“approximately 1,000 additional veter-

2007 Year in ReviewGOA Members Make Big Splash on Capitol Hill

Volume XXVII, Number 4 • December 21, 2007

Continued on page 2

Inside:• Gun Owners

of America winshuge victory in the Supreme Court(page 4)

• Are you being lied to about the Veterans Disarmament Act?(page 6)

Pro-gun champion Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)

Ass

ocia

ted

Pre

ss

December 21, 2007 • The Gun Owners /Page 2

ans” to the Department of Justice everymonth. According to the CongressionalResearch Service, Coburn says, this hasresulted in “approximately 140,000 Vet-erans” being added to the NICS back-ground check system.

“This situation is concerning to me,”he continues, “as the vast majority ofthese veterans have committed nocrime.” Coburn correctly notes that if aveteran should continue to own afirearm, he could “unknowingly be inviolation” of federal law. And theBATFE takes the position that, if a vet-eran is barred from owning a gun, theneveryone in his family is also “con-structively” barred.

Interestingly, Coburn notes that theVA gun ban for veterans is not based ona veteran being a “danger to him/herselfor others” but rather for supposedlybeing “unable to manage one’s ownaffairs.”

Coburn ends his letter with a verypointed request: “I respectfully requestthat you share with me your plans toprevent the release of more veterans’names without due process.”

Denying gun rights without due process

That’s the key: most of these bravesouls are being denied their gun rightswithout due process. Some haveclaimed that this bill would providerelief for those who are being unjustlydenied. Of course, this is very ques-tionable since Congress has, since1993, defunded the ability of theBATFE to restore the rights of veteransand other victims of gun control undercurrent law. (This is the result of aChuck Schumer amendment.)

Certainly, GOA would supportavenues to provide relief. But the Vet-erans Disarmament Act is not the vehi-cle to do this, since the bill actuallychanges federal law to legally ban those140,000 veterans from owning firearms.

Once the bill is enacted and thoseveterans and other Americans are legal-ly disarmed, the bill then provides somelimited avenues for pursuing relief —although Americans will face an uphillbattle as they will have to spend tens ofthousands of dollars pressing their case

in court where they will have the burdenof proving their innocence. This is thereverse of a criminal trial where theburden of proof is on the government.

Do you get the idea that maybe Sen-ator Schumer is looking for an easyway to disarm gun owners?

Even if these expensive court battlesprove successful, veterans are still notguaranteed to get their gun rights back.

Sen. Schumer can simply offer anotheramendment which defunds the abilityof the FBI to remove names from theNICS system, just as his 1993 amend-ment still prevents the federal govern-ment from granting relief to this day.

Sarah Brady is lobbying hard for the McCarthy-Schumer legislation

Several news agencies have statedthat passage of the Veterans Disarma-ment Act would represent the “firstmajor gun control law in more than a

decade.” So it’s no wonder that theBrady Bunch is plugging so hard forthis bill.

Sarah Brady wants this bill bad. Herorganization led a bunch of VirginiaTech survivors to Chuck Schumer’soffice in October to get media attentionin favor of the Veterans DisarmamentAct.

And she sent out an e-mail that samemonth urging members to donate to herorganization, thus helping to get theMcCarthy-Schumer bill passed.

“In July, the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives took a courageous first stepto keep guns out of the wrong hands bypassing HR 2640, the NICS Improve-ment Act,” Brady said. “The BradyCampaign is working full force to con-vince the U.S. Senate to pass this billimmediately.”

GOA victory over Brady Bunch to have huge ramifications

The Veterans Disarmament Act is notthe only battle where GOA has lockedhorns with the Brady Campaign inrecent months.

Shortly after last year’s elections, theBrady Campaign asked the FederalElection Commission to investigateGOA’s practice of posting its candidateratings on the Internet. Sarah Brady &Co. was challenging GOA’s right to dothis under the infamous McCain-Fein-gold Incumbent Protection Act.

Millions of gun owners rely onGOA’s candidate ratings, and that is

something the Brady Bunch would liketo halt.

To combat Brady’s efforts, GunOwners of America filed an amicus(friend of the court) brief before theU.S. Supreme Court in a similar case— the outcome of which was decidedearlier this year. GOA led a coalition ofsimilar organizations in FEC v Wiscon-sin RTL, and the U.S. Supreme Courtruled in our favor.

As a result, the FEC dismissed theBrady’s complaint against GOA in

2007 Year in ReviewContinued from page 1

Continued on page 3

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

“The Gun Owners of America (GOA) has backed Coburnand mobilized its grassroots against the [Schumer-McCarthy] measure.” — The Hill, October 3, 2007

An American Hero

GOA Life Member Joel Myrick.It was ten years ago this past Octo-ber that Assistant Principal JoelMyrick saved countless lives when heused a Colt .45 at his Pearl, Missis-sippi high school to save the lives ofcountless students. Ignoring lawswhich could have punished him forpossessing a gun on campus, Myrickpointed his gun at the young killer,Luke Woodham, and stopped himfrom continuing his shooting spree.One law-abiding adult with a gunprevented the southern town frombecoming like Virginia Tech.


October and ruled that GOA had notviolated anything in federal law (includ-ing the Incumbent Protection Act).

In 2002, the Brady Campaignrejoiced when Congress passed theMcCain-Feingold law, stating that “nowthe gun lobby’s stranglehold on Con-gress will be broken.” No doubt, theywant to make it illegal for GOA to tellgun owners what their legislators areactually doing.

But it should not surprise anyone thata group which doesn’t understand theSecond Amendment does not under-stand First Amendment freedoms either.

Gun Owners of America will contin-ue standing up to the Brady Campaignin 2008 ... taking the fight to TV talkshows ... and letting every member ofCongress know that our gun rights arenot negotiable.

The Veterans Disarmament Act is not

the only threat we will face. There aresemi-auto bans and gun show bans —plus threats from the BATFE, the Unit-ed Nations and more.

In recent months, GOA has beenfighting the Law of the Sea Treaty(LOST). Among other things, LOSTcould allow the UN to force the closingof firing ranges based on the bogus

argument that runoff from these rangespollutes the world’s oceans.

GOA will continue to keep you up-to-date on all the gun news that couldthreaten your rights.

So please stay with us. You’ll defi-nitely want to get our Candidate Ratingin October of next year. The fact thatSarah Brady doesn’t want you to have itis all the incentive you need to wantone.

GOA needs you more than ever.Please stay with us for another year.!

2007 Year in ReviewContinued from page 2


In recent months, GOA has been fightingthe Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).Among other things, LOST could allowthe UN to force the closing of firingranges based on the bogus argument thatrunoff from these ranges pollutes theworld’s oceans.

GOA has built a special section onits website to inform gun owners ofthe dangers in the Veterans Disar-mament Act. Please go towww.gunowners.org/netb.htm tolearn what are the specifics of thebill, who are its main supporters,what are answers to claims made byproponents of the bill, who facesthe greatest risk of being disquali-fied for buying a gun, and more.

“Gun Owners of America ... [views]the bill as a Pandora’s box ofrestrictive gun control laws, andthe group has launched grassrootsefforts across the nation, backed bymilitary groups such as the Mili-tary Order of the Purple Heart andthe American Legion.”— The Politico, October 15, 2007

“[The] more vociferous rival, GunOwners of America... has longopposed McCarthy’s background-check bill.” — The Washington Post,June 9, 2007

“The Gun Owners of America [has]already launched a public cam-paign to block the [McCarthy] leg-islation that the NRA supports,warning that the proposal could‘block millions of additional, honestgun owners from buying firearms.’”— Newsweek, April 24, 2007

“Another gun rights group, theGun Owners of America, isadamantly opposed to the [Veter-ans Disarmament] legislation. Itsaid the measure would allow thegovernment to trample privacyrights by compiling reams of per-sonal information and potentiallybar mentally stable people frombuying guns.”— Associated Press, April 23, 2007

“McCarthy told Newsweek that shewas pleasantly surprised to hear ofthe NRA’s public position, notingthat an executive of the Gun Own-ers of America had met with HouseRepublicans this week to gin upopposition to her measure. ‘I havea feeling that this is their [theNRA’s] way of showing they can bemoderate,’ she said.”— Newsweek, April 24, 2007

GOA Leading the Way Against theVeterans Disarmament Act

GOA’s Larry Pratt met with Rep. DougLamborn of Colorado (right) and otherRepublicans on the Hill this year to discussthe perils of Carolyn McCarthy’s VeteransDisarmament Act.



Supreme Victory. Shortly after last year’selections, the Brady Campaign asked the Feder-al Election Commission to shut down GOA’sability to post its candidate ratings on the Inter-net. Meanwhile, Gun Owners of America wasleading a coalition of organizations in an ami-cus case before the U.S. Supreme Court thatwas challenging the FEC. When the high courtruled in our favor, it took the wind out ofBrady’s sails — as the court’s opinion essen-tially forced the FEC to dismiss the caseagainst GOA. This means that GOA will beable to continue posting candidate ratings with-out restraint.GOA

in thecourts

GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt (right) debated gun controlseveral times on Fox News this year. Pratt and other GOA repre-sentatives have argued that tragedies, like those at Virginia Tech,could be averted by a law-abiding teacher or principal with a gun.Thankfully, the American people agree. A Research 2000 pollfound that 85% of Americans would find it appropriate for a princi-pal or teacher to use “a gun at school to defend the lives of stu-dents” and stop a school massacre.

John Velleco pulled double-duty after the Virginia Techshooting this spring. He personally briefed Congressionaloffices on the dangers of passing the Veterans Disarma-ment Act, while also appearing on C-Span’s WashingtonJournal and on MSNBC (pictured above).

GOA Director of Commu-nications Erich Pratt (left)went head-to-head againstthe leader of the BradyCampaign (right) on CNNwith Anderson Cooper inApril. Pratt also appearedon several talk radio sta-tions this year — includingthe nationally-syndicatedMichael Reagan show —and engaged in a “shootout” with Air America’sThom Hartman, the liberalalternative to Rush Lim-baugh.

GOA in theNews



GOA working to outlaw gun confis-cations. After National Guard troopsand police stole firearms from peacefulNew Orleans residents in 2005, GOA hasworked to get Emergency ProtectionBills passed in several states (and at thefederal level). This past year, GOAhelped Arizona and Montana to becomethe most recent states to outlaw the con-fiscation of firearms during a state ofemergency. More than a dozen stateshave now enacted such laws.

GOA speaks to Pennsylvanialegislators and activists. GOA’sExecutive Director, Larry Pratt,traveled to the Pennsylvania StateCapitol in Harrisburg to be thekeynote speaker at an April rally bypro-Second Amendment groups inthe state. Pro-gun groups and leg-islators have been particularlyeffective in Harrisburg, the statecapital.

Stalling the Veterans Disarma-ment Act. Gun Owners of Americaworked closely with RepublicanSenator Tom Coburn of Oklahomathis year. Coburn (left) dramaticallyslowed down the bill using parlia-mentary maneuvers, and GOA’sLarry Pratt (right) has directed agrassroots strategy in opposition tothe bill that has generated a tremen-dous tidal wave of postcards, lettersand emails into congressionaloffices.

Killing an anti-gun Kennedy bill. InJune, GOA helped kill an immigration billthat was sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy(D-MA). The bill contained harmful lan-guage which, in the hands of a future anti-gun administration, would have allowed gunshops to be shut down and classified as“criminal gangs.” GOA ginned up thegrassroots in favor of a killer amendmentthat brought the debate over the anti-gunamnesty bill to a screeching halt. That oneamendment was credited by Capitol Hillinsiders as being the biggest reason the billwas defeated by a 53-46 vote in the Senate.

GOA on CapitolHill

GOA in theStates



Are Senate Offices Lying to You?– Some are claiming there is noVeterans Disarmament Act!by Erich Pratt

It’s either an enormous bald-facedlie, or it’s ignorance at its worst. Butthen again, whether it’s deception orjust plain ignorance ... either scenario isfound quite commonly on Capitol Hill.

Some senate offices are telling peo-ple the Leahy-Schumer bill is only abill about “school safety” and not a billabout disarming veterans.

“This is not a Veterans DisarmamentAct,” some offices have told GOA staff.“The bill doesn’t say anything aboutveterans.” And one particular office —that of Republican Senator Orrin Hatchof Utah — is selectively quoting provi-sions in the bill to justify his supportfor the Veterans Disarmament Act.

These arguments have been repeatedin different places and at differenttimes. There is even a military websitewhere a broadcast journalist makes thesame outlandish claim that, “There isno such thing as the ‘Veterans Disarma-ment Act.’”

But just like journalists shouldn’tattempt brain surgery, neither shouldthey try to understand difficult pieces oflegislation without an intimate knowl-edge of the federal code and regulationswhich are referenced in those bills.

After all, it takes more digging thanjust doing a word search for the word“veteran” to understand there are dan-gers hidden in the McCarthy-Schumerbill which would ban hundreds of thou-sands of military veterans from owningguns. While it’s not surprising that ajournalist would fail to do this kind ofhomework, it is surprising that congres-sional offices would use such an ama-teurish argument to deflect criticism ofa bill.

Of course, the bill doesn’t say “Vet-erans Disarmament Act.” (That’s aphrase that was coined by Gun Ownersof America.) Does anyone really thinkthat Schumer & Co. are going to tell usthat their true intentions are to disarmveterans!

Heck no. They call it a “school safe-ty” bill, when the real goal of theirmeasure is to disarm gun owners and

veterans around the country. The history of legislation in the 20th

Century has taught us that legislation —if not carefully crafted — can be easilytwisted and abused. Remember howthe RICO Act, originally enacted tohelp combat the Mafia, was later usedto crack down on peaceful pro-life pro-testers?

And who would have thought, whenthe original Brady law was passed in1993, that it would be used to keep peo-ple with outstanding traffic tickets frombuying guns ... or couples with mar-riage problems from buying guns ... ormilitary vets with nightmares from buy-ing guns?

Those who want to claim that thereis no “Veterans Disarmament Act”ignore, first of all, that up to 140,000veterans have already been disarmed byusing twisted interpretations of the fed-eral code! That figure was released onAugust 1 by Congress’ own researchteam — the Congressional ResearchService.

Furthermore, the so-called “schoolsafety” bill that Senators Patrick Leahyand Chuck Schumer are pushing wouldlegitimize the very practice that beganwith President Clinton, when hisadministration began adding militaryvets onto the NICS roles. (The bill isnumbered H.R. 2640 in the House andS. 2084 in the Senate.)

The Veterans Disarmament ActDOES CHANGE federal law

The fact is, this legislation rubber-stamps regulations that have beenissued by the BATFE over the years.The net result is that Section 203(2) ofS. 2084 ends up outlawing guns formillions of people (including veterans)who are not “currently prohibited” fromowning guns.

You can go to www.gunowners.org/ne07013.htm to see in greater detailhow these regulations will drive theimplementation of the Veterans Disar-mament Act.

The bottom line is that this bill willban a person from owning guns because

he or she was merely diagnosed withpost-traumatic stress disorder,Alzheimer’s, ADHD or bipolar disorderby a government psychologist or psy-chiatrist in the VA, Medicare, or theIDEA program. This is because theVeterans Disarmament Act will codifyregulations that BATFE has issued.(Again, see the referenced URL formore details.)

False attempts at defending the veterans’ gun ban

Nevertheless, those who merely doword searches for “veteran” — and thusconclude a bill has nothing to say aboutveterans — try to defend what the Clin-ton administration did. Take SenatorHatch. He says, the Veterans Disarma-ment Act specifically excludes “anyfinding of mental illness that consistsonly of a medical diagnoses [sic] frombeing included in the NICS.”

What Hatch is doing is quoting (orreferencing) half a sentence in the billto make the supposed argument thatveterans who are only suffering fromPTSD will not fall prey to the gun ban,since they are only subject to a “med-ical finding of disability.”

This is a partial quote from Section211(c)(1)(C) of S. 2084, which is dupli-

Michael McLendon is the former DeputyAssistant Secretary for Policy in theDepartment of Veterans Affairs. Herecently told GOA that the Veterans Dis-armament Act is a huge concern for vet-erans because there are so many of themwho are being diagnosed with Post Trau-matic Stress Disorder (PTSD). McLen-don points out that many, if not most, ofthese vets are well functioning, but fewpeople at Veterans Affairs seem con-cerned about the ramifications of labelingsoldiers who are in their 20s with such astigma — a stigma that could result inforever losing their gun rights under theVeterans Disarmament Act.

Continued on page 7



10042

cated in the House bill. But to say this— that people can’t lose their gunrights based solely on a “medical find-ing of disability” — is to engage in anoutright fraud ... because the rest of thesentence in the bill says that they can beadded into the NICS system if they rep-resent a miniscule danger to themselvesor others or are unable to handle theirown affairs.

The legislation states that a personcan’t lose their gun rights “based solelyon a medical finding of disability, with-out a finding that the person is a dan-ger to himself or to others.” (Emphasisadded.) You see that? What little free-dom is protected with the one hand, isdestroyed with the other. What govern-ment shrink isn’t going to say that aperson suffering from PTSD is a poten-tial danger — even a teensy, weensy

danger — to himself or others? A BATFE letter from May 9 of this

year indicates that this danger does nothave to be a substantial threat; it can bejust a miniscule danger. (This letter canbe read on the GOA website at the URLbelow.)

Yes, this gets slightly technical. Butit helps to actually read entire sentencesin the bill, rather than to selectivelyquote a passage here or there; and itespecially helps to read the underlyingfederal code and regulations.

That’s why Gun Owners of America has posted the entire bill —and a scholarly point-by-point analysis of the Veterans DisarmamentAct — on its website. By going tohttp://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm and reading this information for your-self, you can stay informed on the veryreal threat posed by this legislation.

When you read through this section,you will understand why the AmericanLegion and the Military Order of the

Purple Heart have both opposed thisbill. You will also see the PDF copiesof their two letters of opposition, andsee Sen. Tom Coburn’s letter which hesent to officials at Veterans Affairs inOctober. Sen. Coburn asked them toexplain how they plan to prevent evenmore veterans from being disarmedwithout due process.

On October 18, USA Today statedthat veterans are seeking mental healthtreatment in increasing numbers ... byan almost 70% jump in a recent 12-month period. Can you see why Sena-tor Chuck Schumer and Rep. CarolynMcCarthy want this legislation so bad?Hundreds of thousands of veterans aregoing to be unknowingly sucked intothe gun control dragnet.

This is outrageous and is why yourSenators need to keep hearing from youon this issue.!

Mike Hammond contributed to this article.

Senate Offices LyingContinued from page 6



Gun OwnersTHE

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

from Sen. Bill Richardson (Ret.), LarryPratt and Mike Hammond

It may be a cliché, but it is true: Thisletter is written not in anger, but in sor-row and concern. It is written to ourfriends about NRA staff who, tragically,have taken a course which, we believe,would be disastrous for the SecondAmendment and the pro-gun move-ment.

Two of us are Life Members of theNRA — one of whom was an NRAboard member for over ten years. Andour legislative counsel was a paid con-sultant for the NRA.

So we certainly have no animusagainst the NRA staff, much less ourwonderful friends who are NRA mem-bers.

In fact, over the last thirty years,GOA and its staff have worked withNRA to facilitate most of our pro-gunvictories — from McClure-Volkmer tothe death of post-Columbine gun con-trol to a gun liability bill free of anti-gun “killer amendments.”

But those who staff the NRA, with-out consulting the membership, havenow made a series of strange and dan-gerous alliances with the likes of ChuckSchumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and PatLeahy. And we believe that, if allowedto continue, this will produce anti-gunpolicies which the NRA staff will bit-terly regret.

Christ said, in the Sermon on theMount, that “by their fruits, ye shallknow them.” And, frankly, these fruitsare not likely to produce much pro-gunlegislation.

Substantively, the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill, which NRA’s staff hasvigorously supported without consult-ing with its membership, would rubber-stamp the illegal and non-statutoryBATFE regulations which have alreadybeen used to strip gun rights from up to

140,000 veterans. It would also allowan anti-gun administration to turn overAmericans’ most private medicalrecords to the federal instant check sys-tem without a court order.

But perhaps even worse, the bill washatched in secret, without hearings ortestimony, and passed out of the Housewithout even a roll call. And now, thesponsors are trying to do the same thingin the Senate — in an effort to ram thebill through without votes or floordebate, led by anti-gun Senator ChuckSchumer. If it is good legislation, as itsproponents claim, why such fears of aroll call vote or debate in committee?

Indeed, in the face of horrific dissentfrom the NRA’s own membership, itsstaff has tragically ignored argumentsand dug in its heels — in an almost“because-we-say-so” attitude. Understand this:• Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer

will not quell the calls for gun con-trol. To the contrary, it will emboldenour enemies to push for the abolitionof even more of our Second Amend-ment rights. Already, the Brady Cam-paign has indicated its intent to followup this “victory” with a push for aneffective ban on gun shows.

• Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumerwill not be viewed as an “NRA victo-ry.” To the contrary, once the liberalmedia has used the NRA staff for itspurposes, it will throw them away likea used Kleenex. Already, an over-con-fident press is crowing that this is the“first major gun control measure inover a decade.”

• Taking the BATFE’s horrificallyexpansive unlawful regulations deal-ing with veterans’ loss of gun rightsand making them unchangeable con-gressionally-endorsed statutory law isNOT “maintaining the status quo.”

• We are told that the McCarthy/Leahy/

Schumer bill should be passedbecause it contains special provisionsto allow persons prohibited from own-ing guns to get their rights restored.But there is already such a provisionin the law; it is 18 U.S.C. 925(c). Andthe reason why no one has been ableto get their rights restored under cur-rent law is that funds for the systemhave been blocked by ChuckSchumer. It is no favor to gun ownersfor Chuck Schumer — the man whohas blocked funding for McClure-Volkmer’s “relief from disability” pro-visions for 15 years — to now offer togive us back a tepid version of theprovisions of current law which hehas tried so hard to destroy. Finally, there is the cost, which

ranges from $1 billion in the cheapestdraft to $5 billion — to one bill whichplaces no limits whatsoever on spend-ing. Thus, we would be drasticallyincreasing funding for gun control — ata time when BATFE, which has done somuch damage to the Second Amend-ment, should be punished, rather thanrewarded.

We would now respectfully ask theNRA staff to step back from a battlewith its membership — and to join withus in opposing McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer gun control, rather than sup-porting it.

And, to our friends and NRA mem-bers, we would ask that you take thisletter and pass it onto your friends andcolleagues.

Sincerely,

Senator H.L.“Bill” Richardson (Ret.)Founder and Chairman

Larry PrattExecutive Director

Michael E. HammondLegislative Counsel

An Open Letter to the Pro-gun Community

Documents

GOA NL 11-4-04December 21, 2007 • The Gun Owners/Page 3 October and ruled that GOA had not violated anything in federal law (includ-ing the Incumbent Protection Act). In 2002, the