GOA: Huge Liberal Power Grab Underway

[mrreynolds]

Huge Power Grab Underway in Washington
Democrats looking to get almost ten, brand new anti-gunners in Congress

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
Join GOA Online With our Secure Online Membership form.

Friday, April 30, 2010

The Democrat-controlled Congress and the White House are pulling out all the stops to offset the oncoming tidal wave that is threatening to throw them out of power this November.

With their polls sagging badly, the liberal Democrats rammed through a Puerto Rican statehood resolution yesterday which many consider the first step towards making Puerto Rico the 51st state -- a move that would give liberal progressives in the Congress six more Representatives and two new Senators.

Making Puerto Rico a state would bring another gun control bastion into our nation and bring almost ten anti-gun congressmen and senators into the Congress.

This is disgraceful! With her party's polls plummeting, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to get as many additional progressives into Congress as possible so that she can continue advancing her liberal, anti-American agenda.

Regarding the statehood resolution, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) says it "is the Puerto Rico statehood bill which is being pushed by the new progressive party in Puerto Rico trying to create a federally [sanctioned] vote that they say is nonbinding but would give them the legitimacy to then come back and try to seat people in the United States Congress."

To see how your congressman voted on the Puerto Rican statehood resolution, go to: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll242.xml

GOA will keep you updated as to when a vote is scheduled in the U.S. Senate.

GOA helps kill Pelosi's attempt to give DC a vote in Congress

Not to be satisfied with merely eight new liberal votes from Puerto Rico, liberal Democrats want to give statehood to Washington, DC. S. 160 would take a major step in that direction by giving this federal enclave a vote in the House of Representatives.

The bill is the DC Voting Rights Act, otherwise known as the DC Vote Grab Act. It would make Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton a legitimate voting member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

If you know anything about Del. Norton, you know that she is one of the most liberal, anti-gun legislators in the country -- one who completely supports Nancy Pelosi's agenda. Of course, Democrats are not just going to settle for a mere Representative in Congress... they want statehood for the District of Columbia in order to get two anti-gun Senators, as well.

It seems that the Obama-Reid-Pelosi strategy is to continue screwing the country -- even if it hurts them in the polls -- because then they will work to get as many "new" votes as possible through Puerto Rican statehood... DC statehood... and even things like amnesty for illegal aliens.

But if Pelosi were to succeed in making DC a state, there will be two more liberal votes in the Senate -- a situation that would allow them to break any Republican filibuster that would stymie their anti-gun agenda.

The Senate passed S. 160 last year, and if it were not for Gun Owners of America and Senator John Ensign, it would have been signed into law last spring.

Pro-gun Senator John Ensign and Gun Owners of America worked together to attach an amendment to the DC Vote Grab Act. The amendment would repeal all the restrictive gun control laws still on the books in DC after the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was an amazing 62-36 in the Senate!

Wiping out DC's still very restrictive anti-gun laws was not what Speaker Pelosi and other rabid anti-Second Amendment members of the House wanted to see.

Because of this GOA-supported amendment, the House has been unable to take any action on the Senate measure. While Speaker Pelosi has no desire to see a pro-gun provision within the DC bill, many House members are afraid to vote for any such bill that doesn't contain the pro-gun Ensign amendment. In short, this has been a real Mexican standoff that has lasted for nearly a year.

In fact, when Pelosi tried to bring up the bill last week, she could not muster enough votes to secure passage. S. 160 might now be dead for the year, but GOA will continue watching this and alert you to any attempts to bring up the bill again.

Senate "disses" America's veterans

For several years, GOA has been alerting gun owners to the travesty of justice that has been perpetrated on our veterans.

After the Brady law went into effect, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began sending the names of many of its beneficiaries to the FBI so they could be added to the NICS list, denying these individuals their right to purchase a firearm. To date, more than 150,000 military veterans have been denied.

However, none of these veterans were ever convicted of a crime; none were found to be a danger to anyone; and none were afforded any meaningful due process of law. Under the semblance of being "mental defectives," these veterans were added to the list strictly because a doctor or a bureaucrat in the VA appointed someone to manage their finances.

The al-Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo have been given more due process than the American soldiers who fought them!

To combat this outrage, pro-gun Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) authored S. 669, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, that will safeguard for veterans two of the most fundamental Constitutional rights enjoyed by Americans: due process of law and the right to keep and bear arms.

The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act merely stipulates that a veteran cannot lose his or her gun rights "without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others."

This very reasonable bill passed out of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee last June, having been approved unanimously.

Burr's language was offered on the floor of the Senate during the health care debate, but unfortunately, it was defeated 53-45. To see how your Senator voted, go to: U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

GOA will continue fighting for the passage of this very important legislation.

Where we are at

As you know, elections have consequences. GOA is fighting in the trenches to protect/regain our rights. And, thankfully, we have won a couple of major battles at the federal level -- like securing the ability to transport firearms on Amtrak trains and carry loaded guns in National Parks.

In the states, GOA has been successfully pushing Firearms Freedom Acts around the country -- laws which allow guns that are made in their home states, and stay in those states, to be free of federal regulation. (Currently, there are seven states that have enacted such laws; several others are still in the process.)

GOA also worked in Arizona to pass a new Alaska-style carry law which allows citizens to carry concealed firearms without first getting permission from the government.

We have also lost some battles, as would be expected in a climate that is overwhelmingly controlled by liberals in Washington.

So we need your help. We can win the battles that are facing us, but only if we each give our maximum effort. Thank you for your continued support for our work. Even if you can only a give a couple of dollars, every little bit counts.

To make a contribution to Gun Owners of America, please visit: Join GOA Online With our Secure Online Membership form.

Larry Pratt recently appeared on MSNBC's Hardball, hosted by Chris Matthews. The interview was, well, interesting to say the least. Just click on the top video at Gun Owners of America.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[tangoseal]

They got to want to be a state first.

And if the US govt forces state hood on them that might not stand in the High Court. That might be considered occupation and is not what our country does or stands for.

PR has never wanted to be a state. I dont think they will now. And I believe they like their sovereignty.

[PSLOwner]

They got to want to be a state first.

And if the US govt forces state hood on them that might not stand in the High Court. That might be considered occupation and is not what our country does or stands for.

PR has never wanted to be a state. I dont think they will now. And I believe they like their sovereignty.

In the past, PR has liked their current situation and I dont see that anytime soon.

Now, if you get the Lesser Antilles to be a state, I am ALL for that! Barbados, here I come......

[boricua]

They got to want to be a state first.

And if the US govt forces state hood on them that might not stand in the High Court. That might be considered occupation and is not what our country does or stands for.

PR has never wanted to be a state. I dont think they will now. And I believe they like their sovereignty.

They have had the current "Estado Libre Asociado" commonwealth type of government since the 50's. The people are divided about 50/50 for/against statehood, but every time they vote, the current status prevails. I strongly doubt that they will win a vote for statehood, although not impossible.

[beaker]

they're gonna try like heck to sell it though. in the past they asked a pretty direct question. do you want to become a state? pretty simple, yes or no. now they're gonna ask do you like the current status? yes or no. i'm pretty certain the great majority are gonna say NO. its inherent, people want change. so then politicians are gonna say the only way to change is become a state. i saw something like this on glen beck the other day. i see it happening. i have faith in the PRs. i have faith that they will see what the gov't is trying to do and thwart it.

[uncballzer]

they're gonna try like heck to sell it though. in the past they asked a pretty direct question. do you want to become a state? pretty simple, yes or no. now they're gonna ask do you like the current status? yes or no. i'm pretty certain the great majority are gonna say NO. its inherent, people want change. so then politicians are gonna say the only way to change is become a state. i saw something like this on glen beck the other day. i see it happening. i have faith in the PRs. i have faith that they will see what the gov't is trying to do and thwart it.

This is what I've read and heard as well. They are going to have 2 votes in PR; the first ya/nay, but the problem is, the majority can still vote nay and still get the second vote somehow--not sure how, I do not exactly understand it; but like beaker said, they are going to try to push it through.

[tangoseal]

Doesnt 2/3rds of the States have to ratify a new state into the union? I need to find out. There is more to this than a simple vote.

[DaveH]

Looks like a simple majority vote in Congress -- unless there is something in the rule of one or the other house, or case law (which I doubt).

Also, does not appear to need the approval of PR, as there is no "Legislatures of the States concerned" to contend with. However, I doubt it would happen w/o some pretense of PR wanting it.

US Constitution
Article. IV.
Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

BTW -- Re: "but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State" tell that to Virginia.

[BigStick]

PR doesn't want to become a state because then they would have to pay all the taxes. It would cost their "state" millions.

And as far as DC goes, isn't it written into the constitution that they can not be a state or have members in the Senate? Wouldn't they have to make a constitutional ammendment? Good luck getting that through.

[AlexHassin]

BTW -- Re: "but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State" tell that to Virginia.

My American history is weak but wasn’t Virginia part of a little rebellion at the time and had declared that they were no longer part of the union? So I would think that it is a simple case of Virginia giving up its rights.

[canav844]

PR doesn't want to become a state because then they would have to pay all the taxes. It would cost their "state" millions.

And as far as DC goes, isn't it written into the constitution that they can not be a state or have members in the Senate? Wouldn't they have to make a constitutional ammendment? Good luck getting that through.

If they were to become a state they'd get the seats.

Interestingly enough, it may backfire depend upon who you ask as NPR states that PR is statistically a very conservative area. PR is also very low income, and the yield in taxes would still not offset the amount of well aid, that the US pumps into the island.

I think that unless some folks in government look not only at what they're doing but how they're doing it they're only going to see more and more ground slip away from them. The politics of recent months and years has been leaving an increasingly bitter taste in my mouth, and that's not soon forgotten.

[P7fanatic]

If they were to become a state they'd get the seats.

Interestingly enough, it may backfire depend upon who you ask as NPR states that PR is statistically a very conservative area. PR is also very low income, and the yield in taxes would still not offset the amount of well aid, that the US pumps into the island.

They'd probably get either 6 or 7 seats in the house. Of course, those 6 or 7 seats would come from existing states seats. They'd also get 2 senate seats.
As for taxes, most of their country is below poverty level. Most wouldn't pay income taxes. They would benefit from the social security that we've been paying into. Bottom line is they'd benefit much more than what they'd pay into the U.S. Treasury. That doesn't matter to the dems. It's the power they want, who cares about the country.
By the way, it's the new progressive party that's in control now in PR.

[DaveH]

My American history is weak but wasn’t Virginia part of a little rebellion at the time and had declared that they were no longer part of the union? So I would think that it is a simple case of Virginia giving up its rights.

It comes down to:
1) "part of a little rebellion" = still part of the country w/o a sitting legislative body to grant the required permission

vs.

2) "had in fact succeeded" hence were a separate country that was subsequently invaded.

Historians, like politicians, like to play it both ways.

[edr9x23super]

I say cut em loose and let them fend for themselves......

[AlexHassin]

However the state did declare secession, hence by action gave up its rights as a state in the union. So I don’t see where your issue is. The people of now West Virginia no longer wanted to be part of that state so they declared separation to rejoin what their former state declared secession from. I see no issue. Also if I recall correctly the rebelling states had to be brought back into the union afterwards and then they got their rights back. Personally to me it seems you are trying to make an issue out of it when there is none.