NRA News Channel

The Obama administration's employment application proves what NRA has been saying: the Obama administration is anti-firearms ownership and anti-Second Amendment.

And as this litmus test shows, they have every intention of putting together an administration that is hostile to firearms ownership and to Second Amendment rights.

One of their first official acts is to make a list of gun owners among their own employees. It proves where their hearts are. It shows what their philosophy is. This is more proof that this administration is coming after our freedom and NRA stands ready.

The inauguration of Barack Obama hasn't even taken place yet, but already the gun control advocates are demanding action from the next president. The Brady Campaign is already demanding action on a semi-auto ban ... a ban that Barack Obama supports. 

We can't wait until Carolyn McCarthy or Chuck Schumer introduces a gun ban in Congress. Now's the time for us to talk to our elected representatives and remind them of the importance of our Second Amendment rights. We need to remind them that they represent the people, not the gun-ban lobby comprised of big-dollar foundations. And we should remind them what happened the last time a semi-auto ban passed through Congress. In case they forgot, let them know that the Clinton Gun Ban was responsible for huge losses for the Democratic majority in Congress. 

We have strong support for the Second Amendment among some Democrats in Congress, but they will be under enormous pressure from Speaker Pelosi and others to go along with gun control proposals. Those representatives who stand with gun owners will deserve our support. Those who abandon us? They'll soon learn, once again, that Americans don't like politicians messing with their freedoms.

In the weeks before Barack Obama's inauguration, pay close attention to the discussion about who Obama will appoint for some key positions. 

In particular, gun owners should be watching the names discussed for attorney general, secretary of state and head of the ATF. 

The attorney general will have a lot of power in our post-Heller world, especially with the number of Second Amendment-related cases working their way through the court system. The Secretary of State will be working closely with the members of the United Nations pushing for an Arms Trade Treaty. And of course, an anti-gun ATF director could make life miserable for gun owners, even those working inside the agency. 

It's not a matter of figuring out if Obama's anti-gun or not. We already know he is. What we're looking for now are signs of how aggressive he will be in trying to enact his gun control policies, and these appointments may give us real clues.

I've heard a lot about Barack Obama's "judgment" over the past few weeks. We're supposed to believe that Senator Obama has displayed good judgment over the course of his political career. Well, by once again looking at his Second Amendment record, I think we can put that myth to rest.

Just look at a couple of the things Obama has proposed: a 500 percent increase on excise taxes for guns and ammunition, and a ban on gun stores within five miles of a school or a park. Those two measures wouldn't just decimate the firearms industry, they would kill it. That, in turn, would have a drastic effect on our military, because the same companies that sell guns to civilians are also the ones selling guns to the government. I wonder how Obama would feel about a multi-billion dollar bailout of the firearms industry, because that's what just two of his proposals would require. That's not hype or hyperbole. It's just the truth, and the truth is Obama's judgment is as bad as his Second Amendment record.

In just a few days, on November 4, gun owners will be presented with a
very clear choice of a pro-Second Amendment versus an anti-Second
Amendment Presidential ticket. John McCain and Sarah Palin versus
Barack Obama and Joe Biden represents a stark contrast for the future
of our freedom.

In that choice, one fact is foremost:

The next president, by filling inevitable vacancies on the U.S.
Supreme Court, will determine the continued existence of our Right To
Keep and Bear Arms.

Click here to read the entire article.

The city of San Francisco is cutting a check to the attorneys who fought for your Second Amendment rights in the wake of court decisions striking down the city's gun ban. Victory is sweet, and it's even sweeter when the anti-gunners who tried to take away your rights have to pay for it. 

The six-figure sum means that the NRA can continue to devote more resources towards other court fights, including our lawsuit against the San Francisco Housing Authority over its gun ban in public housing. And when you donate to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, you can help us take other anti-gun cities and towns to court as well.

Eight months ago, on this blog, I said that I was still waiting for the mainstream media to ask Barack Obama about his positions on gun control. 

I wrote:

Back in 1999, Obama called for a laundry list of gun control, including a 500 percent increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition. He called for bans of affordable handguns. He called for mandated "smart gun" technology. He demanded that FFLs not be allowed to maintain their business within five miles of a school or a park. In short, he wanted to regulate the Second Amendment out of existence. 

To my knowledge, not one reporter has asked Obama about the positions he took back then. Nor have they asked him about the position he’s taking now, "supporting" the Second Amendment in speeches while refusing to sign on to the congressional amicus brief opposing the District of Columbia’s gun ban. Fifty-five of his fellow senators signed on to that brief, but Obama still pretends the issue is about "local control," not constitutional rights. 

When the mainstream media refuses to ask a presidential frontrunner about his position on an issue, you can’t help but wonder why. When the issue is the Second Amendment, it can’t be because the press doesn’t like what Obama has to say. Maybe it’s just that they don’t want you to hear it.

Here it is, just days before Election Day, and the mainstream media is still covering for Barack Obama when it comes to your Second Amendment rights. Their actions are just as bad as Obama’s position.

Is the city of Cleveland, Ohio, still trying to enforce local gun laws that have been negated by statewide firearms pre-emption? It certainly looks that way. 

The Cleveland Plain-Dealer says if people want to "voluntarily" register their guns, they can... but aren't required to do so?

If that's the case, then why is the city of Cleveland trying to prosecute gun owner Damon Wells for "possession of an unregistered handgun"? The group Buckeye Firearms Association knows all about that case. It makes you wonder why the Cleveland Plain-Dealer seems to know nothing at all about it. If there is no longer a requirement to register your guns with the city, how can the city be prosecuting someone for failing to register their firearm? 

I think the Plain-Dealer owes its readers the plain truth in another story.

Do you realize we've gone through all three presidential debates, and not one moderator asked a question about the Second Amendment or the Heller case? 

The biggest case the Supreme Court has handled in years doesn't merit a single question from the likes of Tom Brokaw and Jim Lehrer. The vice presidential debate was also devoid of questions about your gun rights, thanks to moderator Gwen Ifill. 

The American people deserve tough questions and honest answers from the candidates. Here's the question we should have heard in at least one of the debates. 

Members of Congress had the opportunity to sign on to a brief in support of the Second Amendment several months ago. Two hundred and fifty members of the House, 55 members of the Senate and the president of the Senate signed that brief. Now, both of you say you support the Second Amendment, but only one of you signed that brief. Senator McCain, why did you decide to sign the brief, and Senator Obama, why did you decide not to sign on to the brief?

Just a few months ago, Barack Obama had the opportunity to not just talk the talk, but walk the walk when it came to supporting your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's too bad the debate moderators didn't ask the question.

With the presidential election just a month away, you should start paying attention to stories of voter fraud from around the country. Whenever anyone's orchestrating fraudulent votes, they're making sure your vote doesn't count. 

In the battleground state of Nevada, for instance, the group ACORN has been accused of voter fraud after a voter registration drive turned up instances of new voters with fake names—including the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys.

Just two years ago in Washington state, ACORN submitted 1,800 voter registration forms. All but six of them were fraudulent. Washington's secretary of state called it the worst case of voter fraud in state history. 

It's time to tell ACORN we're not going to stand for voter fraud. And it's up to all of us to keep our eyes out for possible voter fraud where we live.

Barack Obama's still claiming to be a Second Amendment supporter, and gun owners around the country are continuing to tell their friends, neighbors, co-workers and even strangers the truth about Obama's anti-gun agenda. 

Second Amendment scholar David Hardy is shedding light on Obama's time with the Joyce Foundation, the anti-gun organization that funneled tens of millions of dollars to gun control groups while Obama served on its board of directors. 

It turns out Obama didn't have a problem with the Joyce Foundation buying issues of law reviews and turning them into gun-control propaganda pieces. Yet Obama, who taught a constitutional law seminar at the University of Chicago, keeps saying he'd never do anything to hurt the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's too late for rhetoric like that. He already has hurt the Second Amendment, and he'd do a lot more if given the chance. 

Read David Hardy's article, and be sure to pass it around. We can't rely on the mainstream media to get the word out about Obama's hostility towards the Second Amendment. It's up to us this year.

Watch your local or network news and you'll hear stories about the "latest studies" on a dozen topics. But I guarantee you the media won't be talking about one new study from researchers at the University of Michigan and the University of Maryland. 

See, this new study found that there's no link between gun shows and suicides and homicides. In fact, the researchers found that in Texas, the homicide rate actually dropped after gun shows were held. So of course, the mainstream media isn't going to touch this story … not when they want to ban gun shows. 

Bad guys get their guns illegally. Gun owners have always known this, but it's nice to see it backed up by academics -even if the media will ignore this story in favor of the latest study on the calories in "The Joy of Cooking."

Did you hear that Barack Obama has bought his own television channel? No, it's not MSNBC, despite the way Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow swoon for the Illinois senator. 

Obama has leased a television channel on the Dish Network. It's all Obama, all the time. 

But while Obama's buying his own channel, he's still trying to stop television stations around the country from airing NRA ads that expose his radical anti-gun record. 

Of course, Obama is free to spend his mountain of campaign cash on billboards or TV or radio ads, or even his own channel on the Dish Network. But his idea of freedom of speech doesn't extend to you or me. 

While he's saturating the airwaves, he's trying to silence your voice.

Have you heard about the attempts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to zone away your Second Amendment rights? A new zoning ordinance in the city prohibits the opening of any "firearms-related business" in the city limits- a clear violation of Pennsylvania's pre-emption laws. 

It's just one of the many new ways anti-gunners are trying to obstruct, delay, tax and deny your Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the wake of the Heller decision. 

The good news is that the NRA found out about this attempt, and we're fighting the anti-freedom politicians in Pittsburgh. If you hear about any similar attempts to regulate the Second Amendment out of your town, don't hesitate to call the NRA so we can fight for you as well.

The Obama campaign is now actively trying to silence your voice. They've sent a cease-and-desist letter to television stations in the battleground states of Pennsylvania and Ohio, telling them to stop airing an NRA ad that truthfully points out some of Barack Obama's anti-gun positions. 

Let me say that again. There is nothing false or inaccurate about the TV ad. The Obama campaign knows they can't win without deceiving gun owners, and the only way to do that is to stop NRA's voice from being heard. 

We've sent our own letter to these television stations, defending the ad and fact-checking the Obama campaign. It's sad but not unexpected that Obama would try to shut us up. 

He's already shown he's no friend of the Second Amendment. Now he's showing he's no friend of the First, either.

By now, I'm sure you've heard of the puff piece that FactCheck.org did on Barack Obama's Second Amendment position. If you haven't seen any of the stories that correct FactCheck's defense of the candidate, be sure to check out David Kopel's article, Jim Geraghty's critique, and NRA-ILA's response, including the undisclosed fact that FactCheck gets the bulk of its money from a foundation that also supports the Brady Campaign. 

There's no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama's supporters would rather keep you in the dark about his Second Amendment record. Because it reveals how extreme and how out-of-touch he is with his fellow Americans. 

This election- and your Right to Keep and Bear Arms- is too vital not to know the truth. Arm yourself with the facts, spread the word about Obama's stance on the Second Amendment, and keep reading for more information between now and Election Day.

Barack Obama says he's not in favor of bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine," legislation that would silence talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and could even threaten the hosts of NRANews.com. Barack Obama says he doesn't support it. Maybe that's because he doesn't need legislation to intimidate members of the press who disagree with him.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Obama has set up a rapid response network designed to strong-arm radio and television stations that dare to run programming that may be critical of "The One."  The campaign even provides "talking points" for followers of Obama to use when they protest the coverage of their candidate. 

At best, this bullying of the media is an affront to the spirit of the First Amendment. But do we really believe that if Obama were president, he'd suddenly give up this tactic? 

Obama has as much (or maybe as little) respect for the First Amendment as he does for the Second Amendment. For a guy who claims to be a constitutional scholar, he doesn't seem to have a beginner's grasp on the Bill of Rights.

Barack Obama says he doesn't believe in Right-to-Carry. In fact, he says he thinks it can make this world a more dangerous place. 

Barack Obama needs to read the papers. He might learn a thing or two, like the fact that armed citizens recently stopped a terrorist attack in Jerusalem. According to Israel Radio, a man in a car plowed into a crowd, injuring more than a dozen before he was shot and killed by armed citizens. 

Imagine a world where all of us are reduced to prey for predatory criminals and lethal terrorists. It's a vision Barack Obama endorses, and that would make us all less safe.

Barack Obama's out with a new radio ad designed to deceive hunters, sportsmen and gun owners. The ad claims that gun owners have nothing to worry about, that as president Obama would not affect their Second Amendment rights.

 

Of course, the ad doesn't mention that Obama supports things like a ban on handguns, an extension of the Clinton Gun Ban, a 500 percent increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition, a ban on the most common hunting ammunition, a ban on gun stores located within five miles of a school or a park, and prosecuting people who use a gun for self-defense in their home.

 

The ad also doesn't mention the millions of dollars Obama steered towards gun-control groups when he was a member of the Joyce Foundation's board of directors, or his lack of support for increased penalties for those convicted of shooting near a public school.

 

That's Obama's real record, and that's why he can't tell America’s sportsmen and gun owners the truth.

I've been discussing the GOP's platform plank on the Second Amendment, and there's one other portion I want to highlight: 

"We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of their rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment."

Politicians like Barack Obama and Joe Biden don't believe in protecting our firearms industry from lawsuits. In fact, they've both made it clear that they would target our nation's firearms manufacturers. Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and Obama praised the junk lawsuits filed by anti-gun mayors on behalf of the Brady Campaign. Obama went even further, calling for a 500 percent increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition, which would kill off the firearms industry in this country. 

We know that the anti-gunners have no problems turning to the courts when they can't get their way legislatively. They've tried it before, and if possible, they'll try it again. That's why it's so important to make sure the legislative protections against these junk lawsuits remain in place. If they go away, our nation's firearms manufacturers will soon disappear as well.