Gun Owners of America: Call to Action

Gun Owners of America call to action. 5 pro-gun amendments up for votes. Contact your 2 State Senators ask them to support them.

Anybody can call the U.S.Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your senator’s office or:

 ———– if you live in New York State their contact:———-

Gillibrand, Kirsten E. (202) 224-4451


478 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510


Schumer, Charles E. (202) 224-6542


322 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

 All other states click this link and choose your senators for full contact information.

GOA call to action


Death Toll Will Rise While Law Abiding Americans Are Scapegoated.

March 15th 2014
Ed. March 15th, 2015

A message to the peoples representatives,

In America we do not punish any one citizen or group of citizens for the crimes committed by others. Yet, that is precisely what is going on across America today with the seemingly endless rules, regulations, and laws being implemented against law abiding Americans who wish to exercise and enjoy their “RIGHT” to keep and bear arms.

If you do not like the 2nd Amendment and you feel it is at fault for the crimes of mass/multiple murders committed by Americans then amend the Constitution of the United States and be done with it. Article V of the U.S. Constitution will explain this procedure to you. Until then you do not circumvent it or, shall we say, INFRINGE upon it with rules, regulations, and/or laws that punish Americans who have COMMITTED NO CRIMES and who own firearms which have ASSAULTED NO PERSONS.

Please do not pretend punishment only exists when doled out by a judge and therefore, law abiding citizens will not be punished. Three, but not all, examples of punishment are as follows.

1. Punishment is leaving Americans without the proper amount of ammunition to protect their families or themselves.
*NOTE: If you cannot limit the number of home invaders or muggers that attack Americans at any one time then you should never contemplate limiting the amount of ammunition decent Americans need/have to protect their families and themselves.

2. Punishment is the creation of financial roadblocks. E.g.- Levying fees/taxes that inhibit Americans from securing either firearms or ammunition due to their financial status. *If you insist on violating Americans constitutional rights by creating these financial roadblocks then you should pay for them for those who cannot afford them. Surely a constitutional right should be subsidized before corporate goods, like cell phones, are subsidized.

3. Punishment is telling Americans that their firearms – they legally own and have never used in a crime- are suddenly illegal because a human being, having no connection to them, using a firearm, having no connection to theirs, committed a crime. *Put your energy into ending the crimes by going after the actual criminals and the actual firearms used in the crimes.

Bottom line is you do not have the right to punish law abiding Americans with your rules, regulations, and laws simply because you are too cowardly, flat out unwilling, or honorably incapable of fixing the real problems by going after the ACTUAL criminal and the root causes.

I will leave you with these two tips. Tip 1- Next time you’re about to vote on some form of legislation ask yourself this: “Did this particular group of people we are punishing with our new rule, regulation, or law actually do anything wrong?” When the answer is “No” Then you know you are punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of others if you vote yes.

Tip 2 – The problem is NOT the 2nd Amendment,  it is the social engineering gone awry. The true problems lie within the endless social programs that are teaching our children they do not need to be responsible for themselves. They are told they are equal to their peers -whether they strive as hard or not-. They are led to believe they deserve whatever their fellow citizens have -whether they earn it or not-. They are taught that there are no winners or losers-when in fact there are. Then one day when the truth sets in and there is something they want, but nobody is there to hand it to them, as they’ve now been conditioned to expect, they explode like spoiled little brats.

Add doctor prescribed drugs (psychotropic medications) to the mix and boom, you’ve ENGINEERED a ticking time bomb.

Selective Serotonin-Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI’s) and Serotonin Noradrenaline-Reuptake Inhibitors (SNRI’s) are two, but not the only, well documented medications known for increasing and even CREATING tendencies toward violence. The well respected and world renowned Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) documents the relationship between thirty-one school shootings, sixteen murder/suicide cases, and prescribed drugs. Twenty-two international warnings have been issued about the deadly side effects of these drugs including nine right here in the U.S.A., yet our representatives refuse to address these ACTUAL causes and implement preventative solutions in lieu of make believe feel good legislation.

If you ladies and gentlemen representing the people of the United States really want to PREVENT unnecessary murders and suicides it is time to stop expending energies and resources trying to blackball law abiding Americans and start addressing this very real and ACTUAL cause of violence.

Yes, there are other variables involved, but until you are willing to admit the fact that law abiding Americans are by far the least of the problem and you are ready to start looking for solutions that solve as opposed to solutions that feel good then what is the sense in continuing.

Thomas Maerling


Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)

SSRI Stories

Psychiatric Meds: Prescription for Murder? Written by  Rebecca Terrell

My Comments Objecting to BATFE Proposed Ban on 5.56 Ammo

Comments to ATF must be received by midnight 3/16/15 and can be sent via:
Email comments to:
Fax: (202) 648-9741

RE: Proposed AP Ammo Ban Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Monday, March 16, 2015 To whom it may concern,

From this point forward “we” refers to, Thomas and Tammy Maerling of Greenfield Park, N.Y., our sons, and anyone else who may wish to associate with these comments.

The word “framework” to which I will refer to throughout this comment refers to the BATFE notice, titled, ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C)

We are writing in objection to the announced action to “withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 “green tip” ammunition.” On the following grounds:

  1. The Firearms Alluded To In The “Framework” Are Not Handguns

We would like to first bring your attention to section IV, pages 14 and 15 of the ATF “framework” stating that:

“Specifically, 5.56mm projectiles loaded into the SS109 and M855 cartridges are commonly used in both “AR-type” rifles and “AR-type” handguns. The AR platform is the semi-automatic version of the M16 machinegun originally designed for and used by the military. The AR-based handguns and rifles utilize the same magazines and share identical receivers. These AR-type handguns were not commercially available when the armor piercing ammunition exemption was granted in 1986. To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework outlined above, ATF must withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 mm “green tip” ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges.”

It is our belief that the ATF has gravely erred in defining the AR platforms as handguns and based on this incorrect definition we implore you to rescind your decision to withdraw the current exemptions for the 5.56 ammunition in question as the AR platforms cited by the ATF are indeed NOT handguns at all. The correct definition for these AR platforms as found in the “Definitions” of 18 U.S.C 921(a)(8) and cited below is in fact a “short-barreled rifle”.

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(8) “The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.”

Furthermore, the AR platforms defined as handguns in the ATF “framework” is again evidenced as being incorrectly defined by the “Definition” in 18 U.S.C 921(a)(29)(A) and cited below.

18 U.S.C 921(a)(29) “The term “handgun” means—

(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand;…”

By no means, whatsoever, are the AR platforms cited in the ATF “framework” “designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.” In fact the short-barrel, AR platform, rifle is no more a handgun than is the short-barreled shotgun ~18 U.S.C. 921(a)(6) and the shotgun is the shorter of the two.

So, we again ask that the ATF rescind their decision to withdraw the current exemptions afforded the 5.56 ammunition in question because the AR platforms cited are indeed NOT handguns at all.

  1. The Ammunition in Question is “Primarily Intended to Be Used for Sporting Purposes.”

Throughout the “framework” it states that ammunition can be exempt from being considered armor piercing if that ammunition is: “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

We feel the M855 and SS109 have thus far correctly been exempt, as they are indeed “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

With that in mind we would strongly urge that this same exemption continue unimpeded because, other than the ATF’s incorrect defining of the AR platform as a handgun, no circumstance(s) has(have) changed to warrant withdrawing the current exemptions.

In fact, where previously this ammunition warranted exemption it now warrants even stronger exemptions, as today its sporting purposes have increased further with the growing popularity of match shooting competitions and the introduction of the short-barreled AR platform rifles used in match competition.

  1. The Ammunition in Question Does Not Pose “Extreme Safety Risks to” LEO’s

As for the misconception in the “framework”, page 2, Section II, that this particular ammunition poses “extreme safety risks to police officers when used by criminals”, we would direct your attention to the recent comments of James Pasco. Mr. Pasco is the “Executive Director of the Washington office of the Fraternal Order of Police, the world’s largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, with more than 325,000 members.”

“Any ammunition is of concern to police in the wrong hands, but this specific round has historically not posed a law enforcement problem,” ~ James Pasco


Please note E.D. Pasco made his statement in response to the ATF’s decision and thereby contradicts the ATF’s finding that the withdrawal of exemptions are warranted for officer protection.

  1. Criteria to Qualify for Exemption in Section III of “framework” Have Been Met

In section III, pages 7 and 8, of the framework it says:

“… the Attorney General must determine that [1] a specific type of armor piercing projectile does not pose a significant threat to law enforcement officers [2] because the projectile at issue is primarily intended” for use in shooting sports, and [3] is therefore unlikely to be encountered by law enforcement officers on the streets.”

We believe public testimonial from the Executive Director of the largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers stipulating that,

”this specific round has historically not posed a law enforcement problem,”

in addition to the ATF providing zero evidence contrary to the Executive’s expert testimonial confirms that criteria 1,

“a specific type of armor piercing projectile does not pose a significant threat to law enforcement officers”

and criteria 3,

It “is therefore unlikely to be encountered by law enforcement officers on the streets.”

have both been satisfied.

Therefore, with criteria 2,     “because the projectile at issue is “primarily intended” for use in shooting sports,”

already being confirmed via common knowledge throughout the sporting industry and again confirmed within the ATF’s own “framework”, it has now been proven that all 3 criteria have been met and we feel the Attorney General (AG) and or the person(s) delegated by the AG should rescind the decision to withdraw the exemptions.


Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Maerling (and sons),

These 2 sources were not sent with comment to ATF, but are included in this blog post for the readers knowledge and study.