In the wake of the Newtown Connecticut school shootings, a lot of businesses have made rash reactions to either appease their hoplophobic clientele or the media, and decided to curtail selling certain guns or services. Groupon has decided to stop offering deals on any firearms related ventures. This led me to send them an email cancelling my account.

I just got a response, which is surprisingly to the point. It won’t change my decision, however.

Hi Tom,

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to us.

We understand that this is a sensitive topic, and that some of our customers may not agree with our choice to pause the promotion of firearm-related deals. Groupon has always aimed to offer a diverse range of products and services to meet the various tastes and interests of our subscribers. However, at this time, enough customers and merchants have voiced their opinions that we believe a hiatus is warranted.

Please note that we have never sold guns, and this hiatus only applies to firearm-related deals including shooting ranges, clay pigeon shooting, and concealed weapons training classes. We have not made a final determination regarding this category — we are simply taking a break and may reevaluate in the future.

We genuinely appreciate your opinion and the feedback you’ve given us. I’ll be sure to share your comments with the appropriate people.

Regards,

Michelle M
Groupon Customer Support

My Congressman Dr. Phil Gingrey (R-11) posted the following on his website today:

Today, President Obama and Vice President Biden held a press conference to discuss their gun control agenda, some of which would have to be legislated by Congress and some of which the President believes he can enact through executive orders. First of all, the President should not govern this way. Simply put, under no circumstances should he be allowed to unilaterally impose his gun control agenda on us in this fashion — Congress should be where this debate takes place, not in the Oval Office between the President and his liberal cronies. After listening to the President speak today, I want to assure my constituents that I do not support his plan and will continue working against it. Please read on to see my thoughts and track record on the Second Amendment.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional guarantee that ensures law-abiding citizens the right to protect and defend themselves and their families. The Obama administration’s attempt to implement radical gun control policies through executive orders is a gross violation of our Second Amendment rights. The President’s announcement today of 23 executive actions is another example of federal overreach and an end-run around Congress. I will work with House Republicans to oppose the restrictions the President put forth.

Safeguarding our Second Amendment rights is of paramount importance, and throughout my tenure in Congress, I’ve worked—and will continue working— to preserve those rights. The National Rifle Association (NRA), of which I’m a member, has consistently graded my voting record “A+.” Over a 10-year period, I’ve supported Second Amendment and sportsmen’s rights legislation 38 out of 38 times.

Since taking office, I’ve authored or co-sponsored 56 bills to protect or strengthen our Second Amendment rights, including the following:

Fairness in Firearms Testing
This Congress, I will reintroduce the Fairness in Firearms Testing Act. This legislation seeks to improve accountability and consistency in firearms testing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Currently, BATFE lacks guidelines or written procedures for firearm testing, resulting in varying and inconsistent rulings for firearms manufacturers.

In one instance, BATFE threatened to prosecute one gun manufacturer in Heard County, Georgia, less than a year after sending written approval for that company’s product. This policy has contributed to companies going out of business. The Fairness in Firearms Testing Act provides manufacturers access to video documentation of their product testing in order to ensure a level playing field for both manufacturers and BATFE agents.

D.C. Military Right-to-Carry
In the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, I co-filed an amicus brief explaining why the District’s firearms restrictions were a violation of D.C. citizens’ Second Amendment Rights. The court ultimately held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, and thus, ruled that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and requirements that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock to be unconstitutional.

However, the D.C. City Council has circumvented the Supreme Court ruling by enacting stringent requirements on gun ownership, including active duty military. There are currently 40,000 servicemen and women who live in or are stationed on active duty within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  Unless these individuals are granted a waiver as serving in a law enforcement role, they are subject to the District of Columbia’s onerous and highly restrictive laws on the possession of firearms.

This legislation, which I first offered in 2009, passed the House of Representatives last year. It expresses the Sense of Congress that active military personnel who live or are stationed in Washington, D.C., be exempt from existing District of Columbia firearms restrictions.

As I noted last week, Dr. Gingrey had said that he would support  limits on magazine capacity. President Obama mentioned this  in his speech today, and Gingrey said nothing about it.

I posted a comment on Dr. Gingrey’s website, and sent him an email, thus:

The Honorable Phil Gingrey, M.D.
US House of Representatives

Dr. Gingrey:

Today, as you know, President Obama laid out his vision for the new gun control legislation he will propose in response to the school shootings in Newtown, CT, last month.

As part of his presentation, he said he would pursue laws limiting magazine capacity.

Last week, the Marietta Daily Journal reported in its coverage of a speech you gave in Smyrna, “There are some problems, and maybe these huge magazines even for someone who says, ‘look, I just use an AR-15 for target practice,’ but do you really need to be standing there shooting at a silhouette a shot a second or even quicker with that kind of weapon? For what purpose?” Gingrey asked. “I would be willing to listen to the possibility of the capacity of a magazine.”

Do you intend to support a magazine capacity law?

I respectfully await your response.

Yours,

We shall see what he says.

I saw this post over at No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money, and I agree 100 percent.

Question: Why aren’t you an NRA member? Or a Second Amendment Foundation member? Why don’t you get a Concealed Weapons License? Why don’t you write your Congressman or Senators about gun issues?

Answer: “I don’t want to get on The List.”

Seriously. I have had more than one person tell me that if they do something to support their rights, they will go on The List. You know, that List of gun owners, rights supporters, subversives, and right wing revolutionaries that the armies of jack booted thug will print out when they go door to door when (with kudos to Ron Larimer) the balloon goes up.

To that I respond, what makes you think you aren’t already on The List?

• Have you ever bought a gun from a FFL and had a background check run?
• Do you subscribe to any gun magazines?
• Have you ever bought ammunition or shooting supplies online? Ever use a credit card?
• Have you ever visited a gun blog or website without setting your browser to private settings?

Every one of these things has already brought you to the attention of the people who make The List.

Of course, as @GunRightsAlert in John’s post points out, if enough of us join or speak up, pretty soon The List gets too big for them to handle. And that is the point.