Thursday, January 15
The ink is barely dry on the Supreme Court's devastating decision
in
McConnell v. FEC -- the so-called campaign finance case that
GOA was
involved in. That decision severely restricted broadcast
communications, thus making it more difficult for GOA to hold
legislators accountable on Second Amendment issues. Now,
the IRS is already leaping forward to expand the Court's
ruling
to include GOA newsletters, e-mail alerts, and other Second
Amendment communications.
Put out for comment on December
23, 2003 -- when, presumably, no one
would notice -- proposed IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-6 creates a
broad
new set of ambiguous standards which groups like GOA must follow
in
order to avoid losing all or part of their tax-exempt status.
Under
the proposed Revenue Ruling, the IRS would create a vague
"
balancing test" to determine whether GOA communications
would be
"
permitted" by the government.
If the communication occurred
close to an election, mentioned an
officeholder who was running for reelection, and was targeted
to put
pressure on congressmen through constituents in each
representative's district, all of these factors would push toward
outlawing the communication.
Although the McCain-Feingold Incumbent
Protection law was repressive enough, the proposed Revenue Ruling would go far
beyond this
anti-gun statute:
- Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would
not be
restricted to broadcast ads. Rather, it would apply to
newspaper ads, e-mail alerts, newsletters, and other
communications by organizations such as GOA.
- Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would
not automatically exempt communications which occurred
more than
60
days prior to an election -- or which fell below a certain
monetary threshold.
- Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would
contain no fixed standards for compliance. Rather every
GOA
newsletter or alert would have to be published with the
realization that the government, after the fact, could apply its
vague criteria to determine that is was "impermissible."
For
example, when GOA learned that an anti-gun rider had been placed
on a Defense authorization bill in September 2000, GOA alerted
its
members to this provision which would have allowed the Dept.
of
Defense to confiscate and destroy any military surplus item
that had
ever been sold by the government.
M1 Carbines, 1903 Springfields,
Colt SAAs, uniforms, ammo, scopes
--
and much more. All these privately-owned items could have been
confiscated and destroyed by the feds.
GOA generated a groundswell
of nationwide opposition against the confiscation attempt. But we especially
targeted our focus
on
the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
The message evidently got through,
as the Committee Chairman's office called GOA to discuss this problem after he
received
hoards
of calls, postcards and e-mails from our members. The provision
was
removed, and Second Amendment rights were preserved.
But had
this IRS regulation been in effect in 2000, the agency (which then was under
Clinton's control) could have RETROACTIVELY
punished GOA, stating that our activity would have been
impermissible if just one of the targeted Senators had been
facing
reelection!
This new regulation would allow
lawmakers to load up gun bills prior
to an election, secure in the knowledge that GOA won't be able
to
let you guys know about them in time.
GOA has formally lodged
a protest with the IRS regarding this expansion and abuse of power. To read the
GOA comments, go
to
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0403.htm on the web.
It is imperative
that this rule be defeated!
ACTION: Contact your congressmen. Ask them to
write the IRS and
demand that it withdraw proposed Revenue Ruling 2004-6. You
can
contact your Representative and Senators by visiting the Gun
Owners
Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
to send them a pre-written e-mail message.
Your Representative
and Senators must submit their comments to the
IRS by January 26.
------ Pre-written message ------ Dear
The proposed IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-6 is an abomination.
It would
put the government in charge of determining whether a broad
range of newsletters, alerts, and other communications would
be
"
allowed" by organizations such as Gun Owners of America
and the
National Rifle Association.
Unlike McCain-Feingold -- which
was bad enough -- the proposed Revenue Ruling would not be limited
to broadcast ads. It would
have
no monetary threshold. And it would not be automatically
inapplicable to communications which occur over 60 days before
a
general election.
Please write the Internal Revenue
Service by
January 26, 2004 and
ask it to withdraw this ill-consider ruling. When submitting
your
comments to the IRS, please address your letter to the attention
of
Judy Kindell, T:EO:RA:G, 1111 Constitution Ave NW,
Washington, DC 20224.
Sincerely,
|
FOX NEWS:
People fear guns. Yet, while guns make it easier for bad things
to happen,
they also make it easier for people to protect
themselves.
With the avalanche of horrific news stories about guns over
the years, it's no wonder people find it hard to believe that,
according to surveys (one I conducted for 2002 for my book, "The
Bias Against Guns," and three earlier academic surveys
by different researchers published in such journals as the
Journal of Criminal Justice) there are about two million defensive
gun uses (search) each year; guns are used defensively four
times more frequently than they are to commit crimes.
The rebuttal
to this claim always is: If these events were really happening,
wouldn't we hear about them on the news? Many people
tell me that they have never heard of an incident of defensive
gun use. There is a good reason for their confusion. In 2001, the
three major television networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- ran 190,000
words' worth of gun-crime stories on their morning and evening
national news broadcasts. But they ran not a single story mentioning
a private citizen using a gun to stop a crime.
The print media was
almost as biased: The New York Times ran 50,745 words on contemporaneous gun
crimes, but only one short, 163-word
story on a retired police officer who used his gun to stop a robbery.
For USA Today, the tally was 5,660 words on gun crimes versus zero
on defensive uses.
(For
additional information read the whole article)
|