IRS Moves to Threaten Second Amendment Newsletters, E-mail Alerts

Gun Owners of America ^ | January 15,2004 | GOA staff

[yoe]

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 (link)

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 (link) to send them a pre-written e-mail message.

Take Action

Your Representative and Senators must submit their comments to the IRS by January 26.

[Dead Corpse]

How about shell casings?

[Condor51]

And didn't FDR's buddy, 'Uncle Joe' Stalin say something to the effect of, 'It's not who does the voting that's important, it's who does the counting.''

[Principled]

Another argument for implementing the National Retail Sales Tax, repealing the 16th ammendment, destroying the IRS I'll bump that!

[Dead Corpse]

Not sure. The Boss Tweed quote(' I don't care who does the electing as long as I'm the one doing the nominating') I've been tossing around today comes from around 1860-1870 era. Still unable to find a direct attribution.

[patriot_wes]

of course when it comes to the IRS some of us know they don't need a law.

As long as they publish what they want us to do - "that's the law!"

[Dead Corpse]

Call your congress critter about HR25. I would, but Lloyd Doggett likes the IRS just as it is.

[freeeee]

Yes, by all means. You're invited!

[Principled]

I speak w/ mine often... I'm in N. Georgia....
I'm just bustin' to find a critter who doesn't support HR 25! We've just about got 'em all signed up down here...

[Dead Corpse]

Yeehaw.... I'll start packing tonight. ;-)

Which kinda shells you prefer? Rimfire or centerfire?

[FReepaholic]

ROTFLMAO!!!....re: your tagline!

[Dead Corpse]

Still showing only 42 co-sponsors. We need to get this out of the Ways and Means somehow.

[FReepaholic]

>>.... Elections will become a farce...<<

Perhaps that is their goal.

[freeeee]

Centerfire please! I'll be eating oysters - wait, can we shoot oysters?! A twofer!

[Bulldog1967]

And what do YOU know about what GOA does?

[Principled]

Got Texas Senators on board yet? We got two from Ga signed on.

[jerri]

What the heck does the IRS have to do with the second amendment? Are they afraid that disgruntled tax payers will rise up against them on April 15th.

[DManA]

Not a thing. I've got some opinions on the charitable deduction thought. I think it should be eliminated. It's an incredible lever for the Feds to manipulate people with. And they know it so it's pointless to try to reform it.

[Dead Corpse]

Senators? No. Reps? Yes.... 9 of them. HR25 is a House bill. Not sure if the Senate has a companion Bill.

[Dead Corpse]

And Georgia has 7 signed on.

[sanchmo]

zeugma has it right - government agencies don't have Rights. People have rights. Government agencies have Authority (granted to them by the people) and Power (what it can actually get away with).

This is certainly a case of the guvt extending its Power over the Rights of its citizens, above & beyond the Authority granted it.