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.

[ancient_geezer]

Well... I don't ACTUALLY know that any of that is true...

In which case why say it, since in reality it is false.

but once you get him started he is pretty much a one trick pony on this subject.

True, but then why should I do otherwise?

I want to see the income/payroll tax actually end rather than see people throw themselves uselessly into the legal pit as casualties of tax guru misinformation and sales pitches.

The real issues relate to how we can regain control over Congress, and law that is enacted, not the minions put in place to enforce law that should be repealed/replaced.

Ignoring or violating statutes only cause grief to the people by enabling ever stronger methods of enforcement. Bureaucracy will always act with force to maintain the status quo, that is their job, to enforce the statutes that have been enacted.

You want change, hit Congress, anything else just results in creating the conditions for more misery.

[Dead Corpse]

I want to see the income/payroll tax actually end rather than see people throw themselves uselessly into the legal pit as casualties of tax guru misinformation and sales pitches.

We are on the same side there. HR25, or even the Fair Tax initiative would be far superior to what we currently have. Even though I see that the tax protestors have a point in that there were dodgy dealings getting the income tax amendment passed, and later withholding added, you do not cure rabies by allowing yourself to get bitten.

You either use medicine, or you put the animal down. At this point, I'm still waiting to see if the animal will take the medicine.

[ancient_geezer]

The problem comes when you try to point out the injustice of the whole system and how inherently EVIL it is. He just keeps telling you that the courts have cleared it all.

I'm telling you the courts are not your answer, nor is violation of the statutes. Neither will get to the goal sought, a change in laws that are substantively constitutional though abusive in effect.

You do not uphold the Constitution and law by undermining the rule of law.

Change Congress, Change the law through the tools provided within the Constitution. Anything else works only to destroy that which the founders laid down for perpetuity and We The People.

Some people will never see the forrest for the trees.

True, you might try looking for answers in the Constitution. They are there, but I find many who would rather short circuit that framework than make the effort to actually correct errors in the system using the Constitution.

But personal direct action is so self satisifying and makes one feel so good until the hammer comes down. That is direct action underlies evil of democracies and why the Constitition institutes and guarantees a republic.

The unfortunate fact about government remains; it is about the aquisition and maintainence of power. Minor rebellions such as tax evasion and similar forms of protest merely serve to provide government with excuses to increase enforcement efforts and infringe upon individual rights, growing more tyrannical.

That is why it is encumbent upon us to utilize the instruments provided within the Constitution to effect change in a way that acts to preserve the republic rather than morph it into something else.

Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian:

The quotation is from the 1801 collection of his lectures:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
from bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back again to bondage."

[ancient_geezer]

We are on the same side there. HR25, or even the Fair Tax initiative

LOL, H.R.25 is the "Fair Tax Initiative".

Used to be HR2525 in prior Congesses, now is H.R.25 house version, and its duplicate S.1493 in the Senate.

H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

S.1493
Sponsor: Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] (introduced 7/30/2003)
Title: A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org

[jerri]

"Makes me sick, we are spending billions of dollars and hundreds of American lives to create freedom in other countries, as we allow our own to be diminished!"

sickening indeed!

[Dead Corpse]

Check your Quote. If you go back to Edinburough's website you can read in the fact that Tytler never wrote that qoutation down. Also, attribution veries widely. One of which is "The Rise and Decline of the Athenian Civilisation" or some such. It's all bogus, but commonly accepted wisdom.

Part of our Declaration against the King was due to adverse taxation policies. Most of which were less onerous than that which we currently accept. Sometimes Direct Action is the ONLY way to get things done. A more recent example would be the Civil Rights movement.

Obedience to a foul law is only going to perpetuate more bad law.

[Dead Corpse]

Mea Culpa. I've been thinking of the Flat Tax initiatives as one alternative, and this "Fair Tax" bill as the NRST. Thanks for looking up the companion Senate bill though. Got it bookmarked now.

[ancient_geezer]

If you go back to Edinburough's website you can read in the fact that Tytler never wrote that qoutation down

Do you have a url? Unable to locate the page to which you refer in the University of Edinburough's website.

Such information as I have been able to locate, attributes the quote as being taken from the an 1801 collection of Tytler's lectures, and is most often the source attributed.

Many of his lectures were transcribed by others, and the quote may not have been found amoung his personal "writing" as opposed to notes take by others.

In anycase I would like to see what Edinburough has to say concerning the matter so I can potentially straighten out the attribution of this quotation wherever it comes from.

Obedience to a foul law is only going to perpetuate more bad law.

Only if we fail to press for repeal of such law through the mechanisms provided under the Constitution and continue to elect representatives who maintain the status quo.

The choices you get are

1)obedience to a constitutional though objectionable law while working for repeal.

2) Violation undermining respect for all laws and rule of law and face the potential actions of enforcement with increasing emphasis on enforcement over repealing the law we object to.

I prefer the former over the later. Losing good people to the mercies of the justice system and ever increasing force is not my idea of the best way to preserve the rule of law, and the Constitution.

[Destructor]

"The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequenc..."

What are you saying Geezer? That this is the natural order of the universe, so we should just roll over and take it like cheap whores? Not me old man. I'm preparing for now. When I judge the time to be right, then I address the problem directly! We had a saying in the Infantry "Deeds not words."

[Dead Corpse]

Here you go. This WAS one of my favorite quotes up until I did some more digging on it. Tytler DID write a treatsie on World History that dealt a lot with first causes and government. It's a long read, but it isn't in there either.

If you can find it, let the University know. They are the conservator for his writings.

[ancient_geezer]

 

When I judge the time to be right, then I address the problem directly! We had a saying in the Infantry "Deeds not words."

Infantry is responsible to civil control under the Constitution, whether it be National, or that of a State.

Just who are you to determine that the rest of us be subjuect to the actions of your "Infantry" in rebellion.

Just how is your "addressing the problem directly" at your own inclination not anarchy leading to tyranny, and destruction of the Constitution if successful?

How do you differ from these folks?

 

Why should I support a call to rebellion and anarchy in operation against the Constitution and constitutional laws?

How does your "addressing the problem directly" at your own inclination change the operation of the truism of Tytler,

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury

and prevent the chain of events that Tytler warned of and the founding fathers were wary of in the authoring of the Constitution?

[Dead Corpse]

"The privilege of giving or withholding our moneys is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights, and how improvident would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225

Another...

"The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses enabled us to discontinue internal taxes. These covering our land with officers and opening our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from reaching successively every article of produce and property." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural, 1805. ME 3:376

[Dead Corpse]

Rebellion...

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME 1:193, Papers 1:125

[ancient_geezer]

Guess we just have to attribute it to Glubb until someone finds out different then.

http://www.lib.ed.ac.uk/faqs/parqs.shtml#Aftytler1

The story of the Mamlukes by John Bagot Glubb 'Pasha' (1897–1986), published in New York by Stein and Day, 1973, Glubb gives an unattributed reference to stages in the 'life of democracy', stating p.230 that the words were written by Alexander Fraser Tytler but providing no source.

Thanks for the info and attribution.

And we won't have to worry about:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury"

afterall?

[ancient_geezer]

I see, then on Jefferson's words written prior to the Constitution, we should discard the Constitution, overthrow the government instituted under that Constitution, for a law that is Constitututional because we as individuals do not like it and are too lazy to throw out the rascals that support said Constitutional though disagreeable law.

Constitution for the United States of America:

• Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

• Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
  to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
  but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

• "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; "

• "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

• Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

By the way Jefferson also recommended at national graduated tax on property be included in the Constitution in his communications with Madison:

Excerpt from a
Letter To James Madison
Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 28, 1785)

• "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise."

Figure we ought to replace the income tax that one to stay in line and consistent the Jeffersonian view of Rebellions and appropriate modes of taxation?

Just a thought.

[abigailsmybaby]

Yeah, strategery.

[archy]

They now sell those Navy Jack flags in all USN exchanges, in all sizes, for a very reasonable price. One is tacked to my son's bedroom wall. If I had the skill, I'd photoshop up a nice crisp "Patriot's X" version with a crossed rattler and AR-15.

Why not do it as a .JPG of one of those exchange *Navy Jacks,* a real rattler, and an AR15? It might even end up as cover art for some future novel....

Of course, there may be a different Navy Jack in use in that AO by then....

-archy-/-

[Eastbound]

I'll bump to that.

[supercat]

And nothing from the NRA.

When did the NRA first acknowledge the Lautenberg Abomination? I recall GOA harping about it before it passed, but I don't recall the NRA ever even mentioning it until months after the election following its passage. And I was looking to see when the NRA would pick it up, and was surprised they didn't.

[Travis McGee]

Yessir, it's got future novel book cover potential!