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]

Government agencies have Authority (granted to them by the people) and Power (what it can actually get away with).

Exactly right. What should matter even more, is that we have a constitution specifically delineating what those "powers" are and where they may NEVER have power. At least without first amending the Constitution itself.

First Amendment. Second. Fifth. Tenth. On and on.... They just don't seem to get it.

[BriarBey]

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


They have been doin that for quite sometime now. We will conform to a global community and they don't care how many protesting corpses they have to step over to do it. Just take your prozac, zanex,or what ever other one of these will destroying meds you have, that they are handing out like candy and you will never feel a thing. Be a good cow and follow the rest of the herd.

[BJClinton]

The next election in this country may very well be it's last

How so?

[BJClinton]

...but Lloyd Doggett likes the IRS just as it is.

We might just be able to get rid of him this next election. Although it seems many 'Pubs are only marginally better than Dims.

[Middle Man]

"A muffler shop in Colorado went all the way up the chain and beat these bastards with regards to withholding money from their employees paychecks. They legally challenged the notion that a paycheck in exchange for labor was 'income' and won. I will call my friend in Colorado and see if I can't get a docket number etc. to back up what I was told."

I look forward to your cite on the Colorado case. This Texas businessman was just convicted in a sham trial on similar charges, but the abuses by the judge and the prosecution were so blatant his conviction stands a good chance of getting overturned on appeal.

[Dead Corpse]

When the Court handed the Texas Republicans a win on the redistricting case, I'm suprised you didn't hear my cheer of relief from where you are.

LloyDD DoGGeTT needs to go just because of all the repeating letters in his name if for nothing else.

[Paul C. Jesup]

If you had already read this thread, your question would be answered.

[Alberta's Child]

With a little creativity, I think any organization can make its dues/contributions tax-deductible if it wanted to.

What GOA ought to do is provide one page of "financial advice" of some sort in every edition of its newsletters or magazines. Instead of donating to GOA, members would instead be asked to purchase these "financial advice" newsletters. By definition, this type of thing is a tax-deductible personal expense -- as anyone who has ever subscribed to "The Bottom Line" could tell you (they include this little tidbit in their fine print).

[archy]

Anybody who is good at photoshop might want to take a try at creating an image for a sticker similar to this one. This traditional "Navy Jack" flag has flown on the bow of every USN warship since 9-11 (without the rifle of course.)

Thought you might appreciate the issuing order text for the *Navy Jack* display during the War on Terrorism.

SECNAVINST 10520.6
N09B1
31 May 2002

SECNAV INSTRUCTION 10520.6
From: Secretary of the Navy
To: All Ships and Stations (less Marine Corps field addressees not having Navy personnel attached)
Subj: DISPLAY OF THE FIRST NAVY JACK DURING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM
Ref: (a) U. S. Navy Regulations, 1990
1. Purpose. To provide for the display of the first navy Jack on board all U. S. Navy ships during the Global War on Terrorism.

2. Discussion. As the first ships of the Continental Navy readied in the Delaware River during the fall of 1775, Commodore Esek Hopkins issued a set of fleet signals. His signal for the "whole Fleet to Engage" the enemy provided for the "strip'd Jack and Ensign at their proper places." Thus, from the very beginning of our Navy, the Jack has been used on board American warships. The first navy Jack was a flag consisting of 13 horizontal alternating red and white stripes bearing diagonally across them a rattlesnake in a moving position with the motto "Don't Tread On Me." The temporary substitution of this Jack represents an historic reminder of the nation's and Navy's origin and will to persevere and triumph.

2. Action. The first navy jack will be displayed on board all U. S. Navy ships in lieu of the Union Jack, in accordance with sections 1259 and 1264 of reference (a). The display of the first Navy Jack is an authorized exception to section 1258 of reference (a). Ships and craft of the Navy authorized to fly the first Navy Jack will receive an issue of four flags per ship through a special distribution.

Gordon R. England

Distribution:
SNDL Parts 1 and 2

[BJClinton]

Yeah, that and he's a jerk. I've had the "pleasure" of meeting him. Very arrogant.

[Amerigomag]

Over reaching by the IRS - what are their rights to do this?

They don't have the "right". They simply sieze the moment and wait for judicial review.

There has long been a disconnect between legislation, or more properly legislative intent, and the promulgation of actual regulations to enforce the legislative intent.

In this particular matter the appropriate "due process" relief is through the courts. As you know private individuals seldom pursue this avenue of relief because of the prohibitive cost of litigation in the federal courts.

Hence the old saw "Don't complain to me. Call your congressman." rather than "Don't complain to me. Call your attorney.".

[Landru]

"Over reaching by the IRS - what are their rights to do this?"

Ummm, they control the military?

And here Farah said it was Clinton who used the IRS against his enemies too, as if he'd been the only one.

...guess that's one list that'll need updating.

[Humidston]

And George W. signed the bill. Color me disappointed!

[ninenot]

You are suggesting a MAJOR change in public policy (removing tax exemption...) due to an abrogation of the First Amendment by the blackrobes.

GWB screwed up again, big-time, in signing the damn fool bill.

[Mustang]

It seems all I'm left to say is "Beam Me Up"....But look where it got Jim Trafficant.

I think I'll change my name to Emanuel Labor, request a government marriage counselor and begin to publish the Constitution in every stinking third world language on the planet. I'll even include the Second Amendment. Now, that'll for sure put me on the terrorist list.

Any way, still, Beam Me Up! My "compassionate conservatism" is fading......Mustang sends from "Malpaso News".... -30-...

[yoe]

GWB like everyone else "knew" the Supreme Court would strike this down - it only took one dissenting vote - Ms. O’Connor. President Bush should have vetoed CFR, instead thinking this court was a constitutional court, he let them decide...it is a very liberal court. This is not a conservative court regardless of who appointed them. Do your homework.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg... Nominated byPresident Clinton

David Hackett Souter...appointed by George Bush Sr.
Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, 1990.

Clarence Thomas... Nominated by President Bush, Sr.

Stephen Breyer... Supreme Court of the United States, August 3, 1994 nominated by President Clinton

Antonin Scalia...Nominated by President Reagan as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

John Paul Stevens... Nominated by President Nixon

William Hubbs Rehnquist... Nominated Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States by President Nixon on October 21, 1971; sworn in on January 7, 1972..... Nominated Chief Justice of the United States by President Reagan on June 17, 1986; sworn in on September 26, 1986.

Sandra Day O'Connor... Nominated by President Reagan

Anthony M. Kennedy.... Nominated by President Reagan.

(Supreme Court)

[ninenot]

The Second Amendment will only be dead after I have used every round I have in defending it.

That will be a bloody mess because .30-06 penetrates Kevlar.

[ninenot]

Yeah. NRA is smart, becoming "media" by purchasing some 10 watt dimbulb in nowhere and using it, along with their email list, etc., etc.

HOWEVER, that means the price of communicating has now been elevated to include the price of a 10-watt dimbulb station somewhere.

Bush should be answering real embarrasing questions about this at every campaign stop.

[kingu]

I would argue that a newsletter, email list, etc. IS a media outlet. As a media outlet it is PERMITTED to mention issues and candidates.

When I first put together my newspaper, I thought about going for tax exempt status. But when I looked at the amount of rules I'd have to comply with, it was a non-starter.

Better for them if they simply find someone friendly to handle the distribution of information, or just get rid of the tax exempt status.

[ninenot]

Your agreement is inappropriate.

Public policy has allowed non-profits (under 501 terms) for years. Public policy should not have to be circumvented.

Further, becoming "for-profit" will NOT allow GOA, or anyone else, to have a voice in campaign issues, unless they are a "media" outlet.

SO what's your point?