Posted on 01/15/2004 6:37:31 AM PST by 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.
As for our Second Amendment... It is dying. And now, thanks to McCain-Feingold and the IRS... it has gotten that much more difficult to talk about these things prior to an election.
I don't know, Joe. Seems to have picked up considerable speed of late.
God Save the Constitution.
With a gun.
Of course, I don't believe the IRS should be more than an accounting agency and be unable to make/enforce policy - that should be left to other, or even new, agencies to insulate us from another totalitarian power.
No right. They do it because they can and not enough Americans care one way or the other as long as they can make they're monthly payments . . .
It's about control - get the guns - secure control
Our government has finally crossed the line. Calling this Tyranny is not hyperbole. The republic is dead.
My fellow Americans, you are worms for voting for the people who passed this law. And you'll confirm your stupidity by voting for them again. My only consolation is you've got the government you richly deserve - an oppressive one. Enjoy it!
We don't NEED no Steenkin Rights!! We have a LOT of GUNS!!
[Signed}
IRS
Did they ever legalize those? Last I heard (few years since I've paid attention to the issue) the FCC was still busting them. Aren't any around here that I know of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.