Back in April, we covered the bill shortly after it was introduced. At the time, we could proudly pat nine House members from the Commonwealth on the back for their support of the bill. Since then, more came on to co-sponsor, including Reps. Mike Fitzpatrick, Lou Barletta, and Tom Marino.

Based on a rule vote yesterday, it appears that the majority of the Pennsylvania lawmakers plan to support the bill.

These lawmakers deserve our thanks for their support in the vote:

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-3)
Rep. Jason Altmire (D-4)
Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-5)
Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-6)
Rep. Pat Meehan (R-7)
Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-8)
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-9)
Rep. Tom Marino (R-10)
Rep. Lou Barletta (R-11)
Rep. Mark Critz (D-12)
Rep. Charlie Dent (D-15)
Rep. Joe Pitts (R-16)
Rep. Tim Holden (D-17)
Rep. Tim Murphy (R-18)
Rep. Todd Platts (R-19)

These are the lawmakers who voted against us on the rule:

Rep. Bob Brady (D-1)
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-2)
Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-13)
Rep. Mike Doyle (D-14)

Three Pennsylvania lawmakers serve on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Reps. Pat Meehan (PA-7), Todd Platts (PA-19), and Mike Kelly (PA-3). As the committee that has been leading the investigation into the the Obama Administration’s ATF program to knowingly sell guns to criminals who passed them directly into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, the results of their work could directly impact Pennsylvania gun stores and gun owners. Some media reports indicate that the Administration is now considering the elimination of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and we know that they have pursued more regulations on gun shops in response to Mexican drug violence.

Here, Rep. Meehan questions the ATF staff responsible for the operation to try and get to the bottom of the program that purposefully put guns in the hands of criminals.

Rep. Meehan talked to Cam Edwards of NRA News last night to discuss his call for Attorney General Eric Holder to testify.

In 2008, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty stopped by the Factoryville Sportsmen’s Club in Wyoming County to launch Sportsmen for McCain. He discussed a variety of issues important to gun owners at the time, and this video is well worth a few minutes of your time.

For more information on the woman he referenced in his speech and her incredible story, read about her here.

Thanks to volunteer Adam Z. for coming out to the event with us and taking photos.

But what’s telling about this story is that the USDA staff have repeatedly said they are stepping up enforcement of these laws – even if it means fining families $90K for paperwork violations – and that they intend to use these kinds of cases in order to teach a lesson. And where did the Obama administration get that directive? Directly from the HSUS Change Agenda for Animals presented to the White House at the beginning of his term. Here’s the portion relevant to the Missouri case:

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
3) Enforcement – …increase oversight of key federal laws (…Animal Welfare Act (AWA)…); …impose strong penalties (not suspension of fines, as is so typical now); …resume issuance of press releases on enforcement actions to maximize deterrent impact…

Hunters, you better pay attention. We have outlined all of the provisions in the “Change Agenda” that go after participation in the outdoor sports and even ways that the agenda targets concealed carry holders. They won’t ban hunting directly, but they’ll use the full force of the federal government to make the lives of hunters complicated and risky of violations at every turn.

David Keene, the recently elected President of the National Rifle Association, sat down with Washington Journal to discuss the NRA’s role in elections past and present. With callers chiming in, the topics ranged from current efforts to ban magazines, which players already on the field for 2012 have records supporting the Second Amendment, and what role women play in the nation’s oldest civil rights organization.

Here’s a video of Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) discussing American exceptionalism and freedom. He also made time to thank NRA members for their support during the election.

Here’s a video of Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) speaking about his role, along with other members of Congress, in the landmark Heller & McDonald cases and the need for BATFE reform, a bill which he is co-sponsoring this year.

Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) have introduced vital legislation that will enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.

There are now only two states that have no clear legal way for individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense.  Thirty-nine states have shall-issue permit systems that make it possible for any law-abiding person to obtain a permit, while most of the others have discretionary permit systems.

H.R. 822 would make a major step forward for gun owners’ rights by significantly expanding where those permits are recognized.

Dozens of states have passed carry laws over the past 25 years because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves home.  However, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform and creates great confusion and potential problems for the traveler. While many states have broad reciprocity, others have very restrictive reciprocity laws. Still others deny recognition completely.

H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized, while protecting the ability of the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced similar legislation since 1995.

In the few weeks since its introduction, H.R. 822 has added over 120 cosponsors. Click here to see if your Congressman is a cosponsor. However, more support is needed to make this bill a higher priority.

If your Congressman is not yet a cosponsor, respectfully urge him or her to support the fundamental right to self-defense by becoming a cosponsor of H.R. 822. If your Representative is already a cosponsor, please offer your thanks for his or her support.

These members of Pennsylvania’s delegation have signed on to support the bill as of 4/8/11:

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.)
Rep. Mark Critz (D-Pa.)
Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.)
Rep. Tim Holden (D-Pa.)
Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.)
Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.)
Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pa.)
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.)
Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.)

Some of our local supporters have seen firsthand what these groups will do when they come through our neighborhoods.  In 2008, after a busload of supporters from groups like MoveOn were brought in from New York, every John McCain sign on their street was ripped apart and the frames bent out of shape so they could not easily be reused for pro-Second Amendment candidates.

One local anti-gun politician in California cited her desire for higher campaign donation limits after New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made the maximum donation to her re-election campaign.  In an interview, she reported that he was funneling money into the campaign accounts to members of his anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns.  Did you know that he has hundreds of allies here in Pennsylvania?  And they have their sights set on taking their fight to the top – one of his earliest anti-gun allies is running for Congress in Pennsylvania’s 15th district.

In the 8th district, anti-gun incumbent Patrick Murphy has accepted raised more than 40% of his direct campaign funds from people outside of Pennsylvania.  The total, edging up near 3/4 of a million dollars from outside of our borders, is 70% more than the next closest incumbent seeking re-election, according to a recent study of Pennsylvania Congressional race donations.

These are just a few of the examples of why we need NRA members to lend a hand to pro-gun candidates.  Just an hour or so at a phone bank will allow you to reach 40 potential voters to remind them to turn out for our rights on Election Day.  An hour delivering yard signs will help raise name recognition to candidates among hundreds or potentially thousands of voters who drive past those key locations every day.  Do you have a special skill that could benefit a candidate?  Maybe helping create a new website or building larger wooden signs could extend your impact on a race.

These are just a few of the ways that NRA members can help take back our elections and put the right people in office who will vote to protect the rights we cherish.  We don’t need the values of paid staffers from New York City or Washington making our decisions for us.  But, in order to overcome their influence, we all need to give a little something.

Many folks don’t realize that the premise for National Hunting & Fishing Day started right here in Pennsylvania.

The first to suggest an official day of thanks to sportsmen was Ira Joffe, owner of Joffe’s Gun Shop in Upper Darby, Pa. In 1970, Pennsylvania Gov. Raymond Shafer adopted Joffe’s idea and created “Outdoor Sportsman’s Day” in the state.

With determined prompting from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the concept soon emerged on the floor of the U.S. Senate. In June 1971, Sen. Thomas McIntyre, N.H., introduced Joint Resolution 117 authorizing National Hunting and Fishing Day on the fourth Saturday of every September. Rep. Bob Sikes, Fla., introduced an identical measure in the House. In early 1972, Congress unanimously passed both bills.

On May 2, 1972, President Nixon signed the first proclamation of National Hunting and Fishing Day, writing, “I urge all citizens to join with outdoor sportsmen in the wise use of our natural resources and in insuring their proper management for the benefit of future generations.”

By late summer, all 50 governors and over 600 mayors had joined in by proclaiming state and local versions of National Hunting and Fishing Day. The response was dramatic.

National, regional, state and local organizations staged some 3,000 “open house” hunting- and fishing-related events everywhere from shooting ranges to suburban frog ponds, providing an estimated four million Americans with a chance to experience, understand and appreciate traditional outdoor sports.

Over the years, National Hunting and Fishing Day boasted many more public relations successes, assisted by celebrities who volunteered to help spotlight the conservation accomplishments of sportsmen and women. Honorary chairs have included George Bush, Tom Seaver, Hank Williams Jr., Arnold Palmer, Terry Bradshaw, George Brett, Robert Urich, Ward Burton, Louise Mandrell, Travis Tritt, Tracy Byrd, Jeff Foxworthy and many other sports and entertainment figures.

National Hunting & Fishing Day is a great excuse to get outside and enjoy the traditions that we fight so hard to protect. So, if you have some spare time today, hit the range, introduce a friend to the shooting sports, or start preparing for your time out in the woods. Have a great time, and then come back on in to help pro-Second Amendment candidates get elected so we can spend more time back outside instead of making phone calls to stop anti-gun legislation.

As NSSF has pointed out, there’s no real scientific basis for restricting lead ammunition. Just about all shooting ranges at this point are recycling their lead (it’s too valuable to just leave in the ground). California’s ban has not been shown to reduce lead levels in Condors, and has driven more people away from hunting. Additionally, it’s interfered with lawful self-protection in parts of California that are considered condor habitat.

Are the gloves coming off? The Obama Administration has, until now, been reluctant to antagonize gun owners. Perhaps now that his popularity is reaching new lows, he’s looking to appeal to an important part of his green base by beating up on gun owners and shooters. Having utterly failed to eliminate the Second Amendment by hook, now it would seem he’s proceeding to do it by crook; by demonizing gun owners and the shooting sports as environmental devils. Let’s hope this is about as successful as the President’s other endeavors.

There may be no vote a United States Senator casts that is more important than a vote to confirm a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now that the Court has clearly stated that the Second Amendment is a fundamental, individual right that applies to all law-abiding Americans, NRA members and gun owners expect a nominee to the Court to fully support, defend and preserve that freedom.

We have carefully examined the career, written documents and public statements of nominee Elena Kagan and have found nothing to indicate any support for the Second Amendment. On the contrary, the facts reveal a nominee who opposes Second Amendment rights and is clearly out of step with mainstream Americans.

Therefore, the NRA is strongly opposed to Kagan’s confirmation to the Court.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she refused to declare support for the Second Amendment, saying only that the matter was “settled law.”

This was eerily similar to the scripted testimony of Justice Sonia Sotomayor last year, prior to her confirmation to the Court. When pressed on the Second Amendment then, Sotomayor also referred to the issue as “settled law.”

But in the recently decided case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, Sotomayor ignored the “settled law” of the Heller decision and signed a dissenting opinion that declared, “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

It has become obvious that “settled law” is the scripted code of an anti-gun nominee’s confirmation effort. The NRA is not fooled. No member of the U.S. Senate should be either.

With no judicial record, only Kagan’s political career can be reviewed. And this provides no reason to trust her with Americans’ firearms freedom. Throughout her career, she has repeatedly demonstrated a clear hostility to the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution.

As a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan said she was “not sympathetic” to a challenge to Washington, DC’s ban on firearms. As a domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, a colleague described her as “immersed” in Clinton’s aggressive assaults on the Second Amendment. She was involved in Clinton’s scheme to ban more than 50 types of commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms – an effort described as “…taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”

As U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan chose not to file a brief last year in the landmark McDonald case, thus taking the position that incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the states was of no interest to the Obama Administration or the federal government.

These are not the positions of a person who supports the Second Amendment and, in fact, represent a clear and present danger to the right to keep and bear arms.

Kagan’s record clearly reveals that she does not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right. In her recent testimony, she refused to acknowledge respect for the God-given right of self-defense.

She should not serve on any court, let alone be confirmed to a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land.

The NRA is strongly opposed to the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. This vote matters and will be a part of future candidate evaluations.

The above statement was originally published by NRA-ILA.

You can contact Senator Arlen Specter at 202-224-4254 and Senator Bob Casey at 202-224-6324.

Click here to view the embedded video.

You can also read Kopel’s written testimony where he decimates Kagan’s belief that the KKK & NRA should be linked as “bad guy orgs.”

The NRA has always stood up for civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms without regard to race, color, or creed. The historic role of the KKK was to deprive African Americans of this right.

The cofounder of the NRA was General Ambose Everett Burnside, who had recently finished two terms as Governor of Rhode Island. As a Union General, he had been a leader at integrating the freedmen into combat roles. As the Providence Journal later put it, Burnside was ―One of the first of the regular army officers to approve heartily of Mr. Lincoln‘s emancipation policy, he was also one of the first to favor the arming of black troops, and one of the most successful in training them for action.

After founding the NRA, Burnside was elected Senator from Rhode Island. He fought against racial segregation in the military, and proposed that West Point adopt an affirmative action admissions plan for blacks.

The sixth NRA President, General Winfield Scott Hancock, was nationally extolled as “the hero of Gettysburg.” As Democratic nominee for U.S. President in 1880, he had lost the popular vote by less than 10,000 votes, and if he had won the swing state of New York, he would have won the electoral vote. Hancock was remarkable for his time, always treating black people as equals, even before the Civil War. In 1880, Hancock led a national campaign to vindicate a black cadet at West Point who had been attacked by some white cadets, but whom the West Point administration claimed had injured himself.

The NRA‘s Articles of Incorporation omitted something that was common for other sporting organizations at the time: a racial exclusion clause. In contrast to many other organizations and clubs created in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—such as the U.S. Lawn Tennis Association, the Professional Golf Association, the New York Athletic Club (for track and field), and the Amateur Athletic Union (same), the NRA welcomed members and athletes of every race.

The NRA was the governing body for the sport of rifle shooting, and eventually became the governing body for almost all the shooting sports. In this way, the NRA set a good example of racial integration and equality for the millions of Americans who participated in the shooting sports. Even during the worst of Jim Crow, a NRA match was one place where blacks and whites were exactly equal, and where skin color did not matter.

In the very segregated Washington, D.C., of the 1930s and 1940s, the shooting range at NRA National Headquarters was the only integrated place where a young black man could go and feel fully welcome. At least that was the experience of Richard Atkinson, a black man who grew up in the District during those years, and who was later was elected a director of the National Rifle Association.

The concerns Kopel raises are some of the reasons the NRA has made its opposition of Kagan crystal clear to members of the Senate. They will score the vote on her confirmation when they calculate grades for the 2010 elections.

Senators Arlen Specter & Bob Casey will likely return to Pennsylvania this next week for the July Fourth holiday recess. Please make sure you contact them to let them know that you stand with NRA & do not want a Supreme Court justice who believes that Americans who believe in gun rights are similar to despicable racists.

Josh Sugarmann, head of the Violence Policy Center, to his credit, at least has the ability to call a spade a spade and show they understand who won. Give the Bradys lemons they’ll make lemonade. Give Josh lemons he’ll just get more sour. VPC’s official statement is very much them, and can basically be summed up as “The gun lobby won, so now everyone is going to die!!!”

Scholar David Hardy:

The majority decisively rejects Stevens’ argument for “incorporation, but a weaker version applies to the States.” Scalia’s concurrence stomps all over Stevens’ dissent. And, while not addressing standard of review, the Court repeatedly describes the right to bear arms as fundamental.

Law Professor Jonathan Adler:

Justice Scalia’s concurrence is a strongly worded attack on Justice Stevens’ concurrence over matters of constitutional interpretation. So much for being nice to the guy on his last day at work. Those who love Scalia opinions will love this one. Those who don’t, well . . .

Law Professor Glenn Reynolds:

…it really is interesting how much emphasis the majority, and Justice Thomas’s concurrence, put on the racist roots of gun control. See this article and this one by Bob Cottrol and Ray Diamond for more background. And isn’t it interesting that this is happening on the same day the Senate’s last Klansman went to his reward? …

…personally, I’d like to note that a lot of “respectable” commentators were, just a few years ago, calling the individual-rights theory of the Second Amendment absurd, ridiculous, and something that only (probably paid) shills for the NRA would espouse. (I’m talking to you, Garry Wills and Robert Spitzer, among others). Yet it is impossible to read this opinion, and the Heller opinion, and conclude that the individual right is really just a “fraud” concocted by the NRA. So were those who were saying so until quite recently being dishonest, or merely inexcusably ignorant?

About the Scalia concurring opinion, blogger Sebastian:

My basic conclusion is that Scalia clearly did not believe the majority opinion savaged Justice Stevens enough, and he wanted to make sure his opinion is thoroughly skewered.

Before people get too excited, a lot of gun laws are going to be upheld even by strict scrutiny. Heller has already acknowledged that that government has an interest in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, so there will be laws that will be permissible with that in mind. But strict scrutiny is a high standard, and there is much law that will fail to stand up to it. Will that be what the lower courts use? We shall see. But they can no longer hide from the fact that the Second Amendment, through the 14th Amendment, protects a fundamental right guaranteed to all Americans.

In the meantime, please take a few minutes to thank the members of the legislative branches of government who worked on our behalf to encourage the Supreme Court toward this position.

US Senate
Bob Casey

• Facebook

Arlen Specter

• Twitter – @SenArlenSpecter
• Facebook

US Congress
Jason Altmire

• Facebook

Christopher Carney

• Twitter – @ChrisCarneyPa10
• Facebook

Charlie Dent

• Twitter – @DentforCongress
• Facebook

Jim Gerlach

• Twitter – @JimGerlach
• Facebook

Tim Holden

• Twitter – @TimHoldenPA17
• Facebook

Paul Kanjorski

• Twitter – @kanjo4congress
• Facebook

Patrick Murphy

• Facebook

Tim Murphy

• Twitter – @RepTimMurphy
• Facebook

Joe Pitts

• Twitter – @JoePitts4PA
• Facebook

Todd Platts

• Facebook

Bill Shuster

• Twitter – @RepBillShuster
• Facebook

Glenn Thompson

• Twitter – @CongressmanGT
• Facebook

State Officials
Tom Corbett

• Twitter – @CorbettforGov
• Facebook

Joe Scarnati

Karen Boback

• Facebook

Michele Brooks

Bryan Cutler

• Twitter – @RepBryanCutler
• Facebook

Bill DeWeese

Glen Grell

• Facebook

Rob Kauffman

• Facebook

Mark Keller

• Facebook

John Maher

Daryl Metcalfe

• Twitter – @DarylMetcalfe

Merle Phillips

Kathy Rapp

RoseMarie Swanger

• Facebook

Will Tallman

• Facebook

Katie True

I figured that a title about campaign finance reform wouldn’t grab too many eyeballs. But telling people about the intended result of this “reform” probably would. I’ve been thinking about this post for a while now, but decided that Dave Kopel’s release of his June First Freedom article on the subject made the issue more relevant for the blog.

There is one key to the Schumer-backed DISCLOSE Act that makes it dangerous for gun owners who want to organize in any meaningful manner: disclosure of all donors/members whose money may have funded independent expenditures to the FEC.

According to The New York Times, a “reform” bill might require advocacy groups (such as NRA) “to identify all their financial donors or set up separate accounts to handle political spending and identify the donors to that account.”

Simply put: If NRA wants to use its general funds from member dues to speak out during election season, then NRA would have to give the federal government a list of every single NRA member.

The FEC donor databases are open to all, and the most user-friendly that makes looking up individuals easy and fast is the database available at OpenSecrets.org. Kopel uses the example that your boss could decide to cross-reference you to find out what you’re up to outside of work hours. At that point, you just have to hope he/she isn’t anti-gun, or you may find yourself in the unemployment line. Even if NRA maintains a separate fund for campaign expenditures, you can’t donate if you value your privacy.

We’re by far not the only issue concerned about these crazy disclosure agreements. The National Right to Life Committee is opposing the bill on the same grounds:

One of those regulations involves NRLC and other pro-life groups having to identify donors publicly anytime it runs communications in certain times that ask people to contact Congress about legislation related to pro-life concerns.

“Our members and supporters have a right to support our public advocacy about important and controversial issues without having their identifying information posted on the Internet, exposing them to harassment or retribution by those who may disagree with their beliefs,” NRLC concluded.

It’s pretty dangerous in some areas of the country to be socially conservative. See the harassment that same-sex marriage opponents faced in California as an exhibit of what pro-lifers – and possibly gun owners – could face.

Even the parts of the bill that aren’t dangerous for gun owners actively try to cut us off at the knees when it comes to political advertising. I’m not opposed to the spirit of an organization head doing a disclaimer as part of a commercial, but as specific as the DISCLOSURE Act is, it limits our options in order to cut our political effectiveness.

NRA advertisements always let you know that they’re paid for by NRA. Sometimes, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre appears as a spokesman in a commercial, while in others, it’s Chris W. Cox, chairman of NRA’s Political Victory Fund and executive director of NRA-ILA. Sometimes, NRA may choose to use someone else entirely. For example, Charlton Heston appeared in many NRA commercials during his long service to the Second Amendment.

The proposal would mean that in 1997, for example, when Heston— one of the most respected men in America—was an NRA officer but not president or CEO, an NRA commercial would have been required to cut the amount of time that Heston had to speak about the issues.

Anything that reduces the time we can put Chris Cox’s face & voice in front of female viewers is a loss for our issue as far as I’m concerned!

In all seriousness, we have a diverse set of powerful leaders we can choose from at this point, and most Americans would probably agree that using any of them would meet the spirit of any disclosure laws. If Tom Selleck wants to get on screen as an NRA board member and talk about NRA-endorsed candidates or the issues at stake in a particular election, I’m sure most people would agree that it’s plenty transparent.

Politically, Congress still knows we can raise some hell on this issue. The House sponsor sat down with NRA recently to try and figure out their concerns, and they are specifically worried about last minute lobbying blitzes. It would seem that the pro-life groups and the Chamber of Commerce are planning to score the vote – and I suspect that the final product will determine whether or not NRA scores the vote. (If they do, Democrats may lose the votes they claim to have to pass it in the House.)

The Chamber has particular concerns about how this bill favors unions above other corporations:

For example, companies with government contracts worth $50,000 or more and those with foreign ownership would be banned from funding political ads and engaging in other campaign-related activity. The business group believes unions that receive federal grants, have collective bargaining agreements with the government or have international affiliates should be subject to similar limits.

Eugene Scalia, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and counsel to the Chamber, said the Disclose Act does not balance restrictions on corporations and unions equally, as previous campaign finance reform bills have.

“This bill is a departure from that tradition,” he said.

This is one of the reasons the NRLC argued the bill name should really stand for “Deterring Independent Speech about Congress except by Labor Organizations and Selected Elites.”

Right now, the bill has been postponed in the House. The committee vote was down party lines, and all efforts to make this bill more fair have been turned down based on party affiliation.

The intentional partisanship and one-sided nature of this was demonstrated by the defeat of a series of amendments in the committee mark-up that were proposed by Republicans. This included an amendment by Rep. Dan Lungren (R., Calif.) that would have extended the prohibition on government contractors to any unions that have representational contracts with the government, as well as an amendment by Rep. Gregg Harper (R., Miss.) that would have extended the same ban to any other recipient of government grants, such as the liberal groups that receive so many federal earmarks and other funds. When Lungren tried to extend the political activity ban on corporations with foreign shareholders or corporate directors to unions that receive dues from foreign nationals, that was also rejected.

This bill has got to go down in defeat. NRA is a one-issue organization, but they also look out for our ability to talk about that issue with the public during election season. Because many people who aren’t paid members receiving the magazine pay attention to NRA’s messaging, any effort to silence their efforts will only hurt gun rights on Election Day.