Some Democrats Running for President Want the Power to Silence You

by
posted on September 23, 2019
** When you buy products through the links on our site, we may earn a commission that supports NRA's mission to protect, preserve and defend the Second Amendment. **
header_1500x844_darren-congress-vs-obama.jpg

When gun control came up at the second Democratic presidential debate, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) rattled off the usual list of gun-control restrictions most of the Democratic candidates have publicly endorsed and added in something from 2002. He proposed changes to how money is spent by associations and others in politics. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as “McCain-Feingold,” once prevented associations, such as the NRA, and others from endorsing or criticizing candidates within 60 days of a general election. This was struck down on First Amendment grounds by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC (2010).

Many Democrats would like to regain the power to silence those they tax, restrict and regulate. To them it is inconvenient that the First Amendment protects the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (In plainer English, this provision protects our right to lobby.) They don’t like that, with its “freedom of speech” protections, the First Amendment prohibits the government from muzzling political speech they find inconvenient.

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) agreed with Buttigieg’s appeal to prevent political speech. “Even we stopped the Koch brothers from spending at that time. If we can kick the Koch brothers out of Montana, we can do it in D.C., we can do it everywhere,” said Bullock.

Latest

William A. Bachenberg
William A. Bachenberg

President’s Column | What a Year It Has Been!

Wow! How fast a year has gone by since being elected president at the end of April last year! My first column was titled “It’s A New Day At The NRA,” and included the following:

Standing Guard | We Are the Good Citizens

I am a big believer in transparency. Each individual needs privacy from unconstitutional government intrusion—this especially includes what guns a law-abiding American citizen might own—but an association of freedom-loving citizens must be transparent.

U.S. v. Hemani Arguments

On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Hemani. The case involves a defendant who is fighting a federal indictment for possessing a firearm while being a marijuana user.

President’s Column | Getting You Up to Speed

A lot of things have occurred over the past month or so that not all members are completely aware of. I’ll use my column this month to update you on some important issues—transparency.

Standing Guard | The NRA Gathers to Celebrate Our Freedom

The momentum we’re seeing across the country is both encouraging and energizing. January opened with tremendous activity at the NRA booth during SHOT Show, where members, industry partners and supporters stopped by to connect, share ideas and reaffirm their commitment to freedom and the Second Amendment.

Port Authority Doubles Down on Constitution-Free Zone with High-Profile Arrest

As anyone who has passed a basic civics class knows, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All legislation and official government actions are subject to its limits.



Get the best of America's 1st Freedom delivered to your inbox.