The NSSF has had a political action committee for years. But traditional PACs have restrictions in what they can do. Contributions from supporters and outlays to candidates are limited.
While a so-called Super PAC can take in contributions of unlimited size from all kinds of contributors, it can’t contribute directly to candidates. It can only make independent (not coordinated with any particular campaign or party) expenditures.
It can, however, spend all the money it wants on, say, issue ads, touting the importance of voting for candidates that support gun rights or educating the voting public on why a particular candidate’s past support for gun control laws threatens your rights.
Going into 2024, with the most anti-gun President in American history running for reelection, the ability to get the pro-gun rights message out as far and as widely as possible has never been more important. Here’s the Protect Liberty PAC‘s press release . . .
The Protect Liberty Political Action Committee (PAC) launched with the express goal of electing candidates who are dedicated to preserving and protecting liberty, freedoms and the Constitutional rights of all Americans. This especially includes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Protect Liberty PAC will take a leading role and be more dynamic and outspoken in the electoral process in order to protect the firearm industry, beginning at the ballot box.
“The right to keep and bear arms is under continuous attack by President Joe Biden, his administration and extreme, radical special-interest gun control groups that are all determined to rob Americans of their rights,” said Lawrence G. Keane, Protect Liberty PAC’s Treasurer. “This PAC enables all Americans to support candidates for office who believe our rights, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, are protected and non-negotiable. Protect Liberty PAC will give a voice to those who will no longer allow political candidates to use them as a punchline.”
Protect Liberty PAC is a “Super PAC,” founded to elect viable candidates who will protect the firearm and ammunition industry and defend Americans’ freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights. This PAC will expressly advocate for the election or defeat of specific candidates. Advocacy will be completely independent of any candidate or political party.
Protect Liberty PAC will be active during the 2024 election cycle and beyond, utilizing the hard-earned knowledge from years of political victories to evaluate and support candidates, then strategically engage highly-targeted voters in key federal races that ultimately will have a critical impact on the firearm industry.
The firearm industry cannot afford more legislative and regulatory attacks from Washington, D.C., partisans who seek to end the lawful commerce in our industry. The balance of power in Washington, D.C., rests on a razor’s edge, and Protect Liberty PAC will focus on federal elections to ensure American freedoms have a bulwark. The battle lines are drawn and the stakes are high.
For more information or to contribute to Protect Liberty PAC, visit www.protectlibertypac.com.
Will NSSF’s Super PAC “protect liberty” by advocating for Red Flag and Punish Crime Victim laws?
I tried posting the same question and had it “moderated.”
I guess that answers the question…
We got both article flavors from the NSSF Department of Redundancy Department yesterday: this, plus their monthly “The market trend begun three and a half years ago remains essentially unchanged, yet we’re going to report it as some sort of fresh triumph anyway.”
TTAG also keeps us informed about real hero orgs, sweating and bleeding (and winning!) every day in the trenches for our rights.
And yet, we still have people lining up to support these🤡🤡
I visited their website. It says, “We will expressly advocate for the election or defeat of specific candidates. Our advocacy will be completely independent of any candidate or political party.”
This could cause problems because some candidates are deeply unpopular.
Many gun owning Americans would be happy to donate money to a group that support gun rights, but in this case, when they find out their money might be used to elect or reelect the candidate they hate most, they may hesitate to donate. To give a mild example, what if a potential donor realizes that the money he donates might go towards reelecting Congress-person George Santos (if that’s even his real name). They might decide not do donate because they hate that fraudster con-artist whose name may or may not be George Santos (nobody even knows his real name, as he’s gone by many names, some male and some female). Or to give a more common example, a never-Trumper may say he won’t donate if there’s a chance the money might go towards reelecting the candidate he hates most.
TLDR new name, try again with less astroturf.
Tried to donate, get error message when trying to register.
Are they going to be pushing Redflag Laws and safe-storage mandates like NSSF does?
Do we really need yet another Fudd organization bargaining our gun rights away so they can pad their corporate bottom lines?
It’s also incredibly naive and wasteful to believe that Liberty is best protected through federal elections. Local is where it matters. Bundy Ranch incident is one recent example. Government is weak when challenged and it only takes a few!
NSSF Does NOT support current Red Flag laws! That is a myth from people that can’t read the whole statement.
“NSSF has not opposed the use of emergency risk protection orders, or so-called “red flag” laws, so long as those laws include adequate protections for Constitutional Due Process considerations. To date, none of the “red flag” laws in the 19 states and District of Columbia include these Constitutional protections. “
Useful idiots are useful.
Some didn’t see any need to look it up after hearing NSSF representatives express it in their own words right here; others chose to disregard the waffling, fence-straddling doublespeak part.
Enlighten us: how would a pre-crime deprivation of rights law include adequate protections for Constitutional Due Process?
Also, would you care to offer similar BS disclaimers for NSSF’s stances on Punish Crime Victim laws, or unconstitutionally singling out enumerated rights for taxation, or are we safe in assuming you’re unreservedly anti-POTG on those?
Bingo.
The NSSF supported last year’s Bi-partisan Safer Communities Act and rewarded the authors such as John Cornyn and his pals with A grades on their legislative report cards.
Actions speak louder than words.
Comments are closed.