Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Setting The Record Straight On The “DISCLOSE Act”

Friday, June 18, 2010

We appreciate the concerns some NRA members have raised about our position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.”  Unfortunately, the mainstream media and other critics of NRA’s role in this process have misstated or misunderstood the facts.  We’d like to set the record straight.

We have never said we would support any version of this bill.  To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter). 

Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.  The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members’ right to privacy and freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government.  We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members.  We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

The introduced version of the bill would also have prohibited political speech by all federal government contractors.  The NRA has contracts to provide critical firearm training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies throughout the country.  The bill would have forced us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refused to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

We told Congress we opposed the bill.  Consequently, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on political speech.  If that happens, we will not be involved in final consideration of this bill in the House.  If it doesn’t, we will strongly oppose the bill.

Our position is based on principle and experience.  During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line.  That didn’t happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law.  We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.

There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say—unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

The NRA is a non-partisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment.  We do not represent the interests of other organizations.  That’s their responsibility.  Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members.  And that we do without apology.

Today, the fate of the bill remains in doubt.  The House floor debate has repeatedly been postponed.  Lawmakers and outside groups who once supported the bill, or took no position—including the Brady Campaign—have now come out against it because of the announcement regarding NRA. The outcome in the Senate is even murkier, as anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has announced her strong opposition to the proposed change.

No matter what may happen now, NRA members can be assured that protection of gun owners’ interests will remain NRA’s top priority.  Please check in regularly at www.nraila.org for the latest news on this issue.

TRENDING NOW
“Derivative Disarmament” – A “No Fault” Loss of Gun Rights

News  

Monday, September 14, 2026

“Derivative Disarmament” – A “No Fault” Loss of Gun Rights

One of the aftereffects of the United States Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen was the ire expressed by antigun lawmakers, executives and judges, which manifested as an outright unwillingness to respect the ...

Promise to Practice: Federal Firearm Rights Restoration is Now a Reality

News  

Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Promise to Practice: Federal Firearm Rights Restoration is Now a Reality

The federal government’s promise to provide a pathway to restore firearm rights is no longer merely a commitment on paper. 

Redditors Embarrass Virginia Assembly’s Chief Gun Banner

News  

Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Redditors Embarrass Virginia Assembly’s Chief Gun Banner

In late August, Virginia State Delegate Dan Helmer (D-10), who represents a portion of the Northern Virginia D.C. suburb of Fairfax County, took to Reddit for an “ask me anything” (AMA) question and answer session.

Remembering NRA Benefactor John Mascari II from Indianapolis, Indiana

Take Action  

Monday, September 14, 2026

Remembering NRA Benefactor John Mascari II from Indianapolis, Indiana

John was a dedicated NRA volunteer, recruiter, and FrontLines Activist Leader (FAL) whose commitment to protecting the Second Amendment touched many people throughout central Indiana.

Virginia Case Shows Gun Control is Aimed at Decent Citizens, Not Criminals

News  

Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Virginia Case Shows Gun Control is Aimed at Decent Citizens, Not Criminals

Economics has a concept called “revealed preference.” The gist is that a person’s observed actions reveal more about their preferences than what a person might profess to favor. 

Unhealthy Exposure: Gun Ban Advocates Allergic to Defensive Gun Use

News  

Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Unhealthy Exposure: Gun Ban Advocates Allergic to Defensive Gun Use

One of the narratives invented by gun control activists and their political allies to try to make their agenda more palatable to the general public has been to recast gun crime as a “public health ...

Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration Requirements for Suppressors, Short-Barreled Rifles, and Short-Barreled Shotguns in NRA Case

Wednesday, August 5, 2026

Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration Requirements for Suppressors, Short-Barreled Rifles, and Short-Barreled Shotguns in NRA Case

In another major victory for the National Rifle Association and law-abiding gun owners, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas today held that the National Firearms Act’s registration and approval requirements for ...

NRA Files Amicus Brief in Supreme Court “Assault Weapons” Cases

Saturday, September 5, 2026

NRA Files Amicus Brief in Supreme Court “Assault Weapons” Cases

The National Rifle Association, alongside the Independence Institute and the American Suppressor Association, filed an amicus brief on Friday in the consolidated cases Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, which challenge the "assault weapons” bans ...

NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to Minnesota’s Refusal to Recognize Out-of-State Carry Permits

Tuesday, September 15, 2026

NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to Minnesota’s Refusal to Recognize Out-of-State Carry Permits

The National Rifle Association joined the Second Amendment Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in filing ...

Questions and Answers About the Texas NFA Case

News  

Monday, August 17, 2026

Questions and Answers About the Texas NFA Case

On August 12, we reported on an important development in the ongoing litigation over the National Firearms Act (NFA) filed by multiple plaintiffs in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. These included, ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.