Armed Citizens United = The Real NRA?

“Our goal isn’t just to fight new legislation, but to also begin the fight to turn back laws already on the books that we believe infringe on our Constitutionally protected rights,” MAC writes at “Laws like the Hughes Amendment that has been ignored by other pro-gun groups.” Other than that one example and promises to be faster, tougher and shinier than “other gun rights organizations,” it’s unclear where Armed Citizens United will differ from the NRA, GOA, SAF, etc. When the ACU comes out for the abolishment of all background checks and restoration of felons’ rights you can color me impressed. Meanwhile, MAC’s working with “fellow Patriot” and YouTuber Don Sootch and Dianna Liedorff and Brain Tree Media Group. “Together we hope to become a powerful voice in the battle for our rights.” Keep us in the loop guys.



  1. avatar Matt in FL says:

    I will follow this with interest, mainly because MAC is the real deal.

  2. avatar king_of_hearts says:

    Looks really interesting.

    Bookmarked their webpage.

  3. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Lets hope they can get rid of the hughes amendment first, but I doubt it. That sucker has pointlessly been here for three decades.

  4. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    Well this is interesting.
    Then again what makes them better. I think there is a niche here, but look at it like this.
    NRA / GOA, lobbies on behalf of gun owners to stop things before they start.
    SAF, CalGuns etc fight laws shortly after passage to stop them from going any further.
    NOTE: Still not a clue where we are on the NY SAFE ACT. The state level stuff seems to be overwhelming.
    The GRAA, Fire Arms Policy Coalition, American Gun Rights, and many others raise awareness to issues facing gun owners. They are more grass roots, less funding, but still active.

    Could the ACU make a difference. Yes, maybe.. Challenging things that have been on the books at the federal level makes sense. Get those overturned, and now you have precedent moving forward for fights in the states. Could they fail badly if they don’t play their cards right, you betcha.

    This should be interesting for sure.

  5. avatar Accur81 says:

    If its legit I’m on board. I’m part of multiple orgs anyways.

  6. avatar pyratemime says:

    Might I humbly recommend a slight name change to American Citizens Legally United. The pitch line could be, “This ACLU can count to 2!”

    1. avatar Gun_Chris says:

      I love it! +1

  7. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    I say roll them all back. As any “law” on the books is unconstitutional. We should be able to have full auto’s with silencers, felons should never have lost their gun rights. Any and all laws that have anything to do with firearms in any way need to go.

  8. avatar Ralph says:

    There’s nothing wrong with having another pro-rights group as long as the groups are not cannibalizing each other. There are many anti-rights groups, but they have an advantage — Bloomberg and The Joyce Foundation can write a lot of checks.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Think of it as a democratic (not Democrat) process. Your dollars are your votes. If a group doesn’t represent you well, vote for someone else. The competition will improve them all or the ineffective will whither and die.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        That’s exactly why I let my NRA membership expire and donated more money to GOA and SAF. If the Republicans nominate Jabba the Hutt (almost a guarantee) and the NRA refuses to back him like they did Romney, then I’ll consider becoming a member again.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          If the Republican party has a suicidal death-wish they will nominate Christie – three guaranteed losers out of four: Dole, Romney, McCain, and then Christie? Still, I am not going to place any large bets that it won’t happen.

        2. avatar Totenglocke says:

          The Republican party only nominates two types of candidates. The first type is the religious zealot who wants to legislate the Bible. This person drives away libertarians and moderates of both parties. The second type is the RINO (such as Romney and Christi). This type drives away libertarians and conservative Republicans while not gaining much, if any, support from Democrats.

  9. avatar Sam Spade says:

    Brain Tree Media Group has Young Guns and 3 Gun Nation for clients, too. MAC’s involved in both, I think.

  10. avatar Xanthro says:

    At the 48 second mark, they say protect the Rights provided by the Second Amendment, it doesn’t provide any rights, in enshrines the protection of an existing right.

    A bit of a pet peeve of mine.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Xanthro, watch this space in the next few days.

      As pets I prefer cats, but this peeve is definitely on my list.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Cats just want to control you, man. They’re statists at the residential level.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          ROTFLMAO! I needed that laugh today. Thank you.

    2. avatar Rambeast says:

      From their FB page. “…since the video was already produced and posted we couldn’t change it. However, we are with you and we did change the language in our Mission Statement. It now reads: Armed Citizens United is a membership based organization that stands to preserve and defend the inherent rights declared by the 2nd Amendment. We lobby, organize, inform, empower and educate to ensure that the liberties provided to us are not infringed.”.

      1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

        Wholly cow they listened!

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          What a concept!

  11. avatar 505markf says:

    I was intrigued so I paid my $25 for a years membership. I’m thinking it can’t hurt to have another voice in the gun-rights struggle. I hope they coalesce into something meaningful. We are sort of out here in a forgotten corner (New Mexico) and most of us like it that way, but no doubt there’s a need for some activism out here on gun rights as well. I figured it was time to take a stand.

  12. avatar John Fritz says:

    … When the ACU comes out for the abolishment of all background checks and restoration of felons’ rights you can color me impressed. …

    You funny Robert.

    I regularly take this position anytime it’s being discussed on the firearms (or whatever) forums that I frequent. Annnnd I’m used to getting my ass handed to me by ninety-some percent of the forum members.

    No one gets it. I worry about that.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      No one gets it. I worry about that.

      You aren’t the only one. It bodes a grave future for individual liberty not only in our nation but for all of humanity. This revolutionary notion that individuals are endowed with unalienable rights seems to have become clouded in the minds of so many. Privileges have been been erroneously elevated as if equal to rights. Only one of those is unalienable. IMHO, most people are down right too frightened of Liberty to be free.

    2. avatar Karina says:


      MAC says:

      Absolutely, we believe the NFA is unconstitutional and one of the key focuses for 2014 is rolling back the Hughes Amendment and also doing away with NFA taxes.”

      They already do get it. These people ARE the real deal.

  13. avatar shawn says:

    Still not a fan of allowing a rapist to get a gun at my local LGS.

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      If that rapist is a threat, he should not be freely roaming with or without a gun. If no one knows of him as a rapist threat, banning guns from unknown rapists is an impossible task.

    2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      I’m for giving a lot of felons their rights back, except for person felonies. You murder or rape someone, sodomize a child, sorry, back of the bus, don’t pass go, don’t collect $200.00.
      Having some pot, other non person, crimes against society, yup. Do a few clean years, and welcome back to society.
      In my humble opinion, there has to be a line.

      1. avatar CA.Ben says:

        I’m with you Tom. I think that all felon’s gun rights should be restored immediately, with the exception of violent felons. If you intentionally hurt, raped, or killed somebody in the commission of your crime, then, at the very least, there should be a probationary period after your release during which you cannot own firearms.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          Tom and Ben, here’s the problem – the Second Amendment is very clear in its statement “…shall not be infringed.” Regardless of how you or anyone else “feels” about felons or rapists or the mentally ill, who does that leave with the authority to create a list of what offenses should repeal your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, or to create that list, or enforce it? There is NOT SUCH AUTHORITY inherent in the language of the Second Amendment. To have included such would have allowed the government to decide who could or could not keep and bear arms and that right now becomes a government privilege that they can license and tax into oblivion.

          The solution to felons, rapists, pedophiles and the dangerously mentally ill is for individuals to take responsibility for their own defense and to stand together to shoot these bastards when they are discovered, not let cops take the risks and watch the judicial and prison system run them through revolving doors while our Second Amendment rights are trampled in a vain attempt to write laws that disarm civilians and which criminals will almost certainly ignore.

          If you can see a Constitutional way around this dilemma, please enlighten me/us.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          You’re describing privileges and not rights. No man has the earthly ability to strip an individual of natural rights so no man has the ability to specify how that individual can ‘regain’ them. Cliff H has the solution in his comment (should be the one above mine).

      2. avatar Totenglocke says:

        What definition of “child” are you using?

      3. avatar Michael B. says:

        They used to hang violent felons so restoring their rights was never an issue.

        I’m with the rest of the commenters, though.

        Murderers and rapists should either be in the ground or in prison.

  14. avatar Hoosier57 says:

    Sorry, but I’m going to go no money from me nor support. The people involved are in purely for money.(research it and actually think about…use ad tools “ghostery” to see how their selling your information…and how much of it…and to how much companies) Any other projects they did are at low points or failed (younggunstv thing is shut down). I don’t see how on earth they could input into anything. Great speech/ video, but no no no money for you.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I used Adblock Plus, NoScript, and Ghostery on their web site and Facebook page: NO popups, -unders, weird cookies, java-fu, or redirects. Facebook itslef, well, you know…

  15. avatar EagleScout87 says:

    “restoration of felons’ rights” after they have served their time and paid their debt to society, right? The 5th Amendment clearly states that liberty can be deprived after due process of law. Unless you want the 5th amended as well.

    1. avatar SAS 2008 says:

      The 5th says you can’t deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process. It does not say you have to lose you rights. Allowing convicted felons to retain rights before serving their sentence would not be a violation of the 5th amendment.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        “The 5th says you can’t deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process. It does not say you have to lose you rights. Allowing convicted felons to retain rights before serving their sentence would not be a violation of the 5th amendment.”

        What the amendment does NOT say, because it CANNOT say it, is that you LOSE YOUR RIGHTS. The entire concept of the Bill of Rights was to enumerate certain specific natural, civil, and now Constitutionally protected rights that each and every person is born with and will die with and which are NOT subject to revision or repeal by the government. Following the 14th Amendment and as of Heller in 2008 ALL of these rights have been “incorporated” such that all states must also recognize and deal with them on this same level as the federal government.

        Therefore, regardless of your status in the judicial or prison system, or previous felony convictions, or your mental status, no government agency has the ability, much less the authority, to take away your natural rights. Even while inside the prison system you retain your right to defend your own life by whatever means and/or weapons you can obtain or manufacture, including, if necessary, creating a militia of your friends and associates for the common defense. Once you leave the prison system you still have all your other rights, and you will do your best to exercise them, regardless of any and all unconstitutional laws put in place to try to prevent you from doing so.

        Writing laws to prevent criminals from committing crimes is a ludicrous waste of time and effort. Writing laws purporting to repeal a person’s natural human rights is ridiculous, unconstitutional, and they are absolutely impossible to enforce.

        You cannot give up even a little bit of your Second Amendment rights without essentially agreeing that they are not in fact rights, but privileges. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.

        “He who is willing to give up an essential liberty to obtain a little safety will have neither.” – Ben Franklin

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Aye! That’s the best I’ve seen it explained in a long while. Somehow the People have been stripped (or allowed themselves) of basic knowledge of natural rights. How can we be free if our people don’t even know what Liberty truly is?

        2. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Traditionally the definition of a felon was one who was no longer permitted to go about armed, and that permission was revoked due to their own violent acts. They were also generally banished from civilized society, and came to live on the fringes, as outlaws. Traditionally, if a felon was found to be in possession of arms he was subject to immediate execution by any gentleman that found him. Part of the problem is how greatly we’ve expanded the definition of a felony beyond the “violent crimes against others” definition it had for hundreds of years. Thus we end up with the situation of someone being denied the ability to legally carry arms for a non-violent crime such as drug possession, or a low-level crime that by any reasonable definition should be a misdemeanor (literally a “lesser crime” or an “offense to the peace”). That is an injustice.

    2. avatar Xanthro says:

      You can be imprisoned, and you can be fined, and as part of punishment certain rights curtailed in the use, such as people in prison can’t have firearms, but rights abridged must be restored as quickly as safely possible.

      A weed conviction 10 years ago shouldn’t prevent a person from owning a firearm.

      1. avatar EagleScout87 says:


  16. avatar Southerner says:

    What is Armed Citizens United’s position on Special Firearms and Ammunition Taxes, such as the Pittman-Robertson Excise Tax on firearms and ammunition.

    Note: A special tax is any tax not broadly required of all goods – such as a general sales tax.

    1. avatar Southerner says:

      Unconstitutional excise taxes on ammunition and firearms represent the Achilles’ heel of the 2nd Amendment civil rights movement. Nobody wants to upset the hunter constituency.

  17. avatar William Burke says:

    How about a cadre of undercover legal clerks to erase bad gun laws from the pages of law books?

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Can you define for us the term “bad gun laws”, sir?

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Anything beyond, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”? 😉

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:


  18. avatar ErrantVenture11 says:

    I’m joining (once my budget is in order) the NRA and the MCRGO. That covers me nationally and locally. I don’t think we need another alphabet soup org, I think the NRA and the local orgs need to stop waging a defensive war and go on offense. The movement toward shall issue has shown that we can make gains, not just cut our losses. So let’s make that part of our mission!

  19. avatar Jus Bill says:

    I will reserve judgment on this organization.

    Their board is unimpressive and limited, and their “About” page seems like a laundry list of “We will ____.” Looks to me like they’re trying to wrap the NRA-ILA and GOA into a package, and preempt State-level gun rights groups.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email