NRA member. Robert Cole and his wife, Pam, had just started to doze off one evening when they heard breaking glass and their motion detector alarm as it went off. Then Cole heard someone in the living room."1 woke my wife up and told her we had someone in the house, and she told me to grab the shotgun," he remembered. Police said he peered out the bedroom door and saw a man in the living room holding a fire extinguisher."1 was worried he was going to hurt me or my wife so I [fired] one round of No.6 shot," Cole said. Police arrested the wounded suspect and an alleged accomplice nearby. This wasn't Cole's first act of armed citizenry. He was involved in an incident that appeared in this column in December 2004. (North Channel Sentinel, Pasadena, TX, 01/07/10)

Aman allegedly burglarized a vending machine and fled from police in his vehicle. The suspect cracked his axle but continued to drive away. He stashed the car near an elementary school, which was placed on lockdown as police scoured the area. "As they were searching the area, they heard a pop," said Phoenix Police Sgt. Tommy Thompson. The sound they heard was the report of a nearby homeowner's shotgun. The suspect entered the home and demanded money and car keys. In fear of his life, the homeowner fired his shotgun, killing the suspect. (The Arizona Republic, Phoenix, AZ, 01/27/10)

Police said that shortly after midnight three men broke into a home seeking money and drugs. There were no drugs in the home, but there was a .22-cal. rifle-and an 11-year-old boy trained in its use. The boy leapt to the defense of his mother and sister. One of the intruders shot the boy, slightly injuring him. The boy returned fire, seriously wounding a suspect and causing the men to flee the home. Police found all three intruders nearby. The wounded man was airlifted to a hospital and will be charged after his release. (San Antonio Express-News, San Antonio, TX, 01/20/10)

Early one morning, a Ventura, Calif., man dialed 9-1-1 after spotting two alleged prowlers in his backyard. Unfortunately for the homeowner-but perhaps more unfortunately for the prowlers-the suspects forced open a locked door and entered the home before police arrived. The homeowner, armed with a handgun, fired upon the suspects. They fled the home. Police apprehended one of the suspects in the driveway suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. The other suspect, also believed to be wounded, was still being sought at press time. (Associated Press, 01/26/10)

When a neighbor knocked on Lawrence Sanderson's door and informed him someone was trying to steal Sanderson's privately owned fire truck, he phoned police, grabbed his handgun and went to the scene. Meanwhile, police said the intoxicated suspect started the truck, put it in reverse and slammed into the back of the garage, causing an estimated $300 in damage. The truck stalled and the suspect tried to restart it as Sanderson approached. Sanderson ordered the man at gunpoint to get out of the vehicle and lie on the ground. Police arrived and arrested the suspect shortly thereafter. "[Sanderson] holstered his gun as soon as our guys got there," said Montrose, Colo., Police Cdr. Gene Lillard. (The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction, CO, 01/26/10)

Michelle Cornelsen was working at her coffee shop when a teenager approached, drew a gun and demanded money. Cornelsen, a 31-year-old firearm enthusiast who's been hunting since she was a young girl, was confident in her ability to defend herself. When another customer approached, the suspect hid his gun. Cornelsen took advantage of the opening, drawing a 9 mm Kel-Tec. She aimed it at the suspect and said, "You leave now!" He quickly complied. Cornelsen phoned police and a deputy who'd coincidentally just bought coffee from her made a quick U-turn and arrested the suspect. (Coeur d'Alene Press, Coeur d'Alene, ID, 12/30/09)

Two or three men forced their way inside a home. The intruders were wearing ski masks and gloves, leaving little doubt as to their malicious intent. To protect his wife, cousin and 1-year-old daughter, the homeowner quickly retrieved his handgun and opened fire on the intruders, who returned fire. One intruder died after being shot multiple times. At least one accomplice fled the scene and is still being sought. The homeowner was slightly injured in the assault, but will recover. (Corpus Christi Caller-Times, Corpus Christi, TX, 12/31/09)

First Amendment Confirms Freedom To Think For Ourselves

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ban on pre-election corporate and union political speech in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in January, we expected expressions of outrage from the speech ban crowd-but the venom, lies and intentional distortion by the media and self-serving politicians are truly shocking.

A Jan. 23, 2010 commentary in The Washington Post is typical. Columnist Ruth Marcus fumed, "In opening the floodgates for corporate money in election campaigns, the Supreme Court did not simply engage in a brazen power grab. It did so in an opinion stunning in its intellectual dishonesty."

"Intellectual dishonesty?" That defines the near universal reaction of media and anti-First Amendment politicians.

First ... here is what the court did not do. It did not remove the ban on direct contributions by corporations to candidates and campaigns. It did not-as President Barack Obama rudely shouted at the Supreme Court Justices invited to hear his State of the Union address reverse "a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests-including foreign corporations-to spend without limit in our elections."

Supported by two NRA "friend of the court" briefs, the landmark case involved a Federal Elections Commission (FEC) ruling that television spots promoting a 90-minute pay-per-view documentary critical of then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton a presidential candidate-violated the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The film, slated for 2008 pre-election DVD sales and on-demand cable broadcast, was produced by a Virginia non-profit corporation, Citizens United.

In terms of you and me, and our National Rifle Association, here is what the court actually did:

In its 5-4 decision, the high court struck down the onerous sections of SCRA that made it a felony-because we are a non-profit corporation-for the NRA to use dues or contributions to the association to pay for any broadcast that even obliquely refers to a federal candidate. Those criminal sanctions were locked in 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.

When Congress passed the gag order on our corporate speech, it exempted media corporations, and that special exception to censorship is gone as well deemed unconstitutional by the court.

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy nailed it in his majority opinion: "Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content."

Simply put, the corporate speech of the NRA cannot be treated differently from the corporate speech of CBS, NBC or The New York Times and The Washington Post or any other media outlet. If their speech is sacrosanct, so is ours.

Shockingly, during oral arguments, the government expanded the scope of its power beyond the "broadcast" limits of the actual wording of the law, saying the Obama administration could ban Internet expression and even books. Justice Kennedy said that, under BCRA, it would be a felony if " ... the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U.S. Senator supports a handgun ban .... "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech," Justice Kennedy wrote.

For us-for gun owners all across the nation-it is equally important to understand and explain to our friends and co-workers the flip side of the First Amendment: free choice.

Censorship-like the BCRA ban on paid political speech-has as much to do with the rights of listeners as it does the right of the speaker to put forth ideas. It is the heart of the First Amendment. As Justice Kennedy declared: "When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

Neither the media nor anti-Second Amendment politicians want voters to know this truth.

In the coming months, we must be prepared to counter the big-media propaganda that will saturate the public to turn Americans against the court and this remarkable decision.

It is all part of a white noise fog of lies to pave the way for an effort by the Obama administration and the likes of New York U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer to undermine this liberating decision. He is threatening a legislative fix that his staff says will include a speech ban on corporations that employ lobbyists. Schumer called the court's opinion "poisonous to our democracy ... un-American," and was joined by fellow constitutional termite, Rhode Island U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who sputtered: "Is it truly just a coincidence that this same bloc of judges just last year invented a new individual constitutional right to bear arms that no previous Supreme Court had noticed for more than 200 years, or is something else going on here? ... "

Well, senator, there is-it's called freedom from tyranny. And, like fighting attacks on the Second Amendment, the NRA will never back down in this landmark battle against censorship and in our efforts to defend the entire Bill of Rights.