Looks like he’s having his say in Bitter’s comments. It looks like he’s distancing himself from previous comments. He’s still not getting my vote.
Category: Guns
Clear Channel & Moms Against Guns
Bitter managed to talk to Clear Channel about the MAG advertising campaign. Seems they plead ignorance to the exact nature of Moms Against Guns:
So, ignorance is no excuse, right? I would agree with that to a point. We all have biases. What concerns me is how this got so far – 30+ freakin’ billboards (which Clear Channel did acknowledge were mostly donated by them since Interstate is a smaller company) – without someone raising an alarm. That, they agreed, needed to be investigated internally. That’s refreshing honesty.
But the real meat of it is this:
So the next step was for Clear Channel’s rep to call the lead Mom who, it turns out, is self funding the group. Only that conversation lead her to discover that the group isn’t registered as a charity at all. It’s registered as an LLC, and they have no intent of going for non-profit status.
This was a bit of a shock to them. Clear Channel was lead to believe they were doing a PSA for a charitable organization. Yet, instead, their donations have been used for political advocacy for essentially a business. There will no doubt be more to come of this, and I know I am on their call list when they get it resolved.
But, for kicks, here’s another layer to this huge legal misunderstanding, I do actually know of a group that has a huge ad campaign with Clear Channel right now, though in another market. I think I’ll save most of that news for tomorrow in case there are developments to that story.
Read the whole thing though. Bitter has done a fine job not only as an amateur journalist, but in wielding her influence and PR acumen skillfully. We’re very much hoping that Clear Channel Outdoors pulls their advertising campaign for Moms Against Guns. Getting pressure from the greater community certainly has helped in this case, so thanks to everyone who called or e-mailed. If you haven’t already, feel free to call your local Clear Channel Outdoors office and inform them that you are unhappy. Especially if you own a business that purchases outdoor advertising. Let’s make sure they do the right thing here.
Quote of the Day
From the Mayor of San Francisco:
“[NRA is against] anything that restricts the opportunity for a guy who gets cut off in traffic from pulling out a hand gun and almost assassinating an entire family, as was the case a few days ago in San Francisco, where three people were gunned down. That somehow that is appropriate and wonderful and that person celebrated his freedom to carry a loaded pistol.”
It should be noted that the illegal immigrant who murdered the family had two prior felony convictions. But according to Mayor Newsom, it’s NRA’s fault. It’s not his fault, for running a city that’s incapable of controlling crime. It’s not the State of California’s fault, for making sure everyone except felons is appropriate disarmed from protecting themselves. It’s certainly not the federal government’s fault for a failed immigration policy. Nope, it your fault. It’s my fault. It’s anyone’s fault except for the people who’s fault it actually is. It’s like a two year old who blames his little brother for breaking the expensive china.
The Plot Thickens
So if Moms Against Guns is not a non-profit group, and is a corporation, what is the deal behind Clear Channel Outdoors and Interstate Outdoor Advertising donating billboards to them? Are these two companies aware they just made a major donation to a for-profit corporation?
That would lead me to believe that Clear Channel Outdoors and Interstate Outdoor Advertising are simply going out of their way to screw Pennsylvania gun owners in the November 2008 elections.
More on the Billboard Campaign of MAG
Moms Against Guns: Violating IRS Tax Code
Yesterday we reviewed the very large donation by Clear Channel Outdoors and Interstate Advertising to Moms Against Guns. MAG is incorporated as a non-profit under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS tax code. [UPDATE: They are not incorporated as a 501(c)(3), but rather, as a limited liability company. In other words, they are a for-profit corporation. This is very very unusual, needless to say.] This essentially means that MAG is limited in the amount of lobbying activity it may do. Typically these may not exceed 15% of donations. Electioneering on the part of a (c)(3) is completely forbidden by the IRS tax codes.
I would note from the Inquirer article yesterday:
The billboards will stay up through November’s elections – just long enough, the group says, for voters to elect candidates willing to crack down on illegal guns.
This is electioneering under IRS rules because they are trying to influence the outcome of elections. Also from the article:
The group is working on getting 50,000 signatures for a petition on its Web site (http://www.momsagainstguns.org) urging state lawmakers to pass tougher gun laws. The petition has nearly 4,500 so far.
Petitioning the legislature would probably be considered lobbying by the IRS, which means the billboards are meant to get people to sign the petition, and fall under the category of lobbying. It’s worth noting that the going market rate for these billboards is considered the amount of the donation being made to MAG on the part of Clear Channel and Interstate. This means if this amount is in excess of about fifteen MAG’s total donations for the year, they are in violation of the tax codes.
This is important, because gun rights groups follow the rules on these matters, so MAG is abusing its tax status to get an unfair leg up in an election they, by law, should not even be participating in. The IRS is currently cracking down on this kind of abuse under it’s Political Activities Compliance Initiative. I’m going to ask everyone to please visit the IRS website that has the information required to report violations by tax exempt organizations, and report Moms Against Guns.
If MAG gets their 501(c)(3) tax status revoked, they will be forced to track down all their donors, and inform them that their donations for the year will not be tax deductible. This is usually the kiss of death for a non-profit. You have a chance here to contribute to killing off a gun control group, folks. The gun control groups love to try to pass laws that subject the shooting community to poking and prodding by government agents. When the IRS is probing into orafices MAG was never even aware they had, you can sit back and enjoy the fact that they’ve had a taste of their own medicine.
UPDATE: Hold on Folks. We may have all been mislead here.  MAG seems to be incorporated as a business entity rather than a non-profit charity.
UPDATE: Yes, Moms Against Guns is a corporation, not a non-profit.
UPDATE: See this post.
Anti-Gun Outdoor Writer to Run for NRA Board
We need to make sure this guy never gets on the board. Pat Wray has been highlighted on the gun blogosphere before when he stood up for Jim Zumbo’s statements about “assault weapons”. Needless to say, he’d be a long shot. He’d have to run by petition, because there’s no way the nominating committee is going to give him space on the ballot, but keep in mind, there are NRA members who don’t know much about Wray, other than his outdoor writings. It’s never a good idea to take this stuff for granted, so I’m glad Bitter found this tidbit.
Does the NRA Get a Free Billboard Too?
Mom’s Against Guns are being given free billboards in Philadelphia:
The billboards come free from Clear Channel Outdoor Philadelphia and Interstate Outdoor Advertising, two locally based firms.
“We didn’t think a billboard was going to make a difference,” said Drew Katz, chief executive officer of Interstate. “Thirty billboards might make a difference.”
The slew of billboards reflects a sense of urgency as gun violence continues to claim lives.
Here’s contact information for Clear Channel Outdoors. Here is the contact information for Interstate Outdoor Advertising. Be sure to let them know you think if they are going to give free advertising space to gun control groups they should offer the same to gun rights organizations like the NRA Foundation.  Be sure to spread this around the forums too, we certainly want these two companies to feel the heat.
UPDATE: Bitter is looking for more ideas for billboard advertising.
We’re Winning
A great article in the Boston Globe about Olympic shooter Stephen Scherer, which is very fair to the shooting sports, and presents it in a positive light.
The Balance
Armed and Safe takes issue with Uncle’s old post about a certain demographic of people who, politically, it is unwise to frighten. It is correct in one respect, that if we merely defer to people’s comfort level, we’ll end up like gun owners in the United Kingdom, who constantly did so, until that comfort level dropped to the point where sharp pointy things drive their political elite into hysterics. We absolutely can’t defer to people’s discomfort when that discomfort is caused by ignorance and unfamiliarity, as is quite often the case with our cause.
The problem we ultimately face is, more than half our population fall into the category of being completely ignorant of firearms, and the broader culture that surrounds them. In a representative form of government, this means we’re dependent on the acquiescence of this majority for the continued protection of that right. If we lose that acquiescence, even the second amendment will not practically be a barrier to them.
I see no reason to increase the inevitability of that by essentially writing off the majority of the population as unpersuadable and uneducatable, by not thinking about how to tailor the pro-gun and pro-self-defense message so that a majority buy-in to our ideas. If changes in polling on support for gun control and gun rights are any indication, 9/11 and Katrina did quite a lot to convince Americans of the need for self-protection. The gun rights side of the argument has been advancing, as people have seen Americans face situations where having a firearm might have been useful.
Uncle’s admonition shouldn’t be taken as a call to never push the boundaries, but it does suggest that attempting to crash through them can lead to disaster politically. The Civil Rights Movement committed to changing hearts and minds, and changing their political fortunes by working within the system. It is a tragedy that the role armed self-defense played in the Civil Rights Movement has largely been lost to history. We have to tell that part of the story. But if the Black Panthers, who called for settling the issue through violence, had been the public face of the Civil Rights Movement, it would not have garnered the support it needed from mainstream Americans in order to get the landmark civil rights rulings, and subsequent civil rights acts.
In a functional and stable Republic, which largely respects the basic rights of its people, the population is going to abhor violence, or the threat of violence, as a means to solve political problems. We’ve seen how well that type of system works in Iraq and Afghanistan. There has to be a balance in the gun rights movement between our public rhetoric and our private beliefs. If someone wants to polish their marksmanship, or learn about explosives, shaped charges, infantry tactics, and various other subjects, I think that’s their right as a free person. But the moment the public believes we gun folks are learning these things to use violence as a political tool they are going to want to disarm us all in order to preserve the stability of The Republic.