Compromises

I know some of you might be shocked to hear an NRA board member say Compromises Do Not Work, but that’s what Tom King is trying to do with one guy that goes by the alias “Gman”.  Gman is one of the disenfranchised souls that is disappointed Harlan Carter managed to wrest control of the NRA in the 1977 “Cinncinatti Revolt”.

It’s generally been my experience that, unless you’re the type that thrives on politics, the more understanding of the process that you have, the less you trust it.  Gman says this, in regards to Tom’s last post on ballistic imaging and microstamping:

Don’t be shocked, but I happen to agree 110% with you on this one…and would like to take a step back to my post on microstamping. Because it would seem to me to be pretty much the same logical principle; that it really does not aid in apprehending a criminal, even if the gun is ID’ed. It just adds expense. The new evidence on imaging should help make the case for microstamping moot up in the Capitol.

It really seems to me to be a no-brainer. And I would think that it would be one of those issues that would be fairly simple to head off early in the legislative process by a fairly clear explanation; that is, an issue that the legislative liaison folks could take care of, alleviating the information overload on Joe Sixpack gun owner.

My response to that is one should never assume the legislative process involves a bunch of smart, well meaning people sitting around trying to fix real problems with real solutions. Think of the opposite of that, and you have the legislative process. This isn’t about the utility microstamping has in crime solving, it’s being pushed by the gun control groups because it will drive the cost of guns up, and drive some manufacturers who won’t be able to afford to add this to their production process to either close shop if they manufacture in-state, or sacrifice the market in a large state (like New York and California).  The gun control groups don’t give a whit if it never solves a single crime, beause it’s about increasing the regulatory burden on the gun industry, driving prices up, and putting a damper on the market.

Politicians will go along with this if they think they can go back to their constitents, and talk about all the wonderful things they are doing to fight crime.  This is why you can’t rely on liasons, you have to educate people, tie these issues together, so that gun owners understand what they are up against, and will tell their legislators that they want none of this nonsense.

VPC And Gun Laws

A few things about SayUncle’s quote of the day.  I’ve long beleived that while Brady Campaign (and HCI before the name change) was more strategically savvy, in that they realized that politically, they had a long way to go before a total ban on handguns, and thus decided on an incrimental approach, VPC was much better at tatical political battles.  The Brady Campaign might have realized that assault weapons were a great bit of incrementalism, but it was Sugarmann who understood what “assault weapons” really were, and came up with the strategy to decieve the public make the ban happen.

For the most part, I think the Brady Campaign is often generally clueless about guns and in many cases our guns laws.  I’ve actally always been somewhat impressed by Sugarmann’s depth of understanding of the issue, that I haven’t seen an analouge for on the Brady’s side. Dr. Strangegun is correct; the VPC knows what’s it’s doing, and I’m sure believe that the ends justify the means.

Seriously?

Bloomberg joined the NRA?  They say that Jesus must be in prison, since so many people find him there.  It would seem that analogy would apply to gun rights, and Mayors of New York City who decide to run for president.  We’re not going to be fooled, though.

Interesting Heller Development

From the docket for DC v. Heller:

Feb 11 2008     Motion of the Solicitor General for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as  amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Feb 11 2008     Motion of Texas, et al. for leave to participate in oral  argument as amici curiae and for divided argument, and, in the  alternative, for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.

So the Solicitor General is asking for oral arguments to be extended, so he has a chance to present the Administration’s position.  I asked Dave Hardy what this meant, and he replied:

[An] enlargement of time, which probably means neither side was willing to give him theirs.(Understandable, when you’ve only got 30 minutes, and this guy is only half on your side).

The plot thickens. I’m going to hope The Court denies the motion, but I suspect the SG will get to present his position.

Employers and Guns

Clayton has some thoughts up.  I tend to agree with the approach of using liability laws to try to change these practices.  Companies institute these policies in the first place to avoid being sued in the event someone goes postal.  “Hey, we had a policy, it wasn’t our fault!” kind of thing.  Yes, to employers that do this, not being sued is more important to them than your personal security.  Altering liability laws changes that equation for them, without outright forcing employers to accept certain practices on the part of employees.

A Bit on 501(c)(3) and VPC’s FFL

There seems to be a meme going around the VPC is somehow violating its status as a 501(c)(3) organization.  I would encourage everyone to examine the IRS requirements in this regard:

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

What are exempt purposes?

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.  The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

VPC is in no way jeopardizing it’s tax exempt status by merely holding a Federal Firearms License.  If VPC were selling firearms at retail, which one can be pretty sure they are not, then they would be engaging in a non-exempt activity which would draw their tax status into question.  If they hold a federal firearms license for purposes related to one of the exempted activities, then that is just fine by the IRS.

Dealer Regulations

There’s a lot of talk about whether someone should go to jail for the VPC’s FFL issuance.  I should clarify, there’s no criminal penalty for ATF issuing the license improperly.  There could be one for VPC, if their zoning is specifically not commercial, which Countertop mentioned it probably is, under DC’s screwed up zoning:

First, DC zoning laws are weird both in their history, their structure and language, because of the role the neighbor hood advisory council’s play.  Second, there is no way in hell this cant be deemed a commercial zone. Check Google Maps out. Rhode Island, M Street, Connecticut Ave, and 18th Street all meet at that intersection. Its perhaps the most concentrated commercial cooridor and/or intersection in all of DC.

He’s the attorney, so I’ll take his word for it here.  The requirements for issuance of dealer licenses are covered by 27 CFR 178.47, and they require submission of ATF Form 5300.37, Certification of Compliance with State and Local Law:

(6) The applicant has filed an ATF Form 5300.37 (Certification of Compliance with State and Local Law) with ATF in accordance with the instructions on the form certifying under the penalties of perjury that–
(i) The business to be conducted under the license is not prohibited by State or local law in the place where the licensed premises are located;
(ii) Within 30 days after the application is approved the business will comply with the requirements of State and local law applicable to the conduct of business;
(iii) The business will not be conducted under the license until the requirements of State and local law applicable to the business have been met; and
(iv) The applicant has completed and sent or delivered ATF F 5300.36 (Notification of Intent to Apply for a Federal Firearms License) to the chief law enforcement officer of the locality in which the premises are located, which indicates that the applicant intends to apply for a Federal firearms license. For purposes of this paragraph, the “chief law enforcement officer” is the chief of police, the sheriff, or an equivalent officer.

So obviously there’s quite a few things that VPC would have certify under penalty of perjury.  Note that ATF accepts reasons for having a “dealer” license other than dealing firearms.  Gunsmiths also qualify for an FFL as well.  Did VPC commit a crime here?  It’s hard to say.  The DC code allows for the licensing of dealers and gunsmiths, as long as they aren’t involved in manufacturing or repair of unregisterable firearms (e.g. pistols).  Of course, DC has its own licensing requirements for dealers, which is something else to look into.

Pennsylvania Emergency Powers Bill

Couldn’t get this up earlier because of the server crash, but Pennsylvania has an emergency powers bill that needs our support:

Today, Senate Bill 1172, Pennsylvania’s “Emergency Powers” legislation, sponsored by State Senator Robert Robbins (R-50), was passed unanimously by the State Senate.  The bill now heads to the State House of Representatives for consideration.

SB 1172 will protect our Second Amendment rights by prohibiting any government agency from confiscating or regulating the lawful sale, possession, transfer, transport and carry of firearms during a state of emergency, such as occurred in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Please contact your State Representative today and urge him or her to protect our Second Amendment rights by supporting SB1172.  To find your State Representative, please click here.

Excellent.

VPC Zoning for FFL

Over at Red’s Trading Post, Ryan Horsley looks up VPC’s zoning in DC and discovers:

Permits matter-of-right medium/high density development including all kinds of residential uses, with limited offices for non-profit organizations, trade associations and professionals permitted as a special exception requiring approval of the BZA, to a maximum lot occupancy of 80% for residential use, a maximum FAR of 6.0 for residential and 3.5 for other permitted uses, and a maximum height of ninety (90) feet.

So it appears that this address is not zoned for commercial use and whereas a Federal Firearms License is for the purpose of buying and selling firearms, this license does not meet with the City’s zoning requirements.

I wonder if the BATFE Washington Field Division is aware of this.

Oh, I have little doubt there is someone who should know better that’s aware of this, since they not only obtained, but have kept their license when a lot of other “kitchen table” dealers were put out of business. I think someone at ATF called in a favor for VPC. There should be an investigation to find out how they got special treatment.

UPDATE: This is pretty damned funny.