Snowflakes in Hell

“We’d still be holding the Alamo if the TSRA National Match Team had been there.”

Looks like this company is trying to revive the Gyrojet.  This is going to get people killed.  It’s a stupendously bad idea to mix lethal and non-lethal capabilities in the same weapon.  No one wants to be on the receiving end of “Ooops, I though I had it set to stun.”  Let’s not even think about if the velocity is dependent on distance, what happens to someone behind your target.

Just because Star Trek came up with the idea, doesn’t mean it’s a good one.

Authorities in Nassau County have seized the guns of a man who rubbed McCarthy’s office the wrong way:

An outspoken Long Island gun owner’s home was raided by Nassau County detectives, who seized two dozen weapons he lawfully owns just one day after Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s office made a 911 call about him.

Freeport resident Gabriel Razzano claims he was targeted in the spring raid for his “unpopular” political beliefs.

He’s now filed a $5 million federal lawsuit against the Nassau PD and McCarthy, charging they joined forces to strip him of his guns unconstitutionally.

I mean, if he threatened her, or made threats, I would imagine they can charge him with something.  If not, this he might have some grounds to his suits.  Tom King, President of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, is on Cam’s show right now saying this guy is outspoken, but not crazy, and definitely didn’t threaten anyone in McCarthy’s office.

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.

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.

Obama may not be old enough to be president.

h/t The Volokh Conspiracy

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.

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.

Bitter has more on this whole thing.

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.

NRA-PVF has gotten behind the campaign of Monica Douglas, who is attempting to unseat Representative David Levdansky.  We hope Ms. Douglas is successful in her bid, because it would be a huge boost for gun rights in Pennsylvania.

If you would like to volunteer for her campaign, and I think you should if you can, you can go here.

In the Chicago Tribune.  It’s easy to raise money when everyone thinks you’re the local animal shelter, rather than a radical animal rights activist group.