Snowflakes in Hell

More anti-gun folks who can’t control their rage.  And yet they think they are qualified to control us?

Why do I get the feeling that Ray Schoenke at the Democratic National Convention is the fat kid in the school cafeteria that no one wants to sit with.  And for good reason:

Schoenke is in Denver this week making the rounds. He mingled with fellow sportsmen at Wednesday afternoon’s briefing with the National Wildlife Federation at the Curtis Hotel and admitted that his big idea — that a pro-conservation gun rights group can supplant the NRA — remains a tough sell to Democrats who’ve seen the fury of NRA members at the ballot box.

“The NRA is a formidable opponent, and people are concerned about that,” Schoenke said.

“The reaction is positive, but the idea is still new.”

Yeah, Ray, because we’re not stupid, and neither are most Democrats.  Maybe you could get traction if you weren’t, you know, a gun control group.  And where’s your outrage that your fellow Democrats arrested a hunter?  Schoenke and American Hunters and Shooters Association is more interested in selling the Democrats on his false flag operation than he is in sticking up for actual hunters.  That should tell you something.

So the Obama/Bayh bumper stickers were a leak to distract folks. It looks like it’s Joe Biden. So, like I did with Bayh, let’s look at Biden’s record. We don’t have to go far. Remember the YouTube debates where he said a gun owner was not “mentally qualified” to own guns for simply asking a question.

1. He takes pride in writing gun bans.
2. He’s F-rated with NRA - the worst among almost all of the most talked about candidates.
3. NRA highlights his recent threats to gun owners via his work on his Senate committee:
   

   NRA has been tracking the U.N.`s gun-ban activities for well over a decade, and thanks to the Bush administration`s appointees to the U.N., the U.S. position on any global gun-ban treaty has been consistent and uncompromising: Hands off the Second Amendment rights of American citizens!

   However, all that could change, now that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee–which approves or rejects our U.N. representatives and assesses international treaties for possible ratification–is chaired by anti-gun U.S. Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.

   Like Schumer, Biden is rated “F” by the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) for his countless votes against firearm freedom. Like Schumer, Biden voted to expose the lawful firearm industry to crippling lawsuits; to extend and expand the Clinton gun bans; to allow a ban on most hunting-rifle ammunition; and to deny the free-speech rights of groups like the NRA during elections.

   Now, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden can use his power to sabotage pro-freedom nominees for U.N. ambassador–as he did with Second Amendment defender John Bolton–and bully fellow senators into accepting whatever gun-ban treaty the U.N. concocts in the name of fighting international terrorism.

4. Needless to say, he didn’t sign on to the Heller brief and doesn’t support efforts to reform DC’s gun laws.

Biden is bad news all around for any gun owner. Pair him with Obama, and it’s a far left gun ban ticket.

Now that Drudge has likely leaked the identity of Obama’s running mate, there are a few things gun owners should know about him.

1. NRA rated him as D- in his last election.
2. One reason is because he’s a liar. Take this example:
   

   Sen. Bayh pledged last year [2004] to support legislation to block frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry, and NRA sent a letter to Indiana members encouraging them to thank him. Sen. Bayh failed to honor his pledge and voted for the Reed amendment to completely gut S.397. When the Reed substitute was soundly defeated 63 to 33, Bayh voted against final passage of the bill.

3. Bayh refused to sign on to legislation that would honor the Second Amendment rights of Washington, DC and would not sign on to an amicus brief in Heller with more than 54 of his colleagues in the Senate. It would seem he considers some to be more equal than others - a theme I’m sure Obama loves.
4. He doesn’t support concealed carry reciprocity across the country, as evidenced by his refusal to sign on to S.388. Nor did he join a majority of his colleagues in supporting honoring state laws on firearms possession in National Parks through letters to the Department of Interior.
5. He beat Paul Helmke’s ass in a landside - the largest a Democrat has ever won in an Indiana statewide election. No word on if that speaks to Paul’s suckitude or Bayh’s appeal. Based on what we see in the gun world, likely the former.

Bryan Miller seems to be taking the Mary McFate thing pretty hard.  I can’t really blame the anti-gun folks who feel betrayed.  I mean, imagine if you found out SayUncle was really a mole for Sarah Brady.  But none of us are really pissed at NRA over the whole “spy” incident, and it has nothing to do with wanting to preserve gun industry profits.  I worry about gun industry profits when I’m going to buy a new gun, not when I’m wearing my activist hat.

No, this is about preserving our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Are any tactics too despicable to prevent someone from undermining the very basis of natural and civic rights of the American people?  Would it be wrong to try to gain insider knowledge on a group of people who were intent on silencing newspapers, and ending all publishing in the United States?  What Bryan doesn’t understand, or perhaps he does understand and merely doesn’t want to acknowledge, is that we hold the Second Amendment right up there with the First in importance for maintaining a just and free society.  We demand the Second Amendment be respected.  We’re quite serious about it.  Serious enough that we’ll condone our own advocacy groups doing opposition research, even if it means being a little underhanded.  If that makes you upset, if that makes you paranoid, that’s not my problem.  My problem is the fact that you want to trash the Bill of Rights.

So says Marsha McCartney:

“When I first read about this, I couldn’t believe it was legal,” said Marsha McCartney, president of the Texas chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “It turns out it wasn’t.”

No, turns out that it is legal.  They are depending on school regulations governing the hiring of security personnel, which require them to be sworn officers if they are to be armed.

If a board of trustees authorizes a person employed as security personnel to carry a weapon, the person must be a commissioned peace officer.

Teachers are not hired security personnel, and the Texas state concealed carry statute is pretty clear on the matter.  Harold School District policy is a problem for the gun control movement, because we all know what’s going to happen if this policy is allowed to move forward: “A whole lotta nothing.”  They must convince the public the world will end if guns are allowed in schools — all it takes is a few contrary cases for the gig to be up.

I like the way David is thinking here.

Remember that the guy who pays for this billboard helped the found and was president of an organization that claims to represent hunters and shooters.

UPDATE: More from Robb.

From Dwight Lewis of The Tennessean:

Gun advocates can make me sick to my stomach.

Glad to oblige.

Robyn ran one of the few anti-gun blogs out there.  But she got tired of the Reasoned Discourse and quit blogging.  Jacob found an interview with her by CSGV.  She said blogging:

… was one of the most disheartening experiences I’ve ever had. Most of the comments I received were so mean and lacking in compassion and empathy it was hard to believe people would write such things. Death threats were common. When I wrote about children dying from gun violence, responders wrote that inner city children were not really children, but rather thugs and monsters. Racism and prejudice seemed to motivate a lot of the comments.

I recall the comment section there, and I recall a lot of facts being brought forth to refute her emotionally driven nonsense.  I also don’t recall any racism in the suggestion that, yes, some children, particularly the ones that belong to gangs, are indeed monsters.

If the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership isn’t against people owning guns, why are they gloating over the fact that one of McCain’s advisors got prosecuted for having an unloaded shotgun in his car in DC?  I would think in a world where people hunt, and shoot clays, a common pastime in DC politics, that it should be common and accepted, even by the Brady Campaign.

Unless, of course, you believe all guns should be illegal, and all hunters and shooters who transport their firearms in compliance with federal law (but maybe not DC’s now unconstitutional law), should be in jail.  Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership, Indeed.

The Brady’s have been milking the NRA spy scandal for all its worth.  Not really unexpected, but for all the hoopla, it doesn’t seem to be generating all that much public interest or outrage.

… but the Brady Campaign finally gets to say “I told you so.” You knows, in another 20 years maybe they’ll get to exploit a concealed carry permit holder shooting up a school.

I thought this would be an appropriate title to reflect my “bunker mentality.”  The Brady Campaign has fired a salvo in our direction.  Like I said, we have the inherent disadvantage of having our disagreements out in the open where everyone can see it.  Fortunately for us, the only people who read the Brady Blog are gun nuts.

I will not take exception to the Brady Campaign trying to paint us as extremist.  I would expect nothing less from them.  But I do take exception to the notion that the topic of revolt isn’t a legitimate one, not deserving of being seriously addressed.  How many dangerous ideas throughout history have taken root because people dismissed them as nonsense?  There are people out there who, misguidedly, in my opinion, believe our Republic is a lost cause.  I do not share this sentiment, but it’s out there.  I don’t think dismissing it outright is a productive way of dealing with it.

From Paul Helmke:

“It raises some real concerns with the tactics of the NRA. If they’ve got one person, maybe they have more. If they’ve done this dirty trick, what else have they done?” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, which planned to search its offices for listening devices and computer spyware.

Paul, seriously.  You’re giving way too much credit to NRA.  Listening devices?  Spyware?  Have you seen NRA’s web site recently Paul?  Trust me.  You won’t find anything.  If you do, then I’ll be the first one to bitch that such enormous technical talent is going to waste spying on the Bradys rather than giving NRA a really solid web presence.  I’ve never seen G. Gordon Liddy hanging out at NRA events.  I think you’re safe from bugs, black bag jobs, and various other malfeasance.  Relax, and enjoy some Tequila.

The Philly Inquirer naturally couldn’t resist covering this one:

“She must be very good at what she does, because a whole bunch of very smart people were completely hoodwinked by this,” said Diane Edbril, CeaseFire PA’s executive director between 2004 and 2007.

Edbril hosted McFate at her Radnor home in July 2007, when McFate flew up from her home in Sarasota to attend a CeaseFire PA board meeting.

“She was in my guest room. Was she looking through stuff in my house?” Edbril was asking herself yesterday.

Ona Hamilton, whose local Million Mom March group evolved into CeaseFire PA in 2002, asked McFate to be on CeaseFire PA’s first board. McFate at the time was a board member for Pennsylvanians Against Handgun Violence. Hamilton said McFate would rail against her fellow board members in that organization for being too soft on the NRA, Hamilton said.

The article later goes on to suggest that many feel she still helped the movement a good deal through hard work and good ideas.  As I said previously, that would be the main problem I would have doing something like this.  I’m not willing to help the other side to the degree needed to get that kind of information.

Nonetheless, as much as I might be sympathetic with Diane Edbril’s feelings of betrayal, attempting to destroy part of the Constitution of the United States and part of the Constitution of this commonwealth isn’t trivial business.  I am willing to accept quite a lot of harsh tactics, within the bounds of the law, in order to preserve it.

I thought the evil National Rifle Assocation made lawsuits like this illegal?

Looks like there was a mole in the gun control movement.  Usually when this kind of thing happens, paranoia sets in, and further people are suspected of being moles.  Hey Peter, Doug… Paul is a Republican.  From a very pro-gun state.  Haven’t you found that to be a little suspicious?  Just sayin.  If you want to find out the truth on this matter, I would suggest following these instructions.  My understanding is that it’s very effective.

But in all seriousness, I don’t know how much useful intelligence can actually be gleaned by this kind of activity.  I mean, the gun control groups aren’t exactly a secret society, and neither is the National Rifle Association.  Michael Moore is famously an NRA Life Member with an eye on getting other anti-gun folks to join and take over the organization.  It’s not a new idea.

I can’t say I really condone or approve of what McFate/Sapone did in this circumstance, mostly because, as a gun rights activist, I don’t really think whatever information can be gleaned from such activity is worth the amount of support I’d have to provide my political opponents to obtain it.  So says Bryan Miller:

The McFate operation, says Miller, “would confirm for me the way that the gun lobby works, which is no rules, no question of fairness or honesty. Anything that they can do they will do to protect the profits of the gun industry.”

Pot, meet kettle.  I agree with Bryan that tactics like this are dishonest, and not on the up and up, but there’s nothing fair or honest about politics, and the gun control movement has not exactly played clean and honest either.  Bryan, particularly, regularly misrepresents what legislation his organization supports is intended to do.  I would be happy to play the game clean… but if we did that, people would see the truth about gun control.  Can’t have that.

According to the Brady Campaign, the church shooter in Knoxville used a super-deadly high powered common bird gun to carry out his deadly rampage.   Far cry from what they were saying yesterday, which implied it was one of those super-scary Saiga-12s which, you know, fire the exact same shell.

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.

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.

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.

Joe Huffman finds a web site that looks at a possible inverse relationship between the Brady Campaign State Rankings and violent crime.  What happens in the comments isn’t something you’ll see the other side doing.  Ever.  Joe points out he came to the same conclusion with the 2004 Brady rankings.

Having no correlation may not be as good as an inverse relationship, but it’s still pretty damning to the gun control agenda.  If it can’t be shown to affect crime, why bother?  I still say their transition to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Suicide is a strategic move, but at least it’ll make them a bit more honest.