Month: February 2008

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.

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.

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.