Mom's Against Guns Getting Free Ad Space

[Sebastian]

Brick,

The tax angle is an astute observation. We're looking into that angle. We'll have more on it tomorrow, I'm hoping.

[jmiro]

I emailed them to inform them that i felt there adds were untasteful and i would not support anything advertised on their boards until a remedy is found. Yes i spell checked that email.

[GunLawyer001]

Being pro-gun-control is sufficiently "controversial" that the Democrats have been forced to hide it since at least 1994, when their votes for the AWB caused them to lose control of Congress.

It's sufficiently controversial that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been forced to pretend to be guardians of American's gun rights.

It's the 3rd rail of American politics, right there with cutting Social Security and banning abortion.

On any Top Ten list of "controversial topics", gun control appears.

Speaking as a private citizen, I would view any advertising entity that claims to view "gun control" as "non-controversial" as a lying propagandist, and that would taint my view of every other claim made by them or on their media. Anyone advertising through them would acquire a taint that might well outweigh any benefits of such advertising.

[ccphilly1984]

Originally Posted by gbrown221

TEAM LIFE WHO JUST HOSTED THE UTAH CFP CLASS IN BUCKS COUNTY IS

501(C)3

how can we help :-)

:-)

and we would be glad to help PAFOA establish 501(C)3 status if they allready are not

help out the cause. you are very clever... let's work on it... who's the head moderator/creator of thsi site?

[625]

Poor libs. As usual, their heart is in the right place, but their brain is not. They just don't get it. New laws, that by default, criminals don't care about, will do nothing. We need education, enforcement, prosecution, incarceration. Why isn't the founder of this joke of an organization pissed off by the fact that her fellow inner city libs do next to nothing to enforce the current laws?

[Sebastian]

Update for today is that we discovered MAG is not organized as a 501(c)(3). They are, in fact, an LLC. Meaning they are for-profit corporation. That's not the end of the story. More to come.

[gnbrotz]

Wow - great job! Thanks for digging into this.

[Sebastian]

Bitter had a nice chat with Clear Channel, who were unaware that they have donated a number of boards to a for-profit LLC. It would seem they are trying to figure out how to deal with this. It is our hope that they will rescind the donation.

[acosenza2]

Clear Channel does have the right to do whatever they want with their own billboards. They are a private group and it is their property. With that being said, I also support our 1A rights and we can blast them and bombard them as much as we can in order to let them know that law abiding, gun owning, voting citizens who are active in their communities are taking notice. So while it is their right to do what they want with their billboards it is our right to make life a bit harder for them.

Anthony

[Brick]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

Update for today is that we discovered MAG is not organized as a 501(c)(3). They are, in fact, an LLC. Meaning they are for-profit corporation. That's not the end of the story. More to come.

Good Work! That makes things very interesting, so much so in fact that it should be made public so possible advertising carriers know that this is not a non-profit organization and just like the NRA MAG should be paying for their advertising space! Also contributions are not tax deductible and although they aren't forbidden from endorsing political candidates, they are subject to the same laws as any other person, including McCain - Feingold Campaign Law so they have to shut up within 30(?) days of the Presidential election.

KUDOS to Sebastian and Bitter!

After reading Bitter's blog, the thought struck me, is it possible to pass this story on to the Philly or other Pennsylvania regional news media?