I just realized the CSGV disclosure of peoples real names makes sense if you have the correct world view. Perhaps they think of gun bloggers as superheroes and themselves as the bad guys.

The answer given is close but I think whatever college major people who end up as gun control activists would be far better.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is so “low on my radar” that I almost always ignore them. How many people do they have on staff? More than three? They claim they have 48 member organizations. I have not heard of about two thirds of them. And what political influence do they have? Can they send out a mailing and get more than 10 people to contact any politician or sway an election? I don’t think so.

They have a “sister organization” called “Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence” which is a 501(C)(3) corp. I looked them up on Charity Navigator and found this:

We don’t evaluate Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence.
Why not? We had previously evaluated this organization, but they are now filing the IRS Form 990 EZ as allowed under the Internal Revenue Code. Charity Navigator can not complete an evaluation for charities that file the 990 EZ because that form does not contain all the information we require.

The Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence is listed ( Primary Revenue Growth -11.5%). And so is the Violence Policy Center.

But I did find their IRS filing for 2009. They had total revenue of $372,600 with net assets or fund balances of $86,407. This is down from 2001 when they had a total revenue of $1,579,241 and net assets or fund balances of $316,274.

$372.6K in net revenue? Really? Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign has a yearly salary of nearly 70% ($258,828) of that.

I suppose that should explain some of their efforts recently. They just don’t have the resources to do anything of substance. [sarcasm]But they are really on their path to the big league by threatening a few bloggers.[/sarcasm]

But how do you explain this email from a week ago?

What are Gun Rights Groups so Afraid of?

If you ever needed evidence that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is having a powerful impact on the national conversation about gun violence, look no further. Just in the past week, gun rights groups have made several panicked attempts to counteract our work.

First, the NRA lashed out at CSGV in an editorial in the most recent issue of its flagship publication, America’s First Freedom. The editorial referred to a recent blog I published at the Huffington Post and was a desperate attempt to defend their view that the Constitution sanctions private political violence. Mocking my philosophy and “life’s work,” editor Blaine Smith compares American citizens in a constitutional republic to starving grizzly bears in the untamed wilderness of Alaska. You can read the NRA’s bizarre piece here.

Second, the National Shooting Sports Federation (NSSF) responded to a recent “countermarketing” strategy guide by our affiliate, the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (Ed Fund), with panicked threats of litigation. Our report educates activists about using the “buyer power” of cities to require gun manufacturers to implement marketing safeguards on firearms sales. In the face of this powerful new advocacy tool, the NSSF has resorted to blanket threats to sue any municipal government who tries to leverage their purchasing power to curb illegal gun trafficking.

Third, the Ed Fund placed prominent newspaper ads signed by 105 gun violence survivors during last weekend’s NRA convention in Pittsburgh. The survivors asked NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre to sit down and have a constructive dialogue about how to prevent gun violence in our country. When confronted face-to-face about the invitation to talk, however, LaPierre ran away!

Gun rights groups are clearly feeling the heat, and your gift today will help keep up the pressure. If you want to keep gun rights groups on the defensive, please support CSGV’s hard-hitting work.

Thank you for joining with us to take on the gun lobby,

Josh Horwitz
Executive Director

CSGV is having a powerful impact? It’s more like they are being made fun of as the village idiot.

Hard hitting work? I guess that would be finding out and reporting the real names of a couple of bloggers.

I say just ignore them. I’m sure all the politicians and courts do.

This is from an Australian reporter who attended the NRA Convention:

NRA defies hopes for gun control in America

ALI MOORE, PRESENTER: After the deadly shooting in Tucson, Arizona earlier this year which claimed six lives and injured a congresswoman, gun control advocates were convinced they’d have some weight behind their argument for tighter gun laws in the United States, and they say the US president is finally speaking up.
But there appears to be little tangible change to the gun culture in America. If anything, one of the most formidable political lobby groups, the National Rifle Association, appears to be more confident that it’s winning the fight against gun control.

…

LISA MILLAR: But while the enthusiasts keep turning up here and at the polling booths, it may be that the hopes of gun control advocates proof elusive yet again.

If it were convention for gay rights would they use words like, “The hopes of homophobes and gay bashers prove elusive yet again.”?

How can they not see their own bias and bigotry?

The anti-gun side uses the word “loophole”, as in “gun show loophole” to great advantage. I think we should adopt their tactic.

We don’t have a regulatory agency for speech, religion, assembly, or association so why do we have one for arms? The “F” in “ATF” exists only because of a loophole in U.S. law. We need to plug the loophole by unplugging the ATF from Federal funding.

If the states want their own regulatory agency then let them fund them and we will battle their existence and scope as needed in the courts.