Anti-gun-rights groups took Paycheck Protection Program funds

[old lady new shooter]

This is terrible, anti-gun groups with millions of dollars in assets, took taxpayer funds intended to help small businesses, while lobbying to close gun stores and ranges during the pandemic. Below is the email sent by SAF today:

PAYCHECK PROTECTION FUNDS TO ANTI-GUN-RIGHTS GROUPS AN OUTRAGE
The Second Amendment Foundation today said the recent revelation that the anti-gun-rights Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence took a federal Paycheck Protection Loan worth up to $1 million, while working to keep gun stores closed is an “outrageous exploitation of the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights.”

The Brady group reported received between $350,000 and $1 million on April 10. Likewise, the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence reportedly accepted a loan worth between $150,000 and $350,000 in April, to meet payroll for 16 employees.

“SAF had to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars from contributors to file lawsuits during the coronavirus shutdowns to keep gun stores open as essential businesses so Americans could exercise their Second Amendment rights,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said.

Gottlieb is also chairman of SAF’s sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a grassroots political activism organization. That organization also had to raise funds from generous donors to continue its efforts to protect, rather than erode, the rights of American citizens.

“We didn’t take a penny of taxpayer money, nor did we even apply, because that simply would not have been appropriate,” he stated.

“On the other hand,” he added, “the Brady and Gifford groups fought to keep gun stores closed while taking taxpayer funds to stop people from being able to buy firearms and ammunition to protect themselves and their property from violence including rioters, looters and arsonists.”

“More appalling is the fact that, according to their latest tax returns, the Brady and Gifford organizations have several millions of dollars in assets,” Gottlieb noted. “They did not need any taxpayer money to keep their doors open.”

“This is yet another fraud committed by the gun prohibition lobby against the American people,” he said.​

 

[hso]

Lets spread this far and wide, but first we need to make sure that no one on our side (SAF didn't, but did anyone else) applied for and received that money.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Lets spread this far and wide, but first we need to make sure that no one on our side (SAF didn't, but did anyone else) applied for and received that money.

I will try to find out for AzCDL. Do you have a way to find out for NRA? And @bikerdoc can find out for VCDL?

 

[bikerdoc]

I'm on it tomorrow!

 

[FFGColorado]

Lets spread this far and wide, but first we need to make sure that no one on our side (SAF didn't, but did anyone else) applied for and received that money.

https://www.thetrace.org/2020/07/gun-companies-ppp-loans/

 

[Alex Clayton]

Any time they start throwing around "free money" they are going to get a lot of takers.

 

[bikerdoc]

VCDL is not involved

 

[old lady new shooter]

https://www.thetrace.org/2020/07/gun-companies-ppp-loans/

Good job on the research.

 

[old lady new shooter]

VCDL is not involved

I emailed AzCDL yesterday, no response yet, but I believe they are a 100% volunteer organization, so can't really expect immediate response.

 

[hso]

Let's stay focused on what Activism is about folks. I know it is easy to notice something and head off in a sidebar discussion, but save that for another thread so we can stay focused on the work that needs to be done.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Let's stay focused on what Activism is about folks. I know it is easy to notice something and head off in a sidebar discussion, but save that for another thread so we can stay focused on the work that needs to be done.

I understood your earlier comment to mean we should check whether any 2A groups took PPP funds. After reading the link posted by FFGColorado I would like to know what the consensus here is as to whether gun manufacturers taking PPP funds will be used against us by antis if we publicize that the gun control groups took.

 

[FFGColorado]

I understood your earlier comment to mean we should check whether any 2A groups took PPP funds. After reading the link posted by FFGColorado I would like to know what the consensus here is as to whether gun manufacturers taking PPP funds will be used against us by antis if we publicize that the gun control groups took.

MY point is, as a tax payer, there are LOTS of things/programs/institutions/etc that the Feds throw money at that many would have an objection to. Many organizations looked at the PPP program, saw they qualify and applied. I really doubt the Fed government would or should be in the censorship business.

 

[WrongHanded]

My first post on this thread was removed by a moderator. No hard feeling on that; it wasn't obviously directly related to the topic.

The intent behind it was that the PPP loans are seemingly being used by any organisation that can qualify for it. Even though many of them shouldn't qualify and/or don't need the money. The purpose of the program was to protect jobs and the employees who work them.

So whilst I understand that not everyone likes some of the "businesses" who are taking this money, that doesn't mean the money isn't doing what it was intended to do. And if qualifying for PPP was based on how individual citizens (or groups) felt about a particular "business", no one would be getting anything from PPP.

Basically, this isn't a battle gun owners should be trying to fight.

 

[hso]

that doesn't mean the money isn't doing what it was intended to do

Good point. While Antis won't want firearms manufacturers to be able to meet payroll, we won't want Anti organizations to be able to meet theirs. We need to understand the "good for the goose is good for the gander". How do we parse that? We'll, perhaps the tax status of the organization and the percentage of volunteers or the fact that the payroll "loans" being intended for small businesses vs. a not for profit not being a business (of course the payroll loans were intended to cover not for profits because the "right" not for profits would get a slice). We will have a difficult time attacking the Antis on this point because they qualify as much as any not for profit under the rules. We can attack them on the perception, but, again, we must be sure the major pro 2A not for profits didn't get money to cover staff payroll.

See how slippery this gets.

 

[SharpDog]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign

Shared

 

[hso]

Shared

What are we sharing?


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...election-while-taking-taxpayer-funds-n2572410

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence received between $350,000 and $1 million on April 10 to support 41 employees, according to the Small Business Administration. The center is the educational arm of the Brady organization, which also features a political advocacy arm, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, as well as the political action committee Brady PAC. In March, the Brady PAC endorsed presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and announced it would spend $4 million to help elect him and other gun-control candidates to office.

Liam Sullivan, a spokesman for the Brady Center, defended the loans, saying that the pandemic had affected the organization's funding and caused it to cancel major fundraising events, including its annual gala.

"Like other nonprofits, the Brady Center is funded by giving and fundraising events, both of which obviously have been impacted and will be impacted for the foreseeable future," he said. "We just applied and were approved, obviously, under the same sort of criteria as others with concerns for payroll."

Sullivan also emphasized that the Brady Center and Brady PAC are legally separate groups and the Brady Center is not involved in election spending. It is, however, common for money to be moved between aligned organizations like the Brady Center, Campaign, and PAC. Federal records show the Brady PAC paid the Brady Campaign more than $50,000 for use of its staff and travel reimbursements in April, and the Brady Center reported owing the Brady Campaign more than $1.1 million in 2015.

The SBA documents also show that other major gun-control advocates have benefited from the PPP program, which was designed to help small businesses stay afloat during coronavirus shutdowns. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the educational arm of Giffords, accepted a loan worth between $150,000 and $350,000 on April 28 in order to meet payroll for 16 employees. Giffords, which did not respond to a request for comment, announced a nationwide tour supporting gun-control candidates that appears to be spearheaded by its advocacy arm. The group said it would spend a "six figure sum in online engagement" on the tour alone.

"This is the year we will elect a gun safety majority in the Senate," former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, cofounder of the group, said in a statement.

A Free Beacon review of the Small Business Administration records did not find listings for PPP loans given to prominent gun-rights groups, though the disclosures only include loans of more than $150,000. The National Rifle Association, which has struggled during the pandemic and even had to lay off a significant number of staff members, confirmed that none of its arms had taken any PPP loans. Alan Gottlieb, whose gun-rights organization has an education and advocacy arm, said no part of his organization took PPP loans because he believed it was unethical to do so.

"As chairman of the Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, since one of the arms is political, I would not have applied for it," Gottlieb told the Free Beacon. "I don't think it's appropriate."

Gottlieb called on the gun-control groups to return the money they received from the program.

"I find it appalling they applied for, took, and even got PPP loans," he said. "The Brady Center and Giffords should give the money back. Gun owners in this country shouldn't have their tax dollars used to support groups that want to take their guns away."

Other political groups have returned loans following public disclosure. The Florida Democratic Party announced that it would return a PPP loan worth more than $700,000 after public backlash, according to the Miami Herald.

 

[hso]

I really doubt the Fed government would or should be in the censorship business.

That is valid point, but lobbying organizations, while they have employees that need to be paid, are engaged in politics that by their very nature would apply to all citizens and that not all citizens will support. As such no lobbying group, be it ILA or Giffords, should be receiving taxpayer support regardless of what politics they advocate. My support of one lobbying organization shouldn't involve your tax dollars and vice versa.

 

[old lady new shooter]

That is valid point, but lobbying organizations, while they have employees that need to be paid, are engaged in politics that by their very nature would apply to all citizens and that not all citizens will support. As such no lobbying group, be it ILA or Giffords, should be receiving taxpayer support regardless of what politics they advocate. My support of one lobbying organization shouldn't involve your tax dollars and vice versa.

Have you been able to find out whether NRA or any of its offshoots took PPP money?

 

[old lady new shooter]

lobbying organizations, while they have employees that need to be paid, are engaged in politics that by their very nature would apply to all citizens and that not all citizens will support. As such no lobbying group, be it ILA or Giffords, should be receiving taxpayer support regardless of what politics they advocate. My support of one lobbying organization shouldn't involve your tax dollars and vice versa.

^^^^^^^
This.

 

[hso]

Have you been able to find out

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...election-while-taking-taxpayer-funds-n2572410

 

[old lady new shooter]

OK, so Townhall published the story, and obtained and included the NRA information.

Thanks for following up.

 

[hps1]

That is valid point, but lobbying organizations, while they have employees that need to be paid, are engaged in politics that by their very nature would apply to all citizens and that not all citizens will support. As such no lobbying group, be it ILA or Giffords, should be receiving taxpayer support regardless of what politics they advocate. My support of one lobbying organization shouldn't involve your tax dollars and vice versa.

The key here is [QUOTE_hso]We'll, perhaps the tax status of the organization[/QUOTE]. It is a violation of federal law for a Not for Profit corporation to fund political anything.

I once was told (by the NRA area rep) to take down a banner with nothing but the words of the 2nd Amendment at a Friends of NRA fund raiser banquet as it could be classified as a political statement and jeopardize the NFP status of the Foundation.

Regards,
hps