Unbelievable VPC hypocrisy--Help ensure VPC's shambolic FFL renewal is DENIED

Status
Not open for further replies.
The gloves are now off. If our direct appeals to BATFE and the IRS go unheard, perhaps our congressmen and women can help. With the blessing of THR's administrators, I intend to send the following letter to each congressional signatory of the Heller amicus brief--all 300+ of them--on behalf of the forum.

If you would be interested in helping out with the emailing, please IM me with the number of legislators you would be willing track down (multiples of 10, please).

I will leave it here for comment tonight, and may revise it in the morning after giving it further thought. Although I believe brevity may be the key to success, I may consider adding additional material.

Please do not hesitate to make suggestions if you see awkward prose, typographical errors, or for any other reason.
---------------------------------------

Dear <Dr./Mr./Ms.> <CONGRESSPERSON>:


Thank you for your recent support of the fundamental enumerated Constitutional rights of American citizens! By signing the amicus brief submitted before the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Dick Anthony Heller's right to private firearm ownership, you have unequivocally demonstrated your commitment to the liberties that distinguish America from the mass of less free societies that fail to recognize the value of individual autonomy.

Although I wish I could end my letter here on an upbeat congratulatory note, an urgent matter has come to my attention that I believe would be of great interest to you and your staff. Joshua A. Sugarmann, director of the D.C. based Violence Policy Center, an anti-rights organization responsible for filing one of the amicus briefs in support of the District's handgun prohibition, has seen fit to illegally exempt himself from the laws he has aggressively lobbied to impose upon the citizens of D.C.

With the knowledge and tacit consent of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Sugarmann holds an unlawful federal firearms license qualifying him as a dealer of firearms, thereby allowing him to circumvent the de facto DC handgun ban for his own private purposes. See DC ST § 7-2502.01 (b)(2). His complete license number is: 1-54-000-01-8C-00725.

Sugarmann's hypocrisy is noteworthy for only two reasons: First, he appears to be in violation of virtually every law and regulation relating to the issuance of firearms dealership licenses on the books; second, his organization bears the brunt of the responsibility for prompting strict enforcement of said laws and regulations.

Sugarmann's hysterical 1992 publication "More Gun Dealers Than Gas Stations," which called for aggressive limitations on individuals seeking federal licensure, was widely circulated in Congress and resulted in the BATF establishing significant obstacles for the grant and renewal of federal firearms licenses nationwide. Pursuant to Sugarmann's recommendations, the BATF has for many years required that individuals seeking a dealership license satisfactorily demonstrate (among other things) that the licensee:

a) be a dealer, defined as either "any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or any person who is a pawnbroker. 44 USC § 921(a)(11)(A-C). Dealers, and dealer activities, are further defined in 44 USC § 921(a)(21)(A-D). The effect is to preclude the grant or renewal of a license to anyone who does not operate a bona fide firearms business enterprise.

b) and that "the business to be conducted under the license is not prohibited by State or local law in the place where the licensed premise is located." That is to say, the license holder's premises be zoned for commercial retail sales.

c) and further that "the applicant has not willfully failed to disclose any material information required, or has not made any false statement as to any material fact, in connection with his application."

Sugarmann fails on all counts. Efforts to reach him to discuss firearms transactions and gunsmithing services have been ignored or rudely rebuffed; a cursory analysis of the District's zoning maps reveals that Sugarmann's premises are not appropriately zoned; and it defies belief that Sugarmann could be ignorant of his statutory duty to disclose that neither he, nor his organization, legitimately deal in firearms or related services.

How could this happen? Why is Sugarmann exempt from the laws that bind every other American? Why does the BATF idly renew his fraudulent license year after year?

Please help put an end to this travesty. Sugarmann has the constitutional right to mock our freedoms before our nation's highest court, but he is not exempt from our laws. His illegally obtained firearms license will be up for renewal on 1 March 2008, and without prompt attention, BATF will "rubber stamp" it as it has many times before.

Whereas my voice may be lost in the bureaucratic cacophony, yours will resonate. It will only take a few minutes of your time. Please contact the BATF, and ask why they at the Bureau feel Joshua Sugarmann is above the law. If the answer you receive does not satisfy you--demand that his license be denied. I realize this legislative session is an exceptionally busy time, but your attention--however brief--will go a long way toward ensuring that those who seek to deny Americans the rights the Framers intended can never claim "all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Kindest regards,
[RKH] (for the membership of TheHighRoad.org)
 
Last edited:
I just don't see how his nonprofit organization is involved.
Click to expand...
His nonprofit organization is listed as the business address for his FFL.
That's pretty involved.
Especially as that address may (currently being investigated) not be zoned for business.
Consider also: the local CLEO must be notified that a firearms business is operated at that location. That makes the local CLEO at least questionable in this increasingly dubious operation.
 
Sugarmann's hypocrisy is only noteworthy for only two reasons
Click to expand...

Too many "onlys". Do you need any of the onlys? I'd just say "Sugarmann's hypocrisy is noteworthy for two reasons" It's probably noteworthy for more than two!
 
I appreciate the proof-reads.

Tomorrow I plan to insert another couple of paragraphs regarding the impossibility of opening/operating an actual gun store in DC, and contrasting that to the latitude afforded to Sugarmann. I may even work in the "corrupt official" brief filed in Heller.

Please check back if you'd like to help.

On a related note, does anyone know if there exist any actual gun stores in DC? I can't find any, and what the heck is a "Firearms Litigation Clrnghse?"
Is that short for clearinghouse, or some sort of strange Welsh-language word?
 
Last edited:
It might interest you to know how this information is going over on the Brady/Huffpo blog. So far, except for a warning from the infamous Kelli to "tread lightly", nuttin' but crickets. Not a word from the antis.

That's a good thing. I prefer my antis quiet. :D
 
Heck, I would just as soon they speak up and identify themselves.

May those who love us love us,
and those who do not love us,
may God turn their hearts,
and if He cannot turn their hearts
may He turn their ankles
that we may know them by their limping.
~Irish Prayer
 
I'm all for writing the letter--and your current version is a masterful presentation of political rhetoric--but doesn't need expansion but contraction, IMO.

Set your WP up for 1.5" margins, size 12 type. Boil it down to two or three paragraphs that will fit nicely framed on one page. Use a clear print like arial, in black.

Sign it, and mail it; use COPYs to send by e-mail to those Congressional Members you've identified.

Jim H.
 
I trimmed it some, but I think it's now in final form.

Due to the time sensitivity, I will be emailing them out today and tomorrow.

Would anyone be willing to suggest a short list of congressmen (10-15) that I should also express mail?
 
Mailing these congressmen using their web based submission forms is proving to be an incredibly tedious task. I really could use some help--even if it's only for 10 legislators.

Any volunteers?
 
Any volunteers?
Click to expand...

I'll e-mail my guys, Con. Petri (wi-5) and Sen. Feingold. Might carry a little more weight if it comes from one of their constituents.
 
Who do we mail these to? I have never really done any actual activism. Do we send them to both Ds and Rs? Senators? Congress? I really don't have much of a clue how the whole system works and who has power over what. Of corse that is exactly how they liek it, isn't it?

Also, could we get this moved or linked in Activism if it isn't already?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
This has to be seen and read to believe it.
Replies
3
Views
754
Art Eatman
A
B
  • Locked
VPC delivers some GOOD news
Replies
11
Views
535
Sylvilagus Aquaticus
S
S
  • Locked
Justice Department Appropriations Bill Would License..New "Kitchen-Table" Gun Dealers
Replies
15
Views
1K
bigcuz
B
A
  • Locked
Engaging in Gun sales business without being an FFL?
Replies
8
Views
632
Kharn
K
BSA1
  • Locked
Are FFL Holders also Private Gun Owners?
Replies
5
Views
862
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Back
Top