New York sues to break up NRA, accuses it of corruption

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Interesting timing of the lawsuit.  Election coming up.  LOL

Diversion.

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, Thomas J said:

Backdoor to restricting 2nd amendment rights.  They are using the power and money of the government to bankrupt the NRA by creating legal expenses.  You mean to tell me that only the NRA is "corrupt"  Try most unions, certainly the teamsters, how about the NAACP or certainly Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition which is a shakedown racket.  How about the Clinton's Foundation which is just a conduit for influence peddling donations and almost nothing going to philanthropic causes. 

And todays whataboutism award goes to......

If it is a 'Backdoor to restricting 2nd amendment rights' then it is long overdue against an organisation that only boasts 5 million members but wields a disproportinate political power that can literally make or break lawmakers. 

Despite children dying and military style guns easily available to the general public, the NRA makes  no concessions and no attempt to even pretend they are looking out for American citizens. Their doctrine is absolutley no common sense policies; it's anyone, anywhere, any place can have a gun......it's your god given right!!!

Oh, and they are as corrupt as hell.

 

[Logosone]

And of course 99% of NRA members are peaceful and law-abiding citizens.

[johnnybangkok]

17 minutes ago, riclag said:

 5 million members of which 4 are  gop and 1 dems!

Thanks New York you just gave spin to attacking my countries second amendment rights during a election year

So predictable.

When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the assault rifles we see today. The Founders didn’t have to weigh the risks of one person being able to kill 50 others or 28 children in less than 30 minutes. People like yourself make this all about liberty and YOUR right to bear arms, well what about the victims right to live or a childs right to see themselves grow to puberty.

The NRA have stood in the way of sensible gun control for decades and I for one don't care if they get taken down in an election year, a New Year or a Leap Year. They need to be taken down and a sensible organistaion put in their place.

[Logosone]

10 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

So predictable.

When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the assault rifles we see today. The Founders didn’t have to weigh the risks of one person being able to kill 50 others or 28 children in less than 30 minutes. People like yourself make this all about liberty and YOUR right to bear arms, well what about the victims right to live or a childs right to see themselves grow to puberty.

The NRA have stood in the way of sensible gun control for decades and I for one don't care if they get taken down in an election year, a New Year or a Leap Year. They need to be taken down and a sensible organistaion put in their place.

Except of course 99.99% of NRA members do not kill 50 people or 28 children.

 

In 30, 60 or 90 minutes.

 

It's a nonsense argument.

 

There already is sensible gun control legislation.

 

And the real issue is people, guns don't kill people. People kill people.

[J Town]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

And the real issue is people, guns don't kill people. People kill people.

No, this thread is about the dissolution of the NRA due to its criminal activity.

[johnnybangkok]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Except of course 99.99% of NRA members do not kill 50 people or 28 children.

 

In 30, 60 or 90 minutes.

 

It's a nonsense argument.

 

There already is sensible gun control legislation.

 

And the real issue is people, guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Yawn.

Guns don't kill people? Well they certainly help. 

If you are all about 99% of gun owners are sensible law abiding citizens then why would they need AR15's and the likes?

There is no sensible gun control legislation until it is made impossible for ANYONE to buy military style weapons. Something that sensible people should all be for but for which the NRA has thwarted at every available opportunity simply because they don't want to see ANY restrictions on any type of gun.

And they're corrupt.

[Logosone]

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

Yawn.

Guns don't kill people? Well they certainly help. 

If you are all about 99% of gun owners are sensible law abiding citizens then why would they need AR15's and the likes?

There is no sensible gun control legislation until it is made impossible for ANYONE to buy military style weapons. Something that sensible people should all be for but for which the NRA has thwarted at every available opportunity simply because they don't want to see ANY restrictions on any type of gun.

And they're corrupt.

And quite right that the NRA have resisted these Communist style infringements on the liberties of men to do as they please.

 

If I want to buy a British, German or American military weapon who are you to tell me I can't?

 

Plenty of collectors of military rifles, guns, and many other weapons.

 

The point is 99.% of them are completely law-abiding and highly regulated already.

 

You can not buy military style assault weapons anymore anyway, President Bush saw to that. Those laws are already in place. The legislation is already sensible.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States#:~:text=President George H.W.,passed the United States Senate.

 

[Saint Nick]

If I am correct, this lawsuite is about DONATIONS, filled into the pockets of the higher ups in that sick organisation!

So it is absolutely 100% right to prosecute them!

I have to say though: the point in time is not very cleverly chosen!

The Republicans, their cult- leader and the right wing, will eat this up and do, what is seen on this thread already: turn it into a 2nd amendment battle, which it has nothing to do with!

[Chomper Higgot]

58 minutes ago, riclag said:

 5 million members of which 4 are  gop and 1 dems!

Thanks New York you just gave spin to attacking my countries second amendment rights during a election year

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/

Filing charges against the NRA’s criminality is not an attack on the 2nd Amendment.

 

 

[Bluespunk]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

New York state's attorney general sued to dissolve the National Rifle Association on Thursday,

Love it. 
 

 

6 hours ago, webfact said:

The lawsuit filed in a Manhattan court by Attorney General Letitia James alleges NRA leaders paid for family trips to the Bahamas, private jets and expensive meals that contributed to a $64 million reduction in the NRA's balance sheet in three years, turning a surplus into a deficit.

The nra is in deficit, love it again. 

 

6 hours ago, webfact said:

The NRA responded by suing James in federal court, saying she had violated the NRA's right to free speech and seeking to block her investigation.

So defending free speech by try to prevent the truth coming out, hmm. . 

 

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Just like Radical Left New York is trying to destroy the NRA, if Biden becomes President your GREAT SECOND AMENDMENT doesn't have a chance," Trump said on Twitter. "Your guns will be taken away, immediately and without notice. No police, no guns!"

 

Nonsense. 

[Logosone]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Filing charges against the NRA’s criminality is not an attack on the 2nd Amendment.

 

 

The legal harrassment of the NRA is an attack on the 1st Amendment rights of the NRA.

 

The action is purely politically motivated, transparently so, and should never have been brought in the first place.

[Berkshire]

2 hours ago, Thomas J said:

Backdoor to restricting 2nd amendment rights.  They are using the power and money of the government to bankrupt the NRA by creating legal expenses.  You mean to tell me that only the NRA is "corrupt"  Try most unions, certainly the teamsters, how about the NAACP or certainly Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition which is a shakedown racket.  How about the Clinton's Foundation which is just a conduit for influence peddling donations and almost nothing going to philanthropic causes. 

You're deflecting.  This is about the NRA, not unions or the NAACP.  And you're completely missing the point.  The irony is the people who should be most concerned are the dues-paying NRA members themselves.  The NRA is stealing their money.  Heck, even Oliver North, former President of the NRA, saw this with his own eyes....

 

[Oliver North, the retired Marine who was pushed out as president of the National Rifle Association in a dispute within the gun-rights group, said in court documents filed Thursday that he was thwarted when he tried to raise alarm bells about alleged misspending and denied that he tried to oust the organization’s longtime top executive.]

[The documents detail concerns North said he raised over several months and the efforts he said he took to try to have NRA spending audited and reviewed by an outside, independent entity. He said the red flags began to emerge this past spring when he heard that NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre had received tens of thousands of dollars in clothing, private jet travel and other perks from the group’s longtime marketing firm, Ackerman McQueen; he also has questioned money being paid to the law firm that has represented NRA in its fight against that firm.]

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oliver-north-in-court-filing-says-nra-is-smearing-him-to-avoid-scrutiny-2019-07-11

 

[J Town]

6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The legal harrassment of the NRA is an attack on the 1st Amendment rights of the NRA.

 

The action is purely politically motivated, transparently so, and should never have been brought in the first place.

Wow! THAT'S a stretch! It's not harassment. They broke the law, the attorney general is prosecuting them. Trying to defend a criminal act because it's timing is inconvenient politically is a nonstarter.

[scorecard]

41 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Except of course 99.99% of NRA members do not kill 50 people or 28 children.

 

In 30, 60 or 90 minutes.

 

It's a nonsense argument.

 

There already is sensible gun control legislation.

 

And the real issue is people, guns don't kill people. People kill people.

What rubbish.

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, J Town said:

Wow! THAT'S a stretch! It's not harassment. They broke the law, the attorney general is prosecuting them. Trying to defend a criminal act because it's timing is inconvenient politically is a nonstarter.

Oh yes, sure, the timing just "happens" to be "politically inconvenient". Please.

 

This transparent legal harrassment of one of the principal supporters of Donald Trump is an obviously politically motivated attack.

 

The person bringing the law suit has called the NRA "a terrorist" organisation when she was campaigning and vowed she would investigate them.

 

So, clearly there was no real "crime" but Letitia manufactured one. All there is is disgruntled former officials like North complaining about things in the absence of evidence and yes, granted, very high salaries for the current team.

 

If La Pierre did anything wrong then he should go, it should not affect the NRA, a charitable organisation, at all.

[bendejo]

Just checked their website, 5 million members, annual membership dues run US$30-45.  Does all that go to paying off politicians?  No.  And that's what this case is about.  Even denounced by Ollie North, who, if you recall the trial in the 1980s, was not shy about dipping his fingers into the expense account. 

 

When I was a kid the NRA was about giving classes gun safety.  I can't say how it became a nationalist movement, but I guess someone figured a way to bring in more $$$.

But only 5 million, in a country with 300+ million?  How does this make them a force to be reckoned with?  A bunch of greasy crooks is what they are.  Would be ironic if LaPierre met his demise from the dispatch of a disgruntled member.

 

 

[J Town]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Oh yes, sure, the timing just "happens" to be "politically inconvenient". Please.

 

This transparent legal harrassment of one of the principal supporters of Donald Trump is an obviously politically motivated attack.

 

The person bringing the law suit has called the NRA "a terrorist" organisation when she was campaigning and vowed she would investigate them.

 

So, clearly there was no real "crime" but Letitia manufactured one. All there is is disgruntled former officials like North complaining about things in the absence of evidence and yes, granted, very high salaries for the current team.

 

If La Pierre did anything wrong then he should go, it should not affect the NRA, a charitable organisation, at all.

This is the last time I will respond to you, you are merely repeating yourself. It's NOT harassment. The NYAG does not open up spurious cases. You can rest assured they have PLENTY of evidence to back up this case. And if you want to get in to government officials doing any ridiculous name calling, look no further than 45.

 

The NRA is NOT a charitable organization, it is tax-exempt which is a BIG difference. As such it is banned from politicking. Yeah . . . right.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/03/08/ask-the-taxgirl-is-the-nra-a-charity/#14b46cd17dfd

[scorecard]

9 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Oh yes, sure, the timing just "happens" to be "politically inconvenient". Please.

 

This transparent legal harrassment of one of the principal supporters of Donald Trump is an obviously politically motivated attack.

 

The person bringing the law suit has called the NRA "a terrorist" organisation when she was campaigning and vowed she would investigate them.

 

So, clearly there was no real "crime" but Letitia manufactured one. All there is is disgruntled former officials like North complaining about things in the absence of evidence and yes, granted, very high salaries for the current team.

 

If La Pierre did anything wrong then he should go, it should not affect the NRA, a charitable organisation, at all.

What rubbish.

[Logosone]

6 minutes ago, bendejo said:

Just checked their website, 5 million members, annual membership dues run US$30-45.  Does all that go to paying off politicians?  No.  And that's what this case is about.  Even denounced by Ollie North, who, if you recall the trial in the 1980s, was not shy about dipping his fingers into the expense account. 

 

When I was a kid the NRA was about giving classes gun safety.  I can't say how it became a nationalist movement, but I guess someone figured a way to bring in more $$$.

But only 5 million, in a country with 300+ million?  How does this make them a force to be reckoned with?  A bunch of greasy crooks is what they are.  Would be ironic if LaPierre met his demise from the dispatch of a disgruntled member.

 

 

Yes, because we all know Oliver North is a highly trained crack accountant.

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, J Town said:

The NRA is NOT a charitable organization, it is tax-exempt which is a BIG difference. As such it is banned from politicking. Yeah . . . right.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/03/08/ask-the-taxgirl-is-the-nra-a-charity/#14b46cd17dfd

The NRA is most certainly a charitable organization, as your link makes clear:

 

"Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes"

 

Maybe read your own link properly.

 

 

[J Town]

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The NRA is most certainly a charitable organization, as your link makes clear:

 

"Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes"

 

Maybe read your own link properly.

Maybe read the article I provided stating the reasons they're being prosecuted.

 

"New York state’s attorney general sued to dissolve the National Rifle Association on Thursday, alleging senior leaders of the non-profit group diverted millions of dollars for personal use and to buy the silence and loyalty of former employees."

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-new-york-attorney-general/new-york-seeks-to-break-up-national-rifle-association-alleging-financial-mismanagement-idUSKCN2522BG

 

NOT charitable acts.

Edited August 7, 2020 by J Town

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The NRA is most certainly a charitable organization, as your link makes clear:

 

"Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes"

 

Maybe read your own link properly.

 

 

Charitable, educational or recreational.

So not necessarily charitable, so your quote is meaningless and the conclusion you draw from it is not justified.

[Chomper Higgot]

46 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The legal harrassment of the NRA is an attack on the 1st Amendment rights of the NRA.

 

The action is purely politically motivated, transparently so, and should never have been brought in the first place.

What part of of the First Amendment protects fraud? 

[Rookiescot]

If the founders of the United States had known that in the future rifles would be able to fire 800 rounds per minute there is no way the right to bare arms would have made it onto the statute books.

However that is an argument for another time.

This is about a so called charity being investigated for corruption.

The NRA is NOT the second amendment. 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Rookiescot

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The NRA is most certainly a charitable organization, as your link makes clear:

 

"Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes"

 

Maybe read your own link properly.

 

 

I’m pleased to see you understand what it is the NRA is registered as, and that as such ‘the net earnings of which [must] be devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes"’

 

Where the net earnings are spent is central to the charges against the NRA.

 

And the evidence is the NRA’s own books.

 

I suspect where large amounts of money come from and where the NRA redirects that money will also figure in the forthcoming court battle. 

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[J Town]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

This is about a so called charity being investigated for corruption.

The NRA is NOT the second amendment. 

Many fail to make this distinction.

[Logosone]

11 minutes ago, J Town said:

Maybe read the article I provided stating the reasons they're being prosecuted.

 

"New York state’s attorney general sued to dissolve the National Rifle Association on Thursday, alleging senior leaders of the non-profit group diverted millions of dollars for personal use and to buy the silence and loyalty of former employees."

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-new-york-attorney-general/new-york-seeks-to-break-up-national-rifle-association-alleging-financial-mismanagement-idUSKCN2522BG

 

NOT charitable acts.

I think you misunderstand. 

 

It's the net earnings that are applied to charity. Obviously a charity has to pay its employees.

[J Town]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I think you misunderstand. 

 

It's the net earnings that are applied to charity. Obviously a charity has to pay its employees.

OK. You must be right and the NYAG must be wrong. Thank you for straightening all this out.

[pegman]

4 hours ago, PatOngo said:

No I don't know. Guess what, I'm NOT American! Do you mean there's a Walmart nearby, or is it that every man and his dog has a gun?

The latter as I don't think Manhattan allows any Walmarts.  With all this thieving going on why were no criminal charges laid?