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

[aubiefifty 18,231]

reuters.com

 

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

Daniel Trotta

4-5 minutes

---

(Reuters) - 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.

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

James alleged in a statement that NRA leaders “used millions upon millions from NRA reserves for personal use,” failing to comply with the NRA’s own internal policies in addition to state and federal law.

The mismanagement shaved $64 million worth of assets off the NRA’s balance sheet in three years, the suit says.

In announcing the lawsuit, James told reporters the NRA “has operated as a breeding ground for greed, abuse and brazen illegality.” She added, “no one is above the law.”

The lawsuit names the NRA and four leaders including Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice-president who has been atop the leadership for nearly three decades.

The confrontation pits James, a Democrat, against the largest and most powerful gun organization in the United States, one that is closely aligned with President Donald Trump’s Republican Party.

GUNS A POLARIZING U.S. ISSUE

The actions are certain to further polarize a country where the NRA is revered by conservatives as a champion of the U.S. Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and vilified by liberals as an enabler of rampant gun violence.

New York State Attorney General, Letitia James, speaks during a news conference, to announce a suit to dissolve the National Rifle Association, In New York, U.S., August 6, 2020. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

The NRA branded the lawsuit a “baseless, premeditated attack” and a “power grab” tied to the Nov. 3 U.S. election.

“We not only will not shrink from this fight – we will confront it and prevail,” NRA President Carolyn Meadows said in a statement.

Apparently expecting James’ suit, the NRA fought back with the suit of its own in the Northern District of New York, saying James had been targeting the NRA politically ever since she ran for attorney general in 2018, vowing to “take on the NRA” which she called a “criminal enterprise.”

Trump swiftly branded the lawsuit against the NRA “a very terrible thing,” suggesting to reporters the group ought to register in the much more gun-friendly state of Texas or in “another state of their choosing.”

The NRA is subject to New York law because it is registered there as a non-profit. It also conducts most of its financial transactions in the state, making it hard to escape New York’s reach. Its physical headquarters are in Fairfax, Virginia, about 20 miles (30 km) west of Washington, D.C.

James’ suit coincided with another one filed against the NRA and its foundation by the attorney general for Washington, D.C., in the district’s Superior Court, alleging the misuse of charitable funds and wasteful spending.

Briefing reporters, James denied the New York suit was motivated by the NRA’s support for Trump. Her written statement said the NRA’s power had gone unchecked for decades, “which is why, today, we seek to dissolve the NRA.”

The NRA has faced opposition from gun control groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, both funded by billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

“We have been warning regulators and the public about this corruption for years,” Everytown said on Twitter.

Moms Demand Action sarcastically offered that “our thoughts and prayers are with Wayne LaPierre and his cronies at the NRA,” mocking the common refrain used following mass shootings.

Reporting by Daniel Trotta and David Shepardson; Additional reporting by Andrea Shalal and Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Howard Goller

[AUDub 11,841]

[jj3jordan 2,171]

Typical. If a republican doesn't like something, we just don't participate. If a democrat doesn't like something, they sue to destroy it or make it illegal for you do participate.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

8 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Typical. If a republican doesn't like something, we just don't participate. If a democrat doesn't like something, they sue to destroy it or make it illegal for you do participate.

Extreme example incoming, but no one is forcing Republicans to participate in getting an abortion, yet they fight that tooth and nail and are trying to make it illegal for those do want them.

Just pointing out the huge blind spot in your statement.

[jj3jordan 2,171]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Extreme example incoming, but no one is forcing Republicans to participate in getting an abortion, yet they fight that tooth and nail and are trying to make it illegal for those do want them.

Extremely true my friend and glad to fight abortion tooth and nail.  The difference however is that the baby has no choice and the mother has two choices.  One when she spreads her legs, and the other when she has a child in her womb. That doesn't seem quite fair to me.  The vast majority of pro abortion advocates have already been born.  I don't have proof,  or a link, but my guess is the vast majority of babies would choose to be born.  Yes we want to make it unobtainable.  These democrats want to destroy the NRA because of it's support of the Republican party and the second amendment.  Democrats think killing babies should be legal, so they sued to change the law, using the courts, not the legislative branch. Pretty clear.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

31 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Extremely true my friend and glad to fight abortion tooth and nail.  The difference however is that the baby has no choice and the mother has two choices.  One when she spreads her legs, and the other when she has a child in her womb. That doesn't seem quite fair to me.  The vast majority of pro abortion advocates have already been born.  I don't have proof,  or a link, but my guess is the vast majority of babies would choose to be born.  Yes we want to make it unobtainable.  These democrats want to destroy the NRA because of it's support of the Republican party and the second amendment.  Democrats think killing babies should be legal, so they sued to change the law, using the courts, not the legislative branch. Pretty clear.

You kind of missed the point, but that doesn't shock me.  One party and it's supporters are always trying to legislate or sue to prevent participation in something the other abhors.

Casinos/gambling is probably a better, closer analogy.  No one forces folks to walk into a casino, but Republicans in Texas, Alabama, and many other places continue to block any legislation.  Same concept as your "don't particpate if you don't want to" stance.  Me going to a casino and throwing the bones does you no harm, but it's fought against consistently.

Basically you're throwing stones while standing in a glass house.

[jj3jordan 2,171]

4 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

You kind of missed the point, but that doesn't shock me.  One party and it's supporters are always trying to legislate or sue to prevent participation in something the other abhors.

Casinos/gambling is probably a better, closer analogy.  No one forces folks to walk into a casino, but Republicans in Texas, Alabama, and many other places continue to block any legislation.  Same concept as your "don't particpate if you don't want to" stance.  Me going to a casino and throwing the bones does you no harm, but it's fought against consistently.

Basically you're throwing stones while standing in a glass house.

If you want your state to allow gambling then elect legislators who will implement those activities. If not then the legislators elected are representing the constituency who elected them. That is their job.  Your gambling analogy is completely unrelated to the NRA or abortion discussions. 

[kevon67 2,368]

4 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

You kind of missed the point, but that doesn't shock me.  One party and it's supporters are always trying to legislate or sue to prevent participation in something the other abhors.

Casinos/gambling is probably a better, closer analogy.  No one forces folks to walk into a casino, but Republicans in Texas, Alabama, and many other places continue to block any legislation.  Same concept as your "don't particpate if you don't want to" stance.  Me going to a casino and throwing the bones does you no harm, but it's fought against consistently.

Basically you're throwing stones while standing in a glass house.

Off subjet but love throwing bones.......fast paced win or loose........not like the slow death of a six deck shoe in blackjack...........my second favorite is 25.00 pitch blackjack moves fast unless playing 10am when the splitting Kings seniors arrive by bus😂

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

If you want your state to allow gambling then elect legislators who will implement those activities. If not then the legislators elected are representing the constituency who elected them. That is their job.  Your gambling analogy is completely unrelated to the NRA or abortion discussions. 

So the people of New York elected an AG that, wait for it, wanted to take on the gun lobby.    It's her job to enforce the law based on the premises she ran on.  The people put her in that position.  How is that any different?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, kevon67 said:

Off subjet but love throwing bones.......fast paced win or loose........not like the slow death of a six deck shoe in blackjack...........my second favorite is 25.00 pitch blackjack moves fast unless playing 10am when the splitting Kings seniors arrive by bus😂

Craps is by far my favorite game the in casino.  Give me the craps table and a sports book and I'm set for the day.

[jj3jordan 2,171]

7 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So the people of New York elected an AG that, wait for it, wanted to take on the gun lobby.    It's her job to enforce the law based on the premises she ran on.  The people put her in that position.  How is that any different?

It’s different because her motivation is political not legal. She may try to find a law she can stretch to apply to the NRA but the truth is it’s political. I’m pretty sure you don’t like people who use the legal system for political purposes.  It’s likely her attack on the NRA will fail and in a couple of years it will quietly go away with much less fanfare.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

9 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

It’s different because her motivation is political not legal. She may try to find a law she can stretch to apply to the NRA but the truth is it’s political. I’m pretty sure you don’t like people who use the legal system for political purposes.  It’s likely her attack on the NRA will fail and in a couple of years it will quietly go away with much less fanfare.

So you're making assumptions without a look at the evidence in the case first.  Got it.  If what she alleges is true, then the NRA quite literally broke the law.

And no, it's not any different at all.  Legislators putting in certain bills is also motivated by politics.  It's all the same.

[aubiefifty 18,231]

16 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

It’s different because her motivation is political not legal. She may try to find a law she can stretch to apply to the NRA but the truth is it’s political. I’m pretty sure you don’t like people who use the legal system for political purposes.  It’s likely her attack on the NRA will fail and in a couple of years it will quietly go away with much less fanfare.

U.S.

The National Rifle Association faces its worst nightmare: accountability

Shannon Watts, Opinion contributor

August 7, 2020, 8:20 AM

On Thursday, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against the National Rifle Association for breaking New York charities law — the result of an investigation into the NRA’s finances that began in April 2019. The complaint seeks dissolution, meaning that if the NRA is found guilty, it could be disbanded by the state of New York.

You don’t have to be a lawyer to see how the NRA got into this mess. Even casual observers have watched it morph from a safety-focused, non-profit into a front group for gun manufacturers and a personal piggy bank for its leadership.

Since 2018, NRA executive pay has skyrocketed, money has flowed to supposedly ‘unpaid’ board members, and CEO Wayne LaPierre has reportedly used member dues to pay for millions of dollars’ worth of Italian suits and private jet trips. Meanwhile, in 2018 less than 10% of NRA funds were spent on the NRA’s supposed “core functions” of gun safety, education, and training — leaving little wonder why AG James decided the NRA ran afoul of the law.

NRA misusing funds

As it turns out, you can only buy so many Italian suits from Zegna in Beverly Hills with organizational money before the organization stops being a nonprofit and starts being a slush fund.

But AG James is far from the NRA’s only concern — the NRA is losing money and power so quickly that by the end of this case, there might not be anything left to dissolve. Legally, the organization is mired in litigation with former partners and sued by the attorney general of D.C. Financially, the NRA is laying off employees by the hundreds, and Wayne LaPierre was recently caught on tape saying the organization needed to be taken “down to the studs” to “survive.” And politically, the NRA had to strip its once-coveted candidate-grading-system from the internet because politicians were ashamed to be affiliated with them.

Protest outside the NRA headquarters in 2017 in Fairfax, Virginia.

In fact, the NRA is just as out of touch with voters as it seems to be with New York law. NRA-backed candidates lost big in the 2018 midterms, and the NRA lost its home state of Virginia in 2019, leading to several gun safety laws being passed in their own backyard. Even more notably, the Trump administration has begun “hedg[ing] its bets” on the NRA by “reaching out to other gun groups,” despite the NRA being the single largest outside spender on Donald Trump’s 2016 election. That should tell you all you need to know about the NRA’s political future.

The NRA has had this reckoning coming for a long time –– not only because of its rampant corruption, but because it is perhaps more responsible than any other group or individual for America’s deadly gun violence epidemic.

Dayton mayor on one-year anniversary of mass shooting: Why haven't we done something?

That is particularly evident this week, which marks one year since the country mourned the tragic shootings in Dayton and El Paso that killed 32 Americans and wounded 40 more in less than 24 hours. In the aftermath of those shootings, even Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell pledged that they were finally ready to act. But then Wayne LaPierre reportedly stopped by the White House, and ordered Trump to “stop the games” on gun safety. That’s all it took for Republicans to cave, one by one.

Gun violence in America

In the year since that fateful meeting, nearly 40,000 Americans have been killed by gun violence, and twice that many have been wounded. Worse still, in the past four years, with NRA allies controlling the Senate and the White House, the death toll is over 140,000 — nearly the same number of Americans that have died from COVID-19, and many more than were killed in the Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam wars combined. And yet, Trump, McConnell and the NRA have still failed to act.

At times, the NRA has become such a side-show in the last year, so entangled in financial and legal turmoil, that it can be hard to remember the organization's true, destructive nature. But this is the same organization whose officials have spent recent months spreading conspiracy theories about COVID-19, defending Confederate monuments, and comparing the Black Lives Matter movement to the Nazi Party and ISIS. And make no mistake: it’s because of the NRA that gun safety bills are dying in the U.S. Senate while people continue to die in the streets.

As the founder of Moms Demand Action, I’ve been fighting the NRA for years — they have even encouraged threats of violence and death against me among their supporters. And while I’ve been flatteringly referred to as the NRA’s worst nightmare, the truth is that the NRA’s worst nightmare is exactly what seems to be coming for them after this November: complete irrelevance.

When politics hits home: Pandemic moms are descendants of soccer and votes-for-women moms

Between AG James’ lawsuit, the NRA’s own incompetence, politicians rightl

[homersapien 12,230]