Jump to content
CynicalScouter

New York Attorney General Sues N.R.A. and Seeks Its Closure

Recommended Posts

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/06/us/new-york-attorney-general-sues-nra.html

In short: top NRA leaders were stealing money and/or misdirecting it from the not-for-profit hand over fist and the NY AG is going to try and get the NRA dissolved (exactly what happened with the Trump Charity).

Why does this matter for scouting? I can think of easily 6 different standards or practices that are built into merit badges or safety protocols for Scouts, BSA and Venturing; there are probably others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/06/us/new-york-attorney-general-sues-nra.html

In short: top NRA leaders were stealing money and/or misdirecting it from the not-for-profit hand over fist and the NY AG is going to try and get the NRA dissolved (exactly what happened with the Trump Charity).

Why does this matter for scouting? I can think of easily 6 different standards or practices that are built into merit badges or safety protocols for Scouts, BSA and Venturing; there are probably others.

Alleged, by a partisan AG, who campaigned on attacking the NRA.  This is a witch hunt.  But that's what progressives, populists, and all the other leftist factions do, hunt their opponents and banish them to gulags.  

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

What people I've known for years who are NRA members, there's a general agreement LaPierre and his ilk were in fact misusing funds. The AG"s ideology does not change that. And of course there's precedent: the NY AG's office was able to force Trump to admit to misuse of charitable funds and forced that "charity" to shut down.

Missing the point I'm afraid.  This AG campaigned on destroying a private organization, then brought the unlimited power, resources, and tax payer money to bear in that fight.  The precedent is chilling.  To approve of this behavior is the equivalent of approving of let's say a TX AG campaigning on a platform to attack Planned Parenthood (or BLM or Move on) then enlisting the power of the state for that attack.   If you can't back the latter you shouldn't back the former.  

 

Sadly most Americans are too blinded by party fielty to understand the fight of our lives isn't right vs left, it's the individual vs the State.

 

But carry on.

Edited by walk in the woods
To, too, two, whatever.
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

Sadly most Americans are too blinded by party fielty to understand the fight of our lives isn't right vs left, it's the individual vs the State.

 

But carry on.

But if BLM or PP were accused of the same crimes, it would be ok to go after them.  Sorry, but The NRA puts itself out there as defending our most valued right in the the second amendment.  But that is wrong, the most valued right is the first amendment, which BLM and PP both try to protect.  

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve heard mixed opinions from gun owners over the years.

The scholarships for youth camp’s ammo education, etc ... are nice. But a lot of folks are thinking they could get more to the kids without it funneling through an administrative behemoth.

Sound familiar?

That’s not to say the NY AG is free of agendas. But it has a long tradition punishing any false claims made in its jurisdiction. (A friend learned that the hard way when he posted a Times classified as a practical joke on another friend.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

To approve of this behavior is the equivalent of approving of let's say a TX AG campaigning on a platform to attack Planned Parenthood (or BLM or Move on) then enlisting the power of the state for that attack.   If you can't back the latter you shouldn't back the former. 

I’m sorry, but I can’t believe you just compared the NRA’s operations to something like Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood actually operates as a non-profit and uses their funds as a non-profit is defined as. The NYAG is not (in this case) going after them for being a gun organization, instead, as a corrupted non-profit that is not using funds properly. I’m sure she has some biased towards the NRA, but it clearly states she is suing due to the misuse of funds. No matter the organization, if one was misusing funds, someone would step up and sue.

 

*I am not aware if her claims of the NRA are true, I have not done any research to see if I believe them. This was to explain to the poster the difference.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I don't think any organization which funnels money to political candidates should qualify as a 501(c)(3) "charity"...that includes the NRA, PP, BSA, or whatever.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2020 at 10:48 AM, scoutldr said:

Sorry, but I don't think any organization which funnels money to political candidates should qualify as a 501(c)(3) "charity"...that includes the NRA, PP, BSA, or whatever.

That’s patently absurd on its face. One could be doing charitable work, but also be compelled to, and need a separate funding stream to lobby for public policy.

These days, charities that don’t have sufficiently strong lobbying arms might find themselves victims of laws being changed to, say, increase statutes of limitations for legal actions against them.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2020 at 8:11 AM, ItsBrian said:

I can’t believe you just compared the NRA’s operations to something like Planned Parenthood.

You're right.  Nobody deserves to be compared to Planned Parenthood.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2020 at 8:52 PM, Navybone said:

But if BLM or PP were accused of the same crimes, it would be ok to go after them.  Sorry, but The NRA puts itself out there as defending our most valued right in the the second amendment.  But that is wrong, the most valued right is the first amendment, which BLM and PP both try to protect.  

PP and Abortion are protected by the courts interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Not the 1st. 

The AG of NY looking into the NRA may be politically motivated, but the charges are not. It's been well known among NRA members for a long time that LaPierre has been helping himself to donor funds, which is illegal. Maybe all charities do this, and just don't get caught, but I find that unlikely. Wayne gets paid a nice salary, and felt the need to help himself to even more NRA member money, money that WE NRA members pay so that they'll challenge unconstitutional gun laws. Then the NRA comes back crying poor. Many gun owners are disgusted and have found better run 2A advocacy groups to support with their money. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/7/2020 at 10:48 AM, scoutldr said:

Sorry, but I don't think any organization which funnels money to political candidates should qualify as a 501(c)(3) "charity"...that includes the NRA, PP, BSA, or whatever.

To add to confusion :confused:

"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations#:~:text=Under the Internal Revenue Code,candidate for elective public office.

I wonder if may result ever does?

Edited by RememberSchiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The NRA is a 501(c)(4) (“social welfare organization”), not a (c)(3).

It's official stated purpose as a 501(c)(4) under its IRS 990 filings is "Firearms safety, education, and training and advocacy on behalf of safe and responsible gun owners"

That means they can spend up to 49% of their money on lobbying, advocacy and outright political support.

Quote

But political action committees became qualified as “social welfare” non-profits—501c4 organizations—that allow them to hide the identity of contributors. The IRS statute says a 501c4 “must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare.” The IRS regulation, however, says that a 501c4 need only be “primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the community.” The IRS then adopted a liberal interpretation of its permissive rule: The rule for c4s became that up to 49% of your budget could be used for election activity. But because there is simply no IRS or FEC enforcement of even that policy, political non-profits simply spend as much as they want for campaigns without disclosure. 

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

... It's been well known among NRA members for a long time that LaPierre has been helping himself to donor funds, which is illegal. Maybe all charities do this, and just don't get caught, but I find that unlikely. Wayne gets paid a nice salary, and felt the need to help himself to even more NRA member money, money that WE NRA members pay so that they'll challenge unconstitutional gun laws. 

I'm not a NRA fan, but the charges seem reasonable, ... BUT ... 

Dissolving the non-profit (aka NRA)?  If the top officers of a non-profit are effectively embezzling funds for their own purpose, then it's right to prosecute.  BUT, the original non-profit has been around for almost 148 years.  The intention of donors / members is well understood.  So, the result of successful prosecution should be the returning of the funds to the non-profit for their original non-profit purpose. 

Even the idea of returning money?  Much of the money has been legitimately spent or won't be recoverable.  Every member gets $10 back of their original $45 membership fee?  I seem to remember that the intention of the donor (aka member) is to be honored when it's difficult to resolve such complexities.  So, if NRA can't be fixed, another 2nd amendment defending non-profit should be funded as honoring the donor intentions.  Or, simply replace the top NRA leadership and keep the long-standing non-profit running.

 

 

Edited by fred8033

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...