Magiver, you have also refused to address another reason why the complaint was filed - the reported ongoing abuse and failure of any sort of self-policing. It’s been brought up multiple times in the thread, esp. the reporting of fraud and abuse from the outgoing former president. If the allegations are verified, then you have a pattern of the NRA itself failing to control and correct its own issues. Thus your comment that “there is no logic to holding that entity liable for individual acts” is rendered moot - it is an endemic issue of the organization itself, and has been for years.
Left_hand_of_Dorkness has clearly cited that this as one of the actionable points when he provided the text of the original complaint, but you have not addressed the issue.
Everything you cited was gun related 2nd amendment oriented. You’re not even trying to respond in a legitimate manner. You’re just arguing for the sake of it.
“…the right to hold competitions and make hunter safety fliers shall not be infringed.”
They make paper airplanes? 
Maybe they drop flyers from fliers.
Ha! The things one sees on the internet.
How is promoting the shooting sports or providing marksmanship training, e.g., oriented to the Second Amendment? Consider that several British athletes won medals in the shooting events at the 2016 Olympics; are you attempting to argue that means Britain has a Second Amendment analogue?
No, they don’t; it’s a ridiculous argument. Only the first of the five purposes of the NRA is related to the Second Amendment. If you don’t want to carry on this argument, that is your choice, but accusing me of illegitimate responses merely because you don’t like them is way over the line.
It’s self explanatory. And no, I’m not trying to make any references to British laws which as you know are vastly different than US laws under the 2nd amendment. I have no idea why you would make the comparison. There is a clear, unambiguous connection between the NRA and support for the 2nd Amendment. it is the foundation for all it’s other activities.
No, it’s not self-explanatory; that’s why I’m asking you to explain it. Plenty of countries that don’t have any analogue to the Second Amendment have shooting sports and shooting competitions; Britain is but one example, so obviously the Second Amendment is not foundational for those purposes.
Further, until the 1930s the NRA wasn’t really involved in Second Amendment advocacy or indeed any advocacy for legislative activities; they’d been around for sixty+ years at that point, so again it’s not obvious why the Second is foundational for all the other activities with which they’d been involved to that date.
And they were in favor of gun control at the time, rudimentary as it was.
Heck, by the terms of that charter, defense of the First and Fourteenth amendments and the Emoluments Clause are also aims of the NRA. To a lower priority than the Second, sure, but they’ve taken it upon themselves to defend the entire Constitution.
The ability to own a gun in the UK is severely limited and that’s an understatement. I’m not even sure why you would bring it up. The difference between the UK and the US is the 2nd amendment. It’s mind boggling that you would even compare the 2.
Times change. As politicians tried to enact gun laws, organizations engaged in political and legal battles to support the 2nd Amendment.
But all you have to do is look at how much money the NRA put into lobbying.
Last year they took in $1,391,664 but spent $3,220,000 on lobbying. They did this by organizing PAC money.
Clearly the NRA has put a great deal of effort in the support of the 2nd Amendment on behalf of it’s members.
Yes, I know the US and the UK have very different attitudes and laws re: guns. That’s my point.
One of the stated purposes of the NRA is “To foster and promote the shooting sports, including the advancement of amateur competitions in marksmanship at the local, state, regional, national, and international levels.” You argued that the Second Amendment was foundational to all of their other activities, which necessarily includes promoting the shooting sports.
In the UK, there are likewise organizations that exist to foster and promote the shooting sports, to the extent that the UK won more medals in the men’s shooting events at the 2016 Olympics than the US did. How is this possible, if the existence of a Second Amendment is “the foundation” (your words) of the shooting sports?
Answer: the existence or lack of a Second Amendment is NOT in fact the foundation, or any sort of prerequisite, to fostering the shooting sports. Your argument that support for the shooting sports is “2nd amendment oriented” is nonsense. You are attempting to make an illogical argument with no basis in reality. THAT is why I am bringing up the UK, to show the people paying attention how ridiculous your argument is.
As others have noted, when the NRA first got involved in gun law lobbying, they SUPPORTED the gun laws. The NRA president at the time, Karl Frederick, testified to Congress in 1934 about the National Firearms Act of 1934, “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”
Money put into lobbying is a poor metric; success at lobbying would be a better one.
One of the problems in using money as a metric is that this complaint itself alleges that money was spent inappropriately on related-party transactions, improper transactions, and self-dealing. Read about the “pass-through” expenses in the complaint, for example: the NRA directed their public relations/marketing firm to pay for meals for NRA executives at a pricy Italian restaurant in Virginia, including purchasing memberships at an affiliated cigar bar, and then the NRA reimbursed those expenses under the budget category for public relations. Please explain how lasagne and osso buco advances the cause of gun rights; be specific.
We also are well aware that lobbying merely means offering disguised and deniable bribes to politicians and public officials, so when NRA claims to have spent its members money on lobbying, it is important to know exactly what that actually means.
This all raises the question of how much money they actually spend on their non-2nd-amendment objectives, which we all now know are the majority of their objectives.
The 2nd Amendment is the foundation of gun ownership in the US. The members of the NRA support this and the organization expends a great deal of resources to ensure that continues.
Your quote is misleading. It implies personal licenses. It was the licensing of dealers in the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.
But again, times have changed.
From Wiki: Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the three most influential [advocacy groups] in [Washington, D.C.
In it’s current state is very much an advocacy for it’s members as demonstrated by the money they collect and spend on lobbying.
You’re making my point for me. If the goal of the NRA was Olympic gold medals then the money they spend would certainly be focused on that. It’s not.
the NRA is, today, very much focused on retaining rights for gun owners.
The NRA is very much focused on making gun owners think that is what the NRA is doing. Suits their purposes.
Nobody is coming after your law-abiding guns or their law-abiding uses. It is all scare tactics to get your money. The courts can enforce the 2nd amendment just fine. Take a deep breath, it will be ok. Do the lawful things with lawful guns bought the lawful way and guns won’t go away. I hate guns personally but I will seriously defend your right to buy, own and use them, as long as it’s lawful.
Reading the archived testimony of Karl Frederick during these hearings, he talks both about dealer licenses and individual pistol licenses, as the firearms act did have concealed carry license provisions for DC. It is plain that the line of questioning that lead to his “general promiscuous toting of guns” quote was referring to pistol carry licenses.
A transcript of his testimony can be found here: Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters
You have missed the point utterly. What is the relevance of the Second Amendment to the stated purpose of “To foster and promote the shooting sports, including the advancement of amateur competitions in marksmanship at the local, state, regional, national, and international levels,” given that nations without a Second Amendment also foster and promote amateur competitions in marksmanship?
No, you are making my point for me, and for the New York attorney general. Promoting amateur marksmanship competitions, including Olympic and other international competitions, is one of the stated goals and purposes of the NRA. It’s in the bylaws and certificate of incorporation; it’s one of the reasons that people have been donating to the NRA for decades. It’s one of the purposes that the current NRA administration have a legal and fiduciary obligation to work on, until and unless the membership votes to change the purposes. Spending money at a cigar bar in Virginia rather than on fostering Olympic gold medals is not a virtue; it is further evidence of malfeasance and fiduciary abuse.
The relevance is the ability to carry out everything you listed without unnecessary government intervention. Anyone can go down to a shooting range, take a brief safety course and be shooting in 30 minutes. If they are have enough land they can shoot in their backyard.