Do people join for one part of one of the five purposes, or for some other of the five purposes? Are you sure you speak for all of the members?
And the NRA isn’t even the major gun-rights lobbying group anymore: the National Shooting Sports Federation is.
(There’s a difference between showy and effective. The NRA is showy.)
It’s good practice for when you need to hammer in some nails, and all you have is your forehead.
We’re talking about the chartered purpose of a 501( c)4. I have written nothing about what gun owners do or do not want or what they will or will not gravitate toward, because it tells us nothing about the organization’s purpose. Thus, your statement about what I understand is your own invention, not based on any input from me.
As far as I’ve ever been able to tell, this is just a meme that gets thrown around a lot in gun control threads, it doesn’t appear to be factually supported. One of the problems with gun control threads is that there’s a lot of really wild misinformation thrown around, and few people interested in correcting it as the back and forth is usually not focused on the misinformation.
We’re talking about an organization consisting of it’s members. If you don’t care what they want then there really isn’t much point in discussing the issue.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing this up. It’s a trade group based organization.
From WIKI;
The National Shooting Sports Federation is an American national trade association for the firearms industry that is based in Newtown, Connecticut. Formed in 1961, the organization has more than 8,000 members: firearms manufacturers, distributors, retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s clubs and media.
I wrote nothing about what I do or do not care about, so anything you have to say about my cares is your own invention.
This entire sequence of posts is about you writing inaccurate information about the purpose of the NRA. 2nd issues are a purpose, not the purpose. Articles are hard; my ESL students often confused them. But there are resources explaining the difference if you’d like pointers.
I cited the primary objective of the NRA and I backed it up with their expenditures. You have provided nothing to suggest otherwise. If you think the members are unhappy with resource allocation then make your case as to why the members require 3rd party litigation instead of handling it themselves.
That was another poster (Post 181 if you’ve so quickly forgotten) who cited their primary objectives (plural); you’ve cited nothing of the sort.
Who is or is not happy has no bearing on correcting false information posted by you in GD.
In related news, the DC AG is suing the NRA Foundation, which other posters have mentioned is the affiliated 501c3, incorporated in DC:
According to Racine’s lawsuit, an OAG investigation found that the NRA’s financial problems in recent years prompted it to lean heavily on the Foundation for funds, including two $5 million loans in 2017 and 2018, one of which has not been repaid. The lawsuit also alleges a series of fee schedules and other financial schemes to funnel more money to the NRA.
I have not read the complaint yet, and my scan of the article didn’t show the stated desired outcome.
If, later today, the N.Y. AG or the SDNY filed fraud charges against the following groups, would you feel it was a politically motivated move to hurt Trump?
America Fighting Back
America First
Bikers for the President
Conservative Majority Fund
Great America PAC
Keep Florida Great
Keep America Great
Latinos for the President
Maga Coalition
Tea Party PAC
Would you feel any different if you knew that these groups have constructively been scamming the Trump campaign? And that the Trump campaign really wants to shut them down, because they take in millions of dollars and most of it goes towards enriching consultants instead of buying ads? And this is money that’s not going towards the official Trump campaign and the one Trump sanctioned super PAC. And that Trump himself nicely asked these groups to stop taking his money and most of them didn’t ?
It’s a tough one, cause Trump would lose voters if he started publicly shutting down these groups. So he’s got to let himself be scammed - plus, the decades long conservative assault on campaign finance law makes these groups really hard to stop.
Seriously? I’m bringing them up because they are currently spending the most money to lobby Congress for gun rights. The NRA isn’t the big spender anymore (possibly because the NRA blew too much of their money on overpriced consulting contracts, insider deals, and Wayne LaPierre’s golf course memberships).
The NRA’s members have the option of going through the process to change their charter to add/remove/revise the purposes of their organization, and they have not done so. That means that the only evidence of “what they want” is what the approved by-laws state, which is FIVE purposes, not just one. If you don’t care about that evidence, then I agree, there is no point in this discussion.
Honestly, I hope these scammers cause Republicans like Mitch Mcconnell to regret their support for Citizens United.
Magiver vs the SDMB. Not an edifying experience. Good day, all.
WOW. Seriously WOW. The NRA is the largest lobbying group that individuals can support. It is literally the people’s lobby. It’s primary objective, as listed on their website, is the support of gun rights.
Whatever else they list as objectives fall under the direction of the board. They are they people who dictate how the money is spent.
I’ve been a trustee for a non-profit for at least 30 years. We literally decide what we spend money on at every meeting. If there are any by-laws we don’t like we are free to change them as long as there are enough votes. They’re not etched in stone. If the members don’t like what the board does they can vote them out.
There is no reason for an AG to go after a non-profit group. That falls within the purview of the membership.
It becomes political when an AG calls it a a terrorist group and makes statements like: The National Rifle Association, the nation’s preeminent guns-rights group, had a “poisonous agenda” that was “directly antithetical” to New York’s tough gun-control laws,
Okay, I’ve called you out on this before Magiver, and you refused to answer. One of the points you keep neglecting is that there have been known, publicly reported issues for years, including the former President detailing frauds and abuses of the system.
The people and individuals you evoke have done nothing to vote or remove them from office or investigate these allegations. They are part and party to the abuses and willful negligence. Left Hand of Dorkness, as well as others have said it well:
This is not a one time affair. This is not limited to a single individual. This is not something that ‘just came to light’. This is an ongoing, persistent abuse over a period of years, and the organization is unwilling or unable to police itself.
IF, and I mean IF the various members who you ascribe so much collective power too were actually up in arms or had been making a concerted effort to correct the errors of leadership, then maybe you’d have a case that the NRA deserved to preserve it’s status. But I have seen no such efforts.
Your argument, pardon me for being blunt, is that the protection of 2nd Amendment rights (and BTW - I’m a gun owner and CCW permit holder) is so dependent upon the NRA that to dissolve it is to render the 2nd amendment at risk. And this is just plain silly.
What business is it of the NY AG if the members don’t care if a private jet is used versus first class vs economy class seating? In other words, who is the AG representing? Not the members. If the leadership at the NRA have committed crimes then they should be the subject of any legal proceedings and not the organization.
While the NRA supports 2nd Amendment they are using the 1st Amendment to do so. By attempting to dissolve the NRA the court challenges that right.
Just think how much more money could go to supporting the 2nd by an honest organization.
That’s ridiculous, and would enable an absolute defense against charges of fraud by any organization with any public speech whatsoever. What was it you were saying earlier to someone?
By your standards then, the Mob is being suppressed illegally by the government, as it is expressing it’s opinion that it should be allowed to make money by extorting individuals, and running gambling scams, prostitution, etc. It’s just exercising it’s 1st amendment rights to speak out on ‘alternate revenue streams’, and has for decades! I guess the Dons need to charter themselves as a not-for-profit company and sit back and enjoy.