As someone who is generally opposed to gun control, I welcome this. In the 1990s the NRA was primarily oriented towards gun rights on the political side and gun education on the practical side. They actually pushed for the NICS instant background check system over the objection of anti-gun groups (who were pushing for mandated waiting periods and open-ended optional delays), and complained about government overreach especially by the BATF (no E yet) enough that Republican president Bush Sr. got pissed off enough at them to renounce his membership. Maybe during Bush Jr, and definitely by the Obama era, they shifted to typical far-right talking points like objecting to ‘socialism’ instead of points related to gun rights, supporting any and all Republicans and condemning all Democrats regardless of history on guns (as an example, concealed carry in national parks happened by executive order under Obama, Bush refused to do it), ignoring actual government overreach (Silence on Philando Castile or the current trend of jackbooted thugs literally driving unmarked vans to seize people off the street), and generally just became a straight up tool of the far right while mostly ignoring their real mission.
The NRA has become a right-wing mouthpiece (rather than a pro-gun organization) over the last two decades, which alone qualifies as fraud in the colloquial sense, though obviously not the legal sense. I would be happy to see them go and a pro-gun group that hasn’t lashed themselves to the Party of Trump take over as the ‘opposition’ in general terms, though I had no idea how that would actually happen. The fact that the leadership is actively engaged in fraud for massive personal gain in a way that (apparently) can be proved in court is actually a good thing for the cause the NRA supposedly fights for. While I don’t have high hopes, I don’t see anything to object to in the NRA (hopefully) dying and the people using it to defraud money ending up in jail.
I entered before I finished my thought here, I isn’t going to help the Dems win against Trump. The embezzlement is still in the alleged charge. I’m questioning the timing.
There will never be a good time. May as well do it now.
Besides, something on this level is not decided on the moment, no doubt the investigation has been going on for months.
You make some excellent points, but when some cities effectively tried to ban all guns (this caused Heller) the NRA reacted. So, when radical gun control politicians went overboard on gun control, it can be understood why the NRA reacted like they did.
So you’re not an AG but you know that now isn’t the right time; but since you’re not an AG you don’t know when would be the right time? Do I have that right?
Heller filed his challenge to the 1975 DC gun ban in 2003 with the help of the Cato institute, which finally went to the Supreme Court in 2008. The NRA didn’t help with Heller, they in fact opposed it and tried hard to prevent it from happening - the Cato institute’s opinion on that is “The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship,” though the NRA did eventually change their mind and file an amicus brief once they weren’t able to stop it. So I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make - the case wasn’t a quick reaction to DC’s gun ban (it was 28 years after the passage), the NRA’s initial reaction was to oppose actually filing Heller, and they didn’t really do anything beyond resignedly going along with it once they couldn’t stop it.
In short, the modern NRA actually opposed filing the court case that led to the biggest win on gun rights in the history of United States gun litigation, which really doesn’t speak well to their advocacy for individual rights.
I posted a link upthread that had several links showing the chronology of the investigation, starting with this one. I think it would be suspicious if NY State ignored this kind of public reporting. That’s one reason why journalism is important, it keeps law enforcement from turning a blind eye to crimes.
Apparently, New York State and the NRA have been involved in back and forth lawsuits over other matters for sone time now - a lot of it involved with the NRA’s attempt to market insurance for gun owners that would cover their legal fees if they shot someone in self-defense.
I’m actually thrilled that the NRA was using contributions to pay for Wayne’s vacations and clothing instead of giving money to Trump and Republicans. And, judging by the way they’ve jumped to the NRA’s defense, it seems like conservatives agree with me.
I think the motivation for the litigation is political. This AG, a Dem in NY, a state known for very strict anti-gun laws, almost certainly has an anti-gun bias and therefore chose to go after the NRA. In NY, this may turn out to be a savvy move if she has future political ambitions.
Wouldn’t redirecting NRA members funds towards gun advocacy and education be better for gun owners and gun rights than those funds going to enrich the board?
If I were going for maximum anti-gun, I’d let gun owners keep wasting their resources on LaPierre’s luxurious lifestyle, rather than going towards lobbying and legal costs.
I find this to be good news, but find myself wondering… why did the NRA set up shop in New York? There are large states that aren’t so hostile to them.