-
It aint gonna happen.
-
Who said anything about second-amendment groups ? Could be hunter safety groups, groups that push marksmanship in a olympic type of shooting, groups that buy lands for duck hunting. The NRA’s original mission isnt about 2nd ad rights, it is about civilian marksmanship.
I’m not the sort to make predictions where I substitute confidence for evidence. If that’s your bag, though, you’re rocking it.
“Who said anything about second-amendment groups?” Uh, okay.
So? For the past 43 years, they’ve been hard-right, gun-totin’ Second Amendment activists.
Yes, and so? Read that again "Dissolving the NRA and directing that its remaining assets and any future assets be
applied to charitable uses consistent with the mission set forth in the NRA’s certificate
of incorporation…"
New York incorporation law (and the NRA’s bylaws) provide for amending the mission set forth in a certificate of incorporation. In the case of the NRA bylaws, any amendment must be approved both by the board of directors and by a general vote of the membership. If the NRA has not gotten around to amending their certificate anytime in the last few decades, then that is their choice, and they’ll have to live with that choice.
Indeed their original incorporation statement would make them, in the parlance of the hip kids today, the ultimate “Fudds”, focused on safety and sport and not at all about the People’s Militia resisting tyranny. But like slash2k said, if the NRA never got its act together to amend its certificate of incorporation to explicitly make themselves de jure a 2A Advocacy entity, that’s yet another “what were they thinking” stumble from the post-1970s leadership. (Maybe some part of their NPO tax status would have been affected if they did?)
As I understood it, what we commonly call “the NRA” includes besides the NRA per se, the NRA Foundation, which supports sports and recreation, and also the Institute for Legislative Action/Civil Defense Fund and the Political Victory Fund, which manage the lobbying/2A Advocacy and campaign-contribution aspects. I have no idea how closely held are the different parts of that system or if they have distinct identities. The simultaneous DC AG’s suit involves the channelling of funds from the Foundation to the political divisions IIUIC.
OTOH if they did amend their mission statement then that should be some relief as to the possibility of a White Knight organization taking over. Heck, have two White Knights, one to take over the sportsmanship side and one to take over the Policy Advocacy side.
They did indeed get around to it. The current certificate of incorporation and bylaws are available here (Exhibits 2 & 3, respectively).
…further the right of the individual of good repute to keep and bear arms as a common law and contitutional right both of the individual citizen and of the collective militia.
May 21, 1977
NB: the certificate wasn’t actually amended until September.
I don’t think this works.
It is killing me because I just saw something like this elsewhere and cannot find it now. Basically, some couple were running some scam and just kept closing their business and opening another one elsewhere thinking business A had all the problems, they ditched it and business B is in the clear.
Needless to say that did not work and they got busted.
The business world would be majorly messed up if all you had to do to avoid legal consequences was to close one business and open another.
While they CAN incorporate in another state, if they get dissolved they’d have to reincorporate elsewhere without any of the assets (including intellectual assets such as trademarks), because those will be subject to the court’s jurisdiction and the court can order those distributed elsewhere.
It seems to be working for Trump. Over and over and over again.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist the straight line. It’s a sin to waste a straight line.
Here’s a decent 5 minute video piece on the lawsuit:
I have been amazed at Trump’s ability to seemingly lose money at anything he puts his hand to and yet is wealthy (supposedly).
It certainly suggests there are different rules for you and me.
From the op’s cite: Under New York State non-profit law, James has broad powers to seek to dissolve the organization, if it’s found that fraud, corruption, or waste was so endemic at the organization as to have made it impossible for the group to fulfill its charitable purpose, experts told TPM last year.
Clearly there is no basis to suggest the NRA has not fulfilled it’s purpose. If it’s leadership took money not entitled to them then they have committed a crime and not the organization itself. They should be prosecuted and any funds taken illegally returned to the organization.
I’m happy to see that you’ve abandoned your previous claim, that the entitlement to free speech means that there’s no premise for destroying the organization. You didn’t admit that that was ridiculous, but your willingness to move on is good enough.
Your new claim is, unfortunately, equally silly. The TPM memo is not the complaint. The complaint is linked above, and I quoted sections talking about the legal authority under which the AG has the authority to dissolve the organization. Your “clearly” claim is just nonsense.
I made no such claim.
The memo states a premise and that premise is false.
You have to have a reason to destroy a legal entity and there is no logic to holding that entity liable for individual acts unless you can prove it was done at the behest of the organization. In this case the potential crimes of the accused are against the organization and not an outside entity.
Okay. If you’re just gonna deny the things you said before and then work without any evidence to make bald assertions, the conversation is too boring to continue.
Evidence? Cite?
How much money has been spent on the charitable purposes over the past couple of years, relative to the amount alleged to have been looted? What could that looted money have done?
It’s not a charity as was discussed above. It’s purpose is to promote and lobby for 2nd amendment issues. There is no doubt they have been successful in this endeavor.
Any harm would be to the members of group. Disbanding it would be like disbanding a union because some of the top leaders were thieves. Imagine how this would fly if the NY AG tried to disband the AFL-CIO.
It is organized under New York law as a charitable not-for-profit, and registered with and regulated by the Charities Bureau of the New York Attorney General’s Office. It’s not a charity as the IRS defines the term, but yes, it is as the State of New York defines it, and it is as a charity that it will be judged in this lawsuit.
No. Its own stated purposes are far broader:
Its officers are legally obligated to work towards ALL of the organization’s stated purposes, not just cherry-pick one. Moreover, no, it is NOT obvious that they have been successful in the one area you highlighted, considering they weren’t even part of, e.g., the Heller decision, probably the most significant gun rights court case of the past thirty or forty years.
No, because the NRA is a charitable corporation, mismanagement of the charitable purposes and funds also harms the charitable beneficiaries, who may not be members. Who looks out for their interests? The Attorney General is charged with that responsibility.
Your union analogy fails because it presupposes that the NRA is the only organization capable of carrying out its purposes at the present time, as a labor union is the only organization representing its members until a new organizing process, election, negotiations, etc., replaces it. However, the NRA isn’t the only game in town; the Gun Owners of America have been more vocal on gun rights issues, while USA Shooting is the governing body for Olympic shooting sports.