5 ms·

They're facing charges as an organization at the state level for laws that don't exist in Texas. The organization in New York will cease to exist and New York w

They're facing charges as an organization at the state level for laws that don't exist in Texas. The organization in New York will cease to exist and New York will have no jurisdiction over a Texan organization. Did you like it when the SCOTUS threw out the claim Texas made against Pennsylvania's election laws because the claim had "no standing"? That will be the same situation if New York tries to sue the Texas organization Also the NRA _is_ a safety and education organization in addition to a lobbyist organization. As a child I learned gun safety from Eddie the Eagle. I still remember the song "If you find a gun, stop! Don't touch! Find an adult!" The NRA's biggest failings in late years have been capitulating to anti-gunners (they supported no fly no buy! which of course was a policy supported by both Clinton and Trump and is designed to disarm minorities) and generally siding with the GOP instead of staying on the side of gun owners' rights, which is why I give money to Gun Owners of America instead. But I'm a crazy person. I think marksmanship and gun safety should be taught in high schools.

wavefunction 6y ago
I disagree with your assessment of the NRA. They appear to me to be first and foremost acting on the behalf of gun manufacturers and the most extreme firearms owners. If they were truly interested in standing up for responsible firearms owners they would have made a public statement about the murder of Philando Castile yet they've remained completely silent. I own firearms and enjoy hunting but the NRA is not a positive force in the US.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Thanks for this comment. I'm not a gun owner (I'm actually a limey brit) am I'm never sure how much the NRA are "crazy gun nuts" and how much they're just demonised as such.
  - deepakhj 6y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=169zQ1g-Ul0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=169zQ1g-Ul0. Certified crazy.
  - wl 6y ago
    Gun owner in the US. I think GP is engaging in demonization by saying first and foremost, the NRA is acting on behalf of gun manufacturers and the most extreme gun owners. 1) The NRA is a membership organization that appears to primarily be funded by the dues and donations of their millions of members. They promote gun ownership not to enrich manufacturers, but because thats what their members want. 2) The "most extreme gun owners" frequently deride the NRA as "Negotiating Rights Away" and encourage people to instead donate to other organizations like Gun Owners of America or the Firearms Policy Coalition. I don't believe the the NRA's positions on gun policy are significantly more radical than their members or most gun owners, generally. That isn't to say no criticism of the NRA is warranted. The accusations from the NYS AG that the organization has unfairly enriched its executives and their families seem spot on, even if the proposed remedy (dissolution) is unwarranted. And as a gun owner, I've been dismayed to see the NRA lean into guns as a partisan issue. I wish they'd stay out of politics if it was unrelated to guns. In what world should they be honoring FCC Chairman Ajit Pai?
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > That isn't to say no criticism of the NRA is warranted. The accusations from the NYS AG that the organization has unfairly enriched its executives and their families seem spot on, even if the proposed remedy (dissolution) is unwarranted. And as a gun owner, I've been dismayed to see the NRA lean into guns as a partisan issue. I wish they'd stay out of politics if it was unrelated to guns. In what world should they be honoring FCC Chairman Ajit Pai? From my read of the situation, this is exactly right. It sounds like the NRA leadership is corrupt and should be removed, but the attempt to dissolve the organization really seems like abusing the legal system to achieve a partisan aim. If anyone has been harmed by the NRA leadership, it's its members and donors, and I don't see how dissolution helps them. Also, partisanship just seems totally damaging and unstrategic to any single-issue group: once the party you tied your fortune to goes out of power, there goes all your clout. It sounds like the unions made the same mistake: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/06/opinion/labor-unions-republicans.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/06/opinion/labor-unions-repu.... Full disclosure: I'm not a gun owner, but am thinking of getting in to shooting after binging on Forgotten Weapons (https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons).
- toiletfuneral 6y ago
  I agree and wanted to add that they also scare and radicalize good people. I have friends and family in rural areas who think a mob of BLM and Antifa are going to show up and destroy a strip mall based on apocalyptic NRA propaganda. I personally like guns but would prefer this organization didn’t exist at all.
  - tehwebguy 6y ago
    Correct, their TV propaganda machine was absolutely wild. NRA TV for those that haven’t heard of it, they’ve stopped production on it now.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - seany 6y ago
    I mean... this did happen in lots of places. Did they play it up? maybe. Did it happen in a _lot_ of places? yes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
LatteLazy 6y ago
I honestly don't mind gun ownership and I agree about teaching it in high school. I think it should be harder to get a gun (you should need some training and safe storage etc). Afaik, the modern NRA opposes all gun control laws basically on principle. They are also deeply in bed with the GOP. That's not appropriate or helpful as it politicises gun laws and gun owners. So I won't pretend I wouldn't like to see the organisation fall. If the org decides to fold, it will have to surrender all its assets. So it either has no net worth or I don't see how they can just "run off" to Texas. Maybe they don't have any assets? I think the issue is, if you can pursue the org for fraud, you can almost certainly pursue the officers for fraud. So how long until NY does that and extradite those same officers back for trial? I hasn't actually seen this angle before but maybe that's why they're going after the org first: force the opening of the books, audit the whole thing, then you have all the evidence you need against individuals?
- brandonmenc 6y ago
  > the modern NRA opposes all gun control laws basically on principle Not anymore. That's purveyed by the GOA now. https://www.gunowners.org https://www.gunowners.org
- stale2002 6y ago
  > If the org decides to fold, it will have to surrender all its assets No, actually. They could simply pay off their creditors and sell the assets to a new organization that is formed in Texas. They aren't discharging liabilities. They are paying them off. If someone gets back all their money, they don't have a claim to anything further.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    If the org is being prosecuted for fraud, their liabilities include that prosecution. They can pay off their other liabilities, and they can sell assets, but that has to be at market rate. No judge will tolerate them selling all their assets to a new Texas org to avoid accountability for crimes in NY.
    - 6y ago
brandonmenc 6y ago
> I think marksmanship and gun safety should be taught in high schools. That's where I learned it. My high school had a shooting range in the basement for the Rifle Club. This was in the mid-1990s at a private, Catholic high school in Pennsylvania.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The reason it's not that simple is that the organization in New York has assets - trademarks, offices, etc. - that they'd like to keep when they reincorporate in Texas. They almost certainly can't erase New York's claim on the assets of a New York organization by just setting up shop in another state.
klmadfejno 6y ago
>They're facing charges as an organization at the state level for laws that don't exist in Texas. The organization in New York will cease to exist and New York will have no jurisdiction over a Texan organization. > Did you like it when the SCOTUS threw out the claim Texas made against Pennsylvania's election laws because the claim had "no standing"? That will be the same situation if New York tries to sue the Texas organization IANAL, but that doesn't sound accurate. I don't believe court ordered fines are dischargeable in a reorg. If the NY NRA ceases to exist, and is legit dead, they'll need to start from scratch. Doesn't sound like that's their intent. You can't just walk away from fraud charges by switching states. Phrasing your statement as "did you like it when..." is aggressive and political. It's also wrong. For the analogy to work, new york would have to be suing the NRA for things they did in texas after leaving new york. They're suing them for things they already did in new york, and then fled to another state. Gun safety is a good thing, and maybe the NRA used to be more principled. These days it seems awfully corrupt. Even if you're pro gun-rights, the NRA just seems like a bad way to accomplish that. I'd call it a money grab by some sleazy execs personally.
- howfoss 6y ago
  Because of Federalism, when the organization closes shop in NY, that's it for suing the organization. If the individuals committed crimes, they will be held accountable. Also, the whole topic is political. Sorry if that offends you. I'm not sorry if you have a problem with my tone. I have a problem with the tone of almost every comment on HN. Get over it. New York is trying to sue an entity that decided to close up shop instead of being sued into non-existence. The point of the "unprecedented disclosures" from TFA is so that the state can discover if individuals have broken laws while in NY State; they can be pursued across state lines. But if it was only the organization that is liable under state law, the new Texan organization won't be liable. That's how I understand this, anyway. IANAL either.
edmundsauto 6y ago
Wouldn’t the NRAs biggest recent failings need to include the fraud and personal enrichment of their execs? Regardless of what you think about 2A, the NRA is a corrupt org.
jcranmer 6y ago
> Did you like it when the SCOTUS threw out the claim Texas made against Pennsylvania's election laws because the claim had "no standing"? That will be the same situation if New York tries to sue the Texas organization That's not how standing works. Texas v Pennsylvania was thrown out because Texas was challenging Pennsylvania's state laws on grounds of violating the federal constitution by violating the state constitution, and if that sounds like a squirrelly claim that has no legal basis, it's because it is. NY suing the NRA is completely different. For starters, the NRA doesn't have any sovereign immunity you can work around. So what matters instead is whether or not a court can find personal jurisdiction over the NRA. NY's jurisdiction over the issues they're being investigated for is already established, I believe, and given that the events have already happened, moving won't change that. Instead, this is basically an attempt to evade the law by disestablishing and reestablishing itself and saying "well, you're challenging NY NRA, but we're TX NRA and that's completely different," which isn't likely to go over very well. As a general rule of thumb, if you could plausibly describe your legal strategy with a clickbait headline like "One Weird Trick to Evade Legal Responsibility," then the courts are unlikely to actually agree with you.

wavefunction 6y ago

I disagree with your assessment of the NRA. They appear to me to be first and foremost acting on the behalf of gun manufacturers and the most extreme firearms owners. If they were truly interested in standing up for responsible firearms owners they would have made a public statement about the murder of Philando Castile yet they've remained completely silent. I own firearms and enjoy hunting but the NRA is not a positive force in the US.

LatteLazy 6y ago
Thanks for this comment. I'm not a gun owner (I'm actually a limey brit) am I'm never sure how much the NRA are "crazy gun nuts" and how much they're just demonised as such.
- deepakhj 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=169zQ1g-Ul0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=169zQ1g-Ul0. Certified crazy.
- wl 6y ago
  Gun owner in the US. I think GP is engaging in demonization by saying first and foremost, the NRA is acting on behalf of gun manufacturers and the most extreme gun owners. 1) The NRA is a membership organization that appears to primarily be funded by the dues and donations of their millions of members. They promote gun ownership not to enrich manufacturers, but because thats what their members want. 2) The "most extreme gun owners" frequently deride the NRA as "Negotiating Rights Away" and encourage people to instead donate to other organizations like Gun Owners of America or the Firearms Policy Coalition. I don't believe the the NRA's positions on gun policy are significantly more radical than their members or most gun owners, generally. That isn't to say no criticism of the NRA is warranted. The accusations from the NYS AG that the organization has unfairly enriched its executives and their families seem spot on, even if the proposed remedy (dissolution) is unwarranted. And as a gun owner, I've been dismayed to see the NRA lean into guns as a partisan issue. I wish they'd stay out of politics if it was unrelated to guns. In what world should they be honoring FCC Chairman Ajit Pai?
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > That isn't to say no criticism of the NRA is warranted. The accusations from the NYS AG that the organization has unfairly enriched its executives and their families seem spot on, even if the proposed remedy (dissolution) is unwarranted. And as a gun owner, I've been dismayed to see the NRA lean into guns as a partisan issue. I wish they'd stay out of politics if it was unrelated to guns. In what world should they be honoring FCC Chairman Ajit Pai? From my read of the situation, this is exactly right. It sounds like the NRA leadership is corrupt and should be removed, but the attempt to dissolve the organization really seems like abusing the legal system to achieve a partisan aim. If anyone has been harmed by the NRA leadership, it's its members and donors, and I don't see how dissolution helps them. Also, partisanship just seems totally damaging and unstrategic to any single-issue group: once the party you tied your fortune to goes out of power, there goes all your clout. It sounds like the unions made the same mistake: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/06/opinion/labor-unions-republicans.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/06/opinion/labor-unions-repu.... Full disclosure: I'm not a gun owner, but am thinking of getting in to shooting after binging on Forgotten Weapons (https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons).
toiletfuneral 6y ago
I agree and wanted to add that they also scare and radicalize good people. I have friends and family in rural areas who think a mob of BLM and Antifa are going to show up and destroy a strip mall based on apocalyptic NRA propaganda. I personally like guns but would prefer this organization didn’t exist at all.
- tehwebguy 6y ago
  Correct, their TV propaganda machine was absolutely wild. NRA TV for those that haven’t heard of it, they’ve stopped production on it now.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- seany 6y ago
  I mean... this did happen in lots of places. Did they play it up? maybe. Did it happen in a _lot_ of places? yes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

LatteLazy 6y ago

I honestly don't mind gun ownership and I agree about teaching it in high school. I think it should be harder to get a gun (you should need some training and safe storage etc). Afaik, the modern NRA opposes all gun control laws basically on principle. They are also deeply in bed with the GOP. That's not appropriate or helpful as it politicises gun laws and gun owners. So I won't pretend I wouldn't like to see the organisation fall. If the org decides to fold, it will have to surrender all its assets. So it either has no net worth or I don't see how they can just "run off" to Texas. Maybe they don't have any assets? I think the issue is, if you can pursue the org for fraud, you can almost certainly pursue the officers for fraud. So how long until NY does that and extradite those same officers back for trial? I hasn't actually seen this angle before but maybe that's why they're going after the org first: force the opening of the books, audit the whole thing, then you have all the evidence you need against individuals?

brandonmenc 6y ago
> the modern NRA opposes all gun control laws basically on principle Not anymore. That's purveyed by the GOA now. https://www.gunowners.org https://www.gunowners.org
stale2002 6y ago
> If the org decides to fold, it will have to surrender all its assets No, actually. They could simply pay off their creditors and sell the assets to a new organization that is formed in Texas. They aren't discharging liabilities. They are paying them off. If someone gets back all their money, they don't have a claim to anything further.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  If the org is being prosecuted for fraud, their liabilities include that prosecution. They can pay off their other liabilities, and they can sell assets, but that has to be at market rate. No judge will tolerate them selling all their assets to a new Texas org to avoid accountability for crimes in NY.
  - 6y ago

brandonmenc 6y ago

> I think marksmanship and gun safety should be taught in high schools. That's where I learned it. My high school had a shooting range in the basement for the Rifle Club. This was in the mid-1990s at a private, Catholic high school in Pennsylvania.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

The reason it's not that simple is that the organization in New York has assets - trademarks, offices, etc. - that they'd like to keep when they reincorporate in Texas. They almost certainly can't erase New York's claim on the assets of a New York organization by just setting up shop in another state.

klmadfejno 6y ago

>They're facing charges as an organization at the state level for laws that don't exist in Texas. The organization in New York will cease to exist and New York will have no jurisdiction over a Texan organization. > Did you like it when the SCOTUS threw out the claim Texas made against Pennsylvania's election laws because the claim had "no standing"? That will be the same situation if New York tries to sue the Texas organization IANAL, but that doesn't sound accurate. I don't believe court ordered fines are dischargeable in a reorg. If the NY NRA ceases to exist, and is legit dead, they'll need to start from scratch. Doesn't sound like that's their intent. You can't just walk away from fraud charges by switching states. Phrasing your statement as "did you like it when..." is aggressive and political. It's also wrong. For the analogy to work, new york would have to be suing the NRA for things they did in texas after leaving new york. They're suing them for things they already did in new york, and then fled to another state. Gun safety is a good thing, and maybe the NRA used to be more principled. These days it seems awfully corrupt. Even if you're pro gun-rights, the NRA just seems like a bad way to accomplish that. I'd call it a money grab by some sleazy execs personally.

howfoss 6y ago
Because of Federalism, when the organization closes shop in NY, that's it for suing the organization. If the individuals committed crimes, they will be held accountable. Also, the whole topic is political. Sorry if that offends you. I'm not sorry if you have a problem with my tone. I have a problem with the tone of almost every comment on HN. Get over it. New York is trying to sue an entity that decided to close up shop instead of being sued into non-existence. The point of the "unprecedented disclosures" from TFA is so that the state can discover if individuals have broken laws while in NY State; they can be pursued across state lines. But if it was only the organization that is liable under state law, the new Texan organization won't be liable. That's how I understand this, anyway. IANAL either.

edmundsauto 6y ago

Wouldn’t the NRAs biggest recent failings need to include the fraud and personal enrichment of their execs? Regardless of what you think about 2A, the NRA is a corrupt org.

jcranmer 6y ago

> Did you like it when the SCOTUS threw out the claim Texas made against Pennsylvania's election laws because the claim had "no standing"? That will be the same situation if New York tries to sue the Texas organization That's not how standing works. Texas v Pennsylvania was thrown out because Texas was challenging Pennsylvania's state laws on grounds of violating the federal constitution by violating the state constitution, and if that sounds like a squirrelly claim that has no legal basis, it's because it is. NY suing the NRA is completely different. For starters, the NRA doesn't have any sovereign immunity you can work around. So what matters instead is whether or not a court can find personal jurisdiction over the NRA. NY's jurisdiction over the issues they're being investigated for is already established, I believe, and given that the events have already happened, moving won't change that. Instead, this is basically an attempt to evade the law by disestablishing and reestablishing itself and saying "well, you're challenging NY NRA, but we're TX NRA and that's completely different," which isn't likely to go over very well. As a general rule of thumb, if you could plausibly describe your legal strategy with a clickbait headline like "One Weird Trick to Evade Legal Responsibility," then the courts are unlikely to actually agree with you.