3 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

>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.

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.