UPDATE on the NRA

[Lazyfaire]

News flash -- From bad to worse

NY AG Letitia James Flips NRA's Former Second-In-Command - The Truth About Guns

A new court filing in Letitia James' case against the NRA reveals that she has flipped the former chief of staff of the NRA.

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Read More

 

[Explorer1]

Turning on the boss doing illegal crap is good but "Powell started shilling for gun control" is very revealing of his core values IMHO.

 

[User 1234]

Bad to worse for the existing board members, yes. Good for the NRA and its members.

The AG is clearing out the dead wood and rot which will result in the organization being stronger in the future if fresh, focused, leadership is elected by the members.

 

[oa98pistol512]

Bad to worse for the existing board members, yes. Good for the NRA and its members.

The AG is clearing out the dead wood and rot which will result in the organization being stronger in the future if fresh, focused, leadership is elected by the members.

Now if they just get the dead wood out of congress and senate

 

[CLT65]

From the article:

The court has already denied a motion to dissolve the NRA, so the organization will continue to exist. But, with the NRA decapitated, the court will have to appoint a special master to run the organization and rebuild its leadership.

The NRA might not be allowed to continue engaging in legislative efforts, but the possibility of a vastly improved training and education department could end up being a very good thing.

Interesting that the court can not only remove the corrupt leadership, but also take control of the organization and dictate their direction and mission. That's clearly what they're after. It doesn't seem like such naked politics could be allowed to stand, but I'm no expert.

What's really discouraging about these threads on this issue is the level of negativity and defeatism; It's no wonder that there's such a lack of effectiveness in the 2A movement.

It sure looks like there's a helluva fight on the horizon for the future of the organization. Greedy, corrupt leadership on the one side, politically ambitious politicians on the other, and innocent members caught in between- is there any chance for real justice from the courts, or are the courts, in a naked political move and a misuse of the justice system, going to completely eviscerate any remaining effectiveness of the NRA? I have no doubt that they'll try, but I refuse to give in to the ranting defeatism that is so common lately.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Update on the NRA...
Hmmm....
I recently shot a 5 shot group you could cover with a dime , using my Savage 19/33 NRA Match Rifle...
Oh wait....different NRA....
Andy

 

[Koda]

The AG is clearing out the dead wood and rot which will result in the organization being stronger in the future if fresh, focused, leadership is elected by the members.

The court can decide the NRA is no longer allowed to operate politically over this. While its great Wayne LaPierre et al got the boot and whats coming to them, but ultimately none of this is a good thing.

 

[Nosferatu]

What's really discouraging about these threads on this issue is the level of negativity and defeatism

They earned it.

If they had nipped this in the bud decades ago, they wouldn't be in this position. WLP wasn't the only one with his hands in the honey pot, but was certainly the ringleader of it.

They broke our trust and it's going to be a huge uphill battle to regain it.

 

[User 1234]

The court can decide the NRA is no longer allowed to operate politically over this. While its great Wayne LaPierre et al got the boot and whats coming to them, but ultimately none of this is a good thing.

That article linked in the first post is very general. 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations are always subject to caps on the amount and type of lobbying/political tasks they can perform. That's why the NRA has separate organizations dedicated to distinct purposes.

No, the AG cannot take over the NRA and force it to elect anti-gun activists. The special master which the court could appoint acts as the judge's helper to fix the
non-profit's problems. Here that would include monitoring executive hiring, waste of members' donations on luxury vacations and suits, and gifts to relatives. The special master would likely be given powers to ensure the voting process is not corrupted by the entrenched group who caused the problems and resisted reforms by members.

The special master does not report to the AG, they report to the court. The SM does not choose the board.

 

[CLT65]

That article linked in the first post is very general. 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations are always subject to caps on the amount and type of lobbying/political tasks they can perform. That's why the NRA has separate organizations dedicated to distinct purposes.

No, the AG cannot take over the NRA and force it to elect anti-gun activists. The special master which the court could appoint acts as the judge's helper to fix the
non-profit's problems. Here that would include monitoring executive hiring, waste of members' donations on luxury vacations and suits, and gifts to relatives. The special master would likely be given powers to ensure the voting process is not corrupted by the entrenched group who caused the problems and resisted reforms by members.

The special master does not report to the AG, they report to the court. The SM does not choose the board.

Excellent information, thank you. I was hoping that my interpretation of that article couldn't possibly be right.

 

[Provincial]

The special master does not report to the AG, they report to the court. The SM does not choose the board.

But the Court is actually a judge, and we have seen just how objective New York judges are.

 

[User 1234]

Yes, there are other problems with the larger system. I'm trying to provide some hopefully useful context to an article which paints in very broad strokes that suggest facts which are not accurate.

 

[po18guy]

Bad to worse for the existing board members, yes. Good for the NRA and its members.

The AG is clearing out the dead wood and rot which will result in the organization being stronger in the future if fresh, focused, leadership is elected by the members.

If she only knew the great favor she was doing for the NRA - but such agenda-driven power-seekers tend to be rather short-sighted.
(Personal best on hyphens on a single sentence)

 

[Koda]

No, the AG cannot take over the NRA and force it to elect anti-gun activists.

What I was referring to was this statement in the article....

"The NRA might not be allowed to continue engaging in legislative efforts"

Love or hate the NRA if that is true then we've lost the influence of perhaps the largest pro gun political group.

 

[User 1234]

Again, the 501(c)(3) NRA is disallowed from lobbying. This is the same for all 501(c)(3) organizations. The NRA's other organizations are formed differently for lobbying purposes.

That article is very general in nature. It is not gospel and does not tell the whole story.


Only the people directly involved in the court proceedings with all of the documents and testimony could speak to the details of the rulings, different NRA organizations, and implications of the rulings. That article is not a comprehensive analysis . It is a general news article.

 

[ODG_Chad]

To add further, the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) is the lobbying arm of the NRA.

They are who you would donate to if you wanted to support their political action (or lack thereof) at all.

 

[zomie]

I heard Moms demand action plan to run for the open board seats ...

 

[OldBroad44]

From the article:


Interesting that the court can not only remove the corrupt leadership, but also take control of the organization and dictate their direction and mission. That's clearly what they're after. It doesn't seem like such naked politics could be allowed ...

If NRA is reorganized as a 501c3 private operating foundation instead of a 501c3 public charity it would be able to run its training programs but would be unable to influence elections or laws. It might be able to legally work to influence government department rules or interpretation of laws. The nature of the transfer of funds from the criminally fiscally irresponsible old org to the new org might mean new NRA is funded initially by clawing money back from one or more miscreants or one lump sum from the old org, which could make it unqualified to be a public charity initially. Public charities must get most of their contributions from the public with limitations on what portion comes from one or a few big donors/sources. In subsequent years when NRAs funding goes back to being from many people or sources, it will be able to apply to be a 501c3 public charity again. So if NRA's loss of ability to act politically is caused by a change of IRS status from public charity to private operating foundation status, NRA,'s loss of ability to act politically will likely be only temporary. If the org is set up with the board being elected by the members, any efforts to control the direction of NRAs mission and direction by the court's appointment of leaders is likely to also be only temporary. (I'm not a lawyer. But I went through the transition when the small 501c3 of which I am board chair gained a large regular donor and had to change IRS status from public charity to private operating foundation.)

 

[OldBroad44]

When an org has gone bad, is it better to try to salvage it or is it better to dump it and start over with all new people? A friend of mine on the faculty of U of FL once expounded on this as we walked across campus one day about 50 years ago. (So don't ask me for a reference.) He said there was a study of that. He said when orgs or departments went bad, the best thing to do was usually to eliminate the entire department and everyone in it and start over with all new people . Often the rot started with one member and spread from there. But finding and firing or defanging that guy was usually insufficient, because the rot has become a self-perpetuating cancer by the time you realize you need to do something. There was a culture in the department that would outlast the life of the initiator. In addition, it was surprisingly difficult to identify the initiator. Often there could be one soft spoken guy who talked with one outspoken guy. It is the outspoken guy everyone would think was the initiator of the badness. But if you remove the outspoken guy the real initiator simply finds himself another outspoken guy to be his mouthpiece.

 

[Koda]

When an org has gone bad, is it better to try to salvage it or is it better to dump it and start over with all new people?

Hard to say other than I switched to the 2AF, the GOA is a close runner up. I believe these two orgs are doing more for the 2A than the NRA was.
Regardless, despite the corruption... the NRA was the largest, and so I worry about the impact it would have if it just vanished or started over with a more "compromise" ideology?