> 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.
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.
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.
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-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).
Which NRA are you referring to? The "NRA", or the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, or the NRA Foundation, or the NRA Special Contribution Fund, or the NRA Freedom Action Foundation, or the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, or the NRA Political Victory Fund?
Which one(s) is for education and which one(s) is for giving donations to politicians to make sure gun sales keep flowing?
See also:
> From 2005 through 2011, the NRA received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms.[228] An April 2011 Violence Policy Center presentation stated that the NRA had received between $14.7 million and $38.9 million from the firearms industry since 2005.[230] In 2008, Beretta exceeded $2 million in donations to the NRA, and in 2012 Smith & Wesson gave more than $1 million. Sturm, Ruger & Company raised $1.25 million through a program in which it donated $1 to the NRA-ILA for each gun it sold from May 2011 to May 2012.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Fin...
Nothing wrong with manufacturers (firearm or otherwise) lobbying in their own interest, but the "NRA" seems to be mixing and matching things at various levels.
I personally like guns but would prefer this organization didn’t exist at all.
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?
Not anymore. That's purveyed by the GOA now.
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.
Yeah sure. But this whole case isn't about the New York Attorney General merely seeking fair restitution for liabilities or charging them with fair fines.
Instead, what they want is to dissolve the organization.
This second goal is what the NRA will be able to effectively avoid by declaring bankruptcy.
They will be charged in court and pay the fines if they pay the fair prices for the fines for the fraud, ect, but by selling the assets they will be able to get around the real goal of the prosecution which is dissolution of their organization.
If the NRA dissolves, it's members are free to reform under a new org. They can do that in Texas though ironically NY would be better as (apparently) Texas doesn't punish leaders of groups who steal from their members...
They might lose a few things enroute (the name, the url?). But it doesn't seem like it will make much difference to members.
The leaders on the other hand are looking at jail if the company is found guilty (though that will rely on separate prosecutions).
That's what the purpose of this bankruptcy is.
It is to transfer the assets and members to a new organization.
Things like the Virgina headquarters and employees can't just be spun back up overnight. That would be a huge loss, if that happened.
Thus, the purpose of all of this stuff is to move all the assets and members to a new organization, so there is as little friction as possible.
It is because none of this has anything to do with creditors making good faith attempts to get paid back.
What this whole thing is about, is about an attempt by the new york AG, to dissolve the organization, and is not a good faith attempt to make creditors whole.
The whole point of all this stuff, is to sidestep back faith attempts at dissolution, and instead go through the normal process for handling fines/fraud/ect.
The dissolution is what is going to be evaded.
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.