The NRA Mess Explained

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by thallub

This is not a trial in the conventional sense. It's a "you failed to comply with New York state rules concerning the operation of charities. Now we desire to punish your organization for that failure".

It's not a Perry Mason style criminal trial but the NRA and the individual, named defendants are certainly entitled to their day in court, so either there will be dueling rounds of briefs, or there will be a hearing (which is a trial, just not a criminal trial), or both. The judge isn't going to just accept the AG's complaint and make a ruling based on that alone.

[thallub]

The judge isn't going to just accept the AG's complaint and make a ruling based on that alone.

Very true. Neither will the judge accept the NRA's claim that's it's all political.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by thallub

Very true. Neither will the judge accept the NRA's claim that's it's all political.

I understand that. That's why the judge isn't likely to issue a ruling based solely on the complaint, the NRA's response to the complaint, and the depositions. There will almost certainly be a hearing -- which is a trial. Both sides will get to present their best arguments orally, submit any new evidence they may have, and possibly examine witnesses.

[natman]

Originally Posted by thallub

Very true. Neither will the judge accept the NRA's claim that's it's all political.

It's not all political. But the New York AG's demand that the NRA be dissolved certainly is.

[Tony Z]

Whatever happens, resolution in the courts will be years away. A quicker resolution will occur by this nation's voters, or maybe, just maybe, the voting members of the NRA.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by natman

It's not all political. But the New York AG's demand that the NRA be dissolved certainly is.

Agreed.

Last night I read through several pages of Ms. James' complaint, the parts spelling out the alleged misdeeds of LaPierre & Co. It's pretty compelling. This isn't a case of "Where there's smoke there must be fire." The specific acts that are enumerated aren't smoke, they ARE the fire. And I have no doubt that there are many more acts that the State of New York is aware of that may be brought out at trial.

Originally Posted by Tony Z

Whatever happens, resolution in the courts will be years away. A quicker resolution will occur by this nation's voters, or maybe, just maybe, the voting members of the NRA.

Considering the way the inner clique has arranged the by-laws to make it virtually impossible for the membership to have any say in how their organization is run, I don't see what the voting members of the NRA can possibly accomplish. We could try to mount a recall petition to oust LaPierre and his cronies but, given the way the by-laws have set up the recall process, the logistics are daunting. And, since the Secretary who has to certify the petition is one of the people we need to remove, I don't see a petition going anywhere other than the waste basket.

This is why I suggested investigating whether the members can intervene in the NY case against LaPierre & Co. The members' position, if we can intervene, would be "Yes, State of NY, these people violated your laws and played fast and loose with our money and our organization. Thank you for bringing it out in the open, but Mr. Judge please don't dissolve our organization and punish 5 million members for the actions of a half dozen or so officials. Please kick them out, require them to pay us restitution, and give us back our organization."

[shurshot]

I like the sound of that!

[Aguila Blanca]

We could also ask the court to rescind the 2017 by-laws changes -- that would be part of giving the organization back to the membership.

[natman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

We could also ask the court to rescind the 2017 by-laws changes -- that would be part of giving the organization back to the membership.

I suspect that changing the bylaws would result in the desired change if prison terms don't.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by natman

I suspect that changing the bylaws would result in the desired change if prison terms don't.

I believe this is actually a civil lawsuit, not a criminal charge, so prison for the [alleged] malfactors isn't on the radar in any event. And sending LaPierre & Co. to prison would not make it any easier for the rank-and-file members to elect new leadership. Getting the court to rescind the by-laws changes (if the court has that power -- I don't know about that) would be a good first step.

[natman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I believe this is actually a civil lawsuit, not a criminal charge, so prison for the [alleged] malfactors isn't on the radar in any event. And sending LaPierre & Co. to prison would not make it any easier for the rank-and-file members to elect new leadership. Getting the court to rescind the by-laws changes (if the court has that power -- I don't know about that) would be a good first step.

Yes, this is a civil suit against the organization overall. I believe the only reason the New York AG isn't going after prison terms is that she lacks jurisdiction over the individuals involved. IIRC, a criminal case with possible prison terms would have to come from Virginia, which has not shown any interest. At least not yet.

[JERRYS.]

bylaws won't change until those that are protected by them are removed. same with term limits for Congress.

[Tony Z]

What is the total number of NRA members? Of that number, how many are life members? Putting aside the life member numbers, will represent the year-to-year income generated by non-life membership. Now, of the life members, how is their dues spent? Is it invested for future income?

This is an extremely simplistic post, made to show that the NRA can win this battle, but lose the war, by ending up as an empty shell, imploding under the weight of ordinary and extraordinary costs, with not enough revenue streams to exist.

[Don P]

And a very few years ago LaPierre and Co. railroaded through a revision to the by-laws that makes it effectively impossible for a repeat performance of the members' revolt.

Just like our congressional leaders did with term limits

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Don P

Just like our congressional leaders did with term limits

When did the Congress amend the Constitution to make the imposition of term limits nigh unto impossible?

[Don P]

imposition of term limits nigh unto impossible?

Do you really think they would vote to change things to place term limits on themselves. Highly improbable

[thallub]

Be interesting to see what, if anything, shakes out of NRA member's meeting in Houston on 24 October.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Don P

Do you really think they would vote to change things to place term limits on themselves. Highly improbable

Of course they won't. But that's not a parallel situation at all.

The U.S. Constitution never had any provision for term limits for members of Congress, so it's not comparable to the NRA situation. LaPierre & Co. engineered a revision of the NRA's by-laws (the organization's constitution) in 2017 which made it orders of magnitude more difficult for the rank-and-file membership to have any say whatsoever in how their organization is run.