NYS AG files suite to dissolve NRA due to fraud/corruption.

[esmith]

As I already said, the membership is responsible for electing trustworthy representatives. What the representatives do, is representing the organization. When the representatives are found guilty of crimes (acting for or using property of the organization), the organization is guilty of the crimes.
The organization may get away when they themselves accuse the criminal behaviour of an individual (which didn't happen) or they may demand restitution from the criminals after the fact.

The only chance for the NRA as an organization to get away with as little damage as possible is to elect a new leadership asap and join the AG in the persecution of the former leadership.

So you are saying that if the officers of an organization, say like unions,or political parties, are found guilty of crimes then in this case the union or political party are guilty of crimes.

 

[Heyo]

So you are saying that if the officers of an organization, say like unions,or political parties, are found guilty of crimes then in this case the union or political party are guilty of crimes.

Yes. Take, for example, a company, let's say VW. Some of the employees conspired to tune the exhaust system for the test stand. Not all employees knew about it. The stock holders didn't know about it. Nevertheless the company was convicted. The stock holders had to take the losses. They failed to employ trustworthy managers.
The same goes for the NRA.

 

[Tambourine]

An odd question.
What makes you think I did?

Another odd question.
I don't believe that.

"We have guns. We plan to keep them."

Isn't that kind of an odd turn of phrase in the context of a lawsuit against the NRA, if you don't believe it affects the state of your guns to begin with? It's certainly an odd thing to say.

They won't be able to anyways. It would be a breach of constitutional freedoms involving freedom of speech alongside the right to keep and bear arms.

The only scenario I think they would be able to, is if they can dissolve religious organizations. Like China does.

Is it their constitutional right to claim status as a charity? I didn't think the NRA was doing a significant amount of charity work.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Do you not think it is possible that we were not aware of the problem.
But what is the purpose of wanting to dissolve the NRA based on alleged misdeeds of the governing body?

I'm not sure exactly how it works but someone gave a reason already in this thread, that the corruption was so pervasive that it was entrenched in the organization.

That is your opinion.

And?

No you don't, but in other countries you might have an opinion but you may not be able to express that opinion to others.
No, I am not saying the NRA is the reason you have that right. That right was established and upheld by the members of the military.

Yeah, in the 18th century, but it took a long time for Constitutional protections to filter down to everyone.

 

[Revoltingest]

"We have guns. We plan to keep them."

It's a strong motive to be organized.

 

[Tambourine]

It's a strong motive to be organized.

What is?

 

[Revoltingest]

"Ms James alleges that the gun lobby is rife with corruption and no longer has the right to call itself a non-profit charity" - from the BBC article you linked.

One needn't be a charity or religious organization to be a tax exempt organization. Education & politicking are also eligible for exemption.

 

[Revoltingest]

What is?

Having guns & planning to keep them (as I said before).

 

[ecco]

Nitpicking becomes you. I guess I was unclear, but I assumed that everyone should know that it was established by our Constitution and upheld by our military.

I knew that it was established by the Constitution. That's why I questioned your comment. There are many people who are ignorant and misinformed about many things. One can ignore those or one can comment on them. If you want to call that nitpicking, OK.

I should also point out that it is not just the military that upholds our freedoms. It was and is Judges and Legislators and even protestors that helped uphold our freedoms.

 

[ecco]

Yes. Take, for example, a company, let's say VW. Some of the employees conspired to tune the exhaust system for the test stand. Not all employees knew about it. The stock holders didn't know about it. Nevertheless the company was convicted. The stock holders had to take the losses. They failed to employ trustworthy managers.
The same goes for the NRA.

I've never been in favor of convicting the company or the organization. I would much rather see the principals convicted and go to jail.

Following the fiasco of 2008, some companies got punished by having to pay fines. Only one or two people got punished.

 

[Tambourine]

Having guns & planning to keep them (as I said before).

So was that just a random thought you had?

One needn't be a charity or religious organization to be a tax exempt organization. Education & politicking are also eligible for exemption.

That makes it sound like it's trivial for most Americans to become tax exempt: Just park all your earnings in an organization that's, in theory, not supposed to turn a profit.

 

[Heyo]

One needn't be a charity or religious organization to be a tax exempt organization. Education & politicking are also eligible for exemption.

Yep. But corruption isn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep. But corruption isn't.

Of course.
But corruption is something to be rooted out.
It can happen in any organization, eg, the DNC.
But this doesn't mean it should be dissolved.

 

[Heyo]

I've never been in favor of convicting the company or the organization. I would much rather see the principals convicted and go to jail.

Following the fiasco of 2008, some companies got punished by having to pay fines. Only one or two people got punished.

And reward the stockholders for finding a criminal CEO? No, if a company (and by that the stock holders) benefits or would have benefited from a crime, they have to pay. Especially when it comes to reparations that the CEO wouldn't be able to pay out of pocket.
The CEO might additionally be responsible for personal crimes towards the public or the company.

 

[Heyo]

Of course.
But corruption is something to be rooted out.
It can happen in any organization, eg, the DNC.
But this doesn't mean it should be dissolved.

As I said above, I don't know if that would be a legal measure. But getting tax exempt status comes with strings attached, e.g. using money only for the primary, approved goals of the organization. Private travels of the president is not in the primary goals of the NRA. The NRA let that happen for multiple years. Therefore the NRA should lose the tax exempt status retroactively for that time and pay the back taxes. (Which, I guess, will make the question whether the NRA should be dissolved obsolete.)

 

[Revoltingest]

As I said above, I don't know if that would be a legal measure. But getting tax exempt status comes with strings attached, e.g. using money only for the primary, approved goals of the organization. Private travels of the president is not in the primary goals of the NRA. The NRA let that happen for multiple years. Therefore the NRA should lose the tax exempt status retroactively for that time and pay the back taxes. (Which, I guess, will make the question whether the NRA should be dissolved obsolete.)

If the organization has a problem with a leader, this doesn't
mean the organization should be disbanded or lose tax
exempt status. It just doesn't work that way in Ameristan.
Prosecuting &/or ditching the offender is the proper way.

It seems that the NRA's detractors are overly hopeful to
see it go away. But beware wishing for a solution that
could come back to bite their own favorite non-profits.

 

[Heyo]

If the organization has a problem with a leader, this doesn't
mean the organization should be disbanded or lose tax
exempt status. It just doesn't work that way in Ameristan.

The AG seems to think so. We'll see what the courts decide. We are both not lawyers. But I bet the NRA will not get away scot free.

 

[Revoltingest]

The AG seems to think so.

Does he really though?
It could be political posturing.

We'll see what the courts decide. We are both not lawyers. But I bet the NRA will not get away scot free.

I'll bet you a nickel that the NRA will continue to
exist after this goes to court....if it even does.