NRA

The ACLU Defends the NRA

David Cole writes in defense of the National Rifle Association

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

New York Attorney General Letitia James is asking a court to dissolve the National Rifle Association due to alleged financial improprieties by the NRA's leadership. According to James:

The NRA's influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets. . . . The NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse, which is why, today, we seek to dissolve the NRA, because no organization is above the law.

Such a move would certainly put an end to the alleged fraud and abuse. It would also deprive gun owners of a powerful political ally.

David Cole, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, has taken to the WSJ editorial page to defend the NRA from James's suit, highlighting the danger of allowing elected officials to target and dissolve political nonprofits they oppose. As Cole notes, "If the New York attorney general can do this to the NRA, why couldn't the attorney general of a red state take similar action against the ACLU, the AFL-CIO, Common Cause, or Everytown for Gun Safety?"

Cole writes:

Our democracy is premised on the right of association. The First Amendment protects not only the right to speak, but also to band together with others to advance one's views. Making or resisting change in a democracy requires collective action, and a healthy democracy therefore demands a robust "civil society." The right to associate can't survive if officials can shut down organizations with which they disagree. . . .

[W]e believe Ms. James has also gone too far. Dissolution of a nonprofit is the most extreme remedy state regulators can seek. It has historically been reserved for organizations that are essentially false fronts for personal gain. . . .

Dissolution is proper only where a corporation is so subsumed by waste, misuse or fraud that it no longer fulfills a charitable purpose. There is simply no precedent for such extreme action against an organization like the NRA, which, whether you like it or not, has been serving charitable purposes very effectively (indeed, many of its opponents would say, too effectively) for a century and a half. And even if the threat of dissolution is meant only to gain leverage for a deal, threats of unconstitutional action ought not be a part of the attorney general's arsenal.

Cole is correct. If specific NRA officials have abused their positions they should be removed. If they committed crimes, they should be prosecuted. But the ability of the NRA's members to associate and pursue their political priorities should not be impaired due to the malfeasance of NRA officials.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump Authorizes Deployment of 2,000 National Guard Troops to Kenosha

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. I’m shocked, but yeah, the ACLU got one right. Thought they’d abandoned defending rights for people they didn’t like.

  1. “Look, we may not like the 2nd Amendment, but we still haven’t abandoned the 1st.”

    1. “Well, I mean, *some* of our affiliates defend the 1st Amendment.”

    2. Read the argument. The ACLU is only doing this because they want to protect their own skins.

      1. That’s why they were in this civil liberties defending business in the first place: They were communists who were smart enough to realize that if anybody was going to be oppressed, it was them, so that it was tactically smart to defend against oppression.

        Mind, they were smart enough back then to not admit that was why they were doing it. I suppose they had to justify defending the NRA to their left-wing backers.

        1. Even when they are right, they’re wrong, according to Brett.

          They couldn’t possibly be acting out of principle. It’s all a subtle move by Soros.

          1. Sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reason. It’s good that they’re doing the right thing.

            But it’s still relevant that they’re doing it for the wrong reason, because when that wrong reason tells them to do something else, they will, like the ACLU deprioritizing free speech when they decided the censors were more likely to be liberals.

            1. “But it’s still relevant that they’re doing it for the wrong reason”

              Is it still relevant that it’s possible they’re doing it for the wrong reason? Because that’s what you have evidence for.

        2. The argument that “they could turn this against us” has always had a prominent place in civil liberties advocacy. It’s neither new nor outrageous.

  2. “why couldn’t the attorney general of a red state take similar action against the ACLU, the AFL-CIO, Common Cause, or Everytown for Gun Safety?”

    Obviously, because left-wing nonprofits don’t have financial irregularities.

    1. 0h, really. Can you say SPLC?

      1. Right-wing myths, just like the idea that peaceful protesters are some kind of “rioters.”

        1. When a nationally-known, left-leaning civil rights attorney has contempt for Dees, that’s enough for me.

        2. Rioters are rioters.

          Peaceful protestors are peaceful protestors.

          Is that too hard to understand?

          Blaming the protestors for the rioters is foolish. Shutting them down is giving rioters a sort of heckler’s veto over the protestors.

          1. “Peaceful protestors are peaceful protestors.”

            So they are, bless their hearts.

          2. And calling the rioters “protesters” is no less foolish, and is giving rioters a license to riot.

    2. Sorry, I thought that was sarcasm. You were being serious?

      1. Your confusion is regularly evident.

      2. Poe’s law.

        I guess the joke isn’t clear unless I add an emoji or a “sarc.”

        Here we go:

        🙂 /sarc

        1. See, there we go.

          See, I thought it was sarcasm, but then your response about “right wing myths” seemed serious.

          In all reality, I’ve had people seriously tell me on this forum that a mob of people screaming and marching to your house at 2 AM in the morning saying that they’re going to chop of your head isn’t a “true threat”.

          1. “In all reality, I’ve had people seriously tell me on this forum that a mob of people screaming and marching to your house at 2 AM in the morning saying that they’re going to chop of your head isn’t a “true threat”.”

            Count the axes. Is the total number of axes being carried 0? If so, then no, not a “true threat”.

            1. Yeah, I was the one that said that.

              That’s the law. AL is just having trouble believing it.

  3. But would it be a bad thing if the ACLU was dissolved? Likewise the charade that is the SPLC….

    Maybe we need aggressive AGs, from both the left and right, to address these once-great but now-corrupt institutions….

    1. …and Dr. Ed lands on a take so dumb it wouldn’t have even occurred to me as an option.

      1. Stupidity is our greatest natural resource — and it’s endlessly renewable.

        1. You can’t honestly say that the ACLU is what it once was — nor that having to answer that wouldn’t make it stronger….

        2. Stupidity is what keeps the Left in business…

          1. You’re keeping the Left in business???

    2. As someone who has supported the ACLU for the last couple of decades I can say with no reservations that if they did half the corrupt things that the NRA has been accused of I have no problem with this.

      A corrupt advocacy organization does more harm than good to their chartered cause by fraudulently suppressing the speach of it’s members.

      1. Riiight. You support the NY AG’s action because you (and she) are just looking after the interests of those gun rights advocates (who will incidentally lose their most effective voice, but hey, that’s the breaks).

        1. I’m a life member, and I’m not so sure that the NRA is our most effective voice. Certainly our least cost effective voice, though. I suspect we’d be further ahead if half the NRA membership ended up in GOA, and the other half in the 2nd amendment foundation. Certainly, I’d love to see some reforms there, they’ve really gone down hill since they undid the Cincinnati reforms and rigged the BOD elections.

          But going into an election after the most anti-gun ticket in modern times isn’t the time to change horses.

          It’s nice to see the ACLU still at least has a sense of self preservation, if not much in the way of principles. They’re not totally transitioned into a use and throw away weapon.

          Yet.

          1. I joined the NRA at CPAC, a 12-month membership which in the NRA world meant 2 months after which they buried me in letters about how my membership had expired. I said “bleep this” and “bleep them.”

            1. Michael Kinsley, in the 1980’s, wrote a column for Time based on the premise that he sent $5 to a whole bunch of organizations he didn’t agree with. As a liberal, that meant the NRA, the National Right to Life League, etc., though a conservative could do this with liberal groups too. He said that he was certain the groups spent more than $5 trying to get him to send them more contributions.

          2. Figure most effective until the shift in how people got in contact with others in the mid oughts. Like many other groups, they got bypassed as the internet shifted the ability of people to connect with each other. At this point it’s largely inertia keeping them going, although this brouhaha may end up forcing them to change strategies. We’ll see.

            1. Mostly what’s keeping them going is that they genuinely are the go to people for firearms training. That, and that the anti-gunners credit everybody’s opposition to gun control to the NRA. Every time they attack the NRA more people join.

          3. ” I’m not so sure that the NRA is our most effective voice.”

            They’re running campaign ads that effectively say gun owners are stupid. Like horror-movie-character-level stupid.
            the ad opens with a scared looking woman rushing to her car. The narrator says in ominous tones that she may never get home again. She gets in the car, and opens the center console to reveal a handgun. But oh, no! this is Biden’s America and guns are now forbidden. The gun in the center console fades away. So the woman stays there in her car without a gun and waits for the bad guy to come get her. Apparently, in Biden’s America, you can’t have a gun or drive your own car.

      2. Which do you “have not problem with”? The NY AG trying to shut down the NRA or the ACLU defending them?

        Because one is a principled defense of the little guys and the other is an attempt by one branch of the government to stifle speech and disenfranchise a segment of the population that she politically opposes while pandering to a demographic that she supports.

        1. If the organization is being bled dry by management, then the state AG can dissolve the organization, require an accounting assets from the managers, and distribute the assets to fulfill the mission of the organization. I’m sure some other huckster can set up a new organization to buy ads to scare gullible firearms fans.

          1. The NRA is a non-profit membership corporation. If the allegations of misfeasance and malfeasance by corporate officers and employees are true, the corporation and its members are the victims, not the perpetrators. The proper remedy is entering monetary judgments against the miscreants in favor of the corporation, not the dissolution of the corporation itself.

    3. Doesn’t it drive you crazy when the libs pretend the corrupt ACLU isn’t the ACORN of Clinton Foundations? I mean how much more obvious could they make it than with all these diversionary principled positions?

    4. So, to take on once-great but now-corrupt institutions…

      …we need to give more power to state attorneys general?

      Got it.

      1. I’m sure she’ll jump right on the Teamsters next.

  4. Because the State of New York is very kosher and it is a specific religious type (don’t eat pork) who want to disarm the American people. Pretty simple. Has little to do with domestic politics. Given the number of deer hunters in upstate, the dyke AG is playing with fire … gun fire.

    No red blooded American has cause to disturb 2A or have need for a permit to carry. Those who attack 2A are operating from a much more sinister agenda. Keep your powder dry, gonna need it.

    1. While I pray that no one shoots her, I fear you may be right…

      Warning shots have lead to deaths in Wisconsin, AND I TOLD YOU SO…

      First fatality appears to be a GSW to the SIDE of the head, without instant fatality, so I’m thinking ricochet. And the second is clearly self-defense.

      Will this boy get a fair trial — or will he get what the “Jonesboro boys” got?

      1. Yup, the warnings went out. But the left thought it was all a game. We told them to dial it back or bad things would happen. They kept pushing. So, what happened? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

        1. You talk big for a guy who has been swallowing what your betters have been dishing out every day of your bigoted, clinger life.

          1. You talk big for a guy who has been swallowing what your betters have been dishing out every day of your bigoted, clinger life.

            1. Winning the culture war has been enjoyable and rewarding.

              I can’t only imagine how a lifetime of bitter clinging must feel.

        2. I’m not so sure about “dial it back” as much as recognize that there are hard barriers in a civilized society that one ought not cross lest everyone does…

          1. Yeah, lets defend the guy who shot random protesters.

            Yeah, lets do that.

            Lets condemn the protesters, in fact. For protesting so hard they got shot.

            It doesn’t work like this, Ed. Terrorism like you are advocating for has never been a good way to succeed in your political aims.

            1. Random protestors?! How fucking high are you?

              All of the news reports keep using the same pictures of a kid on the ground with a rifle taking a flying kick to the head, and a skateboard to the head. And then people around him end up shot.

              It wasn’t random. And they weren’t protestors. They were violent adults who committed assault one with a deadly weapon (let’s not forget that a skateboard to the head killed someone recently).

              Random protestors… Man, you’re knee-jerk protection of these attempted murderers is insane. If the kid hadn’t had that rifle, he would be dead and you’d be praising those poor, innocent protestors? Get a clue man.

              1. C’mon Reason, lets get an edit button in here.

                There’s a missing comma between assault and one, and yeah, I know it’s your, not you’re.

              2. Jesus. Did you even see the videos? He’s taking aim and shooting people that are nowhere near him.

                This is a helluva thing to make up alternative facts about.

                1. I haven’t found a single video that showed anything that clearly. Just what CNN has shown.

                  From everything I’ve seen, the people shot were very close to him, and at least one of them appears to be the person who hit him over the head with a skateboard. Then, after he gets up and starts walking away, there are more gunshots and he turns to look, and then farther in the distance, more gunshots. I see absolutely no evidence of your ridiculous assertion that he “[took] aim and [shot] people that are nowhere near him.

                  Care to link to something that supports your totalyl “non-alternative” “facts”?

                  1. I’m willing to accept that the person arrested, that you may be talking about, is not the kid that all of the news outlets show pictures of being assaulted. Otherwise, I don’t see how you could possibly come to the conclusion you have.

              3. Plus, lets even say your story is correct (it’s not.)

                Ed, and FOX News, and Jimmy are not talking about self defense. They’re talking about partisan violence.
                These protests are bad, so they are going to die. [At the hands of armed right-wingers].

                Do you at least condemn that line of thinking?

                1. I see no evidence that my “story” is incorrect. He may have hit people he didn’t intend to (that’s the only “random protestors” that I would concede to) but he was being assaulted, and seems to have shot at least one of the “protestors” who attacked him.

                  I agree, protestors should not be shot or killed for the content of their protests.

                  Do you at least agree that people being attacked have the right to defend themselves?

                  1. “Do you at least agree that people being attacked have the right to defend themselves?”

                    Attacked with what? And defending themselves with what?
                    No,there isn’t a general right to shoot anyone who hasn’t placed your life at risk.

                2. Actually, to rephrase my question, do you agree that people who are assaulting (committing partisan violence) kids are not properly classified as merely “protestors”? Random protestors at that.

                  1. When that kid is armed like that?

                    No – he’s the one that escalated to deadly force. They were protesters until he made them not.

                    1. More video keeps coming out. The first shooting happened after the kid had a molotov cocktail thrown at him. It’s difficult to make out much more than that.

                      The later shootings were all definitely self defense. It appears that most of the injured “protestors” were armed. At least 1 with a handgun.

                      Will any evidence change your position, specifically in regard to my reply that you are calling these people “random protestors” who instead appear to be the instigators, in both instances.

                    2. “No – he’s the one that escalated to deadly force. They were protesters until he made them not.”

                      OK, would you like to volunteer for an experiment?

                      Well have a mob chase you down, kick you in the head, smash your head open with a skateboard, etc — and if you remain alive (which you won’t) — then we’ll reconsider those being considered deadly force.

                    3. “They were protesters until he made them not.”

                      The wife-beater’s defense, eh?

                    4. The kid barely made it out alive “armed like that”. His weapon was ideal for the situation- self defense against multiple armed attackers.

                      Its a fact that the first shot was in response to someone throwing a bottle of gasoline at him while he was standing guard at a business.

                      The subsequent shots occurred after the mob converged on him, punched him to the ground, kicked him and then struck his head with the edge of a skateboard while prone, tried to pull his rifle away, and, the last dude shot approached him with his hands in the air as if giving up and then suddenly drew his own Glock pistol at which point the kid removed half the attackers arm with a well placed shot.

                      You are understandably under informed due to the blackout by most of the media on the live video feeds of this incident. (Doesn’t fit the “vigilante” “militia” story narrative).

                    5. Grifhunter,

                      There’s no need to expose yourself as a fucking liar regarding this situation.

                      The first homicide was him being chased by an agitator who earlier in the day was yelling racial slurs on video. Nobody threw a bottle of gasoline at him, and he was not standing guard at a business at the time. He was in fact retreating from a confrontation.

                      The second homicide is where your lies become outrageous. He was NOT PUNCHED TO THE GROUND. He fucking TRIPPED on his own.

                      Plenty of video to this event, and absolutely none of it supports your bullshit.

                    6. “The subsequent shots occurred after the mob converged on him, punched him to the ground, kicked him and then struck his head with the edge of a skateboard while prone, tried to pull his rifle away, and, the last dude shot approached him with his hands in the air as if giving up and then suddenly drew his own Glock pistol at which point the kid removed half the attackers arm with a well placed shot. ”

                      So the guy had a Glock but DIDN’T shoot the kid who was shooting at people? Must be new to rioting, that guy.

                  2. “to rephrase my question, do you agree that people who are assaulting (committing partisan violence) kids are not properly classified as merely “protestors”?

                    To use your own words, don’t they have the right to defend themselves? Assaulting the person who is shooting at you is categorically not committing partisan violence.

                3. “These protests are bad, so they are going to die. [At the hands of armed right-wingers].”

                  “Im ba l’hargekha, hashkem l’hargo”
                  (Brachot 58a, 62b, citing Exodus 22.2)

              4. The guy who got shot in the arm by the kid with the rifle, had a Glock pistol in his hand. Those very clear pics are all over the internet, despite some people saying it’s a cell phone. He and skateboard man attacked the kid at he was turning himself into the police.

            2. Lets condemn the protesters, in fact. For protesting so hard they got shot.

              It doesn’t work like this, Ed. Terrorism like you are advocating for has never been a good way to succeed in your political aims.

              I have some very liberal acquaintances (who I no longer refer to as friends) who have seriously stated that “if people are so afraid they’re attacking you, you need to reconsider your position” when defending Left wing violence.

              1. Well OK.

                I’m not defending left-wing violence, I’m condemning right-wing violence.

                1. “I’m not defending left-wing violence, I’m condemning right-wing violence.”

                  Violence begets violence, but here you are attacking legitimate self defense.

                  1. There is no sign this was self defense.

                    Above you weren’t talking about self defense anyhow, but right-wing political violence when the protests ‘go too far.’

                    1. The guy who got shot in the arm by the kid with the rifle, had a Glock pistol in his hand when it was shot. Those very clear pics are all over the internet, despite some people saying it’s a cell phone. The elbow is Swiss cheese and the guy is staring at the arm in shock and horror, pistol still grasped.

                      He and skateboard man attacked the kid at he was turning himself into the police. Skateboard man hit the kid in the head as he fell.
                      It was self defense. The issue is the first shooting at the car lot, where the kid was, as I understand it, a paid security guard.

                      https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1298990580446322688

                    2. “The guy who got shot in the arm by the kid with the rifle, had a Glock pistol in his hand when it was shot.”

                      How many times did he shoot the kid before the poor kid got off a shot?

              2. “Im ba l’hargekha, hashkem l’hargo”

            3. Your jumping to conclusions loses you a lot of credibility, Sarc. That’s unfortunate.

            4. “Lets condemn the protesters, in fact. For protesting so hard they got shot.”

              They were RIOTERS, not protestors.

              Protestors don’t burn down multiple buildings. Or really, burn any buildings. Or burn anything that doesn’t belong to them.

              Rioters and looters get shot sometimes.

              1. “Rioters and looters get shot sometimes.”

                So do protesters. and bystanders.

      2. Warning shots? I had not heard that. Please point to a report with details. What about the shot that hit a protester in the head? Was that aimed fire, a warning shot, or an accident, or something else?

    2. “Because the State of New York is very kosher and it is a specific religious type (don’t eat pork) who want to disarm the American people”

      That isn’t needed — there are Jewish people on our side as well, they just don’t feel the need to proclaim their faith on an hourly basis.

      And is Morris Dees even Jewish? I neither know nor particularly care, but not every leftist schmuck is Jewish. More than a few purport to be Christian….

      1. Don’t worry, Ed. Bernstein will be along shortly to explain it away.

      2. Gotta at least give props to Dr. Ed for calling this out (although apparently the part where the AG gets murdered is fine?)

        Meanwhile, the rest of the usual suspects just continue on the conversation as if this is a totally normal way to think about the issue.

    3. “Because the State of New York is very kosher and it is a specific religious type (don’t eat pork) who want to disarm the American people.”
      So, I guess you interrupted your reading of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” long enough to post a comment on this blog.

      1. I am Jewish and I definitely do not want to lose the right to own firearms.

        1. Do you handle your weapons safely and responsibly? If so, then I don’t want you to lose the right either. But if not, different logic applies.

    4. specific religious type (don’t eat pork)
      Moslem’s? I thought they love AK-47’s

      1. I assumed that Pavel Petrovich was talking about Seventh-Day Adventists.

  5. I hope the Left realizes that these tactics are going to be turned against them sooner rather then later….

    1. “I hope the Left realizes that these tactics are going to be turned against them sooner rather then later….”

      It might not even take that.

      I can see Trump winning in a landslide….

      1. A few weeks ago I would have said Trump was still fighting uphill. But given these developments I think his chances of getting re-elected are getting better. The public opinion is turning pretty sharply negative toward BLM which is interesting because just last month it was overly positive even among suburban voters.

        1. Which is why Don Lemon, Joe Biden, and other prominent libs are suddenly telling people that rioting is bad.

          1. Suddenly? Biden was talking about the tragedy of the riots in early June.

            1. Biden is a senile fool.

              1. He opposed reasonable efforts to protect federal property.

        2. ” The public opinion is turning pretty sharply negative toward BLM which is interesting because just last month it was overly positive even among suburban voters.”

          I’d ask your what your source is but I already know it is nothing but wishful thinking.

      2. I can see Trump winning in a landslide….

        Yes, but that’s because you’re an idiot.

        If events break the right way, it’s certainly possible that Trump could get re-elected, although it’s not likely. There’s no possibility that it’s a landslide.

        1. An EC landslide is certainly possible. If Antifa/BLM, (They seem to be joined at the hip these days.) doesn’t obey orders to stand down, maybe even a narrow popular vote majority/plurality. But, a popular vote landslide?

          Not happening.

          Anyway, what you’re seeing now is why the Democrats are so hot to have everybody vote months in advance of the election. It’s not just about enabling absentee ballot fraud, they also wanted to get the votes in favor of Biden already cast before anything could happen to end his lead.

          1. enabling absentee ballot fraud,

            The only recent attempt at absentee ballot fraud I’m aware of was by Republicans in NC.

            Do you have evidence of a Democratic plot, or are you just making shit up again?

            1. “I’m opposed to ballot security measures because the only ballot fraud I admit takes place is by my political foes!” That’s not the most believable stance, you know. “…because ballot fraud isn’t real!” at least made some logical sense.

              1. that was a lot of words to say “making shit up again still.”

        2. “If events break the right way, it’s certainly possible that Trump could get re-elected, although it’s not likely. There’s no possibility that it’s a landslide.”

          Limiting the universe to only outcomes of a fair election may be counting chickens. It’s true, they haven’t yet figured out how to get those ballot boxes stuffed, but they’ll keep looking for a way to do it right up until the last ballot is counted.

          When President Trump says that 2020 will be the most corrupt election ever, he isn’t making a prediction. He’s making a promise.

      3. “I can see Trump winning in a landslide….”

        As the post office delivers all the mail-in ballots around mid-December.

  6. But upon a moment of sober reflection, surely you must realize that this is exactly “the Left” doing exactly that.

    1. ugh, commenting system and lack of edits… reply to Jimmy the Dane.

  7. For the record, how many “bad apples” in the organizations leadership do you need, in a row, before it’s okay to dissolve the whole thing?

    1. Presumably the organization would go belly up because donors would stop sending them money. That would seem to me to be the proper remedy, not relying on the government to shut down organizations that it thinks are being led by “bad apples.”

      1. I feel that this is a very proper remedy. They are chartered by the state to do very particular things, and have agreed to do these things with the force of law. This looks to be a case that they didn’t follow through on what they agreed to, if true they should have their charter revoked. That said this still has to be proven.

        As far as bad apples, I think that is immaterial to the fact that an organization that does not follow it’s charter has no reason to exist. Let another organization pick up the cause.

        1. No, actually they ARE doing what they’re chartered to do, which is precisely why NY wants them shut down.

          The leadership seems to be doing some things that are at least a little dubious, some convenient self-dealing, but the percentage of their budget they’re wasting that way isn’t phenomenal, it’s probably less than a lot of groups on the left, that NY would never think of going after, waste that way.

          1. Brett — the Clinton Foundation comes to mind…

            1. You mean the Clinton Foundation that was scrutinzed for years and came up clean? The Clinton Foundation which charity watchdogs Charity Watch and Charity Navigator rated “A” and 94.74 out of 100, respectively? That Clinton Foundation?

              Funny that you’d mention the Clinton Foundation and not the Trump Foundation. I wonder why.

              1. I just checked Charity Navigator. The NRA Foundation received a 100 for financials with 81% spent on operations, 4% on administration and 15% on fundraising (2017). The Clinton Foundation received a 85 for financials with 76% spent on operations, 20% on administration and 4% on fundraising (2018). The Trump Foundation wasn’t evaluated because it doesn’t efile its IRS 990.

              2. “Funny that you’d mention the Clinton Foundation and not the Trump Foundation. I wonder why.”

                Trump’s was dissolved for being blatantly corrupt.

        2. Baloney. The allegations that the leaders of the organization or misusing organizational funds for their private benefit. The primary victims are the members and donors of the organization who believed that their money was being used for a specific purpose. It is the members and donors who should decide whether to dissolve the organization or simply to illuminate the corrupt leaders and replace them with honest ones. It does not benefit the primary victims to have a state attorney general deprive them of their organization.

          And when that particular state Attorney General happens to be somebody who previously labeled the organization as a group of terrorists, appointed by a governor who publicly bragged how he wanted to drive this organization into bankruptcy, the claim that they are simply fighting corruption is laughable.

          1. God I hate this voice feature. I meant eliminate, not illuminate, the offending leaders.

      2. “Presumably the organization would go belly up because donors would stop sending them money.”

        Currently fails the objective reality test. The organization’s donors are beset by imagined foes, and choose to ignore the visible bad behavior of the organization’s leadership because the imagined bad behavior of the imagined foes is worse than the real and actual bad behavior of the real management.

    2. That’s a good question. Can we ask the Teamsters?

  8. Yeah, the so-called corruption in the NRA is Fake News. It’s the ACLU (which happens to be defending the NRA) and the N-word-loving Jew rioters who brave patriots like Kyle Rittenhouse are finally giving what they deserve that are the problem. Boy, I sure pray it doesn’t turn violent.

    Jesus Horatio Christ, could these threads get any more depraved?

    1. I continue to get shocked at the depths.

      1. Obvious troll is obvious. Don’t give him food.

        1. We all wish he was a troll, but if so he’s deeply committed to his bit.

        2. Plus, he’s already not nearly the only one defending this shooter on this thread.

          1. Are you suggesting that the adults chasing a minor child, and beating that child after the child fell down, were legally or morally in the right?

            Do you mourn the sex offender who was apparently paroled from a 10-year sentence, and then sent back to prison for interfering with a monitoring device? A man who repeatedly asked to be shot, while progressively using a variant of the n-word? A guy who was not even wearing a mask at a mass gathering?

            Do you mourn the guy who used his skateboard to beat that child after another rioter kicked the fallen child in the head? A skateboarder with a record of battery and repeated domestic abuse? A guy who could not bother to wear his face covering properly?

            Do you defend the felon-in-possession who was shot (but survived) while using his illegally possessed pistol to threaten that child?

            Those must be some incredibly tough 36- and 26-year old dudes to need white knights defending them for attacking a lone child.

            1. I’m suggesting that

              1) the shooter who killed people was wrong, and I see no evidence this was reasonable self defense

              2) people endorsing vigilantism (including both Tucker Carlson and the police) are out of their minds.

              Nothing you describe is worthy of the death penalty, and your psyching yourself up to dehumanize someone and ignore their killing is an ugly sight to see.

              1. 1) Then you’re not looking. There’s plenty of evidence that it was self defense. Rather similar to the Zimmerman case, if you shoot somebody while they’re attacking you, it’s almost always self defense.

                2) Order the police not to defend people, and vigilantism is the inevitable next step. Because people won’t agree to be victimized without recourse.

              2. “I see no evidence this was reasonable self defense”

                Here is a picture of skateboard guy just before he was shot. Your opinion is that an edge on strike to the head like that isn’t a potentially fatal attack?

                1. ““I see no evidence this was reasonable self defense””

                  Sarcasto is the monkey with its hands over eyes.

                  1. He’d already shot someone at that point. Who is being willfully blind now?

                    1. Wait a sec.

                      Person A shoots person B.

                      Person C then swings a skateboard at person A’s head (perhaps C thinks A’s shooting of B was unjustified and also think that they are justified in using lethal force like the edge of a skateboard to effect a citizen’s arrest of A).

                      Your position is that A, who thinks their shooting of B was justified, cannot defend themselves against C’s potentially lethal attack?

                      FWIW, in the classes I have had, the answer is ‘C should be a good witness, but shouldn’t attempt to use lethal force to detain A’. IANAL, but that seems like the right answer, legally and morally, because it is likely to result in the fewest bodies.

                    2. Under the model penal code, no.

                      We have the Wisconsin law above. It says maybe, but you have a duty to retreat when you are the first aggressor.

                      But I’m worried less about the intricacies of the law in Wisconsin, and more that people seem to be lionizing this kid as a hero of the common man.

                      He got 2 people killed. He did not do a good thing. Anyone who thinks so is just itching to kill liberals, and should think about their life.

                    3. “Under the model penal code, no.”

                      Well, we’re going to have to disagree.

                      My position is that, given appropriate facts, a person can legally defend themselves against any number of attacks. There is no magic that says you can only defend against the first attacker.

                      “He got 2 people killed. He did not do a good thing. Anyone who thinks so is just itching to kill liberals, and should think about their life.”

                      You are engaging in the habit of assuming facts as yet unknown.

                      I surely agree that his decision to go where a riot was likely to happen was unwise. Legal, but unwise. Whether his defense against the people attacking him will ultimately prove justified depends on things neither of us know right now.

                      As to “He got 2 people killed”, swinging a skateboard at the head of someone who is on the ground is one of the links in the chain of causation there. Consistently ignoring it doesn’t make the reality of that change. The person who traveled to a riot with that skateboard and decided to swing it at someone’s head was making bad choices as well.

                    4. 1) I’m stating how the law applies to the facts *you* laid out. This is not an ‘we have to disagree’ situation. You may not like the law, but you must meet fact with fact, not with wish.

                      2) This kid is the but-for cause of 2 shootings. That is not assuming facts I do not know; that is quite clear.

                    5. “My position is that, given appropriate facts, a person can legally defend themselves against any number of attacks.”

                      So you can use whatever weapon is handy to protect yourself against a guy walking around with a rifle shooting at people? You’re clear on that point? Because it seems you’re not clear on that point.

                      “I surely agree that his decision to go where a riot was likely to happen was unwise. Legal, but unwise. ”

                      Except there was a curfew, so not legal.

                2. “Your opinion is that an edge on strike to the head like that isn’t a potentially fatal attack?”

                  Against a guy who’s trying to shoot him (and others)? THAT’s use of force justified by defense of self and ohters.

              3. Looking only at the video, self-defense is a very real probability. However, if he was the initial aggressor, he may lose the ability to claim self-defense. Several reports suggest he started shooting. Was that initial shooting justified? If so, what happened after probably is too. If not, what happened after probably is not, although it would somewhat depend on how much time elapsed between that shooting and the attacks on the shooter, how well-connected the two events are (obviously, committing a murder doesn’t prevent you from ever claiming self-defense in the future).

                1. The kid’s not in Florida, so the “yeah, I brought by gun to a fistfight, and when I started losing the fistfight I started, I feared for my safety and had to start shooting.” defense isn’t an automatic winner.

              4. It is not clear who shot first, but other people were definitely shooting nearby, and one of the shooting victims had just drawn his weapon and pointed it at Rittenhouse: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

                Would someone who thought he was wrong walk towards the police with his hands raised? It is sounding more and more like he was only charged in a railroading by a trigger-happy, radical-left prosecutor.

                1. “Would someone who thought he was wrong walk towards the police with his hands raised?”

                  Depends. It turns out that some cops may have a bit of a “shoot first and ask questions later” kind of attitude, and react poorly to unrestrained, armed people. Hands raised when police roll up seems like a good idea even for the white guys. You can’t be sure they’ll recognize you as Team Blue until after you get a chance to talk to them.

                  ” It is sounding more and more like he was only charged in a railroading by a trigger-happy, radical-left prosecutor.”

                  Kill a couple of people, and being charged with killing people should be expected, not a political call.

              5. “people endorsing vigilantism (including both Tucker Carlson and the police) are out of their minds”

                We have had three months of Dem mayors and governors and local DAs letting looters and rioters run wild. Police stand down orders, not sending in the national guard, letting rioters out w/o bail and not prosecuting.

                Any vigilantism is on these Dem officials because when government abandons its duties, people have little other choice.

                1. “We have had three months of Dem mayors and governors and local DAs letting looters and rioters run wild”

                  Holding those Dem mayors and governors responsible for what happened in your imagination seems a bit unfair.

            2. “Are you suggesting that the adults chasing a minor child, and beating that child after the child fell down, were legally or morally in the right?”

              Several people took time to beat poor Kip Kinkel when he had to stop shooting at them because his weapon jammed.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School_shooting

              When you shoot at people or threaten to to shoot at people, they tend to respond strongly.

    2. No, it’s serious corruption. Folks inside the organization, such as past presidents like Oliver North, were trying to bring an account to Wayne LaPierre and his cronies.

      Is the corruption the kind that should lead to the windows being shuttered? No, this is select prosecution.

      1. Meh. having the “windows shuttered” doesn’t stop somebody who wants to run an honest nonprofit from starting their own operation to try to represent the collective wishes of the firearm fancier community.

  9. Of course, the ACLU defends the NRA because the NRA is on its third lawsuit in California in which its lawyers claim that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to keep and bear rifles, shotguns, or handguns unless the handguns are carried concealed and only then if the concealed carrier has a government-issued permission slip.

    My website -> https://CaliforniaOpenCarry.com

  10. Yeah, I agreed with ACLU when they defended the Nazis’ right to march in Skokie, back in 1978.

    1. And their motive back then was the same as today: If Nazis aren’t safe, neither are Communists, and they really, really want Communists to be safe.

  11. This is the take I saw generally – the crimes are there, and bad, but the remedy is not required.

  12. Does anything think that this is the end of it? Not a chance.

    People like Ms. James will use the power of government to suppress organizations and ideas they oppose. This is not about petty corruption within the NRA. Who is she kidding? And if she fails here, and she will, it bleeds the financial resources of the NRA. And then it will be some other alleged legal violation, and she’ll try again. And again. And again.

    This is all about ‘clearing the decks’ to go after gun rights.

    1. The corruption at the NRA is legit extraordinary, and not petty or some technicality. It certainly warrants state intervention.

      Just probably not the ending of the organization.

      Don’t reflexively assume bad faith until you read the facts, which are a trip.

      1. Uh huh…I guess the point is, Sarcastr0, is that I have read the petition, and I have read Ms. James’ public statements. She has an agenda, and is using the power of government to advance it. That is undeniable. The woman’s own mouth uttered the words that condemn her.

        If NRA members have a problem with their leadership, they will fix it. If Ms. James were sincere, she would be prosecuting individuals for fraud, and not attempting to kill off the organization in toto.

        That is not bad faith; that is taking her at her word and calling it out when she does what she said she would do.

        1. Seems to me some assume the AG is an idealistic do-gooder, perhaps so, but her obvious long range objective is to disarm the Americans . . . the NRA stands in the way.

        2. “If NRA members have a problem with their leadership, they will fix it.”

          Eh, not so much. I was in Philly at the NRA convention where they shut off Neal Knox’s mike, and proceeded to change the BOD election rules to rig them in favor of entrenched management. I was so mad I went out the parking garage and ripped the NRA sticker off my pickup truck.

          The NRA really only was in the game of defending 2nd amendment rights because of a member revolt at the Cincinnati convention. Before that they were preparing to become a historical society with a sideline in training police in how to use guns ordinary people weren’t going to be permitted to own.

          In Philly they undid all the Cincinnati reforms. At this point virtually all of the board seats are nominated by a nominating committee, not the membership, (Who only get to nominate for the 76th seat on the board by petition.) If you can pick the people running for an office, you can make the voting irrelevant.

          So, no, at this point we don’t actually have a way of fixing the leadership. All we can do is accept that they are who they are, or jump to a different organization.

        3. “She has an agenda”

          OK, almost certainly true, and readily conceded. That doesn’t make every action wrong.

          “If NRA members have a problem with their leadership, they will fix it.”

          How will they do this, via “second-amendment solution”?

      2. “Don’t reflexively assume bad faith until you read the facts, which are a trip.”
        See also your reflexive assumption that the Kenosha shooting isn’t justified. Wait til the facts are fully out and then decide.

        1. The burden on self defense is on the guy who shot 3 people, killing 2.

          The burden of proving bad faith is on the commenters here. They have nowhere near met it.

        2. “See also your reflexive assumption that the Kenosha shooting isn’t justified.”

          The default answer to whether or not use of deadly force is justified is “no, it isn’t”. Defendant has the burden of proof to show that it was, except in Florida.

      3. “reflexively assume bad faith ”

        No need to assume.

        “ALBANY, N.Y. – Two years ago, Letitia James – then a candidate for New York attorney general – made a provocative campaign promise.

        The National Rifle Association, the nation’s preeminent guns-rights group, had a “poisonous agenda” that was “directly antithetical” to New York’s tough gun-control laws, James said at the time.

        She vowed to investigate the powerful and controversial group to determine whether it should keep its charitable status, making it the first plank of her plan to combat gun violence.

        “The NRA is an organ of deadly propaganda masquerading as a charity for public good,” the plan read. “Its agenda is set by gun-makers who think arming teachers is a better idea than making it harder for kids to get military grade guns.”

        for my enemies, the Law

        1. “The National Rifle Association, the nation’s preeminent guns-rights group, had a “poisonous agenda” that was “directly antithetical” to New York’s tough gun-control laws, James said at the time.”

          The NRA leadership would have happily agreed with the second statement.

          “She vowed to investigate the powerful and controversial group to determine whether it should keep its charitable status”

          the fact that she really, really wanted to find misconduct doesn’t prove it isn’t there.

    2. Seems to me the goal is disarm the Americans.

      1. Whether it’s true or not, it seems to you to be true, and that’s all that matters.

  13. Some other state AG (TX?) should sue to dissolve Planned Parenthood. The financial irregularities at PP are just as bad.

    1. @ SgtDad: The short answer is that it don’t work that way.

      The duties and responsibilities owed by officers and directors to the charitable organizations they run are established by state law and vary from state to state. The state of incorporation — where the organization is chartered, which may be a different state from where it maintains its headquarters — has the power, through that state’s attorney general, to seek the forfeiture of that charter (or lesser penalties) for misconduct or fraud on the part of those officers and directors, thereby putting the organization out of business everywhere.

      Most states also regulate charitable organizations chartered or headquartered out-of-state when they seek to solicit in-state. So other states might levy fines and penalties against the organization for unlawful actions that harm their particular residents.

      But both legally and practically, the Texas Attorney General, for example, has far, far less power over Planned Parenthood, which is both chartered and headquartered in New York State, than the New York State attorney general does. It’s the latter who’s charged with the legal duty specifically to prevent fraud and other misconduct by Planned Parenthood’s officers and directors.

      1. (Planned Parenthood’s not stupid enough to move their charter to Texas. Both the NRA and Trump’s charity were stupid enough to maintain their charters in NY.)

        1. People have been telling the NRA to move their charter for years. They couldn’t be bothered.

      2. Further, there is a substantial difference between a non-profit corporation and all the other corporations. It’s possible to sue a for-profit corporation for doing something its charter doesn’t permit, but such suits nearly always fail.

        1. It’s very rare that it’s possible, because modern law doesn’t require a specific purpose, and so most articles of incorporation of for profit corporations just say, “For all lawful purposes.”

          1. Whereas, a non-profit charitable organization has a very specific purpose authorized in it’s articles of incorporation. Finding that one’s pet nonprofit has been operating ultra vires and responding by saying, hey, let’s go after THEIR for-profit corporation for being ultra vires, too is lazy whataboutism but isn’t likely to meet any success.

  14. Seems more like the ACLU seeks to defend itself from Republican AGs. Nothing wrong with a little enlightened self-interest, though.

    1. That, too.

  15. I agree with you, Prof. Adler.

    But the NRA’s top executives, board, and legal advisers were all culpably negligent in maintaining New York as the NRA’s state of incorporation after it moved its corporate HQ from Washington, D.C. to Virginia in the late 1990s. They likewise were culpably negligent in leaving the NRA Foundation’s incorporation in the District of Columbia.

  16. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://peg.bocsci.com/catcs/856/4-arm-peg-acrylate/ word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.