[Alana33]

New York Attorney General Letitia James announced this morning a state lawsuit demanding the dissolution of the National Rifle Association (NRA) for "decades" of illegal activity while "top executives funneled millions into their own pockets." Singled out is longtime NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre, long accused of running the once-powerful pro-gun group as personal profit center.

The lawsuit accuses top NRA officials of fraudulently making off with $63 million of the alleged nonprofit's funds in the period between 2015 and 2018 alone.

The lawsuit centers around LaPierre's own behavior, charging he "hired and retained individuals in senior positions" who would "enable him to control the organization" despite having no related skills or experience. LaPierre and his handpicked lieutenants then "regularly ignored, overrode or otherwise violated" NRA bylaws and procedures to divert assets to "insiders and favored vendors." It charges LaPierre and his executives with violating IRS rules in order to hide NRA payments to executives for personal expenses, such as entertainment and travel, including $500,000 in private air charter expenses to the Bahamas by LaPierre and family for "at least eight" personal vacations.

The NRA has as a result "persistently engaged in illegal and unauthorized activities," the lawsuit charges, and should therefore be "dissolved" in accordance with applicable nonprofit law. For LaPierre's siphoning off of funds, the lawsuit also demands that he and the other executives named in the suit be removed from their positions and required to repay misused funds and resulting penalties.

LaPierre's alleged pilfering of NRA funds for personal expenses has been the subject of numerous public exposures, even as the NRA itself faces dire financial straits. Whether a court will find the NRA's illegal acts to indeed be so egregious as to require dissolution as an entity remains to be seen.

[noslices1]

Originally Posted by LoisR

Real men don't need guns, especially automatics. And this is from a former state rifle champion and former NRA member.

NOBODY is advocating that citizens should have AUTOMATIC weapons. If you knew anything about guns and “former state rifle champion and former NRA member” should, you would know that “Automatic” weapons are illegal in the U S, unless you have a special permit to own one.( Which is almost impossible to get)

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

No responsible firearms owner needs assault type rifles. The reason these firearms are protected is because they are a line of defense against the moonbats going after hand guns and hunting rifles. Once the anti-gun moonbats get rid of assault rifles they will set their sights on their next target, and then the next, and the next, until only criminals possess firearms.

Responsible firearm owners would gladly have assault type weapons become illegal if it came with an iron clad agreement to end all further crusades against other types of firearms.

A domino theory in the beginning that has questionable logic, more paranoia than anything else BUT, I like the last sentence and I AGREE with it.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by EdFNJ

Don't worry folks. NRA or no NRA you can still keep packin' while at City Fire or while dancing at the squares (if it ever comes back) to protect yourselves from all the bad Villages varmints that may be lurkin' behind them thar shrubs. POW POW POW

Hate to burst your bubble but there are no "safe" places. Some may be or appear to be safer than others but none are immune to violence. Better to be prepared than caught with your pants down.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Coal Miner

Good. Because of the NRA we have criminals roaming our streets armed to the teeth. The lives this cost and the money we spend for law enforcement is a shame.

Australia has done the right thing. Only single shot rifle and bolt action repeaters are allowed. The semi-autos were CRUSHED. CRIME went DOWN. People in the US are unaware of that fact. You can hunt successfully with a bolt action. The best hunters prefer single shot. You can protect your home without a semi-auto. Less crime and zero loss of liberty or messing up the 2nd amendment. Australia is smart compared to the US about this. Australia also REQUIRES people to vote - very impressive.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by funtime

This probably started last year when col Oliver North tried to clean up the corruption in the nra.
At that time in his resignation letter, by said he believes the NRA should establish a committee to review the organization’s finances, which he said constitute a “clear crisis” that “needs to be dealt with” if the NRA wants to continue to be a viable organization.
There was alot going on, this is when the corruption was uncovered, I believed the AG is following up on North's claims, and found them to be credible. Maybe it helps their agenda, but it still cleans up the organization. It doesnt mean they are dead either, I'm sure people like Oliver North would love to restart the group with honest intentions. This is the right thing to do.

Good points. Maybe some I would disagree with, but a good contribution to the discussion.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by foxmeadow

Automatics are and have been outlawed for a long time. Those scary “assault rifles” are typically hunting rifles. Please read up on this topic!

Typically hunting weapons do not have 30 round banana clips, Police killing, vest penetrating bullets, and silencers. If you are truly a hunter you do not need those HUMAN killing attachments while hunting squirrel and deer - plus it would be awkward and added weight.

[Joe V.]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Typically hunting weapons do not have 30 round banana clips, Police killing, vest penetrating bullets, and silencers. If you are truly a hunter you do not need those HUMAN killing attachments while hunting squirrel and deer - plus it would be awkward and added weight.

The 2nd Amendment was not written with game hunting in mind.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Joe V.

The 2nd Amendment was not written with game hunting in mind.

OK, but I don't see the point. I believe that what I wrote is correct and pertinate to the discussion. I am NOT a Constitutional lawyer so I am unqualified to go into the details or stated purpose of the 2nd amendment, which I endorse. So, I stand by my writing.

[tsouth]

Originally Posted by Fredman

I quit supporting them because of their position on ar15’s and ak47’s. No need for anyone to own those weapons. I have my share of guns but no seni-automatics

Not meaning to start a flame war, but how do you determine what others need?

[Joe V.]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

OK, but I don't see the point. I believe that what I wrote is correct and pertinate to the discussion. I am NOT a Constitutional lawyer so I am unqualified to go into the details or stated purpose of the 2nd amendment, which I endorse. So, I stand by my writing.

Armed piercing bullets specifically designed for this are already illegal to possess. I own a rifle, not bolt action, that fires a 30.06 which I guarantee will penetrate body armor yet it is not designed as an armor piercing round, and is used for hunting.

I bet your experience with silencers is what you see in movies. No gun is silenced. It merely reduces the decibel output from a gun. They are legal.

Red herrings.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Agreed. Good post. I stopped my membership in the 60s when they switched their emphasis from hunting animals and weapons designed for hunting to high margin expensive military style firearms used almost exclusively to KILL HUMANS - in effect hunting HUMANS. I personally would never shoot at a human outline or drawing of a human, even a depiction of a criminal. I would shoot only bulleyes. The NRA also pushed paint ball, which is basically practice for some imagined World War III or an apocalypse - Again it is hunting HUMANS. I also slowly switched to bow hunting which gave longer seasons and more of a woodsman challenge - also more time to walk among nature.

Yep, there are pacifists and there are patriots. Too bad folks do not know anything about firearms and think that anything that has a plastic stock is "military like." By the way, just for S&G's the 2nd talks about firearms in the context of a local militia. Of course, this is a straw man's argument, but I wonder if anyone understands that if you ever have to fight the gov. a "military like" weapon would be most folks choice. Therefore, outlawing "military like" weapons would be construed as violating the theme of the 2nd Amendment, right?
By the way, most pistols now are semi-automatic, not automatic. Most rifles now are semi-automatic, including shotguns. When the 2nd Amendment was written, did they mention what constituted a "military like" weapon and what would just be used for hunting? I don't really think that they were thinking of hunting when they wrote the 2nd.

An assault weapon can be anything, not just a automatic or semi-automatic. They did not have either when they wrote the Amendment. An assault weapon then was a musket or a tomahawk. Now, most define an assault weapon as a fully automatic rifle or machine gun. The only way you can get one is to pay a tax stamp with the federal gov. and fill out a fifteen page document and then a full background investigation. Can you tell me if you can remember in the last fifty years of anyone that committed a crime with a legally owned automatic weapon? Key term "legally owned."

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Australia has done the right thing. Only single shot rifle and bolt action repeaters are allowed. The semi-autos were CRUSHED. CRIME went DOWN. People in the US are unaware of that fact. You can hunt successfully with a bolt action. The best hunters prefer single shot. You can protect your home without a semi-auto. Less crime and zero loss of liberty or messing up the 2nd amendment. Australia is smart compared to the US about this. Australia also REQUIRES people to vote - very impressive.

That's OK, go for it. I prefer my U.S. of A. just the way it has been up to now. I like my country FREE.
Responsible gun owners do not need laws to regulate them. They are "responsible."

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Typically hunting weapons do not have 30 round banana clips, Police killing, vest penetrating bullets, and silencers. If you are truly a hunter you do not need those HUMAN killing attachments while hunting squirrel and deer - plus it would be awkward and added weight.

Nearly every hunting rifle round will penetrate the typical body armor worn by police officers. Even the ballistic armor worn by the military will only stand up to certain lower power rounds. Do you know what it takes to legally own a silencer? You don't walk into the nearest Silencers R Us store buy one and take it home. 34 states allow the use of a silencer for hunting, it helps prevent hunters hearing loss. The AR15 has become a popular hunting gun, especially for varmint and destructive pest type animals. Other than a few shootings where a demented individual used an AR or AK, killings by these weapons is way down on the list of firearm deaths. Homicides by rifle are extremely low. Hand guns are the weapon used in the majority of shooting deaths.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by rjm1cc

The state should be protecting the rights of the members, not terminating their association due to bad leadership. Charges should be filed against the individuals that took advantage of their position and if possible restitution to the membership.

If you had listened to the entire announcement by the AG including the Q&A session immediately after it, you'd know that someone already brought that up. The response was that the corruption and graft goes SO deep that it's not just the 4 people involved. They're just the ones who profited the most from it. The AG said that there is no way to repair the damage done. All that can be done at this point is to retcon, and re-create.