Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 01-18-2021, 12:24 PM
StandardFinn's Avatar
StandardFinn StandardFinn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Down South Some Place
Posts: 177
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja308 View Post
Let me help; My Odessa is saying you are a piker who bashes the NRA because you do not want to pony up the membership fee's. He also thinks the NRA has beat back the international/democrat party gun bans, that have allowed you RKBA.
$35/yr isn't a barrier to entry, but neither is intelligence or critical thought, apparently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja308 View Post
When you write the NRA is almost 50 years old. That shows us exactly who you are.
BTW Trump has been the best president since Thomas Jefferson on gun rights and American liberty. EVERYONE knows it, except for. the TV watchers .
I fixed my post to include the "1" that didn't register. It's almost 150yrs old. So listen, what did Trump do for the gun community? What did any of the other politicians they funded campaigns for do for the gun community?

You seemingly missed the entire point of my post - What you're promoting is typical democrap ignorance by just screaming at everyone that disagrees with you that they're wrong, and their points don't matter. You need to step back and realize you're the problem, coming on a discussion board and instead of engaging in discussion you shoot others thoughts down, call them pikers, trolls and wish you didn't have to hear what they say (which is exactly what's happening on the other side right now...).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja308 View Post
The best way to fight back is to recruit new members and of course attend NRA functions after the Covid hoax plays out.
If you approach recruitment with the way you've approached this thread...man. You need to work on your bedside manner, general conduct in a public forum and your reading/writing comprehension skills.

Every NRA member in this thread has failed the NRA. Posting slurs, condescending rhetoric and hate speech about other CG's members who are asking what's happening with the NRA because they've been thinking about joining. If you can't see that and you wonder why the NRA is hemorrhaging...look in the mirror. We're all here because we love guns, just because we disagree doesn't make us the enemy. But if you attack people like one, it just shows how ignorant and intolerant you are and further alienates NRA curious non-members.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-18-2021, 1:22 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,961
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StandardFinn View Post
$35/yr isn't a barrier to entry, but neither is intelligence or critical thought, apparently.

I fixed my post to include the "1" that didn't register. It's almost 150yrs old. So listen, what did Trump do for the gun community? What did any of the other politicians they funded campaigns for do for the gun community?

You seemingly missed the entire point of my post - What you're promoting is typical democrap ignorance by just screaming at everyone that disagrees with you that they're wrong, and their points don't matter. You need to step back and realize you're the problem, coming on a discussion board and instead of engaging in discussion you shoot others thoughts down, call them pikers, trolls and wish you didn't have to hear what they say (which is exactly what's happening on the other side right now...).

If you approach recruitment with the way you've approached this thread...man. You need to work on your bedside manner, general conduct in a public forum and your reading/writing comprehension skills.

Every NRA member in this thread has failed the NRA. Posting slurs, condescending rhetoric and hate speech about other CG's members who are asking what's happening with the NRA because they've been thinking about joining. If you can't see that and you wonder why the NRA is hemorrhaging...look in the mirror. We're all here because we love guns, just because we disagree doesn't make us the enemy. But if you attack people like one, it just shows how ignorant and intolerant you are and further alienates NRA curious non-members.
I see perhaps 3 posters I can determine, as far as it can be done on the internet, who are NRA members. Post #12 - this is offensive of condescending in what way? You did write "every NRA member in this thread" has failed NRA. Directing a reader to the NRA site meets this description in what way?

The opening paragraph of your post isn't particularly void of insult or invective either - true?

I would allow there are a variety of reasons for a person to not join, from economic to political to the mundane. Some honest, some self-serving or beguiling. Whatever the reason, so long as it's honestly presented, doesn't matter to me. What I object to are those not in the organization who pop up only to criticize. Enjoy the cake when it's to one's liking but complain when it's otherwise, and one hasn't contributed, isn't a particularly palatable position.

Regarding accomplishments, I don't entirely disagree. However we have 3 SCOTUS appointees with very good 2nd Amendment records and a few hundred federal judges in the ranks. Export rules for businesses dealing with firearms have been relaxed. Gun bans on certain veteran and Social Security recipients have been rescinded. Constitutional carry has expanded. And less tangible, there is a value to not having a White House or governor beat the heck out of use at every opportunity. That will no doubt change in two days.

I don't disagree with the theme of your post. But I would suggest there is a concern with being so welcoming. I don't think the Teamsters would be strengthened by an influx of "right to work state" brothership, or NAACP with with increased "some segregation is OK" members nor pro-choice organizations being flooded with evangelicals. The question of "narrow but deep" vs "shallow and broad" ought to be addressed.

As an aside, I spent the weekend in OR. There is concern however it is infused with a hope and expectation problems will be resolved. Generally, I don't get that sense reading the CA forums. Perhaps a light ought to be shined on that too.

Last edited by dfletcher; 01-18-2021 at 1:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-18-2021, 4:31 PM
StandardFinn's Avatar
StandardFinn StandardFinn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Down South Some Place
Posts: 177
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
I see perhaps 3 posters I can determine, as far as it can be done on the internet, who are NRA members. Post #12 - this is offensive of condescending in what way? You did write "every NRA member in this thread" has failed NRA. Directing a reader to the NRA site meets this description in what way?

The opening paragraph of your post isn't particularly void of insult or invective either - true?

I would allow there are a variety of reasons for a person to not join, from economic to political to the mundane. Some honest, some self-serving or beguiling. Whatever the reason, so long as it's honestly presented, doesn't matter to me. What I object to are those not in the organization who pop up only to criticize. Enjoy the cake when it's to one's liking but complain when it's otherwise, and one hasn't contributed, isn't a particularly palatable position.

Regarding accomplishments, I don't entirely disagree. However we have 3 SCOTUS appointees with very good 2nd Amendment records and a few hundred federal judges in the ranks. Export rules for businesses dealing with firearms have been relaxed. Gun bans on certain veteran and Social Security recipients have been rescinded. Constitutional carry has expanded. And less tangible, there is a value to not having a White House or governor beat the heck out of use at every opportunity. That will no doubt change in two days.

I don't disagree with the theme of your post. But I would suggest there is a concern with being so welcoming. I don't think the Teamsters would be strengthened by an influx of "right to work state" brothership, or NAACP with with increased "some segregation is OK" members nor pro-choice organizations being flooded with evangelicals. The question of "narrow but deep" vs "shallow and broad" ought to be addressed.

As an aside, I spent the weekend in OR. There is concern however it is infused with a hope and expectation problems will be resolved. Generally, I don't get that sense reading the CA forums. Perhaps a light ought to be shined on that too.
Thank you for your civility and please excuse my hyperbole; when arguing with some folks, big simple words are most effective.

I do acknowledge the overarching theme of the NRA and the things they've protected via the Firearm owners protection and Protection of Lawful Commerce acts, as I said I only wish it were more surgical recently. The 2nd amendment is being chipped away and the only way to protect what's left is to get SCOTUS to agree and set precedence with which all other infringements will be judged by.

I'm not writing the NRA off, but for now I'm supporting FPC and some other socal grassroots efforts that are fighting against the BS this state has passed into law.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-20-2021, 8:01 AM
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 11,132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StandardFinn View Post
Thank you for your civility and please excuse my hyperbole; when arguing with some folks, big simple words are most effective.

I do acknowledge the overarching theme of the NRA and the things they've protected via the Firearm owners protection and Protection of Lawful Commerce acts, as I said I only wish it were more surgical recently. The 2nd amendment is being chipped away and the only way to protect what's left is to get SCOTUS to agree and set precedence with which all other infringements will be judged by.

I'm not writing the NRA off, but for now I'm supporting FPC and some other socal grassroots efforts that are fighting against the BS this state has passed into law.
Smart move because the FPC has such a great track record and the FPC was called out personally by White House thief, Traitor Joe.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-21-2021, 5:10 PM
Usmc0844spare Usmc0844spare is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StandardFinn View Post
I can't tell if you're being serious so I'll leave this alone cause I can see how this coulda been sarcastic and will give you credit for the incredibly arid delivery - assuming that was the intent
Yup, I was being facetious/sarcastic.

I don't feel like reading through a buncha crap-talking so can you let me know... has there been ANY discussion of the wisdom of sending the NRA money, in terms of "how effective are they gonna be in fighting for my rights while also dealing with a bankruptcy?"

I am not a huge Wayne/NRA fan, but I do believe their "biggest gorilla in the room status" makes them worthwhile in their own way, so I am not above sending them some scratch on that basis alone, just not decided yet.

I want to send some money to a national level gun rights org, but just not sure who at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-21-2021, 5:24 PM
MyOdessa's Avatar
MyOdessa MyOdessa is offline
Not a libtard!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Nor. Cal.
Posts: 2,150
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

If anyone plan to piss money away at FPC, you may want to look through this thread.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1606834
__________________
JUST SAY NO TO DEMENTIA JOE AND WILLIE'S HO!
Socialism is a conspiracy of losers against achievers.
Democratic Party is the party of evil.
The most vile word in the English language is a democrat.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-22-2021, 4:12 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 11,132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The NRA and WLP are under attack because the gun grabbers fear them. Lets get new shooters and long time gunnies to join or rejoin. This traitor Joe and shumberg are the biggest threat to RKBA in my lifetime. FWIW that includes JFK who signed 72-77. That dept of state document is the holy grail for every elected democrat .

Last edited by ja308; 01-22-2021 at 4:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-24-2021, 8:04 PM
johnny_22's Avatar
johnny_22 johnny_22 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Valley of Heart's Delight
Posts: 2,181
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default NRA fundraising

I received 2 calls this weekend from the NRA for more money. Does my money still serve a purpose or is lost in the bankruptcy process?
__________________
Please, join the NRA.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-24-2021, 9:41 PM
StandardFinn's Avatar
StandardFinn StandardFinn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Down South Some Place
Posts: 177
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja308 View Post
Smart move because the FPC has such a great track record and the FPC was called out personally by White House thief, Traitor Joe.
You know what they say, any publicity is good publicity.

At least FPC is filing suits in CA and at face value appears to be using the money to regain our freedom through legal action. Listen, you can advocate for new shooters, and safety and pray that if enough people have guns the government will be forced to leave the 2nd amendment alone - look at what is happening in the MSM, Social media, etc. They're stealing your voice; the 1st amendment has already been compromised. We need precedent in the supreme court to clarify the right we have in the 2nd amendment and stop short any bullsh1t laws trying to restrict it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Usmc0844spare View Post
Yup, I was being facetious/sarcastic.

I don't feel like reading through a buncha crap-talking so can you let me know... has there been ANY discussion of the wisdom of sending the NRA money, in terms of "how effective are they gonna be in fighting for my rights while also dealing with a bankruptcy?"

I am not a huge Wayne/NRA fan, but I do believe their "biggest gorilla in the room status" makes them worthwhile in their own way, so I am not above sending them some scratch on that basis alone, just not decided yet.

I want to send some money to a national level gun rights org, but just not sure who at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny_22 View Post
I received 2 calls this weekend from the NRA for more money. Does my money still serve a purpose or is lost in the bankruptcy process?
Well, I don't think anyone can tell you how effective your money will be. I'll put it simply: "The best deal you will ever get, is the one you believe you got." If you feel your money is well spent on the NRA, then send it to them, I wouldn't think less of you for it and I don't think many here would either. I'd suggest you send it to their legal fund however, not the general fund.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-26-2021, 5:45 AM
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 11,132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StandardFinn View Post
You know what they say, any publicity is good publicity.

At least FPC is filing suits in CA and at face value appears to be using the money to regain our freedom through legal action. Listen, you can advocate for new shooters, and safety and pray that if enough people have guns the government will be forced to leave the 2nd amendment alone - look at what is happening in the MSM, Social media, etc. They're stealing your voice; the 1st amendment has already been compromised. We need precedent in the supreme court to clarify the right we have in the 2nd amendment and stop short any bullsh1t laws trying to restrict it.




Well, I don't think anyone can tell you how effective your money will be. I'll put it simply: "The best deal you will ever get, is the one you believe you got." If you feel your money is well spent on the NRA, then send it to them, I wouldn't think less of you for it and I don't think many here would either. I'd suggest you send it to their legal fund however, not the general fund.

For me its all about the numbers, huge NRA membership is always a good sign for liberty and bad omen for gun grabbers.

I am advocating we promote NRA membership as an easy way to fight whats coming down from president * and this corrupt democrat party.

New members become more politically aware when exposed to the truth of NRA publications/ alerts and will vote RKBA candidates who are electable. (Cheating Aside)
Lets set a goal of 80 million paid NRA members and have each new member join us by recruiting more !
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-28-2021, 2:21 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,507
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StandardFinn View Post
...Well, I don't think anyone can tell you how effective your money will be. I'll put it simply: "The best deal you will ever get, is the one you believe you got." If you feel your money is well spent on the NRA, then send it to them, I wouldn't think less of you for it and I don't think many here would either. I'd suggest you send it to their legal fund however, not the general fund.
True enough. I suspect they're likely to need it.

One can dismiss this article as "left-wing propaganda" if they want as it comes from USA Today, but it does make some 'interesting' points from a bankruptcy expert.

The NRA says its finances are solid. So why is it filing for bankruptcy?

Quote:
...But filing for Chapter 11 may not be necessary for the group to change its nonprofit registration from New York to Texas as it intends to do.

And whether or not the group belongs in bankruptcy court could determine whether it can escape culpability for alleged misspending by its executives.

“Bankruptcy is for individuals and entities in financial stress who cannot pay their creditors,” says Melissa Jacoby, a University of North Carolina bankruptcy law professor who is tracking the case. “The NRA has made no effort to categorize itself that way. In terms of whether it’s paying its bills and any definition of insolvency – it doesn’t meet it.”

To be sure, the NRA disclosed in a court filing that its revenue fell by 7% in 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic took a toll on member dues. But the group offset that decline in income with a 23% reduction in expenses, including pay cuts.

It also reported that it has $203 million in assets, exceeding its $153 million in liabilities, which include $31 million in secured debt owed to Atlantic Union Bank...

By contrast, the NRA has “done nothing” to provide evidence of its financial challenges, says Jacoby of the University of North Carolina. Indeed, it said in court papers that it plans to pay its creditors "in full," which is extremely unusual in bankruptcy court, where people owed money by the debtor often get less than they were due.

“The idea that an enterprise comes into bankruptcy announcing that it’s going to pay all creditors in full goes against the very idea of why we have a federal bankruptcy system,” Jacoby says...

While the bankruptcy filing could be advantageous for the NRA’s agenda of escaping New York, it also poses risks. For example, creditors could use the case to pursue the ouster of officials accused of misspending, including CEO Wayne LaPierre, who has denied wrongdoing...
I don't know that much regarding the technical details of 'bankruptcy,' but it's an interesting read. The article's basic point is that this move might work for the very reasons members here have said it should be done; but, they warn that it might not work either as there's a long row to hoe to legitimize the effort from a legal standpoint... regardless of your stance on LaPierre and other figures in the NRA.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-05-2021, 9:40 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,507
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Update on the bankruptcy case from 4/5/21 (bold/italic emphasis mine)...

‘Thank God I’m safe’: NRA head Wayne LaPierre sought refuge from public outrage aboard luxury yacht after mass school shootings at Sandy Hook, Parkland, Fla.

Quote:
...NRA leader Wayne LaPierre says he faced an unprecedented “security threat” in the wake of bloody rampages at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut and a Parkland, Fla., high school — and had to seek refuge aboard his Hollywood producer pal’s 108-foot yacht...

“They simply let me use it as a security retreat because they knew the threat that I was under. And I was basically under presidential threat without presidential security in terms of the number of threats I was getting,” LaPierre said. “And this was the one place that I hope could feel safe, where I remember getting there going, ‘Thank God I’m safe, nobody can get me here.’ And that’s how it happened. That’s why I used it.”

He said his first stay aboard the boat equipped with two jet skis and a staff of around four people was “after the Sandy Hook shooting, the summer after the Sandy Hook shooting.” His last stay, he added, was “sometime in 2018 after the Parkland shooting.”

The deposition emerged Monday on the first day of a closely watched hearing over the NRA’s decision to file for bankruptcy in Texas to avoid a lawsuit brought by New York State Attorney General Letitia James

Assistant Attorney General Monica Connell said in opening remarks that LaPierre’s use of “Illusions” was a clear conflict of interest and violation of rules surrounding the NRA’s nonprofit status. LaPierre did not disclose his free trips aboard the boat, owned by Hollywood producer David McKenzie. Meanwhile, the NRA continues to pay McKenzie $1 million a month for media projects, Connell said...
The yacht in question...



Undoubtedly, there's some 'spin.' Just bear in mind that the above is part of the deposition LaPierre gave. We'll have to wait until someone finds a transcript to get the entire context.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-05-2021 at 9:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-08-2021, 9:00 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,507
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NRA boss says he didn’t tell group leaders before bankruptcy

Quote:
Wayne LaPierre, the embattled leader of the National Rifle Association, said Wednesday that he put the powerful gun-rights group into bankruptcy without first informing most of its board members and top officials.

LaPierre took the witness stand in the NRA’s high-stakes bankruptcy trial over whether it should be allowed to incorporate in Texas instead of New York, where a state lawsuit is trying to put the group out of business.

LaPierre testified that he consulted with the NRA board’s three-member special litigation committee before filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January. But the notoriously secretive executive acknowledged he did not inform most of the 76-member board and the NRA’s other top leaders...

“We filed this bankruptcy to look for a fair legal playing field where NRA could prosper and grow in a fair legal environment,” LaPierre said, “as opposed to what we believed had become a toxic, politicized, weaponized government in New York state.”...

On the witness stand, LaPierre was questioned persistently about his handling of NRA tax documents and other records. At one point, the New York lawyer asked him if he attended a mandatory “compliance session” for NRA leaders on the group’s rules and regulations.

“I may have been out of town. I just know I didn’t attend it. I read the material,” LaPierre said. “Looking back on it I wish I had attended it.”
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-08-2021, 9:19 PM
USMCM16A2's Avatar
USMCM16A2 USMCM16A2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,588
iTrader: 118 / 100%
Default

*******! LaPubichair should be fired. A2
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-08-2021, 9:47 PM
C.G.'s Avatar
C.G. C.G. is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 7,688
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I see you are quoting the most trusted source in journalism - AP.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-08-2021, 10:02 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,507
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.G. View Post
I see you are quoting the most trusted source in journalism - AP.
Do you have the transcript to prove otherwise?

Remember, a narrative is being built, in court, in opposition to the bankruptcy; something myself and others have already noted appears to be a dubious proposition from a legal standpoint. (See Post #51 above.) WestLaw Today posted a Reuters piece about a week ago... NRA director can testify about board's Chapter 11 talks at trial, judge says

Quote:
The judge overseeing the National Rifle Association's bankruptcy will allow a board member to testify at a trial over the legitimacy of the gun rights organization's bankruptcy case as to whether Chapter 11 was discussed by the board before it was filed.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Harlin Hale made his announcement during a virtual hearing on Wednesday in which New York Attorney General Letitia James sought to block the NRA, represented by Neligan and Garman Turner Gordon, from relying on statements made during a Jan. 7 executive board session at a trial scheduled to begin on Monday. James' legal team urged Hale to weigh in on the use of certain evidence as it tries to determine whether NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre "duped" the board into authorizing the bankruptcy...
This is precisely what LaPierre is testifying regarding.

So... Members can go without updates or continue disparaging the ONLY sources of information we have (at the moment) as 'lying shills for the Left,' ignoring that a trial is in process... OR... they can take the information for what it's worth to them and stop trying to shoot the messenger for bringing them what 'news' is available... OR... those prone to criticize and disparage can do some work for themselves and try to keep members updated with what they deem to be "truth;" preferably utilizing some form of documentation rather than loyalist bloviating.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-08-2021, 10:18 PM
C.G.'s Avatar
C.G. C.G. is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 7,688
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Do you have the transcript to prove otherwise?
[/URL]
I do not, but I also do not trust AP to provide accurate information. BTW, as I've said before if Wayne was indeed improperly spending money on himself without authorization then the NY AG should have directed the lawsuit against Wayne, not the NRA. There seems to be very little or no outrage over that here, a gun forum, go figure.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-08-2021, 10:56 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,507
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.G. View Post
I do not, but I also do not trust AP to provide accurate information. BTW, as I've said before if Wayne was indeed improperly spending money on himself without authorization then the NY AG should have directed the lawsuit against Wayne, not the NRA. There seems to be very little or no outrage over that here, a gun forum, go figure.
You're conflating two, separate cases.

This thread is about the Bankruptcy filing in Texas and that's what my posts here are regarding. The New York AG is fighting it so her authority in the other case, the one in New York (i.e., the one to which you are referring), isn't mooted/muted.

That's the very reason the 'bankruptcy' filing is 'weak' as a legal tactic. It has nothing to do with the NRA's finances. It has to do with what pacrat said in Post #6...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
NY mooted a SCOTUS case by simple legislative action.

Now NRA is mooting AG James by moving incorporation docs to Texas.

Not a big deal. Corporate shuffle to stop the obsessive attack behavior of a predatory DimRat.
Short version... There's a connection between the two cases; but, the case AG James brought against defendants... THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., WAYNE LAPIERRE, WILSON PHILLIPS, JOHN FRAZER, and JOSHUA POWELL... is a separate case, where AG James DID name LaPierre, specifically, as well as others for turning the organization into the "mechanism or vehicle" of their illegalities and, thus, the organization no longer meets the necessary criteria for the status it was incorporated under in New York. (Among the remedies sought in that case are personal, financial 'consequences' to the individual defendants named.)

It's a mess and the remedy she is seeking... dissolution of the NRA due to the illegal, fraudulent, et al. nature of its business practice exceeding its charter with the State of New York ... while outrageous to many of us, is an open question, legally, under the laws governing the type of organization the NRA is to conduct itself as. One of the reasons (or arguments) being presented is that the named defendants could have only acted with the explicit/implicit, knowing/unknowing 'consent' of those responsible for oversight of the defendants' actions; i.e., the Board. Thus, the "organization" is legally vulnerable.

Remember too, that there is a similar lawsuit in D.C. vs NRA Foundation: AG Racine Sues To Control NRA Foundation. While the remedy sought is different, it would, if granted, in effect, turn control of the organization and its funds over to D.C.

All of this is, at a minimum, to 'sideline' the NRA while Democrats are 'in control' and trying to ram things through.

So, you are 'correct' to not fully trust any 'news' source which does not link directly to the transcripts that provide the context for the statements. However, some news in terms of 'updates' is argued to be better than 'no news' by many. Thus, I am attempting to provide "what news" is available and people can evaluate it for themselves; hopefully, with an eye to objectivity rather than simple, knee-jerk, loyalist rhetoric and attacks on the limited sources for "news" currently available.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-09-2021, 9:22 PM
C.G.'s Avatar
C.G. C.G. is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 7,688
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You're conflating two, separate cases.

This thread is about the Bankruptcy filing in Texas and that's what my posts here are regarding. The New York AG is fighting it so her authority in the other case, the one in New York (i.e., the one to which you are referring), isn't mooted/muted.

That's the very reason the 'bankruptcy' filing is 'weak' as a legal tactic. It has nothing to do with the NRA's finances. It has to do with what pacrat said in Post #6...



Short version... There's a connection between the two cases; but, the case AG James brought against defendants... THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., WAYNE LAPIERRE, WILSON PHILLIPS, JOHN FRAZER, and JOSHUA POWELL... is a separate case, where AG James DID name LaPierre, specifically, as well as others for turning the organization into the "mechanism or vehicle" of their illegalities and, thus, the organization no longer meets the necessary criteria for the status it was incorporated under in New York. (Among the remedies sought in that case are personal, financial 'consequences' to the individual defendants named.)

It's a mess and the remedy she is seeking... dissolution of the NRA due to the illegal, fraudulent, et al. nature of its business practice exceeding its charter with the State of New York ... while outrageous to many of us, is an open question, legally, under the laws governing the type of organization the NRA is to conduct itself as. One of the reasons (or arguments) being presented is that the named defendants could have only acted with the explicit/implicit, knowing/unknowing 'consent' of those responsible for oversight of the defendants' actions; i.e., the Board. Thus, the "organization" is legally vulnerable.

Remember too, that there is a similar lawsuit in D.C. vs NRA Foundation: AG Racine Sues To Control NRA Foundation. While the remedy sought is different, it would, if granted, in effect, turn control of the organization and its funds over to D.C.

All of this is, at a minimum, to 'sideline' the NRA while Democrats are 'in control' and trying to ram things through.

So, you are 'correct' to not fully trust any 'news' source which does not link directly to the transcripts that provide the context for the statements. However, some news in terms of 'updates' is argued to be better than 'no news' by many. Thus, I am attempting to provide "what news" is available and people can evaluate it for themselves; hopefully, with an eye to objectivity rather than simple, knee-jerk, loyalist rhetoric and attacks on the limited sources for "news" currently available.
You misunderstood my post, I was trying to make the point (perhaps not well enough) that if the NY AG had gone after Wayne instead of the NRA the Chapter 11 would not be happening; whether it is a good strategy remains to be seen (even Dershowitz didn't think it was a good idea and suggested should fight NY head-on). I do have a different view on posting dubious journalism (remember that AP was at the forefront of the "Russia collusion") in my opinion it only promotes their talking point which may help to turn even more people away from the NRA and right now we need the NRA more than ever.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-09-2021, 10:35 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,507
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.G. View Post
You misunderstood my post, I was trying to make the point (perhaps not well enough) that if the NY AG had gone after Wayne instead of the NRA the Chapter 11 would not be happening; whether it is a good strategy remains to be seen (even Dershowitz didn't think it was a good idea and suggested should fight NY head-on). I do have a different view on posting dubious journalism (remember that AP was at the forefront of the "Russia collusion") in my opinion it only promotes their talking point which may help to turn even more people away from the NRA and right now we need the NRA more than ever.
What you didn't seem to catch is that it wasn't an issue of one instead of the other. The AG went after LaPierre. But, the AG is making the argument that the organization is a culpable co-defendant in the sense that the organization is complicit in LaPierre's malfeasance.

At this point, it's no longer about the 'journalism' turning people away from the NRA. The narrative is and has been out there. The problem is, the NRA has not produced a counter narrative.

As has been discussed before, we all get that you don't talk about court cases outside of court until the case is over. The problem is, in the league the NRA operates in, you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Period.
  • You have those who will not be swayed from "LaPierre must resign."
  • You have those who will not be swayed from "LaPierre is the right-hand of God."
Those camps have become about as large as they are going to get. Any increase in 'membership' is going to be marginal, pending documented evidence and court decisions.

For those of us who have largely remained 'neutral,' waiting for all the evidence, we get what's happening. Right now, they are attempting to make the best of a potentially 'bad' legal strategy in light of the context it is being utilized in. Concurrently, those arrayed against the NRA and gun owners are also attempting to make the best of a potentially 'bad' legal strategy by the NRA. Does that mean the person who 'wins' is the one with "the bestest and the mostest?"

My argument has been that the NRA needs to come out with something beyond... "it's an attack on your rights," "it's an attack on your organization," "it's all a lie," etc. Remember, the 'gamble' in withholding a counter narrative is that the 'winner' gets to write the narrative. If LaPierre and/or the NRA lose, the current narrative will be set in 'concrete' and any counter narrative will be largely interpreted as 'sore losers' and 'sour grapes.' (That includes many members on this site as evidenced by the cries of many for someone to do this/that; then, when someone does, gets caught, and is then prosecuted, those same individuals raising the lament excoriate them as "idiots" or "fools.")

It's not about promoting their 'talking points.' It's about being aware of what they are saying/claiming so that such can be refuted, specifically. "The NRA is righteous and LaPierre is the right-hand of God" is less persuasive than... "They said that? Here's why that's wrong/false/a lie" and producing documentary evidence.

Right now, that's what's going on vis a vis the representatives for the State of New York. They are getting LaPierre to admit, under oath, that he didn't do "X" and wasn't fully aware of "Y." LaPierre is attempting to spin it as an 'innocent' mistake and New York is attempting to present it as evidence of nefarious intent. The reality is, neither 'spin' is 'good' for "our side." Not at that level. It is particularly problematic in that it doesn't give LaPierre's defenders something to 'hang their hat on' by way of tolerance coupled with oversight.

One of the things which most have acknowledged and accepted is that some things are going to have to change insofar as how the NRA functions. (For those who haven't been able to 'see' that, they are as 'blind' as those arrayed against us are in their zeal to destroy the NRA.) Again, from a strictly organizational standpoint, this whole fiasco has brought to light some of the antithetical ways in which the NRA has been run when it comes to efficiency. The degree of those changes to be is something that should be left to the membership; not the State of New York or a Judge.

Just like the idea that the NRA should have 'left New York' long before this and 'moved' to a more 2nd Amendment-friendly state. Wayne LaPierre should have been grooming an individual to 'take over' in the sense that no, single individual can be indispensable for an organization to function properly. (Most believed that was Chris Cox, but we saw what happened there.) The split between the NRA and Ackerman-McQueen should have been less acrimonious. The Board should have been more 'involved' and less deferential on some, many, most of the issues being questioned. Right on down the list.

Unfortunately, we are quickly approaching the point where we're going to be stuck with what is rather than what should have been.

Make no mistake. If LaPierre and the NRA's attorneys can pull this out, much will be forgiven. However, I'm a bit dubious that it will be readily forgotten nor should it be. Either way, I suspect changes are afoot and, as an organization, we need to make sure those changes are to our benefit. I'm not sure they're gonna be and I'm even less sure those changes will be within our control if New York "makes" its case.

That's why it's important to know, specifically, what they are claiming and how they are 'establishing' their claim(s).

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-09-2021 at 10:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 04-10-2021, 3:19 PM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 90
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The other refrain that we hear sometimes is that WLP isn't doing anything that CEOs of other companies do all of the time - like fly in private jets. The problem is that he is not the CEO of a large public corporation. He is the CEO of a nonprofit - that comes with an entirely different set of rules and scrutiny. And in his trial testimony he has admitted more than once that he didn't follow NRA rules for disclosure and, at least according to the testimony of his "travel agent" he tried to hide family related travel and stop overso n his private jet trips. This is no longer about press stories. The testimony of WLP and others that have worked at or with the NRA for years is now on the record and it doesn't look good for WLP. He has even admitted that he was "disciplined" and forced to repay certain amounts of money that he spent on himself that was not approved by the NRA and/or outside of the rules of the NRA or nonprofit tax rules.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 04-10-2021, 9:19 PM
C.G.'s Avatar
C.G. C.G. is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 7,688
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
What you didn't seem to catch is that it wasn't an issue of one instead of the other. The AG went after LaPierre. But, the AG is making the argument that the organization is a culpable co-defendant in the sense that the organization is complicit in LaPierre's malfeasance.

At this point, it's no longer about the 'journalism' turning people away from the NRA. The narrative is and has been out there. The problem is, the NRA has not produced a counter narrative.
I am not a legal eagle but I am not aware of any other alleged questionable actions by a CEO resulting in a DA trying to dissolve another corporation or a non-profit. To again bring up Alan Dershowitz (democrat) into the picture he thought it was very improper.

I disagree with you that it is not about journalism turning away people from the NRA, the left media revels in promoting the "bad" NRA to further their agenda and there is that old saying "if you repeat it enough times people will believe it." The general media will publish anything and everything about the NRA and LaPierre and the trial to paint them in the worst possible way and so they don't have to report on things like Hunter Biden or the border crisis.

Even if the NRA were to produce a counter-narrative there are not too many outlets that would promote it, OAN, Newsmax and perhaps Fox is about it.
On the other hand, if one is involved in a legal proceeding usually the lawyers' advice is to keep a low profile.

Personally, I don't care whether Wayne comes or goes, my concern is that we need the NRA right now more than ever and the left has succeeded in turning NRA's attention away from fighting the current assault on the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 04-10-2021, 9:21 PM
C.G.'s Avatar
C.G. C.G. is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 7,688
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunuser17 View Post
The other refrain that we hear sometimes is that WLP isn't doing anything that CEOs of other companies do all of the time - like fly in private jets. The problem is that he is not the CEO of a large public corporation. He is the CEO of a nonprofit - that comes with an entirely different set of rules and scrutiny. And in his trial testimony he has admitted more than once that he didn't follow NRA rules for disclosure and, at least according to the testimony of his "travel agent" he tried to hide family related travel and stop overso n his private jet trips. This is no longer about press stories. The testimony of WLP and others that have worked at or with the NRA for years is now on the record and it doesn't look good for WLP. He has even admitted that he was "disciplined" and forced to repay certain amounts of money that he spent on himself that was not approved by the NRA and/or outside of the rules of the NRA or nonprofit tax rules.
Link to sources, please.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 04-11-2021, 12:54 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,507
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.G. View Post
...I disagree with you that it is not about journalism turning away people from the NRA, the left media revels in promoting the "bad" NRA to further their agenda and there is that old saying "if you repeat it enough times people will believe it." The general media will publish anything and everything about the NRA and LaPierre and the trial to paint them in the worst possible way and so they don't have to report on things like Hunter Biden or the border crisis.

Even if the NRA were to produce a counter-narrative there are not too many outlets that would promote it, OAN, Newsmax and perhaps Fox is about it.
On the other hand, if one is involved in a legal proceeding usually the lawyers' advice is to keep a low profile...
Yet, you just said, essentially, what I did...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...The narrative is and has been out there...
That narrative has been 'out there' for decades. It's not 'new' and it's not 'unique.' The only, appreciable difference, at the moment, is that they have specifics which can be pointed to in documents (and, now, LaPierre's testimony) that can be 'placed' into the existing narrative; i.e., they aren't saying anything 'new,' just claiming 'verification' of what they've been saying for decades.

Unfortunately, the problem isn't the narrative. The problem is that people won't look to the sources being infused into the narrative and determine for themselves the 'validity' or 'truth.' That includes NRA members who, as I've said, are almost 'blindly' loyal to both the organization and LaPierre. While loyalty is a good thing, blind loyalty (perhaps, to the point of fanatical obeisance), on both sides, is why we are where we are...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
...NRA may have some issues, all large orgs do, and it may get a bit ugly but it's not going anywhere.

The NRA actually is somewhat bloated so a little thinning won't be a bad thing as long as 2A people aren't stupid enough to throw their lot in with the anti-2A groups and try to shoot us all in the nuts.
Unfortunately that seems to be the hallmark of gun owners in the past decade or so though so we'll have to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
To be honest nearly all of what I've seen of ja308 is darn near fanatical defense of the NRA, to be blunt almost to the point of blindness.


On this we agree but as I said to eta, there are some 'on our side' who DO want to see the NRA fall.
They want the recognition, spotlight and yes money that comes with the idea of 'filling the void' after the NRA is gone. Harsh words I know but that doesn't make them less true.


Frankly if I had my way with this latest dust up I'd take both Wayne and Chris in to a small room with a sap and tell them 'You're working this out so we can get back to real 2A issues or you're both going home as walking bruises.'
Shooting yourself in the foot isn't just limited to 'conspiring with the enemy.' It can include being unwilling to take an honest, objective look at yourself while blaming the 'shiny object' for all your trouble or hiding behind a 'fig leaf' in terms of not addressing what needs to be addressed. Just like your falling back on what I already addressed...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...As has been discussed before, we all get that you don't talk about court cases outside of court until the case is over. The problem is, in the league the NRA operates in, you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Period...
Insofar as the 'appropriateness' of making the argument that the organization is a culpable co-defendant in the sense that the organization is complicit in LaPierre's malfeasance, once again, LaPierre is not the sole person involved/charged and the issue has become whether members of the board might also be legally responsible should it be 'established' that LaPierre, et al.'s actions were 'inappropriate;' legally, morally, and/or ethically, based, primarily, on the type of organization the NRA is chartered as. Is it unusual in a general sense? Yes... sort of. But, once again, THAT case is not the topic of this thread.

Would the 'bankruptcy' have occurred without the New York case?

The reality is that, for quite a few years, there have been elements pushing the NRA to leave both New York and Virginia for more 'gun-friendly' locations. The reason? What we're seeing now; i.e., the potential vulnerability to a political regime in those states intent upon nefarious end. There have been arguments for and against such a move and nothing tangible has ever happened. But, that doesn't mean that the thought hasn't been out there and is, thus, unique to the New York lawsuit. In fact, when it was 'announced'...

NRA Leaves New York to Reincorporate in Texas, Announces New Strategic Plan

...it wasn't a 'spur of the moment' decision based solely on a questionable legal strategy in the New York case. Actually, that's a large part of what makes the bankruptcy itself a 'questionable' strategy in that...

Quote:
The NRA plan, which involves utilizing the protection of the bankruptcy court, has the Association dumping New York and organizing its legal and regulatory matters in an efficient forum. The move comes at a time when the NRA is in its strongest financial condition in years.
That's the NRA's own press release. In other words, it has potentially little to do with the actual reasons for 'bankruptcy' and more to do with 'protecting' the organization. Protection from what? According to the New York suit...

Quote:
...As a result of these failures, the NRA, at the direction of the Individual Defendants and with a series of failures of required oversight by its Board, has persistently engaged in illegal and unauthorized activities in the conduct and transaction of its business. Individual Defendantsin their roles as officers and directors-routinely circumvented internal controls; condoned or partook in expenditures that were an inappropriate and wasteful use of charitable assets; and concealed or misreported relevant information, rendering the NRA's annual reports filed with the Attorney General materially false and misleading. Defendants abdicated all responsibility for ensuring that the NRA's assets were managed prudently and in good faith...

As a result of these persistent violations of law by the Defendants, the Attorney General seeks a finding by this Court that the NRA is liable to be dissolved pursuant to (a) N-PCL § 1101(a)(2) based upon the NRA's pattern of conducting its business in a persistently fraudulent or illegal manner, abusing its powers contrary to public policy of New York and its tax exempt status, and failing to provide for the proper administration of its trust assets and institutional funds; and/or (b) N-PCL § 1102(a)(2) because directors or members in control of the NRA have looted or wasted the corporation assets, have operated the NRA solely for their personal benefit, or have otherwise acted in an illegal, oppressive or fraudulent manner. The Attorney General requests that this Court determine, in the exercise of its discretion under Section 1109(b)(1) of the N-PCL, that the interest of the public and the members of the NRA supports a decision to dissolve the NRA...
Regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about LaPierre, the expenditures, etc., those are now 'issues of fact' to be determined in the Court in New York. But, it's what has raised the questions regarding the 'bankruptcy' and, thus, engendered the 'fight' in the bankruptcy proceedings...

Is the organization entitled to the 'protections' they are seeking in Texas based, not on actual financial distress, but on a desire to avoid a fight over 'issues of fact' in New York?

Such a move involves myriad issues and isn't something blithely/lightly considered or entered into. As an example, as was reported in February... Could the NRA Actually Leave Its Virginia Headquarters?

Quote:
...The gun-rights organization announced last month the formation of a committee to consider moving headquarters from the Old Dominion to the Lone Star State. While it hasn’t said it will definitely relocate, retaining the real estate firm Colliers International would appear to indicate that such a move is on the table.

But leaving Fairfax may not help the organization’s finances much: As Business Journal reported last month, ” it remains to be seen how much interest there will be from prospective buyers in a 30-plus-year-old office building in a part of the region where the vacancy rate closed 2020 at nearly 29%, per CBRE.”...
Thus, such a move has been "in the works" in terms of being 'suggested' and 'studied' for years; i.e., well before the most recent attacks. The potential shortening of the time table may be the result of the New York suit and a perceived 'advantage' to the organization in declaring 'bankruptcy,' but the move itself is not, directly or wholly, a result of that suit. While I grant that the conflation can be confusing and is made deliberately so as a result of dubious legal strategy, they are two, separate issues.

As I've repeatedly said throughout these threads, what you are seeing is the result of a 'campaign' which targeted EXISTING...
  • Media narrative
  • Fractures/factions in the membership
  • Inefficiency within the organization's power structure
Coupled with, POTENTIALLY...
  • Inappropriate machinations, expenditures, etc. on the part of LaPierre, the Board, et al.
  • A lack of effective counter narrative; regardless of the 'rationale,' be it legal advice, losing their PR firm, a lack of legitimate explanation (something LaPierre has, essentially, already ADMITTED TO, at least in part, in both his restitution and his testimony), etc.
  • "Rebellion" within the 'power structure' of the organization which is tied, in part, not simply to a thirst for 'control,' but existing fractures/factions in the membership.
The timing is not coincidental, nor is it happenstance. Fortunately, while the campaign has sidelined the NRA in large part, it hasn't completely removed the gorilla from the room and it hasn't been AS SUCCESSFUL as it might have been. At least not thus far.

What it has done is offered lessons that many were already aware of, but failed to profit from in terms of 'self-protection' for the organization. It's also brought to light the NEED to support other, pro-gun organizations and movements; not as an 'alternative' so much as a 'support' and 'ally' to what the NRA tries to accomplish. Remember, the NRA doesn't have a 'perfect' record; be it what was viewed, at the time, as 'necessary compromises' or legal machinations (e.g., the idea that Heller might not have happened if the NRA had its way has been a source of debate, but there is some truth to the argument according to David Kopel), etc. In a sense, I view such 'diversity of thinking' as a check on 'myopic vision' and approach; the latter being vulnerable to the very type of multi-faceted attacks which have increased in frequency and virulence over the last 20 - 30 years.

That's without even discussing changing demographics, societal norms, and all the other factors which play into it and that we continuously lament on this site. In short, it's not JUST about the current 'narrative' turning people away from the NRA and, I would argue, that such a 'narrative' has long existed and is only a small piece of a much larger puzzle. There are myriad pieces to the puzzle and not all of them are easily or readily addressed, let alone willingly addressed or even recognized and accepted as 'real.'
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 04-11-2021, 2:18 AM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,629
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

All discourse aside. Like many freedom loving citizens leaving NY for its oppressive taxes and other factors...

The NRA is also leavening the fascist state of NY due to Cuomo and his minions.
Places like Texas are the right places for freedom loving citizens and orgs like the NRA.

Its as simple as that...
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life.
John 3:16

United Air Epic Fail Video ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-11-2021, 5:56 AM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 90
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.G. View Post
Link to sources, please.
The trial has been broadcast live. I sat there and listened to the testimony. Did you do that? If not, do you have any evidence that something I said is incorrect?
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 04-11-2021, 4:22 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,989
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wpage View Post
All discourse aside. Like many freedom loving citizens leaving NY for its oppressive taxes and other factors...

The NRA is also leavening the fascist state of NY due to Cuomo and his minions.
Places like Texas are the right places for freedom loving citizens and orgs like the NRA.

Its as simple as that...
While I agree with your reasoning of current NRA move to Tx.

I will point out that many are not aware that the NRA was born in NY. In 1871.

Then in 1907. It moved to Washington DC. To be closer to the center of its advocacy concerns.


After the 1977 Cincinnatti Revolution when NRA became more than just a "markmanship org." And morphed into a 2A POLITICAL ADVOCACY ORG.
It moved to Fairfax Virginia when the political climate in DC went Anti 2A. But its corporate roots remained in NY.

Now with all the political attacks from NY. And Virginia going dark blue Anti.

It is making the LOOOOONG OVERDUE CORP TRANSITION to Tx.

WHO CAN FORSEE THE FUTURE.

A couple more decades of Tx going blue. And NRA may wind up in A TRULY 2A FRIENDLY STATE. SUCH AS IDAHO.

Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 04-11-2021, 10:22 PM
C.G.'s Avatar
C.G. C.G. is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 7,688
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunuser17 View Post
The trial has been broadcast live. I sat there and listened to the testimony. Did you do that? If not, do you have any evidence that something I said is incorrect?
I didn't say that you said anything that was incorrect, don't get defensive. I wanted links so that I could read/see for myself, almost never I have time to watch live TV even if I know it is happening. I believe I asked politely enough.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-12-2021, 2:25 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 11,132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.G. View Post
I see you are quoting the most trusted source in journalism - AP.
So very true !LMAO hahahaha
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 05-04-2021, 4:19 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,507
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

AP release yesterday... Judge to rule early next week in NRA bankruptcy trial

Quote:
...Judge Harlin Hale said he expects to issue a written ruling early next week in the case over whether the NRA can move its incorporation from New York to Texas...
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 05-05-2021, 1:27 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 11,132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
A little more from this antigun AP sleazball !
https://apnews.com/article/nv-state-...a99e7793ee6366

No bias here LOL
"For decades, the federal government has treated a mechanism called the lower receiver as the essential piece of the semiautomatic rifle, which has been used in some of the nation’s deadliest mass shootings"...

Last edited by ja308; 05-05-2021 at 1:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-05-2021, 2:02 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,507
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja308 View Post
A little more from this antigun AP sleazball !
https://apnews.com/article/nv-state-...a99e7793ee6366

No bias here LOL
"For decades, the federal government has treated a mechanism called the lower receiver as the essential piece of the semiautomatic rifle, which has been used in some of the nation’s deadliest mass shootings"...
Uh... Haven't you been keeping up on the Calguns threads?

ATF Met With NSSF, Polymer 80, and Others: Changing Definition of What Is A Firearm

State of California, et al. vs. BATFE, et al. - "Ghost Guns" - Filed 9/29/20

Families Of Shooting Victims Sue Sellers Of 'Ghost Guns' (Update 1/28/21)

Article "Former ATF agent at center of legal dispute over AR-15" lower as firearm

Feds drop case over AR-15 definition (Joseph Roh, building ARs)

The short version is the author is absolutely correct and accurate in what you quoted. It's why we now have several lawsuits attempting to 'force' ATF to redefine what they consider to be a 'firearm' and why Biden now has the ATF looking to redefine what is considered a 'firearm.' While there is legal debate over whether the agency can do it via the 'rule making' process or whether it must be done via the Legislature is... unresolved. However, they are taking a cue from Trump's banning of bump stocks and the fact that the courts have not, as yet, overturned the ban on such grounds.

While many on "our side" have seen it as a potential 'break through,' others have warned about precisely this being the more probable outcome; i.e., that the Left would attempt to force a change. It's in the works and for precisely the reason the author indicates in that defendants are attempting to 'take advantage' (however one wishes to define that) of the situation, rightly or wrongly. The Constitutionality of 'rule making' vs. 'law making' comes down to the same thing that Feinstein warned Trump about with regard to bump stocks. ATF cannot change existing law, they can only interpret it and, for decades, the ATF has interpreted it in the manner the author cites. (Just like ATF interpreting bump stocks as "not machine gun," based on how the law was written.)

Thus, "our side" is accusing them of 'underground regulation' by, effectively, rewriting the definitions provided in the law; i.e., legislating from the Executive Branch. "Their side" is claiming it is simply an interpretation based on existing law and the fact that such 'interpretation' is new and contrary to their traditional interpretation makes no never mind. As I said, given that the courts have not sided with "our side," thus far, hasn't been helpful and is, in fact, providing 'encouragement' to "their side."

So, if the guy is a "sleaze ball" for reporting things as they stand, then... well...
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 05-05-2021, 5:31 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 11,132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I did a quick search on this sleezball ! I notice he made no mention of the AR shooter who stopped mass murder in Texas. Nor has any writings of his referenced the scientific studies done by Professor John Lott. He is a democrat hack, just like AP.

The picture he choose of Wayne La Pierre was chosen very carefully to make him look like a raving lunatic.

In short this sleaze ball wrapped his thoughts around your axle. Personally I give them the attention I would give a KKK spokesman or a Stalin apologist ! ZERO
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:43 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical