05-12-2021, 10:28 AM
(05-12-2021, 10:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've actually addressed this exact point earlier in the thread. If you find malfeasance on the part of some NRA board members, then prosecute them. This abuse by some does not irrevocably taint the organization as a whole. Unlike the Trump non-profit you cite, the NRA is an old organization with a long history of fighting for civil rights, not some fly by night scam. Seeking dissolution of the group in its entirety, thus affecting millions of members, is both extreme and unnecessary. As for this being a wholly partisan exercise and a gross misuse of the AG's authority, well, she proved that herself when she labeled the NRA a "terrorist organization" long before bringing these allegations. Here's some more choice quotes from her;
"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 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."
"The NRA holds (itself) out as a charitable organization, but in fact, (it) really (is) a terrorist organization,"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/19/nra-lawsuit-ny-ag-letitia-james-past-comments/5606437002/
So I don't even have to do any proving on my own, she does it for me. I can understand if you don't like the NRA, or if you don't approve of its position on firearms. But you literally can't say this corrupt POS isn't trying to destroy the NRA for purely partisan reasons. She told you so herself.
If nearly the entire executive board is tainted then by virtue the organization is tainted. If the use of the funds breached the allowable uses to remain a non-profit, then they are no longer a non-profit. Dissolving them as a NY non-profit doesn't "end" them it gets them out of their state while officially classifying the business as what they have been for a while now, an illegally operating organization.
They were actually looking for the court in Texas to proactively dissolve them in NY and reestablish them in Texas. That shows the organization themselves aren't really worried about the dissolution, it is avoiding the monetary penalties that they are really worried about. Her views on them doesn't make them any less of an illegally operating and corrupt (as mentioned by the volume of board members operating corruptly) organization. In the end, she doesn't get to make the call anyway it's up to court. If the court agrees with her, then I guess it wasn't all politics was it?
