NRA dissolvement

[hoola]

today the atty general of New York state announced fraud charges of millions of dollars to 4 central figures including La Pierre, over many years of illegalities, and a charge to dissolve the organization altogether. 

[iNow]

Simplest way to make NRA go out of business is not to "dissolve" them, but instead to take away their tax exempt non-profit status. Same outcome, fewer rage conversations with 2nd amendment worshipers 

[hoola]

there will be "rage conversations" regardless of any attempt to reign in such an organization, and I applaud the "shock and awe" value used this time, for good. 

Edited August 6, 2020 by hoola

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, hoola said:

there will be "rage conversations" regardless of any attempt to reign in such an organization, and I applaud the "shock and awe" value used this time, for good.

Somehow your applause seems little different from the rage of the gun supporters. I agree with iNow. It would be a more reasonable approach to remove their tax status because of the corruption they've been found guilty of. Even people who don't like the NRA might defend them if you just try to dissolve them.

It's my impression most NRA members want a unified voice regarding the 2nd Amendment, and don't understand how their fees also support selling silencers to foreign powers who want to use them against US soldiers. Perhaps a re-evaluation of their status would be informative for many. I'd love to see their knee removed from the neck of gun violence research, and I think many would agree if they had any idea of the resources the NRA has spent on such suppression.

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Somehow your applause seems little different from the rage of the gun supporters. I agree with iNow. It would be a more reasonable approach to remove their tax status because of the corruption they've been found guilty of. Even people who don't like the NRA might defend them if you just try to dissolve them.

My understanding (which is admittedly limited) is that legally a non-profits assets can only be allocated to another non-profit, here. I think those assets would all have to be transferred away if its status were changed. Those assets legally couldn't be part of a new for profit vs of the NRA less of course the NRA purchased them all back with money acquired post being a non-profit. Dissolution is a State managed process. Where as Tax Exemption is both State and Federal. Far as I can tell from light reading the IRS doesn't distinguish between Dissolution and other ways an organization loses its Tax Exempt Status, here. So I think dissolution and removing their tax exempt status are functionally the same thing. Seems dissolving the organization is the route a state would go vs the federal govt.

1 hour ago, hoola said:

there will be "rage conversations" regardless of any attempt to reign in such an organization, and I applaud the "shock and awe" value used this time, for good. The district of Columbia has announced similar proceedings

As an organization the NRA is very political. However that doesn't mean holding them to legal standard is political. If the charges could be shown in court to be purely politically motivated that would be cause dismissal. I assume you know this which is why this thread is in Ethics and not Politics. You seek a discussion of the cases specifics and not an opinion on the NRA as a whole.

NY's AG is saying that the NRA misused over $60 million dollars worth of charitable funds on this link vacations, non-board member approved contacts to allies, gifts, etc. Per NY law all charitable moneys must go towards the organizations stated charitable mission. The NRA's stated charitable missions is (Summary): Defend the Constitutions, promote law & order nationally, train firearm safety nationally, promote firearm sports nationally, promote hunting nationally. We is the complete suit file, here.

Because of the domestic nature of the NRA's stated mission I think they will have a difficult time explaining how expensive African Safaris and private chartered jet flights to the Bahamas support their mission. It is an interesting chase. I personally think it too a lot of courage to file the suit. Because the NRA is such an established politically juggernaut there will absolutely be criticism. Many will feverishly defend the NRA purely out of political loyalty. It would be unethical to withhold a suit for fear of political optics though.

[OldChemE]

I very much agree the leadership of the NRA should be held accountable for any provable acts along the lines of those charged.  As a gun owner, I want the Second Amendment to remain, but have long felt that the organizations that know gun technology best (Manufacturers and the NRA) should have been working with government to solve the problems instead of blindly fighting everything.  So-- I hope this lawsuit will lead to some positive results.

[John Cuthber]

On 8/8/2020 at 4:31 AM, OldChemE said:

I very much agree the leadership of the NRA should be held accountable for any provable acts along the lines of those charged.  As a gun owner, I want the Second Amendment to remain, but have long felt that the organizations that know gun technology best (Manufacturers and the NRA) should have been working with government to solve the problems instead of blindly fighting everything.  So-- I hope this lawsuit will lead to some positive results.

I'm intrigued; in what ways have gun makers been seeking to solve the problems- say the problems of mass shootings in schools?

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm intrigued; in what ways have gun makers been seeking to solve the problems- say the problems of mass shootings in schools?

Apparently, by making sure more people are armed so they can stop the shooter. Has that ever happened? Even once? Even when the school guards are armed? Do people with guns do better if armed robbers attempt to break into their homes? (I am fairly certain they are significantly more likely to be shot, themselves.)

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Apparently, by making sure more people are armed so they can stop the shooter. Has that ever happened? Even once? Even when the school guards are armed? Do people with guns do better if armed robbers attempt to break into their homes? (I am fairly certain they are significantly more likely to be shot, themselves.)

Occasionally, the police manage to shoot the right person. It's also not unheard of for a citizen to do so.
In fact it happens something like once a day in the US.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/

On the other hand... 

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

says there are roughly 40 times that many homicides where "the wrong person" gets shot.

And there are about 70 times as many suicides as justifiable homicides. It's likely that, at least, some of those wouldn't  have died if it hadn't been for the ready availability of guns.

Overall the stats show that the "typical gun on a home" is much more likely to be used to shoot a family member than a criminal.

None of this influences gun supporters because they think those deaths happen to "other people".
They don't recognise that the owners of the guns also thought exactly the same thing.

But it would still be interesting to know what the NRA has been doing to address this.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2020 by John Cuthber

[joigus]

19 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/

Interesting. I thought the criterion for "justifiable" would be self-defence. But no:

Quote

A justifiable homicide is defined as the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony.

That's a bit loose. If you point your gun at a guy who's holding up a shop, tell him to raise his hands, and he does, and you shoot him in cold blood.

Would that be considered as the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony, thus justifiable?

Another example: http://www.bjreview.com.cn/forum/txt/2009-04/28/content_193066.htm

 

On 8/6/2020 at 11:38 PM, iNow said:

Simplest way to make NRA go out of business is not to "dissolve" them, but instead to take away their tax exempt non-profit status. Same outcome, fewer rage conversations with 2nd amendment worshipers 

I tend to agree with this kind of thinking, for this and other similar problems. +1

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, joigus said:

Interesting. I thought the criterion for "justifiable" would be self-defence. But no:

That's a bit loose. If you point your gun at a guy who's holding up a shop, tell him to raise his hands, and he does, and you shoot him in cold blood.

Would that be considered as the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony, thus justifiable?

Another example: http://www.bjreview.com.cn/forum/txt/2009-04/28/content_193066.htm

 

It's no ones fault that some people/country's have difficulty in keeping up with justice. The fault lies in the deliberate ignorance of justice; that a gun is a suitable means of the enforcement of justice, is ignorance in the face of facts.

Edited August 9, 2020 by dimreepr

[joigus]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's no ones fault that some people/country's have difficulty in keeping up with justice. The fault lies in the deliberate ignorance of justice; that a gun is a suitable means of the enforcement of justice, is ignorance in the face of facts.

I agree. I wasn't trying to put the blame on anybody. I was just interested in the definitions. Different countries seem to have different thresholds for what is justifiable. But you can never gladly ignore the social cauldron in which those concepts are formed.

[OldChemE]

10 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm intrigued; in what ways have gun makers been seeking to solve the problems- say the problems of mass shootings in schools?

I must have worded things badly.  What I meant was that they have NOT been seeking to solve the problems, whereas, they probably know the technology best.

[drumbo]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

that a gun is a suitable means of the enforcement of justice, is ignorance in the face of facts

How is a 110 pound women supposed to defend herself from a 200 pound man without a gun? Your stance is anti-woman.

[Ten oz]

On 8/7/2020 at 11:31 PM, OldChemE said:

I very much agree the leadership of the NRA should be held accountable for any provable acts along the lines of those charged.  As a gun owner, I want the Second Amendment to remain, but have long felt that the organizations that know gun technology best (Manufacturers and the NRA) should have been working with government to solve the problems instead of blindly fighting everything.  So-- I hope this lawsuit will lead to some positive results.

If dissolved I suspect the NRA will continue on a private organization and little will change. The NRA will simply have to offload the present assets and start paying taxes moving forward.

7 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Occasionally, the police manage to shoot the right person. It's also not unheard of for a citizen to do so.
In fact it happens something like once a day in the US.

George Zimmerman falls into this category. Zimmerman claims Martin was attempting to murder  him (a felonious act). I thin is fair to say Zimmerman's account of events are questionable. Problem is there were no witnesses. So Zimmerman's account stands unchallenged. I suspect a number of the cases which make up the stats in your like fall into that category. The numbers are probably lower than what's recorded. Unfortunately I don't what to what degree. 

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, drumbo said:

How is a 110 pound women supposed to defend herself from a 200 pound man without a gun? Your stance is anti-woman.

🙄 If you say so.

[John Cuthber]

10 hours ago, drumbo said:

How is a 110 pound women supposed to defend herself from a 200 pound man without a gun? Your stance is anti-woman.

The same as everywhere in the civilised world.

How is the woman meant to defend herself against a man who has a gun? (His is already drawn before she knows that the man or the gun exist.)

What you have done there is rehash the "good (wo)man with a gun"  argument, and we already know it's simply not true.

[drumbo]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The same as everywhere in the civilised world.

So she just loses in a physical altercation 99.9% of the time?

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

How is the woman meant to defend herself against a man who has a gun?

By shooting him.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, drumbo said:

So she just loses in a physical altercation 99.9% of the time?

By shooting him.

Is she wearing a holster, with her hand constantly hovering over it?  

I'm not sure even that would be enough, since most rape victims, who don't know their attacker, are attacked out of the blue and usually from behind.

[drumbo]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Is she wearing a holster, with her hand constantly hovering over it?  

I'm not sure even that would be enough, since most rape victims, who don't know their attacker, are attacked out of the blue and usually from behind.

You're right it might not be enough. We'd better make sure she doesn't have a gun altogether then, nice work Columbo. Better take away her pepper spray too, it might not be enough. Don't even bother teaching her self defense techniques either, it might not be enough. Genius level argument.

[Bufofrog]

4 minutes ago, drumbo said:

You're right it might not be enough. We'd better make sure she doesn't have a gun altogether then, nice work Columbo. Better take away her pepper spray too, it might not be enough. Don't even bother teaching her self defense techniques either, it might not be enough. Genius level argument.

The policies of the NRA does not even necessarily reflect the opinions of their members.  About 70% of NRA members say background checks should be strengthened.  The big point here, though, is that the NRA executives were stealing money from their members to enrich themselves.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, drumbo said:

You're right it might not be enough. We'd better make sure she doesn't have a gun altogether then, nice work Columbo.

Since she's more likely to kill herself with it, or it is more likely to kill a family member; she should be thankful for Columbo's input.

15 minutes ago, drumbo said:

Better take away her pepper spray too, it might not be enough. Don't even bother teaching her self defense techniques either, it might not be enough.

Congratulations, you've graduated from simple gainsay, to a strawman in order to defend your bollox.

16 hours ago, Ten oz said:

If dissolved I suspect the NRA will continue on a private organization and little will change. The NRA will simply have to offload the present assets and start paying taxes moving forward.

I suspect the NRA will become even more powerful, at least now we know where it's coming from.

Having said that, the pendulum only has so much travel before it returns.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not sure even that would be enough, since most rape victims, who don't know their attacker, are attacked out of the blue and usually from behind.

Do you have a citation for that? I'm surprised anyone would even collect such details.

[dimreepr]

37 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Do you have a citation for that? I'm surprised anyone would even collect such details.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43128350

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

the pendulum only has so much travel before it returns

I disagree with this axiom. Events over the last couple years have taken us beyond what most reasonable people would have considered the travel range.