Lawsuit filed to dissolve NRA

[Borchester]

Letitia James is a Democrat party politician who wants to be Mayor of New York and she is currently pursuing the NRA for having its hand in the till. The latter is on the ropes for being generally cack handed, but with the BLM running amoke and demanding the abolition of the police, I can't see the Yanks giving up their guns easily.

[Nalaar]

What's that got to do with anything?

You've turned it around to the NRA protecting the constitution when we were debating the opposite.
Same as in any country, if you underpay tax you get a tax bill. If you pay it or negotiate a different payment then all's good. I'm sure the NRA have what ever money they need to clear any tax bill.

BTW, I am not an NRA fan, I think they should be shut down.

Okay I think we might be talking past each other here a bit, so just to clarify - I took it from your first post that you believed there is some sort of constitutional law that would protect the NRA from their alleged financial impropriety, is that correct?

[Nick]

This is never going to fly unfortunately, financial impropriety doesn't top trump constitutional law.

What aspect of the constitution do you think will protect the NRA?

The constitution law is the right to bear arms and I'm pretty sure no one can ban an association based on a legal entity. So how is the constitution not indirectly protecting the NRA?

The NRA are nothing more than an advocacy group. If they ceased to exist tomorrow (say because of bankruptcy) the 2nd amendment would be unscathed.

What's that got to do with anything?

You've turned it around to the NRA protecting the constitution when we were debating the opposite.
Same as in any country, if you underpay tax you get a tax bill. If you pay it or negotiate a different payment then all's good. I'm sure the NRA have what ever money they need to clear any tax bill.

BTW, I am not an NRA fan, I think they should be shut down.

[papasmurf]

The constitution law is the right to bear arms and I'm pretty sure no one can ban an association based on a legal entity.

The constitution does not protect crime.  The NRA is not protected from the law.

[Nalaar]

This is never going to fly unfortunately, financial impropriety doesn't top trump constitutional law.

What aspect of the constitution do you think will protect the NRA?

The constitution law is the right to bear arms and I'm pretty sure no one can ban an association based on a legal entity. So how is the constitution not indirectly protecting the NRA?

The NRA are nothing more than an advocacy group. If they ceased to exist tomorrow (say because of bankruptcy) the 2nd amendment would be unscathed.

[patman post]

Tax is what eventually got Al Capone
Although the gangster couldn't be found responsible for his part in many violent deaths, Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt appears to have used tax evasion to get him.
Maybe the NRA bosses will be got in the same way. Shame for the US there's so many groups of gun geeks that support the out and out gun nutters — which are no way like most of the UK's legal gun owners...

[Nick]

This is never going to fly unfortunately, financial impropriety doesn't top trump constitutional law.

What aspect of the constitution do you think will protect the NRA?

The constitution law is the right to bear arms and I'm pretty sure no one can ban an association based on a legal entity. So how is the constitution not indirectly protecting the NRA?

[Nalaar]

I think the NRA is going to say this is nothing more than an entertainingly timed attack on its fundamental position of defensing second amendment rights

That may well be their PR position to get support from their members, but there's nothing constitutionally that'll save the NRA from tax fraud charges.

despite the fact no member of the NRA has ever admitted those rights come about from a desire on the part of the government to see a well ordered militia. The finest way I have seen this put is that those who go out and use their second amendment rights to buy weaponry and do not at the same time leave their name and address with the local national guard recruiter's office are not patriots, but deserters.

I've never heard it expressed like that, the 2nd amendment is a protection for the individual against the government militia, the quandary of 'when does a patriot become a traitor/deserter' is full of loaded terms and associations.

Then you should read the constitution again.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

CONTEXT is of course everything and the US Supreme Court has ruled that the first four words ARE IRRELEVANT

The actuality is that these amendments were made in as a response / afterthought in reaction to BRITISH Actions prior to the war of independence. 

A Catholic King of England demanded The Common Man be denied the ownership and use of firearms. Upon his toppling / death a BRITISH Bill of rights granting ANY PROTESTANT ENGLISHMAN the right to bear arms  was passed in parliament. funny how it excluded catholics but maybe it saw what was coming ... 

It is in THAT vein that when the BRITISH sought to remove the right of the AMERICAN colonist to bear arms the parallel between catholicism and protestantism in the days prior to the English Bill of rights was drawn.

The second amendment it was for the formation and maintenace of a well ordered state organised militia, taking orders from the government to defend the union from OUTSIDE hostility and **NOT** as it is now considered to be by those unaware of history ...

If that's your interpretation - who is the American citizen being protected from in the constitution that would infringe on their right to bear arms?

[johnofgwent]

I think the NRA is going to say this is nothing more than an entertainingly timed attack on its fundamental position of defensing second amendment rights

That may well be their PR position to get support from their members, but there's nothing constitutionally that'll save the NRA from tax fraud charges.

despite the fact no member of the NRA has ever admitted those rights come about from a desire on the part of the government to see a well ordered militia. The finest way I have seen this put is that those who go out and use their second amendment rights to buy weaponry and do not at the same time leave their name and address with the local national guard recruiter's office are not patriots, but deserters.

I've never heard it expressed like that, the 2nd amendment is a protection for the individual against the government militia, the quandary of 'when does a patriot become a traitor/deserter' is full of loaded terms and associations.

Then you should read the constitution again.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

CONTEXT is of course everything and the US Supreme Court has ruled that the first four words ARE IRRELEVANT

The actuality is that these amendments were made in as a response / afterthought in reaction to BRITISH Actions prior to the war of independence. 

A Catholic King of England demanded The Common Man be denied the ownership and use of firearms. Upon his toppling / death a BRITISH Bill of rights granting ANY PROTESTANT ENGLISHMAN the right to bear arms  was passed in parliament. funny how it excluded catholics but maybe it saw what was coming ... 

It is in THAT vein that when the BRITISH sought to remove the right of the AMERICAN colonist to bear arms the parallel between catholicism and protestantism in the days prior to the English Bill of rights was drawn.

The second amendment it was for the formation and maintenace of a well ordered state organised militia, taking orders from the government to defend the union from OUTSIDE hostility and **NOT** as it is now considered to be by those unaware of history ...

[Nalaar]

I think the NRA is going to say this is nothing more than an entertainingly timed attack on its fundamental position of defensing second amendment rights

That may well be their PR position to get support from their members, but there's nothing constitutionally that'll save the NRA from tax fraud charges.

despite the fact no member of the NRA has ever admitted those rights come about from a desire on the part of the government to see a well ordered militia. The finest way I have seen this put is that those who go out and use their second amendment rights to buy weaponry and do not at the same time leave their name and address with the local national guard recruiter's office are not patriots, but deserters.

I've never heard it expressed like that, the 2nd amendment is a protection for the individual against the government militia, the quandary of 'when does a patriot become a traitor/deserter' is full of loaded terms and associations.

[johnofgwent]

What aspect of the constitution do you think will protect the NRA?

I think the NRA is going to say this is nothing more than an entertainingly timed attack on its fundamental position of defensing second amendment rights, despite the fact no member of the NRA has ever admitted those rights come about from a desire on the part of the government to see a well ordered militia. The finest way I have seen this put is that those who go out and use their second amendment rights to buy weaponry and do not at the same time leave their name and address with the local national guard recruiter's office are not patriots, but deserters.

[Nalaar]

This is never going to fly unfortunately, financial impropriety doesn't top trump constitutional law.

What aspect of the constitution do you think will protect the NRA?

[Nick]

This is never going to fly unfortunately, financial impropriety doesn't top trump constitutional law.

[papasmurf]

Popcorn !! Get Your popcorn here !

It is definitely a case of beer and nibbles situation.

[johnofgwent]

Popcorn !! Get Your popcorn here !