Could NRA Members Intervene To Stop NY Suit To Dissolve The NRA?

[hps1]

I think we can all agree that NRA has contributed to the preservation of our 2nd Amendment rights over the years to one degree or another. Most would argue that, with somewhere near 5,000,000 members, NRA is a powerful voice on 2A matters and its demise would be detrimental to the cause.

Please read George Douglas' interesting suggested remedy to the current attempt to destroy NRA at the link following the article.

Perhaps some attorneys can share their observations on the following:


Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Home » Gun Rights News

Could NRA Members Intervene To Stop NY Suit To Dissolve The NRA?
Ammoland Inc. Posted on August 17, 2020 by David Codrea

The question here is, will NRA management's legal efforts defending themselves turn out to be in the best interests of the members? (National Rifle Association/Facebook)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- As widely reported, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed suit to dissolve the NRA filed on August 6. The suit claims that NRA executives Wayne LaPierre, Wilson Phillips, Joshua Powell, and John Frazer used their positions for personal gain and otherwise misspent or misused NRA funds and resources. The AG claims that she can bring the action because the NRA was incorporated in New York as a non-profit corporation.

While an eventual outcome of dissolving the association is thought by some legal analysts to be an overreach, AG James doesn't have to shut them down to have a devastating effect:


“This diverts NRA focus and resources away from the November election at a time when both are most needed if the Democrat agenda against the right to keep and bear arms is to be effectively politically opposed.”

We’re already seeing the effects of that. “NRA’s political spending plunges as lawsuits, controversies hit,” Fox News reports. “The NRA’s most recent filings say it has spent less than $1 million in the 2020 cycle.”

With the Biden/Harris threat growing, this could not have come at a worse time for gun owners.
However, an Alabama lawyer who is also an NRA Life Member has suggested a legal procedure that could be used both to preserve the NRA's existence and to install new leadership if the New York AG proves her claims against the NRA executives. George Douglas raised the alarm for the NRA's general membership in an “Action Memorandum”, pointing out that the individual NRA executive defendants had “obvious and irreconcilable” conflicts of interest:

“Regardless of whether the [attorney general's] claims are true, the individuals will be likely to put their own interests ahead of the corporation's, and therefore likely to agree [to] a settlement that absolves them of personal liability by using the corporation's assets to buy off the plaintiff.”

Douglas noted three possibilities if the suit goes forward as it is presently filed “and all of them are bad for the NRA and its membership.” The first two possibilities are that either the New York AG or the NRA would win flat out, but Douglas said both of these are unlikely. He said the most probable outcome would be that “The AG and the LaPierre defendants will cook up a settlement that allows both sides to declare victory but in actuality results in further damage to the NRA with both a diminution of its assets and a restriction on its activities while leaving the LaPierre group in control.”

Douglas urged NRA members to intervene in the New York suit, both individually and as state or local associations. He explained that intervention is a legal procedure allowing persons who aren't parties to a suit to “intervene” and participate in the litigation “when they would be adversely affected by a judgment but aren't adequately represented by the original parties.” He suggested five “basic claims for intervention”:

1. That the intervening NRA members will be adversely affected by a judgment in the action, and that they are not (and cannot) be adequately represented by either the NYAG or the individual defendants and their counsel due to their inherent conflicts of interest.
2. That the NYAG does not have the legal authority to assert her claims against the NRA based on the alleged wrongs of its individual leadership, and that those claims (even if true) can only be properly brought by the NRA members.
3. That the proper remedy for those wrongs, if they are proven, is not the dissolution of the NRA but recovery of the misspent funds from the individuals for the NRA as an entity, not for the NYAG or the State.
4. That because of the inherent conflicts of interest between the individual defendants and the NRA as an entity, the NRA must have separate counsel who are not chosen by the individual defendants.
5. That both the NYAG and the intervenors should therefore be allowed to proceed with proving the allegations against the individual defendants, and that if those are proven then the individual defendants should be removed from their positions and new leadership chosen by the NRA members should be put in place.

Douglas sent his memorandum out Thursday by email, with a request to “Please give this memo as wide a circulation as you can. Don't assume that your circle of contacts will see it if you don't circulate it.” He appealed to the “true friends” of the NRA to intervene in the New York suit individually and on behalf of the general membership.

Not being admitted to practice law in New York, Douglas said he is not trying to solicit clients but to alert NRA members to this legal procedure, and stated that he’s “glad to help in any way I can with research, etc.” Interviewed by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, Douglas emphasized the urgent need for immediate NRA member action:

“It's very important that motions to intervene be made very soon, before this case begins to gain momentum. The law requires “timely intervention” by interested parties and that means as soon as possible.”

Douglas also noted that the very first paragraph of the AG's complaint in the case says “…the NRA is legally required to serve the interests of its membership and advance its charitable mission”, adding “If the NRA executives actually did what the AG's complaint alleges, then it will be awfully hard for them to argue they were serving the interests of the NRA's membership and advancing its mission.”

Legal contacts I have don’t practice in New York either, so I present this on AmmoLand in the interest of giving exposure to a unique idea that appears to merit consideration. As such, if you are an NRA member who agrees this has potential, please pass Douglas’ Action Memorandum on to those within your sphere of influence, and especially to gun owner rights groups with significant numbers of NRA members and the resources to become intervenors.

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/08/co...op-ny-suit-to-dissolve-the-nra/#axzz6VVJSfUsK

To see Douglas' Action Memorandum, click here:
https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=...0DF09!2342&parId=BE5A30444A40DF09!590&o=OneUp

Regards,
hps

 

[Stophel]

deleted.

 

[AlexanderA]

That's a good way to divert even more resources into this lawsuit. Which, of course, is exactly what the NY AG wants -- to tie up the pro-gun side so that it's ineffective politically. I recommend contributing to other pro-gun organizations. The NRA is a lost cause.

ETA: The NRA has become a convenient lightning rod, or boogieman, for the antigunners. It might be best to dissolve the organization in order to deny them this target. It's hardly doing any good for the pro-gun side anyway, given its internal problems.

 

[ilbob]

That's a good way to divert even more resources into this lawsuit. Which, of course, is exactly what the NY AG wants -- to tie up the pro-gun side so that it's ineffective politically. I recommend contributing to other pro-gun organizations. The NRA is a lost cause.

I am not sure I completely agree on this point but until the BOD steps up to the plate and fires WLP, the NRA is not getting another cent from me. And I sadly say this as a life member.

 

[AlexanderA]

I am not sure I completely agree on this point but until the BOD steps up to the plate and fires WLP, the NRA is not getting another cent from me. And I sadly say this as a life member.

Same here. WLP has structured the NRA system so that he cannot be removed. Most of the BOD are his toadies.

 

[GEM]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/t...a-coo-josh-powell-to-publish-a-tell-all-book/

Nasty book is coming out. Just FYI

 

[hps1]

As Mr. Douglas points out in his letter (linked above), Letitia James' summons names NRA, LaPierre, Phillips, Powell and Frazer as defendants. The interests of NRA must be defended separately from LaPierre, et al.

Regardless of whether the plaintiff's claims are true the individuals will be likely to put their own interests ahead of the corporation's, and therefore likely to agree a settlement that absolves them of personal liability by using the corporation's assets to buy off the plaintiff.

Further, if the allegations of misuse and self-dealing are in fact true in whole or in part, then the individual defendants are not entitled to have the corporation pay for their defense, and are subject to claims by the corporation and its members for recovery of the assets the individuals misused. That is precisely the case here: if the New York AG's allegations against the individuals are proven, then the NRA as an entity has substantial claims against the LaPierre defendants to remove them from leadership and control and to recover misused funds, as well as to deny payment or reimbursement of defense fees and costs for the individuals.

If allegations are proven, it seems to me that Mr. Douglas' suggestion of an intervention would be preferable while offering the best chance of preserving NRA assets and cleaning house at the same time.

There are several good pro-2A groups operating, but none offer the clout of 5M members plus.

Regards,
hps

 

[Rubone]

I am not sure I completely agree on this point but until the BOD steps up to the plate and fires WLP, the NRA is not getting another cent from me. And I sadly say this as a life member.

Same from me, I am almost embarrassed to be a part of the current organization. I say almost because I believe strongly in what the NRA was designed for. Sadly most has been lost to self serving leeches.

 

[DocRock]

What if you oppose "dissolution of the NRA" but don't think the lawsuit is a "baseless" attack on the NRA. There has been serious malfeasance, probable misappropriation of funds at the highest levels of the organization, and WLP has abused his office. WLP must go.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

Its a mess. I have given them a lot of $$ over the years, Life Benefactor member, bought Life for my young kids, etc but they won't see another dime from me with this current "leadership". I sent that money to fight for my rights and those of my children and grandchildren. NOT to buy $3k suits or put people's girlfriends up in apartments.

I waited in line with a good buddy of mine to have WLP sign his book years ago. Sadly, I wouldn't use that as a bullet stop now. Money and power got to them and they need to go!

I'm very disappointed in what they turned a solid organization into.

NOT attacking Olive North at all but would love to hear his side of the story. I can only assume he has and NDA or gag order on him as he has been quite about his departure.

Very sad what people turned a great thing into, and worse, their greed and corruption will cost us all.

I'm a member (or life member) of most of the pro gun groups so I have spread my bets a bit. Still very frustrating.

 

[hps1]

What if you oppose "dissolution of the NRA" but don't think the lawsuit is a "baseless" attack on the NRA. There has been serious malfeasance, probable misappropriation of funds at the highest levels of the organization, and WLP has abused his office. WLP must go.

Good question! See #7 above and (highlighted) comments from Mr. Douglas' letter below:
Regards,
hps


August 13, 2020

Action Memorandum For All Supporters Of The Second Amendment

RE: People of New York v. National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, et al; Supreme Court for New York County, No. 451625/2020 (August 6, 2020)

Dear friends and fellow Americans,

By now you know that last week Letitia James, New York's far-left activist Attorney General, declared war on the Second Amendment with a lawsuit demanding dissolution of the NRA. For those of you who aren't lawyers, dissolution means the NRA would cease to exist as an organization and all of its assets would be distributed by the court to other non-profit entities.

You can see the 169 page summons and complaint on the NYAG website here, https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/summons_and_complaint_1.pdf

and you can view the actual New York County electronic case file here, https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=pahf9IBZzF/pYP8WV Q4Sfw==&display=all&courtType=New%20York%20County%20Supreme%20Court&re sultsPageNum=1.

The case file link will let you see and follow all filings in the action. If you have any problem with these links let me know and I'll email a copy of the complaint to you.

The suit also names Wayne LaPierre, Wilson Phillips, Joshua Powell and John Frazer as individual defendants, and is based on claims of insider self-dealing and misuse of NRA assets. Sadly there is some factual basis for these allegations as many of you know; in fact some of you have criticized the NRA's leadership on similar grounds and been involved in efforts to remove these officers from NRA leadership and control.

The AG's lawsuit is actually an opportunity (and possibly the last chance) to reform the NRA and install new leadership, but only if those of you with financial and legal horsepower – or the connections and influence with others who do – can organize a timely intervention in the case by people and associations with the best interests of the NRA's mission and membership at heart. For those of you who aren't lawyers, intervention is the legal mechanism by which persons who aren't parties can become parties and participate in the litigation if they would be adversely affected by a judgment and aren't adequately represented by the original parties.

A classic case for intervention arises where, as here, a corporate entity's controlling leadership is sued for alleged misuse of corporate assets or similar wrongs against the corporation and its members, and the individual defendants then seek to represent not only themselves but the corporation using corporate funds and lawyers for their personal defense. In that event the individual conflicts of interest are obvious and irreconcilable. Regardless of whether the plaintiff's claims are true the individuals will be likely to put their own interests ahead of the

corporation's, and therefore likely to agree a settlement that absolves them of personal liability by using the corporation's assets to buy off the plaintiff.

Further, if the allegations of misuse and self-dealing are in fact true in whole or in part, then the individual defendants are not entitled to have the corporation pay for their defense, and are subject to claims by the corporation and its members for recovery of the assets the individuals misused. That is precisely the case here: if the New York AG's allegations against the individuals are proven, then the NRA as an entity has substantial claims against the LaPierre defendants to remove them from leadership and control and to recover misused funds, as well as to deny payment or reimbursement of defense fees and costs for the individuals.

Another typical demand of intervenors, and a critical one here, is that separate counsel who are not chosen by the individual defendants must be retained for the corporation.

It is not necessary that there be a single coordinated intervention. A dozen different individual NRA members and/or state and local associations could file motions to intervene, each with separate counsel, provided they can show that the original parties are or are likely to be adverse to their interests, and therefore cannot adequately represent either the corporation or its membership.

To summarize, here are the concerns, though I freely admit that other and better lawyers than me may articulate these and related issues as well. But one of three things will likely happen if the case proceeds as it is now structured without intervention, and all of them are bad for the NRA and its membership:

1. Letitia James will succeed in dissolving or severely damaging the NRA, to the detriment of the NRA as an organization, and to its mission and millions of members. Given the political climate in New York, this is a distinctly possible result.

Or,

2. The AG will lose flat out (unlikely), and that loss will enable the LaPierre faction to strengthen its hold on the NRA to the continuing detriment of the members and the mission. This result could also enable the LaPierre group to preclude (practically if not legally) further legal action by members to redress misuse of NRA funds, e.g., "See, the court held that what we were accused of was perfectly legitimate, so we're going to carry on business as usual."

Or (and most likely),

3. The AG and the LaPierre defendants will cook up a settlement that allows both sides to declare victory but in actuality results in further damage to the NRA with both a diminution of its assets and a restriction on its activities while leaving the LaPierre group in control. For example, NRA pays the AG or the State or some other non-profit entities several million dollars in exchange for the AG and state court sprinkling the LaPierre defendants with the holy water of absolution if they agree not to _____ (fill in the blank).

So the NRA needs true friends to intervene in this action on its behalf and on behalf of its general membership, and they need to do it soon before the case begins to gain momentum. (The legal term is "timely intervention").

We need New York boots on the ground in this case. Intervention here requires parties and lawyers with serious legal and financial resources to mount a serious defense of the NRA apart from defending the individuals or their actions. These people should be bulletproof, meaning no ties or loyalties to the LaPierre group, able to devote time to hearings, depositions, etc., and able to clearly explain the issues and assert claims on behalf of the NRA against the LaPierre defendants if the facts support that.

Although a New York lawyer may well state them differently, the basic claims for intervention would seem to be these:

1. That the intervening NRA members will be adversely affected by a judgment in the action, and that they are not (and cannot) be adequately represented by either the NYAG or the individual defendants and their counsel due to their inherent conflicts of interest.

2. That the NYAG does not have the legal authority to assert her claims against the NRA based on the alleged wrongs of its individual leadership, and that those claims (even if true) can only be properly brought by the NRA members.

3. That the proper remedy for those wrongs, if they are proven, is not dissolution of the NRA but recovery of the misspent funds from the individuals for the NRA as an entity, not for the NYAG or the State.

4. That because of the inherent conflicts of interest between the individual defendants and the NRA as an entity, the NRA must have separate counsel who are not chosen by the individual defendants.

5. That both the NYAG and the intervenors should therefore be allowed to proceed with proving the allegations against the individual defendants, and that if those are proven then the individual defendants should be removed from their positions and new leadership chosen by the NRA members should be put in place.

Please note carefully that I'm not looking to represent anyone in this matter or otherwise to be involved in it. I'm only licensed to practice law in Alabama and I'm not politically influential at any level. I'm glad to help in any way I can with research, etc., but this case requires significant financial and legal resources that I don't have. Those of you with the resources to step into the case as intervenors don't really need me anyway.

I'm sending this email to many of you whom I know only by reputation and your involvement with Second Amendment and NRA issues. You would have no reason to have ever heard of me, which is just fine. The question is simply whether there are people among us who can step in and take up the fight on behalf of the real NRA and its members.

Please give this memo as wide a circulation as you can. Don't assume that your circle of contacts will see it if you don't circulate it. New York's court rules require the defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within just a few weeks, and motions to intervene should be filed as soon as possible.

Please feel free to contact me, or have your lawyer do so, if anyone has questions or additional
ideas about this case.

Sincerely,

George Douglas

GEORGE DOUGLAS

Law Offices

One Chase Corporate Drive, Suite 400
Hoover, Alabama 35244

(205) 824-4620 office

(205) 492-4007 cell

(866) 383-7009 fax

[email protected]

 

[Frank Ettin]

What if you oppose "dissolution of the NRA" but don't think the lawsuit is a "baseless" attack on the NRA. There has been serious malfeasance, probable misappropriation of funds at the highest levels of the organization, and WLP has abused his office. WLP must go.

That is another question beyond the scope of this thread. The lawsuit specifically asks for dissolution of the NRA. To preserve the NRA, the lawsuit needs to be defended. But the management/control/personnel issues would need to be dealt with as a distinct matter. That's where intervention would come in.

 

[Dudedog]

NRA would cease to exist as an organization and all of its assets would be distributed by the court to other non-profit entities

So if the worst happens and the NRA is dissolved then the Court has control of any assets? (or does the NYAG get control)
So they could take the NRA assets and say give them to a Anti-Gun non-profit?

 

[shoobe01]

I always assumed the dissolution is just what they ask. In cases like this, it seems it's a bit of a negotiation.

It was a plausible ask, and the suit in general exists as I understand it, because all these allegations go back years, and NRA board/management has done nothing about it. Hence: leadership can't be trusted. I was 0% surprised when the suit was filed, without reading a word of it past the headlines.

So, obviously, the safest approach would be a coup. Replace WLP and probably 100% of the board and much or all of executive management generally (individual behaviors don't matter: appearances do), have a plan to redirect to some specific mission, to reduce executive overhead, and so on.

If the NRA defense isn't too strident, and is open to changes, this might be what the court and prosecutors agree on anyway, along the lines of a restructure after bankruptcy. Prove that there's change and maybe the org gets off, gets to go back to work, with just something like 10 years of judicial oversight on their expenditures and management, only.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The American Civil Liberties Union has recognized that this is a political ploy by the New York Attorney General to silence the National Rifle Association over NRAs advocacy of its points of view, POVs that the NYAG personally hates and wants to silence. ACLU sees that as a threat to all advocacy groups including ACLU and has come out in opposition to what the NYAG and NY Governor Andrew Cuomo has advocated: destruction of the NRA for questioning gun control and advocating gun rights.

The NRA lobbying arm was created in December 1968 as separate from the non-profit NRA . NRA had testified as a gun owners association against national gun registration desired by Lyndon Baines Johnson as part of what became the 1968 Gun Control Act. The registration bill was defeated . Some congressperson, I suspect the bill's sponsor Joseph B Tydings acting for LBJ, asked FBI to investigate the NRA as a unregistered lobby with a view to pull its non-profit status. NRA responded by creating and registering a separate lobby arm. Isn't NRA as a non profit education association for gun owners still separate from NRA ILA and NRA PVF, the legislative and political arms?

If the NYAG is successful in silencing NRA, does anyone believe a Democrat White House and Congress will leave SAF, GOA, and other Second Amendment People alone to advocate for gun rights and against gun control?

 

[troy fairweather]

As a new Yorker I fell the NRA has done little to nothing to help. I can't believe they still have WLP.

 

[AlexanderA]

It's obvious that the underlying motive for this prosecution is to attack the NRA as an institution, and to remove its voice from the gun debate. Nevertheless, the particulars of the case have merit. The NRA brought this on itself by creating and tolerating an internal system in which WLP and his cronies could run rampant, loot the organization, and thumb their noses at any attempts to remove them. There's no way the NRA can be internally reformed. The impetus has to come from outside. That's why the NY AG action could be seen as a mixed blessing. If the NRA is dissolved, then perhaps its assets can be distributed to other pro-gun organizations. That's why a legal intervention by rank-and-file NRA members could be useful -- not to preserve the carcass of the NRA, but to dissolve it in an orderly way.

 

[ilbob]

It's obvious that the underlying motive for this prosecution is to attack the NRA as an institution, and to remove its voice from the gun debate. Nevertheless, the particulars of the case have merit. The NRA brought this on itself by creating and tolerating an internal system in which WLP and his cronies could run rampant, loot the organization, and thumb their noses at any attempts to remove them. There's no way the NRA can be internally reformed. The impetus has to come from outside. That's why the NY AG action could be seen as a mixed blessing. If the NRA is dissolved, then perhaps its assets can be distributed to other pro-gun organizations. That's why a legal intervention by rank-and-file NRA members could be useful -- not to preserve the carcass of the NRA, but to dissolve it in an orderly way.

i think if WLP and his cronies are dumped and some minor changes to the bylaws enacted, the NRA as a whole can be salvaged.

 

[AlexanderA]

i think if WLP and his cronies are dumped and some minor changes to the bylaws enacted, the NRA as a whole can be salvaged.

That would be fine, but how could it be done? WLP et al. have embedded themselves in such a way that they cannot be removed. Any Board member or executive that tries it will be removed himself (see: Oliver North, Chris Cox, etc.). WLP himself was never really a gun person. He was always a professional lobbyist and legislative staffer, and he got his start working for Democrats. He doesn't care a whit about the organization. All it is to him is a source of $$$, and the members are the dairy cows that can be milked daily. The one thing that WLP does well is Politburo-style infighting. He's going to fight this to the bitter end, wasting the remaining NRA resources in the process.

 

[ilbob]

On the other hand, this could be an opportunity for the NRA to turn around and do better. The New York AG might end up regretting taking an organization that was not doing all that much and turning it into a more serious organization.

I think a lot of people in the gun community don't get a lot of things at the NRA does that don't get a lot of publicity. The NRA runs a lot of gun safety classes and competitions. There's also the NRA foundation which does some good work pretty quietly. The political victory fund is the NRA political action committee. I've always thought it was a little weak. It's quite possible that salvaged NRA could be a lot stronger in the long run without the leeches.

 

[hps1]

On the other hand, this could be an opportunity for the NRA to turn around and do better. The New York AG might end up regretting taking an organization that was not doing all that much and turning it into a more serious organization.

I think a lot of people in the gun community don't get a lot of things at the NRA does that don't get a lot of publicity. The NRA runs a lot of gun safety classes and competitions. There's also the NRA foundation which does some good work pretty quietly. The political victory fund is the NRA political action committee. I've always thought it was a little weak. It's quite possible that salvaged NRA could be a lot stronger in the long run without the leeches.

Right on, @ilbob ^^^. Been a member since 1952, Life member since 1962, supported as financially able and volunteered in many NRA activities all of my adult life, and you are correct; NRA has lots of irons in the fire that are low profile, but all very important to preservation of the shooting sports.

It's obvious that the underlying motive for this prosecution is to attack the NRA as an institution, and to remove its voice from the gun debate. Nevertheless, the particulars of the case have merit........................There's no way the NRA can be internally reformed. The impetus has to come from outside. That's why the NY AG action could be seen as a mixed blessing. If the NRA is dissolved, then perhaps its assets can be distributed to other pro-gun organizations. That's why a legal intervention by rank-and-file NRA members could be useful -- not to preserve the carcass of the NRA, but to dissolve it in an orderly way.

The larger the organization or group, the more diverse the individual members, thereof. If we (gun owners) can momentarily put aside our individual differences (of opinion) with NRA policy and realize that NRA is actually responsible for preserving many of our 2A rights over the years, (even though they did not step forward or were unsuccessful in fighting for one of our own pet concerns) it will be much easier to see the political value of the only shooting organization with five million + block of voting members; the only shooting organization that, in addition to standing guard over our 2a rights, also certify firearms instructors, conduct national competitions & support all of the various shooting sports. Should the NRA just go away, there is no other to fill the void. Sure, there are several very good organizations in our corner, but none have the clout wielded by sheer numbers, with a single purpose and it would take many years to build another.

It is my humble opinion that we would be much better served by a re-organized NRA than throwing out the baby with the bath water. I'm no lawyer, but I would think there would be some mechanism by which a receiver could be appointed by the court to manage a transition. Hoping some of the resident attorneys can shed some light on the possibilities.

Regards,
hps

 

[AlexanderA]

The larger the organization or group, the more diverse the individual members, thereof. If we (gun owners) can momentarily put aside our individual differences (of opinion) with NRA policy and realize that NRA is actually responsible for preserving many of our 2A rights over the years, (even though they did not step forward or were unsuccessful in fighting for one of our own pet concerns) it will be much easier to see the political value of the only shooting organization with five million + block of voting members; the only shooting organization that, in addition to standing guard over our 2a rights, also certify firearms instructors, conduct national competitions & support all of the various shooting sports. Should the NRA just go away, there is no other to fill the void. Sure, there are several very good organizations in our corner, but none have the clout wielded by sheer numbers, with a single purpose and it would take many years to build another.

And this is why we should be angrier than ever at Wayne La Pierre, whose shenanigans have destroyed the organization and treated the contributing members like suckers. Unfortunately there is just no way to separate the La Pierre cabal from the NRA itself. He has made it so that the two rise and fall together. The only way to get rid of him is to disband the organization and start from scratch.

Don't be like an "abused wife" and keep going back for more abuse. Reading the American Rifleman, I'm sick of all the bought-and-paid-for toadies who pretend that everything is normal and that La Pierre is a victim. No, he's the perpetrator.

It is my humble opinion that we would be much better served by a re-organized NRA than throwing out the baby with the bath water. I'm no lawyer, but I would think there would be some mechanism by which a receiver could be appointed by the court to manage a transition. Hoping some of the resident attorneys can shed some light on the possibilities.

This is easier said than done. This is not a bankruptcy in which a receiver can be appointed. The State of New York is asking for the revocation of the state charter, that is, for a dissolution of the organization.

 

[somethingbenign]

I was listening to some other guys discuss this and a guy from Ohio (I think) made a good point. In his state the only way to be able to teach a CCW class is to either be a NRA certified instructor or a State Patrol instructor. Take away the NRA and you are left with a dozen instructors or so for the whole state. How long would it take to get the laws amended to allow GOA or SAF instructors (if those even exist) in all the states that would be in a similar pinch?

 

[GEM]

We are moving away from the OP's suggestion and into a general NRA discussion. We tend to frown on those because they become contentious and folks resort to personal insults rather quickly. Return to the proposition, if you would please. We don't do liberal vs conservatives, for example.

 

[hps1]

And this is why we should be angrier than ever at Wayne La Pierre, whose shenanigans have destroyed the organization and treated the contributing members like suckers. Unfortunately there is just no way to separate the La Pierre cabal from the NRA itself. He has made it so that the two rise and fall together.

Oh, but there is, according to Mr. Douglas, to my knowledge the only licensed attorney we have heard from as of yet. Would love to hear from those qualified to advise the pros and cons of this path.

Although a New York lawyer may well state them differently, the basic claims for intervention would seem to be these:

1. That the intervening NRA members will be adversely affected by a judgment in the action, and that they are not (and cannot) be adequately represented by either the NYAG or the individual defendants and their counsel due to their inherent conflicts of interest.

2. That the NYAG does not have the legal authority to assert her claims against the NRA based on the alleged wrongs of its individual leadership, and that those claims (even if true) can only be properly brought by the NRA members.

3. That the proper remedy for those wrongs, if they are proven, is not dissolution of the NRA but recovery of the misspent funds from the individuals for the NRA as an entity, not for the NYAG or the State.

4. That because of the inherent conflicts of interest between the individual defendants and the NRA as an entity, the NRA must have separate counsel who are not chosen by the individual defendants.

5. That both the NYAG and the intervenors should therefore be allowed to proceed with proving the allegations against the individual defendants, and that if those are proven then the individual defendants should be removed from their positions and new leadership chosen by the NRA members should be put in place.

As stated previously, I am not an attorney, obviously, and I do realize this is not a bankruptcy, just used the term receiver in my ignorance of proper terminology. I'm reasonably sure, however that there must be provisions in the law for the courts to appoint an independent party to oversee restructuring should the court so rule.

I'm convinced that selling out NRA is not the only way; we should not turn our back on 141 years of hard work of our predecessors so easily, anything worth having is worth working for.

The only way to get rid of him is to disband the organization and start from scratch.

This is not a bankruptcy in which a receiver can be appointed. The State of New York is asking for the revocation of the state charter, that is, for a dissolution of the organization.

Regards,
hm