NRA files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Off_paper

    Member
    Apr 30, 2021
    71
    AACo
    The way I read this is WLP and his misfits have caused most of this mess and refuse to do the honorable thing to save the organization...step down...

    Once again they deserve the title...Not Real Advocates

    It's so unfortunate that a once proud organization championing our rights has devolved to this.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    At this point, the NRA's survival depends on the judge finding the relief NY is seeking (total dissolution) is disproportionate to the nature of the harm done by WLP and his enablers. And it sounds like the judge may be thinking that.
     

    Off_paper

    Member
    Apr 30, 2021
    71
    AACo
    At this point, the NRA's survival depends on the judge finding the relief NY is seeking (total dissolution) is disproportionate to the nature of the harm done by WLP and his enablers. And it sounds like the judge may be thinking that.

    Can the courts strip WLP/his enablers of their positions?
     

    E.Shell

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 5, 2007
    10,245
    Mid-Merlind
    It's so unfortunate that a once proud organization championing our rights milking the cash cow has devolved to this.
    F.I.F.Y.

    I have been a member since 1967, life member since 1983 and an NRA certified instructor since the early 90s. I have had ample opportunity to watch them 'work'.

    They supported the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the beginning of the end, for those who haven't been watching) and since then have always left me with the very clear impression that the fight for the second amendment is way too profitable for them to actually try to win. They 'live for the fight'...LOL.
     

    dannyp

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 30, 2018
    1,464
    F.I.F.Y.

    I have been a member since 1967, life member since 1983 and an NRA certified instructor since the early 90s. I have had ample opportunity to watch them 'work'.

    They supported the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the beginning of the end, for those who haven't been watching) and since then have always left me with the very clear impression that the fight for the second amendment is way too profitable for them to actually try to win. They 'live for the fight'...LOL.

    that's truly the shame of all of this .
     

    Slackdaddy

    My pronouns: Iva/Bigun
    Jan 1, 2019
    5,851
    No different than a "civil rights leader" (Jesse, Al)
    Without the "struggle" the cash flow stops

    F.I.F.Y.

    I have been a member since 1967, life member since 1983 and an NRA certified instructor since the early 90s. I have had ample opportunity to watch them 'work'.

    They supported the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the beginning of the end, for those who haven't been watching) and since then have always left me with the very clear impression that the fight for the second amendment is way too profitable for them to actually try to win. They 'live for the fight'...LOL.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    They supported the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the beginning of the end, for those who haven't been watching) and since then have always left me with the very clear impression that the fight for the second amendment is way too profitable for them to actually try to win. They 'live for the fight'...LOL.
    That was at a time when the og majority of Americans supported total handgun bans.

    And the competing bill to the GCA, which banned felons and also mail order sales that were being done with no ID, was a bill on LBJ's proposal and called for national registration of all guns and other additional restrictions which had majority Congressional support until the less egregious CGA you are referring to was put out as an alternative compromise.

    Look, the NRA has problems, but I think some of those commonly cited are a gross double standard since any effective organization that does a lot of adovacy has those problems. I worked on the Hill for a few years, I have yet to see any evidence of any group doing the 2a that will ever have the power the NRA has had when working well.

    Let's hope for best possible solution., which is the bankruptcy judge pushing out the current leadership and NRA regaining its health
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Another story about the mismanagement at the NRA based on information from the bankruptcy trial.
    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/t...ase-study-in-how-not-to-operate-a-non-profit/
    That truth about guns piece is certainly written by someone who has not worked on the hill or with any of the large powerful adovacy groups. Not all of that is accurate and a whole lot of what is cited is actually practice of some of the most successful.
    It makes some well known points about the real problems but a lot of the rest is common practice, and indeed effective practice.

    All the powerful groups go right up edge of the envelope of the laws for good reason. Just like your most effective tax lawyer will
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,876
    That was at a time when the og majority of Americans supported total handgun bans.

    And the competing bill to the GCA, which banned felons and also mail order sales that were being done with no ID, was a bill on LBJ's proposal and called for national registration of all guns and other additional restrictions which had majority Congressional support until the less egregious CGA you are referring to was put out as an alternative compromise.

    Look, the NRA has problems, but I think some of those commonly cited are a gross double standard since any effective organization that does a lot of adovacy has those problems. I worked on the Hill for a few years, I have yet to see any evidence of any group doing the 2a that will ever have the power the NRA has had when working well.

    Let's hope for best possible solution., which is the bankruptcy judge pushing out the current leadership and NRA regaining its health

    The bankruptcy case was tossed by the judge last May.

    Second best possible solution __________________?
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    That truth about guns piece is certainly written by someone who has not worked on the hill or with any of the large powerful adovacy groups. Not all of that is accurate and a whole lot of what is cited is actually practice of some of the most successful.
    It makes some well known points about the real problems but a lot of the rest is common practice, and indeed effective practice.

    All the powerful groups go right up edge of the envelope of the laws for good reason. Just like your most effective tax lawyer will

    It was written by a law professor that studies that area of the law. I suspect the article is much more accurate than you make it out to be.

    I have no doubt that the NYAG case is overstated, but the article does not focus on that case. It uses information from the NRA bankruptcy case to draw conclusions about the NRA and its management.

    LaPierre has already acknowledged that he has receive compensation over and above what is reasonable. That means he crossed the line. I suspect he was planning to go even farther over the line and will be getting way more than he deserves due to an overly sympathetic board. We will need to wait and see how much more is discovered during the NYAG trial.
     

    Vic

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2010
    1,454
    Whiteford, MD
    I know it was bad, but even worse than I thought. Maybe this will be good and hopefully bring back the real NRA. Fingers crossed.
    V
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    I usually sign up annually just to give 'tards some heartache.

    Will most likely let the membership slide. Voting for board members hasn't helped.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,691
    Will most likely let the membership slide. Voting for board members hasn't helped.

    That's deliberate, by design.

    Imagine, if you will, a board of directors with 78 people, coming to a conclusion.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    It was written by a law professor that studies that area of the law. I suspect the article is much more accurate than you make it out to be.

    I don't see any credentials on his part for specializing in adovacy groups. Non profits are not all adovacy and all advocacy are not not non profit. it is exceptionally naïve and not "expert" in advocacy at all.

    And as I noted, author is not a person who had worked on the hill or for any adovacy group doing intensive work there. they are describing things and implying they are outliers when in fact that are absolutely common among all powerful and effective adovacy groups.

    Twinning is common, use of c3, c4, 527 and others out of same office is common, even desired. Third party outsourcing of 50% or even 90% of operations is not uncommon. Paying public spokespeople from arms length or even obfuscated operations like a third party firm producing NRA TV is not illegal and not uncommon.

    And paying officers who fundraise well above the norm is not unusual or unethical either. There are officers in non profits who are simply management and officers who are star fundraisers. There is no such thing as the norm since people can be legitimately paid 20x the average pay if they are doing development (fundraising).

    This is a business where people are proud of going right up to the edge of the envelope. You get kudos for pissing off the FEC and IRS by going right up to the edge.

    NRA had and has problems. And interestingly the author did not understand any of them in the context of DC (and state) advocacy.

    I detest Lapierre. He was lost in a bubble. He was what most would consider unethical (like everyone in lobbying).

    But that doesn't change the fact that "The Conversation" hit piece by the University of Mass Ahmherst author was utter nonsense in the context of the hill and DC non profit adovacy groups, and what any of us who have worked there can tell you has always gone on there.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I don't see any credentials on his part for specializing in adovacy groups. Non profits are not all adovacy and all advocacy are not not non profit. it is exceptionally naïve and not "expert" in advocacy at all.

    And as I noted, author is not a person who had worked on the hill or for any adovacy group doing intensive work there. they are describing things and implying they are outliers when in fact that are absolutely common among all powerful and effective adovacy groups.

    Twinning is common, use of c3, c4, 527 and others out of same office is common, even desired. Third party outsourcing of 50% or even 90% of operations is not uncommon. Paying public spokespeople from arms length or even obfuscated operations like a third party firm producing NRA TV is not illegal and not uncommon.

    And paying officers who fundraise well above the norm is not unusual or unethical either. There are officers in non profits who are simply management and officers who are star fundraisers. There is no such thing as the norm since people can be legitimately paid 20x the average pay if they are doing development (fundraising).

    This is a business where people are proud of going right up to the edge of the envelope. You get kudos for pissing off the FEC and IRS by going right up to the edge.

    NRA had and has problems. And interestingly the author did not understand any of them in the context of DC (and state) advocacy.

    I detest Lapierre. He was lost in a bubble. He was what most would consider unethical (like everyone in lobbying).

    But that doesn't change the fact that "The Conversation" hit piece by the University of Mass Ahmherst author was utter nonsense in the context of the hill and DC non profit adovacy groups, and what any of us who have worked there can tell you has always gone on there.

    First of all, the author is a her and not a him.

    It does not really matter whether she worked on the hill or for any ADVOCOCY groups. The law still prohibits certain things.

    She never commented about outsourcing or about pay above the norm. She was commenting about the fact that LaPierre has acknowledged the he personally benefited for the organization's assets. There is evidence that other NRA executives also received "excess benefits" according to the organizations own tax filings. This is not allowed.

    LaPierre is STILL there so he is not a past issue, he is a CURRENT problem.

    The NRA has problems and the article has highlighted a number of places where things need to change.

    Stop trying to condone unethical activity. I get that good organizations will play at the edges, but the NRA has crossed the line. Unfortunately the people that have crossed the line are still at the organization and still in control. The article provided some context as to how the organization needs to change.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,937
    Messages
    7,259,635
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom