National Rifle Association disbanded?

On YouTube I'm getting lots of clips about the Association being sued, by New York, possibly into extinction. However, these feeds are selected to give me the news I want to hear. How likely is this to happen? It feels improbable to me.
«1

Comments

  • As a non-American, I can't really comment. But I'm sure the NRA has both friends in high places and good lawyers.
  • One of those friends probably occupying the highest place, to wit, the Presidency?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    One of those friends probably occupying the highest place, to wit, the Presidency?

    That makes me think about the timing. By the time this makes it to actual courts, will Trump still be there?
  • Good point. Hopefully, he'll be in the outer darkness where he rightfully belongs...
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    I'm sure I read somewhere that Trump was the worst thing ever to happen to the NRA.

    The NRA solicits donations to lobby to stop the government taking people's guns away. Since there's no chance that Trump will do that, he's killed their raison d'être and thus their supply of donations.
  • I don't know much about the legalities involved, but it seems to have to do with claims of widespread financial improprieties by the current management, so to speak. But obviously the NRA's constituency is wider, so I would guess that they would be replaced by another organization of some kind if they do get disbanded. The interesting question is whether any successor organization would have nearly the same power and influence.

    Curiously, the current NRA apparently has charitable status, which seems to be at odds with its most visible activity which is political lobbying.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    This CBC article provides a fairly good summary of the issues. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ny-nra-lawsuit-1.5676489
  • The NRA metastasised into a criminal organisation a long time ago. It originated as an organisation to promote education regarding, and responsible use of, firearms, not as an association of Second Amendment fetishists and militia freaks (some outright seditionists and not in the least "well regulated" as per the language of the Second Amendment). That started in the 1970s. The NRA has made the complete transformation from Second Amendment to Fifth Column. Certain rights, e.g., freedom of speech and assembly, are necessary at all times for the survival of a democracy. Other rights are specific to a time and place, e.g., the right to bear arms, and can in fact, if unregulated, be corrosive or otherwise dangerous to the polity. This is true even of freedom of speech, as we see belligerent and ignorant "Well, that's my opinion!" supplant reasoned argument. It's no less true of 40g of lead with a tonne of dollars behind it. I would love to see everyone who has got rich from the NRA named in a class action to compensate 100,000s of victims of shootings (bearing in mind that even if you didn't receive the bullet, you can still be a victim, e.g., the trauma of the loss of a loved one).
  • Following on from this, if the Association is disbanded what are the chances of some sort of gun control, however limited, becoming American law?
  • Tough to say. The NRA is a point that gun manufacturers can direct their lobbying through. It hides the legislation for profit motive behind a curtain of "rights". But it isn't that the money cannot still make its way onto congress.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Following on from this, if the Association is disbanded what are the chances of some sort of gun control, however limited, becoming American law?

    Someone like Nick Tamen would be able to go into chapter and verse on this, but the Second Amendment would place real difficulties in legislating for such a course.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Following on from this, if the Association is disbanded what are the chances of some sort of gun control, however limited, becoming American law?

    Someone like Nick Tamen would be able to go into chapter and verse on this, but the Second Amendment would place real difficulties in legislating for such a course.
    Maybe. The NRA has spent much of its efforts in the last 50 years working to convince the American public in general and gun owners and the American judiciary in particular of its own particular interpretation of the Second Amendment—an interpretation that many would argue (with good reason) is inconsistent with the previous almost-200 years’ understanding of the right to bear arms.

    If the NRA is rendered essentially impotent, Congress and/or some state legislatures might have the political will to enact some gun control measures. Polls consistently indicate the popular desire for them to do so is there. But the judiciary, much of which has bought into the NRA’s view of the Second Amendment will also have to be convinced. It may take awhile to convince the justices and judges who’d need to be convinced, or to replace them with justices and judges who haven’t bought into the NRA’s interpretation.

  • It would be great if the NRA could be replaced with an organisation that actually represented the interests of hunters, sporting shooters and others who are interested in guns as a hobby, or ancillary to a hobby, rather than a tool of vigilante justice.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I'm not so sure about your historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.

    How would you go about making the NRA impotent, let alone replace it? At first blush, that seems inconsistent with the right to form at least some associations, flowing from the First Amendment right to free assembly. From memory, this right was held to allow the NAACP to be formed and operate a half century or so ago.

    I recall comments on an ancient thread that the right to bear arms meant the right to have a coat of arms and to show this in stained glass window. Very oddball.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Gee D wrote: »
    I'm not so sure about your historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.

    How would you go about making the NRA impotent,
    The action against the NRA is more about their allegedly illegal activities than the right of a group such as theirs to exist.

  • Gee D wrote: »
    I'm not so sure about your historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.

    How would you go about making the NRA impotent, let alone replace it? At first blush, that seems inconsistent with the right to form at least some associations, flowing from the First Amendment right to free assembly. From memory, this right was held to allow the NAACP to be formed and operate a half century or so ago.

    I recall comments on an ancient thread that the right to bear arms meant the right to have a coat of arms and to show this in stained glass window. Very oddball.

    As I recall, part of the NRA's power is in inertia - for a long time they were a relatively responsible organisation promoting gun safety and actually campaigned in favour of gun control. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a lot of generational members as a result of that era and a new organisation based on the NRA's current objectives wouldn't attract nearly as many members or their money.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    It would be great if the NRA could be replaced with an organisation that actually represented the interests of hunters, sporting shooters and others who are interested in guns as a hobby, or ancillary to a hobby, rather than a tool of vigilante justice.

    Agreed
  • I noticed that Trump was bloviating that Biden is 'anti guns and anti God' as though the two are linked in more ways than alliteration.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Gee D wrote: »
    I'm not so sure about your historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.
    What are you not sure about? This article might be of interest:
    Politico: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment, by Michael Waldman?

    How would you go about making the NRA impotent, let alone replace it? At first blush, that seems inconsistent with the right to form at least some associations, flowing from the First Amendment right to free assembly. From memory, this right was held to allow the NAACP to be formed and operate a half century or so ago.
    When I said “If the NRA is rendered essentially impotent,” I wasn’t talking about the right of the organization to exist. As I understand it, the lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General alleges, as lilbuddha says, illegal activity, including tax fraud, on the part of the NRA and its leadership. By “rendered essentially impotent,” I was considering the possibility that a direct or indirect result of the lawsuit is that financially the NRA cannot survive or cannot survive in its current form, or if it survives, is so hobbled as to be “impotent” in terms of political clout.

  • I noticed that Trump was bloviating that Biden is 'anti guns and anti God' as though the two are linked in more ways than alliteration.

    Maybe they are, in what passes for Trump's increasingly scary *mind*.
    :disappointed:

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    They were famously linked by Obama during the 2008 campaign:
    Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the presidential hopeful said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
  • Dave W wrote: »
    They were famously linked by Obama during the 2008 campaign:
    Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the presidential hopeful said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
    And before that, they were linked in a bumper sticker, promoted by the NRA and others:

    “God, Guns and Guts Made America Free.”

    Some versions added “Let’s Keep All Three.”
  • I noticed that Trump was bloviating that Biden is 'anti guns and anti God' as though the two are linked in more ways than alliteration.

    Maybe they are, in what passes for Trump's increasingly scary *mind*.
    :disappointed:

    Oh absolutely they are, probably not in Trump's mind, as he doesn't give a stuff about that sort of thing, but in the minds of some Americans they absolutely are linked. Both are of course nothing more than cultural touchstones.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    I'm not so sure about your historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.
    What are you not sure about? This article might be of interest:
    Politico: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment, by Michael Waldman?

    How would you go about making the NRA impotent, let alone replace it? At first blush, that seems inconsistent with the right to form at least some associations, flowing from the First Amendment right to free assembly. From memory, this right was held to allow the NAACP to be formed and operate a half century or so ago.
    When I said “If the NRA is rendered essentially impotent,” I wasn’t talking about the right of the organization to exist. As I understand it, the lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General alleges, as lilbuddha says, illegal activity, including tax fraud, on the part of the NRA and its leadership. By “rendered essentially impotent,” I was considering the possibility that a direct or indirect result of the lawsuit is that financially the NRA cannot survive or cannot survive in its current form, or if it survives, is so hobbled as to be “impotent” in terms of political clout.

    Doesn't this ultimately boil down to politics? If there's still widespread support for the NRA's politics, then the NRA's legal problems become a set-back for the gun lobby but ultimately it continues to exist perhaps in some other form.

    I've been getting the sense though that the accumulation of mass shootings over the last decade has been as much a problem for the gun lobby as the NRA's legal problems in which case hopefully these problems may be another nail in a coffin whose construction is already underway.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    They were famously linked by Obama during the 2008 campaign:
    Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the presidential hopeful said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
    And before that, they were linked in a bumper sticker, promoted by the NRA and others:

    “God, Guns and Guts Made America Free.”

    Some versions added “Let’s Keep All Three.”

    Amazing considering how guns can demonstrate how the target, unquestionably, had guts.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    How would you go about making the NRA impotent, let alone replace it? At first blush, that seems inconsistent with the right to form at least some associations, flowing from the First Amendment right to free assembly.

    The right to peaceable assembly does not immunize an organization from racketeering or money laundering statutes.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Ah, but that thought @KarlLB shows an ability to do joined-up thinking, which I suspect the compilers of the stickers did NOT possess...
  • The key to this lawsuit is how Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, has allegedly used the NRA as his personal piggy bank All told, I think the lawsuit alleges Wayne and four other executives bilked the NRA of $64 million dollars which included at least 8 family trips for the Pierres to the Bahamas, expensive clothing charges, paying rent for an "intern" in New York City.

    Over the last 20 years, at least, there has been an internal struggle within the NRA about its future. It has moved from a gun safety and hunting organization to a political firebrand machine. Some have even called it a criminal organization. The New York prosecuting attorney is going at it under the racketeering laws of New York state.

    There are already other rifle organizations that are out there which would love to take over the dominance of the NRA. But, if this gives us the chance to mitigate the gun sales in the US, then I say go for it.

  • I suppose it's snappier on a bumper sticker than 'The Cost of Fighting an Unpopular War on the other Side of the Atlantic plus French and Dutch support for the Rebel Cause made Parliament disinclined to continuing Funding the Fight against the Rebel Colonists who Mostly Owned Slaves anyway for all their High Falutin' Talk of Freedom and that is what made America Free to create Daft Bumper Stickers like This One.'

    But yes, I'll give them the 'guts' bit but it's not as if there was any shortage of God, guns or guts on the other side either. It came down to money in the end.
  • Marsupial wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    I'm not so sure about your historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.
    What are you not sure about? This article might be of interest:
    Politico: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment, by Michael Waldman?

    How would you go about making the NRA impotent, let alone replace it? At first blush, that seems inconsistent with the right to form at least some associations, flowing from the First Amendment right to free assembly. From memory, this right was held to allow the NAACP to be formed and operate a half century or so ago.
    When I said “If the NRA is rendered essentially impotent,” I wasn’t talking about the right of the organization to exist. As I understand it, the lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General alleges, as lilbuddha says, illegal activity, including tax fraud, on the part of the NRA and its leadership. By “rendered essentially impotent,” I was considering the possibility that a direct or indirect result of the lawsuit is that financially the NRA cannot survive or cannot survive in its current form, or if it survives, is so hobbled as to be “impotent” in terms of political clout.

    Doesn't this ultimately boil down to politics? If there's still widespread support for the NRA's politics, then the NRA's legal problems become a set-back for the gun lobby but ultimately it continues to exist perhaps in some other form.
    Yes, it does boil down to politics. It also boils down to whether there actually is widespread support for the NRA policies. Polls I have seen indicate there is not, at least when it comes to the NRA’s absolute resistance to background checks and other “milder” gun control measures. As far as that goes, from what I’ve seen it might be questionable whether the NRA’s policies on these things enjoy widespread support among NRA membership. There has been lots of friction between the membership and leadership in recent years.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Marsupial wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    I'm not so sure about your historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.
    What are you not sure about? This article might be of interest:
    Politico: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment, by Michael Waldman?

    How would you go about making the NRA impotent, let alone replace it? At first blush, that seems inconsistent with the right to form at least some associations, flowing from the First Amendment right to free assembly. From memory, this right was held to allow the NAACP to be formed and operate a half century or so ago.
    When I said “If the NRA is rendered essentially impotent,” I wasn’t talking about the right of the organization to exist. As I understand it, the lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General alleges, as lilbuddha says, illegal activity, including tax fraud, on the part of the NRA and its leadership. By “rendered essentially impotent,” I was considering the possibility that a direct or indirect result of the lawsuit is that financially the NRA cannot survive or cannot survive in its current form, or if it survives, is so hobbled as to be “impotent” in terms of political clout.

    Doesn't this ultimately boil down to politics? If there's still widespread support for the NRA's politics, then the NRA's legal problems become a set-back for the gun lobby but ultimately it continues to exist perhaps in some other form.
    Yes, it does boil down to politics. It also boils down to whether there actually is widespread support for the NRA policies. Polls I have seen indicate there is not, at least when it comes to the NRA’s absolute resistance to background checks and other “milder” gun control measures. As far as that goes, from what I’ve seen it might be questionable whether the NRA’s policies on these things enjoy widespread support among NRA membership. There has been lots of friction between the membership and leadership in recent years.
    The problem is not the NRA membership, but the congress people influenced by the NRA and allegedly the gun manufacturers behind them. Those same interests can still lobby.

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Marsupial wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    I'm not so sure about your historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.
    What are you not sure about? This article might be of interest:
    Politico: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment, by Michael Waldman?

    How would you go about making the NRA impotent, let alone replace it? At first blush, that seems inconsistent with the right to form at least some associations, flowing from the First Amendment right to free assembly. From memory, this right was held to allow the NAACP to be formed and operate a half century or so ago.
    When I said “If the NRA is rendered essentially impotent,” I wasn’t talking about the right of the organization to exist. As I understand it, the lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General alleges, as lilbuddha says, illegal activity, including tax fraud, on the part of the NRA and its leadership. By “rendered essentially impotent,” I was considering the possibility that a direct or indirect result of the lawsuit is that financially the NRA cannot survive or cannot survive in its current form, or if it survives, is so hobbled as to be “impotent” in terms of political clout.

    Doesn't this ultimately boil down to politics? If there's still widespread support for the NRA's politics, then the NRA's legal problems become a set-back for the gun lobby but ultimately it continues to exist perhaps in some other form.
    Yes, it does boil down to politics. It also boils down to whether there actually is widespread support for the NRA policies. Polls I have seen indicate there is not, at least when it comes to the NRA’s absolute resistance to background checks and other “milder” gun control measures. As far as that goes, from what I’ve seen it might be questionable whether the NRA’s policies on these things enjoy widespread support among NRA membership. There has been lots of friction between the membership and leadership in recent years.
    The problem is not the NRA membership, but the congress people influenced by the NRA and allegedly the gun manufacturers behind them. Those same interests can still lobby.
    Yes, that is the problem, and yes, they can still lobby. Whether, if the NRA loses its political clout, they can do so as effectively as they have done through the NRA, and without losing too much ground, is the question.

  • I suspect that for the manufacturers, having to lobby for themselves or through a trade body would be harder than through the NRA: it gives them a veneer of respectability, and a certain level of plausible deniability in their political dealings that politicians are being influenced by their naked commercial interests.
  • @Nick Tamen @Pendragon

    That was the essence of my first post on this thread
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    What are you not sure about? This article might be of interest:
    Politico: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment, by Michael Waldman?
    How would you go about making the NRA impotent, let alone replace it? At first blush, that seems inconsistent with the right to form at least some associations, flowing from the First Amendment right to free assembly. From memory, this right was held to allow the NAACP to be formed and operate a half century or so ago.
    When I said “If the NRA is rendered essentially impotent,” I wasn’t talking about the right of the organization to exist. As I understand it, the lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General alleges, as lilbuddha says, illegal activity, including tax fraud, on the part of the NRA and its leadership. By “rendered essentially impotent,” I was considering the possibility that a direct or indirect result of the lawsuit is that financially the NRA cannot survive or cannot survive in its current form, or if it survives, is so hobbled as to be “impotent” in terms of political clout.[/quote]

    Thank you for both these.

    As to the second point (and this applies to Croesos also) I can easily understand an enforced winding up because of some illegal activity - eg tax evasion. But that seems to me rather different to a simple banning which is how I read the initial comment.
  • As a non-American, I can't really comment. But I'm sure the NRA has both friends in high places and good lawyers.

    The case will be in the courts for a long time, I think ...
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    As mentioned the main front this is being financial, particularly as the NRA are a charity and they are therefore taking charitable funds. This could really be the end of the NRA. I watch from over this side of the pond with interest
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Hugal wrote: »
    As mentioned the main front this is being financial, particularly as the NRA are a charity and they are therefore taking charitable funds.
    FWIW, and with the caveat that I am not a tax lawyer, the NRA is an advocacy group—a non-profit group whose purpose is to influence government and policy-making—not a charity. It has tax exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, which means its income is generally not taxable (except for income spent political or lobbying activities), but contributions or dues paid to it are not deductible on an individual’s tax return as charitable contributions. Contributions and dues may, in certain circumstances and within certain limits, qualify as business expenses.

    The NRA’s political action committee (PAC), which arguably is the most influential activity of the NRA, is governed by section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, and again is not a charity.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Hugal wrote: »
    As mentioned the main front this is being financial, particularly as the NRA are a charity and they are therefore taking charitable funds. This could really be the end of the NRA. I watch from over this side of the pond with interest

    Point of information: under US laws there are two clear distinctions about charitable organizations. There is the 501c3 organization such as churches. These organizations are not able to legally endorse any politician.

    And then there are 501c4 organizations which are classified as social welfare organizations which includes the Chamber of Commerce and Kiawanas and Lions. They are allowed to endorse politicians. The NRA is a 501c4 organization. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-tax-exempt-non-profit/

    This is not about the organization illegally taking political positions, but about the leadership illegally using its funds. This is also the reason why the Trump Foundation was disbanded by the same prosecutor.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I stand corrected and must have misunderstood the article I read
  • I was confused as well on that point but I think I picked it up from the DC Attorney General. He was quoted by the CBC article (and possibly other sources I read as well) implying that the NRA had charitable status.
  • Both 501c3 and 501c4 organizations are known as charitable organizations, though, technically they are really not-for-profit organizations, meaning they should have 0 balance at the end of the year. Churches are lucky to have a 0 balance by the end of the year, it seems (they often are in debt). 501c4 organizations such as the NRA always seem to have more than 0 balance which can be a part of the problem. They have to spend the money or they can lose their not-for-profit status.

    BTW, here is a full list of the types of charities in the United States.

    You can search the NRA from that list, it will show that the National Rifle Association is a 501c4. However, they do have a separate foundation that is under the 501c3 subsection--that foundation is for educational purposes only.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Both 501c3 and 501c4 organizations are known as charitable organizations, though, technically they are really not-for-profit organizations, meaning they should have 0 balance at the end of the year.
    If having a zero balance at the end of the year were a requirement, Harvard wouldn’t have an endowment of $41 billion.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Both 501c3 and 501c4 organizations are known as charitable organizations, though, technically they are really not-for-profit organizations, meaning they should have 0 balance at the end of the year.
    If having a zero balance at the end of the year were a requirement, Harvard wouldn’t have an endowment of $41 billion.
    Yes, having a zero balance at the end of the year is not a requirement of a nonprofit. Restrictions on how a positive balance is used is.

    Gramps49 wrote: »
    BTW, here is a full list of the types of charities in the United States.
    That is a list of types of nonprofits, not of types of charities. As you alluded to, all charities, within the meaning of the tax code, are nonprofits, but not all nonprofits are charities.

  • Dave W wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Both 501c3 and 501c4 organizations are known as charitable organizations, though, technically they are really not-for-profit organizations, meaning they should have 0 balance at the end of the year.
    If having a zero balance at the end of the year were a requirement, Harvard wouldn’t have an endowment of $41 billion.

    Endowments are a different category. The principle can accumulate over time, but a certain portion of the running income usually on a five-year average has to be spent in order for endowments to remain legal.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Both 501c3 and 501c4 organizations are known as charitable organizations, though, technically they are really not-for-profit organizations, meaning they should have 0 balance at the end of the year.
    If having a zero balance at the end of the year were a requirement, Harvard wouldn’t have an endowment of $41 billion.
    Fairly certain a zero balance is not a requirement of a non/not for profit.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Both 501c3 and 501c4 organizations are known as charitable organizations, though, technically they are really not-for-profit organizations, meaning they should have 0 balance at the end of the year.
    If having a zero balance at the end of the year were a requirement, Harvard wouldn’t have an endowment of $41 billion.
    Fairly certain a zero balance is not a requirement of a non/not for profit.

    It's not for churches in America, no ..
  • Technically not-for-profit organizations must show no profit at the end of the fiscal year. Not really enforced, though.

    Aren't we getting into the weeds here? As I recall, the question was how can the NRA be considered a charitable organization--or at least that was the one I was addressing.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Technically not-for-profit organizations must show no profit at the end of the fiscal year. Not really enforced, though.
    Pretty sure that is not correct.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Aren't we getting into the weeds here? As I recall, the question was how can the NRA be considered a charitable organization--or at least that was the one I was addressing.
    I do not think they are registered as a charity, but as a non-profit. And it is allegedly abusing their non-profit status that is the subject of the litigation.

  • @lilbuddha

    To quote Marsupial above
    I don't know much about the legalities involved, but it seems to have to do with claims of widespread financial improprieties by the current management, so to speak. But obviously the NRA's constituency is wider, so I would guess that they would be replaced by another organization of

    some kind if they do get disbanded. The interesting question is whether any successor organization would have nearly the same power and influence.

    Curiously, the current NRA apparently has charitable status, which seems to be at odds with its most visible activity which is political lobbying



    This is what I was referring to when I tried to make the distinction between what we normally would classify as a 501c3 charity and a 501c4 not-for-profit. Both are actually not-for-profits, only 501c3 organizations cannot endorse a political party; but 501c4 organizations, such as the NRA, can endorse whomever they want.
Sign In or Register to comment.