search
top

Everytown Files Against NRA’s Non-Profit Status

John Richardson has all the details. All I can say is NRA better have its act cleaned up by the time the next hostile administration is in the White House. As John mentions, “I could only imagine the damage this complaint might have done if it had been filed during the Obama Administration.”

I suspect that’s not lost on the faction of NRA that’s picking this fight. NRA isn’t the first corporation to enter into a parasitic relationship with a consulting firm. That’s not to excuse it: it needs to change, and should have changed yesterday. It should not take Bloomberg and a hostile state governor engaging in lawfare against the NRA for them to clean up their act.

When we sue Cuomo and other state officials personally, we don’t want it coming out that they might have a point about NRA having shady practices. You want the civil rights case to be open-and-shut, and not have both sides looking like they are trying to get away with something.

24 Responses to “Everytown Files Against NRA’s Non-Profit Status”

  1. Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

    Definitely worrisome what has come out. I’m sure it’s not as bad as the New Yorker article
    Indicates, but it sure isn’t great either. Maybe now we can clean house of these bad actors and be clean doe the next fight. Especially when an unfriendly administration comes in.

  2. Joe says:

    Looking at the whole ‘Russian-Collusion’ Fiasco, I don’t think that any dissenters to the Political Left will be able to exist in our Country’s political discourse. The Democrat Party’s M.O. is seek and destroy all dissenters, and in the case of the NRA, cleaning up their act might not even be enough. Whether the next hostile administration comes in in 2020 or 2024, it is quite clear that the Democrat Party continues marching further and further Left (including on the Gun-Issue) every 2 years.

    All other things equal, I’m going to be pessimistic about this situation and say that the NRA’s days of existence will be over soon, as the organization will likely go bankrupt and fold. What the Gun Owning Community does afterward will be the Canary in The Coal Mine, and my biggest fear is that Gun Owners will simply throw in the towel and surrender to the likes of scum like Bloomberg.

    2nd Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Firearms Policy Coalition and other Statewide gun groups better start coordinating together ASAP with the 2020 Presidential Election Cycle already underway (I’m a member of SAF and GOA, as well as 3 Ohio Statewide Groups.).

    Considering that the NRA’s grassroots efforts have been atrocious since 2006, ‘new-blood’ is really needed for the SS 2nd Amendment to survive, because I don’t want to see Animal Farm style, Stalinist pigs like Bloomberg stripping me of my 2nd Amendment Right.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      “… I’m going to be pessimistic about this situation…”

      And I would expect nothing less from “Joe!!!”

      The NRA in current form needs to be torn down and start afresh. If this is what causes some internal reordering, and fast, I don’t know what will. I say this as a guy who dumped almost $2k into NRAs success as an NRA Life Benefactor.

      If NRA won’t come clean and represent us and the cause of RKBA then I’ll gladly take my investment elsewhere. And this time I’ll GO HARDER at it. There are plenty more groups who will step up who will actually scare the pants off of Bloomberg and his minions, and not just politically.

    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

      my biggest fear is that Gun Owners will simply throw in the towel and surrender to the likes of scum like Bloomberg.

      That’s my smallest fear. I highly doubt that will happen anyway.

      My biggest fear is we become hardened and non-comprising, leading to a civil war.

      • Charlie Foxtrot says:

        My biggest hope is that gun owners will finally wake up and realize that paying $45 a year to some organization isn’t really fighting for their rights. My biggest hope is that they get off their asses, get organized, protest on the streets and become visible. There are supposedly 5.5 million NRA members. There will be 80-90k NRA members at the meeting this weekend. How many have ever shown up for a march for their rights? There is a huge potential to motivate and get out the masses once they realize that this is more important than an annual membership and professional sports on weekends.

        My biggest fear is quite the opposite, that this betrayal by a supposed trusted organization will lead to even more apathy within the community.

        As far as civil war is concerted, dude, you have no clue what you are talking about. You are just parroting a nonsensical argument to justify the continuous compromise that got us where we are today. The United States is far, far away from civil war, despite political talking points and a few nut jobs emphasizing it. NO, we are not ready to give up the life style we are used to and to kill some of our family members over political arguments.

        • Joe says:

          “My biggest fear is quite the opposite, that this betrayal by a supposed trusted organization will lead to even more apathy within the community”.

          That is an opinion I share and see equally with you, outright. I’m tired of the apathy and the likes of the remaining funds out there who still think; “They ain’t comin’ after Mah’ huntin’ rahfle”.

        • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

          I think paying an organization IS fighting for their rights. Its not the only thing of course, but its a good start. Of course that organization has to be actually fighting for the their rights. The NRA has done an okay job, but now we need to clean house.

          And of course they should get out and march and protest. But most need a reason too, and in reality gun rights have been well protected and the reason just hasn’t been there. And organization of that activity. Sometime that the NRA has failed on.

          I have no fear that the community will be apathetic. I believe the opposite. We’ll come out stronger.

          As far as civil war is concerned, dude, you have no clue what you are talking about. Especially when you think I’m using it to “continuous compromise that got us where we are today.” The US not any farther from a civil war than the Weimar Republic was (who had an amazing standard of living). There are plenty of people on the left, especially anti-gunners, who are “ready to give up the life style we are used to and to kill some of our family members over political arguments.” Because its not the majority we have to worry about, but the minority.

          • Charlie Foxtrot says:

            Since you make a rather odd reference to Germany’s history, let’s start with this. The Berlin Wall fell without a single individual ever paying dues to any civil rights organization. In fact, East German civil rights organizations were completely on an all-volunteer basis.

            Again, paying an organization and doing nothing else is not fighting for your rights. It is delegating the fight to the organization, which then can enrich itself. This problem does not only apply to the NRA, if for some reason this is what concerns you with my argument.

            “The US not any farther from a civil war than the Weimar Republic was (who had an amazing standard of living).”

            Equating the Weimar Republic with the current US is complete and utter nonsense. You seem to have a total lack of knowledge on this subject. Maybe it is your wet dream, or maybe this is just the NRA-style scare tactic that I can expect in the future. This nonsense could have been easily in one of Angry Dana’s videos.

            The Weimar Republic was the first German Republic and lasted 15 years. The US is quite older than that. The Weimar Republic was seen by most Germans at that time as an experiment. The US is not seen as an experiment by its people today.

            The Weimar Republic was born out of Germany’s loss in the Great War and the ouster of Kaiser Wilhelm II. There was a significant contingent, especially within the military, that wanted the Kaiser back. There was also a significant contingent that wanted to institute a Soviet Union style dictatorship. There was also a significant contingent that wanted to institute a fascist dictatorship. Only very, very few people believed that the Republic experiment was the right choice.

            The Weimar Republic was plagued with multiple coup attempts and efforts subverting the Treaty of Versailles, including producing or importing poison gas, standing up a secret military force (Schwarze Reichswehr), and training the German Luftwaffe in the Soviet Union. Also common were street fights (including shootings) between the police, various extremists, and unions. The standard of living was NOT high by any means and certainly not equivalent to today. Most workers lived in extremely poor conditions in overcrowded apartments. 10-hour working days were common.

            Our country is not even close to what the Weimar Republic was. Most people in the US are not willing to throw the country away. They are also personally invested in the country, i.e., they have something to lose. Also, again, we are not ready to give up the life style we are used to and kill some of our family members over political arguments. Heck, we can’t even get a few 10,000 gun owners to demonstrate in the streets of a single US city.

            Please educate yourself! If you want to learn more about the Weimar Republic and get entertained at the same time, watch the Babylon Berlin series on Netflix.

            • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

              You make an odd reference to the Berlin wall without any individual making a contribution to a rights organization. That is facts without evidence.

              Again, paying an organization and doing nothing else IS fighting for our rights. It is delegating the fight to the organization, because not everybody has the time to go 100% fighting for our rights. If the organization is trying to enrich itself, then either fix the organization, or find or start a new one. Its not to say “don’t give money for the fight!” when money for the fight is important.

              Equating the Weimar Republic with the current US is complete and utter truth with the right lens. You seem to have a total lack of knowledge on logic. I was refuting your point about the standard of living being an impediment to civil war, nothing more & nothing less. The rest of your post is information I already knew (except the standard of living points which are wrong), but also is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with my point.

              Regardless, I believe a civil war is coming in the next 20 years. I don’t want it. I want to stop it badly. Its not going to be great for any side, even us if we win. But I’m not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend its not a possibility. Because that would be like sticking my head in the sand and saying that registration doesn’t lead to confiscation. I will be vigilant and acknowledge all the possibilities. And pray and hope I’m wrong.

              • H says:

                Again, paying an organization and doing nothing else IS fighting for our rights. It is delegating the fight to the organization, because not everybody has the time to go 100% fighting for our rights. If the organization is trying to enrich itself….

                Another thing it delegates is the research necessary to vote properly. Except of course the Winning Team has become too cozy with a host of gun grabbers starting with Trump on down.

                As for enrichment, a certain amount of “honest graft” is inevitable, what we’re objecting to is graft that is extremely counterproductive, like AckMac’s flood of begging solicitations, the registered letter for example crossed a line by prompting a bunch of members to take time out of their workday to go to their post office. Or all the reports that AckMac’s editorial control over NRA TV is costing the organization and cause.

                Something else which shows how delicate this is is their championing Harry Reid in the member magazines, that so enraged my Silent Generation non-Fudd Gun Culture 1.0 father that he stopped sending them money beyond membership dues.

                And all the signs the graft and mismanagement is pushing the organization to bankruptcy. And the legal exposure which, absent entirely possible incompetence will allow New York state and/or the IRS to terminate the NRA with extreme prejudice without stretching the law or abusive prosecution.

              • Charlie Foxtrot says:

                “You make an odd reference to the Berlin wall without any individual making a contribution to a rights organization. That is facts without evidence.”

                I can’t prove a negative. What I can tell you from personal experience is that what I stated is a FACT!

                “It is delegating the fight to the organization, because not everybody has the time to go 100% fighting for our rights.”

                Thank you for making my point! Watching professional sports and engaging in all other kinds of recreational activities is clearly more important, so sending money to an organization that makes a lot of promises instead of getting personally involved suddenly becomes “fighting for your rights”. It simply is not. It is, however, the same reason why there won’t be a civil war. Again, people aren’t motivated to fight for their rights by getting personally involved today, what makes you even think that they will pick up a rifle and shoot their neighbor tomorrow? .. or now in 20 years, apparently.

                Equating the Weimar Republic with the current US is complete and utter nonsense. You must be wearing the wrong lenses. I know what the standard of living in the Weimar Republic was, since it was my grand parents that lived though that. That’s the same reason why I know that the US is far, far away from the Weimar Republic.

                So, we end up with your scare tactic argument: “You must compromise on your rights and give some up or you will see civil war within the next 20 years.” What kind of twisted logic is that? If anything, giving up our rights could lead to civil war. But then, again, we are far, far away from that.

                • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

                  I can’t prove a negative. What I can tell you from personal experience is that what I stated is a FACT!

                  So you say its a fact, but again, its facts without evidence.

                  Thank you for making my point! Watching professional sports and engaging in all other kinds of recreational activities is clearly more important, so sending money to an organization that makes a lot of promises instead of getting personally involved suddenly becomes “fighting for your rights”. It simply is not.

                  LOL. Yeah, definitely not make your point, but you definitely made my point. Not everybody can be involved 100%, going to legislatures day in and day out, and getting to know lobbying. Not everybody can be an expert at it. Everybody has lives and families, that yes, are more important for the minutiae. But that’s why you pay the orgs- so they can do the lobbying, they can know the legislators, they can be the experts, and they can deal with the minutiae. And when called up, we can rally. And we do.

                  It is, however, the same reason why there won’t be a civil war. Again, people aren’t motivated to fight for their rights by getting personally involved today, what makes you even think that they will pick up a rifle and shoot their neighbor tomorrow? .. or now in 20 years, apparently.

                  Because you are equating two totally different situations. Right now, for example, Congress is not debating scary looking gun bans. It’s DOA. Because orgs have helped make it that way. And so people are not motivated, because they have no reason to be. Their rights aren’t under immediate threat.

                  But what if Congress did pass it and the President signed it? That’s likely under a Dem government. What if the courts didn’t do their jobs? Also possible. What happens when the ATF starts raiding houses? Especially when some will declare to the ATF “Come and Take it”. Yeah, then they’ll starting shooting.

                  So, we end up with your scare tactic argument: “You must compromise on your rights and give some up or you will see civil war within the next 20 years.” What kind of twisted logic is that? If anything, giving up our rights could lead to civil war. But then, again, we are far, far away from that.

                  So we end up with your straw man: that I’m saying we must compromise on our rights to stop a civil war. So let me make if VERY clear to you:

                  NOWHERE DID I SAY THAT AND AT NO TIME DO I BELIEVE THAT

                  • Charlie Foxtrot says:

                    “My biggest fear is we become hardened and non-comprising, leading to a civil war.”

                    Please enlighten us then what you meant by this other than we must compromise on your rights and give some up or we will see civil war within the next 20 years.

                    While you make it about donating without being 100% involved, I am making this about donating without being involved at all, which is the actual case. Otherwise, we would see those 5.5 million NRA members on the streets marching for their rights at some point in their life. We don’t! Other things are clearly more important, including watching professional sports.

                    As for the East Germany references, it seems you missed my explicit statements about personal experience. Are you telling me now how I was living in East Berlin in the late 80s? LOL. The East German opposition movement had to work underground on an all-volunteer basis! There simply were no civil rights organizations collecting dues, as that was illegal and considered treason. You are asking me to prove that there were no civil rights organizations collecting dues, which is asking the impossible of proving a negative.

                    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

                      Please enlighten us then what you meant by this other than we must compromise on your rights and give some up or we will see civil war within the next 20 years.

                      You took compromising the wrong way. Its not compromising our rights, but compromising how much of our rights we get back.

                      The no-compromise position is: REPEAL THE NFA AND GIVE ME ALL MACHINE GUN RIGHTS OR NOTHING

                      The compromise position is: Repeal the Hughes Amendment and let the NFA stand.

                      While you make it about donating without being 100% involved, I am making this about donating without being involved at all, which is the actual case. Otherwise, we would see those 5.5 million NRA members on the streets marching for their rights at some point in their life. We don’t! Other things are clearly more important, including watching professional sports.

                      I’d rather have people donating and not being involved than not donating and not being involved at all.

                      We DO see those 5.5 million NRA members marching when there is reason to march.

                      Other things are clearly important because the level of attack low.
                      Again, you expect all 5.5 million NRA members to be marching every day, and that is just not realistic. I’m sorry you feel that way, but that is not how the world works.

                    • Charlie Foxtrot says:

                      I didn’t say anything about “5.5 million NRA members to be marching every day”. You are making that hyperbole up. You are right, though, they do not see a reason to march at all at this point, because they think sending money to an organization is fighting for their rights. That was my point all along.

                      As for your compromise argument, “repeal the Hughes Amendment and let the NFA stand” isn’t a compromise as the gun control side doesn’t get anything in return. It is incrementally regaining our rights.

                      The problem of the pro-gun side being unwilling to take a real partial victory doesn’t exist. Instead, we are being told by the NRA that we have to “compromise” or we lose more. In this context, the term “compromise” is being used as giving away a right for nothing in return, other than temporary safety from further infringements.

                    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

                      I didn’t say anything about “5.5 million NRA members to be marching every day”. You are making that hyperbole up.

                      I’m implying it, because what else do you want them to do?

                      You are right, though, they do not see a reason to march at all at this point, because they think sending money to an organization is fighting for their rights. That was my point all along.

                      No, they don’t see a reason to march because both they are sending money to an organization that is fighting for their rights, and also there isn’t a reason to march.

                      Your point is that sending money to an organization isn’t fighting for their rights, which is patently false, and that these people should be spending all their time fighting instead of delegating it to an organization who has the time and expertise to do it all the time.

                      As for your compromise argument, “repeal the Hughes Amendment and let the NFA stand” isn’t a compromise as the gun control side doesn’t get anything in return. It is incrementally regaining our rights.

                      First, I’m not talking about compromising with the gun control side (as I said before). They don’t get anything in return. They didn’t get anything in return when we kept passing concealed carry law. All they got was not as a strong of a law as we would have liked. Second, yes, it’s incrementalism. I’m using the compromise term as the hardliners use it: that we should not compromise on our rights and demand everything and if not take nothing.

                      The problem of the pro-gun side being unwilling to take a real partial victory doesn’t exist. Instead, we are being told by the NRA that we have to “compromise” or we lose more. In this context, the term “compromise” is being used as giving away a right for nothing in return, other than temporary safety from further infringements.

                      Correct, but I’m not using compromise in that way.

  3. Charlie Foxtrot says:

    I am going to repeat what I stated in the other thread, as I am sure the discussion focus will shift away from the NRA to Everytown:

    “Technically, the NRA admitted with their own lawsuit against Ackerman McQueen that they have no documentation for paid services rendered by Ackerman McQueen, including for paying the NRA President Oliver North under the table (Factual Background Part D in the lawsuit https://www.scribd.com/document/406464507/NRA-v-Ackerman-McQueen). The Board of Directors was completely unaware of that. That alone could be considered federal tax fraud! Even without Everytown’s IRS complaint, the NRA was about to get audited by the IRS. I personally believe that the NRA knew that they had to report this to the IRS, so they filed a lawsuit against Ackerman McQueen instead.”

    This isn’t lawfare. It is simple cause and effect. Does anyone here really think the IRS is not going to investigate this because we are under the Trump administration? How naive! Given the text of the NRA’s lawsuit against Ackerman McQueen, there may already be an investigation that we are simply not aware of.

  4. Charlie Foxtrot says:

    Adam Kraut’s calls for the removal of LaPierre and certain Board members. He is also still running for the Board, but offers Anthony Colandro to endorse him if he calls for the removals as well.

    ‘When the Levee Breaks’ – NRA’s Untenable Position
    Edited by Bitter – Please use HTML and don’t just paste links that make mobile and narrow browser viewing a pain.

    • I’m going to be blunt. I don’t trust Colandro. He was 33rd out of 35 candidates yet he get the endorsement of the NRA for the 76th director. My gut tells me – and I have no substantive proof, no smoking gun – that Colandro has made a deal with the pro-Wayne faction or Wayne himself. The first endorsement post-BOD election that I saw for Colandro was from Todd Rathner who is part of the pro-Wayne faction on the board. Make of it what you will.

      I’m also going to be upfront and say that I still support Adam Kraut. He was the only one who got my vote on the ballot.

      • Sebastian says:

        They are probably pushing Colandro because they view that Colandro is the lesser evil between the petition candidates.

      • Bitter says:

        Make of it what you will.

        He has served on 3 board committees as one of their non-director members. Those appointments don’t come without the blessing of the leadership and support of the incumbent board.

  5. 423 says:

    Fire Wayne LaPierre… without his “golden parachute.”

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      Yes. And a bankruptcy filing may be the only way to see this done if there is no other way to end his parachute under contractual obligations.

      • H says:

        Revenge is generally an unproductive focus. And if New York state and/or the IRS end the organization as it is, as we’ve been discussing in the previous Shall Not Be Questioned topic on this, then the problem will likely take care of itself, the focus should be on keeping the Winning Team and its enabling board members out of the NuNRA.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Complaint filed against the NRA - […] Bloomberg’s minions have filed a complaint with the IRS over their tax status. John Richardson has the details. More…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top