🐱 NRA in financial trouble

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
CatParty
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/04/us/nra-new-york-lawsuit/index.html


A lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association says the gun advocacy organization will have to close its headquarters, shut down its online media presence and stop holding rallies and conventions if it is stymied by New York state from doing business with banks and insurers.

The NRA suit, filed in May and amended in July, says New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is trying illegally to coerce financial companies into halting business relations with the group.
"Far from protected government speech, defendants' actions constitute an 'implied threat to employ coercive state power' against entities doing business with the NRA," the lawsuit says, employing a quote from a 2003 free speech case.
The NRA lost its insurance coverage from its provider in February when an entity of Lockton Companies dropped the organization.
"Lockton Affinity has notified the NRA that it will discontinue providing brokerage services for NRA-endorsed insurance programs under the terms of its contract," the insurance giant tweeted on February 26.
The NRA said it had spoken to other insurers to get corporate coverage, but said "nearly every carrier has indicated that it fears transacting with the NRA" in light of actions by New York authorities.
The organization is suing Cuomo, the state Department of Financial Services, and DFS Superintendent Maria Vullo.
"New York, we will not be intimidated by the NRA's frivolous lawsuit to advance its dangerous gun-peddling agenda," Cuomo has said.
Friday, he announced the state had filed a motion to dismiss the case. A hearing is scheduled for September 10.
In commenting about the NRA's financial claims in the updated version of the lawsuit, the governor said: "If I could have put the NRA out of business, I would have done it 20 years ago."
A lawyer for the NRA said Friday that New York officials are unfairly targeting First Amendment rights.
"We believe the filing is a misguided attempt to deflect from the fact that defendants overstepped their legal and regulatory authority -- to the detriment of the Constitution and New York insurance consumers," William A. Brewer III said.
The NRA alleges in its claim that it has incurred tens of millions of dollars in damages because of the defendants' actions. It says that the organization's access to banking services are "imperiled."
Lawsuit followed insurers being fined
The lawsuit, when it was originally filed in the US District Court for Northern New York, came days after the Department of Financial Services fined several insurance companies hundreds of thousands of dollars for participating in an NRA-backed liability insurance program for gun owners.
The state also secured agreements from those companies not to offer such insurance again.

The suit contends that what the state has done "prevents, or at a minimum, chills," the First Amendment rights of the NRA and its members to free speech -- including their right to speak freely about gun-related issues.
The suit alleges this amounts to a "blacklisting campaign (that) will continue to damage the NRA and its members" if the court doesn't act.
The Fairfax, Virginia-based NRA says it will not be able to function without access to banking services, which it needs to process gifts and other revenues as well as make payments.
"If the NRA is unable to collect donations from its members, safeguard the assets endowed to it, apply its funds to cover media buys and other expenses integral to its political speech, and obtain basic corporate insurance coverage, it will be unable to exist as a not-for-profit or pursue its advocacy mission," the court document says.
State urged banks, insurers to review NRA relationships
The claim also points to an April news release in which Cuomo called on the DFS to urge insurers and banks in New York "to review any relationships they may have with the National Rifle Association."
The release noted that a number of companies were ending relationships with the NRA -- including by ending special discounts or other special services for NRA members -- after February's shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 dead.

In that same release, Vullo urged "all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York to join the companies that have already discontinued their arrangements with the NRA."
Vullo also sent letters to banks and insurers asking them to review any relationships with the gun lobby organization.
Focus on 'Carry Guard' insurance program
The lawsuit partly focuses on the state's crackdown on the NRA-branded "Carry Guard" program, which provides liability insurance for policyholders involved in shooting incidents.
The DFS has said the program violated state insurance law. It has argued the NRA publicized the program as something it created -- and the DFS asserts the NRA doesn't have a license to conduct insurance business in New York.
In early May, the DFS fined two insurers involved in the Carry Guard program.
The DFS said insurer Lockton Caos. LLC and its affiliate, Lockton Affinity LLC, agreed to pay a $7 million fine for administering the program.
Five days later, the DFS said insurer Chubb Ltd. and its subsidiary, Illinois Union Insurance Co., agreed to pay $1.3 million for underwriting the program.
Lockton also agreed to refrain from entering into any program "with the NRA to underwrite or participate in any affinity-type insurance program involving any line of insurance to be issued or delivered in New York state," with the exception of helping the NRA be insured for its own corporate operations.
Chubb and Illinois Union agreed to a similar prohibition.
 
I love guns more than the average person and I have given money to the NRA in the past but... I don't understand what they think the state actually did against them other than 1. suggest some companies reevaluate their relationship with the NRA (a lot of companies did this recently without government interference) and 2. End an insurance program protecting people involved in shooting incidents because they say it violates the law (how many people actually had this insurance? Can't be too many.)

As much as I love guns, I'm sick of the NRA. I wish there was another firearm advocacy group that wasn't them. They're so fucking soulless.
 
I'm not sure whether the government using economic warfare as a legit stratagem is a good thing or not....
 
this has happened before, in the 1990's and i think it was attempted in the 1970's when the Brady Campaign got started. because it isn't covered in the article:

the NRA is comprised of 4 organizations:

the NRA itself: a for-profit business that mostly sells insurance services, specializes in training materials and programs, seminars on various topics (safety, distribution, storage, et c). this arm also sells regulatory materials and services to businesses in the gun industry and is primarily funded by this income. NRA business-events (like SHOT Show and others) are usually funded from this entity.

the NRA-ILA: a non-profit entity that is funded by donations and focuses on legislative actions, lobbying, and similar activities. this has two subordinate organizations, one of which is the NRA-PVF, a PAC which is typically what funds politicians.

the NRA Foundation: also a non-profit, but this is the most visible public-facing portion of the NRA that is funded via donations and memberships from the public. this foundation also offers various services to members and is the fundraising arm and controller for NRA affiliated programs (4-H, Boy Scouts, ROTC, et c). this group also acts as a sponsor for various NRA events.

lastly the NRA-FAF is a non-profit voter outreach/education organization (very small and new) that lobbies to the public rather than to politicians. these are the guys that have Chuck Norris as a spokesman.

you'll notice the lack of "baby-killer mass-murder" lobbyist groups.

out of an operating budget of some $600M, just a bit over $2M is spent on lobbying (roughly $1.5M more is spent on outreach programs which i guess is a sort of lobby). https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000082

the rest goes to operating expenses, and the vast bulk is in programs and to their membership - these days it's a lot of legislative-related fees.

while the NRA is no where near as well funded as anti-gun organizations (just the Brady Campaign alone matches the NRA and it's a drop in the bucket next to EveryTown, Soros Foundation, and VPC), it's been very difficult to cut off funding because... people and businesses actively funds the organization.

Brady Campaign: https://www.bradycampaign.org/sites...iliates2016-Consolidated-Financial-Report.pdf
Violence Policy Center: https://www.guidestar.org/viewPDF.aspx?PdfSource=0&ein=20-8802884

so... much like what happened with Operation Choke Point in 2013 that attempted to severely restrict the gun industries access to banking by reclassifying them as high-risk (lumped in with casinos, pawn shops, check cashing, et c) https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/081017-Choke-Point-Letter.pdf

in the 1990's the big thing was to get major gun companies (and to a limited extent the NRA) to sign onto gun control if it was limited to certain vendors or protected domestic businesses at the expense of the public. this destroyed some gun businesses and by the time the proposed agreement was drafted in 1990, pretty much the only people left in it was Sturm-Ruger and Smith & Wesson. both were crippled financially in retaliation from the public; S&W so bad that they bankrupted and were bought by another company (Safe-T-Hammer).

the earliest draft proposals were bad enough you had car companies and tool makers lobbying hard to get it killed.

they are going after the banks and businesses that do business with the NRA in order to kill off the organization. now, in the last 20 years or so, many other organizations have cropped up, especially after the 1980's. the Gun Owners of America, 2nd Amendment Foundation, CalGuns, et c

however the NRA is the oldest, the largest, the best funded, and has the most support by sheer numbers. i would be quite interested in, if this is seen through to the end and isn't killed in committee or courts, if it's possible to go after organizations that are based around other protected individual rights.

edit: grammar
 
Last edited:
Good, they're a money-grubbing lobbyist horde of locusts masquerading as people who actually care about civil rights.
They bribe politicians so that you can keep your damn guns! It's not like they're slipping cigarettes into baby carriages.
 
They bribe politicians so that you can keep your damn guns! It's not like they're slipping cigarettes into baby carriages.
What's wrong with storing cigarettes in my baby's stroller? How else am I supposed to secretly smoke in nanny-state restaurants that won't let me?
 
They bribe politicians so that you can keep your damn guns! It's not like they're slipping cigarettes into baby carriages.
they oppose what the majority of americans, majority of gun owners, want. Everyone wants better background checks, for instance. An organization that will lobby for 2nd amendment protections but not make gun ownership look sociopathic would serve the interests of gun owners a lot fucking better than the NRA. The NRA makes gun ownership look bad, which translates into votes for anti-gun candidates. If there is anything the left should have learned from last election but didn't, its to ditch the crazy minority that makes the sane majority look terrrible.
 
I love guns more than the average person and I have given money to the NRA in the past but... I don't understand what they think the state actually did against them other than 1. suggest some companies reevaluate their relationship with the NRA (a lot of companies did this recently without government interference) and 2. End an insurance program protecting people involved in shooting incidents because they say it violates the law (how many people actually had this insurance? Can't be too many.)

As much as I love guns, I'm sick of the NRA. I wish there was another firearm advocacy group that wasn't them. They're so fucking soulless.

What Cuomo did would be considered racketeering. He invented imaginary laws to pressure banks and insurers headquartered in his state from doing business with a private organization in another state. This I also a wholesale violation of the US Constitutions Commerce Clause. As in this specific thing is what the commerce clause is there to prevent. It’s it’s actual legitimate purpose, as opposed to the insanely stretched applications that the courts and federal agency’s have twisted it into.
 
But thats the thing. The NRA is not needed to protect your right to bear arms. Your, you know, guns already ensure that protection. They're just a bunch of lobbyist faggots.
They're useful in scaring libs to focus on them alone. Frankly it's getting to a point we need to just repeal all gun control laws. They're all fucking stupid because people are outnumbered by guns in this country.
 
But thats the thing. The NRA is not needed to protect your right to bear arms. Your, you know, guns already ensure that protection. They're just a bunch of lobbyist faggots.
Try to bear arms in New Jersey sometime.

Another aspect is the 'no surrender' view now espoused by many gun owners and pro-2A types. They're not interested in any more compromises. They don't give a damn what the other side thinks. This is why 'reasonable background checks', whether they're reasonable or not, get tossed in the bin as well.

(It was also noted that the Parkland shooter would've failed his 'reasonable background check' if the agencies aware of him had been doing their job. But strangely, they weren't.)

So why should any gun owner agree to any further abrogation of a right specifically delineated in the Constitution?

It doesn't surprise me Cuomo's up to this bullshit. But I hope to God he pays for it.
 
If they think that the NRA is the breakwater keeping them from legislating guns out of existence then good luck to 'em considering the NRA didn't do much to help keep bump-stocks legal. You know, that thing that any idiot can jerry-rig at home easily?

They're useful in scaring libs to focus on them alone. Frankly it's getting to a point we need to just repeal all gun control laws. They're all fucking stupid because people are outnumbered by guns in this country.

Not to mention I've seen photos of people's collections that include motherfucking MANPADS systems for fuck's sake.

Try to bear arms in New Jersey sometime.

Another aspect is the 'no surrender' view now espoused by many gun owners and pro-2A types. They're not interested in any more compromises. They don't give a damn what the other side thinks. This is why 'reasonable background checks', whether they're reasonable or not, get tossed in the bin as well.

(It was also noted that the Parkland shooter would've failed his 'reasonable background check' if the agencies aware of him had been doing their job. But strangely, they weren't.)

So why should any gun owner agree to any further abrogation of a right specifically delineated in the Constitution?

It doesn't surprise me Cuomo's up to this bullshit. But I hope to God he pays for it.

There's a line in the sand on the restriction of the 2nd amendment, and honestly I believe the only reason it's been tolerated so far is because firearms enthusiasts can work around almost all of the restrictions by either mechanically altering their guns, or buying them piecemeal and assembling it themselves.
 
If they think that the NRA is the breakwater keeping them from legislating guns out of existence then good luck to 'em considering the NRA didn't do much to help keep bump-stocks legal. You know, that thing that any idiot can jerry-rig at home easily?



Not to mention I've seen photos of people's collections that include motherfucking MANPADS systems for fuck's sake.



There's a line in the sand on the restriction of the 2nd amendment, and honestly I believe the only reason it's been tolerated so far is because firearms enthusiasts can work around almost all of the restrictions by either mechanically altering their guns, or buying them piecemeal and assembling it themselves.
I draw the line at artillery because it's not good for property values -- especially if you miss. Remember, YOU are responsible for every round you fire out of your weapon.

And while the grabbers' moan about 'you just want people to have nukes', there is the small matter of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which would prevent that.

Really, it's never been about the guns; Chicago's proof of that. It's ALL about the control.
 
What's wrong with storing cigarettes in my baby's stroller? How else am I supposed to secretly smoke in nanny-state restaurants that won't let me?
they go in your bra, along with lighter and a wad of dollar bills like all the other white trash babymommas
 
Another aspect is the 'no surrender' view now espoused by many gun owners and pro-2A types. They're not interested in any more compromises.

Well, I'm open to compromise.

It's just that time and time again, when the loudest on the anti-side says "Nobody should have guns" and the loudest on the pro-side says "Everyone should have guns" where's the compromise? "HALF of everyone should have guns"?

The "compromises" proposed are really either nonsensical in that vein (Semiauto rifle with a pistol grip and a 10 round mag is legal, but becomes a dangerously illegal assault weapon if you put a bayonet on it?) or are patently not compromises, but are just branded that way with the goal of sneaking legislation through. Or, with the full intention of being rejected, so they can claim "We tried to meet them halfway, but they're murderous baby-killers who won't see our cool and level-headed reason for all their bloodlust, only option now is a blanket ban and 2A repeal!"

I'm open to compromise, but "Okay, fine, we can't make 10o% of the population unable to own a gun, so, to compromise, we'll move that down to 99.9% A few crybabies get guns, but the rest of us can still live the "right" way, free from guns and gun violence! That's a compromise! Why won't you take it?! You must WANT dead babies! We knew it! Time to ban em all!" Is not compromising anything but sanity.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm open to compromise.

It's just that time and time again, when the loudest on the anti-side says "Nobody should have guns" and the loudest on the pro-side says "Everyone should have guns" where's the compromise? "HALF of everyone should have guns"?

The "compromises" proposed are really either nonsensical in that vein (Semiauto rifle with a pistol grip and a 10 round mag is legal, but becomes a dangerously illegal assault weapon if you put a bayonet on it?) or are patently not compromises, but are just branded that way with the goal of sneaking legislation through. Or, with the full intention of being rejected, so they can claim "We tried to meet them halfway, but they're murderous baby-killers who won't see our cool and level-headed reason for all their bloodlust, only option now is a blanket ban and 2A repeal!"

I'm open to compromise, but "Okay, fine, we can't make 10o% of the population unable to own a gun, so, to compromise, we'll move that down to 99.9% A few crybabies get guns, but the rest of us can still live the "right" way, free from guns and gun violence! That's a compromise! Why won't you take it?! You must WANT dead babies! We knew it! Time to ban em all!
I am reminded of this analogy.

Lawdog said:
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.


Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...

... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.

In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.

Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.

In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?

The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"?

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.

For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.

I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise". Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise", and I have flat had enough.

The pro-2A/selfdefense crowd has learned that 'compromise' with the left only means they use a little lube when they get ready to fuck us. So yeah; no more compromises. No more deals.
 
Back
Top Bottom