Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:40 pm
I dunno. I don't think we can sit around an argue "this will embolden Trumpaloos" anymore, particularly with the way everything is going right now. You do something, it encourages them. You do nothing, it encourages them. Time to just take your shot when you have the goods - which apparently she does.
She'll have the same goods on November 4th. I won't split hairs - this seems to be about her ambition to be next Governor of NY. That said, I don't think emboldening Trumpaloos is the risk. This is 4th rail stuff that blows out well beyond Trump's base.
I am so torn on this point. Will her actions have any significant impact on the NRA's ability to behave like it did the last election? Didn't they sort of act like a pass-through for massive amounts of Trumpulo and downticket candidates money/support?
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:40 pm
I dunno. I don't think we can sit around an argue "this will embolden Trumpaloos" anymore, particularly with the way everything is going right now. You do something, it encourages them. You do nothing, it encourages them. Time to just take your shot when you have the goods - which apparently she does.
She'll have the same goods on November 4th. I won't split hairs - this seems to be about her ambition to be next Governor of NY. That said, I don't think emboldening Trumpaloos is the risk. This is 4th rail stuff that blows out well beyond Trump's base.
I am so torn on this point. Will her actions have any significant impact on the NRA's ability to behave like it did the last election? Didn't they sort of act like a pass-through for massive amounts of Trumpulo and downticket candidates money/support?
In October alone, according to the Center for Public Integrity, roughly one out of every 20 television ads in Pennsylvania was sponsored by the NRA. That same month, the group paid for one in nine ads in North Carolina, and one of every eight in Ohio. The ads imply that Clinton and Democrats would leave law-and-order abiding citizens defenseless. In one spot, a woman is alone in bed when a burglar breaks into her home. The narrator intones, “Don’t let Hillary leave you protected with nothing but a phone.”
Trump won all three states, and the NRA’s preferred Senate candidates also swept to victory.
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:40 pm
I dunno. I don't think we can sit around an argue "this will embolden Trumpaloos" anymore, particularly with the way everything is going right now. You do something, it encourages them. You do nothing, it encourages them. Time to just take your shot when you have the goods - which apparently she does.
She'll have the same goods on November 4th. I won't split hairs - this seems to be about her ambition to be next Governor of NY. That said, I don't think emboldening Trumpaloos is the risk. This is 4th rail stuff that blows out well beyond Trump's base.
I am so torn on this point. Will her actions have any significant impact on the NRA's ability to behave like it did the last election? Didn't they sort of act like a pass-through for massive amounts of Trumpulo and downticket candidates money/support?
They can still do that. The lawsuit is about executives misusing funds and/or pocketing money. So the lawsuit might encourage them to be more ethical *individually* but it doesn't mean the organization won't advocate politically. It is after all what they exist for.
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:40 pm
I dunno. I don't think we can sit around an argue "this will embolden Trumpaloos" anymore, particularly with the way everything is going right now. You do something, it encourages them. You do nothing, it encourages them. Time to just take your shot when you have the goods - which apparently she does.
She'll have the same goods on November 4th. I won't split hairs - this seems to be about her ambition to be next Governor of NY. That said, I don't think emboldening Trumpaloos is the risk. This is 4th rail stuff that blows out well beyond Trump's base.
I am so torn on this point. Will her actions have any significant impact on the NRA's ability to behave like it did the last election? Didn't they sort of act like a pass-through for massive amounts of Trumpulo and downticket candidates money/support?
They can still do that. The lawsuit is about executives misusing funds and/or pocketing money. So the lawsuit might encourage them to be more ethical *individually* but it doesn't mean the organization won't advocate politically. It is after all what they exist for.
Right but if they are fighting dissolution they might be a wee bit busy? I imagine this will make donations poor in at first at least.
Since I don’t know NY charity law I don’t know if dissolution of the NRA is a plausible outcome of the lawsuit or if asking for it is like listing the statutory maximum sentence for a charged offense — technically possible but highly misleading.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:49 pm
by LawBeefaroni
Regardless of the likelihood of dissolution, the NRA isn't the sacred cow it used to be anyway. LaPierre alienated a ton of the NRA base sp spending $120K of their money on suits or whatever it was and there has been a schism between the old school the new school. Memberships and donations are decreasing.
If they take LaPierre and his board loyalists down it would signal a huge shift in the direction of the NRA, IMO for the better.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:52 pm
by Alefroth
Of course the knuckle-draggers won't even care that they've been bilked out of $64M.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:06 pm
by malchior
Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:52 pm
Of course the knuckle-draggers won't even care that they've been bilked out of $64M.
It's a FREEDOM TAX FEE!
Enough wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:14 pmRight but if they are fighting dissolution they might be a wee bit busy? I imagine this will make donations poor in at first at least.
It's possible. This will be a long fight. It could distract or it could just be the lawyers slapping it out for awhile. The lawyers probably won't even start to square off seriously for weeks at best.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:52 pm
by Holman
Did anything ever come of the suspicion that the Russians laundered political donations through the NRA?
Seems like these charges could overturn a number of rock beyond the LaPierre gang's vacation spending.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:03 pm
by coopasonic
Holman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:52 pm
Did anything ever come of the suspicion that the Russians laundered political donations through the NRA?
With Bill Barr in charge? Ha!
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:46 pm
by LawBeefaroni
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:25 pm
by Max Peck
If Biden abolishes the police, who exactly would be coming for the guns?
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:40 pm
I dunno. I don't think we can sit around an argue "this will embolden Trumpaloos" anymore, particularly with the way everything is going right now. You do something, it encourages them. You do nothing, it encourages them. Time to just take your shot when you have the goods - which apparently she does.
She'll have the same goods on November 4th. I won't split hairs - this seems to be about her ambition to be next Governor of NY. That said, I don't think emboldening Trumpaloos is the risk. This is 4th rail stuff that blows out well beyond Trump's base.
I am so torn on this point. Will her actions have any significant impact on the NRA's ability to behave like it did the last election? Didn't they sort of act like a pass-through for massive amounts of Trumpulo and downticket candidates money/support?
They can still do that. The lawsuit is about executives misusing funds and/or pocketing money. So the lawsuit might encourage them to be more ethical *individually* but it doesn't mean the organization won't advocate politically. It is after all what they exist for.
But this investigation presumably opens files that make it harder to hide what they're doing.
Shady agents might be less willing to risk exposure, especially now that a good deal of their money will be going straight to lawyers' fees.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:48 pm
by Zarathud
The NRA’s charity arm cannot intervene in political campaigns for or against any particular candidate. The NRA cannot permit private benefit to insiders of charitable funds. There are major exceptions to these rules, but straight up theft and insider dealing can be bad enough to shut down a charity’s operations in a state.
It’s usually the various state AG’s job to regulate charities (in Florida its the Dept of Agriculture). Action by the state is supposed to trigger IRS action — basically a death penalty for a charity. No 501(c)(3) tax status means no charitable deduction. And penalties of 200% of the amount involved.
Trump’s Foundation had to close from his campaign abuses for this reason. And it did look like the NRA went pretty far in supporting Trump, with questionable cash sources, and that corruption is hard to stop. Even the NRA temporarily getting shut down from any NY operations would be huge.
Remember that this bullshit is entirely separate from the unregulated PACs and Tea Party “social welfare” 501(c)(4)/(6) entities. So the corruption would be beyond the well known dark money loopholes due to America United and the accusations of Tea Party “oppression.” And that shocking level of greed might be enough to take down the NRA, if true.
And with Trump, there is no bottom. Follow the money.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:51 pm
by malchior
Zarathud wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:48 pm
The NRA’s charity arm cannot intervene in political campaigns for or against any particular candidate. The NRA cannot permit private benefit to insiders of charitable funds. There are major exceptions to these rules, but straight up theft and insider dealing can be bad enough to shut down a charity’s operations in a state.
It’s usually the various state AG’s job to regulate charities (in Florida its the Dept of Agriculture). Action by the state is supposed to trigger IRS action — basically a death penalty for a charity. No 501(c)(3) tax status means no charitable deduction. And penalties of 200% of the amount involved.
Trump’s Foundation had to close from his campaign abuses for this reason. And it did look like the NRA went pretty far in supporting Trump, with questionable cash sources, and that corruption is hard to stop. Even the NRA temporarily getting shut down from any NY operations would be huge.
Remember that this bullshit is entirely separate from the unregulated PACs and Tea Party “social welfare” 501(c)(4)/(6) entities. So the corruption would be beyond the well known dark money loopholes due to America United and the accusations of Tea Party “oppression.” And that shocking level of greed might be enough to take down the NRA, if true.
And with Trump, there is no bottom. Follow the money.
Thanks - that's helpful disambiguation of the issue.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:37 pm
by Kraken
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:31 am
by YellowKing
Our county is considering a proposal that "reaffirms our 2nd amendment rights" or some such nonsensical redundant bullshit. We've got racial tensions, schools in disarray, a raging pandemic, but please, waste taxpayer dollars and the government's time putting forth MURRICA fuckery like this.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2020 12:04 pm
by em2nought
Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:52 pm
Of course the knuckle-draggers won't even care that they've been bilked out of $64M.
I'm not sure how someone who is obviously a democrat at heart obtained the top position at the NRA in the first place.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:52 pm
by Zarathud
LaPierre was “reimbursed” for more than $1.2 million in expenses from 2013 to 2017.
$16,300 for a makeup artist to cover Susan LaPierre for three events? Democrats aren’t so dependent on their trophy wives.
$100,000 for a DC golf club membership? Concealing gifts over $25 to high end retailers? Private jets for family and personal use? Not good.
The NRA’s Treasurer didn’t know if $1.8 million in “consulting service” payments from 2017-2018 was for severance, for work. “I just don’t know” is not the testimony the NRA should be giving about its finances.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday threw out California's ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution's protection of the right to bear firearms.
"Even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster," appellate Judge Kenneth Lee wrote for the panel's majority. California's ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets "strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense."
He noted that California passed the law "in the wake of heart-wrenching and highly publicized mass shootings," but said that isn't enough to justify a ban whose scope "is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California."
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office said it is reviewing the decision.
"Until further proceedings in the courts, the stay on the injunction issued by the district court remains in place," his office said in a statement. "The Attorney General remains committed to using every tool possible to defend California's gun safety laws and keep our communities safe."
Holman wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:32 pm
Imagine supporting Trump and believing that Democrats are the grifters.
I wonder if there is a cognitive dissonance test someone could take.
Yes, I believe that is known as an IQ Test.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:23 pm
by Smoove_B
In case you were wondering about the St. Louis couple and what they were up to
St. Louis couple who waved guns at BLM protesters will participate in GOP convention
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2020 3:08 pm
by Little Raven
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:49 pmA three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday threw out California's ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution's protection of the right to bear firearms.
Good. Protecting rights is always important, even more so when emotions are highly charged. Surrendering to emotion is how you get the Patriot Act.
If guns are THAT terrible, we need to amend the Constitution, not constantly try to undermine it by degrees. We once managed to outlaw BOOZE....it shouldn't be too hard to convince people to rewrite the 2nd.
Black boy (12-yr old) with ADHD diagnosis and virtual-attending school via webcam was suspended for moving a OBVIOUSLY GREEN TOY GUN during class. Police was called to the home, and boy was suspended for five days for "waving toy gun during class" (which never was pointed at the camera) which apparently is the same as "bringing (toy) gun to school", according to school officials.
Kasey Chang wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 8:27 pm
Black boy (12-yr old) with ADHD diagnosis and virtual-attending school via webcam was suspended for moving a OBVIOUSLY GREEN TOY GUN during class. Police was called to the home, and boy was suspended for five days for "waving toy gun during class" (which never was pointed at the camera) which apparently is the same as "bringing (toy) gun to school", according to school officials.
It's awesome that reprisals for waving around a toy gun in front of nobody are harsher than pointing a real gun at other people.
Out culture is so fucked.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:19 pm
by Smoove_B
Remember when we used to talk about other things? Here, I'll go first:
Ohio teachers and other school personnel would be expressly allowed to carry firearms on school grounds without needing prior peace-officer training or experience, under legislation passed 21-10 by the state Senate on Wednesday.
Senate Bill 317, which now heads to the Ohio House, comes in response to a 12th District Court of Appeals ruling against the Madison Local School District Board of Education in Butler County. The district had allowed school employees to voluntarily carry concealed firearms so long as they have a conceal-carry permit and undergo active shooter training. The case is now before the Ohio Supreme Court.
But this:
State Sen. Bill Coley, a Butler County Republican sponsoring the bill, said the “court went off the reservation” with its ruling.
I didn't think that was...uh...appropriate anymore? So much to unpack here.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2020 10:48 pm
by Kraken
All this time we were worrying about gun control, it turns out that the way to stop mass shootings is to ban gatherings.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine reversed course on his veto warning Monday and signed a gun rights bill expanding the right to “stand your ground” into law.
The bill eliminates a duty to retreat before firing in self-defense at any place, including businesses, places of worship or protests. The state of Ohio previously allowed residents to “stand their ground” only in their homes or vehicles.
DeWine, a Republican, said he signed the GOP-backed bill with reservations in a “spirit of cooperation.”
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine reversed course on his veto warning Monday and signed a gun rights bill expanding the right to “stand your ground” into law.
The bill eliminates a duty to retreat before firing in self-defense at any place, including businesses, places of worship or protests. The state of Ohio previously allowed residents to “stand their ground” only in their homes or vehicles.
DeWine, a Republican, said he signed the GOP-backed bill with reservations in a “spirit of cooperation.”
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine reversed course on his veto warning Monday and signed a gun rights bill expanding the right to “stand your ground” into law.
The bill eliminates a duty to retreat before firing in self-defense at any place, including businesses, places of worship or protests. The state of Ohio previously allowed residents to “stand their ground” only in their homes or vehicles.
DeWine, a Republican, said he signed the GOP-backed bill with reservations in a “spirit of cooperation.”
Welcome to Florida 2.0.
They forgot to add the "Yeehaw!" rider, where you have to scream that as you start shooting in order to warn those downrange.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2021 3:37 pm
by Isgrimnur
In North Dakota, the statute only applies when the shooter is in an occupied motor home or travel trailer which is defined as a vehicle that provides temporary living quarters.
* In these states, the statute only applies when the shooter is in a vehicle.
I heard through the derpline that Via Getty will be putting in a bid for their assets.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:32 pm
by Isgrimnur
Thoughts and prayers.
Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:52 pm
by LawBeefaroni
I'm crossing this from slack.
lawbeefaroni wrote:I'd probably be considered "pro gun" but I never liked the NRA. Going all the way back to Boy Scouts where they made us get NRA memberships to compete in riflery competitions. I'm sure they added my name to the roll of NRA supporting voters even though I was like 10.
The NRAILA was just terrible. The last two decades of the NRA has been just downright evil.
Also, looking more and more like Lapierre is going down. Rooting for it.
