U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The sum and substance of the present parties’ message to the NRA’s membership is ‘even though the AG is trying to dissolve your Association, and even though the NRA’s law firm, board and executives are deeply conflicted, none of you can do anything about it,’” the Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene by Francis Tait And Mario Aguirre, filed July 20 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Commercial Division argues. “That is not the law.”
The reply is the latest filing in an intervenor motion reported on in June by AmmoLand News. The motion, filed by NRA members Frank Tait and Mario Aguirre, seeks to ensure that the membership is not held accountable for the actions of association officers and “to protect their rights as individuals and as NRA members under the U.S. and New York constitutions as well as applicable New York statutes.” If ultimately successful, this will preserve the NRA’s existence and install new leadership through an idea presented as speculation last August in this column.
Justice Joel Cohen has set the motion for oral argument on September 9, a source close to the case confirms. It will be a one-hour virtual teleconference with multiple participants including “seven sets of lawyers — the AG’s, our group, the four individual defendants, and the conflicted Brewer firm now representing the NRA,” so how much they will actually get to say beyond main points is unknown. The expectation is the judge’s questions will give an indication of his views on the motion, and in any case, a quick ruling is expected based on how he has handled previous motions.
Assuming intervention is granted and the Brewer law firm is disqualified over conflict of interest, several questions remain of particular concern:
- Who will select an independent counsel for NRA and how?
- Can Wayne LaPierre and the current board be stopped from continuing to control the NRA until there is a final decision in this case? If a trustee/receiver is appointed, what limitations will there be on his/her authority, how will continuation of normal operations, programs and political efforts be assured, and what safeguards would ensure that person is independent of influences and pressures from current management, the New York State Attorney General, and anti-gun advocates?
- How would a new board be structured to ensure an appropriate cross-section of members who can assure that leadership is ultimately under the control of the membership?
There are plenty of nuanced specific questions that could flesh out each of these general ones, but it will be a moot point if the judge does not agree to allow an intervention. For now, readers can familiarize themselves with the Reply Memorandum, embedded below, share their ideas in the comments section for things the intervention team should be considering, and keep their fingers crossed.
And for those who really want to get into the weeds, you can access all the documents from the New York State Unified Court System website.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Its difficult to determine if the stench from the NY AG is greater than that from NRA HQ, Both are equally revolting.
Members have no liability here! They have rights, though, that no entity in this legal fight represents.
Meanwhile, we had 3 resignations from the NRA Board this week: Ted Nugent, Susan Howard and Buzz Mills.
The argument in the motion appears to be anchored in First Amendment Protections including speech and association. But, not a single mention of the Second Amendment or the NRA speaking on behalf of the “members” as their “advocate”. There is discussion that the members paid dues and thus have some type of “property rights in the NRA” (a not-for-profit, without owners); thus the members should be entitled to re-organize the NRA and the NYS AG should not be allowed to dissolve its operations without input from members. (Re-organize it as what ? The for-profit marketing, sweepstakes, publishing, training, certification and… Read more »
I doubt there is any liability exposure to members for what the Board and management did or did not do. I think privacy is a concern. And, members perhaps should be recognized to have a “stakeholder interest” in the outcome, but who are the members – I do not believe it is very easy to define. Especially considering the tactics the NRA used to management (limit) the number of “voting members”. Are individuals who participate in state affiliates which send money to the NRA “members” ? What if you stopped paying in recent years because of the known problems with… Read more »
I’m a Life Member after 5 years as an annual Member only because I got in on the $500 deal and I wanted the free $2500 firearm theft and loss insurance.
I won’t renew unless/until major changes are made to the NRA structure.
Just a quick point, as I haven’t reviewed anything yet. It seems to me that letitia is after the NRA organization and wiping it off the planet. She’s just using the issues of waynes malfeasance and the internal controversies as a hook to do so. I doubt that she even went into this for actions against wayne or the Board, except to see that it ends taking the organization with it. So, I wonder if intervening as the membership or the membership body, aren’t we handing her the real prize and the opportunity to go against what will surely end… Read more »
What the hell are you babbling about now? No one’s talking about members being liable. This is about BOARD members, who have fiduciary and other responsibilities. Bolding your scharts doesn’t make them compelling.