My understanding is this is a ploy to break contracts so they can move to Texas. Incidentally, the bankruptcy code is the only part of law that is able to break a contract legally.
No. In fact, this move comes at a time when the NRA is in its strongest financial condition in years.
To facilitate its reorganization, the NRA and one of its subsidiaries filed voluntary chapter 11 petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The NRA is not insolvent.
Where I live any kind of bankruptcy fraud is looked at with the most strict eye and is one of the few things that will get the corporate veil pierced, and moving assets or re-incorporating elsewhere would definitely rise to the level of attempted bankruptcy fraud.
Is using bankruptcy and re-incorporating in another state to avoid a lawsuit a legal avenue or is that going to get you into more trouble?
What's the penalty for bankruptcy fraud of this kind in the United States?
The NRA served as a financial conduit to force the GOP to take more and more extreme positions on gun rights by threatening to fund primary challenges to any republicans who “stepped out of line.”
The have successfully wielded this power to great effect for the last three decades.
The NRA served as a Boogeyman for Gun Grabbers to point to so they would not have to face the reality that the vast majority of Americans support Gun Rights, this includes both Democrats and Republicans.
The NRA actually only accounts for a very very small percentage of Americans that support Gun Rights.
I have guns. I like them. I even have an NRA membership that I can't get rid of. The NRA is not just a bogeyman, they're also the real problem. I'm with you. Sensible gun owners want (and should want) sensible gun ownership requirements.
To many gun owners the rules on the books today are already to repressive, or in many cases pointless (i.e banning "scary looking" guns for cosmetic reasons)
Then there is a whole host of ignorant reforms that will do nothing to lower crime or victimization but will just punish responsible gun owners.
Then there are the crazy reforms like banning all Semi-Automatic weapons.
So what "sensible" gun control do you support, and are you self aware enough to understand your personal use case for a firearm may not match everyone's? Most gun owners that stake claims like you have want to bann all uses for firearms they do not personally use a gun for. So a Hunter will push for reforms that do not impact hunting, a person that only uses handguns will push for long gun prohibitions, etc.
The issue is most people agree that people can own arms, but with limitations. For example, the vast majority of people think universal background checks are a good idea, but the NRA did not.
BTW, using a term like "Gun Grabbers" might appeal to those who agree with you, but isn't going to convince anyone on the other side or in the middle of a topic.
Ahh the "universal background checks", that depends on the polling question
Q: Do you support universal background checks?
That will get you a large amount of support
Q: Do you support requiring gun owners to sell, gift or transfer their privately held guns only through licensed dealers?
Your support drops considerably, and that is what "universal background checks" are, an effective ban on private sales of firearms, and that is what the NRA opposed
There is not wide support for banning private sales, but the anti-gun propaganda machine in full force to confuse the issue with things like "Gun show loop hole" and other misleading statements
When in reality if you are a firearms dealer you have to perform a background check universally today, it does not matter if you are selling in a store, a gun show or a back alley if you hold a FFL you must do a background check
The only time a firearm can be transferred with out one is between 2 private citizens and one of the most often way that is done is via gifting. If you are going to tell a Father he can no longer gift a gun to his Son, or a Husband he can no longer gift a gun to his wife (or vice versa) well you are not going to get wide support for that.
>BTW, using a term like "Gun Grabbers" might appeal to those who agree with you, but isn't going to convince anyone on the other side or in the middle of a topic.
Well in times of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act. I call it like I see it. After decades and decades of "common sense" gun reform, it is clear that people that advocate for said things will never be appeased until private ownership of guns is prohibited.
The "step out of line" problem in the GOP is real. It allows the extreme voices in the party to consistently target an individual politician while corralling everyone else. Meanwhile it also encourages the notion that the GOP has internal discussion and isn't very unified while voting on all issues as a unified block.
Every republican I know can name a few GOP platform positions they dislike or even find alarming, but never the less they vote for politicians who are forced to adopt every position.
The problem is even worse for the Democrats on abortion, there are no pro-life Democrats allowed at the national level. The GOP is tolerant on guns in comparison.
Nice whataboutism. You got some ammo to back up that claim? The GOP is nothing if not unified to a fault. They're strong because they will tow the line to hold power. (Mitch hates trump and Cruz got in line even after the mud slinging about his wife.) It's fractured now but they've historically been in lock step, even when it was against their personal, publicly stated, beliefs. Democrats have been weak because they don't require the same level of kool-aid consumption.
Does that even matter? Would you condone fraud by a party because they have stronger competitors? For me it wouldn't matter, I think that if the people in charge of this organization do something that is against the law and then use tricks to escape the consequences then they fully deserve to have the book thrown at them.
I just wonder if that is the case here or not according to US corporate law.
> Is using bankruptcy and re-incorporating in another state to avoid a lawsuit
It's regular practice in USA/Canada.
E.g. tobacco companies in Canada filed for bankruptcy the second they lost a big lawsuit against them. They were also careful enough to structure their Canadian ops as highly dependent subsidiaries. So even when whatever cash was left gets distributed, the parent still profits from its Canadian ops.
The nice thing about North american bankruptcies is that it's a public process, so you get a view into their operations that may never otherwise be/become public.
I don't get bankruptcy in the US. Companies and organisations go bankrupt but just seem to keep on going as normal? Bankrupt airlines flying people as normal for example? The NRA being bankrupt but still going? What's up with that?
In the UK I think if you're bankrupt (insolvent) then that's it you're done, you're not trading anymore, and they will call in a third-party company to wrap you up and sell all your stuff and you're not likely getting any money out of it as an owner or shareholder.
There are two types - restructuring where they halt debt payments and get time to fix the business and going out of business bankruptcy. The first is a farce for whomever to exact all the value that’s left and almost always what companies do today.
Read about federal bankruptcy protection, aka Chapter 11 [1]. Total liquidation would be Chapter 7.
Applying for this kind protection allows a company to continue doing business while halting creditor claims. However, they have to undergo a formal process where they have to construct a restructuring plan to be reviewed and approved by the courts.
The UK this process is apparently called administration [2], and there are several mechanisms for restructuring and dealing with creditors.
As far as I understand it’s a common tool to get rid of liabilities and other problems. There is the term “strategic bankruptcy “. It’s definitely not a stain on a business person’s record as Trump has shown.
Bankruptcy protection, ultimately, is meant to protect a debtor and ensure fair treatment of creditors, while preventing certain types of harassment from creditors.
Using bankruptcy as a means to strengthen chances of an organization's survival seems entirely consistent with the purpose of the law, and at a minimum, is not a showing (in and of itself) of fraud.
Especially so, if the NRA isn't misrepresenting it's financial obligations and status to the courts.
>that will get the corporate veil pierced
Intent and eventual result is not enough on its own to show this. If the letter of the law was followed in its actions, an organization's liability should be protected as provided by corporate law.
Obviously, bankruptcy also isn't meant to allow jurisdictional avoidance. But the NY AG's actions are themselves a legally questionable means of pursuing a political motive, for which they are skirting the spirit/intent of the law.
And they certainly fit the spirit/character of an overly aggressive creditor, if not the letter.
Which results in a potentially interesting dilemma for the NY AG- claim interest in the case as some kind of a creditor, which might afford NRA relief from them, or claim sovereign interest as a state, which might preserve since of their legal claims, but sideline them until the federal bankruptcy proceedings are over (with NRA emergence from protection in Texas).
From a practical/ethical perspective, if NY's pursuit/prosecution is just in NY, it should also be just in Texas.
If NY can't pursue the same prosecution, (or the same equitable relief) once the NRA moves, is that not an implicit admission of misusing jurisdictional authority?
This bankruptcy will be blocked by New York as the NRA has publicly claimed their financial position is fine and they are only doing this to flee New York.
The state AG:
> While we review its bankruptcy filing, we will not allow the
@NRA to use this or any other tactic to evade accountability and my office’s oversight.
The state AG has very limited power over the Bankruptcy which is a Federal law.
It is entirely possible the Federal Courts will reject it on the fact that the organization is not actually bankrupt but the State of New York can not "block" the Bankruptcy they can only petition the federal court to toss it
> However, state laws are often applied to determine how bankruptcy affects the property rights of debtors. For example, laws governing the validity of liens or rules protecting certain property from creditors (known as exemptions), may derive from state law or federal law. Because state law plays a major role in many bankruptcy cases, it is often unwise to generalize some bankruptcy issues across state lines.
So turns out that there have been fatal school shootings in 2020. Not a lot and I wouldn't really classify all of the items as school shootings. I was still a bit surprised though.
The one about the ROTC accident I found especially strange. I don't know anything about ROTC. I for some reason assumed that learning to shoot was something they would do. Reading the article it seems that the weapon is contraband.
I posted it because I thought it was 1) an interesting legal maneuver/hack on the NRA's part, and 2) social problems can sometimes be turned into tech problems. A lot of tech workers do tech in pursuit of a deeper social cause, and the NRA is tied to many such causes.
Around two weeks ago some completely unsolicited shit showed up in my mail from the NRA. I'm located in bumfuck Appalachia. Have never been slightly affiliated w/the NRA - but I purchased some ammunition online a few months back. Maybe that's how they got a hold of my info.
Anyways - I'd highly advise anybody who isn't aware of the absolute horse shit they peddle to look at these three images. The highlighted bright red was the only thing readable through the transparent portion of the envelope.
The most hilariously sad thing about NRA supporters is that they're either completely unaware of the Mulford Act, or completely deny how things actually went down, acting as if what was literally written into law was actually not written into law and that any document of the Mulford Act you can find online is actually a democratic hoax being propped by big tech. I've legitimately had these conversations with people. It's deeply saddening and outright fucked. They simply deny what was written into law.
Anyways, fuck the NRA. Whether you are a fan of the 2nd amendment or not - the current state of gun affairs in California, a point that conservatives/gun lovers love to bring up and shit on everything about it, is literally only a thing because Republicans and the NRA didn't want black people to have the ability to open carry. When trying to simply explain what the Mulford Act actually was to some people - I was met with b-b-but bipartisanship is good! Why are you angry about it lib hahaha? - But completely lost their shit when bringing up the simple point that one party had tried to enact gun laws for many years and was met with an opposing "hurr durr don't fuck with our 2A" - an argument that was quite conveniently forgotten about something like the literal day after black people marched on the Capitol. Definitely not racism though - don't let anybody tell you that. Pure bipartisan agreementship. Also, don't forget to send the NRA money for this special membership that is oh-so specially at a discount, just for you, right now! Won't last so please send your money now so we can continue to be grifting pandering shitbags.
But yeah. Final thoughts - if you've ever wondered about one of many thousands of reasons these people end up batshit fucking conspiracy crazy - here is one of them, peddled right to your doorstep unsolicited.
The sheer marketing attached to the threats of not only having your house stormed and guns taken, but also taken to jail at the same time, is what gets me the most.
Too many people truly can't even recognize it either. People who grew up in more educated areas will often try to refute that fact as well. It's simply unfathomable to a good bit of sheltered educated people. But I am here to tell you - I am/always have been deeply rooted in the MidWest, and yes, seriously, a significant majority of the populace here could not point out the marketing to you.
Now, does that really matter? I don't know. Look at what just happened at our Capital and you can tell me.
> The most hilariously sad thing about NRA supporters is that they're either completely unaware of the Mulford Act, or completely deny how things actually went down, acting as if what was literally written into law was actually not written into law and that any document of the Mulford Act you can find online is actually a democratic hoax being propped by big tech. I've legitimately had these conversations with people. It's deeply saddening and outright fucked. They simply deny what was written into law.
Or they just throw out the “T” word and it’s all justified.
Honestly this is part of the reason I’m apprehensive about getting in the gun scene. I’d like to practice shooting and purchase a firearm for myself, but I absolutely despise spam and every store/range I’ve looked at in the past years seems to buy into this sort of nonsense.
NRA affiliation for a range means much easier and cheaper insurance, and sometimes access to favorable credit terms.
There are other issues with the NRA from the perspective of an RKBA absolutist as well - like approved training for state carry licenses being managed by the NRA.
Their assets and liabilities are both between $100m and $500m.
What I found interesting is:
Are any bankruptcy cases
pending or being filed by a
business partner or an
affiliate of the debtor?
No
X Yes.
List all cases. If more than 1,
Debtor: Sea Girt LLC Relationship: Affiliate
43 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 80.2 ms ] threadHonestly I'm surprised you can file for bankruptcy while making public statements like these: https://www.nraforward.org/questionsanswers
Is the NRA going “bankrupt?”
No. In fact, this move comes at a time when the NRA is in its strongest financial condition in years.
To facilitate its reorganization, the NRA and one of its subsidiaries filed voluntary chapter 11 petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The NRA is not insolvent.
Is using bankruptcy and re-incorporating in another state to avoid a lawsuit a legal avenue or is that going to get you into more trouble?
What's the penalty for bankruptcy fraud of this kind in the United States?
The have successfully wielded this power to great effect for the last three decades.
The NRA served as a Boogeyman for Gun Grabbers to point to so they would not have to face the reality that the vast majority of Americans support Gun Rights, this includes both Democrats and Republicans.
The NRA actually only accounts for a very very small percentage of Americans that support Gun Rights.
most people i know that are for gun reform also own firearms (also not in the NRA, if that needed saying).
To many gun owners the rules on the books today are already to repressive, or in many cases pointless (i.e banning "scary looking" guns for cosmetic reasons)
Then there is a whole host of ignorant reforms that will do nothing to lower crime or victimization but will just punish responsible gun owners.
Then there are the crazy reforms like banning all Semi-Automatic weapons.
So what "sensible" gun control do you support, and are you self aware enough to understand your personal use case for a firearm may not match everyone's? Most gun owners that stake claims like you have want to bann all uses for firearms they do not personally use a gun for. So a Hunter will push for reforms that do not impact hunting, a person that only uses handguns will push for long gun prohibitions, etc.
https://iop.harvard.edu/get-involved/harvard-political-revie...
BTW, using a term like "Gun Grabbers" might appeal to those who agree with you, but isn't going to convince anyone on the other side or in the middle of a topic.
Q: Do you support universal background checks?
That will get you a large amount of support
Q: Do you support requiring gun owners to sell, gift or transfer their privately held guns only through licensed dealers?
Your support drops considerably, and that is what "universal background checks" are, an effective ban on private sales of firearms, and that is what the NRA opposed
There is not wide support for banning private sales, but the anti-gun propaganda machine in full force to confuse the issue with things like "Gun show loop hole" and other misleading statements
When in reality if you are a firearms dealer you have to perform a background check universally today, it does not matter if you are selling in a store, a gun show or a back alley if you hold a FFL you must do a background check
The only time a firearm can be transferred with out one is between 2 private citizens and one of the most often way that is done is via gifting. If you are going to tell a Father he can no longer gift a gun to his Son, or a Husband he can no longer gift a gun to his wife (or vice versa) well you are not going to get wide support for that.
>BTW, using a term like "Gun Grabbers" might appeal to those who agree with you, but isn't going to convince anyone on the other side or in the middle of a topic.
Well in times of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act. I call it like I see it. After decades and decades of "common sense" gun reform, it is clear that people that advocate for said things will never be appeased until private ownership of guns is prohibited.
Funny because I clearly said "The NRA actually only accounts for a very very small percentage of Americans that support Gun Rights. "
and
"vast majority of Americans support Gun Rights, this includes both Democrats and Republicans."
So it seems I phrased my comment exactly opposite of your straw-man, did you even read my comment before replying?
Every republican I know can name a few GOP platform positions they dislike or even find alarming, but never the less they vote for politicians who are forced to adopt every position.
I just wonder if that is the case here or not according to US corporate law.
It's regular practice in USA/Canada.
E.g. tobacco companies in Canada filed for bankruptcy the second they lost a big lawsuit against them. They were also careful enough to structure their Canadian ops as highly dependent subsidiaries. So even when whatever cash was left gets distributed, the parent still profits from its Canadian ops.
https://financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/imperial-tob...
The nice thing about North american bankruptcies is that it's a public process, so you get a view into their operations that may never otherwise be/become public.
https://documentcentre.ey.com/#/detail-engmt?eid=402
Lots of opiate manufacturers going down the same road.
In the UK I think if you're bankrupt (insolvent) then that's it you're done, you're not trading anymore, and they will call in a third-party company to wrap you up and sell all your stuff and you're not likely getting any money out of it as an owner or shareholder.
Applying for this kind protection allows a company to continue doing business while halting creditor claims. However, they have to undergo a formal process where they have to construct a restructuring plan to be reviewed and approved by the courts.
The UK this process is apparently called administration [2], and there are several mechanisms for restructuring and dealing with creditors.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_United_S...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_in_United_Kingd...
For example, most of Trump's debts are heavily secured compared to those of companies without a history of bankruptcy in their past.
Using bankruptcy as a means to strengthen chances of an organization's survival seems entirely consistent with the purpose of the law, and at a minimum, is not a showing (in and of itself) of fraud.
Especially so, if the NRA isn't misrepresenting it's financial obligations and status to the courts.
>that will get the corporate veil pierced
Intent and eventual result is not enough on its own to show this. If the letter of the law was followed in its actions, an organization's liability should be protected as provided by corporate law.
Obviously, bankruptcy also isn't meant to allow jurisdictional avoidance. But the NY AG's actions are themselves a legally questionable means of pursuing a political motive, for which they are skirting the spirit/intent of the law.
And they certainly fit the spirit/character of an overly aggressive creditor, if not the letter.
Which results in a potentially interesting dilemma for the NY AG- claim interest in the case as some kind of a creditor, which might afford NRA relief from them, or claim sovereign interest as a state, which might preserve since of their legal claims, but sideline them until the federal bankruptcy proceedings are over (with NRA emergence from protection in Texas).
From a practical/ethical perspective, if NY's pursuit/prosecution is just in NY, it should also be just in Texas.
If NY can't pursue the same prosecution, (or the same equitable relief) once the NRA moves, is that not an implicit admission of misusing jurisdictional authority?
The state AG:
> While we review its bankruptcy filing, we will not allow the @NRA to use this or any other tactic to evade accountability and my office’s oversight.
It is entirely possible the Federal Courts will reject it on the fact that the organization is not actually bankrupt but the State of New York can not "block" the Bankruptcy they can only petition the federal court to toss it
https://twitter.com/zachreinert0/status/1350205766737784832
First result for my search was https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-shootings-this-year...
So turns out that there have been fatal school shootings in 2020. Not a lot and I wouldn't really classify all of the items as school shootings. I was still a bit surprised though.
The one about the ROTC accident I found especially strange. I don't know anything about ROTC. I for some reason assumed that learning to shoot was something they would do. Reading the article it seems that the weapon is contraband.
If that doesn't make you slightly curious about what some heavily funded groups are doing in your own backyard... I guess I'm slightly envious.
Anyways - I'd highly advise anybody who isn't aware of the absolute horse shit they peddle to look at these three images. The highlighted bright red was the only thing readable through the transparent portion of the envelope.
http://prntscr.com/wweheo
http://prntscr.com/wwexix
http://prntscr.com/wwf2eg
The most hilariously sad thing about NRA supporters is that they're either completely unaware of the Mulford Act, or completely deny how things actually went down, acting as if what was literally written into law was actually not written into law and that any document of the Mulford Act you can find online is actually a democratic hoax being propped by big tech. I've legitimately had these conversations with people. It's deeply saddening and outright fucked. They simply deny what was written into law.
Anyways, fuck the NRA. Whether you are a fan of the 2nd amendment or not - the current state of gun affairs in California, a point that conservatives/gun lovers love to bring up and shit on everything about it, is literally only a thing because Republicans and the NRA didn't want black people to have the ability to open carry. When trying to simply explain what the Mulford Act actually was to some people - I was met with b-b-but bipartisanship is good! Why are you angry about it lib hahaha? - But completely lost their shit when bringing up the simple point that one party had tried to enact gun laws for many years and was met with an opposing "hurr durr don't fuck with our 2A" - an argument that was quite conveniently forgotten about something like the literal day after black people marched on the Capitol. Definitely not racism though - don't let anybody tell you that. Pure bipartisan agreementship. Also, don't forget to send the NRA money for this special membership that is oh-so specially at a discount, just for you, right now! Won't last so please send your money now so we can continue to be grifting pandering shitbags.
But yeah. Final thoughts - if you've ever wondered about one of many thousands of reasons these people end up batshit fucking conspiracy crazy - here is one of them, peddled right to your doorstep unsolicited.
Too many people truly can't even recognize it either. People who grew up in more educated areas will often try to refute that fact as well. It's simply unfathomable to a good bit of sheltered educated people. But I am here to tell you - I am/always have been deeply rooted in the MidWest, and yes, seriously, a significant majority of the populace here could not point out the marketing to you.
Now, does that really matter? I don't know. Look at what just happened at our Capital and you can tell me.
Or they just throw out the “T” word and it’s all justified.
Honestly this is part of the reason I’m apprehensive about getting in the gun scene. I’d like to practice shooting and purchase a firearm for myself, but I absolutely despise spam and every store/range I’ve looked at in the past years seems to buy into this sort of nonsense.
There are other issues with the NRA from the perspective of an RKBA absolutist as well - like approved training for state carry licenses being managed by the NRA.
Their assets and liabilities are both between $100m and $500m.
What I found interesting is:
Are any bankruptcy cases pending or being filed by a business partner or an affiliate of the debtor? No X Yes. List all cases. If more than 1, Debtor: Sea Girt LLC Relationship: Affiliate
More is described about this <60d old affiliate here: https://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2021/01/nra-bankrupt...