Saturday’s Newsbits:
Elections:
Jurisprudence:
Legislation:
NRA:
Politics:
Category: Jurisprudence
NRA took themselves out of the 2020 election
An excerpt from last night’s Tucker Carlson:
“… They used the courts to neutralize the Republican Party’s single most effective get out the vote operation, which for generations had been the National Rifle Association. Not enough has been written about this, but anyone on the ground saw it. Thanks to legal harassment from the left, the NRA played a vastly reduced role in this election, and that made a huge difference in swing states like Pennsylvania and others …”
Anyone paying attention knows the NRA has brought the majority of their problems upon themselves, first through the lack of proper oversight by the Board of Directors of NRA’s executive staff and the questionable ethics of some of the Board members, and second by turning the Second Amendment and gun rights into a partisan Republican issue.
The first issue can easily be addressed if the Board took corrective actions, removed Wayne and cleaned house. I predict they won’t do that. However, one way or another that is going to happen:
“… Nonprofit law experts told The Trace that LaPierre’s removal is assured if James can prove even a fraction of her charges. While dissolution is unlikely, they said James won’t be satisfied with the ouster of LaPierre alone and expect fines, overhaul of governance procedures, and removal of complicit board members …”
The second issue also has an easy fix: NRA needs to stop blowing off Democrats, their own members, constituents and politicians, tell gun activists to be involved with Democrat party politics especially their primary elections, and stop pretending large urban areas and states with Democrat majorities like New York do not exist. It’s not about money, although they have plenty of that. It is about spending resources wisely which NRA does not have a history of doing.
NRA settles Carry Guard case with New York
NRA has been maintaining the actions taken by New York State against it are nothing more than a political witch-hunt.
No doubt there are many local politicians who are looking for an excuse to go after the Corporation. Problem for them (NRA) is that NRA gave them reasons to start an investigation:
“The National Rifle Association (NRA) has agreed to halt insurance business in New York for five years and will pay a $2.5 million fine over charges related to that work … The agreement resolved charges related to the NRA’s relationship with insurance broker Lockton Cos, which sold over 28,000 NRA-endorsed policies. Among the plans offered was the “Carry Guard” program … the NRA allegedly received over $1.8 million in associated royalties and fees and ultimately kept between 13.67 percent and 21.92 percent of premiums paid. “The NRA operated as an unlicensed insurance producer and broke the New York Insurance Law by soliciting insurance products and receiving compensation,” said Superintendent of Financial Services Linda Lacewell …”
This is just dumb.
It is clear that nobody at NRA did any sort of due diligence before offering Carry Guard in the state. I’m not in the business but even I know that the insurance industry is heavily regulated, especially in New York. There is no excuse for this. They have wasted millions of member’s dollars on fines, attorney fees and stupid lawsuits over this nonsense.
Newsbits
Tuesday’s Newsbits:
Elections:
- Suozzi Takes Lead Over Santos In NY’s 3rd Congressional District
- Millions Spent for One State Senate Race
Guns:
Jurisprudence:
NRA:
Politics:
New lawsuit filed challenging the Sullivan Act
The Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition have filed the first post-ACB confirmation lawsuit challenging the Sullivan Act.
According to the press release:
“… The lawsuit challenges the inability of ordinary law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in New York City. While honest citizens have a fundamental right to bear arms for self-protection, the complaint explains, the New York Police Department requires applicants to provide a “proper cause,” which amounts to demonstrating a special or heightened need. As arbitrarily enforced, this requirement prevents average citizens from obtaining a carry permit, which violates their fundamental right to bear arms outside the home … “Like the lawsuit against New Jersey’s carry ban we filed earlier this week, we are suing New York City over their unconstitutional ban that prevents typical, law-abiding people from carry loaded, operable handguns on their person in public places,” explained attorney Adam Kraut, FPC’s Director of Legal Strategy …”
The case is titled Greco v. City of New York.
According to an associate of mine the case is assigned to Judge Lewis Liman, who builds on family traditions. His father was Arthur Liman, the chief counsel to the Democrat-led Senate during the Iran-Contra investigations and hearings. Notwithstanding being a Trump appointee, his pedigree and political history including donations are all solidly Democrat. We should assume plaintiffs are trying to build their case for the Supreme Court since they should expect to make nothing but bad law at best until then.
Here are links to Justia and PacerMonitor for this case.
Newsbits
Tuesday’s Newsbits:
Elections:
Firearms Industry:
- Lawmakers: Investigate Remington layoffs
- Town built on guns ponders future after Remington plant sale
Jurisprudence:
- Fourth Circuit Asked to Strike Down Age Limit for Handguns
- Court ruling in Elma shooting suit shows gun retailers ‘not completely above the law’
Politics:
Newsbits
Tuesday’s Newsbits:
Armed Citizen:
Elections:
- Astorino & Harckham Slug It Out in Westchester’s Biggest 2020 Election
- Libertarian candidate for Assembly knocks SCOPE for ‘D’ rating
- Hunting and shooting sports on the ballot in 2020
Firearms Industry:
- Union says Remington is terminating the jobs of 585 workers in Ilion, refuses to pay severance
- Kimber Arms moving headquarters from New York to Troy, creating 366 Alabama jobs
Jurisprudence:
NRA:
Politics:
Gillibrand’s concerns about Barrett
Senator Gillibrand is not happy with the choice of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court:
“… Sen. Gillibrand said Judge Barrett, who was appointed to serve on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals by Mr. Trump in 2017, has expressed what the senator calls “concerning” views on a number of issues, including LGBTQ+ rights, environmental issues, gun rights and the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare …”
Gillibrand is too stupid to have formed opinions on her own. She’s just echoing talking points from the usual leftist pressure groups.
Barrett: I’ll view gun regulation with ‘open mind’
Newsbits
Tuesday’s Newsbits:
Elections:
- Sex Pistols’ Johnny Rotten says Trump ‘is the only sensible choice’ in 2020 election
- Supermajority in sight for State Senate Democrats as they dramatically outspend GOP
- Democrat Ahearn holds fundraising edge over Republican Palumbo in State Senate race
- Candidate for State Assembly District 106 discusses the issues with News10
- Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon launches bid to be Brooklyn’s first female Borough President
Jurisprudence: