{"id":18905,"date":"2019-04-22T12:16:17","date_gmt":"2019-04-22T16:16:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=18905"},"modified":"2019-04-22T12:16:17","modified_gmt":"2019-04-22T16:16:17","slug":"better-not-be-true","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=18905","title":{"rendered":"Better not be true"},"content":{"rendered":"

There is an ongoing controversy within the NRA<\/a> that I have not felt the need to comment on here as it does not relate to the purpose of this blog.<\/p>\n

Then there’s this<\/a>:<\/p>\n

“… I had a call out of the blue late this afternoon from a person on the NRA Board. It was off the record and not for attribution. This person thinks that the lawsuit<\/a> might be a smokescreen to protect the NRA from New York State<\/a>. It gives the impression that they are taking their fiduciary and financial duties seriously. As both the lawsuit notes and I mentioned above, the State of New York revised their statutes to require not-for-profits to do more due diligence and to pay more attention to where members and donors money is being spent. The rationale behind this being a smokescreen to protect the NRA is that, according to this person, the NRA had not been requiring any sort of invoices or other detailed record-keeping for services rendered in years gone by. In other words, Ack Mc<\/a> said here is how much we want and please send us a check. God forbid that they were that slack but I believe it.”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This better not be true.<\/p>\n