Under financial attack, NRA might "be unable to exist"

A

Adrian

New member
The NRA is suing the State of New York for a (so far, meaningfully successful) campaign to cut them off from insurance and other financial services.

From a 2018-07-20 filing in New York court:

The foundation of Defendants’ selective-enforcement and retaliation campaign is a series of threats to financial institutions that DFS, an agency created to ensure the integrity of financial markets after the 2008 credit crisis, will exercise its extensive regulatory power against those entities that fail to sever ties with the NRA. To effect their sweeping agenda, Defendants issued public demands that put DFS-regulated institutions on notice to “discontinue[] their arrangements with the NRA” and other “gun promotion organizations” if they planned to do business in New York.

At the same time, Defendants engaged in back-channel communications to reinforce their intended purpose. Simply put, Defendants made it clear to banks and insurers that it is bad business in New York to do business with the NRA.
Click to expand...

The implications are clear:

The NRA has suffered tens of millions of dollars in damages based on Defendants’ conduct described above. Such damages include, without limitation, damages due to reputational harm, increased development and marketing costs for any potential new NRA-endorsed insurance programs, and lost royalty amounts owed to the NRA, as well as attorneys’ fees, legal expenses, and other costs.

If the NRA is unable to collect donations from its members, safeguard the assets endowed to it, apply its funds to cover media buys and other expenses integral to its political speech, and obtain basic corporate insurance coverage, it will be unable to exist as a not-for-profit or pursue its advocacy mission. Defendants seek to silence one of America’s oldest constitutional rights advocates. If their abuses are not enjoined, they will soon, substantially, succeed.
Click to expand...

Original court filing
Rolling Stone coverage and summary

The usual suspects seem to be rejoicing at the idea that the NRA is on its last desperate legs, but I'm pretty sure the organization has quite a bit more fight in it. We've seen this before - money may or may not be speech per se, but regardless of your stance on Citizens United, it does seem to be required for speech these days (at least on the national scale).

That said, when an insurance company says they're unwilling to cover the NRA’s General Liability, Umbrella, and Media Liability coverage at any price (despite the NRA's favorable claims history), you know there are some long knives out in the back rooms.

What do you think?
 
The enemies of freedom never sleep and the tactics of attacking us via social media, blackmailing businesses and engaging large groups of useful idiots seem as if they may be working. They can not defeat us in the judiciary or the Federal Legislature, so they have to look for more sneaky sinister ways to accomplish their overall goals. I suspect the majority of Americans most likely support 2A Freedom in theory, but the demonization and shaming of gun owners may make it less and less likely that they will actually support us in these fights.
 
They were also crowing recently about the reduction in youth going into hunting as evidence the gun culture is on the decline. These people have rather simple brains and can't wrap their minds around the fact that gun ownership is growing and the shift it towards weapons for self defense and not hunting as the demographic shift takes people off the farms and fields and concentrates them in the cities where there are not the same opportunities to hunt that once existed in the U.S.
 
The NRA's history of hyperbole may well come back to bite them, if this happens to be true.

The boy who cried wolf.... the sky is falling... and all that.
 
Is it me or do the lower courts somewhat follow the supreme court? It seems that over the last few years, the lower courts have viciously been anti-2A. Now, over the last few weeks, some lower courts have given the 2nd A more credit.

I know our current President has been several positions at the lower levels as well but does anyone here think that with a more conservative supreme, the lowers will be more cautious, not wanting their rulings overturned?

Expanding on this post but I am including it here. If the above is true, then maybe NY judges might not be so quick to stick their necks out.
 
The NRA is just making the case that they’ve been harmed by this action as clearly as the can. That’s an essential element to the lawsuit. NRA could end up making substantial money off of New York.
 
So, is the basis for the suit that the State of NY is using the power & influence of the government to coerce one private businesses not to do business with another private entity? At the very least this seems wrong, but is it illegal?
 
BarryLee said:
So, is the basis for the suit that the State of NY is using the power & influence of the government to coerce one private businesses not to do business with another private entity? At the very least this seems wrong, but is it illegal?
Click to expand...
I can't speak for other states, but it certainly is in AR. We call it "tortious interference with a contract."
 
Banks are only "sort of" private businesses. They need a license, either from a state or from the federal government, in order to operate. The State of New York was essentially threatening banks with revocation or non-renewal of their licenses if they didn't cut off the NRA. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that goes a bit beyond tortious interference. That looks a lot more like blackmail, conspiracy, and deprivation of rights under color of law.
 
In another forum, someone pointed out that the last time Cuomo and his Chicago buddy Richard Daley did something like this (suing gunmakers for anything and everything they could think of, back in the early 2000s), we eventually got the Protection in Legal Commerce of Arms Act... but not before we got the Smith & Wesson Lock Hole.

If nothing else, Cuomo's persistent. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out this time.
 
Sounds like illegal restraint of trade at a minimum and conspiracy to extort restraint of trade at best; basically a form of racketeering, only it won't be called that if a branch of government does it.
 
I don't know about licenses, but certain (unconfirmed) sources have said that certain individuals in the NY government "hinted" at various banks & insurance company's losing their NY business if they didn't drop their business dealings with the NRA.

We don't yet know (and may never know) if there is evidence to support these claims, but if there is, then I think a crime has been committed, and it may take a lawsuit to uncover actionable evidence for criminal prosecution.

On the other hand, NY prosecutors and NY judges do all work for NY state, so...the real truth may never see the light of day in a courtroom...

Too soon to say, just yet...
 
This is what bad karma gets you.

NRA and republicans were jumping for joy when Georgia was blocking legislation on Delta Airlines simply because they didn't want to be involved in the NRAs politics (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-will-block-legislation-favoring-airline.html)

Now the NRA is up in arms that the left is doing similar things? Give me a break. Reap what you sew.

America's whole political climate right now is its only bad if its the other side. It was OK when it was delta but now its not ok when the tide has turned?
 
This is what bad karma gets you.

NRA and republicans were jumping for joy when Georgia was blocking legislation on Delta Airlines simply because they didn't want to be involved in the NRAs politics (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...g-airline.html)

Now the NRA is up in arms that the left is doing similar things? Give me a break. Reap what you sew.

America's whole political climate right now is its only bad if its the other side. It was OK when it was delta but now its not ok when the tide has turned?
Click to expand...

That is a fair example of what I frequently say... it is ok as long as my side is doing it but not ok for your side to do it. I personally believed the GA legislature was being hyper-political and should not have even debated that action, but that's just my opinion.

But... that's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. Georgia was considering ending a tax break to Delta over it pulling out from the NRA. It has been suggested that New York is threatening to pull state business licenses from any company that does business with the NRA. The NRA has to have a banking institution. New York is trying to tell any bank that they better not serve NRA or they will "not do business in New York anymore." There is a great deal of difference. Georgia was threatening to end tax breaks. New York was threatening to yank a private organization's business license if they do business with another private organization. The exact definition for fascism is elusive, but almost all attempts would include this action as fascist.
 
Is there a NYS state code for pulling licenses? Or is it an executive decision?

An executive can decide whom he or she wants to do business with, I might think. Arbitrarily banning someone is different. Suggesting you don't do business is another.

We need more legal opinion.
 
Is there a NYS state code for pulling licenses? Or is it an executive decision?

An executive can decide whom he or she wants to do business with, I might think. Arbitrarily banning someone is different. Suggesting you don't do business is another.

We need more legal opinion.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Regardless of technical legality it is still a government entity strong arming one private organization to sever any business ties to another private organization because they don't like them exercising their first amendment rights to advocate for the 2nd amendment right.

I doubt any consequence would come of it if New York threatened to end tax breaks to businesses associated with the NRA. Tax breaks are given arbitrarily anyway. Business licenses usually are not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top