Category: Born again Cynic!

The UN’s Circle of Life

The United Nation’s Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its Aspects (PoA) is now almost 23 years old. With a lack of any meaningful measurables and reporting remaining steady at around 50%, it should come as no surprise to anyone that follows the logic of the United Nations (UN) that expansion, not compliance, remains its priority.

That drive to expand was on full display during the PoA’s Fourth Review Conference, which concluded on June 28^th after two full weeks of negotiations. As the only American firearms user group attending in a sea of anti-firearm nations and Non-Governmental Associations (NGOs), the NRA fought fiercely to stem the PoA’s growth and preserve the rights of American firearms and ammunition users against increased international standards meant to destroy those very rights afforded to us by our Second Amendment.

The arguments for expansion this year mirrored many of those from the past, especially in regard to including international regulations on ammunition under the PoA’s terms, synergizing its language with that of other legally binding UN instruments such as the Arms Trade Treaty and Firearms Protocol and establishing international regulations over personally manufactured firearms, or as the UN calls them, craft-built weapons.

There were also call to expand the PoA into new areas, such as the environment, technology, and gender dominions. The most notable of these were calls for the creation of an Open-Ended Technical Expert Group to study and develop international regulations and oversight on what the UN considers “new technologies” (polymers, modular weapons, and 3D printing), as well as the inclusion of language calling for the exploration of the relationship between firearms, “masculinities” and “genders in all their diversity.”

The justification for expansion of the PoA is transparent, as the inclusion of new language and regulations not only hamper the ability of civilians to use and possess firearms, but also allow for the PoA to continue to exist. It is hard to debate against the continuation of a body that has shown no real impact on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, or that only 50% of its members even bother to report to; however, if one can show continued growth an argument can be made that life still exists. Accordingly, expanding into ammunition, creating a new technical group, and arguing that firearms have a disproportionate impact on diverse genders ultimately creates a case for increasingly tailored interventions by the UN. This in turn calls for the expenditure of funds on more regional meetings in developing countries and fundraising opportunities for NGOs to continue producing junk-based academic “studies.” It’s the financial lifeblood of many, and the circle of life in general at the UN.

Fortunately, by the end of two-weeks of negotiations, and considerable efforts working friendly delegations, most of these calls for expansion were either removed from consideration entirely or watered down with limiting language leaving them barren of any real-world implications. In particular, the multiple references to international ammunition regulations included in the initial draft of the outcome document were watered down to a single paragraph that accomplishes nothing more than recognizing the existence of the Global Framework for Through-Life Conventional Ammunition Management. In addition, any regulations pertaining to private manufacturing were edited to include limiting language pertaining only to those manufactured illegally under national laws.

Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. the Open-Ended Technical Expert Group was established, and membership was limited to governments and invited “experts” only. The Group will also meet informally, which in UN parlance means that unless invited, we will be unable to attend. It is no surprise that this is the format agreed to, as it has always been the goal of the UN to exclude any real experts that could dispel their ideological views and instead fill their seats with anti-firearm academics that feed off the questionable science of their colleagues. Again, it’s the UN’s circle of life.

The next meeting of the PoA will be in the early summer of 2026, during which the Open-Ended Technical Expert Group will hold their first meeting. Until such time, we will be working to find a seat at the table so that we can continue to fight the UN from interfering with our national sovereignty.

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic!

The N.R.A. Is Facing a Court Fight for Control of Its Future

Post author By Grumpy
Post date July 14, 2024
No Comments on The N.R.A. Is Facing a Court Fight for Control of Its Future

Five months after the longtime face of the gun rights movement, Wayne LaPierre, was found liable for misspending $5.4 million of the National Rifle Association’s money, the gun group’s leadership will return next week to a Manhattan courtroom.

For the N.R.A. itself, the stakes this time will be far higher.

Mr. LaPierre stepped down as the group’s chief executive in January, on the eve of the first phase of the trial, which featured testimony about years of lavish spending and executive perks, including Zegna suits, superyacht junkets, charter flights and vacations in the Bahamas. The jury’s verdict was a victory for New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, who brought the corruption case.

But the N.R.A. itself was not then a defendant. In the second phase, scheduled to begin on Monday in State Supreme Court, a judge will decide whether the group needs outside monitoring, a step that would curb its independence, at least temporarily, and that it stridently opposes.

For decades, the N.R.A. was at the forefront of a movement that repeatedly beat back gun control legislation while vastly expanding the scope of the right to bear arms. But this new challenge comes as the group’s influence within the gun rights movement has waned, along with its standing as a power player in Republican politics.

A recent court filing underlined how wounded the N.R.A. has been by a half decade of scandal. Its membership fell below 4 million last year, from nearly 5.3 million in 2018. Annual dues and contributions have fallen by far more than half over the same period, from $281 million to roughly $115 million.

“Ironically, a monitor might help the N.R.A. right the ship,” said Nick Suplina, a former senior adviser and special counsel at the attorney general’s office who now works for the gun control group Everytown. “Basically the same leadership circle isn’t going to be the path to them digging out of the hole.”

In May, the group’s annual conference saw an actual contest for its top posts, a rare occurrence, but insiders ultimately emerged. Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia and an N.R.A. stalwart, was elected board president, while Doug Hamlin, a little-known figure who ran the organization’s publications division, was the surprise choice for chief executive. Both are scheduled to be witnesses during the court proceedings.

Some good news for the N.R.A. followed the annual conference. In late May, the Supreme Court sided with the group, finding that the N.R.A. could pursue a First Amendment claim against a New York state official who had urged companies to cut ties with it after the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Fla.

Now it says it has spent nearly six years reforming its corporate governance on its own and does not need outside oversight.

“Every witness with personal knowledge of the internal workings of the association today concurs that further state intrusion poses a grave, needless threat to the N.R.A.’s recovery,” the association said in a recent legal filing, adding that the first part of the trial had aired events from its “distant past.”

Ms. James disagrees, and her office sees little reason to let up, having largely prevailed in the trial so far. She and her legal team are seeking the appointment of a compliance monitor for three years who would oversee the N.R.A.’s spending, assess its governance practices and determine whether it is following nonprofit law.

Ms. James’s office argues in court filings that “the N.R.A. did not voluntarily self-disclose its misconduct,” adding that “any attempts” to overhaul its corporate governance were “reactive” and only took place after the attorney general’s office warned it to “essentially get its house in order, and after the media began publishing investigative reports about financial misconduct.”

Her office said it would “introduce evidence concerning the nascent, untested and incomplete nature of the N.R.A.’s new compliance program.” The judge in the case, Joel M. Cohen, will rule from the bench in the second phase of the trial, which is expected to last two weeks. (New York has special jurisdiction over the N.R.A., since it was founded as a nonprofit in the state more than 150 years ago.)

The N.R.A.’s lead counsel, William A. Brewer III, acknowledged in a statement that “there was misconduct by former vendors and insiders” but said there was “no evidence it continues today. Not a shred.” Court filings show that the group is spending between $1,150 and $1,500 an hour for the consulting and testimony of Daniel L. Kurtz, who once ran the attorney general’s charities bureau, which oversees the N.R.A.

In a filing, Mr. Kurtz lauded “the N.R.A.’s willingness to self-examine and course correct,” adding that “if some few million dollars went ‘sideways,’ more than a billion dollars were devoted to N.R.A. causes and activities.”

The N.R.A. is not the only defendant. This week, Wilson Phillips, the former chief financial officer, sidestepped a role in the trial by agreeing to a 10-year ban on managing money for New York nonprofits. He had been ordered to repay $2 million in the first phase. A third official, John Frazer, is also a defendant. He was recently removed by the new leadership as general counsel but still serves as corporate secretary.

Mr. LaPierre will also be back in court. In addition to the financial judgment, Ms. James is seeking to bar him from any future fiduciary role at the N.R.A.

Mr. LaPierre’s attorney, P. Kent Correll, argues in legal filings that banning Mr. LaPierre would essentially mean “censoring, deplatforming and canceling him” and “excluding him from the national arena in which the debate over gun policy and legislation occurs.”

As an exhibit, Mr. Correll appended a seven-page passage from Alexis de Tocqueville, the 19th-century Frenchman who was a keen observer of the United States. (“In our time, freedom of association has become a necessary guarantee against the tyranny of the majority,” read part of the quotation.)

The N.R.A. alienated many of its own supporters in the late stages of the LaPierre era, and recent leadership changes notwithstanding, it remains restive and fractious. One dissident board member, Phillip Journey, is seeking to intervene in the case, and said in a recent note to the judge that he wanted some other board members removed “who actively aided and abetted the looting of N.R.A. assets.”

Mr. Journey is not in lock step with the attorney general’s office, but is among the insiders exasperated by the N.R.A.’s governance. As he has put it: “We don’t need a financial monitor, N.R.A. needs a hall monitor.”

The post The N.R.A. Is Facing a Court Fight for Control of Its Future appeared first on New York Times.

Born again Cynic! Well I thought it was funny!

The last time we saw Old Thomas in one piece

Post author By Grumpy
Post date June 30, 2024
No Comments on The last time we saw Old Thomas in one piece

Born again Cynic!

Is the NFA a Dead Law Walking? By Jennifer Sensiba

Post author By Grumpy
Post date June 26, 2024
No Comments on Is the NFA a Dead Law Walking? By Jennifer Sensiba

When the NYSRPA v Bruen decision was first released, a justifiably skeptical gun world didn’t get too excited too fast. But, from the first time I read it, it became clear that gun control was in deep trouble. Those of us who have been in this fight for decades in one form or another still largely adopted a “wait and see” approach, because we’re used to things not panning out like we’d hope (even while the gun rights movement has had great success in the past couple of decades). Broken promises will do that to you.

But, now we’re seeing the opinion’s effects on subsequent cases, and almost no good for the gun control crowd is coming from it. Obvious things, like “may issue” concealed carry went first, followed by many other relatively small infringements. Age restrictions for young adults, carrying in post offices and the “sensitive places” argument are all having a tough time in court.

The big pillars of gun control are still intact, though, and the biggest pillar is the National Firearms Act of 1934. Under Franklin D. Roosevelt, the NFA was basically gun control’s beachhead in the United States. The $200 tax on several types of guns was a direct assault on working America’s gun rights, and was driven by corporate America’s fear of armed workers after things like the West Virginia Coal Wars. A big company could afford the tax and could turn their guns on striking workers, as could mobsters. But, the working man was priced out of the market and left at a disadvantage.

The NFA also acted as a cornerstone upon which other gun control could be built. Cases supporting the law came from corrupt courts, and then we got more gun control in the 1960s (including the 1968 Gun Control Act or GCA), and then more in the following decades. By the 1990s, Americans were starting to wise up and see that there was no end to the agenda, and started fighting back, and it took decades to unwind most of it.

Now, we’re facing the old GCA and NFA. The question we face now is this: will Bruen be enough to take them down? A video from Washington Gun Law last month gives us some clues about the fight ahead.

One of the big things that propped up the National Firearms Act and many subsequent federal gun control laws was the Interstate Commerce Clause, which was (wrongfully, IMHO) expanded by the FDR-Era Wickard v Filburn decision. Instead of trying to keep interstate commerce regular (in the Metamucil sense and not the “ban it” sense), FDR’s New Deal agenda wanted federal control over everything, and the court (under threat of court packing) gave him what he wanted by saying even things that compete with interstate commerce in a state are considered interstate commerce.

This reliance on interstate commerce to justify these laws still doesn’t address other issues, such as the glaring problem of the Second Amendment denying the federal government power over guns, even in interstate commerce. But, now we’re starting to see these questions head back to court in the post-Bruen landscape.

The State of Texas decided to take this on, both with a law and with court action against the federal government. After a lower court dismissed Texas’ attempt to stop federal overreach on interstate commerce grounds, it’s now in the Fifth Circuit and could possibly wind its way all the way up to the Supreme Court.

In short, Texas and others joining it in its case says that suppressors being built in the state and stay in the state aren’t part of interstate commerce, and that the federal government cannot regulate firearms anyway, as there’s no historical tradition from the founding era to show that this was common practice as understood by the ratifiers.

There’s a lot more to this story that makes it worth your time to watch the video (especially the public health angle), but it’s hard to overstate the possible importance of this case. It could not only lead to better respect for gun rights, but a reduction of federal overreach in many other areas based on an expansive view of interstate commerce.

Born again Cynic! Grumpy's hall of Shame You have to be kidding, right!?!