In evaluating where to post this thought, I found it amusing--most of our non technical threads, if you read enough pages, are quite the stream-of-consciousness, no matter what their title, they're all Off Topic.
Thought of posting a new one, but couldn't muster up enough of a sense of importance, although the topic of this post is huge, speaking from a political landscape.
New York Attorney General Letitia James announced Thursday that her office has filed a lawsuit against the National Rifle Association and its leadership, including Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, looking to dissolve the organization.
www.foxnews.com
A New York attorney general is seeking to 'dissolve' the NRA (National Rifle Association, one of the most powerful political associations in the US and practically the formal embodiment of conservative-interpreted 2nd Amendment rights), for various reasons, seems like she is going to focus on making the accusation that the NRA has basically failed its fiduciary duty, so to speak, to its own members. A somewhat painful irony, since I think it's very safe to assume this A.G., as a matter of personal viewpoint, probably despises their very existence, and certainly isn't concerned about how well they do or don't serve their members.
I've forgotten some of what I learned in my "half-done" law school, but one thing that stood out to me was the remedy she is seeking vs. her standing as a plaintiff. What I remember are just general principles, and I have no idea how they will or won't apply here, but: I assume that as a plaintiff in this case, the remedy she seeks to be forced on the defendant couldn't be something that exceeds that remedy which is necessary to remediate the harm being inflicted upon New York residents. (I may be wrong in what the purvue of a state A.G. is, but there has to be at least some loose connection required with their state).
Which means that it seems the judge, even finding for the plaintiff on matters of facts and law, wouldn't allow the remedy to be anything exceeding the prohibition of the NRA to essentially "do business" in the state of New York.
Either way, this is huge. From Trump tax records to the NRA, these ambitious NY AG's really get around!
I would guess that unless she already knows this will go before an extremely sympathetic and activist judge, she's not going to get
that lucky. The very premise of going after a charitable organization for failure to deliver [what, charity?] to its members seems a bit too off. However, IF the statement she made about charitable organizations not being allowed to be political, "period"....then that's more persuasive. I still can't imagine a shut down actually being ordered, when various other remedies haven't been tried...Anyway, the NRA's coffers are reputedly huge, so I expect she already knows this will be somewhat like shooting a 22 at a grizzly. Irritate them & keep them busy!
