This past weekend was essentially consumed by the parsing, interpreting, and spinning of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ numerous wins against the National Rifle Association and three former/current corporate officers.
After a six-week trial and a week of reportedly contentious deliberations, the jury found that, as alleged in the NY AG’s case, longtime NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre and former treasure and CFO Wilson “Woody” Philips were both guilty of improperly spending millions in NRA funds. Current corporate secretary and general counsel John Frazer was also found to have failed to fulfill his statutory duties, but not to a level sufficient them to remove him from his job.
The jury also found the National Rifle Association had — as an organization — failed to properly run its nonprofit and responsibly manage its assets from the time period alleged in the charges, March 20, 2014 through May 2, 2022.
Much has already been said, written, and opined about the verdict, but one truth that has stood up under rigorous scrutiny: the National Rifle Association Board effectively did nothing as the organization devolved from an effective Second Amendment-focused civil-rights organization into a tiny kingdom ruled by a group of insiders.
What’s done is done. What remains to be seen is what differences the verdict makes in how the NRA operates going forward. The wild card won’t be the actions of remaining board insiders or those who are pushing for reforms. They’ve been fighting for years.
The jury’s findings now dictate a bench trial before Judge Joel Cohen. That’s where he will unilaterally determine if the appointment of a special master is required to assure that the NRA doesn’t repeat its past offenses. He’ll also determine if the individual defendants will be banned from all future roles with the NRA (or any other New York not-for-profit).
Judge Cohen’s rulings from the bench could come as early as July.
Longtime NRA board member Owen “Buz” Mills isn’t holding back in his reaction to the New York verdict.
He told me, “I’m glad to see phase one of the trial concluded. I am a longtime witness and in-house critic, and I am not at all surprised to see the jury conclude that we – the NRA board of directors – are guilty of ‘failure to properly safeguard its charitable assets and failed to protect whistleblowers.’”
“In my opinion,” Mills continued, “this was the most serious charge. The court is looking at mid-summer before it can enjoin phase two, the remedy portion of the trial. The judge will impose fines, sanctions, and rule on whether the NRA has stepped up to the plate and purged all the shifty players and decided to pursue business in accordance with its charter.”
The New York AG, Mills says, “wants to see funds returned to the NRA and the court essentially assuming control of the Association.”
That suggested remedy, Mills says, doesn’t line up with the NRA’s own report to the board. It, he says, “claims they won this trial. They’ve done this before, too. Reality is, our legal team has yet to put any score on the board.”
“Reality is,” he says, “the management that has been in place since the Frankel debacle (2003), sweeping bad behavior under the rug is racing ahead with business as usual, totally missing the opportunity to show the court we can manage ourselves as adults.”
The NRA, as Mills pointed out, “isn’t the first organization to suffer these ills. Several have purged bad leadership/management, rectified their behavior, and gone forward to honorably serve their members.”
But, he concluded, “TRUST – once spurned -is difficult to earn again.”
Mills is one of the few current or former board members who has spoken publicly. But he’s not the only public figure pulling for the NRA to straighten up and reengage.
Alan Gottlieb, founder and longtime head of the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is pulling for the NRA to get back to work.
“I hope the NRA powers-to-be get back on track as soon as possible,” he told me, “This is a very important election year.” But, he also cautions, “This is why gun owners should not put all their eggs in one basket. We need a gun rights movement based on multiple organizations.”
The ban followed the attack on concert goers in Las Vegas that left 60 people dead and over 400 wounded. The shooter used a number of bump stocks to increase his rate of fire into the crowd. In response, the ATF reclassified bump stocks as machine guns.
After being forced to surrender his bump stock, Michael Cargill sued, claiming the ATF didn’t have the authority to ban bump stocks. He lost, but appealed and lost again before a Fifth Circuit panel. He then asked the entire Fifth Circuit to hear the case. The Fifth reversed the panel’s verdict, finding Cargill’s assertion correct.
In response the government asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing in their brief that, “The court has long recognized that courts should avoid reading statutes in a manner that provides ready evasion of their provisions,” arguing the Fifth Circuit’s decision “invites such evasion.”
Cargill’s attorneys counter that argument with the position that while a bump stock can accelerate the rate of fire, they still require the trigger to be actuated by the shooter for every shot. “A bump stock accelerates firing by causing repeated ‘functions’ of the trigger to occur in rapid succession; it does not produce multiple shots in response to a ‘single function’ of the trigger.”
Cargill also argues that even if the bump stock did allow a semiautomatic rifle to fire more than one shot with one pull of the trigger, the function doesn’t happen automatically.
We’ll be listening to the arguments on Thursday…and we’ll keep you posted.
“On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments from the Biden administration making the case that the government’s 2017 ban on bump stocks is legal and should be upheld.”
If the SCotUS rules (as we hope) that government regulatory agencies can’t create law out of thin air to please their political masters, and shuts down their ability to do so in the future, I have a question for the SNW legal corps-
What about their past decrees, like the one that arbitrarily declared the consumable part of a registered suppressor ‘wipe’ can to be suppressor parts all on their own, keeping owners of those registered devices from making their own replacements?
How retroactive will that ruling be, if at all? Inquiring minds would like to know…
My guess would be that each would have to be challenged as being counter to the new ruling, just like any other ruling. Bruen didn’t eliminate NFA, GCA, or any other gun control law – they have to be challenged. That takes time and money.
But, it’s a foot in the door, another nail in the coffin for Chevron Deference, assuming SCOTUS rules in favor of Mr. Cargill. The problem the ATF has (IMHO) is how they changed their stance over time. While ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating the law, if a regulatory agency can effectively alter the scope of a law by fiat, the citizen is harmed. Note, Chevron was also a civil suit, whereas NFA violations (possessions of unregistered MGs) are a felony.
“After a six-week trial and a week of reportedly contentious deliberations, the jury found that, as alleged in the NY AG’s case, longtime NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre and former treasure and CFO Wilson “Woody” Philips were both guilty of improperly spending millions in NRA funds. ”
No, the jury did not find that “LaPierre and former treasure and CFO Wilson “Woody” Philips were both guilty of improperly spending millions in NRA funds”.
This was a civil case. They were found ‘liable’.
In Letitia James press release she even says it with “Following the jury determination of liability…”
Guilty refers to being responsible for committing an offense, while liable means being legally responsible for something such as a debt or obligation.
The burden of proof is higher for guilty than for liable. For ‘guilty’ there is a ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, while liable only requires a preponderance of the evidence.
If there had been enough evidence of a offense for ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ this would have been a criminal trial and it wasn’t.
So this was in effect an expensive cost to tax payers, more than $33,000,000.00 expended by the state, to basically tell LaPierre (and the others) ‘ya gotta pay the money back’ just like a civil case against anyone that would, for example, be told by a liability judgement they need to pay back a loan they failed to pay and happens hundreds of times in court around the country every week.
“We’ll be listening to the arguments on Thursday”
The arguments were scheduled for the 28 Feb 2024 which is Wednesday. According to > https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/garland-v-cargill/>
“SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, February 28, 2024”
If you will be “listening to the arguments on Thursday” you will have missed it.
In other *Breaking* court news, Aug 6, 2024 is the trial date for Alec Baldwin, the POS literal lady-killer, according to Andrew Branca, firearm attorney on his YouTube channel covering the ‘Rust’ trial for the armorer…