The NRA is a tax exempt organization
In 15 seconds or less..........how can the NRA claim they promote gun safety
And at the same time do everything possible to continue the use of these hand held weapons of mass destruction
To render any form of support to this perverted organization is tantamount to being a bookeeper in a Brothel
You are as guilty as any of these bastards
I've been wondering how to de-fund this organization. They are a trade promotion group which has a goal of selling the maximum amount of arms, which is not a tax exempt goal in my mind. I think you hit the right solution, at least for a start.
mrmaplewood said:
I've been wondering how to de-fund this organization. They are a trade promotion group which has a goal of selling the maximum amount of arms, which is not a tax exempt goal in my mind. I think you hit the right solution, at least for a start.
LOL. Given the current state of affairs in Washington we’re lucky they don’t defund the CPB and give the money to the NRA.
As long as they follow the law we can't stop them. Tax exempt status is irrelevant. What we have to do is make their money toxic. We need to publish their contributions to every candidate in every race and connect them to the shootings, or at least to the law passed last year easing the buying process for the mentally ill.
Some politicians are really cheap or is it despicable? They use their campaign funds to pay for their NRA memberships.
Imagine, getting money and other support from the NRA and then brazingly not spending their own money on their personal membership fees.
Two sitting U.S. senators and nine current members of the House have used campaign money to pay the cost of membership to the powerful gun rights lobby or its related entities since 2004, with the outlays ranging from $25 to $1,500, according to Federal Election Commission records. A Trump administration political appointee, John Fleming, was among nine former members of Congress whose campaign committees also paid for NRA membership. Fleming is an official at the Department of Health and Human Services.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article200403364.html
FilmCarp said:
As long as they follow the law we can't stop them. Tax exempt status is irrelevant. What we have to do is make their money toxic. We need to publish their contributions to every candidate in every race and connect them to the shootings, or at least to the law passed last year easing the buying process for the mentally ill.
There is some relevancy to their tax exempt status. Simple math. If they were forced to pay taxes, there
would be that much less monies available for their questionable activities. It would not break them.
But any effort to hamper their activities is worth pursuing
author, sounds like you have jumped on the-end-justifies-the-means train. IMHO, it is irrefutable that the NRA defends the 2nd amendment of the constitution. Another organization that defends the constituion is the ACLU. In the past,the ACLU has defended the 1st amendment rights of pornographers, such as Larry Flynt. It appears to me that the constitution is not intended to protect orthodox viewpoints in the case of free speech. And, with respect to the 2nd amendment, it appears that the intention of the constitution is not to protect target shooters but instead to allow individuals to have firearms, and other arms, for self defense and the right of revolution, or even the threat of revolution. The 2nd amendment is the right that guarantees every other right.
Your attempt/desire to deny the NRA not for profit status is likely based on the content of the NRA's speech (namely, defense of a broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment and support for the Heller case). In other words, you would like to limit the speech of the NRA (protected under the 1st amendment) in order to silence/hamper the NRA's speech about the 2nd amendment. The problem with adopting the principle of the-end-justifies-the-means is that others will also adopt this stance in order to gore your ox. You may want to rethink your support of the-end-justifies-the-means principle (as it is very undemocratic and contrary to the constitution). We have a process to amend the constitution (if you so desire, work towards repeal of the 2nd amendment). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment
author said:
FilmCarp said:
As long as they follow the law we can't stop them. Tax exempt status is irrelevant. What we have to do is make their money toxic. We need to publish their contributions to every candidate in every race and connect them to the shootings, or at least to the law passed last year easing the buying process for the mentally ill.
There is some relevancy to their tax exempt status. Simple math. If they were forced to pay taxes, there
would be that much less monies available for their questionable activities. It would not break them.
But any effort to hamper their activities is worth pursuing
You forgot to mention that the NRA is evil.
RealityForAll said:
author, sounds like you have jumped on the-end-justifies-the-means train. IMHO, it is irrefutable that the NRA defends the 2nd amendment of the constitution. Another organization that defends the constituion is the ACLU. In the past,the ACLU has defended the 1st amendment rights of pornographers, such as Larry Flynt. It appears to me that the constitution is not intended to protect orthodox viewpoints in the case of free speech. And, with respect to the 2nd amendment, it appears that the intention of the constitution is not to protect target shooters but instead to allow individuals to have firearms, and other arms, for self defense and the right of revolution, or even the threat of revolution. The 2nd amendment is the right that guarantees every other right.
Your attempt/desire to deny the NRA not for profit status is likely based on the content of the NRA's speech (namely, defense of a broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment and support for the Heller case). In other words, you would like to limit the speech of the NRA (protected under the 1st amendment) in order to silence/hamper the NRA's speech about the 2nd amendment. The problem with adopting the principle of the-end-justifies-the-means is that others will also adopt this stance in order to gore your ox. You may want to rethink your support of the-end-justifies-the-means principle (as it is very undemocratic and contrary to the constitution). We have a process to amend the constitution (if you so desire, work towards repeal of the 2nd amendment). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment
author said:
FilmCarp said:
As long as they follow the law we can't stop them. Tax exempt status is irrelevant. What we have to do is make their money toxic. We need to publish their contributions to every candidate in every race and connect them to the shootings, or at least to the law passed last year easing the buying process for the mentally ill.
There is some relevancy to their tax exempt status. Simple math. If they were forced to pay taxes, there
would be that much less monies available for their questionable activities. It would not break them.
But any effort to hamper their activities is worth pursuing
drummerboy said:
You forgot to mention that the NRA is evil.
RealityForAll said:
author, sounds like you have jumped on the-end-justifies-the-means train. IMHO, it is irrefutable that the NRA defends the 2nd amendment of the constitution. Another organization that defends the constituion is the ACLU. In the past,the ACLU has defended the 1st amendment rights of pornographers, such as Larry Flynt. It appears to me that the constitution is not intended to protect orthodox viewpoints in the case of free speech. And, with respect to the 2nd amendment, it appears that the intention of the constitution is not to protect target shooters but instead to allow individuals to have firearms, and other arms, for self defense and the right of revolution, or even the threat of revolution. The 2nd amendment is the right that guarantees every other right.
Your attempt/desire to deny the NRA not for profit status is likely based on the content of the NRA's speech (namely, defense of a broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment and support for the Heller case). In other words, you would like to limit the speech of the NRA (protected under the 1st amendment) in order to silence/hamper the NRA's speech about the 2nd amendment. The problem with adopting the principle of the-end-justifies-the-means is that others will also adopt this stance in order to gore your ox. You may want to rethink your support of the-end-justifies-the-means principle (as it is very undemocratic and contrary to the constitution). We have a process to amend the constitution (if you so desire, work towards repeal of the 2nd amendment). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment
author said:
FilmCarp said:
As long as they follow the law we can't stop them. Tax exempt status is irrelevant. What we have to do is make their money toxic. We need to publish their contributions to every candidate in every race and connect them to the shootings, or at least to the law passed last year easing the buying process for the mentally ill.
There is some relevancy to their tax exempt status. Simple math. If they were forced to pay taxes, there
would be that much less monies available for their questionable activities. It would not break them.
But any effort to hamper their activities is worth pursuing
That is a given
Not a lawyer or accountant, but isn't there a legal prohibition against tax-exempts participating in politics?
The real reason it should be denied tax-exempt status is because it is merely the lobbying arm of the gun industry.
My understanding is that the NRA is a 501(c)(4) with 501(c)(3) affiliates. My very simple understanding of the difference is as follows:
1. A 501(c)(4) is a not-for profit corporation ("NFP") but is NOT a charity or church; and
2. A 501(c)(3) is a NFP that IS a charity (or church).
I believe the ACLU has a similar structure. See https://www.aclupa.org/abouttheaclu/aclu-vs-aclu-foundation/
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Not a lawyer or accountant, but isn't there a legal prohibition against tax-exempts participating in politics?
RealityForAll said:
My understanding is that the NRA is a 501(c)(4) with 501(c)(3) affiliates. My very simple understanding of the difference is as follows:
1. A 501(c)(4) is a not-for profit corporation ("NFP") but is NOT a charity or church; and
2. A 501(c)(3) is a NFP that IS a charity (or church).
I believe the ACLU has a similar structure. See https://www.aclupa.org/abouttheaclu/aclu-vs-aclu-foundation/
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Not a lawyer or accountant, but isn't there a legal prohibition against tax-exempts participating in politics?
This response reminds me of this joke.
A man is flying in a hot air balloon when he realizes he is lost. He reduces his altitude and spots a man in a field below. He lowers the balloon toward the man and shouts to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I don’t know where I am.”
The man below says, “I’m happy to help. You are in a hot air balloon, hovering approximately 30 feet above this field. You are between 40 and 42 degrees N. latitude, and between 58 and 60 degrees W. longitude.”
After a brief pause, the balloonist declares: “You must be a lawyer.”
“I am” replies the man. “How did you know?”
“Well,” says the balloonist, “everything you have told me I am sure is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I am still lost.”
RealityForAll said:
My understanding is that the NRA is a 501(c)(4) with 501(c)(3) affiliates. My very simple understanding of the difference is as follows:
1. A 501(c)(4) is a not-for profit corporation ("NFP") but is NOT a charity or church; and
2. A 501(c)(3) is a NFP that IS a charity (or church).
I believe the ACLU has a similar structure. See https://www.aclupa.org/abouttheaclu/aclu-vs-aclu-foundation/
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Not a lawyer or accountant, but isn't there a legal prohibition against tax-exempts participating in politics?
501(c)(3)s are charitable organizations that act for a list of exempt purposes.
501(c)(4)s are social welfare organizations.
Understanding the NRA Organizations
See:
https://paddockpost.com/2017/03/10/understanding-the-nra-organizations/
by Anne Paddock
When most people think of the NRA they think of the National Rifle Association of America and the Second Amendment (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) but there are six separate non-profits that comprise the NRA:
- NRA (National Rifle Association of America): 501 (c)(4)
- NRA Foundation, Inc.: 501 (c)(3)
- NRA Freedom Action Foundation: 501 (c)(3)
- NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund: 501 (c)(3)
- NRA Special Contribution Fund: 501 (c) (3)
- NRA Political Victory Fund: PAC Section 527
NRA (National Rifle Association of America)
These are the big guns (no pun intended) – a 501 (c) (4) corporation at the heart of the NRA whose mission is to preserve the organization’s interpretation of the second amendment. They raised nearly $337 million in 2015 from three sources (annual membership at about $35 with a reported 5 million members), program services, and contributions and grants.
They have a 76 member board, of which 65 are males (86%) and 11 are women (14%).* The top 10 executives (all white males) with the highest compensation were paid more than $10 million in 2015. The NRA had $75 million in net fund assets at FYE 2015. Contributions to this non-profit are not tax-deductible because they engage in political activities.
NRA Foundation, Inc.
This 501 (c) (3) organization (a corporation) has 17 trustees, 13 of which are men (76%) and 4 are women (24%).* They accept contributions (which are tax-deductible). The NRA Foundation, Inc. awards grants to support firearm-related activities throughout the US for men, women, and children.
In 2015, they collected nearly $50 million ($35 million from fundraising and contributions and $15 million from gaming activities), awarded 2,900 grants totaling nearly $33 million (with the largest grant of $19 million to the NRA) and spent $13 million on advertising, promotion, management fees (no detail provided), office and administrative and other expenses. The remaining $4 million went into their fund balance which was offset by a $3 million unrealized loss on investments. At FYE 2015, the organization had $123 million in net fund assets.
NRA Freedom Action Foundation
The NRA Freedom Action Foundation is a corporation – a 501 (c) (3) – whose mission is to educate the public although they do not have employees, award grants, or conduct educational programs based on their 2015 IRS Form 990. Governed by 5 Directors (4 men and 1 woman), four of whom receive compensation from other affiliate organizations, the NRA Freedom Action Foundation raised $1.2 million in 2015 and spent less than $100,000 (primarily on advertising and promotion) which resulted in their net fund balance increasing to $2.8 million from $1.7 million the year before.
NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund
Formed as a trust, the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund is a 501 (c) (3) that provides legal assistance in cases that involve the Second Amendment and “the constitutional rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.” In 2015, the organization reported total revenue of $760,315 which is about $1 million less than the year before. Expenses were $673,266 (of which $129,095 were grants to organizations and $441,025 were grants to individuals – primarily 40 recipients for legal assistance) leaving $87,049 at year-end to add to the fund balance which had a net fund balance of $5.7 million. This organization appears to be funded based on the legal battles and grants in which the organization participates.
They have 10 voting members (9 are males, 1 is a woman) of the governing party.*
NRA Special Contribution Fund DBA Whittington Center
This 501 (c) (3) is a trust that provides education and training in firearms through the NRA Whittington Center near Raton, New Mexico. The governing party includes 14 members, all of whom are white men.* In 2015, this organization raised $4.4 million primarily from contributions, mineral rights, and program fees at the Whittington Center. They spent $3.6 million (not including depreciation) summarized as follows:
- $1.4 million: Salaries, Benefits
- $1.4 million: Whittington Center Supplies, Maintenance, Insurance
- $ .6 million: Advertising, Promotion, Fundraising
- $ .2 million: Office, IT, Travel, Interest, etc.
At year-end 2015, the NRA Special Contribution Fund DBA Whittington Center had $11.4 million.
NRA Political Victory Fund
This organization is a non-profit exempt under Code Section 527 and files an IRS Form 1120-POL which is not made publicly available. However, as reluctant as this organization is to reveal its financial information (I went back and forth with them requesting financial and tax information and they were less than cooperative). Undeterred, the information can be found on-line through www.opensecrets.org – a website that lists the most recent financial information available (every donor that contributed over $200 and all the recipients).
According to Open Secrets, the NRA Political Victory Fund reported $21.6 million in total revenue in 2016 and spent $22.5 million (with Starboard Strategic – a private lobbying shop firm in Reston, Virginia – the largest recipient – at $13.4 million), leaving $2.5 million on hand. No debts are reported as of year-end 2016. 98% of their contributions went to Republicans while 2% went to Democrats. Click here to read the financial information , list of donors, and recipients.
In summary, the NRA is primarily the membership non-profit organization that raised more than $335 million in 2015. Because they are a 501 (c) (4), there are other affiliated organizations that carry out 5 key functions:
- NRA Foundation, Inc.: makes donations to thousands of organizations involved in firearms
- NRA Freedom Action Foundation: conducts educational programs (most funds were not spent in 2015)
- NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund: provides legal assistance
- NRA Special Contribution Fund DBA Whittington Center: provides education and training
- NRA Political Victory Fund: makes political contributions to candidates supporting the NRA agenda
*Based on the IRS Form 990 2015
Steve said:
RealityForAll said:
My understanding is that the NRA is a 501(c)(4) with 501(c)(3) affiliates. My very simple understanding of the difference is as follows:
1. A 501(c)(4) is a not-for profit corporation ("NFP") but is NOT a charity or church; and
2. A 501(c)(3) is a NFP that IS a charity (or church).
I believe the ACLU has a similar structure. See https://www.aclupa.org/abouttheaclu/aclu-vs-aclu-foundation/
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Not a lawyer or accountant, but isn't there a legal prohibition against tax-exempts participating in politics?
Incorrect. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-section-501c3-organizations
501(c)(3)s are charitable organizations that act for a list of exempt purposes.
501(c)(4)s are social welfare organizations.
The NRA's tax status is the least of its problems. It's a gun-manufacturer lobbying group dressed up as a protector of the 2nd Amendment.
Steve, I think we are saying the same thing different ways.
I agree that 501(c)(3) organizations are supposed to act for exempt purposes. However, the primary (or most common 501(c)(3) organizations that come to my mind are churches and charities, both public and private). Whereas, 501(c)(4) organizations frequently will not qualify for section 501(c)(3) status because a substantial part of their activities is attempting to influence legislation (AKA lobbying). "A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status." See https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying
Thus, 501(c)(4) organizations are not-for-profit organizations that do not qualify as 501(c)(3) organizations (because the 501(c)(4) does not perform the exempt purposes set forth in 501(c)(3), usually church or charity, or the organization does significant lobbying). As mentioned earlier, the ACLU has a similar structure.
Steve said:
RealityForAll said:
My understanding is that the NRA is a 501(c)(4) with 501(c)(3) affiliates. My very simple understanding of the difference is as follows:
1. A 501(c)(4) is a not-for profit corporation ("NFP") but is NOT a charity or church; and
2. A 501(c)(3) is a NFP that IS a charity (or church).
I believe the ACLU has a similar structure. See https://www.aclupa.org/abouttheaclu/aclu-vs-aclu-foundation/
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Not a lawyer or accountant, but isn't there a legal prohibition against tax-exempts participating in politics?
Incorrect. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-section-501c3-organizations
501(c)(3)s are charitable organizations that act for a list of exempt purposes.
501(c)(4)s are social welfare organizations.
Yes, you are correct - we do agree. I think that I focused too much on your reference to churches and 501(c)(3)s.
dave23 said:
The NRA's tax status is the least of its problems. It's a gun-manufacturer lobbying group dressed up as a protector of the 2nd Amendment.
it's this.
to compare the NRA to the ACLU is overlooking the very important aspect that only one of these two groups represents a for-profit industry.
while the NRA's mission is to promote the 2nd Amendment, it also pursues a lot of policies that aren't aimed at preserving rights as much as they are aimed at selling a lot more product.
ml1 said:
dave23 said:
The NRA's tax status is the least of its problems. It's a gun-manufacturer lobbying group dressed up as a protector of the 2nd Amendment.
it's this.
to compare the NRA to the ACLU is overlooking the very important aspect that only one of these two groups represents a for-profit industry.
while the NRA's mission is to promote the 2nd Amendment, it also pursues a lot of policies that aren't aimed at preserving rights as much as they are aimed at selling a lot more product.
The NRA used to be much more moderate and did not proclaim military weaponry as being covered by the 2nd Amendment. Only when the industry recognized the market opportunity did their interpretation expand.
It's actually just an extension of the Republican Party. Kinda like Fox News.
Steve said:
The real reason it should be denied tax-exempt status is because it is merely the lobbying arm of the gun industry.
also, if you care about stuff like this, the following companies give discounts based on NRA membership. Except, starting today, that Omaha bank that's crossed out.
author,
Have you ever considered joining the NRA, and getting a few million like-minded friends to do so with you.
It's a membership organization, and the members select the governing board; the board which decides which policies to pursue, and how.
Just food for thought.
TomR
RealityForAll said:
And, with respect to the 2nd amendment, it appears that the intention of the constitution is not to protect target shooters but instead to allow individuals to have firearms, and other arms, for self defense and the right of revolution, or even the threat of revolution.
Where do you get that from?
They made it up.
tom said:
RealityForAll said:
And, with respect to the 2nd amendment, it appears that the intention of the constitution is not to protect target shooters but instead to allow individuals to have firearms, and other arms, for self defense and the right of revolution, or even the threat of revolution.
Where do you get that from?
here's a great article on how and why we became a nation of gun nuts in the last 20 years
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-america-became-obsessed-with-guns-2016-7
Tom_R said:
author,
Have you ever considered joining the NRA, and getting a few million like-minded friends to do so with you.
It's a membership organization, and the members select the governing board; the board which decides which policies to pursue, and how.
Just food for thought.
TomR
Tom R............If I had a few million like minded friends the possibilities are almost scary
Blood on their hands and they continue to avoid paying taxes