The New York State Attorney’s lawsuit against the National Rifle Association is not just a “witch hunt,” a New York judge ruled on Friday in rejecting the gun group’s claims that the case was a political twist.
Manhattan Judge Joel M. Cohen’s decision means that the nearly 2-year-long legal battle can continue.
The ruling comes in the wake of last month’s mass shootings in New York and Texas, reviving the debate over US gun policy and turning the spotlight back on the NRA.
The New York case began when Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit accusing some senior NRA executives of financial misconduct and trying to dissolve the group. The Attorney General’s office includes overseeing NGOs established in New York, where the NRA was formed in 1871.
In March, Cohen rejected James’ offer to close the NRA. But the judge allowed the case to continue, with the possibility of fines or other remedies if the public prosecutor wins.
The NRA accused James in court last year of running a “vague and vicious campaign of revenge” over his views. The group tried to stop the lawsuit.
Cohen rejected that argument.
“The statement that the Attorney General’s investigation into these undeniably serious cases was nothing more than witch-hunts for political motives – and constitutional violations – is simply not supported by sources,” he wrote, noting that the investigation was sparked by reports of misconduct and “uncovered additional evidence.” “
James welcomed the decision, saying it confirmed “the legitimacy and efficiency of the case”.
“Our fight for transparency and accountability will continue,” she said in a statement.
NRA lawyer William A. Brewer III said the group was disappointed but would continue to fight the case and still believes it was an unfair target.
“The NRA believes that NYAG’s drive was driven by its opposition to the organization and its activities in the first amendment in support of the latter amendment,” he said in a statement using the acronym for the title of Attorney General.
In the wake of recent shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, Congress is under repeated pressure to respond after years of partisan strife over gun laws.
The House has passed bills that would raise the age limit for the purchase of semi-automatic weapons and set a federal law on the “red flag”, which provides for the removal of guns from people who are at high risk of harming themselves or others. Such initiatives have traditionally wavered in the Senate.
Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have discussed a framework to address the issue, but no agreement has been announced.
The NRA – a long-running political force that has lost some of its influence over the financial scandal in recent years – has long argued that mass shootings are no reason to restrict access to guns, arguing that the solution is instead for law-abiding people to have firearms to defend themselves. himself and others.
The message was echoed at the group’s conference in Houston last month, days after a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde.
Meetings calling for significant changes to gun laws are planned in Washington and across the country over the weekend and are expected to attract tens of thousands of people.
At the same time, the Supreme Court is also embroiled in the nation’s tug-of-war over the location of the gun in America. Judges are expected to soon pronounce their most serious gun verdict in more than a decade, potentially making it easier to be armed on the streets of New York and other major cities.
New York’s lawsuit against the NRA can continue, referee rules
Source link New York’s lawsuit against the NRA can continue, referee rules