Manhattan Judge Joel M. Cohen’s ruling means the nearly two-year legal battle could continue. The decision comes after massive shootings last month in New York and Texas that rekindled the debate over U.S. gun policy and refocused attention on the NRA. The New York case began when James, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit accusing some top NRA executives of financial misconduct and sought to disband the group. The attorney general’s job involves overseeing nonprofits set up in New York, where the NRA was chartered in 1871. In March, Cohen turned down James’s offer to close the NRA. But the judge allowed the case to continue, with the possibility of imposing fines or other legal remedies, if the attorney general prevails. The NRA accused James in a court hearing last year of conducting “a blatant and malicious retaliatory campaign” over her views. The team tried to stop the lawsuit. Cohen rejected these arguments. “The attorney general’s investigation into these unquestionably serious issues was nothing more than a politically motivated – and unconstitutional – witch hunt simply not supported by the archives,” he wrote, noting that the investigation was sparked by reports of misconduct and “Revealed additional information”. James welcomed the decision, saying it confirmed the “legality and viability” of the lawsuit. “Our struggle for transparency and accountability will continue,” she said in a statement. NRA lawyer William A. Brewer III said the team was disappointed but would continue to fight the case and still believe it was unfairly targeted. “The NRA believes that NYAG’s pursuit was fueled by its opposition to the union and First Amendment activities in support of Second Amendment,” it said in a statement, using an acronym for Attorney General. In the wake of recent shootings in Buffalo, New York and Ovalde, Texas, Congress is under renewed pressure to respond after years of partisan gun laws. Parliament has passed bills that raise the age limit for the purchase of semi-automatic weapons and introduce federal laws on the “red flag”, which allow the withdrawal of weapons by people who are in extreme danger of harming themselves or others. Such initiatives traditionally falter in the Senate. Democrats and Republican senators have been talking about a framework for addressing the issue, but no agreement has been reached. The NRA – a longtime political force that has lost some influence amid financial scandals in recent years – has long insisted that mass shootings are not a reason to restrict access to weapons, arguing that the solution is for law-abiding people to have guns. weapons to defend themselves 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. Rallies calling for major changes to gun laws are planned in Washington and across the country this weekend and are expected to attract tens of thousands of people. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also trapped in the national tug of war over the placement of weapons in America. Judges are soon expected to issue their most consistent gun decision in more than a decade, possibly making it easier to arm the streets of New York and other major cities.
