POLL Give the guns back?

ATA Presidents were given guns worth mega dollars. K80 combos etc. This was done at the expense of ATA members.

It was reported that an assistant to the AG in Illinois told the ATA to put a stop to the practice and that it was against the ATA by-laws.

If it was against the by-laws should the guns be returned?

I report. You decide.
Merlo out

 

(YES),
All guns issued before the by-law change should either be repo-ed, or the recipient should have to pay, the ATA, the full value of the gun, with interest from the date of issue.

 

(No) Lets move on.
If no one objected when it first started, just stop it if it hasn't stopped.
Enough money has been pissed away.

Regards.....Gerald

 

Gerald, When this action was found out there were many objections. First of all it was against the rules of the Corp. also fraud against the IRS. and an afront to the members of the association. It was the lead in to actions like the neferios actions of selling a building to the ATA and also sitting on the EC at the same time. Then miss spelling the name of the seller. Roger C.

 

Gerald, now that you know questions were raised from the very beginning, how does that change your mind?

 

I am not sure I understand the nature of the guns in question. Is this in reference to the President’s complimentary gun? Are other officials receiving guns in addition to the outgoing President’s gun?

Now I recall an incident when a gun club I will not name engaged in criminal conduct. There was specific incontrovertible evidence of a violation of federal law. The investigating delegate, recipient of the complaint and evidence found there to be no ATA rule violation. Excuse me? Where is it written in any ATA rule or bylaw, article of incorporation or any other document that shoot officials, officers at any level are free to engage in unethical, immoral or unlawful conduct on behalf of the ATA, individual member or group of members as long as there is no ATA rule violation?

If the State of Illinois has determined that the gun program is a violation of State law; the ATA should move to address the matter. If this occured under the watchfull eyes of the ED; he should be terminated by the ATA, Illinois should revoke his State firearms dealer’s license and the BATFE should revoke his FFL.

That said, I do not see much interest from the EC in sending the ED back to KC MO. The BATFE has some bigger fish to fry. I am certain the State of Illinois AG has something along the lines of a Prosecutions Manual. Now, the US Attorney’s Manual has a little caveat regarding certain kinds of prosecutions. I suspect Illinois has something similar. The State of Illinois, I will call the government. Now, apply this statement:

The AG shall consider, when contemplating any prosecution involving the government, or any employee of the government, whether the benefit of prosecution outweighs the potential embarrasment to the government.

Does anyone else see why this may have been a factor in 2012?

 

OK I yield.
Now, what's your plan of attack ?
Any 1099's issued ?
Humor me; anyone ?

Regards.....Gerald

 

I can hear the guys at my place of employment.

John took $16,000 out of the register last week.

Again? You guys better send him a 1099.

Is that how it works? Embezzlers get 1099's?

 

Google up the governmental regulations on how a 501 C corp is to operate in the manor of compensation to volunteer board members, Concentrate on what is legal and what is not. Then ask the questions of how they were violated. Roger C.

 

I would like to hear from the people that got those K80 combos. Not sure what the legal term is. Systemic embezzlement comes to mind.

If any of you Ex embezzling presidents (my term) are out there I would like to hear from you.

 

Looks like 9 EC members voted in the poll. We have 9 no votes. Roger C.

 

How do you go home to your local gun club with a $16K+ gun that you got against the bylaws? How do you display that publicly?

 

If you have a any self pride you would have a problem, other wise you would display it like a trophy. They knew it was against the rules of the corp. that they volunteered to serve on, but they benefited from it anyway.
No pride, no honor. I would rather see them do that than sell the organization some property, and then say they did not profit from the transaction. That statement is a slam against our intelligence. Roger C.

 

How many guns are out there, outside of the legal guidelines of the by-laws, and the interpretation of the Illinois Attorney General?

 

Roger:

Okay, the 1099 addresses Federal income tax. Now the State would not be involved in a Federal income tax matter. So the State has some other interest here. Is it gun (regulation) related or tax related or both? Is it criminal or administrative in nature? I do not now know? I would like to know the specific Illinois statutes involved so I can read those.

Now the tax status of the organization is out of my subject matter knowledge. My concern there would be any possible negative impact upon members in the event the organization loses their current status.

 

Par4, This agenda is old. Discussing it is a waste of time. All the state did was told them to change the bylaws, and issue 1099 forms. It was related to the 501C federal tax status. Roger C.

 

It wasn't all that secret. I recall reading about it in T&F in the early nineties, with a pic of an outgoing president being awarded the gun for his service on the board and EC over the years. Not sure when it started, but it goes back farther than that. I believe when it started it was looked at as a gift to the outgoing pres, and then over the years they found that tax law requires it be treated as compensation, so they eventually started treating it as compensation and sending a 1099. That is where the conflict with the bylaws comes in, and they have corrected bylaws now to reflect the long standing practice of giving the guy a gun on his way out. Its fine by me, but if you want to do away with it, that's fine too.

 

I am not an attorney but

All the recent presidents got $16,000+ guns. A pattern for sure.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, or RICO statute, is a piece of United States federal legislation dedicated to breaking up organized crime. The law was designed to achieve that goal by targeting enterprises and individuals found to have engaged in patterns of racketeering activity

We need an attorney to comment.

 

Hi Bat....who thought it would take this long for you to defend the your pals engaging in what appears to me as criminal activity? And there is your big quote "fine by me".

Just for giggles Bat, how about telling us where in that magazine it says they were getting custom K80 combos. And then tell us where this non-secret action shows up in the minutes. It should be easy for you since it is "Non Secret"

In my opinion your post is more BS from the land of BS. But then again you may have that gotcha post in the minutes. Post it Bat for all to see.

 

Thanks Roger! This was the first I knew of government intervention. Ex post facto relief from wrong doing. Nothing but a courtesy letter or phone call needed. Now in Illinois; they say if money changes hands to tiddy up such matters: no problem. What a state that Illinois!

 

RICO is reserved for heavier duty shenanigans normally. I am sure there is a big section in the US Attorneys Manual. Probably requires AG or his designee to authorize on case by case basis. 18 USC 1961 et seq.

 

Par4, I would bet if a credible audit was conducted on their handling of ATA finances, there would be some people in deep dodo. If the pull 2112 action was checked out the dodo would be spread to the whole EC that were sitting at the time. The only time secret actions are needed is when they will not stand up to being aired in public. AS IN members NEED TO KNOW. They corrected the bylaws to make it legal, Do you remember being ask to vote on the change???? Roger C.

 

Par4, I heard there was some big time tidying up done on some of their purchases in the past. Roger C.

 

My new neighbor used to be an IRS agent (38 years), now that he and I have gotten to know each other I asked him how things work within an organization gives reasonably expensive gifts to out going officers of the Association for their service ... He mentioned that a lot depends on the tax classification they are in but for the most part all are taxable as income and penalties do apply if the taxes are not or were not paid on those gifts ... He and I are going to go up to the Club and break some clays, he said he tried trapshooting when he was a kid and would like to give it a try once again ... He showed me his Fathers shotgun Ljutic X73, that his father left him when he passed away ... Going to try and get a lot more answers from this guy in the near future ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Maybe you can introduce him to this site?

 

Roger:

Generally accepted accounting principles are a funny animal. Last I heard, the ATA used a firm with a name I recognized. An IRS audit would be another matter.

We would never know any details unless somebody was charged with a crime. That is public information. Now if the tax status changes we would become aware of that.

 

Butterly, why would you say my post was BS? Can't get much more public then showing a picture of the presentation of the gun to the outgoing president. Maybe HB can find that picture. I'm sure you can tell what kind of gun by looking at the picture. Was early 1990's. I don't have back issues like that, but it was there.

 

Let's start with the part where you justify receiving a $16000-17,000 gun because someone else did it and got away with it. And continue with you not able to show the picture that you say is public showing the $16,500 gun handed to someone.

Lots of people take money out of cash registers. Some get caught. Some don't. Some do it publicly. Some think they deserve the extra compensation. An assistant to the AG didn't take long to see the fault.

Bat maybe you can send a letter to the Attorney General and let him know there were a bunch of thieves. Not just one or two. Send him a list to investigate.

Don't forget to post the minutes where the free K80 custom combos were discussed in the minutes. Until then your post is BS from the land of BS.

 

The "early nineties" was some 25-ish years ago, but I can say I don't remember any "picture" having a 'story' with it giving details about how this "gift" was purchased .....

And, in the "early nineties" Trapshooting was growing at a nice pace, so things like 'job performance of the leadership' seemed more in line with a "gun gift" .....

So, now, 25-ish years later , someone getting a couple of hundred grand a year, and others getting "gun gifts", while their 'leadership/job performance' is always in question, makes the fact no one has went to jail over any of it more of a moot point.

I don't see how anyone in line for their "gun gift" could accept it with any pride for their contributions to Trapshooting, when there is such a decline in the Sport caused by their poor leadership .....

 

I will be talking to my new neighbor in the next few days being as they are still getting settled, I don't want to bother him ... His side kick (Lilly) a 4 year old dog got killed (hit by a car) on the 3 rd day they lived in this house, guess he was walking her at 4:30 in the morning and she darted into the street, the car never stopped so he is really broken up about that ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Tough break on his dog. Maybe getting him to the club will be therapeutic.

 

Bat to continue.....

That picture(s) you say you have might be of interest to an AG and the IRS. Don't run away.

 

You get a gun you could never afford. Do you return the gun just cause it's the right thing to do?

 

An honorable man would. Roger C.

 

"Can't get much more public then showing a picture of the presentation"

Hey Bat ..... How about "a picture of the presentation" to a GAH Champion that the ATA deemed involved in Target-Gate ??????

Does the fact that there is a "picture or pictures" of this make it legit in your tiny little mind ??????

Hell Bat ..... I have seen a picture of the ATA office building in BFE Sparta, and that picture doesn't change a damn thing about the details of the PULL 2012 garbage .....

 

Let's say we gather up all the K80's given out against the bylaws and display them in the individual states' Hall of Fame to document a time of corruption within the sport. Oh yeah....we will need pictures too. And names. Great display right?

 

They were not limited to K-80's. They could pick what ever gun they wanted. One of them purchased a gun for over $21,000.00 dollars. did not re-emburse for the overage and then died, ATA could not find the gun to repo it. He is also the one that killed the Ohio location for the new grand location. Roger C.

 

It sounds likes these guns were not given but more like taken. You cannot say the members "allowed" this if it was against the bylaws.

 

Roger are you talkii9ng about Tom Acklin, that died, and cost Ohio Loss of ATA Homegrounds?

 

The rank and file were never polled as a group to the best of my knowlege and belief. I missed a few state meetings. Even if there had been such a poll, I doubt countrary to the bylaws would have been mentioned.

A couple of our delegates did go on to become the POTATA. One elected a very nice MX-8 combo. The other picked a Silver Seitz. So these were not just K-80s.

 

Roger Maybe Tom Acklin's Widow sold it.

GB.........................DLS

 

Par4, This was not a state action. It was the ATA that was giving the gun to past presidents. Not state organizations. Roger C.

 

My use of the word State makes reference to the State of Illinois.

 

The person that voted "not sure" needs a graph.

 

Definition of embezzling....steal or misappropriate (money placed in one's trust or belonging to the organization for which one works)

No one had the authority to remove money to buy the guns. Sounds like embezzling. Those that removed the money understood they would get the same treatment. Sounds like thieves helping thieves? Because it is! jmho

 

GIVE THE GUNS BACK OR MORE SHIT IS GOING TO HIT THE FAN

YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN WARNED

 

I guess through all of this I have missed something.

When did this Gun given to past Presidents begin ? Over 30 years ago...

IS there anyplace in ANY minutes where the EC OR BOD approved this ?

It has most likely been stated on here but for the life of me I cannot remember.

I do know past President Ted Mchugh from NY (1987) had one of these guns and shot it up until his death.

HB, anything positive to substantiate these questions

I just don't know, nor do I remember IF I was told.

Thanks !

 

I've never been able to verify just when the first ATA President received a gun. Likewise, I have not found information to show that the Board of Directors approved the use of ATA funds for the purpose.

I suspect that if this act was approved, the organization would have issued 1099s for each and every commemorative gun but they did not. ATA by-laws prohibited officers from being compensated for their work but did permit limited expenses to attend specific tournaments and meetings.

Many ATA members believe Presidents purchased their own guns from their expense account in violation of the by-laws. They also believe those gun purchases never appeared as an entry when submitting their expenses.

It would be nice to see all documentation on the President's gun to learn just what year it started, if it was approved by the BOD, why 1099s were not issued in compliance with IRS regulations, why Past Presidents did not pay taxes on their gift, why not one felt it was illegal and in violation of existing by-laws.

HB

 

Brad's Friend,
No mater how you cut it they broke more than one law in the process of giving away the guns. With no unaligned board, they had to have voted them selves payment from the 501C corp. They broke State laws, and IRS guide lines and laws.
No wonder we are told you will get information on a need to know basis, They have been using corporate finances as a piggy bank for years. We supply it and they us it for personal gain. On guns, travel, food, and real estate deals, and some other high dollar purchases, like equipment. Roger C.

 

What gun did N1H1 Get, I never inquried, What gun did you get N1H1, did you have to fill out the Federal Form? You should have so the Mfgr has a record of it, or the Distributor, I hope it was not a Straw Purchase.

GB..............................DLS

 

As long as no compensation was paid to the purchaser from the receiver it is not a straw purchase.

 

In addition to above there may be other legalities with guns as gifts, maybe someone can inform on that subject.

 

Well, I guess IF they are giving the gun a a GIFT, it just may not fall under compensation.

Boy, this can take on a whole different meaning I guess.

Who knows what they had up their sleeves way back when.

Sharp people on the EC may have thought they had a loophole.

After all, they got away with it for years before Social Media came along and the "Common" members began asking questions for everyone to see.

 

At the minimum a 4473 should have been filled out. The person that purchased it should have done one to be kept on file.

 

You can look here at a "form 4473" ....... https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4...n-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

If you look at "page 4" of "NOTICES, INSTRUCTIONS, AND DEFINITIONS" ...... under "Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer:" ...... "A gift is not bona fide if another offered offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her" ......

So ..... the "4473 forms" for the "gun gifts" would tell "who purchased" the "gun gift", and that if there may be other violations of "laws" .....

It would be interesting if ol'N1H1 would tell who filled out a "form 4473" for his "gift" ......

 

The guy that bought the gun should have had the recipient transfer it into his name. I would have wanted to for legal and insurance reasons. Hell at this point unless a person knows where the gun was purchased and if you could look thru the 4473 forms there is no easy way to know.

 

The "form 4473" may be able to shed more light to HB's "Many ATA members believe Presidents purchased their own guns from their expense account in violation of the by-laws. They also believe those gun purchases never appeared as an entry when submitting their expenses." .....

And "Bat" keeps trying to distract from all this by saying garbage like "Gee User, you don't have to be an attorney to know that officers and directors of a nonprofit are allowed to be compensated." ......

So, was the "Shotgun Gift Money" self-compensation, or a "gift" from "others" ?????????

 

I would bet it's a GIFT FROM OTHERS! No matter what or where the money comes from.

 

I don't know about compensation or nonprofit organizations but as stated on the 4473 which concerns the ATF as long as the receiver didn't give the buyer the money directly or perhaps indirectly it's not a straw purchase. I'm not sure how the word "services" is used in that statement for or against compensation. I still believe all the past and future recipients would say gift from others.

 

A "slush fund" could account for not being in their expenses. I know some businesses have them wether right or wrong. This again leads to no trail of money changing hands or leads to follow.

 

HB, That would be a darn good start.
It would also be nice to track the whole history of when guns began to be given, what kinds of guns were given, how it evolved into very expensive new combo guns, and who all got them and when.
Oh, and where is the resolution or corporate charter that approved/allowed it and who voted on it.
I am going to take a guess that such information is not readily available or forthcoming.
Jake

 

I don't know that anyone has ever verified that it was a gift. The only authority for giving such a gift would be the Board of Directors (Delegates).

I would like to believe that at least one Delegate, over the many decades, would have asked if the Presidential Gun was considered compensation which would be a violation of the By-Laws, prior to granting permission for such a gift.

1935 ATA BYLAWS

​

1998 ATA BYLAWS

​

Seems pretty clear that ATA By-Laws prohibit any compensation to members of the E.C. and the ATA Treasurer, other than specific expenses incurred for business meetings.

As stated, many believe ATA Presidents just initiated the act of purchasing a gun with ATA funds, without approval, without clearly entering the expense on their expense report and without obtaining a 1099 (until President Ray Greb mandated IRS reporting of the gun).

Here's page 5 of the Robert Glatz report of recommendations to the ATA Executive Committee in 2005 (I believe). It should be understood that Mr. Glatz informed them the Presidential gun was a violation of ATA By-Laws (in Section 2.7) and not one felt it improper to purchase a gun for themselves.

That is, until Illinois Attorney General investigator Esposito also identified this violation in his report. It was only then that Delegates were asked to amend the By-Laws to permit this form of compensation. Presidents purchasing their own guns was then permitted when every Delegate voted in favor of this change.

​

In August 2016, Mr. Glatz advised every member of the ATA Board of Directors, how ATA officials treated his recommendations. Here's the first paragraph of that communication:

"ATA Directors/Delegates

"As some of you know, several years ago I wrote a long review of ATA policies and procedures that was poorly received by the EC. That document was reviewed prior to sending it to the EC by tax experts at PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and the International law firm, Bryan Cave (BC). Those experts could not attest to the “facts” I presented, but only my application of tax law to the facts as I expressed them (however, the ATA Controller did attest to the facts). The tax experts obviously took no position on my personal views of the appropriateness of certain practices. The EC discounted both firm’s review of my work (on relationship grounds) since I am a retired senior tax partner and Management Committee member of PWC and BC was somehow “in my pocket” since they represent me (in addition to the ATA on its 501(c)(3) application process) and several businesses that I either manage or run day-to-day. Instead, the EC hired a tax litigation firm from Dayton to review the memo. I was never permitted to see the results of that firm's review, however one member of the EC told me that “the law firm said that none of the issues I raised had any merit” and that “nothing needed to be done differently”. I was told by another EC member that “your memo was essentially correct, but it didn’t apply to the ATA because the ATA is too small”. My favorite quote was that the IRS has “bigger fish to fry” than the ATA. And lastly, “nothing the EC was doing was ‘criminal’.” For the record, I’m pretty certain that everything I said was factually correct!"

Remember, it takes 825 new $20 ATA memberships each year just to pay for the President's gun allowance.

HB

​

 

"I'm not sure how the word "services" is used in that statement for or against compensation."

"service" ..... "Any duty or labor performed for another person." ..... https://legal-dictionary.thefreedic...egal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/service ..... you can note the absence of "paid/compensated" or "non-paid/non-compensated" .....

 

Yes that's the definition of service as you and I would agree. Be that as it may some think their service is worth more than it is apparently. I hope we get some answers but I don't think it will be from any involved parties. The ATA is dying a long death at the hands of its leaders, and the expense of its members. They will get no more from me. I love the sport and people I meet but not interested in throwing good money away.

 

The ATA can well continue to exist on the income from the (daily fee's) fee's collected at the registered shoots on their behalf … The ED, EC, and many on the BOD who made it a cash cow know full well how much they can steal or take for services (be that as it may) before the walls come tumbling down … There is no way to drain the Swamp by design and they would have it no other way (legalized corruption) and they wonder why no body has any respect for any of them …
WPT … (YAC) …

 

Look here .....http://www.shootata.com/Portals/0/pdf/ata_rulebook_web.pdf ..... to find ..... "page 86" "section 8: Remuneration"..... It begins with, "With the exception of the Presidential Honorarium" ......

Question ............. Does this "Presidential Honorarium" have a set monetary amount not shown in "section 8: Remuneration" ?????? If yes, why "Honorarium" and not "Stipend" ??????

"An honorarium differs from a stipend, which is a fixed sum of money paid periodically for services. Reoccurring events that have individuals expecting payment for services would receive a stipend, not an honorarium. Honorarium payments are made payable to the individual who provided the gratuitous service." .....

"An honorarium is money or other items of value given in gratitude for services rendered; for example, payments to ministers for presiding at weddings and funerals or to politicians for speaking at a group function. Honorarium are sometimes subject to scrutiny when they are suspected of being used to circumvent campaign financing, influence peddling and bribery laws relating to elected and other public officials." https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/honorarium/

"A stipend is a fixed sum of money paid periodically for services or to defray expenses. The fact that remuneration is termed a "fee" or "stipend" rather than salary or wages is immaterial. Wages are generally subject to employment taxes. Payment of stipends is made according to the policies of the governing entity." https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/stipend/

Question ... Now that the current "ATA Presidential Duties" are performed by someone who receives a "Honorarium" ..... does that create any "conflicts of interest" for that person ??????????

 

User1, They can not by law vote them selves any renumeration of any kind. It must be done by an impartial board. The ATA does not have an impartial board////////

The board must be made up of people that have a good understanding of the rules and the by laws of a 501 C corp.
Roger C.
P.S. I do not think BOD members will pass as unafiliated members of an impartial board./////////////////////////////

 

HB,

I know of ONLY one past Delegate who has questioned, and looked into this matter in it's entirety.

 

"Remember, it takes 825 new $20 ATA memberships each year just to pay for the President's gun allowance."

That "math" ONLY works if there is a set amount and/or limits to the "Presidential Honorarium" .....

I have seen "dollar amounts" in "reports", but there seems to be no set amounts and/or limits on "page 86" "section 8: Remuneration" of http://www.shootata.com/Portals/0/pdf/ata_rulebook_web.pdf

That seems to "leave the door open" to ANY dollar amount for the "Presidential Honorarium" ......

Also in http://www.shootata.com/Portals/0/pdf/ata_rulebook_web.pdf ...... "page 92", "ARTICLE XXIII ACCOUNTABLE PLAN COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE", "Section 1:", "The Accountable Plan Compliance Committee shall consist of six members. Five of the members will be elected from the Board of Directors. One member will be appointed by the ATA President"

So, it would take "825 new $20 ATA memberships each year just to pay for the President's gun allowance", if that was the set amount and/or a limit ..... But it looks like it could take many more if the "Presidential Honorarium" can be influenced by the ATA Presidential appointments, and has no set amount and/or limits .....

 

Correct User 1 . . . . 825 new members at the current allowable limit of $16,500 for the honorarium.

I believe you are once again correct . . . the door with no limits remains open.

 

Well HB,

NO LIMIT ???

That Stinks !!!

 

If the President doesn't want a gun can he just take a cash gift?

 

If the President doesn't want a gun can he just take a cash gift?

Are you asking this as a "ATA specific" question ???????

Or, a more general question that may include any Federal Laws, Rules, Regulations, or Restrictions that may apply, any State Laws, Rules, Regulations, or Restrictions that may apply, any Local Laws, Rules, Regulations, or Restrictions that may apply , or any other possible Laws, Rules, Regulations, or Restrictions that may apply to a "Charity" ???????

 

I guess it's a general question? I assume when a person becomes the President of the ATA he knows passed Presidents got a gun. What if he doesn't want one. He gets nothing or $$$$. I'm sure he is asked what kind of gun he wants when he leaves so does anyone know what happens if he elects not to get one. I hope this makes sense.

 

Here's how I should have posted. Joe the ATA president says I don't want a gun just give me the money. Wouldn't this be different somehow than a gift gun?

 

If reference to "Joe the ATA president" saying "just give me the money" to the "ATA", look at post #66 .....

The "ATA" NOW calls this a "Presidential Honorarium" ......

"An honorarium is money or other items" ..... https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/honorarium/

 

It all just seems wrong!

 

I should have added ......... any Foreign Laws, Rules, Regulations, or Restrictions that may apply to a "Charity" that governs "gun clubs and members worldwide"......... to post #73 ......

Because there is only ONE "ATA President", and this says ...... "There are about 1,000 gun clubs worldwide" ...... "We have about 60,000 members worldwide now because we have members in Australia, New Zealand and Brazil, in good numbers, and we have some members in other countries. They are shooting a lot of registered targets in Brazil and New Zealand.” ...... https://thesouthern.com/lifestyles/...cle_910c7807-cdb0-515f-869c-ba3b7cc78f6c.html

 

We just need the addresses where these guns are.

 

A person wrote the following to me. I thought implying I know very little about the bylaws and how the ATA works...…..

Over 25 years as an ATA officer of one sort or another I got dozens of things done, plenty more I had to leave undone. You are zero for one. That perfectly defines a lightweight in this league which is tougher than most imagine.

I would not have violated the bylaws by taking a gun that was clearly against the bylaws. Who is the lightweight now?

To the person that wrote the above. If you got a gun I suggest you return the gun. As per your words...."25 years as an ATA officer"....did you know better?

 

The president also gets $20,000 to use as he see's fit besides the gun at what ever value, $35 K plus for the year as president … If anyone thinks this is not a cash cow for the ED, EC and many of the BOD you best get your self evaluated and fitted for a jacket so you cannot hurt your self … WPT … (YAC) …

 

People were fed up with elite insiders in Washington who are only responsive to lobbyists and big donors. So people elected an outsider.

The problem is an outsider in the ATA does not get a shot to get in there. One has to go through the musical chair system. I would like to see a straw poll among the annual and life members who have attended at both Sparta and Vandalia and can recall the days prior to the growth in the number of mini grands: the days of bigger small shoots.

Strip away the three monkey lack of transparency and disclose line by line the other financial perks in dollars for EC members before the poll is taken though. Folks need to know the big picture before voting on the gun in a vacuum.

Does the EC really think folks believe they have to meet in person between Grands in the days of the information super highway in order to be the custodians of the organization and act in the best interest of same? I do not believe they do.

The bylaws can be tweaked to keep the Illinois AG happy. I do not think tweaking bylaws makes things which taste bad and smell worse have great flavor.

 

"The bylaws can be tweaked to keep the Illinois AG happy." ..... maybe, but maybe not ......

In the ATA's haste to "keep the Illinois AG happy", do you think the "ATA", took into consideration they consider themselves, the "ATA", a "International Charity", as this "says" ????? https://thesouthern.com/lifestyles/...cle_910c7807-cdb0-515f-869c-ba3b7cc78f6c.html

This ..... "American nonprofits operating abroad must be careful to understand the laws of each country in which they operate, how to comply with such laws" ..... can be found here .....

"Many nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations provide funds, goods, and/or services to communities outside of the United States in furtherance of their respective charitable missions. Such work is important on so many levels and is widely understood to benefit our country through the goodwill created internationally. Nevertheless, not all countries’ governments view such assistance as friendly, particularly where it supports advocacy or strengthens individuals that might oppose the status quo. American nonprofits operating abroad must be careful to understand the laws of each country in which they operate, how to comply with such laws, the risks of noncompliance, and how to best protect their employees and volunteers on the ground"

http://www.nonprofitlawblog.com/nonprofits-international-charity/

 

@User 1

Keeping the State of Illinois happy is something altogether different than keeping the IRS happy. The State of Illinois and the ATA have a business relationship. I really do not foresee the State ever taking any kind of action against the ATA more serious than a warning about anything the ATA might do or fail to do. Now if the ED commits a homicide; that may change.

 

The State of Illinois and the ATA have a business relationship.

I understand how this "business relationship" may get some "mileage" in a "gun hate State" ...... But, that may not be enough "mileage" for the State of Illinois not throw "the ATA under the bus", if something would become a "International" problem in a "gun hate part of the World" .....

 

Surely the State of Illinois will act in the best interest of the State of Illinois in order to protect themselves in the court of public opinion in Springfield and Chicago. The ATA should have understood that. As long as things stay low profile; I see status quo.

 

Who will be the first to give their guns back. Any guesses? Who do you think will be the last?

 

I'm going to guess very few will be given back. I'm not sure how many guns were given to past Presidents but I hope some of them see the error of their ways and pay for them or return them.

 

What would the ATA do with the guns anyway ?

Have a "Presidential Sale" to get more money for the Presidents spending account ?

 

Have them as a Lewis class at the Grand...one gun per class. Past presidents need not apply.

 

"Presidential Sale" ? That is what may happen on cell block E. A president could go for a pack of cigarettes.

 

Should the "blame", and and/or recompense, be solely directed toward the "past Presidents of the ATA" ??????

Or, should ANYONE/EVERYONE who was involved in the "process" of approving/paying for the "Presidential Honorarium", along with the recipient of a "Presidential Honorarium", be asked to make any/all recompense ?????

 

Everyone involved would be the correct answer. Is that going to happen, probably not.

 

Then look at this from ol'N1H1 ...... "in 20+ years as a Delegate and 6 on the Executive Committee" .....

Then ask ..... Should "he", ol'N1H1, be to "blame" and/or "owe" some type of recompense, for ALL "Presidential Honorariums" during this "20+ years as a Delegate and 6 on the Executive Committee" that may be in question ?????

 

According to one of the lotto websites I checked, the odds of hitting the Mega Ball this Tuesday are nearly 1 in 302 million.

You have a better chance of hitting that compared to the odds you will see any of them giving back their comped guns.

 

Bump please. Current topic.

 

This is a great history lesson….

The internet never forgets. Lol

 

It'll be very difficult getting guns back from stiffs.

 

Stop crying. Every one of you, if similarly situated, would have taken the guns.

 

I was in Florida at the state shoot and there was a Kolar combo with engraving and both triggers case etc.. was told it was a past ata president gun given to him that he didn’t want. It wasn’t very old of a gun.21k