If the aspiring Woodwards & Bernsteins at Mother Jones know of some laws or statutes that they think were violated in this case, I strongly urge you, again, to turn your documents over to the appropriate prosecutor's office, and let them do what they're supposed to do when a crime is committed.

If you have not, then it becomes obvious that your attempts to get Congress involved and force this matter forward by means of increased media exposure is nothing more than a shameful, self-serving waste of Congress' time, and TAXPAYERS' Money!

Congress should have more important things to do than waste it's time being used by the gun-control minority to force their agenda back into the public discussion, after your humiliationg loss in the SCOTUS.
Important things to do, such as impeaching Bullsh & Cheney.

Oh, and if you want to have a look into firearms laws and regulations that are apparently being violated with impunity, suggest that Congress investigate Josh Sugarmann (Violence Policy Center) and his public refusal to comply with the strict requirements of his FFL by operating as a legitimate gun dealer, keeping regular public hours in a storefront establishment.
As he's had it renewed, and recently, it is entirely possible that he provided inaccurate or misleading information to BATFE regarding his operation as a Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer. (Probably a Felony!)

This has been brought up repeatedly in the discussions on these very discussion boards. MoJo has been silent on the issue.

Apparently only the Gun RIGHTS organizations are expected to abide by the law, and Gun CONTROL organizations are considered to be exempt from it.

Why doesn't the good Senator send a similar letter to VPC exec Josh Sugarmann who uses an FFL to get into firearm industry events, or Dr Gary Wintemute who clandestinely took photos at gun shows to publish anti-gun papers? Oh, right, because he's just a shill for the anti-gun lobby.

Good for Mother Jones for exposing this, and good for Sen. Lautenberg following up. I doubt it's all that unusual for people to join organizations they oppose just to see the inside, and I'm sure journalists need to do this sometimes. If however someone is a paid spy, that's different.

Laws Broken, do you have any idea what you're talking about? No one else does.

Laws Broken, do you have any idea what you're talking about? No one else does.

So, you've surveyed EVERYONE then?

Or or you assigning your own opinions to everyone else without asking their leave?

On the subject of the requirements associated with holding a class one FFL (like Sugermann's) I most certainly do.

I held such a license for several years.

Interestingly enough, when NYC Mayor Bloomberg hired private investigators to try and illegally purchase firearms out of state, committing multiple felonies in the process, Mother Jones supported it:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/12/3083_nyc_sues_more_o.html

Not a mention of the letter of rebuke he got from the justice department for doing it ,the fact that he fought handing over the evidence to the BATFE or that ,when he did, NO charges were brought against the dealers by either the state or federal authorities.

The appropriate NRA response is something like:

Dear Senator Lautenberg:

FOAD. HTH. HAND.

Love,

The NRA

Interestingly enough, when NYC Mayor Bloomberg hired private investigators to try and illegally purchase firearms out of state, committing multiple felonies in the process, Mother Jones supported it:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/12/3083_nyc_sues_more_o.html

Not a mention of the letter of rebuke he got from the justice department for doing it ,the fact that he fought handing over the evidence to the BATFE or that ,when he did, NO charges were brought against the dealers by either the state or federal authorities.

BC - chuckling...

NRA will probably have their legal staff send him a very polite response, though it would be great to be able to see the look on his face if they sent the one you suggested :)

No surprise that it was Lautenberg they managed to persuade to drag their nonsense into Congress, rather than going through the normal law enforcement channels to have a prosecutor's office investigate whether anything illegal was actually done... BEFORE Congress starts wasting it's time and OUR Money pursuing yet another wild goose.
But what has the left ever cared about wasted taxpayer money, unless it was the military doing the wasting?

Oh well.
I guess they feel they have to do SOMETHING after the spanking their side took in the Heller decision. (& their Bruce Falconer - gun show yellow-sheet was just an embarrassment..)

I'm with Laws Broken ... as there don't seem to be any and I know in my gut that this is common practice among groups of this kind (i.e. hot-button issue groups like Planned Parenthood, political orgs, etc.)

@ Eric Ferguson

Laws Broken, do you have any idea what you're talking about? No one else does.

Apparently you're the only one.

Basically, show us which laws were broken during the 'spying.'

* Admit whether these charges are true or false;

Ummm, true. Now go pound sand buddy boy.

* Admit whether these charges are true or false;

Interesting wording, isn't it?

It clearly implies a presumption of guilt, since one doesn't "admit" that charges are false.

I was always told that our system of Justice called for a presumption of Innocence!?!
Not Guilt!

Maybe 'Justice' doesn't apply when a U.S. Senator with a well established bias is demanding answers from one of the people he's shown bias against??
Or maybe not when the charge involves someone who supports the Second Amendment.

Or maybe Lautenberg has no real interest in Justice, and is simply leaping on an opportunity to publicly hang a 2nd Amendment advocate out to dry.

I'm sorry, but did she do anything illegal? Oh that's right, so leave here the f*** alone.

I don't give a flying f*ck what Senator Lautenberg thinks!

here is the NRA response.

Senator, we will gladly admit all of these things once you explain how you as a Senator can justify an amendment to a gun control bill that is named after you. Your position as a senator means that you are supposed to support and defend the constitution. your amendment makes it so that anyone can have their 2nd amendment rights stripped by just being alleged to have done something and BEFORE any trial takes place. Again, once you provide a satisfactory justification of how this practice is legal and moral, we will comply with your request.

"Although the NRA and I certainly have had our disagreements over the years, I hope that we can agree that the gun violence prevention debate should be based upon an open and honest exchange of ideas, not on underhanded tactics."

As Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell stated, I don't think the Senator really wants an open and honest exchange of ideas. Whenever that happens, as the recent SCOTUS case showed, the anti's lose. It's only when they can limit the discussion in a controlled (by them) situation that they can claim any victories.

Lautenberg's an a**-wipe. He's the scum who championed ex post facto punishment of people who committed misdemeanors (and paid their debt to society) decades before the passage of his legislation.

If there is a god, may he strike Lautenberg dead for his traitorous treachery.

I think when she "commits suicide" that will be the comment.

The vilification of the NRA continues. When gun control groups engage in similar behavior, they are praised by the media. When a gun control group leader like Mike Bloomberg actually hires people to break the law for his cause, it hardly gets any attention (except strong rebuke from the federal government). To the media at least, anti-rights groups are good, pro-rights groups are bad. What is wrong with that picture?

Lautenberg is going to end up embarassed over this petty nonsense.

SeattleGunTotingLiberal:

It appears that you have an accurate and objective handle on the situation. Good for you.

I am one of those "gun idiots", happen to hold three degrees (including PhD). I've read all the court briefs up, down, and sideways, from all parties in that Parker/Heller case.

I'm paid nothing by the NRA, and you haven't slightest idea of what you're talking about. Thanks for your contribution.

I see the NRA gunbots have hit the thread. Well, boys, I'm just going to ignore the rest of the tripe and talking points you regurgitate into it, as this is a real discussion, not a Wild West NRA Revival. Now I know that the bazooka, ray gun, and MOAB wannabe owners will post an endless string of "calling me out" posts, but their flailing doesn't change the basic facts. They are on the wrong side of the gun ownership issue and what the intention and meaning of the 2nd Amendment is. Their vision of the future is that every man, woman, and child will walk the earth armed to the teeth, ready to shoot the next person at the drop of a hat for any offense, real or perceived. If you don't want to participate, well, tough s***, you're just going to get shot, then, or stay home. If you are a person of color, you really better watch it, don't let the sun go down on you in a white area if you know what's good for you.

I think MoJo did everyone a great service by pushing this story forward. Many people are unaware of how the NRA is working behind the scenes to push their vision of cowboy movies into US life. Of course, the reaction of "she didn't do anything illegal" is to be expected, because gun advocates are expert, lawyered-up, statute nit-pickers when it comes to their own business. These are the same jerks that generally disdain lawyers and complain incessantly that too many criminals get off by technicalities and it would have been better if they were just shot dead at the scene of the crime. Lautenberg's request for facts from the NRA is a good signal to Americans, and if NRA members had any integrity at all they would be demanding that their organization comply with his request. I know if I were still a member, I would be demanding it.

The Mole Story is just a glimpse of what you could expect if the NRA ever implemented its full agenda. It's a story of cowboy mentality, straight out of an episode of the Lone Ranger. In order to find out what the townsfolk are planning, The Ranger puts on a disguise and walks among them. But he's the Lone Ranger, so spying is OK. In other words, if you're RIGHT it doesn't matter what you do, because you're RIGHT. The gun freaks think they're right and they'll do whatever they can dream up and think they can get away with to make sure that Johnnie and Susie can put a gun in their backpack when they go off to school. To make it legal to put a gun in your car, your briefcase, your boot, or whatever and be ready to blam away whenever your perception of the situation makes you think you need to.

Police officers I know hate this idea. Many officers draw their gun once or twice in their entire careers, and some never fire a shot. The notion of citizen vigilantes out there shooting up schools, malls, churches, traffic jams, yard sales, and whatever gives them the creeps. There's nothing that escalates a trivial situation to a critical situation faster than injecting a firearm into it.

But that's what the gunbot freaks want. They want a freak show where they can strut around with auxiliary phallus objects bristling from every possible place. When I lived in Texas, the guy I bought my shotgun from used to carry THREE guns with him at all times. You never know when one of those Messkins might get out of line. Of course, only law-abiding citizens will get guns, (somehow), and if they happen to break the law, well, that's when the rest of us spring into action and frontier justice will solve the problem.

This is 21st Century America. If I wanted to live like that, I'd move to the jungle. Cheers to Senator Lautenberg, and NRA members who are worth a shit will get behind him and hold whoever disgraced an already disgraceful group accountable for this cowardly spying.

-Wexler

Morning Willy,

It's really cute. Since you've got nothing but ad hominems and personal attacks, you and Mr. Seattle need to refer to others as "gunbots" , "freaks", and "paid minions".

I've shown where Mother Jones supported ILLEGAL activities in support of gun control. No hypocrisy there right?

But since it's for "gun control", any measure is acceptable, right?

I dont like NRA and people who make a big deal out of it.

Regardless, so she was a spy. What is the illegal part in it?

If its illegal, fry her ass and NRA. Nothing wrong in it; otherwise its a waste of time for congress to even be talking about it.

Hey....it worked at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, so what's not to love about it?

I am shocked, shocked I tell you to find that the NRA might just be guilty of using the same tactics of deceit that the Brady Coalition and other anti gun organizations have been guilty of since their inception.
But then again it's always a treat to watch when a con man realizes that he's the mark in the sting.

IIRC, she joined the Boards of Directors of several anti-gun groups. If so, she had a fiduciary duty not to reveal the info disclosed to her. Revealing was a violation of civil law. It could also be theft since she gave it away, with NRA also culpable.

The paid trolls from the NRA are whining about MJ calling on Congress to investigate the NRA's zombie secret agents... which proves how much they're afraid that Congress will do so.

The post that compared Mary McFate's penetration of the Boards of Directors of several gun-control groups to NY City's sending out buyers who acted like gangbangers and bought dozens of guns from out-of-state dealers... who NEVER checked their background, as required by law, is especially funny. Karma sez that some of you trolls will meet some of the REAL bangers who bought guns from those law-breaking dealers. Karma's a ball buster.

@Brian Schmidt:

..."she had a fiduciary duty"...

Why can’t the gun dealers or manufacturers of guns be sued for distributing the gun used in a murder or maiming of innocent citizens..

Maybe if it affected their pocket book they might pay attention to the slaughter they are causing..

A simple question that deserves an answer..

Doober, in case you did not know licensed firearms dealers comply with federal laws. The dealers do not sell firearms to criminals under the table. The problem is with the dope dealing low life inbreed feral scum that infest the inner cities. The laws are in effect that are alleged to prevent such trash from possessing a firearm. Criminals do not comply with the laws. Now is that hard for you to figure out? It's the criminals stupid!

"The paid trolls from the NRA"

Got no facts? Just make ad hominems.

"who NEVER checked their background, as required by law,"

Which explains why NO charges were brought up against the dealers, right?

Remember, it's OK to commit felonies in entrapment if it's for your cause. But a damning offense if the other side does , well, nothing illegal.

If the NRA is a registered lobbying organization - or if it's just a 501c(3) - isn't it required to disclose this type of information publicly?

What you bedwetting liberal socialists fail to recognize is that a great many of us gunbots already possess the arms and ammo to start a small war. We think of your efforts like the ticking of your own nuclear clock, pushing ever closer to midnight. We'd prefer to retain our rights through peacefull means but are prepared to defend them by whatever means necessary. Food for thought.

Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Guns are ubiquitious. So what if there are laws about who can purchase one from a licensed firearms dealer? You don't need a dealer to get a gun. Buying a gun is easier than buying groceries. Anyone who wants one will find one, permit or no permit.

Guns aren't going away, the NRA will never allow that happen. We should be concentrating on why America has more gun violence than any other country in the world. Canadians have just as many guns as we do, but far less gun violence. Why?

"We'd prefer to retain our rights through peacefull means but are prepared to defend them by whatever means necessary."

even if it means trolling the 'mother jones' site and leaving super-awesome comments.

Sorry, just trying to speak at a level you'll understand. Of course you probably have guns too, right? You just don't think the unwashed masses should be trusted with them. We all need that "benevolent" government for surrogate parents don't we? We don't need liberty, just security right. We must be protected from ourselves

That was a super-awesome post wasn't it???. Almost as good as your spectacularly spiffy one. I guess I'm just cool like that, huh?

I see W.W. has found another discussion to fill up with ad hominem attacks.

Got any homophobic paranoia to share with us today, W.W.?

Any more of your homophobic derision you'd like to spew?

"That was a super-awesome post wasn't it???"

would an ironic "wolverines!" reference be wasted on you? or are you too young to remember that? spiffy indeed.

I agree with the first poster. What laws, if any, were broken and why does Congress need to do anything at all about it? They don't do their regular work - why make them do something else unrelated to what they already don't do? I would be exceptionally surprised if this situation was unique. Corporate spying goes on all the time (although, it IS illegal). This was non-profits checking out other non-profits for operation strategies. She didn't take money from both (that I know of). If she did, then she committed fraud. That's another issue.

Personally, I am against gun control because it doesn't control the right people. But, neither am I an NRA member, so I'm not asking these questions with any agenda. I WOULD be concerned if FBI or CIA operatives were among the gun control orgs or on the NRA membership rolls (and they probably are). That's a whole different kettle of fish.

Naw darlin' I remember "Red Dawn". I remember "Atlas Shrugged" "1984" and "Unintended Consequences" too. Go figure, I can actually read. May I suggest you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers as a reference to the Constitution. It might help you grasp the difference between a Republic and a Democracy and why the latter is a affront to liberty.

Their behaving as though they're an independent country-
This is stuff that China does.
They must be investigated and legal action must be taken.
Isn't this a form of terrorism?

"darlin' "

really?

Isn't this a form of terrorism?

No.

Unless you're talking about setting a Senator with a Political Agenda on someone, for something that no one at Mother Jones seems to be able to tie to any specific legal violations.

That might qualify as a form of Terrorism.

Cutlery manufacturers should also be held responsible when somebody is stabbed with one of their knives.

If someone drowns in a swimming pool, the water department should be liable.

RE: doober:"
Why can’t the gun dealers or manufacturers of guns be sued for distributing the gun used in a murder or maiming of innocent citizens..
Maybe if it affected their pocket book they might pay attention to the slaughter they are causing..
A simple question that deserves an answer..
"

Cutlery manufacturers should also be held responsible when somebody is stabbed with one of their knives.

If someone drowns in a swimming pool, the water department should be liable.

Naw, she's a double agent. this story is a ruse to gain the confidence of the NRA. now she's gonna get double secret clearance and spy for sarah brady. ya' gotta watch them double naught spies.
Oh, and William, if you bought your shotgun from some Texas gunbot and not a licenced dealer then you violated your own liberal code. Is this typical "do as I say and not as I do" liberal hypocrisy????

Who cares if the NRA did infiltrate anti-gun groups. What could it have benefited them?

The anti-gun groups are losing because MOST people don't share their HATRED of gun-owners, we gun-owners are passionate about our RIGHTS, we have the correct LEGAL and MORAL positions, and we're motivated to fight for our rights without pay.

The anti-gun people are pretty much paid partisans. They can't win against a determined populace.

This whole bruhaha is a joke.

Basically what I'm reading here is a lot of "Your-rights-offend-me-therefore-lets-get -rid-of-them" crap. And what jackass would suggest suing gun makers for the results of criminals? How about suing the cops whenever they shoot somebody, in that case? Why not sue Ford for all the traffic fatalitites? Why not sue Microsoft because my email didn't go through?

Get a grip.

Yeah, you guys sure are smarter than our forefathers, I can see that. They must've been a bunch of "redneck cowboys" to stick that 2nd amendment in there. They sure didn't use any foresight, did they?

Or did they? My mom had to defend herself with a knife from a rapist because poor people can't afford guns. The police were ambivalent, even aggressive with her. She technically was in violation of the law by carrying a concealed weapon.

I encourage all of you gun-grabbers to google "A World Without Guns," then read it.

I've worked in issue advocacy nonprofits for 10 years now and I can tell you, infiltrating other advocacy organizations is DEFINITELY NOT a common practice in the issue advocacy community. The only other examples I've ever heard of (besides the recent MJ story on infiltration of enviro groups by the same firm) is the PR/infiltration firm of Mongoven, Biscoe & Duchin which tried to infiltrate public health groups mainly for tobacco company clientele.

Now there's definitely been folks on both sides who've gone to open conferences held by the other side, but those are major events and really I think those folks have basically fallen in the volunteer/blogger/journalist category of people, not professional activists (excluding party operatives who can be more cozy with this type stuff).

Infiltration is viewed as appallingly over-the-line and anti-democratic by the nonprofit professionals I've known and many of us were totally shocked by this story. Which is a blessing - I'd hate to imagine how bad politics would get if this was a common practice. So far I don't see any evidence laws were broken, but there is no issue victory that merits sacrificing the core ideal of our democracy - political transparency where an engaged and informed citizenry makes decisions on the merits.

I had actually been thinking of joining the NRA lately - I'm so glad this article came out now. I could never support a group that did this no matter how much I agree with their cause. I'll go with another gun rights group that is ethical in its tactics. (Anybody got a recommendation?)

Dan, Gun Owners of America is a pretty well respected organization, and they do a good job of staying right on top of the issues.

I also happen to like JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership), and no, it's membership is not restricted to Jews.
That simply acknowledges that it's an organization that was started by Jews.

Are you an idiot that just likes to talk without having a clue as to what you're talking about?

Every tax exempt charitable organization is a corporation. As such the directors are held to the same standards, and often stricter ones, as any other executive officer or director.

Yes, she broke many laws, multiple times, and should go away for at least a good 20+ years once you tally up all the offenses.

After we get past the ad hominem attack on who knows who, since he didn't reference any particular post or poster, (Are you an idiot that just likes to talk without having a clue as to what you're talking about?) 'In the middle' declares: Yes, she broke many laws, multiple times, and should go away for at least a good 20+ years once you tally up all the offenses.

Could you give us specifics of exactly which laws they were? I mean criminal code numbers, sections, paragraphs, etc.? Probably ought to include the penalties specified for each violation, since you're making a declaration on what sentence she should get. Also, whether they're State or Federal statutes, and if State, Which State?

You seem quite certain about it, so I'm assuming you have access to the specifics of the laws you allege she broke, and what fines and jail terms are specified for the offenses. You apparently know these things, since you attack..., someone... for not having a clue what they're talking about.

For all their 'investigation', and much touted "expose' ", and now with pushing to get the Senate involved, 'Mother Jones' hasn't bothered to reference any legal violations on the part of Mary ..Whoever.., so we're looking to you to provide that missing part of a very interesting story.

As a former shareholder, president, and owner of a business filings agency I'm quite knowledgeable about corporate laws, and what they entail. To not flood this page with endlessly repetitive legalese from all fifty states, I'll stick with Florida which has a fairly standard set of state statutes regarding businesses, but some states will have even more pro business statutes that would have even greater penalties for acting in a manner counter to the long term prospects and benefits of the corporations she was a director of.

Her service on the boards of multiple organizations makes her a director, and thus responsible to act in a manner that is for the best interest of each organization she is on the board of, and any actions counter to that are immoral and more importantly for the purposes of this conversation illegal.

Just to let all the rabid gun nuts know, I am a pro gun person, and believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to allow all responsible and upright Americans to legally posses firearms for not only the purpose of hunting, but also self defense, and to make for a vigorous defense of both our country against foreign transgressors and our rights against domestic ones, up to and including our own government should our society take a sudden turn towards fascism as it seems it very well may.

That does not just mean bolt lock rifles and hand guns, I'm talking semi-automatic assault rifles, and fully automatic weapons, but at the same time I feel that the sale and purchase of said guns should be much more stringently regulated by the state governments (not the federal level please, they're up our butts enough these days [see fascist comment above]).

Now just remember she would be prosecuted for actions she took in every state that one of the non-profits she was involved in was incorporated in, and for individual charges for each one she was involved in.

Title XXXVI.

(1) A director shall discharge his or her duties as a director, including his or her duties as a member of a committee:

(a) In good faith;

(b) With the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances; and

(c) In a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.

(3) In discharging his or her duties, a director may consider such factors as the director deems relevant, including the long-term prospects and interests of the corporation and its shareholders, and the social, economic, legal, or other effects of any action on the employees, suppliers, customers of the corporation or its subsidiaries, the communities and society in which the corporation or its subsidiaries operate, and the economy of the state and the nation.

(4) A director is not acting in good faith if he or she has knowledge concerning the matter in question that makes reliance otherwise permitted by subsection (2) unwarranted.

(5) A director is not liable for any action taken as a director, or any failure to take any action, if he or she performed the duties of his or her office in compliance with this section.

If you really want me to continue, and you actually understand legalese just let me know if you want me to continue your education in corporate law. :)

Fair enough.
That's actually what I've been asking about for three days. Exactly what laws or regulations she might have violated with the activity she's alleged to have engaged in.

Now, finally encountering a knowledgable answer, the next question is: Is it, indeed, already time to get the Senate involved in the case?

Shouldn't MoJo simply turn over copies of what documentation they've accumulated to the appropriate prosecutors offices, and let them do what the taxpayers are paying them to do?? Federal or State Constitutions don't empower Mother Jones as an investigative agency with subpeona powers, or search warrant authority, or any power to compel testimony by people regarding charges that MoJo may make. The agencies who ARE so empowered are the ones who need to take up the matter at this point.
Then, if said prosecutors and State investigators fail to take what seem to be appropriate measures (such as occured during the civil rights cases in the '60s) THEN the next step ought to be to appeal to the appropriate State Courts, State Supreme Courts, and the US Congress seems like it should be a last resort if no agency charged with upholding these State laws is willing to examine evidence provided in the situation.

That seems like the most appropriate course of action to me.

This move by Mother Jones to immediately involve the Senate, by way of one of the most Anti-2nd Amendment guys they can find seems entirely self-serving and publicity-seeking to me. But then we Are talking about what's becoming Mainstream Media here... or a group that seems desperate to elbow it's way into the midst of that bunch we call MSM.

Right now, I'd rather see Congress spending their time addressing 'spending' (trillions that they don't have), or getting us the Hell OUT of Iraq and Afghanistan, or Impeaching Dubya and the Dick.

Just one man's opinion.

BTW: Where's subsection (2) ?

Seems to have gone missing, and subsection (4) makes direct reference to it, so without that subsection, we really don't know what subsection (4) is saying.

The NRA used a despicable tactic that till now most of us thought was associated only with investigative reporters (such as Woodward and Bernstein) and their ilk. This just shows you how desperate the NRA is to avoid the need to fight a bloody national civil war over the right to keep and bear arms.

You cannot seriously believe that there is no espionage between idealogically opposed interest groups, and theat it is "Over the line"
In the environmental battles, large polluting corporations actually formed false advocacy groups to corral and control the activists.
Even the article in this magazine fails to identify the the real objectives, claiming the various gun contriol and abolition organizations are gun safety groups or for the reduction of "gun violence".
I am all for the reduction in violence in any form and if it can be accomplished without taking away my guns...

They were immaterial for the purposes of the conversation, so I figured why waste space, and make the post more convoluted for thos who aren't used to reading legalese.

If you want to check out the other subsections, as well as the entire Business Organizations section you can find it here.

www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/

Take care

Actually, Florida not-for-profit corporations are governed under Chapter 617, not Title XXXVI.

www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0617/titl0617.htm

The requierments placed on corporate directors are quite similar.

I hope all you mindless NRA supporters (who apparently will defend ANYTHING they do) are all shot to death in the near future.

I don't think it's even a question of legal versus illegal here, although there's a possibility she broke some laws. What she did was pretty crappy, that's all-she handled money and affairs for those groups for a long time, which is a good sight different than people dressing up as gangbangers and purchasing guns illegally in a "hahaha, look at what I could do" sort of sting-like operation. Neither one really does much for either side. The real bitch of it is, there IS no way to stop th ginormity of the violence in this country-i hate guns myself, but taking away legal gun rights won't do much of a thing if criminals can get them on the black market. And gun control should be just that-controlling the illegal flow of guns, curbing the number of guns people buy in a month or a year (who needs to buy more than three guns a year? puh-leeeze, you don't hunt THAT much) and really looking hard at people who CAN buy guns. the misdemeanor that someone stated above as an ex-post facto violation is actually a misdemeanor crime of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE which includes, a lot of the time, beating the crap out of your significant other. Call me crazy, but as a domestic violence advocate who has been threatened by a crazy ex-boyfriend with a gun, which he brought to a battered women's shelter and brandished in front of the kids who were staying there and shot into the air until the police arrived-I don't want those people to have guns. Too many of my clients have been murdered. Again, we need to cap off the illegitimate and horrifyingly, pointlessly violent use of guns. We don't need to turn this issue into some bulls*** 2nd Amendment debate that drags on forever. This problem is real; save the endless debate and the rights talk for the abstract politics. if you want to own guns, work on a solution to the gun violence problem. Damnit.

UpUranus wishes: I hope all you mindless NRA supporters ... are all shot to death in the near future.

Ah.., the peace-loving, anti-gun zealot lets us know what's really in his/her heart.
"Death to those who don't agree with me!"

Nice.

Speaking for my 2nd Amendment advocating self, I sincerely hope you find peace.

Jeremy - I am not sure if you were responding to my post (I'm assuming so because of your use of my phrase over the line) but espionage between citizen advocacy groups is not a practice I've encountered in my career. Your point is absolutely correct - corporate espionage of grassroots advocacy groups (as well as other sketchy techniques like forming false organizations or trying to defund citizen groups) unfortunately has been around for a while, often run by specialized PR firms.

My guess is that this owes the existing prevalence of corporate espionage (companies have long spied on each other over product lines and strategies) and the cynical nature of modern PR. But citizen groups (even if they later come to use PR firms) don't come from that heritage - the history of citizen groups is grounded in democratic organizing; voicing our ideals loud and clear, organizing those who agree, and then going out to the public making our case. So for professional grassroots organizers like myself, the NRA has definitely crossed the line, the biggest line in fact: using clandestine tactics versus engaging our citizens in the light of day. That they did it in defense of the 2nd Amendment, a right our nation thinks so much of we enshrined it in our constitution; a right we should argue for openly, is truly appalling.

The NRA has held a lot of respect in the advocacy world; they are one of the strongest grassroots groups out there. They definitely deserve to be held to task for this (by their peers and members at least, and hopefully their staff - seriously NRA organizers find the hack that authorized this and kick him the hell out). I truly hope they back away from these tactics. Seriously, what did they get out of this - a bit of a jump start on answering their opposition's latest argument, a head's up on a bill that they would have caught anyway once it was filed?. They sullied their cause, made it unseemly, just for that?

Drulius - thanks for the tips. I'll check them out further.

"In the middle" - not to quibble, but how does Florida law apply here? And how did you determine the penalty for violating Florida's statutes, if that is, indeed, provable? The statutes are for regulating civil matters, not criminal. As such, no jail time would be assessed, although civil penalties might be, if it could be proved that the individual were not upholding their duties to the organization, if penalties are provided for.

Regarding that last point, while it may seem to violate the statute you quoted (or, more accurately, the language contained in Florida Statutes 2008, Title XXXVI, Section 617.0830), it is far from proven that Mary McFate did anything that actually harmed any of the organizations she infiltrated. By all accounts, she was a valued member of all of the organizations she joined, and would have continued as such absent the discovery of her infiltration.

Many organizations have, as part of their charter, clauses that preclude board members from being members of other boards and also clauses that contain language similar to the Florida statute you cited. These are guidelines (and even rules) for operating that corporation ... they are generally not codified in criminal law.

The worst that could happen to Mary McFate is that she could be removed from those boards with prejudice. And that's about all that could happen to her in these circumstances, too. It would cost a pretty penny to attempt to put a dollar value on whatever "damages" she may have caused, but anyone who thinks they've got the goods are welcome to try and sue her in civil court.

Please note the complete absence (save this) of any mention of which side of the gun debate I come in on ... that is irrelevant. This is strictly a civil issue, regardless of who was involved.

"We should be concentrating on why America has more gun violence than any other country in the world."

Well, national gun violence rates are hard to come by, but the US is #24 for murders per capita, not #1. I suppose you could assume all of the murders in colombia, south africa, venesuela, russia, etc, aren't from firearms, but that would be pretty asinine, wouldn't it.

"Canadians have just as many guns as we do, but far less gun violence."

Hmm... 7-11 million firearms in Canada, 238-276 million firearms in the USA. And this is the same number how? But we know the "truth", don't confuse us with the facts....

I dunno if/why Mary McF would be a paid operative, given that there are more than enough pro-freedom folks that would do this for free.

The gun control folks are not the naive virgins they make themselves out to be. They work hand-in-hand with "political police" law enforcement staffers/junior DAs, etc. As just one example, we have on record that the Brady's Bryan Siebel was working with California's Deputy AG for Firearms Bureau, Alison Merrilees - so much so, that Ms Merrilees was in essence working for the Bradys and not CA.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

I dunno if/why Mary McF would be a paid operative, given that there are more than enough pro-freedom folks that would do this for free.

The gun control folks are not the naive virgins they make themselves out to be. They work hand-in-hand with "political police" law enforcement staffers/junior DAs, etc. As just one example, we have on record that the Brady's Bryan Siebel was working with California's Deputy AG for Firearms Bureau, Alison Merrilees - so much so, that Ms Merrilees was in essence working for the Bradys and not CA.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Wow! Seems to me an outsider that there is but one thing any red blooded gun totein, bible thumpin, lapel pin wearin uncle samster loves more than his or her gun and that is their own personal story aboot having righteously pumped some lead into some deservin other and live to tell the tale. In that light I propose you set aside at least one day a year ( constitutional amendment) when y'all can take a bead on each other and fire away it would make y'all happy sure enough and it would be great for foreign policy as it would be good for the rest of the world to finally see you doing something good with your guns. C'mon people now fire on your brother every body get together ....how does that song go again?

courier de bois writes: "Seems to me an outsider..." followed by a bunch of stereotyping and derision.

Curiously, 'courier de bois', the 'outsider', doesn't happen to mention where, exactly, (s)he hails from.

Could it be that (s)he has no interest in reading a bunch of stereotyping and derision aimed at those who reside in the location (s)he calls home?

Could it be that Americans might have a similar lack of interest in hearing that from him(her), and (s)he suspected as much when (s)he set about to deride Americans??

I strongly suspect that 'courier de bois' hails from one of the numerous nations with a long tradition of having their rights granted to them and defined for them by the 'good grace' of their rulers.

If that's the case; were I him(her) I certainly wouldn't set out to ridicule a people who are understood to be born with Natural Rights, and who grant specific and limited powers to their government, by way of a defining Constitution.

How 'bout you just go back to trapping beaver (if you have the permission of your rulers) and leave Americans to make decisions about what America ought to be? Amend your own Constitution to recognize your Real Rights rather than a few quasi-Constitutional rights your rulers decided to put on paper a few years ago..., why dontcha?
Or else open yourself to similar statements of opinion by Americans regarding the goings-on of your own country.