Article 23-A Of The General Business Law - New York Attorney General: Fill & Download for Free

They promote conspiracy theories to support their positions, such as putting forth the idea that Democrats, pushing for gun control, are really behind mass shootings,[1] or that the Democratic Party is trying to implement some sort of Gestapo-like network of children ratting out their parents.[2]They purposely misquote or cherrypick information to support their side. For example:they freely quote Thomas Jefferson as saying (in the first draft of the Virginia Constitution), “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms”,[3] but don’t quote subsequent drafts where he limits it to within their own homes,[4] nor do they mention that he then completely changed his mind and disregarded it.[5]The NRA and its members quote George Mason as saying, “The militia is the whole of the people” when discussing the “militia” part of the 2nd amendment, but when viewed in context, it’s clear that the discussion wasn’t about guns at all, it was a warning about the upper-class sending the middle and lower-classes into war to fight for them.[6]They trumpet Switzerland as proof that more guns does not equal more shootings due to the number of firearms owned in the nation versus the rate of gun crime,[7] but they don’t also tell you about the strict gun control laws that have caused the low crime rate, such as the blanket restrictions on ammunition sales or even access to your own firearm.[8]They make up facts to support their positions, like this quote[9] from George Washington…which he never said.[10]They disregard any research on guns, no matter how thoroughly done and how universally accepted it is…unless it supports their positions.Gary Kleck’s research, almost entirely debunked across the board,[11][12][13] is still quoted as supporting “2.5 million defensive gun uses per year”, but the Harvard study,[14] following sound research principles showing the actual number to be a minuscule fraction of that is mocked.All research done by the CDC that was carefully conducted[15] is derided,[16]unless of course we’re talking about a study that seemingly supports the NRA’s position, then they universally praise it,[17] [18] even though the findings, just like Kleck’s, are found to be erroneous.[19]A report done on the effectiveness of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, written in 2003, which repeatedly says it’s too early to tell if the ban is effective and calls repeatedly for Congress to give the ban more time…is haled as being proof that gun bans don’t work.[20] They also refuse to revisit the data on this ban in any objective way as it may show that it did work.[21]When they didn’t like the results of a study about mass shootings showing the US to be far-and-away the world leader, the NRA-funded CPRC first insisted (repeatedly) that the original researcher refused to release his data (which he had), then conducted their own study, comparing war-torn nations like Afghanistan and Angola to the United States, proclaiming that the US is actually very low on the list.[22]They use fear tactics to achieve their objectives.[23] “…the semiauto-auto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.”[24] They insist Democrats will confiscate any and all firearms.[25]They are entirely hypocritical.In the early 1990s, when deliberations on what would become the Brady Bill (resulting in the NICS background check system and waiting periods), the NRA fought every proposal, attempting to either reject or weaken it. Today, not only do they claim to have always supported background checks, but they're actually taking credit for the creation of NICS.[26]In 1999, when legislation was being put forward to expand background checks to, of all things, pawn shops, the NRA opposed it so much that the voting was almost entirely along party lines, with only 6 Republican Senators voting for it. All were voted out in the next election in favor of NRA-funded candidates.[27] Whenever talk arises to require background checks on private transfers of ownership, the NRA announces their opposition, frequently by claiming such background checks already exist or are unnecessary. However, the NRA will openly declare that they’ve always been in full support of background checks.After the 2013 Washington Yard shooting, Wayne LaPierre insisted that mass shootings are the result of a lack of mental health care,[28] and we should focus our energies there instead of any new gun legislation; however, the NRA had objected to mental health being taken into account for background checks just a few years prior,[29] and supported the removal of using mental disabilities as a factor in background checks in 2016.[30]When Florida passed a law raising the minimum age to own a gun from 18 to 21, the NRA filed suit. [31] The NRA first attempted to sue “in general”, but then attempted to add an anonymous 19-year-old to the lawsuit when they realized they’d have to show somebody was affected by the new law.[32] Why anonymous? “The organization asked that the teen be added to the suit using a pseudonym, to avoid potential harassment….” At the same time, NRA spokespeople were engaged in what can only be termed “harassment” of the teen survivors of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida.[33] [34] [35]After the Las Vegas shooting, the NRA supported legislation to ban bump stocks…that is, until legislation was proposed. Their position then shifted to saying they would only support an executive order banning them; the sole reason for this is to allow for easily reversing this in the future. After the recent ban was signed, the NRA announced that they don’t support it because it didn’t allow for “grandfathering” in those currently owned…showing this was entirely lip service.They fight every measure designed to make guns safer, despite claiming that gun safety is a major reason for their existence. In 2000, the Clinton administration and Smith & Wesson reached an agreement to make S & W firearms safer; S & W agreed to install safety devices, better screen who purchases their weapons for sale, agreed to limit bulk handgun orders, and to make “smart gun” technology available in 3 years.[36] The NRA called for a boycott of S & W[37] that almost bankrupted the company (they were only saved by being sold to a new parent company who refused to abide by the agreement).[38]They repeatedly insist that there is never a right time to discuss laws that may make guns safer, or harder to have access to, or easier to take from those who are dangerous. In fact, they insist it’s never the right time for legislators to discuss firearms…unless it’s to remove laws.[39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]They blame gun-free zones for all mass shootings, even when it’s absolute nonsense.[47][48][49] When Gabby Giffords was shot in Tucson, Arizona, Wayne LaPierre himself insisted that she was the victim of a gun-free zone, when she had been shot in a grocery store parking lot where a number of people were actually carrying concealed firearms.[50] The NRA insists that the Aurora, CO movie theater was caused by it being a gun-free zone, which was disproved in court.[51] In fact, this idea of gun-free zones being targeted is a well-debunked myth.[52] [53]They are now, essentially, a money-laundering operation for Russian political donations to US Republican candidates. The NRA themselves admit to taking in political donations from Russian addresses. [54] [55][56](EDIT 9/27/2019: A Senate investigation has just completed, showing that the NRA and Russian nationals had an even more cozy relationship than initially thought. It is now established that Russia was pumping a considerable amount of money into the NRA’s political action fund, and the NRA was brokering meetings between US and Russian government officials and businessmen in exchange for money. There were also considerably more illegal/unethical activities happening that were leading to NRA officials investing in Russian businesses.[57] [58] [59] [60])They say horrible, despicable things, oftentimes completely contradicting with reality. Their current, official spokesperson recently said, “Many in legacy media love mass shootings. You guys love it.”[61] She also recently insisted that a man illegally shot by a cop in his own home could have protected himself by owning a gun.[62]I think that’s a pretty decent list.NOTE: comments on my answers are not the place for pet diatribes. I will delete comments that aren’t pertinent to the question and answer, as well as any comments that promote misinformation or bigotry.*** EDIT 11/19/2018 ***So, a guy claiming to be the son of Neal Knox, as well as another NRA-fan, have made multiple disjointed remarks that:Neal Knox wasn’t speaking for the NRA when he wrote that (my first point and footnote)Knox wasn’t employed by the NRA at the time he wrote thatThe line highlighted in my link is out of context.Well, let’s start with #2. Knox was employed by the NRA from 1977 to 1982 as a lobbyist, then from 1991 to 1997 as a board member.[63] Knox wrote the cited article in the fall of 1994.[64] So, yes, he was employed by, or at least affiliated with, the NRA when he wrote it.(oddly, the guy claiming to be Knox’s son doesn’t even seem aware of his father’s role[65] )Was he speaking for the NRA when he wrote it? Well, he was on the Board. He was the “First Vice President” of the NRA in 1997.[66] He was officially “skipped” in succession for President when Charlton Heston was given the title,[67] which means he was a pretty big deal in the NRA. He has been referred to as “the real power at the NRA”,[68] the “torchbearer of the NRA”[69] and its “most powerful leader”.[70] In 1995, an NRA board member was quoted as saying, “[the NRA Board members] owe their total allegiance to Neal Knox …”.[71] He did frequent interviews on behalf of the NRA. He wrote a steady stream of articles on behalf of the NRA. So, yes, he was a spokesperson, denying that is just silly.As far as context, well…you read the entire page, then decide.I also notice nobody’s disputing numbers 2–11….*** EDIT 11/19/2018 ***I seriously had a guy tell me in a comment that I didn’t provide my sources.We’re currently at 48 footnotes.I just don’t understand….*** EDIT 11/29/2018 ***Added a few more items…and even more footnotes!*** EDIT 12/5/2018 ***Thanks for the cited sources but there is much opinion and little fact here.[72]I just don’t understand. As of this writing, 18 of my citations go directly to statements from NRA leaders and spokespeople. Another bunch, 17, are to actual research studies, legal documents, and historical records. The links to news sites are almost entirely discussing specific incidents. I see no opinion pieces whatsoever, aside from those written by NRA leadership and spokespeople.I truly don’t understand some of these people….Footnotes[1] Neal Knox[2] NRA Leader Warns That Democrats Want to Build a Socialist Cloud Database of Parents’ Spanking Habits[3] Founders Online: I. First Draft by Jefferson, [before June 1776][4] Founders Online: III. Third Draft by Jefferson, [before June 1776][5] Founders Online: VII. The Constitution as Adopted by the Convention, [29 June 1 …[6] What America is getting wrong about three important words in the Second Amendment[7] NRA-ILA | Gun Control Advocates Target Peaceful Switzerland[8] Gun laws in Switzerland - Wikipedia[9] Image on quoracdn.net[10] Spurious Quotations[11] Contradictions of Kleck[12] National Criminal Justice Reference Service[13] More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows[14] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730664/pdf/v006p00263.pdf[15] Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home | NEJM[16] NRA-ILA | 22 Times Less Safe?Anti-Gun Lobby's FavoriteSpin Re-Attacks Guns In The Home[17] NRA-ILA | Newly Discovered Data Proves Why We Can’t Trust the CDC on Guns[18] NRA-ILA | CDC Kept Quiet on Data Showing Americans Regularly Use Firearms for Self-Defense[19] That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses[20] https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf[21] Garrett Murphy's answer to Was the 1994 assault weapons ban effective?[22] Garrett Murphy's answer to Do statisticians get it wrong? Is the United States not even near the top of the list of world mass shootings?[23] NRA chief accuses Democrats of pushing 'socialist' agenda [24] NRA Defends Vitriol Toward Federal Agents / Letter calls them `jack-booted thugs'[25] Gun paranoia in the age of Trump[26] The NRA Is Taking Credit for the Background Check System It Tried to Sink[27] Roll Call on Gun Background Checks[28] NRA's LaPierre calls for more armed personnel after Navy Yard shooting[29] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901080.html[30] NRA: The mentally ill have gun rights, too[31] NRA v Bondi - Complaint[32] A Judge Said The NRA Has To Actually Name A Teen Who Wants To Sue Florida Over New Gun Control Laws[33] 'We’re Not Terrorists. I’m a Mother!': Dana Loesch Says Parkland Teens Are 'Projecting Bigoted Notions' on '2nd Amendment Advocates'[34] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/22/dana-loesch-the-nras-brash-spokeswoman-dials-back-the-rage-at-cnn-town-hall/?utm_term=.968fa9d1cb77[35] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/03/24/nra-host-taunts-parkland-teens-no-one-would-know-your-names-if-classmates-were-still-alive/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6134b92203fc[36] http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html[37] Boycotts: They Work! | US Concealed Carry Association[38] After taking bullets, Smith & Wesson lives[39] NRA-ILA ::[40] The History of the NRA, Gun Control, and the Whole Shebang[41] How the NRA Defeats National Tragedies[42] How the NRA Defeats National Tragedies[43] Gun Control Buzz Follows Shootings[44] Rieder: No, not 'too soon' to talk gun control[45] No, Mr. President, the NRA is not to blame: Chris Cox[46] Gun laws don’t deter terrorists: Opposing view[47] 7 People Who Tried To Blame ‘Gun Free Zones’ For The UCC Shooting, Even Though The School Wasn’t One[48] San Bernardino shooting: 'The biggest problem was that it was a gun-free zone'[49] FACT CHECK: Umpqua Community College Is a Gun-Free Zone?[50] How the NRA Defeats National Tragedies[51] The History of the NRA, Gun Control, and the Whole Shebang[52] Opinion flashback: NRA's gun-free zone myth[53] Commentary: Gun-Free Zones Don't Attract Mass Shootings[54] Depth Of Russian Politician's Cultivation Of NRA Ties Revealed[55] Russian National Charged in Conspiracy to Act as an Agent of the Russian Federation Within the United States[56] NRA got more money from Russia-linked sources than earlier reported[57] NRA Was 'Foreign Asset' To Russia Ahead of 2016, New Senate Report Reveals[58] https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6432520-The-NRA-Russia-How-a-Tax-Exempt-Organization[59] Top Trump Ally Met With Putin’s Deputy in Moscow[60] New York Attorney General Launches Investigation Into NRA Financial Dealings[61] NRA spox: 'Many in legacy media love mass shootings'[62] NRA's Dana Loesch says man killed by cop in his home could've survived if he "was a law abiding gun owner"[63] Neal Knox[64] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1995/07/09/gunning-for-his-enemies/ec63ddc7-a44f-4356-a713-7e0c35b7ca9e/?utm_term=.8e6b675fb391[65] https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-specifically-about-the-NRA-that-angers-so-many-people-on-the-left-no-trolling-please/answer/Garrett-Murphy-6/comment/78569416[66] Are We Revising NRA History?[67] Are We Revising NRA History?[68] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1995/04/29/recoil-from-the-nras-two-top-guns/34853e23-838d-4200-b79d-c76a3b007267/?utm_term=.90a96875da98[69] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1995/07/09/gunning-for-his-enemies/ec63ddc7-a44f-4356-a713-7e0c35b7ca9e/?utm_term=.8e6b675fb391[70] Aggressive Strategy By N.R.A. Has Left Its Finances Reeling[71] Aggressive Strategy By N.R.A. Has Left Its Finances Reeling[72] https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-specifically-about-the-NRA-that-angers-so-many-people-on-the-left-no-trolling-please/answer/Garrett-Murphy-6/comment/79774764

In my opinion, prostitution in the U.S. should be legal.*Let me first start by issuing the following disclaimer:I have never been with a prostitute. If legalized, I would not visit a prostitute. I gain nothing by writing this. I am not affiliated with any organization or group that advocates for prostitution.I understand that many women can be offended by this so I ask you to please proceed with an open mind before you kill me with comments below regarding the ills of human trafficking or the morality of it all. First, four background points:A short history of prostitution[1] in ancient Greece and the U.S.The Federal government has left the legality of prostitution to the individual states to decide if it should be legal or not within their individual borders.The state government of Nevada is the only state in the U.S. that has legal prostitution and has left the decision of legalization to each individual county (In Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, it is illegal) rather than a state decision of where and where it is not legal.A review of any Nevada county law or ordinance regarding prostitution will show strict statutes that must be followed. It is a regulated industry. One such statute is that street prostitution is illegal and that prostitution must only take place in a controlled environment called a brothel and not in a residential neighborhood, and not near a school.All workers in a brothel must be registered with the county.All brothels must be licensed.All workers must get tested for STDs and HIV once a week.Legalization significantly reduces human trafficking and street walkers.Legalization significantly reduces underage prostitutionLegalization significantly reduces forced prostitution.Legalization may make it easier for police to find underage and human trafficking (#7–9 above). The legalized brothels are controlled and works to help get women off the street and in a safe environment. Many more streetwalkers will be off the street resulting in fewer ad’s for a “date.” Police may have an easier time and more success in finding human trafficking, underage, and forced prostitution.Police man power for sex crimes and task forces can be reduced due to fewer street walkers, pimps, and John’s to arrest, allowing the police to redirect more availability to more serious crimes .The courts will have fewer prostitution cases to process resulting in other cases being heard and resolved more quickly.Public defenders will have a lighter case load allowing them to spend more time on other, more serious defendants.Legalization significantly reduces men having to be concerned about arrest and having their lives and reputations destroyed.Men (customers) will be safer. No more driving to the “bad” part of town, risking getting robbed, assaulted, or ripped off by a worker.Studies that compare indoor prostitutes (as opposed to street walkers) with non-prostitutes find that they have similar levels of self-esteem, physical health, and mental health. Many indoor prostitutes even report a rise in self-esteem after they begin their indoor work (Weitzer, 2012).Kingley Davis, theorized that prostitution lowers the divorce rate. He reasoned that many married men are unhappy with their sex life with their wives. If they do not think this situation can improve, some men start an affair with another woman and may fall in love with that woman, threatening these men’s marriages. (Kingsley Davis was was an internationally recognized American sociologist identified by the American Philosophical Society as one of the most outstanding social scientists of the twentieth century.)Legalization significantly reduces the acts occurring in seedy motels and the activity that is seen around those neighborhoods.Legalization significantly reduces drug use. A brothel is a controlled environment where no such activity is tolerated.Legalization significantly reduces any guilt or embarrassment by either of the two parties involved.It creates a safe environment for the workers.All brothels are regulated and most follow strict code adherenceAll prostitutes must be tested for STD, HIV, etc once a week (Nevada has not recorded a single case of HIV in a brothel since legalizing Prostitution.)Condoms must be used. There is no option.The women can always choose to not participate with a customer if she does not want to do what the customer wants to do. The customer can choose another partner.All prices of all sex acts are clearly posted and/or menu’s are provided. No negotiations.Brothels provide a clean & safe environment for all parties involved.Creates a new source of tax revenue.“Let’s assume that 50 million acts of prostitution occur annually in the United States (it is closer to 70 million), and that each of these acts costs an average $30. Putting these numbers together, prostitutes receive $1.5 billion annually in income. If they paid about one-third of this amount (admittedly a rough estimate) in payroll taxes, the revenue of state and federal governments would increase by $500 million.” (resource)Removes “Red Light Districts” and moves everything into a controlled environment.Prostitution was legal in the U.S. up until 100 years ago (1920) when it became illegal due to the religious moral reasons. Are we still making laws based on religious reasons?Prostitution has long been illegal due to moral reasons. To that point consider this:Who is to say what is and is not moral in this day and age? Homosexuality, black/white relationships, and sodomy were all once illegal.Sodomy laws in the United States, were inherited from British criminal laws with roots in the Christian religion. Christian religion no longer dictates U.S. law and is a violation of separation of church and state.If we follow British rule of law (which is what U.S laws are based upon), prostitution is legal. Therefore, American law should follow, right? (I personally do not agree on this point.) There are certain restrictions however.In the case, Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the U.S. Supreme court, in a 6–3 decision, struck down Texas State law (and therefore 13 other states) that made Sodomy illegal between consenting adults. This is significant because Lawrence v Texas overruled a previous Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 that found a Georgia statute banning sodomy, was valid because the Constitution did not apply to constitutional protection of sexual privacy. By reversing the 1986 decision, the Court ruled that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the 14th Amendment.Legalizing Prostitution would give the workers a right to unionize and be entitled to certain protections.The spread of STD’s and HIV could be significantly reduced (condom use).Worker injury (whatever that might be) would be covered under OSHA.Workers could possible be entitled to benefits such as sick time, paid time off, and even vacation and retirement planning.Workers would receive health benefits.Strip Clubs are legal and the activity in these clubs comes very close to a brothel. Why is it permissible to watch a woman (of her own free will) remove all her clothing in public and dance naked for money but she cannot, of her own free will, have human contact of her own free will.Two (or more) consenting adults, agree to have sex with each other, and get paid to have sex with each other. That’s prostitution, right? No, there is a loophole. XXX rated movies. These actors get paid to have sex but because they are being filmed for commercial purposes and claim it as an art form, then that’s ok, They are not breaking the law. Hmmm…Roe v. Wade. This might be a stretch but Roe v Wade gives a woman the right to choose what happens to her body and focuses on reproductive rights. It mentions personal autonomy. Personal autonomy is a key provision here. Can such an argument be referenced for what a woman decides to do with her body, such as participating in prostitution? (For more on personal autonomy, see Part IV of this John Marshall Law Review article. See also this Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository article.)“Corruption would be rampant.” This is a baseless statement. Lets be realistic. There is corruption with every single job on the planet including, Police, Politicians, Priests (and other religions), Judges, teachers, social workers, Stock Market (money managers), etc. Are all priests, police, or teachers bad? Of course not. The majority of all workers and professionals are good, honest, hardworking people. Just because a woman is a prostitute does not make her a bad person. I cannot say why a woman would want or need to do this sort of work, but the reason is not for any of us to judgeA U.N. report found "very low" rates of sexually transmitted infections among the sex workers of New Zealand, a country whose total decriminalization of prostitution many advocates consider to be the gold standard in sex work policy. NZ - it's a great place to be a prostituteFormer US Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders thinks it makes no sense to ban prostitution simply because it objectifies women: “Why are we so upset about sex workers selling sexual acts to consenting adults?” she asks. “We say that they are selling their bodies, but how different is that from what athletes do? They’re selling their bodies. Models? They’re selling their bodies. Actors? They’re selling their bodies.”Recently, in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, an appeals judge asked, why it should be “illegal to sell something that’s legal to give away?” Other judges have said the 14th amendment and Lawrence v. Texas does not apply to Prostitution because that is not what those who wrote the 14th amendment nor the Supreme Court Justices had in mind. Really? How is that known? The ruling references Personal Autonomy.Prostitution can be a controlled and regulated industry. Without regulations, we get what we have today….street walkers, drug addicts, abused women etc. This profession is known as the worlds oldest profession. It’s not, nor will it ever, go away. It was completely legal in all the U.S. until only 1920.We can waste tax payer money by continuing sting operations, arresting offenders who will only turn around and go right back to the street after posting bond or, we can provide a safe and regulated place for all involved and redirect police resources to truly hurtful and dangerous crimes.I cannot imagine anyone who would rather drive to a seedy part of town, risk arrest, getting robbed, contracting an STD, and embarrassment by arrest, versus going to a place that does not hide the truth and provides safety for all parties.I’m not an attorney or an advocate, but in my eyes, the only reasons prostitution is illegal is because nobody is willing to write the rules and because of those who define morality. Bt who defines morality? Does your morality have to be my morality? It is not the same thing to all people. I guess that falls to the court system…the same court that once outlawed sodomy, sex between two males, and black/white sex.In my opinion, the decision to have sex between two consenting adults, whether it be for money, food, or Winnie the Pooh stickers, is and should be, between the adults involved. There needs to be, like all other legal matters, rules and restrictions put into place to protect everyone. And no need to reinvent the wheel. We can use New Zealand, Amsterdam, and Nevada as the blueprint for policy. All objections such as STD’s, HIV, corruption, exploitation, etc, are really just from people who object to the activity and have no desire to make it legal and they are absolutely entitled to their opinion, but I don’t care for alcohol and there are some religions that forbid drinking it, but that does not mean we should outlaw alcohol due to moral and religious beliefs? We already tried that in the U.S. and it failed miserably, in part because all kinds of mobs and corruption materialized. Al Capone made his living from running illegal moonshine and secret “speakeasy’s.” Those speakeasy’s and running moonshine (all the illegal activity) vanished right after alcohol was legalized again.Human nature is such that if we want something bad enough, we will find a way to get it. That is why there is and has always been prostitution. We’ve legalized marijuana, alcohol, same sex marriage, abortions, segregation, sodomy, and so many other “once illegal” activities. The illegal fixation on prostitution pales in comparison to the benefits for all parties involved including the workers, the customers, the tax payers, the government, and the public at large.(Reed Saxon/AP)EDIT: The word. “Eliminates” used in my opinion are too definitive as Sean Patrick points out in his comment below. I agree. I am changing the word to “reduces.” Also, I added a TON more points to and links. My apologies to the first 18K readers who did not read this revised version that has more clarity.Edit #2:Human Trafficking has become a very hot topic lately which has created many non-profit organizations to help those who are involuntarily forced into being a “sex slave” with little hope of escape. I fully support & agree with such organizations to the point that modern day slavery of any type should not and can not be tolerated anywhere, in any country. While these organizations are doing a terrific service by building awareness of a problem that needs addressing, I do not agree with everything they advocate, specifically their attempt to keep prostitution illegal and that it is bad for everyone everywhere. There is research, commissioned by Human Trafficking groups, that show even legalized prostitution in Nevada is detrimental and is known to have forced labor and so I want to address that concern, that legalizing will not put an end to human trafficking and actually increases human trafficking (this is what some research reporting has concluded).First, everyone should always be wary of any research commissioned by groups that want to prove their point as valid. It almost goes without saying that these groups would bury the report if the research showed the opposite of what they theorize and want others to read.Second, brothels are regulated in Nevada and should be heavily regulated. Las Vegas does a pretty good job of regulating anyone working in a gaming environment by requiring every worker to obtain and carry a “Sheriff’s card” (also called a Work Card.)This card can only be obtained by a person who is sponsored by an employer who has agreed to hire them. You cannot obtain a card before being employed, only after being offered a job by an employer. This does not completely stop problems but certainly makes things more difficult for the illegal activity to occur. In fact, Las Vegas already requires that those working in brothels have such a card even though prostitution is illegal in Clark County (where Las Vegas is located.)As you can see from the following sample, the questions are specific and more detailed questions can be added including a private, in-person interview with a deputy or agent who can ask the worker specific questions such as “Are you being forced into this work?” “Do you need help with an addiction?” “Why have you chosen to do this work?” “Has anyone threatened your safety if you do not obtain this card or work in the profession?” The workers can be required to renew the cards annually with an interview.Here is a sample application for a Sheriff’s card.https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/SampleWorkCardApplication.pdfWith proper regulations, many concerns are addressed and for those who continue to participate in trafficking, pimping and smuggling of humans, the penalties should be made more severe and as severe as possible.————————————————————————-Footnotes and Further Reading that might apply to this opinion:Federal MaterialSearch U.S. Supreme Court DecisionsSearch U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals DecisionsSearch LII Preview/ Analyses of Supreme Court Cases1st Amendment to U.S. Constitution4th and 5th Amendments to U.S. Constitution14th Amendment to U.S. ConstitutionSearch the Annotated Constitution of the United StatesU.S. Supreme Court: Historic Right of Privacy-Personal Autonomy DecisionsGriswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973)Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977)Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)Lawrence v. Texas(2003)State Judicial DecisionsN.Y. Court of Appeals:Commentary from liibulletin-nySearch N.Y. Court of Appeals DecisionsAppellate Decisions from Other StatesOther ReferencesGood Starting Point, including a short history of Prostitution and the following references:Turkington & Allen-Castellitto Privacy Law: Cases & Materials, West Group (2002)Barry, K. (1996). The prostitution of sexuality. New York, NY: New York University Press.Brewer, D. D., Potterat, J. J., Garrett, S. B., Muth, S. Q., John M. Roberts, J., Kasprzyk, D., et al. (2000). Prostitution and the sex discrepancy in reported number of sexual partners. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 12385–12388.Bullough, V. L., & Bullough, B. (1977). Sin, sickness, and sanity: A history of sexual attitudes. New York, NY: New American Library.Bullough, V. L., & Bullough, B. (1987). Women and prostitution: A social history. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.Clinard, M. B., & Meier, R. F. (2011). Sociology of deviant behavior (14th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Davis, K. (1937). The sociology of prostitution. American Sociological Review, 2, 744–755.Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Crime in the United States, 2010. Washington, DC: Author.McCaslin, J. (1999, October 13). Vaginal politics. Washington Times, p. A8.Meier, R. F., & Geis, G. (2007). Criminal justice and moral issues. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Ordway, R. (1995, May 26). Relaxation spas perplex officials. The Bangor Daily News, p. 1.Ringdal, N. J. (2004). Love for sale: A world history of prostitution (R. Daly, Trans.). New York, NY: Grove Press.Rosen, R. (1983). The lost sisterhood: Prostitution in America, 1900–1918. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Stanford, S. (1966). The lady of the house. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam.Weitzer, R. (2009). Sociology of sex work. Annual Review of Sociology, 35(0360-0572, 0360-0572), 213–234.Weitzer, R. (2011). Legalizing prostitution: From illicit vice to lawful business. New York, NY: New York University Press.Weitzer, R. (2012). Prostitution: Facts and fictions. In D. Hartmann & C. Uggen (Eds.), The Contexts reader (pp. 223–230). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Footnotes[1] Social Problems: Continuity and Change

New York’s Attorney General cannot dissolve any Trump corporation administratively (despite what the year-old article that the OP cited may lead one to believe).If dissolution were to occur, it would be the result of a court trial, i.e., Trump would “save” the corporation during trial.The following first appeared in Dana H. Shultz's answer to What does it mean for a corporation to be "dissolved" by a U.S. state?As concerns the request to dissolve the Trump Organization, I will start by noting the following:Despite a Washington Post article (Group urges New York AG to put Trump out of business by revoking charter) discussing a request to “investigate whether to bring proceeding to dissolve and revoke the charter of Trump Organization Inc.,” research shows that there is no New York corporation by that name. There is, however, a corporation named The Trump Organization, Inc., #694908, filed April 23, 1981.In addition, there is a limited liability company, Trump Organization LLC, #2405651, filed on August 4, 1999.I have no idea if the role that either of these entities plays in Trump’s operations.The statute under which New York’s attorney-general may seek to dissolve a corporation is Business Corporation Law Section 1101, which states:(a) The attorney-general may bring an action for the dissolution of a corporation upon one or more of the following grounds:(1) That the corporation procured its formation through fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.(2) That the corporation has exceeded the authority conferred upon it by law, or has violated any provision of law whereby it has forfeited its charter, or carried on, conducted or transacted its business in a persistently fraudulent or illegal manner, or by the abuse of its powers contrary to the public policy of the state has become liable to be dissolved.(b) An action under this section is triable by jury as a matter of right.(c) The enumeration in paragraph (a) of grounds for dissolution shall not exclude actions or special proceedings by the attorney-general or other state officials for the annulment or dissolution of a corporation for other causes as provided in this chapter or in any other statute of this state.Although I am not a fan of Trump or his business practices or his Presidency, I see no way that the A-G will try to dissolve Trump’s corporation. I do not see any rampant illegal behavior or abuse of powers that would justify such an action.By the way, looking at New York’s Limited Liability Company Law, I see no comparable statute permitting the A-G to dissolve LLCs.