March 9th was National Gin and Tonic Day. This is not to be confused with International Gin and Tonic Day which will be on October 19th.
I apologize for being a day late with the notification but I had other things on my mind.
My biggest suggestion about making a good gin and tonic is to use a quality tonic water such a Fever Tree, Q, or Franklin & Sons. You can get by with a just OK gin but not a crappy tonic water.
From Stephanie Daniels, Asst NRA Secretary, at 12:06pm
Congratulations! Based on the draft report of the ballot results, you have been elected to the NRA Board of Directors for a three-year term ending in 2028. The newly elected Directors will be recognized at the Annual Meeting of Members in Atlanta, Georgia, Saturday, April 26, and will take office upon the adjournment of the meeting. The Board will meet on Monday, April 28. Authorization to attend the meetings will be emailed to you under separate cover. We look forward to seeing you there.
In terms of who else has been elected, I know Theresa Inacker, Jim Sheckels, and Scott Emslie. According to my email with Rocky Marshall, so far we know that 7 of NRA 2.0 were elected and 3 were not.
UPDATE 1: You can add Anthony Colandro, Al Hammond, and Todd Ellis to the list of those elected. On the downside, it just kills me that Todd Vandermyde did not get elected. He had a ton of great ideas plus the experience to make the difference in legislative affairs.
UPDATE 2: In addition to Todd, I heard that David Mitten, Regis Synan, Todd Figard, Jim Wallace, and, shockingly, Frank Tait were not elected from the NRA 2.0 team. I did hear that Bob Barr and Sandy Froman were re-elected.
On the plus side, Jim Porter, Knox Williams, Jonathan Goldstein, Philip Gray, Willes Lee, and Cathy Wright were elected from the NRA 2.0 team. Additionally, Tom King was not re-elected.
UPDATE 3: Rounding out the results for NRA 2.0 team, Mitzy McCorvey, Jack Hagan, Howard Massingill, Dick Fairburn, Jim Fotis, and Jason Wilson were elected. On the downside, Charles Hiltunen along with the two write-in candidates, Paul Babaz and Charles Brown, were not elected.
I don’t have the rank order of candidates yet but have heard it will be sent to the Board tomorrow. It should also be posted on the publications website after that so perhaps Friday or more likely Monday.
As I wait (and wait) for the results from the 2025 NRA Board elections, I kinda think Tom Petty was correct. I know Homer Simpson agrees.
I got one of those fake Paypal invoices today for a .50 caliber double barrel shotgun.
I’m like WTF?
Now here is the funny part. There is actually such a thing as a Seneca Double Shot .50 cal Double Barrel Shotgun. Turns out it is an air-shotgun. Think air rifle but made up as a shotgun. Even Midway USA carries it!
I’m not sure why I’d want a air shotgun given all the choices available in “real” shotguns. Nonetheless I learned something like that actually exists. I guess I should thank the scammers for broadening my horizons.
If you went abroad hunting and are having personally hunted trophies returned in either finished or “dip and pack” form, these are not subject to the newly announced reciprocal tariffs. This is good news! However, if you bought curios made from animal parts or things like a zebra rug from an animal that you didn’t shoot, they are subject to the tariffs.
Personally, I have the trophies from my two trips to South Africa in process with taxidermists over there so it makes me very happy.
Doug Cockcroft of Splitting Image Taxidermy has more on it in the video below. I did get a chance to visit his facility last June in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. The finished work was outstanding and I can’t wait to get my taxidermy from them.
When Bill Brewer and his crew resigned from legal representation of the NRA they left behind some ticking time bombs that could have a severe financial impact. I will take them in order and you can make your own judgment as to the financial impact upon the NRA. As it is, I cannot for the life of me see why an attempt to settle some or all has not been attempted.
First, we have the case of Under Wild Skies v. National Rifle Association. This is a Virginia state court case in which a jury awarded Under Wild Skies approximately $550,000 for breach of contract. Both sides appealed the award and verdict to the Virginia Court of Appeals. Under Wild Skies argued that the circuit court had erred by rejecting a proposed jury instruction regarding anticipatory breach of contract. In other words, they are arguing the NRA had an obligation to pay for all the contracted episodes regardless of whether they had yet been produced or not. Meanwhile, the NRA argued the court should have set aside the verdict in favor of Under Wild Skies given its affirmative defense of fraudulent billing and should have allowed the NRA to recoup its losses. The Court of Appeals rejected both sides arguments and affirmed the circuit court’s verdict.
Here is where it now gets interesting. Both sides again appeal and the Virginia Supreme Court decided that they will take the case. The case is on the docket for the court’s April session and arguments will be heard on April 15th. Brewer along with the Virginia firm of Briglia Hundley had handled the NRA’s side up through the Court of Appeals. Brewer is gone and Robert Cox of Whiteford, Taylor, and Preston is the new co-counsel. One reason the court may have taken the appeal is to rule on the doctrine of reasonable assurances which no Virginia court has done. The granted appeal summary seems to indicate the court may be favoring Under Wild Skies’ arguments. If Under Wild Skies wins on appeal, the cost to the NRA could range upwards of $17 million.
The second case is Dell’Aquila v. NRA which recently was allowed to go forward and for which Dell’Aquila can begin discovery. As noted in the earlier post, while Brewer attorneys had produced all the motions filed on behalf of the NRA in this case which Judge Campbell denied, they have been replaced by a Nashville firm. That this case even reached discovery is somewhat remarkable when one considers that it was originally filed pro se and then David Dell’Aquila had to switch attorneys midstream. According to the Third Amended Complaint, damages are greater than $5 million which could be tripled if RICO fraud is proved. I really don’t think this case was taken that seriously for a long time and now suddenly it is. Imagine how much cheaper it would have been if Bill Brewer had said to Wayne, “Just give the guy his money back, pay his attorney’s fees, and be done with it.”
The third case was brought by the NRA against Ackerman McQueen and Mercury Group for breach of contract for disclosing the Confidential Settlement Agreement in which the NRA agreed to pay AckMac $12,250,000 to settle an earlier case. This case has been going on since September 2022. If memory serves, this agreement was kept from the NRA Board of Directors and they were not allowed to see it. However, the CSA is out in the public domain now and has been due to an inadvertent filing of it as an exhibit by attorneys from Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors. Attorneys from that firm withdrew effective February 27, 2025 and have been replaced by the Dallas firm of Foley and Lardner. The NRA is still attempting to keep the signatories to the agreement agreement under court seal even though it is now in the public domain. The question has to asked why the heck hasn’t the NRA moved to dismiss the case and why are they even bothering to bother to keep the signatories under seal. The signatures are out there and it seems that it is a waste of money to keep them under seal. Doug Hamlin, NRA General Counsel Michael Blaz, and the Legal Affairs Committee of the Board ought to cut our losses and move on.
CLARIFICATION: After I wrote this post, I had a long conversation with a reform director. He explained the rationale for keeping the CSA and other proceedings under seal even though it had been made public earlier was that it was always meant to be under seal, that the breach of confidentiality was in error, and that the NRA contends that Tony Makris and Under Wild Skies are inseparable. I do note the the judge in this case did approve an order on April 1st to keep it under seal. He went on to say that discussions were ongoing to resolve all three of the above cases. As he has always been upfront with me, I will take him at his word.
Finally, there is the anticipated lawsuit from Oliver North for malicious prosecution. To my knowledge it has not been filed yet but I do keep looking. However, the reputational damage along with the accusations of “greed”, “extortion”, and “blackmail” contained in Tom King’s ethics complaint when added to the whistleblower retaliation that the jury found in the AG’s case could induce Col. North to ask for millions.
All four of these pending or potential lawsuits could end up costing the NRA millions of dollars that it really doesn’t have to waste. An attorney who was working in the best interest of his client should have urged settlement in the early stages rather than to let the issues fester so that the billings could increase. These cases need to go away and the NRA’s leadership needs to take the necessary steps to conclude them.
An email went out yesterday from the NRA’s Office of General Counsel to staff and directors telling them to preserve documents. This was because former NRA President Lt. Col. Oliver North would be filing suit against the NRA for “malicious prosecution” tomorrow. While I have seen the email on document preservation, I have not seen the complaint from North’s intended lawsuit nor do I know in which court the case will be tried.
This motivated me to go back and read through the documents in the case the NRA filed against Oliver North in 2020 in Albany, New York. The NRA sought a declaratory judgment from the court that New York Non-Profit Corporation Law did not prevent the NRA from following its bylaw process for expelling Col. North if found guilty of an ethics complaint filed by Director Tom King. This case was dismissed on March 7, 2025 by mutual agreement of the NRA and Col. North.
Prior to the case being dismissed, Col. North had moved for summary judgment in his favor given the outcome of the New York Attorney General’s case against the NRA. In response, the NRA’s new lawyers from Baker & Hostetler LLP requested a pre-motion conference and permission of the court to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice.
The response from Col. North opposing the voluntary dismissal may give some indication as to what will come up in his new lawsuit.
The NRA intends to dismiss their case after the damage has been done to Col. North (and the NRA), and retreat as quietly as possible, whereas Col. North asks, in fairness, for a proper judgment so that a stake is placed into the heart of this protracted campaign by the NRA to use its power and its members’ funds to retaliate against its former President for doing the right thing by reporting misconduct and seeking a proper course correction.
Col. North was seeking a judgment on the merits showing that he was a whistleblower who suffered retaliation from the NRA.
The NRA used an ethics complaint filed by Tom King against Col. North as the basis of its lawsuit. The complaint accused Col. North of a number of ethical and fiduciary breeches that came to a head at the 2019 NRA Annual Meeting when King accuses North of trying to “extort” Wayne LaPierre in order to keep his position as President of the NRA. He contends that North’s desire to investigate the billings of the Brewer law firm were motivated by greed and to keep his multi-million dollar contract with Ackerman-McQueen. Bear in mind that it did come out later that not only was the NRA aware of the contract, the Audit Committee approved it and Wayne himself help negotiate it on North’s behalf. King called the request to examine Brewer’s billings “not only unwarranted but unprecedented.”
I could go on but you can read it for yourself below. If anyone should be the target of an ethics complaint it should be the author of this complaint for its baseless allegations of “extortion”, “greed”, and “blackmail.” One can only hope the voting members of the NRA see through King and do not return him to the Board of Directors. We will find that out next week when the 2025 Board of Directors’ election results are released. The sad reality is that it will be left to the reformers to clean up the mess left by the departed parties including Wayne, Brewer, and the rest.
I received a press release this afternoon from Everytown saying 77% of North Carolinians oppose permitless carry. They are basing this on a poll by Elon University on behalf of Everytown.
Today, Everytown for Gun Safety released recent polling that shows a significant majority (77%) of residents in North Carolina oppose permitless carry. This comes as lawmakers are attempting to pass HB 5 and SB 50, bills that would dismantle North Carolina’s existing concealed carry permitting laws and allow individuals to carry concealed, hidden guns in public spaces without a permit—effectively eliminating all safeguards put in place by the current permitting system, including a background check, safety training, and live-fire training.
One advantage of my years ago graduate training in political science is that I know the results are all dependent upon how you word the question.
So how did the Elon University poll word the question and what were the real results?
Currently, North Carolina requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun. This permit involves an application fee, safety training and a background check. The General Assembly is considering a change to allow concealed carry without a permit. Do you support or oppose removing the requirement of a permit to legally carry a concealed handgun?
The actual opposition based upon the poll question was 54% and not the aforementioned 77%. Republicans and independents were more likely than Democrats to support permitless concealed carry.
I wonder what the results might have been if the third sentence read, “The General Assembly is considering a change to allow concealed carry without a permit like 29 other states.” The question could have gone on to add that open carry without a permit is a constitutional right in North Carolina thanks to State v. Kerner (1921).
According to Elon University, they surveyed 800 people and the poll has a margin of error of 4%. Other questions in the poll dealt with the renaming of Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg, tax rates, response to Hurricane Helene, trust in the NC Supreme Court, and approval of Gov. Josh Stein (D-NC). Nowhere in the release on the poll does it give the actual numbers of people sampled by party, race, or sex. In other words, we do not know if the poll was overweighted with Democrats or women who were more likely to favor gun control.
While polls do have their usefulness, constitutional rights should never be governed by polls or popular opinion.
March 27th is International Whisk(e)y Day. This is different from World Whisky Day or National Bourbon Day. The date was chosen in 2008 to honor British whisky journalist and author Michael Jackson who had passed away the year before. March 27th was chosen for the occasion as it was Jackson’s birthday.
This year the day will be celebrating Japanese whisky according to what I’ve read. I must admit I have never tasted any Japanese whisky. My understanding is that the Japanese distillers learned their craft from the Scots.
UPDATE: I am trying to work down my open bottles of bourbon before I open a new bottle. Looking through my collection I found a half-full bottle of Col. E. H. Taylor and that was my dram last night. I thought that was special enough for International Whisk(e)y Day.
US District Court Judge William Campbell, Jr., issued an order today denying the NRA’s motions to dismiss the case brought against it by David Dell’Aquila and others. The case, Dell’Aquila et al v. National Rifle Association, is being heard in the Middle District of Tennessee was originally filed in August 2019. The case originally also included Wayne LaPierre and the NRA Foundation as defendants but they were dropped from the case in 2020. This case has had numerous delays due to the NRA’s abortive filing for bankruptcy, changes of attorneys, and numerous extensions of time. It was revived in August 2022 when Dell’Aquila engaged the Chicago firm of Loevy & Loevy and the Nashville office of Stites & Harbison.
As I reported earlier this month, William Brewer and Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, withdrew from the case as of March 5th and were replaced with the Nashville firm of Neal and Harwell PLC. However, it should be noted that all the motions filed on behalf of the NRA that were denied today came from the Brewer firm.
The NRA had moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint which had been filed in June 2024. They had also moved for oral argument and for a stay on discovery pending the outcome of their motion to dismiss. As noted above, Judge Campbell denied the motion to dismiss. He also denied the motion for oral argument on the motion to dismiss and said the motion to stay discovery was now moot.
The Third Amended Complaint accused the NRA of the following and the NRA had moved to dismiss all allegations.
In the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs bring claims against the NRA for fraud, breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., and RICO conspiracy. The NRA seeks to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Judge Campbell noted that the standard for review of a motion to dismiss is that a court must take all factual allegations as true. He found that Dell’Aquila had sufficiently alleged the facts for fraud. The amended complaint had added the claims of breach of contract and tortious interference. He found there was sufficient factual allegations made earlier in the case to support the relation back of amendments. The NRA had contended they were not on notice to argue breach of contract or tortious interference because Dell’Aquila didn’t say earlier there was a contract with the NRA or the NRA Foundation.
Plaintiffs argue they have adequately alleged a claim for breach of contract. Plaintiffs point to allegations that the NRA mails a dues renewal notification to all members that includes a “Uniform Disclosure Statement” which states that “Contributions raised will be used to advance the mission of the NRA.”The NRA also solicits donations through its website, which contains the same statement. Plaintiffs contend this statement sets forth a contractual promise to use donated funds to advance the mission of the NRA, that Plaintiffs and other donors accepted this offer by sending donations, and that the NRA breached the promise by using the solicited funds for purposes not in furtherance of the NRA’s mission….
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a claim for breach of contract based on the NRA’s
solicitation of donations with the express promise that any donations would be used to further its
mission and its use of donated funds for purposes unrelated to that mission.
We have heard in the past that significant loans were made by the NRA Foundation to the NRA itself. We also heard in the New York case how significant personal expenditures were disguised through the use of credit cards issued by Ackerman McQueen. This has come back to bite the NRA and has allowed Dell’Aquila’s claim of tortious interference to stand.
Finally, there are the charges of RICO and RICO conspiracy.
As discussed above, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a RICO claim. With regard to
Defendant’s second argument, Plaintiffs point to allegations that the NRA “agree[d] to participate
in the conduct of the affairs of the NRA Foundation enterprise through a pattern of racketeering
activity,” specifically, that NRA had a “decades-long arrangement pursuant to which the NRA
solicited funds through the [NRA Foundation] under false pretenses, transferred those funds to the
NRA, and laundered them through Ackerman [McQueen] to support Mr. LaPierre’s extravagance.” For purposes of the motion to dismiss, these allegations are sufficient to plausibly allege that the NRA “objectively manifested an agreement to participate” in the RICO enterprise.
It should be pointed out that none of Dell’Aquila’s charges have been proven but there is enough there that the case goes on. More importantly, Dell’Aquila and his fellow plaintiffs will be allowed to engage in discovery which, to be honest, could prove very embarrassing to the NRA. While Wayne is gone as is Tyler Schropp and Doug Hamlin has started to clean house at the NRA, the NRA Foundation is still dominated by the old guard. They were put in place to do Wayne’s bidding including the sweetheart loans between the NRA and the NRA Foundation. These loans were sufficiently problematic that the Attorney General of the District of Columbia brought suit and the Foundation eventually entered into a consent decree.
Judge Campbell’s memorandum is embedded below:
by