Who Should Be Trump’s Pick To Head ATF?

One of the major nominations not yet released by President Trump is who will head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. I think it goes without debate that current head Steve Dettelbach will be replaced.

Two names that have been suggested are Brandon Herrera, aka The AK Guy, and Blake Masters.

Herrera would love to see the ATF abolished and there has been a vocal campaign to have him nominated for the position. He has indicated he’d accept the position if offered. He ran as a pro-gun candidate in the GOP primary against incumbent US Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) and lost by a mere 400 votes in a run-off.

A second person who has been suggested is Blake Master of Arizona. A protégé of venture capitalist Peter Thiel, Masters is a lawyer and venture capitalist. He lost the Arizona US Senate race in 2022 to Mark Kelly and was defeated in a GOP primary for Congress this year. Like Herrera, he has touted his 2A credentials.

I have a modest proposal for an alternative that meets all the criteria: law enforcement experience, knows guns, is comfortable testifying before Congress, and is a real 2A activist.

Dianna Muller!

Law enforcement experience? Di served 22 years with the Tulsa Police Department including units dealing with drugs and gangs. She has the street cred to be respected by ATF special agents. Moreover, I have no doubt she can outshoot almost every one of them.

Knows guns? Professional shooter, two-time national 3-gun champion, hunter, and the list goes on and on. While not a gunsmith, she could hold her own with the ATF’s Technical Branch.

Testified before Congress? Dianna has testified multiple times before Congress and is famous for saying she would “not comply” with any AWB.

2A activist? She founded The DC Project which has now become Women for Gun Rights. I was at the SHOT Show in 2015 and attended her rollout of the idea. It was smart then and it is smart today. She recognized that having women from all 50 states go to Congress and lobby for gun rights was an effective way of delivering the message. Their motto of Educate, Not Legislate is an effective message and their teal t-shirts really stand out.

2020 Turn SHOT Teal
DC Project Photo

I haven’t run this by Di and I have no idea if she would even consider it. I know I’d be running the other way but Di has always impressed me as a someone who is willing to step up when needed. I do know if Dianna isn’t interested or willing someone else from Women for Gun Rights like Holly Sullivan who also heads the Connecticut Citizens Defense League would make a great alternative.

“A Letter To The King”

I read a very interesting post this morning. It was by C. Bradley Thompson, The Redneck Intellectual, who is a Professor of Political Science at Clemson University. The post entitled, “Rethinking the American Revolution”, made a strong argument that the American Revolution and the Revolutionary War were two separate things. The former in the words of John Adams began in 1760 while the latter started on April 19, 1775 and concluded with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

By Adams’s account, the true American Revolution was an intellectual, moral, social, religious, constitutional, political, and economic revolution—indeed, a radical revolution—that dramatically altered the American way of life.

Up until this time, the distance between Great Britain and their American colonies and the hand’s off approach of the British government worked to the advantage of both the colonists and Britain. On the one hand, the colonies were allowed to grow in their own way free from most of the constraints of “Old Europe”. On the other, the British Empire had the most prosperous colonies in the New World. Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke referred to it as “salutary neglect” meaning Britain let America grow in its own way free from onerous oversight and both sides reaped the benefits.

Fast forward to the 1770s and the relationship has become definitely strained. Radical colonists in Boston held their “tea party” to protest the imposition of taxes on tea with the Townshend Acts in 1773. Later, the ladies of Edenton, North Carolina held their own tea party which was a bit more civilized.

The Edenton Tea Party had its 250th anniversary in October. That tea party led by the ladies of Edenton was an agreement to boycott all British tea and cloth. Given that tea drinking was a daily activity and that social gatherings were judged on both the quantity and quality of tea consumed, this was a serious political statement.

The women of Edenton signed an agreement saying they were “determined to give memorable proof of their patriotism” and could not be “indifferent on any occasion that appears nearly to affect the peace and happiness of our country . . . it is a duty that we owe, not only to our near and dear connections . . . but to ourselves.”

Being that the protest was led by women, the news of it shocked the Old World. They could not conceive of a political action led by women and thus they mocked it. London publications published satirical cartoons and chided the North Carolinians for not being able to control their women.

The John Locke Foundation and their North Carolina History Project have produced a mini-documentary on the Edenton Tea Party and its leader Mrs. Penelope Barker.

It is my understanding that Professor Thompson will be publishing a two-volume set titled Political Thought of the American Revolution: A Reader. They will contain original source documents pertaining to conflict between Britain and America from both before and after the Revolutionary War. I’ll be interested to see them when published.

Discussion Of Final Judgment Item By Item

Judge Joel Cohen’s Final Judgment has been released. Realistically, I think both sides can claim victory as it grants measures to both the New York Attorney General’s Office and to the NRA. On my initial reading of the document, I wish Judge Cohen had gone a bit further. It does emphasize just how important the 2025 Board of Directors election will be for the future of the NRA.

The Final Judgment does follow much of what was said in court in the last hearing. For example, Judge Cohen was critical of the petition process calling it “antiquated” and thought it could be done electronically. That is in the Final Judgment. Another example is that Judge Cohen was leery of having the recommendations from the Committee on Organization on board size die “a quiet death in committee. The Final Judgment mandates the committee have its proposals ready for the April 2025 board meeting.

The Final Judgment itself covers seven pages and the remainder of the 25 page document is composed of exhibits. The Final Judgment starts with the Stipulations agreed to by defendants Joshua Powell and Wilson “Woody” Phillips. It then goes on to dismiss the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th causes of action in the NYAG’s Second Amendment Complaint. These dealt primarily with permanent bars on the named defendants along with items covered in the stipulations. The Final Judgment then moves to the remedial actions that the NRA shall implement.

Item One

Starting with the 2026 Members Meeting and continuing for the next five years, the NRA must release an Annual Compliance Report to Members. This would include details on first class travel expenses, charter travel, the number of exceptions to travel policy, and the “top five” persons granted exceptions. The compliance report would follow the outline provided in Exhibit 1. Thus, contract negotiations, whistleblower reports, and related party transactions would also be reported to members. A preliminary report must be released in advance of the 2025 Members Meeting with as many of these items included as possible.

Items Two and Three

The EVP and the Treasurer would be required to certify that both the IRS Form 990 and New York’s CHAR500 contain no “material misstatement or omission” based upon their knowledge. This would be in a form consistent with Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. There is no time limitation for this certification on the Form 990 while the NRA only is required to do this for the next five years with regard to the CHAR500. The Board can continue the practice in perpetuity.

Item Four

The Office of the Secretary has until March 1, 2025 to implement a secure portal to enable encrypted dissemination of Board, committee, and corporate documents to Board members. This portal would also allow encrypted communication between Board members. Item Four also requires that the draft 2023 Form 990 be made available to Board members at least three weeks in advance of the filing date. There is also a required briefing on the Form 990 open to all Board members. This can be either in-person or digital. There is a laundry list of items that are required to posted in this portal ranging from all versions of the bylaws for the last five years to reports and minutes of all committees for the last three years prior to today.

Personally, I am disappointed that Judge Cohen didn’t go further and mandate the publication of the bylaws, financial statements, and Form 990 on the NRA website open to ALL NRA members. There is no excuse for not publishing the bylaws electronically. As to the financial statements and Form 990, members shouldn’t have to go to certain state Secretary of State websites (see North Carolina) or to websites like Guidestar.

Item Five

Judge Cohen had expressed a desire to open up the nominations for the Board and he does it with this item. First, he says that the Nominating Committee shall work to identify up to 20 candidates whose required qualifications meets the standards the NRA set forth in their filing and did not serve more than one term on the Board prior to 2022. The required qualifications include sufficient time to carry out the duties of Board service, a commitment to the fiduciary duties of good faith and care, will abide by the bylaws, is free from potential conflicts, and expresses “integrity, professionalism, and clear support” for the interests of the NRA. This last requirement acknowledges differences of opinion on how to best achieve the interests of the NRA.

The Personal Factsheet and Biographical Questionnaire must be amended to include questions on financial conflicts, a consent to abide by legal duties and Board policy, and a consent for a background check.

As noted earlier, Judge Cohen considered the existing paper petition nomination process to be “antiquated”. While not doing away with the hard copy paper petition, the NRA must provide an online alternative so that the whole petition process can be done electronically including the signatures.

Item Six

For the next three election cycles, the NRA shall publish on its website a statement from each candidate, written by each candidate, at the time of the mailing of the ballots to voting members. Currently, only a 150 word bio of each candidate is published in the Official Journal. This bio does not allow any “campaigning” verbiage.

Item Seven

The NRA’s bylaws must be amended to make the Audit Committee an “elected committee of the board”. This would make it consistent with the requirements of New York non-profit corporation law. Judge Cohen goes on to write that the amendment shall be structured such that the Audit Committee will not be a “committee of the Board” until such time as each of its members have been voted on by the Board. The NRA President will put forward his or her nominations for the Audit Committee and then the Board shall vote on each individual. If a candidate is rejected by the Board vote, then replacement nominations will be taken from the floor.

Item Eight

Judge Cohen does not mess around on this item. No person who served on the Audit Committee during the period between 2014 and 2022 shall be elected to the committee again. Thus, someone like current chair Curtis Jenkins would not be eligible to serve on the elected Audit Committee. I’m not sure of the status of existing members Ron Schmeits or Eb Wilkinson. However, current members Rocky Marshall and Charlie Beers would be eligible to serve on the reconstituted Audit Committee when it becomes a committee of the board.

Item Nine

Within the next 30 days, the NRA and the Chief Compliance Officer shall execute a severance agreement providing for two years salary if terminated without cause or resignation for “Good Reason”. The term of the contract is for three years. This item had already been agreed upon by both the NRA and the NYAG’s office as a workable alternative to provide protection to the CCO.

Item Ten

The NRA is required to update its Conflict of Interest and Related Party Transaction policy to make it consistent with the items in Exhibit 4. These include any exception to the policy must be approved in advance by the Audit Committee and such exception shall be in the best interest of the NRA, that the entire Board must then approve this exception by majority vote, and that no Related Party transaction shall be approved if it wasn’t properly disclosed and approved in advance. Judge Cohen will allow the NRA to set a de minimis threshold amount where full Board approval is not required. The NRA has 30 days to make this amendment and it must make it available electronically to all NRA employees and members of the Board.

Item Eleven

The NRA shall hire a consultant to work with the CCO and staff so as to advise the Board on implementing the directives from the court and to advise on best governance practices. This consultant must be court approved and cannot have appeared as a witness for the NRA in this case. The NRA will submit the name of the consultant to the court and to the NYAG. The NYAG has 14 days with which to comment and then the court will decide to approve the consultant or require the NRA to submit another name.

Item Twelve

The Committee on Organization is required to study the board composition, standardized protocols, and committee scope. In doing so, they must consider input from the members and the compliance office and consultant, look at best practices for non-profit organizations, examine current and future needs, and comply legal and regulatory requirements. Judge Cohen goes on to say that he wants any recommendations of this committee to reflect a diversity of ideas so as to “secure the freedom of association of all NRA members”. These recommendations must be ready to present to the Board at its April 2025 meeting. Note that the composition of the Board at this meeting will include everyone elected in the 2025 Board election.

Item Thirteen

The NRA shall retain its current independent auditor Aprio to conduct special procedures for at least the next three years. Aprio’s independent audit shall be published and made available to the NRA membership. If the NRA seeks to replace Aprio with another independent auditor, it must get court approval.

The Final Judgment concludes with a number of items relating to the amounts owed by Wayne LaPierre and Woody Phillips, the barring of LaPierre from any fiduciary position with the NRA for the next 10 years, and denying the AG’s requests for relief with regard to John Frazer. LaPierre is adjudged to owe the NRA $4,351,230.02 with 9% interest starting on February 23, 2024. No compromise or settlement on this amount will be effective unless approved by the court. LaPierre’s attorney had danced around this in the last hearing hinting that LaPierre might drag out the proceeding (and payment) unless a settlement of a lesser amount could be reached. Judge Cohen just nixed that.

As I stated at the beginning, both sides got some of what they wanted and neither side got everything they wanted. If the NRA appeals this Final Judgment, it would only be because the Special Litigation Committee is enthralled with the advice from Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors. After dissolution was taken off the table, everything in this Final Judgment realistically could have been negotiated many months ago with millions and millions of legal fees saved. That it wasn’t, well, you know my opinion on that.

Speaking Of The Special Litigation Committee

As I have written about before, the NRA Board of Directors did vote to abolish the Special Litigation Committee. However, the parliamentarian ruled that while they had a majority, they did not have the super-majority needed to abolish the committee. Thanks to the efforts of Jeff Knox, the vote was both recorded AND published in the Official Journal.

Jeff Knox has an editorial on this in today’s Ammoland. The need for the SLC is over and control of the litigation needs to be returned to the entire board.

You should keep this issue in mind when you get your ballot for the 2025 election in mid-January 2025. Jeff has kindly outlined who is up for election that wants to keep this parasite of a committee. I am certainly not a disinterested observer on this as I am a candidate for the Board of Directors. As I have said in the past, I was shocked to be nominated by the Nominating Committee but was humbled and gratified to also be on the ballot by petition.

Those of us running on the reform ticket now have a website with biographical information and statements for each one of us. You can find that at https://electanewnra.com/. It also gives the core values to which each of has pledged ourselves. First and foremost, it is members first!

Here is a little reminder of who not to give your vote.

Who Do You Believe – SLC Or FEC?

The NRA’s Special Litigation Committee sent out a long letter on Sunday, December 1st. Among other things, it was an attack on Bill Bachenberg and Mark Vaughan who were accused of mischaracterizing the work of the Special Litigation Committee and the outside counsel Bill Brewer (and his associates). I am not going to go over the whole letter but one thing really jumped out at me.

The committee consisting of Bob Barr, Charles Cotton, and David Coy asserted:

Finally, the claim that Bill Brewer or other attorneys who worked on the NRA matter donated to Kamala Harris is false. While Brewer’s historic support for members of both parties is well-known, the Brewer Firm’s litigation team additionally includes several strong conservatives among its leadership.

With even the smallest political contributions being recorded by Federal Elections Commission, this assertion was easy to check. What I found is what most would expect of an attorney who donated to Hillary Clinton and Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke.

According to FEC records, Bill Brewer donated $250 to Harris for President on January 10, 2024. While it doesn’t say so, I imagine this contribution was originally made to Joe Biden and was transferred to the Harris campaign after he withdrew from the race.

The screen shot below is the record of Brewer’s contribution.

I guess one could argue that this contribution was not made by William A. Brewer III but rather his son, Will Brewer IV, who is an attorney and partner in the firm.

Nonetheless, in this election cycle, there were 17 contributions from those associated with Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors. 16 of these contributions were either directly or indirectly to Democrat candidates. The one exception was a $5 Winred contribution by Connor McKinney earmarked for Asa Hutchison. McKinney was an associate in the Dallas office who has since moved on to Wilson, Elser.

Below is the downloaded Excel file with all 17 contributions. I did edit it to remove home addresses.

So the question remains – who do you trust when it comes to reporting political contributions? Do you trust the assertions of the SLC or do you believe the records of the Federal Elections Commission with regard to political contributions are accurate?

I’ll let you make the call.