Ollie North To Sue NRA For Malicious Prosecution

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.

It Is All In The Wording Of The Question

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.