Charles Cotton

Uncategorized

Charles Cotton Resigns From NRA BOD

October 30, 2025 by 15 Comments

I had heard rumors of this earlier today but I just received an email from NRA Secretary John Frazer confirming that former NRA President Charles Cotton has resigned from the NRA Board.

Board member and past President Charles Cotton has resigned from the Board and Executive Council, effective immediately.

Tom King was the next runner-up in the 2025 election, but has declined to serve.  Jeff Fleetham has accepted the position and will fill the vacancy until the adjournment of the 2026 Members’ Meeting.  Mr. Cotton’s term would have expired in 2026, so no additional candidate will be elected to fill the vacancy.

As to why Cotton resigned, there is no official word. However, he had no committee assignments and did not attend the September Board meeting in Virginia. Additionally, he was not re-nominated for the 2026 Board election by the Nominating Committee nor did he apparently gather enough signatures to make the ballot by petition. He does remain a current trustee of the NRA Foundation.

Fleetham had attempted to run by petition for the 2026 Board election according to his earlier posts on Facebook. However, he did not gather enough signatures to make it on to the ballot. In the last election, he was part of the Strong NRA ticket.

From Facebook

Fleetham is a resident of Mesa, Arizona. According to his official bio in last year’s election, he was a 2016 and 2020 RNC delegate for President Trump. He served on the Arizona Register of Contractors for a number of years as a director. His business background is in the construction industry.

He will serve the remainder of Cotton’s term which expires at the close of the Meeting of Members in Houston.

Uncategorized

The Old Guard Is Not Fading Away

September 23, 2025 by 5 Comments

Those who thought that with the reformers ascendant in the NRA that the Old Guard would, to paraphrase Welsh poet Dylan Thomas, go quietly into the night would be mistaken. With the Nominating Committee chaired by Buz Mills and filled with reformers, many in the Old Guard whose terms are expiring are, by necessity, going the petition route.

Some like former NRA President Charles Cotton seem to have taken a stealth approach. From what I understand, he worked his connections in Texas to gather enough signatures to be on the ballot for 2026. I should note that he was not in attendance at the recent Fall Meeting of the NRA Board.

Others were working to gather signatures at the Board meeting and I did sign a number of petitions. I did this because I did see many of the Old Guard working cooperatively with the reformers to rebuild and rejuvenate the NRA. At the end of our semi-marathon Board meeting, many on both sides stood to say it was good to see everyone working together for the good of the NRA and gun rights.

A friend tipped me off to a website linking to the petitions of many of the Old Guard or newbies associated with them. It is called votersaware.com. There are petitions for existing directors such as Curtis Jenkins, Barbara Rumpel, and Eb Wilkinson among others. In addition you have potential candidates like Jeff Fleetham and Lane Ruhland who ran unsuccessfully in 2025 plus two or three other new candidates.

I don’t know who established this website but the Wayback Machine shows it having posts going back to 2016. Back then it was affiliated with an independent expenditure PAC. It seemed to have an anti-Hillary Clinton focus along with conservative leanings. Examining the page source of the page now, I did come across a reference to https://www.armsandammunitionnews.com. Using the Wayback Machine again, that led to an endorsement by Bob Barr of the list of candidates affiliated with the StrongNRA (Old Guard) team in the 2025 board election. If I had to make a guess, and it is only a guess, the website is somehow affiliated with him.

I am not saying to sign or not sign these petitions. Use your own good judgment.

I would, however, say re-electing Charles Cotton to the Board of Directors would be a travesty.

Uncategorized

Who Do You Believe – SLC Or FEC?

December 10, 2024 by 1 Comment

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.

Brewer Firm 2023-2024 Federal ContributionsDownload

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.

Uncategorized

The Special Litigation Committee’s Two-Cents

August 20, 2024 by 3 Comments

Before dawn this morning an email went out to the NRA Board of Directors from NRA President Bob Barr on behalf of the Special Litigation Committee. It dealt with the six areas that Judge Cohen delineated in his interim decision.

Before getting into what was sent out, two realities need to be mentioned. First, the only reason this was sent out to the Board is because Buz Mills and Rocky Marshall submitted a letter to Judge Cohen on Friday, August 15th, that noted the leaders of the NRA who have “not accepted responsibility” for the problems, i.e., Bob Barr, Charles Cotton, and David Coy, do not speak for the rest of the NRA and especially the remaining elected leadership. Second, these three comprise the bulk of the Special Litigation Committee. The SLC has outlived its purpose as the conflict of interest has been resolved. That is Wayne has resigned and John Frazer is no longer the General Counsel. As such, the SLC needs to be dissolved and that was actually called for by Buz and Rocky.

The email from the Special Litigation Committee is below. Beyond the fact that these guys cannot count, I would wager house money that the bulk of the document was written by someone with Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, and not Messrs Barr, Cotton, and Coy.

—– Forwarded Message —–

From: Daniels, Stephanie <sdaniels@nrahq.org>

To: Daniels, Stephanie <sdaniels@nrahq.org>

Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 at 04:53:05 AM EDT

Subject: Special Litigation Committee Update on NYAG Consent-Judgment Negotiations

TO:        NRA Board of Directors and Executive Council

Please see the following message from NRA President Bob Barr.

Stephanie

Stephanie Daniels

Assistant NRA Secretary

Office of the Secretary

National Rifle Association of America

Phone: 703-267-1052

Fax: 703-267-3909

E-mail: sdaniels@nrahq.org

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________- 

Fellow Board and Executive Council Members:

As you know, when New York Judge Cohen denied the NYAG’s request for a compliance monitor on July 29th, he directed the parties to confer on a consent judgment (a settlement to which the parties have reached agreement and is then adopted and ordered by the court). In his oral ruling from the bench on July 29th,  Judge Cohen requested that the parties address six areas of concern.  This has been the task on which the Special Litigation Committee (SLC) has been fully and constantly engaged, in conjunction with our outside counsel and with input from numerous NRA stakeholders, including other officers.

The SLC considers it is in the NRA’s best interest to act quickly on Judge Cohen’s recommendations, but not without essential and timely input from key NRA stakeholders regarding reforms the NRA should consider and ultimately adopt.  As noted in my most recent update last Friday, our Legal Affairs Committee convened at NRA headquarters on August 10th in a meeting open to all Board members and that included a lengthy discussion of settlement options. Our outside counsel met with the NYAG’s lawyers on August 12, 2024, to get their feedback.

These settlement discussions, and the options included therein are extremely important, and all Board members should have opportunity to provide input. Changes to the governance of the Association should be “owned ” by the entire Board. 

The SLC will submit proposed settlement documents to the NYAG this week that reflect input from the Officers, various stakeholders, and the NYAG.   However, in accord with the importance of having full NRA Board input, we will make clear to attorneys for the Attorney General that our proposals are provisional, and that each item is conditioned on sign-off from a majority of the Board. 

It therefore is our intention that at our September meeting, the Board will vote for each item in the settlement package.  In the meantime, every reform the SLC proposes (with input as noted above) will be one we believe to be (i) in line with specific guidance from the Court, and (ii) in the best interests of the NRA.

Here is a summary of what we plan to propose (in line with the court’s expressed interests) :

  1. Implement the Compliance Commitments.  Most of these measures can be ordered by the Court.  One of the Compliance Commitments, which would make the Audit Committee an elected “committee of the Board” under N-PCL 712 and 712-a, has generated controversy and will benefit from robust discussion at the Board meeting next month.  The NYAG takes the position that the Audit Committee and other key committees must be “committees of the Board.”
  1. Expand the Board Candidacy Path.  The Court suggested that the NRA “expand, for at least three years, the path to candidacy for board elections; specifically, limiting the hegemony of the Nominating Committee for enough board cycles to cover all 76 members . . .  one option would be to mandate that, for the next three elections, at least, any proposed candidate who meets certain minimum qualifications would be on the ballot, full stop, without no need to rally for hundreds or thousands of signatures.” 

Because the NRA cannot alter the petition-signature requirements without revising bold, italicized, member-adopted Bylaw provisions, the SLC will propose to the NYAG that the Nominating Committee adopt a Director Nomination Policy, resembling those in use by major public companies, that sets forth transparent, merit-based qualifications for recruiting directors (emphasis mine).  The policy will also place an emphasis on finding “new” directors, possessing baseline objective qualifications, who did not serve on the Board between 2014-2022.   The Nominating Committee will aim to place as many new, qualified directors on the ballot each year as the available ballot slots feasibly allow.

3.    Compliance Consultant.  The Court suggests “Retaining a compliance consultant for three years to work with the NRA’s in-house Compliance Officer and staff to make recommendations to the board. The consultant would be advisory only and would provide an independent perspective to the board for implementing the Court’s directives as well as best practices.” 

The SLC will propose hiring a consultant on  a reasonable, fixed retainer to serve in an advisory role as the Court suggests.

4.    Altering Committee Leadership.  The Court suggested “changing the Audit so that it would not include people . . . at the very least not as chair or co-chair, that served on the committee during the violations found in this action,” adding that “similar decisions could be made with respect to other key committees, as well.”

President Barr is scheduled to meet Monday with the Vice Presidents to confer further on committee composition.

5.    Security for Chief Compliance Officer.  The Court suggested “creating more protections for the Compliance Officer position,” noting that “one option would be to provide that the position be for a term of three years.”

Because a three-year term for the CCO would require amending our Bylaws, and because we believe a severance agreement better protects and advances the needs of the NRA, the SLC will propose a market-standard executive severance agreement to protect Chief Compliance Officer Bob Mensinger.  The NYAG has indicated agreement with this approach.

6.    Member Referendum on Reorganizing Board.  The Court suggested “a bylaw referendum for members to consider at the next annual meeting on whether to reduce the size of the board or reorganize it to create a smaller, more focused group to oversee the key operations and finances of the organization,” noting that certain other nonprofits “have a very large advisory section and then a much smaller, tighter group that focuses on the core operational and financial aspects of the company.”

In the course of eliciting feedback for settlement discussions, the SLC heard many different ideas in this vein – a Board of Ambassadors, a Select Committee on Operations Oversight, and a smaller empowered Executive Committee.  Rather than rush into a wholesale change in the size and composition of our Board, we intend to propose that NRA members be polled on a menu of options, including those that would reduce the Board of Directors and create a non-voting Board of Advisors.

At the September Board meeting, the entire Board can vote on the  proposals made by the SLC.

It is time for our Association to heal and put the hostilities launched by and surrounding the New York litigation behind us.  That means settling with the enemy outside our gates, and coming together within. 

Thank you all for your continued service and support.

NRA-SLC

Bob Barr, President and Committee Chair

Charles Cotton, Past President and Committee Member

David Coy, Committee Member

The first item deals with the Audit Committee. What needs to be explained is the difference between a “committee of the board” and a “committee of the corporation”. A committee of the board as defined by Section 712(a) of New York Not-for-Profit Law says it “shall have the power of the board” and can bind the board by its decisions with some exceptions. The other limitation upon such a committee is its charter which in this case needs to be carefully drafted. By contrast, a committee of the corporation or standing committee as defined by Section 712(e) of New York Not-for-Profit Law does not allow it to bind the Board by its decisions. In other words, they may make a recommendation to the Board and it is up to the Board to act on it.

A current example of a committee of the board is the Executive Committee. Interestingly, the law notes that members of such a committee must be “made by at least three-quarters of the directors present at the time of the vote” provided there is a quorum. I do wonder if every member of the Executive Committee received a 75% affirmative vote at the May Board meeting.

The other “number one” or the actual second item deals with the dicta from Judge Cohen regarding the path for candidacy to the Board. He wants it relaxed for at least the next three years and had suggested candidacy should be open to anyone who met the minimum qualifications for election to the Board. The SLC is balking at this proposal and blaming the bylaws as not allowing something like this. Frankly, I think this is a specious argument as I do believe Judge Cohen has the power to force the issue. Moreover, I think a strong argument can be made that the Cabal uses the bylaws when it is to their advantage and ignores them otherwise.

The suggestion from the SLC is that the Nominating Committee adopt a policy that provides for specifying a transparent, merit-based qualifications for recruiting directors. How any such qualifications are specified is the critical issue. I am reminded of what Todd Vandermyde told me once when he was negotiating with the anti-gun Democrats in Illinois. They could write the law any which way they desired but so long as he could write the definitions he would win every time. It is the same thing here. The Cabal could draft so-called merit-based qualifications that would serve to eliminate candidates they find would challenge their status quo. If I may be blunt, I don’t trust them. Yes, as I am running for the Board, I do have a vested interest, but it is open to abuse.

The third item is not a problem and it appears the committee will go along with the judge on this.

The fourth item deals with the composition of not only the Audit Committee but other important committees of the Board. Judge Cohen was specific about the Audit Committee but went on to indicate those Board members on other important committees who allowed the problems to flourish ought to be removed from them. Obviously, this means Charles Cotton, David Coy, and others including Barr. I would hope that Bill Bachenberg and Mark Vaughn are able to make Barr see the light. If they can’t, then Judge Cohen’s hand will be forced.

If the NYAG is agreeable to a strong severance agreement in place of a three-year term for the Chief Compliance Officer, then that would be workable.

Finally, on item six, I can agree with a poll of the NRA members. However, in my opinion, an “empowered Executive Committee” as the new Board of Directors should be a non-starter. The current composition of this committee is loaded with the Old Guard, the Cabal, those who are most at fault. I have long held that a reduced Board of Directors with a Board of Advisors similar to what exists at most universities is the way to go.

I look at the last paragraph of the email and just shake my head. Of course it is time to heal the wounds to the organization caused in large part by grifting executives allowed to get away with it by directors who looked the other way and ignored their fiduciary duties. Referring to the NYAG’s Office as the “enemy outside our gates” is really trite. They seemed to be the only ones actually fighting for the rank and file membership of the NRA by forcing its cleanup. Moreover, to say the Board needs to be “coming together within” ignores the fact that it would have happened if Mr. Barr had not essentially spit on the reformers by appointing all the old Cabal members to the leadership and majority membership on the major committees. He needs to look in the mirror and look at his own culpability for divisiveness between those who want needed reform and those who are resisting reform like the segregationists of the 1950s and 60s.

If what I said above is harsh, it needed to be said. If it torpedoes any chance for the Nominating Committee to put me on the ballot, so be it. I’m running for the Board by petition regardless.

Uncategorized

Sorry Charles – Doug Hamlin Is Not A Placeholder

July 17, 2024 by 1 Comment

My good friend Todd called me this morning asking if I had seen this report from the New York trial. It was from The Trace’s Daily Bulletin. The report was a one paragraph blurb about Charles Cotton’s testimony.

From The Trace’s Daily Bulletin for July 17th:

The National Rifle Association’s new chief executive Doug Hamlin is a placeholder, according to the testimony of former NRA president Charles Cotton that points to fault lines in the gun group’s leadership. In May, board members chose Hamlin, who led the NRA’s publications arm, as Wayne LaPierre’s replacement. Hamlin is allied to a small, self-described reform bloc at the group. “The intent is to try to get, frankly, some high-powered person to take it over,” testified Cotton, a LaPierre defender whom the reformers consider part of an old guard. Cotton made his remarks in a New York courtroom where the final phase of New York Attorney General Letitia James’s lawsuit against the NRA is underway. —Will Van Sant 

Say what you will about The Trace and reporter Will Van Sant but they don’t get stuff like this wrong. I’m sure Cotton actually said that in his testimony in court. That said, I don’t think anyone who participated in the NRA Board of Directors meeting in May thought the election of Doug Hamlin to be the new CEO and Executive VP was to be as a placeholder. Moreover, I don’t think Hamlin would have stuck his neck out if he himself thought he was only destined to be a placeholder.

If you are talking placeholders then you are talking about people like then-Interim EVP Andrew Arulanandam. You could even include Cotton in this category as he was pitching himself as the EVP to settle thing down for a few years and then ride off into the sunset. I don’t know where Cotton got the idea that Doug Hamlin was a placeholder unless that is how the Cabal would like to see it.

Uncategorized

What Goes Around, Comes Around

July 16, 2024 by 1 Comment

The bench phase of the NRA’s trial in New York City opened today. The first witness to take the stand was former NRA President Charles Cotton who now chairs both the Audit and Ethics Committees. Among the things he included in his testimony was the following regarding succession planning according to AP reports.

Charles Cotton, an NRA board member, was the first witness to take the stand. He revealed that the organization did not have a succession plan in place when LaPierre announced his retirement in January, just before the start of the trial’s first phase — suggesting his exit was hasty and not expected.

If only they had listened to one of their members who offered a resolution asking the Board of Directors to draft and adopt a formal succession plan. That resolution was offered at the NRA Meeting of Members held in Tucson, Arizona in October 2020. Mind you that this was in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic and the most vulnerable population included senior citizens like LaPierre. That meeting was being run by 1st VP Charles Cotton as then-President Carolyn Meadows was absent due to health concerns.

As you can probably guess by now that resolution was soundly defeated. One of the arguments offered against it was that the NRA Bylaws provided a succession plan in that the Executive Director of General Operations would take over as the Interim EVP and CEO. This is exactly what happened when LaPierre resigned. Another argument was that the NRA was not the same as a for-profit corporation where succession planning is a best practice.

Among those testifying against the resolution in favor of succession planning was Joel Friedman who now sits as Vice-Chair of the Ethics Committee. Friedman is also a member along with Charles Cotton on both the Bylaws and Resolutions Committee and the Finance Committee. He is only on the Board now because Carl Rowen, Jr. was convinced to resign in order to allow Friedman to ascend to a directorship.

This truly is a case of what goes around, comes around.

As to the Endowment Life member who offered that serious resolution of succession planning, it was me. Perhaps if the Board had listened to the members instead of kowtowing to the Cabal, the NRA wouldn’t be in the position it is now.

Uncategorized

Now On To NRA Committee Assignments

May 29, 2024 by 6 Comments

The real work of the NRA Board of Directors is done in the various committees. These committees range from the Audit, Finance, and Ethics Committee to Outreach, Federal Affairs, and Legislative Affairs. Officially, it will be new NRA President Bob Barr who selects the members for all these committees. More on that later.

There is also the Special Litigation Committee, the Nominating Committee, and the Executive Committee. This last group of committees had its members selected at the Board meeting after the Annual Meeting. The Special Litigation Committee is, by default, composed of the officers. (see correction) The Nominating Committee is a nine-member committee with reformers holding a 5-4 majority. It will now be chaired by Charlie Beers who is Chairman Pro Tem (highest vote getter).

Going back to 2019, you may remember that a number of reformist Board members were purged from their committee assignments for asking the wrong questions and given no committees upon which to serve. This was done by former NRA President Carolyn Meadows presumably with the approval of then-EVP Wayne LaPierre. Among those purged from their committee assignments were Esther Schneider, Tim Knight, Sean Maloney, Duane Liptak, and Allen West. All five ended up resigning from the Board. This retaliation against these Board members became an issue in the New York trial. The jury found that the NRA had retaliated against them in violation of New York’s whistleblower law. The video deposition of Carolyn Meadows on retaliation helped in this finding.

NRA President Bob Barr has a unique opportunity to show Judge Joel Cohen that the NRA has reformed enough that it will not need a special monitor. He can grab this opportunity if and only if he does certain things. First and foremost, he should consult with Bill Bachenberg and Mark Vaughan on the appointment of committee members and make these appointments in a balanced manner such that reformers are fairly represented. For example, I think Rocky Marshall, one of the Four for Reform, has the requisite knowledge and experience to be valued addition to the Finance Committee. Likewise, who better than a judge like Phil Journey to serve on Legal Affairs. Additionally, the appointment of the chair and vice chairs of the committees needs to be even handed.

Second, Barr needs to be transparent in his appointment of committee members. In the past, the composition of committees was rarely, if ever, disclosed. This needs to change. The members of the NRA deserve to know who is serving on each and every committee whether it is a Board member or an outside appointee.

Finally, and this is a critical point, Charles Cotton and David Coy must not be allowed to continue to serve on either the Audit or Finance Committees. Their abdication of their fiduciary duties while heading the Audit and Finance Committees was one of the reasons that the New York Attorney General’s Office was able to a) bring the lawsuit in the first place and b) successfully win their case with the jury. Allowing either of them to continue to serve on these important committees would send a sign to both Judge Cohen and the membership of the NRA that the leadership of the NRA was not serious about cleaning up the organization. Members and potential members will continue to keep their wallets closed if they remain in place. Frankly, I think the greatest service that they could do for the NRA which they profess to love would be to resign from the Board altogether.

CORRECTION: I was wrong in assuming that the Special Litigation Committee members were selected by position. That is that it was to be composed of the President, 1st VP, and 2nd VP.

According to a Board resolution in January 2021, the SLC was to be composed of Carolyn Meadows, Charles Cotton, and Willes Lee. That all three were officers was merely coincidental. After then-1st VP Willes Lee resigned from the SLC, it was later reconstituted by Board resolution to add David Coy and perhaps Bob Barr.

The key thing to remember about the Special Litigation Committee is that it only concerned matters dealing with the New York Attorney General’s case against the NRA. The rationale for even having it was that given the NRA’s then-CEO/EVP Wayne LaPierre and then-General Counsel John Frazer were named defendants in the case their participation in decision making regarding the case would be a conflict of interest.

Uncategorized

An Apology Demanded Of Charles Cotton

May 20, 2024 by 3 Comments

This seems to be the night for letters!

Buz Mills, Bill Bachenburg, and Mark Vaughan are demanding that NRA President Charles Cotton issue a public apology to NRA Director Amanda Suffecool. This is for the unprofessional and unbecoming way he treated her at the NRA Meeting of Members on Saturday. At about the 31:25 minute mark of the second video in this post, Cotton challenges the statement from Amanda by saying, “you’ve been on the board, what a year”, as if that made her any less knowledgeable or competent. Amanda was, after all, an engineer for almost 40 years and knows of what she speaks.

Fortunately, the NRA members at the meeting were not having any of Cotton’s crap and booed him quite loudly. Now, the three directors mentioned above have sent out an open letter to all Board members demanding the aforementioned public apology. I could say more about what I think of Cotton as a person and as a supposed leader but I’ll save that for another day.

The full letter is below:

Uncategorized

An Open Letter From NRA Staffers To The Board

May 19, 2024 by 2 Comments

I received this open letter to the NRA Board within the last hour. It is reportedly from current and former NRA staffers who are fed up with Charles Cotton, Bill Brewer, and most of the upper management of the NRA. The level of detail in the letter is enough to convince me it is real such as Sonya Rowling being forced to cut a check to Brewer by Andrew Arulanadam. I learned of that just earlier this afternoon.

Here is the letter in its unedited entirety. Given it is an open letter, it is meant for sharing. You might want to share it with each and every Board member that you know. I know they sent it to the NRA email address for the Board but I doubt it will be routed to Board members before their 9am CDT meeting tomorrow in Dallas.

Dear NRA Board of Directors,

We are writing as current and former NRA staff members. We choose to remain anonymous due to the almost certain retaliation from NRA executives and the Brewer firm. Since 2018, our association has been in complete peril, and no one has asked the NRA’s staff for their input. We are the ones who work day in and day out to accomplish the NRA’s mission of promoting the safe and responsible use of firearms and defending the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, it has become clear that NRA’s executives and officers are focused on ensuring a steady revenue stream for the Brewer firm. We pose this question: When will we stop the bleeding, and when is enough, enough?

Over the past six years, the NRA has become unrecognizable. The NRA of 2018 is far different from the NRA of 2024, and this convention hall is proof. This deterioration is due to the NRA’s poor leadership. President Cotton, Andrew Arulanandam, Randy Kozuch, Tyler Schropp, Doug Hamlin, and Sonya Rowling have not, and arguably never have, acted in the best interest of NRA members. The NRA’s recent misfortunes are often blamed on the New York Attorney General. While we are no fans of Letitia James, 90% of the NRA’s issues are now self-inflicted. Yes, AG James has had a gun pointed at the NRA from the start of her campaign, but NRA’s leadership continues to hand her magazines with ammunition.

We will briefly discuss each leader, avoiding rehashing old issues.

President Cotton has overseen many of the NRA’s poor decisions over the years on the Audit Committee, the SLC, and as President. It’s time to change his title from president to king because he is acting as a monarch. King Charles has been positioning himself to become executive vice president and chief executive officer. Anyone familiar with his record at the NRA knows he is not the right fit for EVP. The new NRA EVP needs to be unapologetically pro-gun, innovative, politically connected, and experienced in turning around failing organizations. King Charles is not that person. His primary focus is on maintaining his relationship with the Brewer firm. Recent reports confirmed by the Brewer firm show that King Charles and Bill Brewer even fly on private jets together. The firm claims this saves the NRA money, but this is unlikely. While the firm may not directly bill the NRA for the jet, there is nothing to stop them from increasing their billable hours. This is reminiscent of the MMP yacht situation. King Charles and Bill Brewer are the only ones pushing for the move to Texas because they are both based there. No other staff member, including NRA’s Interim CEO Andrew Arulanandam, plans on moving to Texas. King Charles’s goal is to secure a high salary for a few years as his retirement fund.

Andrew Arulanandam cannot make a good decision to save his life. Since taking his position on February 1, the NRA has continued to decline. Arulanandam exists in his position solely to follow King Charles’s orders and maintain the relationship with the Brewer firm. In fact, Arulanandam reportedly forced Sonya Rowling to pay Brewer millions of dollars today before tomorrow’s board meeting. If King Charles becomes EVP, Arulanandam will be rewarded and return to his high-paying job as executive director of General Operations, with an updated salary and maximized pension at retirement.

Randy Kozuch has been consistently overlooked throughout his career at the NRA. Kozuch is not a leader, and most of the ILA staff don’t respect him. Kozuch is a yes-man. Shortly after becoming executive director of ILA, Wayne asked him for millions from the ILA budget to keep the NRA afloat. Kozuch complied, and his newly hired ILA Finance Director quit after the first week due to discomfort. This wasn’t the first time the NRA asked ILA for millions, and Kozuch complies every time. King Charles, Bill Brewer, and Arulanandam don’t respect Kozuch; he is just the perfect puppet to help pay off Brewer’s excessive bills.

The other executives are equally ineffective. Tyler Schropp, the highest-paid executive at the NRA, can barely raise money without Wayne. Doug Hamlin operates entirely in the red and doesn’t know how to run an organization. Sonya Rowling is only in her position because she is a “whistleblower,” which looked good for the Brewer firm to show a course correction. However, she is inexperienced and would run the organization into the ground without realizing it.

Finally, the Brewer firm is the most ineffective and corrupt part of the NRA. Bill Brewer excels at one thing: losing. He flaunts the money he has taken, pulling up to the hotel this weekend in an Aston Martin while losing consistently. And he is Angus McQueen’s son-in-law. The NRA has funded the McQueen/Brewer family feud for too long, at the expense of our members who faithfully support us.

Board members, when is enough, enough? You are the only ones who can stop this. Charles Cotton is not fit for EVP. Andrew Arulanandam is not fit for EVP. No one at the NRA is currently fit for EVP. The Texas move is a waste of money and unnecessary. The Brewer firm is ripping the NRA off for every dollar we have. The NRA is failing. Revenue is failing, membership numbers are falling, ILA’s power is a fraction of what it used to be, and other training organizations are outpacing us. It is so bad that NRA is liquidating investments to continue paying Brewer. We beg you, as you go into the meeting tomorrow, to stop the bleeding and hold Charles Cotton, Andrew Arulanandam, and the other officers accountable.

Save the National Rifle Association of America.

UPDATE: I was just sent what is purported to be the official portrait of NRA President Charles Cotton which will hang in the NRA headquarters building in Fairfax or Texas if they ever move.

Uncategorized

The NRA Meeting Of Members – Part 1

May 19, 2024 by 2 Comments

The NRA Meeting of Members was one for the history books. For the first time in recent memory, you had sitting Directors speaking out in opposition to the leadership. Though President Charles Cotton tried to control the meeting including putting a hard stop time limit on it in an effort to limit debate, it was evident by the end that control had passed to the members.

I regret somewhat that I could not be there in person to witness it. However, there have been some great reports on it from Twitter as well as a couple of videos that have since been posted.

Stephen Gutowski of The Reload did a great job tweeting from the meeting. Here are some of his reports from X or Twitter.

It was the resolution phase of the meeting where things started to go awry for the Cabal. Bearing in mind there was a hard stop to the meeting, they started with a resolution praising President Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX). While nice, it was an effort to run the clock out and not let any of the resolutions that were critical of the NRA or its leadership to be heard. (I have seen multiple resolutions that were intended to introduced that condemned Charles Cotton and his leadership.) They then moved on to what they assumed was going to be a resolution that in Texas would just sail through. The Cabal asked the members to approve a resolution approving moving NRA Headquarters to Texas.

Here is a blow by blow when Stephen’s tweet are rolled together.

There’s now a resolution to move the NRA’s headquarters to Texas. Leadership really wants to do this even though it would have no impact on the New York case. I honestly don’t know what significant benefit this would have for the NRA. 

A member asks what kind of fiscal impact a move from Virginia to Texas given the severe drop in revenue the NRA has experienced recently. NRA president Cotton claims it would be less expensive to operate in Texas. He says Texas has a lot of big companies, too. 

The member wants more specific details on the actual cost of the move. Cotton refers to Arulanandam for that. Arulanandam says the NRA’s current headquarters is too big for the 60 or so staff that actually go in on a regular basis. 

Arulanandam claims the current NRA building is also expensive to maintain. He also says people in Virginia don’t want to work for the NRA. So, he thinks Texas will be a better job pool. Cotton calls Virginia “DC south.” Sounds like an outright retreat from Virginia. Remarkable. 

Arulanandam claims selling naming rights for the new Texas buildings will cover the costs of moving. However, he’s not giving any concrete numbers. The member who asked about it isn’t satisfied with the responses. He wants hard numbers. 

NRA board member William Bachenberg gets up and claims the board hasn’t been given hard numbers on the cost of the mov either. He claims one estimate is $80 million. He also says they can’t sell naming rights for museum exhibits because they were previously sold. 

Cotton is now attacking Bachenberg directly. He says he is wrong and hasn’t been active on the board for years. 

NRA board member Jay Printz gets up and attacks Bachenberg, too. He has been an attack dog for leadership since the corruption scandal first erupted at the 2019 meeting. He jokes that he’s well known for cursing out the opposition. 

Rob Pincus, who was one of those opposition members back in 2019, gets up to speak against the Texas move. Or, at least, moving right now. 

I’m definitely getting some deja vu from the 2019 NRA members meeting. It’s not as roudy, but it’s very similar. 

NRA board member Maria Heil is now speaking in opposition to th Texas move as well. You’re seeing a lot more board members speak out against what leadership wants that usual. That’s very interesting. 

NRA board member Amanda Suffecool is now also speaking against the Texas move resolution. 

Cotton gets loud boos when he insinuates that Suffecool isn’t in a position to understand what’s going on with the move because she’s only been on the board for a year. The biggest reaction so far. 

The resolution to move to Texas is put to a vote. It fails. There was a big laugh when Cotton initially said who couldn’t tell which side won because it was pretty clear. 

And that is where the meeting essentially ended thanks to the Cotton-imposed hard stop.

Just a few comments with my impressions on the meeting. First, attacking gun blogs is ridiculous. I don’t know any gun blogger who doesn’t want the NRA to be more than it has been in the fight for 2A rights. If we have been critical of the NRA, it is because the corruption has impaired the never-ending fight with the gun prohibitionists. Second, Andrew Arulanadam suggesting “naming rights” for a NRA building in Texas would pay for the move is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. To even suggest it is to insult our intelligence. Third, seeing Directors standing up to the Cabal was wonderful. Finally, Cotton attacking Amanda Suffecool was a big mistake and the members present let him know it with their boos.