NRA

Uncategorized

Discussion Of Final Judgment Item By Item

December 11, 2024 by 1 Comment

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.

Uncategorized

Speaking Of The Special Litigation Committee

December 10, 2024 by 0 Comments

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.

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

Coup D’Etat Or Last Gasp Of The Cabal?

November 27, 2024 by 2 Comments

If you have been following NRA In Danger or Members Take Back the NRA (on Facebook), you are aware that David Coy called up certain fellow directors to press NRA President Bob Barr to call a meeting of the Executive Committee. Barr heeded Coy’s call and has scheduled an Executive Committee meeting for Friday to be conducted electronically on Microsoft Teams.

From: Frazer, John <john.frazer@nrahq.org>

To: Frazer, John <john.frazer@nrahq.org>

Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 at 09:05:00 PM EST

Subject: OFFICIAL NOTICE: Executive Committee meeting November 29

Dear Board and Executive Council members:

Pursuant to Article VI Sec. 4 of the NRA Bylaws, President Barr has called a special meeting of the Executive Committee to take place on Friday, November 29, 2024, at 3:00 PM EST. The meeting shall be conducted by Microsoft Teams (with video conference or audio-only available).  Login information is at the bottom of this message, and will also be sent in the form of a calendar invitation.

The object of the meeting will be to consider recent actions taken by the Executive Vice President with regard to the leadership of NRA-ILA and to take any appropriate action thereon.

Please note that this notice is being sent to all members of the Board and Executive Council pursuant to Article VI, section 4(c) of the NRA Bylaws.

Sincerely,

John Frazer

Secretary

National Rifle Association of America

11250 Waples Mill Rd.

Fairfax, VA 22030

(703) 267-1254

john.frazer@nrahq.org

The backstory is that Doug Hamlin moved to fire Randy Kozuch as head of NRA-ILA. Whether it was because he wanted to put his own person in the job or because Kozuch just wasn’t cutting it is left to speculation. Kozuch’s decision to have the NRA-PVF endorse Democrat Mary Perolta in Alaska over Republican Nick Begich caused much consternation with gun groups there and probably played a role in Hamlin’s decision. Kozuch, as is his right, appealed to members of the Board of Directors.

From all I’ve spoken with Kozuch is seen as a nice guy who has been around for many, many years. The question on whether he is effective is another story. I remember speaking with a board member back when Chris Cox was fired when there was speculation that Kozuch would get the position. He was adamant that this would be a horrible choice. Jason Ouimet eventually was named to replace Chris Cox.

I have heard that the intended replacement would be John Commerford who currently serves as the Chief of Operations at NRA-ILA. Commerford started with the NRA as an intern while still in college. He left for a couple of years to work with high-end shotgun company Krieghoff and then returned as a state liaison in 2013. He has been with NRA-ILA ever since. One criticism I have heard about Commerford is that he allowed himself to be used by Brewer’s team in the jury trial when they were trying to run the clock. Having read his testimony, it was mostly questions on the role of ILA, travel, and reimbursements. In other words, stuff that had been asked and answered earlier. This criticism was countered by a current director stating that Commerford was an employee and did what he was told.

According to the Bylaws (Art. V, Sec. 3b), it will take a supermajority of 75% of the Executive Committee to suspend Doug Hamlin with or without pay. This suspension would remain effective until the next regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors. The next regular meeting is scheduled for early January 2025. However, if the cabal plans to remove Doug permanently, they will need to provide him a 15 day notice in writing along with the preferred charges. It would take another supermajority of the board (75%) to remove him from the office. Some think the cabal has enough votes on the Executive Committee while others do not. We shall see.

All of these moves come before Judge Cohen has released his final order in the New York case. Frankly, I find this grossly foolish as their moves only reinforce the NYAG’s contention that the cabal must be removed from power. It is also foolish to think the NYAG and Judge Cohen are ignorant of the cabal’s machinations.

I’m sure that some of the cabal see their moves as a heroic defense of the NRA and its rights. I see it more as their last gasp showing that they can assert their power before they are swept away in the tide of reform. A slate of reform minded individuals are running in 2025 to replace them. In the interest of transparency which is one of the slate’s goals, I am one of those individuals. You can see all on them on our new website.

Finally, one of the big mistakes made by David Coy in calling for the Executive Committee meeting, was essentially to out the members of the cabal. Instead of sending his email out by BCC (blind carbon copy) to preserve anonymity, he named names. You can see this in a post of the original email by Willes Lee on Facebook here. I guess we should thank him for that.

Uncategorized

Will It Be Trick Or Treat For The NRA?

October 31, 2024 by 3 Comments

Judge Joel Cohen has scheduled the oral arguments on the final judgment proposals for tomorrow at 11am. Unfortunately, New York being New York, we cannot watch or listen to the oral arguments live as that is prevented by New York law. You can thank the media who covered the Lindbergh kidnapping trial back in 1935 for that.

Since the oral arguments are scheduled for Halloween, the question is whether the final decision will be a trick or treat for the NRA.

Having read both sets of proposals – and I’m not counting the one from disgraced former EVP Wayne LaPierre – my expectation is that Judge Cohen’s final decision will tend to be closer to the proposal offered by the New York Attorney General’s Office than that of the NRA. My reasoning is that their proposal more closely follows his dicta in his interim decision. For example, the NYAG’s proposal more fully opens up the nomination process while the NRA’s speaks of seeking out certain attributes for directors. The latter could be used to eliminate candidates who might not buy into the party line.

While not having a crystal ball, I also would not be surprised if Judge Cohen orders that Paul Babaz and Charlie Brown be added to the ballot. Both were late in delivering petitions due to storm-related issues.

As I wrote earlier, neither proposal addresses information sharing with the members. I would hope that Judge Cohen realizes this is not addressed and adds that as a requirement. NRA members should be able to view up-to-date bylaws online, see the financial filings for a period of at least five years, and be able to read the minutes and agendas for Board meetings. This is the minimum that should be available online for members to access. If anyone is worried about the opponents of gun rights having access to it, make it available to members only just as they do with the ratings from the NRA-PVF.

I don’t think we will have to wait long to receive Judge Cohen’s final judgment. I would not be surprised if he doesn’t have a draft in place that only needing some tweaking following the oral arguments.

Fingers crossed that the final judgment will be a treat for the members and a trick for the cabal whose acquiescence to the whims of Wayne LaPierre put us in this position to begin with.

Uncategorized

Missing From Both Final Judgment Proposals

October 9, 2024 by 2 Comments

Both the NRA and the New York Attorney General’s Office submitted their proposed terms for the final judgment in People of New York v. National Rifle Association of America et al on October 4th. Having read both proposals, neither propose reforms intended to keep the rank and file NRA member informed.

Item 9 in the NYAG’s proposed final judgment says the NRA will set up a secure online portal that will “enable digital dissemination of Board, committee, and corporate documents to Board members, and shall enable convenient encrypted communications with Board members.”

Likewise, the NRA’s proposal for a final judgment states, “The Secretary’s Office shall use best efforts to implement, by January 2025, a secure portal that will enable digital dissemination of Board, committee, and corporate documents to Board members, and shall enable convenient encrypted communication with Board members.”

Nowhere in either document is any mention of providing information on a timely basis to the members of the NRA. Whether this is an oversight or intentional, I don’t know.

At the very least, here is what I would propose and what should be included in the final judgment. If you have other items that you would suggest be publicly available, make note of it in the comments.

  • Current bylaws must be published on the NRA website and available to all members. Do you know hard it is to get an up-to-date copy of the bylaws otherwise?
  • A minimum 5 years worth of Form 990 and CHAR500 posted on the NRA’s public website. Many other non-profits make these available on their websites.
  • Board meeting agenda and minutes posted on the public website including for past meetings of the board. If small towns can do it, so can the NRA.

If those in charge are so worried about the gun prohibitionists or reporters from The Trace having access to this information, make it so it can be accessed only by NRA members. This is what they do with regard to candidate ratings by the NRA-PVF.

The time for keeping the membership in the dark is over. If the Board and the executives are serious about a NRA 2.0, this is one change they could easily make.

Uncategorized

Delivered!

October 7, 2024 by 3 Comments

My package containing 236 petition sheets with 547 signatures was delivered to the NRA’s Office of the Secretary this morning. It cost me $92.22 but it was worth it.

When dealing with the powers that be, it always pays to have proof!

I know I have more petitions coming in as UPS has notified me of at least two packages that are delayed by the storm. I plan to send those in to Fairfax because why not. They can turn their nose up at them and not count them but they will know that even more voting members are demanding change.

Uncategorized

Rocky Marshall Responds To Barr’s Falsehood

October 7, 2024 by 3 Comments

Earlier today, NRA President Bob Barr sent an email out to the Board of Directors with “a litigation update.” It details what the Special Litigation Committee agrees with in the NYAG’s proposed judgment and what it disagrees with. Towards the end of the email Barr accuses Director Rocky Marshall of submitting an affidavit ” in support of the NYAG’s demands for additional relief against the NRA.” You can read the whole email here where it has been reposted on Facebook.

Rocky did not take this lying down and has responded at length. He has requested that his response be published in its entirety along with his affidavit and a joint letter submitted by Rocky and Buz Mills to the New York court in August. I am happy to provide Rocky a public forum to set the record straight. As Tom Gresham of Gun Talk Radio has often said, “A lie left unchallenged becomes the truth.”

Here is Rocky’s letter in its entirety:

October 6, 2024
To: Bob Barr
From: Rocky Marshall
CC: NRA Board of Directors and all NRA Members
Not Privileged and Not Confidential – Share with as many NRA members as possible


NRA President Bob Barr:
In your email addressed to the NRA Board of Directors (dated October 6, 2024), includes a retaliation statement towards me directly. Because of this attack, I am compelled to respond to the NRA Board of Directors and also to all NRA members in a public forum.


In your email, you comment that I provided an affidavit “in support of the NYAG’s request for additional relief”. This is untrue, blatantly false, and is a feeble small minded political attack. The affidavit that I signed was not a statement of support but instead was a true account of the resolution to dissolve the Special Litigation Committee (SLC) and the subsequent outcome of the vote (See attached affidavit).


For the record, the NRA Directors who supported Wayne LaPierre and now support maintaining the Brewer law firm into perpetuity, misused the parliamentarian rules and recorded the vote as having not passed with a super majority. As it turns out, according to the New York AG’s charitable division, NY law says a majority of the board governs unless the bylaws says otherwise, NRA’s bylaws adopt Robert’s Rules, but only as to deliberations, not voting, so for voting the NY statute applies and a simple majority is enough. In other words, the majority of the Board voted to end the SLC and by default terminate the employment of the Bill Brewer law firm. I join with the majority of the Board and echo this simple but monumental refrain: “Bill Brewer You’re Fired!”


NRA Members:
President Barr (unfortunately) is a central member of the NRA Directors identified in the NYAG’s statement as: “Many of the same NRA directors who failed in their duty to oversee the NRA during an era of “ill-considered,” “wasteful,” and “disastrous” efforts to “avoid accountability” continue to serve on the Board today. Id. at 2253:9-13.” President Barr and the members of the SLC continue to take action that is adverse and detrimental to the stability and future of the NRA. The SLC is operating beyond its authority and every member of the SLC should immediately resign for the good of the order.


President Barr also identifies issues that are described as “areas of disagreement” with the NYAG’s proposal. I completely disagree with President Barr and the Brewer Law firm position that is being promoted which does not represent the majority of the NRA Directors.


Forms of Relief:
Board Size Referendum – This idea is the result of the court being informed by NRA members and other expert witnesses that the NRA Board size is too large. This is an arbitrary solution to a perceived problem. I believe that an optimal Board size can be determined after reviewing the work that is currently being performed at the Board level. In total, there are 44 committees that perform a wide variety of oversight and also managerial tasks. This is worth reviewing, but is not a quick fix to a suggested solution.


In a letter to Judge Cohen on August 14, 2024, Buz Mills and I drafted a similar idea (attachment)
Item# 10 We propose that the appropriate size of the NRA Board of Directors be determined in reviewing best practices of similar boards with significant numbers of committees. We suggest that this item be delegated to the new leadership of NRA 2.0 to investigate and propose a solution to the NYAG’s charitable division that can be mutually agreed upon.


Director Nomination: This idea is a good attempt at removing the punitive bias and retaliation that has existed with the NRA nominating Committee historically and thru the current election cycle. Enlarging
the number of candidates for the Board would provide NRA members more options to choose among qualified candidates as opposed to hand selected candidates by the old guard. I fully support this idea and will work to implement with the NRA Directors during this election cycle.


In a letter to Judge Cohen on August 14, 2024, Buzz Mills and I drafted a similar idea: Item #2 The NRA 2.0 Leadership has recruited candidates to be considered in the next election cycle and we request that all eligible candidates be automatically included on the next election ballot which will be voted on by members in January 2025. The Nominating Committee should be directed to approve every candidate who meets the basic qualifications: Life Member or above for at least five years. Any current Directors running for reelection should be excluded from the ballot if the Director has poor attendance in the previous year of service.

Committee Membership: Removing directors that served on key committees during the critical years whereby fiduciary oversight was absent is a just and appropriate result due to negligence. I fully support this idea and confident that the NRA will have excellent committees in place in the coming weeks.

In a letter to Judge Cohen on August 14, 2024, Buzz Mills and I drafted a similar idea: Item #6 All individuals identified in phase 1 trial as in support of, enabling, facilitating the misuse of funds of the NRA, and all identified “cabal” members be banned from holding any office, chair or vice chair or tier 1 committee member for 3 years.

Committees of the Board: This is an idea proposed by the NYAG and I do not believe will improve the functioning of the committees. The downside to this idea is that potentially a committee (such as the SLC) could operate independently of the Board. As long as good Directors are in place, the committees should be able to operate in accordance with the goals and the direction provided by the entire Board. However, if the committee is operating adverse to the Board then the consequences can be significant.

Compliance Consultant: This idea identified by the NYAG is to provide additional external oversight. I disagree with the NYAG’s position because we have abundant oversight in place. I testified during the trial that we do not have a process problem but instead have a people problem. All of the corruption that occurred was due to the individuals managing the NRA and the NRA Directors that were complicit. We have proper controls in place thanks to Doug Hamlin, Sonya Rawlings, and Bob Mensinger and all transactions are being audited and verified.

Internal Control Audit : This is also an idea proposed by the NYAG to assure that all processes, transactions are being managed correctly. This is not a big issue and the NRA can easily adopt.


NRA members, we are making great strides with all of the changes that been implemented and today the NRA Board of Directors has a majority of good Directors that will shape the future of the NRA for decades to come. As you can sense by this letter, we have issues to resolve and will correct the problems of the past in order to return the NRA back to you – the members. NRA 2.0 is here and we need your support.


Sincerely,


Rocky Marshall
NRA Board Director 2021, 2024-present

The first attachment referred to by Rocky is his affidavit. I have read it multiple times and it is, in my opinion, a straightforward recital of the vote regarding the attempted dissolution of the Special Litigation Committee. I reported on that almost two weeks ago in an annotated post. The annotations indicated who is up for re-election and how they were nominated.

Affidavit Roscoe Marshall Affirmation 09.30.24Download

The other document that Rocky refers to in his letter is the joint letter that he and Buz Mills sent to Judge Cohen.

Judge Cohen Request for Relief 08.14.24Download
Uncategorized

The Vote To Abolish The Special Litigation Committee

September 23, 2024 by 2 Comments

As has been reported elsewhere, the vote to abolish the NRA Board’s Special Litigation Committee failed as it didn’t get a super-majority. The good news was that it was done with a roll call vote which can now be reported. Thanks to Jeff Knox and his obtaining clearance to report the vote which is public information, we know who voted to abolish the SLC, who voted to keep it (and Brewer), and who was either absent or abstained.

The final vote was 34 in favor of rescinding the resolution authorizing the creation of the SLC with 26 opposed. There were 16 abstentions or absences reported. While there was a majority, it did not meet the threshold to rescind the resolution and abolish the SLC.

While those in favor should not all be considered reformers and all those opposed are not necessarily cabal supporters, it does give some indication of each director’s leanings. As such, with preparation for the 2025 election of directors in full swing, here is the roll call vote. I have annotated with whether or not the director could be up for election, if they were re-nominated by the Nominating Committee, or if they having to run by petition. A star next to the name of the director indicates their term will expire in 2025.

In favor of abolishing the SLC:

  • Paul D. Babaz (*, petition)
  • Bill Bachenberg
  • Clel Baudler
  • Ted W. Carter
  • Anthony P. Colandro (*, Nom Comm)
  • Rick Ector
  • Todd R. Ellis (*, Nom Comm)
  • Dennis Fusaro
  • Craig Haggard
  • Al Hammond (*, Nom Comm)
  • Maria Heil
  • Charles T. Hiltunen (*, Nom Comm)
  • Phillip B. Journey
  • Susannah Warner Kipke (resigned)
  • Jeffrey A. Knox
  • Willes K. Lee (*, petition)
  • Robert E. Mansell
  • Rocky Marshall
  • Owen Buz Mills
  • David Norcross (*, not running for reelection)
  • Janet D. Nyce
  • James W. Porter II (*, petition)
  • David A. Raney
  • Ronald L. Schmeits (*, Nom Comm)
  • Steven C. Schreiner
  • Leroy Sisco
  • Amanda Suffecool
  • Craig Swartz
  • Mark E. Vaughan
  • Linda L. Walker
  • James L. Wallace (*, Nom Comm)
  • Bruce Widener
  • Robert Wos
  • Cathy S. Wright (*, Nom Comm)

Those in favor of keeping the SLC:

  • Joe M. Allbaugh
  • Scott L. Bach
  • Charles R. Beers III
  • Donald J. Bradway
  • J. William Carter
  • Patricia A. Clark
  • Charles L. Cotton
  • David G. Coy
  • Larry E. Craig (*, Nom Comm)
  • Isaac Demarest (*, Nom Comm)
  • Steven W. Dulan (*, Nom Comm)
  • Edie P. Fleeman
  • Carol Frampton (*, Nom Comm)
  • Joel Friedman (*, Nom Comm)
  • Sandra S. Froman (*, Nom Comm)
  • Curtis S. Jenkins
  • Amy Heath Lovato
  • Bill Miller
  • Johnny Nugent
  • Jay Printz
  • Kim Rhode (*)
  • Barbara Rumpel
  • Don Saba
  • Danny Stowers (*, Nom Comm)
  • Dwight D. Van Horn (*, Nom Comm)
  • Eb Wilkinson

Abstentions or absences:

  • Thomas Arvas
  • Bob Barr (*, abstained, Nom Comm)
  • Ronnie Barrett
  • Kenneth Blackwell
  • Matt Blunt
  • Dean Cain
  • Marion Hammer (*, absent-health, not re-nominated)
  • Niger Innis
  • Tom King (*, absent-health, Nom Comm)
  • Mitzi McCorvey (*, Nom Comm)
  • Mark Robinson
  • Wayne Anthony Ross
  • Jim Tomes
  • Blaine Wade (*, absent, Nom Comm)
  • Howard Walter
  • Judi White

While the reformers hold the majority for now, three of them – Babaz, Lee, and Porter – can only get on the ballot for 2025 if they gather enough petition signatures. Furthermore, David Norcross will not be running for reelection and Susannah Kipke has resigned to take the position of Deputy Director for Advancement within the NRA. She will be replaced by John Sigler who probably is not a reformer and who is on the ballot thanks to the Nominating Committee. This means potentially a swing of five votes to the cabal.

This reemphasizes the importance of gathering enough petitions to get the reformers running by petition on the ballot. In addition, while I will be on the ballot thanks to the Nominating Committee, being placed on it by petition would give me a leg up on some of the cabal’s nominees. If you are a voting member and you haven’t signed the petitions, do it now! Time is running out.

Uncategorized

Learning From The Gun Prohibitionists

September 19, 2024 by 6 Comments

Lee Williams aka The Gun Writer has a post up today about a new anti-gun group called “Legislators for Safer Communities.” It is about gun prohibitionist legislators in 43 states coming together to form a coalition to work for gun control. What struck me about this story was not yet another astroturf gun control organization being formed. Rather that it was being supported by all the major gun prohibitionist groups.

From their press release:

Legislators for Safer Communities will serve as a hub for collaboration, partnership, shared resources, strategy, research, and peer networking. The coalition will work in partnership with Brady, Community Justice, Everytown, GIFFORDS, and March For Our Lives.

You have Brady, you have Everytown (and presumably their subgroups), and you have the Cult of Personality known as Giffords. While they take different approaches, they are all on the same page in fighting firearms rights, promoting the monopoly of violence by the state, and seeking more control over our lives.

Unfortunately, too many in the pro-rights community don’t play well together whether through philosophical differences or mere jealousy. One need not look too hard to find examples of that.

Here in North Carolina, a bill to allow permitless concealed carry which came from Grass Roots North Carolina and Gun Owners of America was killed when the NRA objected to it due to a provision that required a class on the use of deadly force. The bill was certainly not perfect and that provision was a requirement from House Speaker Tim Moore to move the bill. The thinking by its backers was that moving the bill was more important than the objectionable provision which might well be removed later.

The actual question was whether the NRA objected to the bill because of the provision or because it had not originated with them. This mindset has driven me up the wall for years. Unlike the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition, I rarely see the NRA join with other groups as co-plaintiffs in cases. This needs to change! Resources are finite and are even more so now that the NRA has spent almost $200 million on Bill Brewer’s legal “services”.

If I am elected to the NRA Board of Directors, I plan to be a voice for working with other groups. It should not matter if the group is NRA affiliated or not. Coalitions need to be formed with groups like GRNC, Virginia Citizens Defense League, AzCDL, Commonwealth 2A, and the list goes on. The NRA should work with these groups on the state and local level just as much as they do with their affiliates so that NRA-ILA can do more within the halls of Congress with the resources they have. Sad to say but the non-NRA state affiliates are often more effective and more resolute in their push for gun rights.

Litigation needs to be coordinated where possible with SAF, FPC, NSSF, and the various foundations like the Mountain States Legal Foundation. You see it somewhat on amicus briefs but it needs to go beyond that. I remember reading about then NRA President Charles Cotton complaining about all the 2A cases brought by other plaintiffs after the NRA’s win in Bruen. The complaint should not have been that these groups were bringing cases based upon the Bruen decision but rather that the NRA had failed to follow up on its own win. Smaller organizations like SAF and FPC are always nimbler and inertia is always a problem with a larger, more bureaucratic, organization like the NRA. The smart thing would have been to give support to the nimbler organizations by either being co-plaintiffs or even funders of their efforts instead of just whining about it.

Everyone and every organization wants to get the credit for a win. That is understandable. However, is it more important to get the credit or get the win for firearm rights and freedom?

I know where I stand.