Existential Threat: The Crisis at the NRA

nra convention lapierre crisis board of directors

(AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)

By Adam Kraut

Over the past few months news of impropriety, questionable business dealings, lack of transparency regarding the inner workings of the NRA, and outrageous compensation have emerged. While the source for a lot of this information is not one that many people hold in high regard, much of the information has been independently verified. Jeff Knox through AmmoLand News has written extensively about these issues.

While NRA is currently embroiled in litigation in New York over the Carry Guard program, an IRS complaint has been filed seeking to question its non-profit status. Worse yet, the possibility of a New York State (the state where NRA is chartered) investigation for violations of state law loom as a very likely possibility. Perhaps more terrifying for some of the board members is the possibility of legal action in which they might be found personally liable.

Undoubtedly, the current state of affairs the NRA finds itself in happened under the watch of Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and various board members (those sitting on the Finance and Audit Committees) who apparently failed to fulfill their fiduciary duty to the organization and its members.

NRA executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

I am calling for Wayne LaPierre and those board members to tender their resignations immediately. The very future of the organization depends on the ship being righted and righted quickly. Of equal importance, I call upon the board to terminate all contracts with the marketing firm Ackerman-McQueen, along with any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, and to bring all public relations back in house.

The obvious question that arises from this call to action is “who will replace Wayne LaPierre?”

I don’t claim to have the answer for who ultimately fulfills that role, but I do have some ideas. First, an interim person will need to take on the part of Executive Vice President. The order of succession calls for the Executive Director of General Operations, but the Board can name someone more suitable if needed. Second, the Board should immediately form a committee to look for individuals who are qualified to run a non-profit of the NRA’s size and scope.

Make no mistake, these individuals should be heavily scrutinized in order to ensure that they are fit to run the NRA. Members of the organization should be permitted to submit names of those they think would be suitable candidates. The goal should be to canvas the largest field of qualified people and narrow down from there.

As mentioned to me by a former board member, this person should never become the face of the NRA. The idea of the NRA being synonymous with the Executive Vice President’s identity is a dangerous proposition that has in some ways led us to where we currently find ourselves. NRA’s public faces should come from its own in-house PR department and should be comprised of a wide demographic of individuals. After all, the NRA is comprised of over 5.5 million members.

Of equal concern is the compensation that has been paid to Wayne LaPierre, or perhaps I should say, will be paid, too. Already netting over $1.4 million a year, Wayne’s golden parachute ensures that he will continue to be paid as a speaker and consultant for the NRA at the full base salary he is currently receiving as Executive Vice President.

RF for TTAG

That raises a pressing question; how much will his replacement be paid? Moreover, to the extent this type of payment is rendered, how is NRA going to afford to pay it? Does it come from the constant requests for $20 donations from the members? If so, aren’t there more prudent ways to spend that money given the NRA has nearly exhausted its $25 million credit line, liquidated $2 million from an investment fund, borrowed close to $4 million from its officers’ life insurance policy and about $5 million from the NRA Foundation?

There is absolutely no reason that the NRA cannot and should not be doing PR on its own. The cost savings would be enormous.

NRA Ackerman McQueen Ack-Mac

Courtesy Ackerman McQueen

Then there’s the never-ending drain of money from the NRA by Ackerman-McQueen. As current board Member Lt. Col. Robert Brown refers to them the “vampire vendor.” There is absolutely no reason that the NRA cannot and should not be doing PR on its own. The cost savings would be enormous. In-house talent would always work with the best interests of the association, not the vendor or its questionable billing practices.

The Colandro Challange

With that out of the way, there is one more issue to attend to. Numerous individuals have asked if I’d be running for the 76th board seat at the NRA Annual Meeting. Others have asked if I would endorse or support Anthony Colandro (who is now being supported by Wayne LaPierre, among others!?).

I’ve decided to keep my options open. My name will appear on the ballot, however, if Mr. Colandro will join me in demanding that Wayne and the board members who failed to exercise their fiduciary responsibilities immediately resign, I will consider stepping aside and offering my endorsement. Without that commitment though, I could not in good conscience endorse any candidate.

For those attending the NRA Annual Meeting this year, I’ll see you there. I hope you’ll join me in demanding accountability from the officers and the board.

 

This article originally appeared at Ammoland and is reprinted here with permission. 

comments

  1. avatar jram01 says:

    There you go. It’s just a matter of time.

    1. avatar Helms Deep says:

      Pushing Back , instead of paid-off ” compromise ” is the way forward.
      Clearly N.R.A. does not have ‘ the right stuff .’

      PA. Rep. Daryl Metcalfe gets it ; prepares motion to Impeach Pittsburgh Mayor.
      Metcalfe Minute on You-Tube

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Yes, just a matter of time until the most effective defender of 2nd Amendment rights surrenders and turns itself into an obedient component of the new fascist state. Given its long history of corruption and more recent history of decidedly anti-gun and anti-freedom legal initiatives, it’s hard to argue that the entire legal apparatus of New York State is anything but politicized from top to bottom. With that in mind it’s no great surprise to see New York making this kind of move against the NRA. What is surprising (although not all that much, given TTAG’s editorial dislike of the NRA) is that an article like this is given this kind of prominence.

      A neutralized NRA is the best possible gift to give to the gun-control-movement. Conversly , warts and all, the NRA is the single best defense POTG have against losing our 2nd Amendment rights.

      1. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

        Agreed. Can any of the officers be saved/redeemed to the satisfaction of the shot callers in the organization? Gun grabbers will rejoice at the thought of a neutered NRA. As has already been said, they are the biggest obstacle to losing the 2nd Amendment for all time which is what most leftists and Dems want.

        Also agree about the constant fund raising, begging for donations. It is annoying but I suppose necessary to fund that $1.4 million salary for Wayne. And the others. To have someone worth his/her salt to head the organization, they will have to be compensated commensurate with the weight of the title and scale of the NRA. Good luck and I hope we get someone with fire in the belly to do battle with the attackers of the 2nd Amendment. If it goes away; ain’t never getting it back. Count on it.

        1. avatar Freebird says:

          MEMBERS ….. Fleeced of their money and only got ” Pretend ” Lobby efforts will have their revenge.

          Not ONE penny more for NRA …… tell us again how we must endure corruption … because you say so !

          I once was a blind FUDD …. but now I SEE.

      2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        Freebird, ascii is a wonderful environment for noble words, but I think you are missing an important fact. The Sandy Hook mass killings of school children created a “moral panic” of historic proportions—exactly the environment that anti-gun social activists know provides the best chance for them to ram through anti gun, anti 2nd Amendment laws that otherwise would not get passed.

        Before you claim that the NRA is ineffectual, i think you ought to give to some thought to what happened after Sandy Hook. What we didn’t see—-and what I think all POTG expected to see—was a flood of new, coercive anti-gun laws specifically designed to reduce our right to keep and bear arms. Instead, the flood of new coercive anti-gun laws floated around congress for awhile but ultimately went nowhere. The reason they went nowhere was, in large measure, because of the NRA’s legendarily effective lobbying efforts. This is something the NRA does best. It also something the NRA has excelled at doing for decades. As I have said before—warts and all the NRA is the single most effective protector of gun-rights we have. There is simply no other formal gun-rights supporting organization that can do or accomplish what the NRA can do.

  2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Are they in for another revolt this year?

  3. avatar jwtaylor says:

    We need the NRA. We do not need this NRA. Change, or die.

    1. avatar Golly Roger says:

      We need the NRA???

      Seems like the NRA needs us far more than we need them.

      The NRA had its chance. Thrice over. And now, if we just send them more money, they promise to get their act together.

      The NRA whines just like a drug addict. Clean yourself up first and then come begging.

      1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        Do you have a viable replacement in mind?

        1. avatar Scott says:

          GOA

    2. avatar SoCalJack says:

      I have to agree. IMHO, NRA has a solid foundation, but it needs restructuring. It wont be easy but it must be done.

  4. avatar Super-Gay-Guy says:

    just the tip of the shit-berg

    1. avatar Arandom Dude says:

      We’re sailing into a shit typhoon Randy. Better haul the jib in before it gets covered in shit.

  5. avatar NORDNEG says:

    So now it begins…By…. By… American Pie.

    1. avatar ai338 says:

      What’s the pie doing?

      1. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

        A better question would be is how is “The Pie” , which is comprised of member donations, being cut up and distributed to people and efforts not representing the best interests of the group.
        Financial impropriety puts not only the credibility of the organization at risk, but the financial survival, as well.
        NRA members might as well throw their contributions down a black hole as long as corrupt people are co-opting the true interests of the organization. Begone, thieves.

        1. avatar Andy says:

          Good question. I paid for my life member dues years ago and until things change, they will not one damn penny more from me.

        2. avatar enuf says:

          I like pie …. just saying, cuz I do 🙂

  6. avatar John Boch says:

    As much as I love and respect The NRA, Wayne LaPierre needs to go. His contract needs to be canceled. And some of the old guard board members, especially the ones that never show up to board meetings, also need to go!

    Frankly we need more people like Adam Kraut and fewer people like Wayne Lapierre in leadership at the NRA.

    There are a lot of really good people who work at the NRA. It’s a shame they have to labor under poor, corrupt cronyism leadership.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      That 1.4 million is ‘for life’, according to his contract. When he retires we’ll keep paying him the same to occasionally give speeches for us.

      The fact that the Board (more likely a tiny Executive Committee of said Board) approved the contract proves that we really need to kick out Wayne’s hand picked board members and sue them for breach of fiduciary duty.

      1. avatar NoSir says:

        I hate to say it but the NRA appears beyond salvation. The way it’s no organized ensures that now matter how hard we push back what ever change comes will only be what the VP lets it. Why do you think Pete Brownell is not running the show. He couldn’t make any meaningful difference. I say we let it sink and invest ourselves in many organizations like the GOA and FPC. That way all our eggs are not in one basket and between the 3 there is healthy competition all fighting for the same goals.

        Even if we do get rid of Wayne, we still pay him and all his turd buddies like Marion are still there. It’s time to stop feeding it and let nature take its course. We will all be better off with out this enemy selling us out in the end.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          “I say we let it sink and invest ourselves in many organizations like the GOA and FPC.”

          The difficulty with this tactic is that we flush down-the-drain the > 100 year clout that THIS organization has gradually accumulated.

          Whether it’s clout was earned legitimately or not, NRA has it to build/lose. That’s IT. We don’t have another century of time to build that back-up again.

          Corporate entities are a different sort of creature than a single personality. It’s entirely realistic to gut a corporate entity of its old entrenched cronies and re-create it anew.

          Think of it this way. When someone in a smoke filled room on Capital Hill asks: “What does the NRA have to say about this bill?” do you want everyone to assume the reference is to the National Restaurant Association?

          GOA, and others, are fine organizations. I’m a member of many and support diversity among gun-owner organizations. Nevertheless, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to re-create the clout and expertise now owned and operated by NRA.

          If we can’t gather together now for the straight-forward task of gutting and re-creating NRA’s management how could we possibly imagine choosing one among the several tiny competing organizations to become our agreed-upon flagship? How could we possibly charter, fund and build a membership for a brand new organization?

          This is IT boys and girls. Love it or hate it, NRA is THE flagship organization. We either gut it and rebuild it, and do it now, or Governor Como will take the decision out of our hands.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “How could we possibly charter, fund and build a membership for a brand new organization?”

          The solution is simple, unpalatable. It is the fatal flaw in all non-profits; self-preservation. Why, besides the reason given, is it that all the legitimate pro-2A organizations, combined with the disbanded membership of the destroyed NRA (and the name can be bought when the NRA craters), not create/re-create a single voice out of the rubble?

          One of the reasons people give little credence to the idea of creating alternatives to the existing “social media” outlets is the lack of willpower, and money. Yet, the idea of a myriad of independent organizations combining to establish a viable entity that could mount a successful effort at a “social media” alternative is dismissed with chuckles.

          But, if we are finally recognizing that 5.5 million staunch gun owners (NRA) is the best we can do with a ready market of 100 million gun owners, then we are simply watching the last inning of the game.

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          Sam, you are missing a big point.

          Imagine that the clever directors at NRA realize their legal vulnerability. They decide to take action. They charter a new not-for-profit organization called the “National Firearms Association” in the best jurisdiction they can find – say Alaska – and then sell all NRA’s assets to the new “nFa”.

          Look; clearly, this solves all their problems. They are still in charge. They’ve transferred the membership list to the new nFa; dues bills will go out as usual and the checks will continue to come in. They will have escaped the clutches of NY State and kept these assets out of Cuomo’s hands.

          Why wouldn’t they do this? Simply because there is enormous value in the name and heritage of THE “National Rifle Association”. To take route I’ve just described would flush all that down the toilet. The acronym “NRA” would merely mean “National Restaurant Association” on Capital Hill.

          GOA, SAF and others are all fine organizations. Yet, none has grown to the point that it has the gravitas held by NRA.

          Moreover, gun owners are not characteristically inclined to order themselves into ranks and files. Getting them to support any given leadership, plan, philosophy is like herding cats.

          Once NRA begins its threatened precipitous fall I don’t think you will see NRA members rushing to any of the existing groups to re-direct their $35/year to one particular leader/agenda. Instead, you are likely to see lots of new groups pop-up with clever acronyms and appeals to sub-constituencies; e.g., the American Assault Weapons Association, or some such focus.

          Gun owner activists are going to be concentrated in one place this month, they will all be milling about in the same auditorium. If they can’t get together there and grasp victory from the jaws of Cuomo, then I fail to see how non-NRA members will suddenly emerge in a unified choir to sing the Battle Hymn of the Gun-owners’ Republic

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I fail to see how non-NRA members will suddenly emerge in a unified choir to sing the Battle Hymn of the Gun-owners’ Republic”

          I did note the solution is unpalatable. No matter the scenario, the leadership of the NRA (unless all are jailed) will be able to reconstitute, and will be attractive to former NRA members (assuming those people would be willing to reconstitute what didn’t work before).

          What I propose is a coalition of multiple groups that transmogrifies into a single power to be reckoned with. We have seen here people claiming to belong to several gun owner groups. Why not presume a large block of NRA members also contribute to more than NRA? Not sure we should just dismiss the potential there.

        5. avatar MarkPA says:

          Worth-while discussing. Perhaps there is more silver lining in that cloud than I perceive. If the discussion leads in a positive direction then something might come of it. Conversely, should it lead in a negative direction (or get no traction at all) then we would learn that that option has still-born.

          In any case, the discussion will reveal aspects of the problem that some of us have thought of but others have not. It would enrich the understanding of the problem and help point the way to a good solution. If not yours, some other.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “In any case, the discussion will reveal aspects of the problem that some of us have thought of but others have not.”

          That’s what discussions are for, rather than rants, screeds and insults. Thanx.

      2. avatar NoSir says:

        The problem with what your saying Mark is that after the last time the membership rose up and did something about the NRA not fulfilling the memberships wishes (in the late 70’s iirc), the organization was reorganized to ensure that the corrupt kept control regardless of the pressure. How is the VP the most powerful man in the NRA? We may change Wayne but we will never be able to gut it like it needs to be. So we either have to live with a thief in our house or let it die. If there is no NRA there is a vacuum and a lot of people who will need to put their dues and support behind an organization to fill the void. You’d be surprised how fast one of those other guys grows and the clout they can gain.

        There is no doubt you are right about the clout the NRA has built. However, it’s been used for corruption and wrong doing for so long that if we make the NRA put the face on it should, it may be lost anyways. Washington expects gun banners who need a kick back and play both sides in the end. I don’t think we will ever get what we want out of the NRA. We would have to force all the turds out from Wayne to Chris to Marion and so on. It’s never going to happen. Too many Fudds put them right back in place to aid us in any hope of change. If I saw a way to save the NRA I would be the first to say it but it’s due to just be torn down and something to take its place.

      3. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

        Sadly, all organizations eventually break down to the point where their original purpose ceases to be their main goal. Instead, their main goals become graft and following red tape for the sake of following red tape.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      “The Only Thing That Stops A Bad Guy With A Gun Is A Good Guy WIth A Gun”. By making this simple statement—-at the exact right time—-Wayne LaPierre single handedly did more to save gun-rights that anyone else in recent history. It takes a very special kind of person to do that. Most people, including most writers, politicians, and sundry political activists, can’t do what he did. If you are so certain that we should get rid of LaPierre, John, would you mind naming someone who would bring a skills-set similar to his to the fight to save 2nd Amendment rights?

      1. avatar Comrade X says:

        Yeah he’s been “single handedly” taking millions of donations and putting them into his and his cronies pockets too. IMHO he has done more to enrich himself and his friends then he has to save gun rights.

  7. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Talk about a clueless organization and BOD. The only rival I can think of is Roger Smith, formerly CEO/ChOB of General Motors.

    Read a Fortune magazine interview with Roger Smith (yes, the Roger Smith who made Michael Moore famous). While it was an interesting survey of the total history of the founding of GM, it was near the end of the article that got my attention, and caused me to throw the magazine across the room.

    One of the last questions in the interview asked (paraphrased from memory), “What do you think was behind the slide of GM from the majority position in the auto industry, to accounting for less than 33% of the trade?” The answer, (memorized in its entirety), “I don’t know. It was a mysterious sort of thing.”

    The reason for throwing the magazine across the room was an earlier statement in the article that Smith had retired on a $1,000,000/yr annual pension.

    The NRA as an organization will look back at the destruction and claim, “I don’t know. It was a mysterious sort of thing.”

    1. avatar Johnny Go Lightly says:

      How about the CEO of BP ? Remember his famous quote during the Gulf Spill….”hey I want to get home too”….lol

      Rising to the top of large orgs doesnt mean you have a brain worth a bucket of spit regards common sense.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Rising to the top of large orgs doesnt mean you have a brain worth a bucket of spit regards common sense.”

        Worked for a large, name brand manufacturer, once. The market was changing, we were clinging to what used to be, and losing money. Corporate brought in one of their hatchet men to “turn things around”. The result was about a 2/3s reduction in personnel, and barely surviving. The hatchet-man was heralded as a genius because he did what no one else could do. At the bar, one of the company directors (unit manager) was extolling what a great guy the hatchet man was. Took a sip of my musta been fifth martoonie, and said, “Give me that authority to fire everyone in sight, and I could have turned this place around, and still not be a genius.” By some sort of cosmic alignment inexplicable and mysterious, I was part of the turn around within two months.

  8. avatar Dude says:

    Any “non-profit” paying anyone seven figures is a scam designed to enrich it’s executives. Why have the members tolerated this for so long? I can understand having one person with a low six figure salary if they are a very good organization leader. Anything more than that is a SCAM!

    Are the board members term limited? Do the due paying members get to elect the board? If not, it seems like this would at least partially fix the greedy corruption problem in the NRA.

    1. avatar guest says:

      Similar to the wounded warrior foundation. Crooks.

  9. avatar anarchyst says:

    Let’s look at the NRA’s “track record” on resisting “infringements” of the Second Amendment:
    The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS “instant check” system, the “no new machine gun for civilians” ban in 1986, the so-called “assault weapons” ban in 1994, and other infringements of the Second Amendment. Let’s face it. What better way to increase membership than to “allow” infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive. Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.
    If the NRA is truly the premier “gun rights” organization, it must reject ALL compromise…
    As an aside, it seems that after every successful “infringement”, there is a new membership drive and campaign for donations at the NRA.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      NICS was their proposed alternative to the waiting period that was originally in the bill. Perhaps you’d rather wait 10 days or 2 weeks to get your gun.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Perhaps you’d rather wait 10 days or 2 weeks to get your gun.”

        NICS is federal; states can establish whatever waiting period they desire (and it is happening).

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          This NICS vs waiting period Sophie’d Choice was a hard decision. The sense at the time was that something would have to be conceded. Which would it be?

          Would we concede that a dealer shouldn’t sell to someone who was identifiable as a prohibited person?

          Would we concede that the local constabulary should have an opportunity to intervene in a dealer sale?

          The first choice presented a risk that the NICS system might produce false positives. Moreover, it implied that we agreed that background checks could be made to work. If they worked for dealers why not extend them to private sales? To loaning guns?

          The second choice presented a risk that the local constabulary might intervene in sales. Moreover, it implied that if a 5 day waiting period was good than a 10 day period would be better. A 10 year waiting period might really accomplish a lot.

          A quarter century later, do we know for sure that enduring a waiting period with a local police opportunity to object would REALLY have been so much better than NICS?

          In a lot of choices in life we can’t really know for sure which would have turned out better/worse. Was I really better off marrying Ann then Betsy? Or, would marrying Betsy turned out better than Ann. Usually, we can’t know for sure. We only know what actually happened.

          The failure of the NICS path, in my opinion, was failing to hold Congress’s feet to the fire every time a gun bill came up for consideration. These occasions were the opportunities to introduce amendments to the pending gun control bill to address the false-positives of NICS.

          That tactic wouldn’t have accomplished much. The Feds would never fix the false positives to any great degree. However, it would have embarrassed the Feds showing how they infringe on the liberty of people who can’t afford to fight the FBI.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “A 10 year waiting period might really accomplish a lot.”

          Which, I am assured, is why banning gun ownership (except criminals and gangers because doing that would be like really hard) is such a good thing. 10 years? Why not a lifetime?

        3. avatar RMS1911 says:

          States have no say so over gun rights because it’s strictly federal (supremacy clause) like immigration laws and the only federal gun law ends with shall not be infringed all the rest are unconstitutional statutes. Anything else is dereliction of duty and is actionable.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “States have no say so over gun rights because it’s strictly federal (supremacy clause) like immigration laws and the only federal gun law ends with shall not be infringed all the rest are unconstitutional statutes. Anything else is dereliction of duty and is actionable.”

          Theories are nice, but not controlling until and unless validated/approved/sanctioned/ permitted by case law at court (including the SC). As of October 2017 there were approximately 17 states with mandated waiting periods for gun (primarily handgun) purchases. For some reason, these are not all being challenged before the SC. So….theory has no effect on reality. (Theory would be a great end, but who can enforce it?)

  10. avatar Fit2Btyed says:

    I’m still waiting for the pickup truck raffle.

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    With friends like Adam Kraut, 2A has no need of enemies. He’s an infiltrator.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “With friends like Adam Kraut, 2A has no need of enemies. He’s an infiltrator.”

      I don’t know who Adam Kraut is, but your statement requires a justification, an explanation at the least.

    2. avatar Someone says:

      Sorry, Ralph, but you are mistaken. Adam Kraut is a real fighter for the 2A rights. See some of his videos on The Gun Collective. He is precisely what NRA needs.
      NRA says they spent all the money they had (and then some) to help get Trump elected. Now what did Trump do for us in return? Walked back on his promises of getting rid of GFZs “first day in the office”.
      Called for “guns confiscation first and worry about due process later”?
      Instructed his DOJ to change bump stock classification to machine guns?
      Laughed and bragged about not fearing the NRA?
      Did I miss something? I’m sure there was more. Yeah, I realize that HRC would be worse. But is that a guy we should invite to speak at Indianapolis?

    3. avatar barnbwt says:

      Damn skippy he is; how else is the NRA supposed to clean up its act? They’ve rigged the elections for BoD at least once (more likely going back years/decades), waste countless donation dollars on ad-men hooked up with the leadership sending them contracts (LaPierre), endorse BoD members that are actively promoting gun control and completely shirking their duties (Hammer), and have dragged the organization completely off message into being political hacks (North/GOP) and unscrupulous grifters (Carry Guard, YETI/etc merchandise)

      None of this waste or corruption has anything to do with promoting shooting sports, nor maintaining shooting facilities, nor overseeing training programs.

      Normally I respect your opinion, but in this case your personal dislike of serial troublemaker Adam Kraut has led you to the position of defending the indefensible.

  12. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    H’mmm.

    I wonder if Colion Noir (Collins Iyare Idehen Jr.) would be interested in the position?

    Just *imagine* the Leftist heads exploding with his appointment… 🙂

    1. avatar MIO says:

      Colion Noir LOL Yeah NO
      He hasn’t stood up for anything in fact the opposite on issues like the bumpstock. Shot out a few racist statements too. Look it up

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      This isn’t a PR job; this is the behind-the-scenes cat wrangler who keeps all the department heads on track. Honestly, you want an a-hole to fill that role, not a charismatic attention-whore.

      Wayne was actually a good fit, personality-wise, but the problem is that he steered the organization toward personal enrichment (he has many, many personal connections to Ackerman McQueen, and his directing of NRA business to them to the tune of likely billions of dollars at this point should really be cause for criminal investigation, in my opinion) and abandoned the cause of gun rights to chase GOP kickbacks, in addition to simple graft within the NRA finances. Finding a similar personality that is instead interested in gun rights would be perfect.

      Alas, power corrupts, and I think LaPierre has shown the position is simply too powerful relative to the BoD to be trusted with the organization’s future. Not only has LaPierre directly-ordered NRA officers into self-destructive management, he has also used his ‘bully pulpit’ to stack the BoD with a bunch of yes-men that give him free reign to abuse his office further. Once LaPierre is finally driven from power (either by cancer, or hopefully by being thrown from a window at this year’s convention) the BoD’s first action should be to seize power from that office and strengthen the representative aspects of the organization. Grass roots are why the NRA is powerful, and trying to impose a top-down dictatorial system like some Bloomberg astroturf group is a recipe for the disaster we find ourselves in today. If you can get a bunch of NRA members to vote for you, you need to be the one making the decisions about the direction of the organization as a whole; not some glorified bureaucrat drunk on expensive lunches with Republican staffers.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        We need a Special Council/Prosecutor. I hear Robert Mueller has a lot of experience in this sort of thing and may soon be available.

      2. avatar MarkPA says:

        Very insightful.

        There are two important jobs to distinguish.

        One is that of “cat wrangler” as you characterize it.

        The other is that of spokesman; to articulate to objectives and rationale of the Board’s policies.

        One might be good at one or the other. It is the rare individual who could do both. Why would he do both at the NRA when so many other well-healed corporations would pay him more?

        For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that Wane is the rare exception that can do both. And, that his sense of the right thing to do is spot-on. Nevertheless, he has managed to entrench himself with a board of directors who will do his bidding. He is no longer the leader of the membership organization; he is its emperor. If that is so, then he must be deposed notwithstanding his (assumed) qualifications.

        Not a majority of the membership is convinced that Wane is doing either job well; nor that he has a spot-on sense of the right thing to do.

        Just exactly what remains of the argument to keep him in place?

        The membership must make it clear to the board of the directors that they must do their duty or NY State will shut-it-down. Thereupon, none of them will have the prerequisites of the board seats that Wane has bestowed upon them.

  13. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    As a sales V P taught me on the resignation of a not-spectacular regional Director: “Opportunity to upgrade.”

  14. avatar Porknbeans says:

    Yea this is an existential threat just like a meteor strike or a nuclear attack …. run for the hills —

  15. avatar TommyJay says:

    The NRA should re-charter in someplace like Wyoming. Screw NY. They could always hold scheduled meetings at one of those $1K/night resort places in the Grand Teton Nat. park. You know, like where the Federal Reserve goes to party, er conference. Or they could respect our cash; what a concept!

    1. avatar daveinwyo says:

      Don’t want them here. Big city trash.

    2. avatar Dog Faced Solider says:

      Sorry, Wyoming is full.

  16. avatar Shiffrod says:

    The board has zero power to do anything. Kraut wants on the board the same as all the others do: extremely lucrative connections.

    1. avatar johnny go lightly says:

      +1000

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      Absolutely false. The Board has the power to do anything they want to do.

      If the board sees that they have no choice they will do something.

      The board should be starting to smell the napalm in the morning. The State of NY has the power to revoke NRA’s charter. It can also sue most of the directors. Either of these scenarios ends the gravy train.

      The membership will grow increasingly restless as the news of the day unfolds. They have a full year of bad news to accumulate before the next election. How do they imagine they will survive the next election they face in 1, 2, 3 years?

      Each director is personally devoted to him/her-SELF, not to the guy to got him on the board and has (heretofore) kept him on the board.

      Boards of directors fire old CEOs and find new ones with ease once they decide that the time for change has come.

      I’m not saying here that NRA’s board members WILL do the right thing; merely that they CAN do so.

    3. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Shiffrod, if that is true, then the NRA will certainly lose it’s tax exempt status and expect it’s leadership to be sued and charged. There are rules and laws to corporate governance, and penalties for failing to follow them.

  17. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Well No Chit !
    Many have been trying to right and return Negotiating Rights Away for more than thirty years now and we have been called every name in the book.
    As holding government accountable is proper so the same applies to the NRA,that membership built,because we are the NRA.

  18. avatar Mad Max says:

    Well, ya’all could put me in Wayne LaPierre’s job. I’d just make the NRA look just like a combination of GOA and SAF (just a lot bigger).😁

  19. avatar barnbwt says:

    Well, I suppose we’ll get to see if all the claims that “the NRA is the only reason we still have our gun rights” are valid, after all. Color me doubtful; we heard the same nonsense from the NAACP and every other activist group that’s outlived its usefulness.

  20. avatar Freebird says:

    ” I only HIT you and cheat on you because I love you ,,, baby ! , Can I have $ 20 dollars ? ”

    Fudds , like an abused spouse keep giving ‘ a second chance ‘.

  21. avatar Dr. Michael S. Brown says:

    Nice to see this letter published here. The NRA leadership has been out of control for many, many years.

    The NRA organization structure was designed, I’ve read, to make a takeover by anti-gun forces impossible. Sadly, this has also made it too difficult to bring about constructive change.

    When the old regime is swept out, the new one should look seriously at changing the way the board is elected and the way power is allocated to the various officers and committees.

  22. avatar James J. White says:

    Lack of transparency in the NRA? Give me a freaking break. The democrat party and the media is out to break the most effective defender on the 2nd Amendment and wouldn’t you know it, some so-called gun defenders fall for it.

  23. avatar Michael says:

    This makes a wonderful distraction from the 60,000 potential democratic voters poised on our southern border…12…

  24. avatar EWTHeckman says:

    “With friends like Adam Kraut, 2A has no need of enemies. He’s an infiltrator.”

    I don’t know who Adam Kraut is, but your statement requires a justification, an explanation at the least.

    Adam Kraut is a lawyer in Pennsylvania. He’s also part of the Firearms Policy Coalition team suing to overturn the bump stock ban. He has a regular feature explaining firearm laws on The Gun Collective YouTube channel. He has also run for the NRA board in the last two elections on the platform of getting the NRA to fully defend the 2nd Amendment. He’s as pro-2A as they come.

    That Ralph hates him means he’s either confusing Adam with someone else, he’s a LaPierre/Cox/Hammer shill, or your typical garbage variety troll.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Ralph is good people. He’s been here from beginning.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Hahahahah! I’ve been with TTAG since it’s inception and was a TTAG staff writer for several years.

      And who the fvck are you — the pot calling the kettle black?

      1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        So you confused Adam Kraut with someone else? That was one of the options I mentioned.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Hahahahah! I’ve been with TTAG since it’s inception and was a TTAG staff writer for several years.”

        All that being true, it doesn’t justify/explain your remark about Adam Kraut being an infiltrator. Since many of us have only been on this blog for a little while, we don’t have all the background needed to evaluate your statement about Kraut being an infiltrator.

        1. avatar Woooosh! says:

          Well maybe you should get that background before you make such statements. If you have to ask these questions then your so far out of the loop it’s not worth trying to explain.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If you have to ask these questions then your so far out of the loop it’s not worth trying to explain.”

          That is an elitist screed if ever there was one.

          Feel any better, now?

      3. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        I find it fascinating that even though several people challenged/questioned your hostility towards Adam Kraut, the only response you’ve given is a version of, “F— off, peon,” even after 24 hours. I think that speaks volumes.

  25. avatar Indy Jones says:

    it is a damned shame that this guy is not on the board

  26. avatar Draven says:

    Wayne resigning has as much chance as a frog growing wings.

  27. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    They were in such a rush to stab USCCA in the back that they overlooked the flaws in their business model. Looks like it’s time to re organize and replace.

  28. avatar MarkPA says:

    Wayne LaPierre’s salary is a secondary issue; and, it should NOT be pushed to the forefront.

    The primary issue is whether the managers of NRA are doing the job correctly and efficiently. These include LaPierre, the directors and probably a few others. If they are NOT getting the job done (or doing so but not efficiently) then they would NOT be cheap at $1/year. Let that soak in.

    Conversely, if the right men and women were getting the job done, and doing so efficiently, then they would be worth a king’s ransom and I’d be content to contribute to pay for that.

    CEOs of the largest corporations in America are compensated handsomely. We gun owners have little basis from this observation to imagine that we can get NRA’s job done on-the-cheap. The right guy/gal will get the job done and do so efficiently; for that s/he deserves to be compensated at a rate that keeps his/her attention on NRA’s goals rather than finding a better paying job elsewhere.

    I urge thoughtful and prayerful consideration of change in the NRA. Today, with NY State breathing down it’s back, we have no choice if we want this institution to survive at all. We want it to not only survive, but to carry out its mission.

    That objective will not be met as long as entrenched insider interests remain at the helm.

  29. avatar MarkPA says:

    It occurs to me that this year may mark the opportunity for the names Cincinnati and Indianapolis to resonate in NRA’s history in the same way as Lexington and Concord resonate in the hearts of Constitutionalists. If not April 2019 – with the conflagrations facing NRA – then when? When will members decide that it is seasonable to reconsider the management of our organization?

    We NRA members are well-aware that we number just 5.5 million out of a gun-owning population of 100 million. That is a market-penetration of a single digit. We are acutely aware of the number of fervent 2A defenders who denounce NRA, its management and history. Many of these criticisms are outdated. (What does it matter what NRA’s management did in 1934? We have an organization to run TODAY.) Still, most of the criticisms have a solid grounding.

    IF NRA undergoes a revolution in Indianapolis analogous to that which took place in Cincinnati then it is highly likely that more gun owners will consider joining than existing members will quit. What would that mean?

    It’s not hard to imagine that a million heretofore disgruntled gun-owners would pony up $35 to join. Suppose – starting from 5.5 million – we lose 500,000. And then gain a million a year for 5 consecutive years. That would bring NRA’s membership to 10 million. That is 10 million dues-paying members to promote gun rights and the shooting sports. That’s 10 million voters being alerted to what their Congresscritters are doing.

    Suppose in the following decade membership doubled again. That’s just 7% annual compounded growth; perfectly realistic. That’s 20 million voters being alerted. Is a market penetration of 20% of 100 million gun owners unrealistic?

    We should look at this annual meeting an an opportunity for a renascence of our flagship organization. If we neglect to do so, NY State might not give us a second opportunity.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “We should look at this annual meeting an an opportunity for a renascence of our flagship organization.”

      Is not one of the obstacles the designed prohibition on the unenlightened members making any changes in the leadership? From what I have read, after Cincinnati, the leaders of NRA rigged the rules to prevent membership from prevailing on any measure the board opposes.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        I’m pretty sure you are correct. The rules of the game were structured to entrench the incumbents.

        But the name-of-the-game is suddenly changing. The litigation going on has to be interpreted as significant internal turmoil.

        NY State is apt to attack NRA given that the organization is chartered in that state and there are plausible arguments for why the directors are culpable for misfeasance.

        The individual directors ought to be looking into ways to CYA and be the survivors rather than those who are tossed overboard.

        Some directors will decide not to engage; they will simply bail-out. Others will want to preserve their personal reputations. Others will realize that they have jeopardy personally and would rather see the NRA survive to contribute to a unified defense. Others will see that NRA won’t survive simultaneous drains on its finances from plummeting dues and soaring legal costs.

        Most of these plausible possibilities will not prove to be significant. But just one or two could tip the balance of power on the board to taking decisive action. Remember, the board of a corporation can do just about anything it decides to do that is within its power according to its charter.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Others will realize that they have jeopardy personally and would rather see the NRA survive to contribute to a unified defense.”

          One thing to consider…any directors accused of criminal acts cannot be defended by the organization. They will be cut loose by law… no official of any organization has authority, as an element of their position/authority, to commit criminal acts. Thus, individuals of the NRA leadership and senior staff could find they do not have assistance from NRA, nor the benefit of liability insurance to rely upon in a criminal matter.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          I take it you have never been a target in such a situation.

          As a young man, decades ago, I had the experience. My corporate employer was targeted by the Feds. Every individual with some significant responsibility was put on the hot-seat. I was compelled to give a deposition for my subject area. If the Feds could make a plausible case that I had failed to do my duty I could have been pursued personally.

          My employer hired good criminal lawyers; including lawyers to represent the employees. The lawyer representing me at my deposition was very good. (His next job was Assistant US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois; second in prestige to the Southern District of NY).

          (Years later I had an opportunity to interview one of the Feds who was persecuting us – after I had loosened her toung in a bar. I asked “What did you have on us?” She replied: “Nothing; we just knew that if we pursued you guys you would eventually have to settle.”)

          It is in the mutual interest of both the employer and its employee (officer, director) to mount a unified defense in an investigation. Likewise, the ODL insurance carrier has an interest in mounting the best defense possible.

          In such corporate litigation it’s unlikely that there will be some “smoking gun” that causes an employee, officer or director to be cut-out. Possible, I suppose, but unlikely. So, current and “retired” directors have an interest in keeping the organization alive and willing+able to fight for itself and for its people. A director won’t know that his life-line of legal support has been cut until it is actually cut or mighty close to being cut.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Thanx. You are making my point. The NRA organization cannot defend anyone on staff, or in leadership, accused of crimes.

          Once worked for a business where your employment contract stated clearly that if you were sued, for any reason, as a result of your employment, not only would the company not pay for your defense, but would sue you for associated direct and indirect costs borne by the company as a result, including the expense of hiring a replacement. In addition, “You’re fired.”

        4. avatar MarkPA says:

          I don’t get it. My employer paid for my defense. And, in turn, I gave the best testimony I could to protect my employer. It was in our mutual interest.

          You say that you worked for a company where your employment contract expressly said they would throw you to the wolves.

          Do you have information to the effect that NRA’s contract with directors says that they will be cut-off?

          In the absence of information to that effect, I think that my experience is more likely to prevail at the NRA than yours.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The “law of agency” prohibits an agent/employee to act outside their specific delegated authority, especially as pertains to criminal acts…something no company/organization can include in delegated authority. A dispute about the limits of agency can likely be defended by a corporation/business.

          In one instance a co-worker was delegated authority to decide, without deference to cost and quality, select vendors for specific items used in production. A vendor lost a bid for a contract because the buyer just didn’t like the reputation of the vendor, and a more expensive vendor was selected. The term of contract selection was “best value”, or “lowest cost”. The buyer used “best value” as including risk that the bad reputation of the losing vendor would result in inferior products. The losing vendor sued the company, and using “law of agency” sued the buyer individually for using criteria not specifically spelled-out in the bidding process. So, company was sued severally (the entire company entity) for violating terms of the bidding process, and the buyer was sued individually for acting beyond the authority delegated to the buyer (deciding that “best value” included reputation when that criterion was not part of the bidding process). Since the buyer did nothing outside implied authority to obstruct the losing bidder, violated no criminal or commercial law, the company chose to pay for a separate defense attorney for the buyer. The company could have easily declared that the authority of the buyer did not include considering “reputation” as an element of “best value”, forcing the buyer to privately hire an attorney for defense.

          Not being steeped in the situation you describe, I can only venture that the corporation considered you to be acting within your delegated/stated authority, thus the corporation was willing to bear the liability of legal costs for you, or that the corporation decided that since the feds could hurt you (and thus the corporation) through investigation tactics, it was prudent to protect themselves by providing you an attorney representing you, rather the corporation directly.

          After all this, the point is if NRA leadership/staff individuals are accused of crimes, thos persons may be shocked to find that NRA corporate provides them nothing, as criminal activity is nowhere permitted in their job description, not could NRA delegate authority to commit crimes. If it comes to criminal charges, NRA would be prudent to only defend the corporation, saving money for legal expenses that would otherwise be spent defending individuals.

  30. avatar barnbwt says:

    What are the odds Kraut manages to narrowly lose the BoD election yet again, despite having exponentially higher name recognition & presence compared to anyone else running again, despite being the only person at the convention burning shoe leather to campaign in-person again, despite being the only person running to distribute campaign fliers/materials street-teams again, despite running a significant campaign to get NRA members registered for Life specifically so they earn the right to vote for Kraut…only to lose by a few dozen votes to another nameless nobody with decades-old connections to LaPierre/Hammer who will go on to do nothing but fail to attend board meetings & rubber stamp the VP’s decisions?

  31. avatar raptor jesus says:

    NRA lost me when they capitulated on bump stocks.

  32. avatar GS650G says:

    As much hate the NRA gets, and maybe deserves, they are a strong and powerful lobbying arm for gun rights. The other orgs are much smaller and lack the clout the NRA has.
    The NRA is mismanaged. This problem is not only solvable but desirable.
    Cleaning house at the NRA will allow the org to emerge stronger and focused on beating the douche bags intent on disarming the entire country, except for their special friends.

    Hopefully new leadership will emerge from the fires.

  33. avatar Steve says:

    Whoever the new director is, they need to be NFA friendly. Not some Fudd like LePierre….

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      You inspire an interesting thought. All large organizations have to struggle to figure out how to configure a “big tent” to bring-in as many constituencies as possible. They might do this cleverly and successfully; or, with brute force.

      As an illustration of brute force, IMAGINE if NRA were composed of 26% duck hunters and 26% marksmen. The remaining 48% are a rag-tag constituency of machine-gun aficionados, artillery owners, . . . self-defenders and champions of civil rights. The two large constituencies would be apt to form a coalition to run the show with the objectives of saving shotguns and bolt-action rifles. So long as our two specific interests are covered we can negotiate-away all the rights of the small constituencies and remain in control of our own destiny.

      I don’t for a moment suppose that duck hunters and marksmen are the two groups that hold a majority of board positions. It’s simply a simple metaphors to illustrate a brute force approach. The consequence for the organization is that those of the minor constituencies will drift away and the organization will become only 1/2 of what it might have been.

      What might be a clever approach?

      It’s unlikely that much traction will be achieved on machine guns until well-AFTER much progress has been made on popularizing and normalizing long-guns and handguns in the public mind. On the other hand, other NFA items are worthy of study.

      Reflect upon the idiosyncrasies of the definitions of the several NFA sub-classes (MD, SBR, SBS, DD and the ever popular AOW.) How do the NFA constraints relate to the corresponding constraints on long-barreled shotguns, those firearms that discharge shotgun shells, are smooth-bored, and are not shoulder fired? How about DDs vs. explosives? And what of AOWs?

      How about throwing some clever lawyers at these idiosyncrasies and putting together a legal challenge to the AOW definition and regulation? It’s not that I care about AOWs. I don’t have one and don’t plan on acquiring one. Nor do I think that the constituency is large enough to merit attention. Nor do I think a successful lawsuit would strike a decisive blow for the 2A.

      Here is what such an effort WOULD do. First, it would speak to the NFA community generally telling them that they had not been abandoned. Second, it would communicate to Congress and SCOTUS that “we” the defenders of the 2A are prepared to make a nuisance of ourselves. Third, it would probe the “belly” of the gun-laws in search of soft-points. E.g., suppose it makes no sense at all (from a jurisprudence perspective) to impose a $200 tax on the making of an AOW but a mere $5 tax on the transfer to another person. Suppose it makes no sense to impose a 10 year prison term for failure to pay the $5 tax. Suppose dealing with just such nonsense – of no intrinsic significance – were just what SCOTUS would like to grant cert on so that they could make a holding inviting little criticism but with supporting findings of more general applicability. E.g., that a 10 year prison sentence for failing to pay a $5 tax is cruel and unusual punishment.

      Such a lawsuit would be expensive. Yet, the collateral wins for 2A rights MIGHT be very valuable. The ostensible target – AOW regulation – might be insignificant but the collateral damage to gun control might be well worthwhile.

      NRA needs to persuade its membership that we must all hang together or we will most assuredly will be hanged one-by-one. It has been markedly ineffective in this goal. NFA owners, self-defenders, people who have to pass through GFZs, and so forth need to believe that NRA is working on their particular issue.

      Moreover, outreach is necessary to build the organization. NRA has not done enough to speak to the several minority communities. Why should Black people believe gun control will save the lives of their children? Why should Latinos believe that gun control will make America much different than their ancestral countries? Why should women believe that Colt’s great equalizer won’t stand-up to an abusive male with cutlery, clubs or his bear hands?

      NRA could – if it WOULD – make a big tent for all sub-constituencies of gun-owners and new potential constituencies simply by adopting the right policies. It need not entrench itself in concentrating on the narrow interests of a cobbled-together coalition of a few narrow interests (such as I’ve illustrated with a hypothetical group of duck hunters and marksmen).

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “You inspire an interesting thought. All large organizations have to struggle to figure out how to configure a “big tent” to bring-in as many constituencies as possible. ”

        Yours is a good review of potential approaches. The kind of stuff we need more of.

        One thing to keep in mind is that “big tent” is too often not the goal of a non-profit, but keeping the organization independent, separate, and duplicative of others. That is….financial survival for the organization, rather than accomplishment of the supposed purpose.

        As a species, we are a selfish lot. Fewer than we want to admit will set self aggrandizement aside, and make mission the reason for getting up in the morning. These are the idealists. But even idealists are not all pressing forward for good purposes (which reduces further the number of people idealistically pressing forward for the case of defending or expanding the natural rights of every individual).

        Fossilization always eventually set in, for any organization, and often there is no effective means to break the crust. Finding a means to perpetually prevent fossilization is elusive, but if we don’t try, we don’t do.

      2. avatar LifeSavor says:

        Brilliant!!! An aggressive campaign to expose how some many gun laws make no sense and unfairly target specific groups of citizens. The left has been creating and cultivating the victimhood mentality. Maybe time to challenge in the courts how citizens simply exercising their constitution rights have been victimized by the left. (Yes, I know the left-right language expresses a false dichotomy, but it is useful).

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Maybe time to challenge in the courts how citizens simply exercising their constitution rights have been victimized by the left.”

          Great idea. “We” need some attorneys who are attack dogs, not responders.

  34. avatar Joe says:

    Along with giving away our gun rights they(NRA) have been padding their pockets with poor people’s money with lavish parties and the typical BS and greed plus not caring about their non-tax exempt activities.

    All of this while good Americans are struggling to put gas in their car while donating to the NRA hoping they can be trusted to fight off the commie rights grabbers.

    I cut grass several hot bug infested summers sunrise to sunset as a kid earning way below Min Wage …to PAY FOR a life membership… (being told by all the old guys>>fudds)) and thinking i was doing a good thing fighting off the Communist for the good of a Free America and then serving the country in the military ending up beat to hell with injuries.

    We Need all the members of the NRA to move over to the GOA,FPC,SAF.

    If u ain’t a member of the above plus ur local gun rights group and using all social media to inform the oblivious folks…… ur the PROBLEM THE END!

    While most of the gun owners are fed-up with the NRA….smart people don’t want to cut off a arm cuz its not as strong as ur other. When fighting battles we need someone who can handle the ankle-biters like the NRA. We need all the gun rights groups… cuz the Anti-Gunners have Billionaires!

    We must Educate the young on the importance of Gun Rights b4 election day 2020 are we are DONE!

  35. avatar Come and Take iT!!!!!!! says:

    We all need to educate the Young ASAP! Make it ur Mission or this Country is History!

    We have let in tens of millions of people that came from Socialist/Communist Countries that don’t even know what freedom is or care.. cuz they never lived it.

    I cannot believe we have so many young people in this country who think Socialism and the Party of failure(DEMS) is who to vote for…and the GOP has issues too with #RINOS!

    BTW Millennial’s there is no such thing as Free Stuff,Free College or getting paid not to work… someone has to PAY!!

    The rich will not PAY and will move off shore with all the jobs!

    Americans will just stop paying taxes if they jack it up to pay for all these promises costing the country over 130 trillion dollars!

    The Fake Socialist that PROMISE free stuff and erasing ur college debt for votes are full of it!

    They are hoping ur stupid..which is right for half+ of the country and some how.. u missed all the news about Venezuela!

    BTW Millennial’s 2…. there are jobs out there…just not many sitting on ur ass… drinking gallons of MD in ur moms basement (while she is working 3 jobs) playing video games with ur head stuck all up in ur mommy bought phone making u brain dead and dumb while thinking fake news CNN,MSNBC,ABC,CBS,NBC is a legit news source.

    We are @ a place where lying has become truth to most people who get their news from Commi Facebook.. Twitter…others…

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “BTW Millennial’s there is no such thing as Free Stuff,Free College or getting paid not to work… someone has to PAY!!”

      Yeah? Well…that would be the job of Santa Claus. Got no time to worry over who gives me free stuff, as long as it is there when I want it, in the amount and diversity I want it. Gittin’ a little tired of all this personal responsibility crappola. If we can send a man (person, entity, etc) to the moon, we can fund everyone’s dream life in a country that is the richest on earth. Why the things we think of as necessities aren’t even luxuries in most countries. We got plenty, and plenty of people come here trying to get what we gots. This is the land of plenty, and we are plenty well able to keep being prosperous.

      Pay for stuff. Crap, man, what planet you livin’ on?

  36. avatar LifeSavor says:

    I do not understand why the NRA would have to continue funding Mr. LaPierre. It seems likely he could be removed for abdicating his fiduciary accountability. Removal for ’cause’ voids many employment contracts and removal for crime voids the remainder.

    I will support the NRA. They have been effective and can become effective again. Besides, I love telling my liberal friends that I am a card-carrying member of other the NRA and GOA. Well-worn the money for that alone.

  37. avatar PWinKY says:

    The current NRA is a shit show. I’m currently in the first year of a paid 5 year membership, but I won’t renew if blood-suckers and fools like LaPierre and Cox are still around in 4 years. Add Hammer to that list as well.

    The NRA needs new blood (like Adam) and they need it now. Stop fucking wasting all of our money on bullshit and start repairing the image of the NRA.

  38. avatar Brad says:

    A diminished NRA would make the gun grabbers happiest of all, and I don’t think we should be doing anything that would make Mike Bloomberg smile. We don’t have to burn the NRA down to make it better. And since the progressives hate WLP more than just about anyone, I’d say Wayne is earning his paycheck.

      1. avatar Seriously says:

        Thank you RMS. Brad you need to do some research up to and including who wrote the fix nics that is now law. Who is pushing red flag laws that make you prove your innocence vs the state prove your guilt. Wayne has earned a boot in the ass onto the street. He’s a traitor to freedom and worse than Michael Bloomberg.

  39. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    I know nothing about the inner workings of the NRA. But this article and the comments remind me of the scandals at the Red Cross some years ago. Other national charities have been through the same thing (American Cancer Society, possibly?) As I recall there was a house cleaning, and during the chaotic period the local chapters made sure to do the fundraising, sending a message to donors that the central office would not get its hand on the money (at least, I assume, until the locals were satisfied that the mess was cleaned up.) I don’t know the mechanics of the cleanup, or whether it was even successful, but the may be lessons for the NRA in looking at the Red Cross.

  40. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Not as much a rant as arrives here so often.

    Nice job.

  41. Whatever is left of [email protected] organizations in the Demo- Authoritarian State of M-Assachusetts…They all say that the NRA has abandoned all gun owners in Massachusetts.( It’s Even the same with Knife Rights…)When these type of [email protected] groups make some serious in roads into places like Massachusetts, NJ., MD., NY. , etc.. Where somehow the lawful residents/U.S. citizens have lost their Constitutional Rights…Then I will jump on board and offer my full support…Leaving in Massachusetts, is like living behind the Berlin Wall!

    1. *Edit button= living…*
      (Leaving would be good too…But Can’t afford it…Nor can my family…)

  42. avatar A Brit in TX says:

    I’m sure there is some dis-function within the NRA.

    However, I see it attacked day in & day out throughout the media & by left-wing politicians. There are efforts by entire states (NY for example) to bankrupt it via legislation. That shows me that they must be doing some good.

    Let’s not fall into the trap of joining the ‘anti-NRA bandwagon’, that’s exactly what those intent on destroying The Constitution and therefore the USA want.

    Having said that, I would support efforts to wield a broom and sweep some of the old guard aside in order to insert some fresher, younger faces with new ideas.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Having said that, I would support efforts to wield a broom and sweep some of the old guard aside in order to insert some fresher, younger faces with new ideas.”

      Which is precisely what the pro-2A, anti-NRA bandwagon wants.

      Demanding change, and agitating for a more member-responsive NRA should not be painted with the broad brush “anti-NRA bandwagon” label.

  43. avatar Show Me The Tummy! says:

    As for Wayne LaPierre’s ginormous salary (permanent endowment?), if it can be proven that he has failed in his fiduciary responsibilities, then he will have effectively breached his contract. Rendering it null and void. Rendering his “lifetime” cash cow contract moot.
    This will open the door for restructuring what amounts to the personality of the NRA.
    When I was a kid in the ’50s and ’60s the NRA was cool. Then in the ’70s it kind of went underground, only to re-appear as a gigantic bureaucracy.
    Get rid of Wayne LaPierre and the “Little Pierre-ettes”, and give the NRA back to the people that made it great: it’s members.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      It was cool when it was endorsing the 68 GCA?

  44. avatar Joe Wilson says:

    When you give to the NRA do you want your donations to go for million dollar salaries, multi million dollar retirements, 10’s of million to PR type companies, etc?

    Not I.

    They will not get another donation from me till the management changes. IMHO over time some organization priorities change from what was originally intended to just being a cash cow for the staff, it’s saddens me that the NRA has become that.

    Of course those of you who think you are getting the proper bang for your buck you think you should with your donations should continue to do it but not I and for the record I donated over 20k last year to their political arm mainly with in-kind contributions so that I controlled where it was going because I already knew something was rotten there.

    Patron Level member #4875884.

  45. avatar C F GOTTER says:

    What a bunch of B.S. here? When I read or hear this off the wall stuff I have to wonder, as today in politics and the courts, how much were the bribes? Must have been substantial for this crap to be believed. Most of these comment came straight from the DNC’ommunist Party Putinestas. Load’m up, boys!

  46. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Given the interest in how a non-profit should operate, thought it would be a good time to discuss how non-profits fund-raise.

    Telemarketing and TV ads and print media are some of the most common methods used to raise funds. What many people do not know is that the fundraising is very rarely done as part of the normal operations or advertising of the non-profit. Fundraising is most often outsources to “professionals”. Those “professionals” charge a fee, often as much as 95% of the take. We can discuss the morality of that later, but the important thing is to realize where your money is actually going.

    Non-profits whose primary purpose is responding to emergencies sometimes are maligned because contributions requested to meet a particular emergency are not necessarily used directly to meet the emergency. That is, money requests to support relief efforts for a crisis today comes from funds raised earlier (otherwise, it would take too much time to collect sufficient funds to even send coordinators to the point of crisis).

    Most relief non-profits “back-fill”, (replenish) their operating funds with funds that were actually collected for some prior emergency. That does make for PR problems because appeals are claimed to be needed immediately for the current crisis, but funds being spent on relief were already on hand, or the relief would be delayed, possibly to the point of being unable to be deployed effectively. One of the most popular targets of public anger regarding fundraising is the Red Cross (they have real operational messes as well, but we are talking about fundraising). Red Cross hires fundraising “professionals”, and receives some portion of the money raised (haven’t worked with Red Cross in 20yrs, so I don’t know that actual percentage). The fundraising “professionals” use both general appeals, and crisis appeals to generate contributions from the public. What often happens is word gets out that for a particular event, RC raised more money that was spent, and people want their money back. In actuality, by the time the public learns of the under spend, the excess funds have already been used on a new crisis (as “startup” money).

    So, what is the upshot? Understand how non-profit fundraising works, understand your money is not entirely deposited with the non-profit, and try to find a way to bypass the fundraising “professionals”. Contact the non-profit and ask if there is a way to provide all your contribution directly to the non-profit.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email