On Monday, the National Rifle Association managed to avoid something they had been working hard to avoid: having to answer to a court-appointed monitor. This comes after a years-long fight with New York Attorney General Letitia James, who (rightly) accused the organization of improperly spending money on personal expenses for its management. First, James attempted to have the organization dissolved, and when courts (again rightfully) saw this as a political attack, she tried to gain control of the organization in other ways.
The first part of the civil trial ended in February, with a jury finding Wayne LaPierre and another executive liable for the stolen money. This left the judge to decide what the appropriate remedies are for what they did. Judge Joel Cohen didn’t want to take the organizations’s political freedom or freedom of speech away with a nanny, but did want to make sure that LaPierre wouldn’t have the opportunity to get back into control of the organization. As such, he issued a 10-year ban on LaPierre’s employment or working with the organization instead of the lifetime ban James sought. With LaPierre now 74 years old, the judge probably felt 10 years was enough.
This outcome was probably only possible because the NRA is actually changing course. LaPierre voluntarily (or more likely was forced by the situation) resigned from the organization before trial. Another executive struck a deal with James, agreeing to return stolen money to the NRA and not rejoin it in any capacity. The remaining organization then appointed new leadership and adopted financial and compliance reforms that (if kept in the long run) will prevent lavish spending on leadership.
The NRA Is Still In a Tight Spot
Dodging a court-appointed nanny is great, but that doesn’t mean it’s over. As one of James’ lawyers pointed out in the trial, the old guard of the NRA that turned a blind eye or consciously enabled the spending still has a lot of sway within the organization. A battle between reform-minded NRA members and those who want to keep the organization as it was still continues, and many of the old guard leadership are close to LaPierre. While they probably won’t be as bold as to let someone siphon funds again, the old guard and reformers have plenty of other things to argue over.
While this internal turmoil goes on, the reputation of the NRA is still in a terrible spot. Completely ignoring what anti-gunners think of the organization (they’re never going to like it), donations and memberships are down and haven’t recovered. Not only do people not like enabling lavish lifestyles in a nonprofit organization that’s supposed to fight for them, but the organization has also been accused of abandoning the fight for gun rights, or at least phoning it in.
After decades of debatable effort on behalf of gun rights and corruption, the NRA now must recover in an environment where they’re not the only gun rights girl in town. Dozens of other organizations, some of whom are making gun owners a lot happier, are now competing with the weakened NRA for funding and memberships. And, in this competitive environment, the NRA has no moat to keep anyone away from the walls. Organizations such as Gun Owners for America and the Firearms Policy Coalition to name just a couple are doing great work.
To survive and thrive, the NRA needs to focus on the basics. Instead of becoming a purely generic conservative political organization, the old guard needs to let reformers bring it back to the gun rights mission that every shooter can embrace. And, non-political things like training (which have been severely neglected) need to start seeing more manpower and resources. If the NRA can leverage its historical good name and prove to people that it’s committed to doing right by all gun owners, it could still have a promising future.
But, if the organization allows itself to become so focused on purely conservative politics (and poor fiscal management), it’s going to potentially miss out on all of the major growth areas for gun ownership (younger people, women, minorities) and continue its decline until it’s no longer relevant. With the NRA still being a big part of the gun rights movement and firearms training, that could threaten the future of gun ownership in the United States and abroad.
