Stirrings Within NRA, and Gun Control

Sadly, I think John is probably right about what the NRA’s special meeting will be about, namely retroactively approving the bankruptcy filing. In the mean time, start activating your networks because gun control is coming at a time when the left has NRA over the ropes (ropes that Wayne happily sold them). As I heard it said, once you start losing, it’s hard to stop. It’s like opening a wound. So they might not start with gun bans, but it ain’t going to stop there if they get what they want. You can take that to the bank.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. What is NRA’s Future?
  2. Several More Towns Pass AWB in Illinois
  3. More on NRA’s Bankruptcy

8 thoughts on “Stirrings Within NRA, and Gun Control”

  1. Good. At this point if Wayne still exists as a thing by the end of the month, the NRA can’t be dissolved fast enough. The NRA in current form is not “us.” Get off of it. The sooner you realize this, the better off this blog will be.

    Politicians only get away with what we let them. I guess that was what the Trumpsters were trying to say on January 6?

    2. “The NRA in current form is not ‘us.’ Get off of it. The sooner you realize this, the better off this blog will be.”

      I personally wouldn’t bet a nickel on the future of the NRA — that is, as a useful arm of the gun rights movement — but I think it is useful to have a forum to discuss why I believe that is true. Anything we learn will be valuable for the future. So, I think it is valuable to have a range of opinions ranging from NRA True Believers, to cynics like myself (an ex-True Believer).

      On this immediate issue: I think Wayne is a deflection; arguing about him and condemning him creates a mental bias toward thinking as soon as he is gone, “reform” is complete, and the rank-and-file can cease paying attention, again. The problems and corruption run much deeper than that — IMO.

      1. I’m not sure Wayne is a deflection, but it’s definitely a bigger problem than Wayne. Bylaw changes would help. There are things you can do structurally to make an organization less attractive to grifters. Wayne has maintained power by purchasing the loyalty of Board members with member money, which is a fundamentally corrupting practice. That’s why at the club we passed a resolution preventing the Board from entering into any contract where a Board member would financially benefit. But it should really be a bylaw provision rather than something a future Board could reverse.

        But there’s no system that will permanently fix anything. Bylaws are just words on paper if members aren’t paying attention and keeping an eye out.

  2. A friend who knows the bylaws better than me pointed out that this Special Meeting is in violation of the bylaws. While the President of the NRA certainly is allowed to call Special Meetings under Article IV, Section 3 (b), there is a 30-day notice requirement.

    From the bylaws:

    “Notice of the time, place, and object of such special meetings shall be mailed to each Director at least 30 days before the date of holding such meetings.”

    1. “A friend who knows the bylaws better than me pointed out that this Special Meeting is in violation of the bylaws.”

      Questions:

      1. Can one or more directors or members file suit to require adherence to the bylaws?

      2. If so, what state does the suit need to be filed in? The state of incorporation? NY?

      3. Could business transacted at a meeting that violated the bylaws, be overturned as null and void by future legal action?

      I’m thinking this meeting could be one more pot-stirrer to enable insider attorneys to pick the bones of a moribund organization; with opposing sides having a good laugh together all the way to the bank.

      1. 1) Yes, they could. One thing Wayne has messed with and allegedly threatened Board members with is fighting indemnity, which they have already been sued over, and which NRA should, by all rights lose, if you ask me. This shit about coups against Wayne is nonsense. I might be skeptical of North, but any Board member has a right, and sometimes duty, to oppose the regime. Wayne is not a king, nor is he elected by the members.

        2) New York, though maybe you could sue Sea Girt, LLC in Texas :)

        3) Yes, absolutely. That will probably happen.

        And I’m not really sure the Brewer firm isn’t doing exactly what you mentioned in the final paragraph. I hope I’m wrong, but fear I’m not.

  3. Since WLP seems to determined to ride the bomb down, is there as alternative. GoA and whatever Dudley is calling himself these days don’t cut it. 2AF is good but does different stuff. I have diverted my NRA contributions to Knife Rights and the Rittenhouse defense fund though the latter seems to have been deplatformed. They don’t seem to be very tech savvy so if there is anyone out there who has the skills, try to help.

Comments are closed.