The New Resistance to the 2A

You can see the resistance is shaping up around “sensitive places” doctrine and “good moral character.” I remember seeing a comment from Prof. Adam Winkler post-Bruen:

He’s generally on the other side of this issue, but fair criticism! I don’t think licensing can be permitted if the intention is to provide real limitations on government, and I don’t think it fits within the framework outlined in the majority opinion. The Court should have just thrown out licensing altogether, but I suspect Roberts and Kavanuagh didn’t want to go that far (as their concurring opinions saying shall-issue licensing is OK would indicate).

Most long-standing licensing regimes started out relatively lax and then got more and more restrictive over time. Licensing invites abuse from authorities, and future hostile courts will probably use that hook to limit the right. This hasn’t really played out yet, but I think you’re going to see the lower courts go along with a lot of these games.

Hopefully we maintain our pro-2A majority on the court, and Roberts and Kavanaugh will eventually see that licensing is an invitation for abuse. And unlike with marriage or protesting (two other contexts where licensing of a right is permitted), the ruling class are likely to remain completely hostile to the idea of the peasantry being armed. For non-discretionary licensing to work, there needs to be broad consensus that it should be non-discretionary, and you’ll never have that with guns.

Bruen Drops and It’s a Win

This doesn’t portend a return to blogging. Social media and Google have killed blogging as a thing, so I’m not inclined to return to the same level of activity I once had. But I wanted to note Bruen because it’s probably the most important thing to happen to gun rights since McDonald dropped 12 years ago. You can read the ruling here. At this point I have done only a quick skim, but my impression is that it is about as good a ruling as we could have hoped for. Is it ironclad? No. No ruling would be. My impression is that Kavanaugh and Roberts are the weaker of the Bruen majority, but they still joined the majority of the opinion and filed their own concurrence basically saying shall-issue was fine.

Overall it puts the kibosh on the lower courts Second Amendment Two-Step dance. They will have to come up with a more novel means of resisting the Second Amendment, and I suspect they will. But it will get harder for them. The Court pretty clearly wanted to emphasize Heller and signal to the lower court that it is not dead letter. The Court made quite clear that outlying laws were meaningless for 2nd Amendment analysis. So the fact that the Sullivan Law is over 100 years old by now doesn’t mean it’s constitutional because it has a long history: it is an outlier that new other jurisdictions have passed.

Long term it’s probably best not to rely on the Courts for protection. Just ask Planned Parenthood how well that’s working out for them. But we can use these reprieves to help repair the gun culture in these jurisdictions if the restrictions lighten things up a little. This is not over. There will never be a death blow to the desire of the nobility to control the serfs. Nonetheless we should use the circumstances presented to us for maximal advantage.

Breaking Silence Over Gun Control

For the past week since the deal was announced, gun owners have been wondering “What do we get out of this? How is it a compromise if all we’re doing is ceding ground.”

After reading the proposed language, I’m surprised by how much of this looks to me like it’s aimed at Mexican drug cartels. So what you have here is a bunch of Republicans who are probably retiring or will soon announce they are retiring, who love themselves some “law and order,” who are using Uvaldi as an excuse to get a wish list to target the cartels.

There’s also a few cases where they are requiring action from states, which the feds cannot do. The state can literally refuse to pick up the phone and there’s nothing the feds can do about it. This is well-established precedent. So know we know what the GOP worms got out of this: some drug warriorin’. And what flag waving Republican doesn’t love that?

Just go read them trying to define “dating relationship.” Are you kidding me? At least they didn’t apply it retroactively, and limited the prohibition to 5 years, but you know what would have been nice? To do the same thing with all of the Lautenberg Amendment. There would have been a compromise. But no. This just takes. The concessions are only things law and order GOP swamp creatures care about.

This bill is garbage and should be opposed, and any Republican who votes for this needs to be tossed out on their asses in a primary if they aren’t retiring.

The End of the NRA Era

Not too long after Sebastian started blogging, the gun club he had just joined had a member call for a vote to change the bylaws to end the 100% NRA membership requirement that had been in place since the place was founded in 1958. Word got down to Fairfax and they were worried only if the member had unexpected success because it was dues for hundreds of members annually and about 1,000 or so votes in key districts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. That vote happened, and it turns out that NRA had nothing to really worry about because it went down in terrible defeat. The NRA membership mandate was left in place, in part with the support of Sebastian.

Well, this year, Sebastian led the effort to end the NRA membership requirement in order to be a member of the gun club. He did it from a position of practical arguments for both protecting member money and functional aspects of the relationship that no longer worked.

Only now the club is much bigger which means more money to Fairfax and more voter contacts they didn’t have prior to these people joining. You’d think Fairfax would care this year when more is on the line. But they don’t. Even the really local and regional NRA Board Members don’t care enough to reach out. (Yes, I can confirm some were notified well in advance of the vote.) Combine that lack of concern from the NRA leadership with the fact that the member discussion showed that NRA messaging is so insanely out of touch with nearly anyone under 50 or so, and the requirement fell to resounding defeat. Nearly 3 to 1 to remove any requirement to join the NRA.

The relationship lasted for 64 years, but ended thanks to Wayne’s leadership that saw them bouncing checks on gun clubs, the complete collapse of services to the point where someone recently fessed up there are email addresses they don’t know that anyone left in the department had checked in two years, and membership staff who can no longer handle working with clubs bringing them enough dues income to pay most of some salaries.

We’re not the only club to end this relationship and stop bringing NRA new members who otherwise wouldn’t join their organization. In Southeast Pennsylvania, I understand that Southern Chester County Sportsmen’s & Farmers’ Association did the same a while ago. I learned of several clubs around the nation of varying sizes who have ended their 100% requirements. Forum posts & online chats indicate clubs in Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Connecticut, and Georgia appear to have all cut these requirements. And if you study the past issues of NRA publications that list “Gold Medal” clubs where the biggest hurdle is often that 100% membership status, the number has been dwindling. Even when the add new ones, they often just replace those who have ended their involvement in the program – a possible sign they ended their 100% requirements.

The good news is that plenty of the under 50 crowd who spoke to end the NRA rule did advocate for joining at least some other gun rights group. It’s not that we’ve lost the next generation of shooters from supporting the cause – it’s that they spoke out and said that the NRA no longer represents their more diverse views of the world and politics.

The members spoke tonight, and NRA leaders I have spoken with pretty much made it clear they had no intention of listening.

Before any anti-gun readers get too cocky, the message wasn’t good for you. The NRA was seen as too squishy, out of touch with current gun rights debates, and not representative of the guns they want to own and shoot. This was not a sign of a weakening gun rights movement. This was a move back to the roots – gun owners turning out locally and encouraging multiple fronts and ways to tackle state and national issues. Last night was the kind of true grassroots work that shows generations of people will come together for discussion on making the 2A movement stronger in the long term.

Gun Groups & Secret Societies

NRA created a new policy this weekend that no member is allowed to take photos in their membership meetings.

No selfies that tell friends and family, “I’m actively part of a gun rights organization!”

No opportunity to share that they are part of the 5 million some number strong for the Second Amendment.

No grassroots-led effort to say, “this is us, this wonderfully diverse crowd with people age 1 to 101.”

No photo reports from the membership about great awards such as oldest and youngest life members in attendance.

All ended in favor of becoming a secret society where active participation and documentation are shunned.

Why? So that Wayne LaPierre won’t have to see anymore embarrassing videos released anymore of members who disagree with him.

I suspect this means there’s zero chance of live streamed coverage again, despite that being a staple of previous meetings to encourage more engagement among members from all walks of life who couldn’t make the trek out to member meetings. They certainly have gone without it for 2 years despite the fact that every other group I’ve ever been part of has used this time to expand what they live stream to members.

Granted, there’s also the PR angle that NRA likely doesn’t want it well documented how empty their meetings are – which wouldn’t be the case if they weren’t actively trying to restrict access. And, from a PR angle, it does also keep out photos that show just how little demographic (age, race, gender) there really is at NRA events I’ve attended, despite far more diversity in the shooting sports and the larger gun community.

But keeping out those who would be supporters and want to be visible supporters doesn’t help the cause, it doesn’t help membership, and it doesn’t help the organization.

They can’t tell people they should brand themselves, “I’m the NRA” and then turn around and tell people to keep everything a secret.

People can’t share their excitement about news released in the Board meetings anymore because they seize phones. Once upon a time, Sebastian & I were the only ones to report on attendance in any way that got attention, and we did so from phones inside the meeting. Then they said no phones. And the reports were…rather creatively done. Sometimes with the help of someone who was allowed to have a phone and frequently with one of us outside of the room while the other wrote down the numbers and wildly flapped an arm out the door to get it posted.

If anything, this type of secrecy about even the basics of being a member of an association like NRA makes me want to end mandatory NRA membership at local gun clubs. One of the biggest issues we battle on the ground with new gun owners is that the younger ones view everything as a transaction. We are now teaching in our orientation some basic concepts of civil society and how one participates in the kinds of groups – like gun clubs – that make up our community social structure.

NRA trying to sell themselves as strictly an organization average people buy a card to say, “I’m in the club,” while simultaneously trying to keep people from actually participating as individual members is not helping that education. There are plenty of other groups that gun owners can turn to for those types of transactions. If NRA doesn’t want to be different and special, then why should anyone bother? Clearly, based on their ridiculous decline in participation in the association’s business, it seems that many of their own voting members are also saying it’s not really worthwhile to truly be a member.

Lowest NRA Participation

We’ve reached a record low in NRA member participation since I started keeping stats from one of the early NRA meetings I attended back in 2006.

There haven’t been this few voters since 2011, even though they reportedly sent a record high number of ballots in 2021.

It would seem that people are checking out and tuning out of NRA as a group worth participating in, even if they technically pay the dues. Why pay the dues if they are checked out of the group? Probably for most of the reason I know most members locally – some gun ranges mandate membership. Or people just think it’s something they should do even if they don’t really follow what NRA is up to.

The big question is whether these signs that their own members are tuning NRA out indicate they will tune them out for midterm elections and other key action items. I’ll be honest, I’ve never tracked NRA election participation to success on initiatives outside of internal politics, so that would be interesting.

Consider this – more voting members were interested in bylaws & Grover Norquist than in this year’s candidates.

In an average year since 2006, 6.2% of voting members care enough to vote. This year, that’s 3.8%. In an average year, 117,062 voting members care enough to cast ballots. This year, only 97,899 did. In an average year, the top vote getter pulls – on average – 92,519 votes. This year, the top vote getter pulled in fewer votes than the “first loser” did several years.

The percent of ballots that had the top winner and last winner on them was lower this year than past, so that also indicates a diversity of voting interests, or more bullet voting.

The only sitting member most reformers bullet voted for on the main cast of characters was Buz Mills, and he came in 6th. I’m not in a position to pull my past election reports to see how that compares to his past performances. Not that it matters since he resigned anyway.

Which…by the way…despite the public resignation, NRA didn’t actually declare him resigned from the board and therefore didn’t have to fill his seat before this board meeting. Odd.

UPDATE: NRA In Danger has a report from on the ground that said this was basically the worst attended meeting even in light of tighter COVID restrictions last year. They also managed to find the local newspaper that NRA was using for their official notice, but that notice did not run in time. The first notice they found from early September was for the Houston meeting, not the one they just had. And based on the publication schedule, they would have had just enough time to run it for 3 issues if the next two issues that should have already been released had it.

How these leaders keep claiming success when there are record numbers of gun owners and yet membership is dropping and participation in the longer term members is in free fall…I just don’t understand.

Why Did NRA Cancel?

This post is pure speculation without any special insight or feedback from sources. Take what you want from it, but I have a few opinions and thoughts on possible reasons given that there was no mandate to cancel like there was last year. I’d love to turn comments on for this post to allow for discussion, but I think readers know why we can’t have nice things anymore thanks to trolling.

Was it for the money?

The Reload continues to fall back on the fact that the full convention is NRA’s largest single fundraiser in pretty much every post Stephen has written about the topic. As Jim Shepherd noted in The Outdoor Wire, NRA wasn’t going to give refunds to companies that pulled out of exhibiting. They would get to keep that money if they had a hall and a vendor just didn’t show up. In theory, the money made from exhibitors should have covered the costs of running the exhibit hall and then some.

However, with building news about the number of withdrawn vendors, it’s possible that the costs of the other events would surpass what they would expect to make from a crowd that was already predicted to be less than half of normal. I was seeing 35,000 as a predicted attendance batted around the interwebz, and that assumed full exhibit hall, no restrictions, and a full weekend of activities. If word of mouth about reduced exhibitors managed to knock another 10,000 off of that prediction, I don’t know enough about their financial obligations & forecasting to know if that would drive it into the territory of losing money or not.

Was it for the optics?

As I found in some old documents I forgot I grabbed earlier this year and those that started getting archived as rumblings began, the number of vendors who were suddenly missing from Monday morning’s exhibitor maps & lists (that were deleted as word spread) was more than what Gutowski was able to find or even The Daily Beast mentioned. We’re not talking the kind of outfits who pick up the 10×10 booths only when the meeting is nearby, but names any casual gun owner would expect to see there. (Kudos to Bearing Arms for finding more vendors who were removed from the exhibitor list before the notice that the whole thing was off.)

I snagged a partial image of the last public exhibitor map with the empty booths, and in my opinion, it would have been impossible to conceal the empty space unless you had a massive team working 24/7 to sell it to another vendor, rearrange booths from the edges, and give freebie spaces to people just to make it look less empty. Even then, I don’t know how feasible that would be since presumably exhibit hall guides were likely completed and on their way to being printed if not already printed and vendors likely designed advertisements around their previously assigned booth numbers. (Smith & Wesson was advertising their booth number on social media.) This may not have been possible to get vendors on board with moving around or for them to tolerate excessively cheap discounts given to new vendors in the desperation to fill space. It could creative a narrative that it’s bad to do business with NRA if they screw over those who committed and paid early only for them to practically give away booths to those who wouldn’t commit.

The Board & Wayne LaPierre are desperate to look like NRA members stand by them, so visibly empty halls with far fewer attendees in already wide aisles would make for press photos they may believe they can’t afford.

Add to this that the ILA Leadership Forum, at least anytime I checked the pages, never had more than the big Texas politicians (Abbott, Cruz, Cornyn, and Crenshaw) along with Mark Robinson from North Carolina listed. It appeared that they couldn’t get commitments from big national names to attend which would have, again, signaled a loss of influence and interest that NRA can’t really afford to be a story.

I’m sure that NRA had additional insights into these risks by the number of advance ticket sales to ticketed events. There’s never any report on how those do, so there’s no way to verify if they were anywhere close to hitting any breakeven point. Whatever costs for cancellation are, those are likely private so there’s no way to know how much they’ll have to pay out in broken contracts plus refunded tickets.

They also likely had data from cancelled hotel rooms. I noticed that over the weekend, their official housing partner was still advertising reasonable rates for rooms in the Hilton right across the street from the convention center where several of the events were going to be taking place. Even Jim’s sources who wanted to remain anonymous mentioned they already cancelled hotel rooms. Even as some vendors just weren’t going to tell NRA that they weren’t coming, they would have had data from those partners that exhibitors were backing out. The people seeing those now empty rooms at their hotels are locals who likely know people who were planning to attend, and they’d be able to report about how many vacancies they were seeing now which might convince some people who were interested that it wouldn’t be worthwhile.

Potential Loss of Power

There’s very little that members can actually do at the member meeting since the initial big Board revolt was wise enough to put in safeguards making it nearly impossible to recreate their work. However, NRA knows there would be a huge press interest in their meeting of members due to the drama of their last meeting in 2019. Yes, they technically met in 2020, but there was basically no press coverage of it. The sh*tshow that has become NRA internal politics now would attract press attention no matter what. That means that any challenge at all would be highly covered and scrutinized by people they generally don’t want scrutinizing their business.

However, the biggest issue is that even though there are reports that Wayne uses NRA funds to fly out supporters to stack votes for his preferred candidate, those people may not be enough to outweigh those willing to show up calling for change.

The last time that NRA had to partially cancel a convention – the Denver event slated to take place right after Columbine happened – members turned up in solidarity for the meeting to the issue and not blaming law-abiding gun owners for the criminal actions of sociopaths. The government was trying to issue demands for NRA to cancel their meeting, despite not having any authority to make those calls. The only major event that year was the membership meeting in the mood to stand by their organization.

But 2021 is not 1999.

Wayne has pissed off regulators and many casual members, not to mention the building influence of the people he has always pissed off. The populism he stoked isn’t so forgiving of the report (however meaningless it was then & discredited it may be now) that he used membership dollars rather than his own money to buy fancy suits. Even those generally more forgiving of such reports are getting tired of the fact that the perception is he’s leading NRA into fights it doesn’t need to have.

The current leadership relies on casual members who they can more easily influence to outvote the members they view as “troublemakers” in the meeting to shut down business. But casual members come for the exhibit hall and the other activities and view the member meeting as a sideline event they attend for novelty and some cheerleading speeches. It would be a substantial risk that any of them would turn out for some solidarity with Wayne & the current Board for cancellation of the “fun” events over a virus they are getting tired of hearing about.

Combine that with the news that they were not planning to hold an election for the 76th Board of Directors seat even though there were likely a reasonable number of write-in votes for two candidates that they don’t report numbers on…there’s definitely a door open for what the current leadership may consider “trouble” of members asserting they have certain rights.


It’s likely a combination of all three elements – worry about the optics of support & popularity that could come out of a member meeting that mostly “troublemakers” may attend, the actual optics of a massive convention hall with obviously empty booths, and the reduced membership who would attend and give to an event like that. They wouldn’t want to risk member backlash at a meeting without the promise of member cash to raise desperately needed funds.

NRA Meeting Off

While I was driving, word came out that the NRA Annual Meeting & Exhibits are fully cancelled.

It probably saves them embarrassment since I just found in my files I forgot I had from earlier in the year a better showing of just how many exhibitors attendees would typically expect were refusing to attend.

Interestingly, you would only know this if you’re part of the online gun community because NRA’s Annual Meeting website hasn’t been flipped over to announce the news yet.

I’m going to take a guess that they did some calculations that made them realize they’ll lose more money having the event than if they cancel now, even without the protection of any force majeure clauses related to government closures.

I am curious about the annual meeting of members, though. There was always chatter that Denver had to happen after Columbine because of New York laws. And when they did have the protection of force majeure at work on last year’s annual meeting, they still opted to plan another one.

What bothers me is that I can’t help but wonder if this is also in part due to potential of unfilled board seats since they literally ran out of people willing to be on the board combined with the fact that they now get to use the excuse to play around the dates petition candidates have to get on the ballot. Maybe I’m too cynical in my opinion there, but it’s not like there isn’t reason to be these days.

NRA Exhibits – Down by 1.4 Acres So Far

The surge in COVID cases and concerns on getting sick while traveling are causing exhibitors to pull out.

The Daily Beast reported earlier that several big industry names were already planning to skip the NRA Annual Meeting, despite NRA still advertising at the time that they would be present.

I mentioned to several folks at the time that if report was accurate (which I had some information that indicated it likely was to at least some degree – I didn’t have company names), that would equal .9 acres of suddenly empty spaces in the exhibit hall based on the map NRA was promoting.

Since The Daily Beast report, the NRA has now removed the attendee-focused maps and exhibitor lists. And, based on the map available through other access, you can see how many massive booths are now slated to be completely empty. The featured image on this post is a screenshot from the middle section of the interactive map. All blue booths are now available for use.

The new total of planned empty space is just a smidge under 1.4 acres because some makers have pulled out who weren’t in the initial report, in addition to many small vendors based on the suddenly empty spaces.

I had a long post that I trashed on NRA’s avoidance of talking about COVID. I opted not to publish because people are just getting stupid angry about it right now and I didn’t see it getting any better with the official approval of a vaccine today. However, as someone who has planned way too many events during this time, the worst possible thing you can do and the biggest drama is caused by not talking about it. Even if you make clear that you expect people will make the best decisions for themselves and their family, ignoring it does not make the situation go away. I have found that even more cautious and anxious people feel better just knowing what the expectations are so they can make the decisions that fit with their widely varying risk tolerance.

I hope that people going are going more for the politics of NRA internal issues than industry previews since NRA is trying to hard to hide how many members of the industry are pulling out. People hoping to see everything that NRA has traditionally advertised will be deeply disappointed and may not realize that it may no longer be worth their time.

UPDATE: NRA staff found the one version of the exhibitor map that was left open to the public (though it took quite a bit of clicking to find it) and have now removed it so that attendees can no longer see how many major exhibitors are pulling out of the event.

The Year Without Petition Candidates

I had to submit a new request for NRA bylaws because I realized two major issues:

  1. I can’t figure out exactly who will be on the board (assuming write-in candidates don’t win) after this election. So I went to check my copy of the bylaws of the NRA.
  2. In checking the bylaws, I realized that the Board can unilaterally change how certain board members are elected and appointed without any notice to the membership.

What? That seems…problematic given the history that’s been well on display in their current legal fiascos.

I’ll be honest, I don’t realize how I never noticed it. Though, unless you’re on a bylaws committee charged with reviewing every little detail and seeing how it all works together, it’s easy to miss because it’s only something disclosed via font & format, not by direct statement. I do realize that they cleaned this section up in the bylaws provisions I did support, but the provision was there long before 2017 and did not change in any meaningful way. Supporting the bylaw amendments in 2017 didn’t change that they’ve been able to do this for a while.

So, a most recently passed bylaws copy has been requested and should be on its way – assuming Kathy the chat bot monitor actually did what was requested. Given how much I had to support “her” in the request after so long waiting for any response at all, I’m not overwhelmingly confident.

It would be interesting if they are trying to put up roadblocks to sending members documents they are entitled to receive because when I used the Membership Services links to request the report of the Committee on Elections, they spent a couple of weeks sending my requests through unrelated divisions.

Given the number of problems I’ve witnessed with departments at NRA in collapse, there’s just as much chance it’s incompetence as malice. But, given what I’m asking for directly relates to information needed to challenge the powers that made this bed, the latter can’t be taken off of the table. Neither answer is good for the state of the association.

But back to the Board – who will even be on the board next month? That’s what I wanted to know.

To figure that out, we have to try and figure out who is on the board today – which isn’t the same list published in the most recent official journal.

Why isn’t the most accurate list of Board members much help? You might think it’s because of the significant number of resignations, and that’s part of it. But it’s also because people who have been appointed to fill certain seats are only allowed to serve until Annual Meeting weekend. For all of the recent NRA board resignations that happened after ballots were printed (and more rumored possible forthcoming resignations), they will require another appointment until the next election cycle.

However, the bylaws the Directors cannot change without the members say they can only pull from the most recent election’s losers. That’s a problem for the NRA board and how little they actually thought about the situation they were facing.

See, they have 0 petition candidates and the Nominating Committee’s infinite wisdom only selected 30 candidates for what they assumed would be 25 seats. I’m sure they patted themselves on the back super proud of not needing more candidates since they didn’t need to beat down petition candidates this time. (They didn’t give those candidates enough time to collect petitions, even though the election timeline they used to cut that off wasn’t ever realistic – I have my doubts it was done in good faith. I don’t assume most things done by the board are done in good faith after some recent discussions.)

Now if they have 30 candidates for 25 seats, what’s the problem? Math and corruption are their problems.

Continue reading “The Year Without Petition Candidates”