Author’s Note: This one part of a two-part series on the upcoming 2025 NRA Board of Directors election. In writing this, I’ve tried to give equal exposure to both camps in message, word count, and number of people whose opinions were represented. Due to a glut of information, some prospective candidates or board members who responded towards the end of the editorial process were told their contributions were not needed due to spatial constraints. As an NRA Benefactor Life Member, I want to see a strong and viable NRA. Part two will be released later today, and I’ll update this story to provide a link once it’s available.
“The NRA shall adopt a Director Nomination Policy […] such that the Nominating Committee shall then endeavor to identify up to 20 additional candidates who […are considered] ‘New Qualified Candidates,’” was a portion of the December 11, 2024 order in People of N.Y. et.al. v. The National Rifle Association, et.al. The annual NRA Board of Directors elections are going to be changing. There have been contentious races in the last few years and this year is no different. A cadre of board members and board candidates self-describe as “Reformers.” While there’s a list of incumbents who self-describe as “Strong NRA,” and are being labeled a so-called “Cabal.”
The December 11 order identifies 13 specific actions the NRA must take in the coming years. Both the NRA and New York Attorney General Letitia James have claimed victory after the final judgment. The list of requirements has a lot to do with transparency for the members as well as serving board members.
There’s a group of 16 incumbent Old Guard members on the board who have come together and have self-identified as “Strong NRA,” taking the URL https://strongnra.com/. Members of Strong NRA have been scrutinized by their opposition, the Reformers, and have been branded a Cabal.
There’s extensive biographical information on most of the Reform Candidates on the website https://electanewnra.com/. The group consists of 28 current or prospective NRA board members. They also self-refer as “NRA 2.0.”
Four Reform candidates/board members and six Old Guard incumbents were asked to weigh in on the election. Some of the questions asked were answered directly while others were not. All the questions asked are at the end of this report. Three candidates from each side of this debate, six in total, have been included in these reports.
All participants were asked to exercise brevity in their responses.
Who are and what do Strong NRA board members believe in?
We are an accomplished team of passionate Second Amendment advocates, attorneys, former U.S. Congress members, business executives, financial specialists, renowned competitive shooters, and esteemed law enforcement professionals. Many of us played key roles in restructuring the NRA’s business and financial practices, implementing essential policies and accounting controls that protect its finances. The New York Court has definitively dismissed the AG’s demand to dissolve the NRA and denied the request for a monitor to oversee NRA operations.
Our diverse team brings invaluable skills, knowledge, and experience to the NRA. One member was instrumental in initiating the pivotal lawsuit, NYSRPA v. Bruen, which led to the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation of the right to carry. Others have secured major pro-Second Amendment victories in both state and federal courts. We also boast an International Distinguished Rifleman and a World Police Pistol Champion on our team.
NRA President and Board Member Bob Barr responded to the queries.
“Supporting and defending Constitutional freedoms, especially the individual right to keep and bear arms, has been a lifetime mission from early in my career to now having the honor of serving as NRA President,” Barr said in a statement. “As a former U.S. Attorney under both Presidents Reagan and Bush, and during my terms as a member of the U.S. House where I served on the Judiciary Committee, I protected and advocated for the Second Amendment rights of peaceable Americans. Given my pro-gun advocacy on Capitol Hill, I was first elected to the NRA Board of Directors in 1998 and served on committees overseeing and setting the legislative and political direction for our Association.”
One of the questions the Old Guard members were asked was, “What do you see to be the biggest problems, if any, with the NRA today?” Barr did not answer that question directly, however, he noted the following:
For the past seven years, the NRA has been on the receiving end of politically motivated lawsuits and inquiries aimed at crippling our First and Second Amendment advocacy. The NRA came under assault by both elected officials and weaponized governmental offices in the State of New York in 2018. Once I was elected by my colleagues on the Board as an Officer in 2023, my primary focus has been to get through these legal attacks, prevent the dissolution of the NRA, and position the Association to grow strong and free from government oversight.
The NRA achieved major victories in 2024 in both cases in which we defended ourselves (thus far successfully) against the former Director of Financial Services, Maria Vullo, and the current Attorney General, Letitia James. Both of these government officials abused their regulatory and enforcement powers to silence and ultimately destroy the NRA. Our victories are a testament to the benefit of focusing on external existential challenges rather than worrying about internal cliques and petty personality disputes.
“I will continue to take this approach in the best interests of the NRA as an institution and for its millions of members, rather than spending time and resources dealing with parochial agendas that may be motivating certain individuals or groups,” Barr further stated. “The advancement of gun rights in this country over the past three decades is no accident. The NRA has been at the forefront of every legislative, legal, and political battle on firearms freedoms. America needs a strong NRA. I will continue to do my part and not be distracted.”
Under the Strong NRA banner is Board Member Blaine Wade. “As far as the ‘Cabal’ terminology, that is political rhetoric that is being used to advance other candidates’ interest,” Wade said of the label. “Very similar language is used in other political contests, some folks want to be nasty and hope that drives emotions in their favor.”
Wade talked about his past with the NRA as a board member. He said he first became a member of the BOD at the 2016 NRA meeting.
Wade mentioned, “Most NRA Board work is done through committees, I was a junior board member and placed on different committees over the past eight years, however I have only been the chair of the Gun Collector’s Committee.”
“In committee work, I make a point to attend all the assigned committee meetings and stay very engaged with them, but I have never been assigned an Internal Control committee assignment until about four months [sic] when I was assigned to be the Chair of the Ethics Committee,” Wade stated. “The Ethics Committee is an internal control committee. The Ethics Committee had not met in over three years when I received this assignment.”
Wade also discussed his past work experience as a police chief for 18 years and a criminal investigative captain for 10 years before that.
“I learned how to determine if there are problems or malicious activity, follow sound investigative practices, and take appropriate actions,” Wade said of his background as a law enforcement official. “Since my first meeting with the Ethics Committee in October, we have addressed six complaints and met four different times while handling those complaints. Some of those complaints were over three years old when the committee received them. We also just strengthened the Ethics portion of the NRA By-laws that were adapted from our committee work this past week.”
When Wade was asked about moving the NRA headquarters he said, “I do not like the idea of moving headquarters.” Wade further said that, “It is an iconic building that I am proud of and moving from it should only be considered if we can’t keep up its maintenance, but it appears that staff is now undergoing appropriate building maintenance and bringing the building into a suitable condition.”
During an interview, current Board Member Tom King, from the Old Guard, discussed the upcoming election.
“Because of my experience, because of the accomplishments and the things that are in the planning stages,” is what King said when asked why he should be reelected to the board. “I’m the only NRA Board member to institute a case that went to the Supreme Court, and has made Second Amendment history. The Bruen decision, that was my case. I’m president of the second or third largest state association in the nation, and I work at it 12 hours a day, and I don’t think that there’s anybody else that has the grasp of what the situation is in a non-Second Amendment friendly state like New York and knows how to deal with it.”
King continued and said:
I could ask the same question. What do these new people have to offer? And they have no experience. There’s a couple that are gun dealers. There’s a couple that are instructors. Okay. A couple lawyers. But they have no Second Amendment experience.
When King was asked about the Cabal allegations, he said, “If you look up the definition of it, the definition of Cabal fits the so-called ‘Reformers’ more than it does the incumbents. I’m not sure what I’ve been accused of. I hear these general terms, ‘oh, you’re part of the Cabal’ But no one has asked me what my positions are and I’ve been accused of being a Wayne LaPierre supporter.”
King explained that he was a supporter of LaPierre until “it became apparent and he admitted to doing what the court fined him for.” When he was asked by the court if he was still a supporter of Wayne, in light of what was revealed during the trial, King said, “No, I’m not. I can’t support Wayne LaPierre anymore. His days at the NRA are over.”
In discussing the “biggest problem plaguing the NRA today,” King talked about the now-closed New York case. “Going back to the trial and what the judge said, the only people that were found to have any type of guilt were Joshua Powell, Woody Phillips, and Wayne LaPierre. The NRA Board, as it was constituted then and as it is constituted now, were not found liable for anything.”
“What would you say the biggest problems are right now?” was presented to King again. In his response, King said, “The biggest problems are, right now, is the so-called ‘reformers,’ who I would call a Cabal.” He said that the reformers “keep on stirring the pot for the benefit of electing more members, rather than working together to try to put this behind us and to heal the NRA.”
As far as King’s future involvement and contributions to the NRA as a board member, his plan, he said that he’s “going to be doing the same thing. You know, nothing has changed. The problems are still there.” He explained that “we’re still going to be working to promote the Second Amendment, I’m still going to be pushing an open information sphere. I totally agree with [having] transparency.”
The motion to move the NRA headquarters was scuttled at the recent NRA meeting over this last weekend. However, King was asked about his thoughts on the measure, regardless. “Yes, I was,” King said of his former support of a move. “I was just an advocate of getting out of the District, that area, so that we could have a legitimate chance of being successful without the political process trying to interfere.”
One of the things that came up during the N.Y. trial was how board members treated another with whom they disagreed. The following piece of evidence was provided during the trial and is in the form of an email or chat thread between members on May 25, 2019.
The thread started with now Reformer Willes Lee and included: Charles Cotton, Marion Hammer, Jay Printz, Millie Hallow, Tom King, and Joel Friedman. The entire thread, while lengthy, is something King was questioned on.
Lee: FB page NRA Members for Accountability just now got to 1052 page likes. Ron Carter is one of the admin, never heard of him. Several more Board members- Schneider, Brown, Maloney- have LIked the page to join Johnny Nugent, Liptak. Just saying.
Cotton: We need to reconsider Nugent’s committees.
Hammer: Please keep a list – there’s more than one kind of accountability. 🔨⏰
Cotton: We also need to discuss Eather’s defamatory statements about the NRA’S president and 1st vice president.
Printz: I would be cautious……. I think Johnny Nugent is an ok Wayne supporter and may only be keeping tabs on the other stuff. Let’s not overreact.
Hallow: Who is close to Johnny so we can get a better feel.
King: Friends, They are waging a war. The number right now is minuscule made up of their friends and acquaintances. I’m more concerned with the 2 hit pieces from unnamed FB members who appear to be bots or trolls. Actions will be taken very soon to neutralize some of these people. Please forward any FB names to me that you don’t know or appear fake. Look for their friend, photos or any affiliation to determine if they are fake identities. Tom
King: Any emails sent to me retarding these events should be sent to [redacted]
Lee: Think Muhammad Ahmed and Alex Arnau are the same but person. Alex Andre May be bot, or just troll. Anyone else get stuff from these pages?
Friedman: As I don’t deal in Facebook I really don’t get any of this information so I appreciate keeping me informed. I believe that there are two strategies that we must follow. One is what Tom King has mentioned and I think that’s very important. I believe the other strategy is just as important and it is getting out the positive messages to our members. All of us, I mean not just this group, all of us must speak in one voice we must have one statement no matter who you go to get information of a positive nature. Our members don’t know all that’s going on, and there are too many things that we are not able to discuss due to internal and legal constraints. Because of this it would seem we look like we need to hide something when in fact we’re just following the rules/laws. Who should be in charge of the positive statements? My guess would be it should be Andrew however against these are just my beliefs and my thoughts.
King was pressed on the May 25, 2019 communications thread. He was asked about the atmosphere on the board and if folks should be in fear of losing committees if they speak out or align themselves with online groups.
“I’ve been on the board for 18 years I think, okay,” King said. “And in 18 years, no one has ever told me what to think or what to say.”
In rephrasing the question, the following was said to King about the communications string:
This is just talking about people joining a private Facebook group and then one other member saying that “we need to reconsider the other member’s committees” based on their affiliation. This is much more below the fold. This isn’t above the fold. Everything that you’re saying about accountability makes sense, but this is behind the scenes.
“I’m not, I’m not sure where that came from, but Mr. Lee was part of the group that would make those decisions,” King said. “I was never involved with picking committees or picking committee chairs. That is left to the officers, and Mr. Lee was an officer.”
King was asked about his comment, “They are waging a war” and also about his saying “Actions will be taken very soon to neutralize some of these people. “That was referring to is trolls,” King said.
In seeking clarification, King was asked, “So when you say ‘They are waging a war,’ you don’t mean people that are in a group that’s being critical of the NRA?”
“No. I was talking about people on the Facebook page,” King said. “And, people on social media.”
King was asked, “And then when you talk about there being actions to neutralize ‘these people.’ What is that?” King said that the actions he was referring to were, “delisting them from the websites, blocking their comments and things like that.”
Before closing the conversation, King was asked if he had any other comments. He noted that in his nearly two-decades long run as a director, he’s only missed three board meetings. On the election, King stated, “ I don’t think that anybody should be elected because of what they did, but I think they should be elected based on the possibility of what they can do, knowing what they did.”
There are two prevailing camps of candidates that are running for NRA Board of Directors. In the foreseeable future, this division will probably remain. The Reformers, aka “NRA 2.0,” publicly point out failings that were brought to light in the New York case, and wish to ameliorate those failings for the members. The Strong NRA, aka “Old Guard,” maintains, as Bob Barr said, the NRA has been subjected to “weaponized governmental offices” attacking them via “politically motivated lawsuits.”
Somewhere within the pages of these campaigns, the many documents of the N.Y. lawsuit and the final order, and through the comments of the candidates is the truth. NRA members have a decision to make in 2025 that’s going to have an effect on how the organization is going to continue to run and will perhaps have a very lasting consequence.
Do you vote for Reform? Or, do you vote for the Old Guard?
The choice is up to you! One important favor that eligible voting members – really all members – of the NRA can do for themselves is read the final judgment in the New York case. It’s a piece of the puzzle. What did the court have to say? What does that mean to you? And, what does it mean in regard to what the candidates had to say?
Questions posed to the Old Guard:
1 – Why reelect you for NRA BOD?
2 – What’s with these Cabal allegations? From your perspective, what does that mean? Is there any weight to that?
4 – What do you see to be the biggest problems, if any, with the NRA today?
5 – What do you see for the future and how are you going to contribute to making it brighter for the organization and the membership?
6 – Are you in favor of the former motions to move the NRA headquarters?
Questions posed to Reformers:
1 – Why reform?
2 – You’ve come together with a group of people who agree with the direction you want to see the NRA go in, isn’t this risky? Aren’t you afraid of being blackballed or exiled?
3 – “Cabal” is a strong word. The “reformers” list off several board members who members should not vote for. What makes them a Cabal?
4 – What things have you seen that the specific Cabal members have done that makes you have the stance you have?
5 – Why you? Why you on the NRA board?
Read the full article here
