CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The National Rifle Association's leadership is in turmoil, it's in serious financial trouble and is suing an important, long-time vendor for allegedly overcharging the organization.

The nation's leading gun-rights group has also been an important political force for decades. But its president, Oliver North, just announced he won't serve another term after an ugly public split with its long-time chief executive.

Anna Massoglia, a researcher with the Center for Responsive Politics, a political-spending watchdog, said its most recent tax returns show the NRA is badly in the red.

"We saw a $55 million decline in income since the prior year, and the NRA spending into an $18 million deficit - a deficit that they have for now the second straight year,” Massoglia said. “And so, we're seeing the NRA pretty consistently now spending more than they're actually taking in."

The NRA is suing the company that runs its troubled broadcast arm, NRATV. And an article in the New Yorker magazine alleged a culture of huge salaries and extravagant spending among NRA officers and vendors. A lawyer for the group said the article was written by paid staff of an "anti-gun magazine."

According to the article, executives at the company named in the lawsuit - public relations firm Ackerman McQueen - have all but run the NRA for their own benefit for decades. A lawyer for the firm also said the New Yorker article is entirely untrue.

Massoglia said she can't judge the merits of the lawsuit. But she said the NRA's tax documents show that a different vendor - a fundraising company - made millions off its work for the gun-rights group.

"They kept over half of the money they had fund-raised - they had made about $10 million and kept over $5 million of that,” she said. “And so, you are seeing a variety of different vendors potentially profiting off of the NRA."

Speeches and public statements at the annual NRA convention largely avoided the lawsuit. The group continues to take a combative stance against long-time foes in the gun-control movement and the political left. Its charitable status is under investigation in New York, and its board is expected to address the leadership issue this week.


get more stories like this via email

Connecticut is one state not affected by a recent Supreme Court ruling.

In Garland v. Cargill, the Court overturned a federal bump-stock ban the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives implemented after a 2017 mass shooting. Authorities found most of the shooter's weapons had a bump stock, which enables someone to fire multiple rounds at a rapid pace.

Melissa Kane, board chair and interim executive director of the group Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said federal action must follow the ruling.

"Legislation to ban bump stocks has already been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate," Kane pointed out. "Congress has the power to change the law and ban bump stocks now to keep these kinds of weapons off of our streets and out of our communities but it has to happen."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has signaled he'll call for a vote on legislation banning bump stocks. The big challenge Kane sees for implementing such a ban is political gridlock. Senate Democrats support Schumer's proposal but GOP senators said they will block the legislation.

Polls from just before the ban was implemented show most Americans support it and attorneys general from numerous states say a federal bump-stock ban is necessary. Although federal gun safety bills often face an uphill battle, some states have not had the same issue.

Kane argued Connecticut can be a model for other states and the federal government.

"Connecticut's is ironclad and I'd like other states to look at the wording of our legislation and know that if your state doesn't have a ban on bump stocks, you can ban bump stocks," Kane contended. "That's important for people to see. They will be able to uphold those in case there are cases that come against them."

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have bump-stock bans which remain in effect since the ruling covers the ATF rule, not the constitutionality of state bans.

If two Michigan lawmakers have their way, there will be fewer locations in the state where people are allowed to carry firearms.

State Sen. Dayna Polehanki, D-Livonia, and state Sen. Rosemary Bayer, D-Beverly Hills, have introduced bills that would expand gun-free zones within the State Capitol complex.

Both have advocated for stricter gun laws in Michigan.

Senate Bills 857 and 858 would make it illegal to carry a firearm in the State Capitol building, the Binsfeld Senate Office Building, and the Anderson House Office Building - with an exception for legislators.

Ryan Bates, executive director of the group End Gun Violence Michigan, said he believes these proposals are much needed.

"We cannot have a functioning democracy at the barrel of a gun," said Bates. "So, it's incredibly important that we protect our legislators and protect our democracy from people who want to do it harm by bringing guns into the places where our laws are made."

If the gun-free zone bills become law, violators could face up to 90 days in jail, and or be fined.

During the highly publicized Oxford High School shooter trial, Polehanki took to social media to warn parents that if their child discharges a firearm and causes harm to themselves or others, the parent is going to jail.

Longtime firearms instructor and gun-rights advocate Rick Ector said he's all for responsible gun ownership - but not gun-free zones.

He argued that having law-abiding citizens carrying firearms in more places would inherently make these areas safer.

"People who have a concealed pistol license, who are primarily the people we're talking about," said Ector, "they are statistically more law-abiding than the law enforcement community, and they've gone through all the required, statutorily specified training."

Both bills have been assigned to the Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety.




get more stories like this via email

Two years ago today, a teenager killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde. The families of those shot and killed have agreed to a $2 million settlement with the city, which equals the entire amount of the town's insurance policy.

Attorneys for the group say they worked with city officials for more than a year after leaders reached out and asked what could be done to ease the families' pain.

Javier Cazares, who lost his daughter in the shooting, said justice and accountability are his main concerns.

"It's been an unbearable two years," he said. "We all know who took our children's lives, but there was an obvious failure out there on May 24. The whole world saw that. We've been let down so many times. The time has come to do the right thing."

The mass shooting garnered international attention and questions after 376 law-enforcement officers waited 77 minutes before going into the classroom to stop the shooter. Family members are disappointed that no disciplinary action has been taken against any of the officers involved, although Uvalde Police Chief Daniel Rodriguez resigned amid questions over how the incident was handled.

In addition to the $2 million settlement, the city of Uvalde has agreed to "restorative justice" policy changes that include establishing an annual day of remembrance on May 24, mental-health services for all families in the community, and addressing public safety risks and the burden of gun violence on police officers.

Although families have settled with the city, said attorney Josh Koskoff, they are filing additional lawsuits including one against the state of Texas, "which has done nothing but burden this town before the shooting by not giving them the resources they need, preventing these families from getting the information they need, and then blaming the city, as if they didn't have how many police officers there? 98? As if they didn't know how to shoot somebody."


get more stories like this via email