NRA: YETI Adds Insult to Injury Over Cut Ties
The Cooler (and Tumbler) Wars
The National Rifle Association is, again, calling out YETI as “Fake News” after the cooler company issued a statement that called out the NRA for calling out YETI for cutting ties with the gun-rights organization. Confused yet? It’s getting deep, so watch where you step as we wade into the online peeing match that other cooler companies are cashing in on.
Last Friday, NRA past-president and current head of United Sportsmen of Florida, Marion Hammer sent out a letter laying into YETI for allegedly “cutting ties with NRA”. In the letter, Hammer describes the youth and educational programs that are supported by Friends of NRA Foundation banquet and auction events. The letter continues:
Suddenly, without prior notice, YETI has declined to do business with The NRA Foundation saying they no longer wish to be an NRA vendor, and refused to say why. They will only say they will no longer sell products to The NRA Foundation. That certainly isn’t sportsmanlike. In fact, YETI should be ashamed. They have declined to continue helping America’s young people enjoy outdoor recreational activities. These activities enable them to appreciate America and enjoy our natural resources with wholesome and healthy outdoor recreational and educational programs.
YETI returned fire with a statement of their own, calling Hammer a liar: Continue reading
Vice President Pence to Speak at the 2018 NRA-ILA Leadership Forum
The National Rifle Association (NRA) Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today announced that Vice President Mike Pence will keynote the annual NRA-ILA Leadership Forum on Friday, May 4, in Dallas, Texas. The event kicks off the 2018 election cycle and will feature a powerful lineup of pro-freedom speakers.
NRA-ILA executive director, Chris Cox, says of Pence’s appearance, “It’s an honor to have Vice President Pence address our members in Dallas. He is a lifetime supporter of the Second Amendment and he has a long a record of fighting to defend our freedoms. Now more than ever we need principled people in public office who will fight to defend the Constitution. Our members are excited to hear him speak and thank him for his leadership.”
Both the NRA and President Trump, who has appeared at previous Leadership Forums during the NRA Annual Meetings, have taken heat recently for their support of certain gun control measures, such as placing restrictions on firearm accessories including bump-stocks, which the ATF had previously determined did not fall under their purview.
The NRA-ILA Leadership Forum takes place Friday, May 4, 2018 from noon to 3PM. The lineup of speakers includes NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre; NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox; Hon. Mike Pence, Vice President; Gov. Greg Abbott, Texas; Sen. John Cornyn, Texas; Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas; Gov. Pete Ricketts, Nebraska; Rep. Richard Hudson, North Carolina; Mark Geist, Benghazi Survivor; Diamond & Silk, Social Media Personalities; Dana Loesch, NRA Spokesperson; Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA Founder.
More details are available on the NRAAM website. While the NRAAM is free to attend for current NRA members and their immediate family, the Leadership Forum requires an additional paid ticket.
NRA Statement on Massachusetts Gun Ban Ruling
The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action released the following statement today regarding the Massachusetts Federal District Court’s ruling in the case of Worman et al v. Baker:
“Like all law-abiding Massachusetts gun owners, the NRA was extremely disappointed that the court upheld Massachusetts’s ban on many of the most popular firearms in America. Even more disturbing was Judge Young’s assessment that the ‘AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material’ and that ‘Justice Scalia would be proud’ of this ruling.
“It is outrageous that Judge Young is taking advantage of the fact that Justice Scalia is unable to refute such a claim. Justice Scalia’s position on the question of whether the AR-15 is protected by the Second Amendment is clear. In the 2015 Friedman v. City of Highland Park case, Justice Scalia joined a dissent which stated that the decision by millions of Americans to own AR-style rifles for lawful purposes ‘is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.’ As long as politicians and judicial officials continue to flout the law in order to advance a political agenda, the five million members of the NRA will be here to hold them accountable.
“While the plaintiff’s attorneys are reviewing their options those of us here at the NRA will be here to assist in any way possible.”
NRA Statement on Corporate Partnerships
With corporate partners clamoring to distance themselves from the National Rifle Association following the Parkland murders, the NRA issued the statement below.
As a side note, we are not sure that anyone noticed. I read that something on the order of a half-dozen or fewer people had used the car rental discounts – our team has never used the menial discounts offered by car rental agencies, airlines or other companies and we certainly did not join the largest Second Amendment advocacy group for such discounts. It does, however, provide a good compass for choosing which companies to not do business with.
The more than five million law-abiding members of the National Rifle Association have enjoyed discounts and cost-saving programs from many American corporations that have partnered with the NRA to expand member benefits.
Since the tragedy in Parkland, Florida, a number of companies have decided to sever their relationship with the NRA, in an effort to punish our members who are doctors, farmers, law enforcement officers, fire fighters, nurses, shop owners and school teachers that live in every American community. We are men and women who represent every American ethnic group, every one of the world’s religions and every form of political commitment. Continue reading
The Enemy Within – Marion Hammer’s Revised NRA History
On January 15, Marion Hammer, NRA past president and a current member of both the Board of Directors and Executive Council, published an outrageous editorial on Ammoland Shooting Sports News warning of current and past threats to the NRA, and listing a slate of candidates she supports for the upcoming NRA Board of Directors election.
Marion is free to endorse any Board candidate she likes. But in her endorsement she can’t rewrite history to suit herself, nor can she expect to cast aspersions on the motives of good people without challenge
In her screed, Ms. Hammer carefully avoids naming names, but anyone who has been paying any attention at all to NRA politics – past and present – knows exactly whom she is referring to.
She begins with muddy praise for the stalwart NRA members who staged a revolt at the NRA Members’ Meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1977. It was the night when the members wrested control of the NRA from a hidebound and self-perpetuating management and put the Association on the road to being the premier defender of the human right to armed self defense. Then she jumps forward to 1997 to talk about an attempted “coup” by a group of “dissident malcontents,” but fails to mention that both actions were staged by many of the same people, and for many of the same reasons.
I put “coup” in quotes in the second instance because the group that she claims was staging the “coup” was actually the duly elected Officers and Directors attempting, unsuccessfully, to exercise their fiduciary responsibility against actions by paid staff and key contractors with multimillion-dollar contracts.
The 1997 fight was not a coup; it was a mutiny.
In contrast to Cincinnati, the prize in 1977 was not the heart, soul, and destiny of the NRA, but control of the organization’s checkbook and prudent management of its resources. The goal in both instances was to give the members control over their NRA. The 1997 action included First Vice President Neal Knox, Second Vice President Albert Ross, and a majority of the NRA Board of Directors.
But, history is written by the victors, so the attempts of the Board of Directors to demand fiscal accountability from their hired staff was later reported as a “coup.”
The core issue was how the NRA’s PR company, Ackerman McQueen, was drawing millions of dollars a month from the organization and improperly controlling NRA staff. The Board directed Wayne to sever ties with Ack-Mac, and Wayne promised to do so, then claimed to have done so, by bringing in a new PR company called Mercury Group. The “new” PR company turned out to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Ack-Mac, with all of the same players in all of the same positions, still bleeding the association of the same millions of dollars. Continue reading
Bad News For “Universal” Background Check Supporters
Have you noticed that all the hot takes about the supposed need for more gun control have something in common? Whether it’s a call to limit gun ownership to two firearms or a desire to ban firearms completely, America’s anti-gun pundits have no shortage of different “solutions” they’d like to see turned into laws. But not many of them seem particularly eager to talk about what it would take to actually enforce those laws, or maybe they haven’t even considered that aspect of legislation. All we have to do is a pass a law, apparently. Enforcement is optional.
In the real world, of course, it doesn’t work that way. Now, even some gun control advocates are having to reluctantly accept the fact that passing a gun control law doesn’t automatically lead to less crime. Recently, anti-gun researcher Garen Wintemute took a look at “universal” background check laws in Washington, Colorado and Delaware. All three states passed similar laws in 2013, and Wintemute wanted to see if the laws had led to an increase in the number of background checks. As it turns out, the answer was “no,” at least for Washington and Colorado. Universal background check laws clearly don’t lead to universal background checks for every transfer of a firearm. Gun owners know this, and we’ve tried to point this out to anti-gun activists on many occasions, but they needed to see the science. Now they have.
Wintemute and others are now trying to claim that the problem with the “universal” background check laws can be fixed with “more assertive enforcement.” Yet the study’s authors can’t really point to more assertive enforcement in Delaware, even though it did see an increase in background checks for both handguns and long guns. What would “more assertive enforcement” look like, anyway? It’s a pretty imprecise phrase for a man of science like Wintemute to throw around without offering up specific examples. Continue reading
