Editors’ s Note: We agree with the author that the lawsuit against the NRA is mostly a political hit, but largely justified by the actions of the head of the NRA and its board. They more than lead with their chin. It is bad enough when a charity takes advantage of the compassion of its donors and cynically diverts funds for personal gains. Most members of the NRA are earnestly serious about maintaining Constitutional rights. Loss of those rights is a serious thing for the continuation of freedom, the defense of which has cost a lot in blood and treasure. To have an organization fighting to protect those rights hijacked for personal gain is even more despicable.  Stealing money from a dog shelter may abuse some dogs and contributors. But more will come along. Diverting money from an organization that at one time was a bulwark to defend Second Amendment rights is even worse since freedom cannot be replaced. We should all be thankful the NRA can degrade itself and the movement to defend Constitutional rights continues. But the struggle to preserve those rights would have been easier had the officials of the NRA behaved themselves.

It has been two years since The Prickly Pear published The Decline and Fall of the National Rifle Association. The Decline and Fall of the National Rifle Association – PRICKLY PEAR (thepricklypear.org) It has taken since then for long-time Executive Vice President Wayne La Pierre to resign – finally! — six days before the beginning of the civil lawsuit alleging that he, and accomplices, embezzled up to 64 million dollars, in the form of luxury expenses and excessive compensation.

One of the myths of our culture is that, in every conflict, there is a Good Guy and a Bad Guy. We are conditioned to believe this by constant depictions of Hero vs. Villain in literature, film, paintings, and other forms of art. In fact, there are some (but relatively few) examples of Good vs. Evil in real life (Israel vs. Hamas being a recent example), but most of the time, conflicts involve unsavory characters on both sides. Think Khomeini’s Iran vs. Hussein’s Iraq. Hitler vs. Stalin. Bloods vs. Crips. Sinaloa Cartel vs. Los Zetas. Sunni jihadists vs. Shi’ite jihadists.

In the complaint, New York Attorney General Letitia James alleges that “For nearly three decades, Wayne LaPierre has served as the chief executive officer of the NRA and has exploited the organization for his financial benefit, and the benefit of a close circle of NRA staff, board members, and vendors.”

In response, the NRA issued a statement calling the lawsuit a “baseless premeditated attack on our organization and the Second Amendment freedoms it fights to defend. It’s a transparent attempt to score political points and attack the leading voice in opposition to the leftist agenda.” LaPierre called the lawsuit an attempt to “dismantle and destroy the NRA.”

Both sides are right.

AG Letitia James is not concerned that the alleged embezzlement has harmed the ability of the National Rifle Association to achieve its charitable purposes. Like all liberals, she despises the Second Amendment, guns, and gun owners. In her mind, the NRA is not a charitable organization like Save The Children or the Salvation Army. Rather, James views the NRA as a terrorist organization that wants to distribute assault weapons to kindergarten children so they can commit school shootings. She would love to see the National Rifle Association destroyed. Indeed, AG James has stated that her objective is not to save the NRA from its corrupt management, but to abolish the NRA.

Compare, for example, the American Red Cross scandal. After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, people donated around half a billion dollars for relief efforts. It is believed that the Red Cross took about a quarter of that — $125 million – for “management expenses,” then sent the rest to other organizations to do the actual work. Each of those organizations took out their own management fees, of course. But nobody suggested shutting down the American Red Cross, even though their alleged misappropriation was roughly twice the amount alleged against the NRA. The NRA is right: the lawsuit is a political hit job, designed to take out an ideological enemy of the leftist agenda.

Sadly, though, the New York AG is right, too. All the pre-trial evidence that has come out so far is damning in the extreme. The lawsuit is politically motivated, but it is not baseless. It appears that Wayne La Pierre and his friends did indeed enrich themselves generously – outrageously — by treating the NRA members’ contributions as their own piggy bank.

Why did LaPierre wait until now to resign, days before the trial? It will not shield him from prosecution; he is named individually in the complaint. Maybe his lawyers think it might help defuse the case a little since the remedies sought include removing him from office. If he resigns, then the prosecution has already gotten part of what they asked for, so maybe the judge will consider that as being “half a loaf” already, and reduce the other remedies sought by the AG. Maybe, but it seems like a long shot. Maybe La Pierre just wanted to suck out another two years of compensation – reportedly a base salary of $1.3 million, plus other compensation for a total of around $2 million per year.

AG James accused La Pierre of setting up a $17 million deferred compensation/retirement package for himself, without the approval or even knowledge of the board of directors. While many NRA members are outraged that he would get that money in addition to what he has already taken, it seems unlikely that a court would allow any such payments to be made, although it should be expected that La Pierre will sue to get them.

So now what will happen to the NRA? Let’s be clear: the NRA will lose this lawsuit, big time. Recently, the AG reached a settlement with La Pierre’s Chief of Staff, Joshua Powell, in which Powell admitted to the allegations of wrongdoing, and agreed to pay $100,000, which is essentially pocket change, relatively. Was that lenient agreement subject to an understanding that he would testify against the other defendants? It sure looks like it. The hoplophobes (gun-haters) are ecstatic, predicting the end of effective opposition to their “reasonable” gun control proposals. They will be disappointed.

The court may order the NRA to be dissolved, but that is unlikely. More likely the court will order massive financial penalties, payable to the State of New York (not restitution back to the NRA, as would be the case if this were genuinely about protecting NRA members, and not politically motivated.) Those penalties might force the NRA to declare bankruptcy and shut down voluntarily, thereby going the way of other venerable institutions like Pan American, Penn Central, Lehmann Brothers, and Arthur Anderson. Or, the NRA might reorganize itself with a new board of directors, and continue to operate, and perhaps even regain its squandered political effectiveness someday. At the moment, La Pierre’s replacement is a man named Andrew Arulanandam, who has been a Wayne La Pierre acolyte for around 20 years, acting as his spokesman. (LaPierre’s Karine Jean Pierre, if you will, including some “diversity” cred.) Because he is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, like Sgt. Schultz in Hogan’s Heroes, he can get away with saying “I see nothing. I hear nothing. I know nothing.” Nevertheless, the court, or a new board, might replace him quickly with somebody who was not so closely associated with La Pierre.

But even though the NRA may disappear, the “gun lobby” will not. The NRA is not the “gun lobby.” The NRA’s political influence did not come from donations to politicians. (They were small potatoes in comparison to big political donors like Soros, Bloomberg, unions and trial lawyers.) The NRA’s political influence derived from its members, who are single-issue activist voters and influencers, passionate about their rights. You know, the People.

The members have signed up with other gun rights organizations, like the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. One of these may grow to the size and influence of the NRA, or they may all grow and combine to replace the NRA’s influence collectively. In fact, in recent years, even while the NRA has been off the playing field, no significant federal legislation (like Biden’s beloved “assault weapons ban”) has gotten off the ground, and the Supreme Court has issued landmark rulings upholding the individual rights protected by the Second Amendment. (Thank you, President Trump!)

The hundred million or so gun owners in the US are not going to say “Oh, the NRA is gone? In that case, I will register my guns, and surrender the ones the current majority in government thinks I should not have.”

The NRA is over. The gun rights lobby is not.