[OldLawyer]

Didn't say there's current evidence in my hand that today someone is doing wrong at the NRA. Don't think I even implied that, though clearly you took my earlier remarks about skepticism that way.

What I did say is that all of this occurred within the past year, cleaning out the old embezzlers, changing the board, installing a new CEO and a new President, a couple directors, and probably some other changes I've yet to hear of.

The efforts to change in the past ~1yr period @ NRA:

• 31 January 2024 -- Wayne LaPierre resignation
• 23 February 2024 -- Wayne LaPierre judgment (against), owes $4.3M damages + 9% interest
• 23 February 2024 -- Woody Phillips judgment (against), owes $2M damages + 9% interest
• 2024 elections @ NRA -- new board, members to serve for 3yr terms (to 2027)
• 20 May 2024 -- new President of NRA, Bob Barr
• 20 May 2024 -- new Exec VP & CEO of NRA, Doug Hamlin
• 29 July 2024 -- Wayne LaPierre banned 10yrs from involvement with NRA/fiduciary
• 29 July 2024 -- Woody Phillips banned 10yrs from involvement in NY non-profits
• 10 December 2024 -- new Exec Director NRA-ILA (interim), John Commerford
• 10 December 2024 -- new Exec Director NRA Gen'l Opns, Josh Savani
• 11 December 2024 -- judge orders changes at the NRA (governance, oversight)

Great and good changes. Many of whom have long-standing knowledge of the NRA and history having worked in various NRA posts. If those people are iron-clad upstanding, were chosen well, and are implementing culture and organizational change throughout. That last aspect isn't something I've clearly heard about, though I'm hopeful it's substantively happening.

I wasn't speaking of Trump efforts, efforts which have only been occurring over the past month (almost a month).

As for changes in the states, those are all good things. I'm not so naive to imagine it's strictly only the NRA and its lobbying and efforts that gets such stuff done, that helps legislatures to appreciate what the right thing to do is. But, yes, the NRA has indeed had worked for decades to help state legislators, fed legislators and others to "see the light," and to also be involved in court cases attempting to shoot down attacks on the RKBA (along with SAF, GOA and a few others). Wasn't speaking of the long history of the NRA's impacts. Was strictly speaking of this past year's events and the clean-up in Aisle 3.

All I said was, circumspection and skepticism is good, when such breach of trust has occurred.

Changes of personnel are good, but the Board failed in its oversight and allowed these things to occur without sufficient guard rails, checks and balances. The changes we're speaking of all occurred within the PAST YEAR. The changes haven't yet clearly shown evidence (publicly) that the checks and balances hopefully put into place are now effective and religiously followed. I suppose that's my bar, what I'm hoping to have the NRA show soon. Not even a year has gone by, yet, for the new VP/CEO, new Pres, new Exec Directors and new Board to make a serious and clear "dent" in the culture. I hope it has occurred. Haven't yet heard a wide-ranging public lauding of the new people's efforts and the new processes/procedures, though I'm assuming that'll begin once people clearly see the impacts.

I get the NRA's potential impact. It's the 800 pound gorilla in the room. They've been that (and had good effect) for a long time. And the legislators from coast to coast know it. They've long since had muscle, an "in" with such people (through the lobbying efforts), and have shown a long history of being capable of getting much done at the legislative level. This mess has tarnished the brand badly. Hopefully it's continuing on without hardly missing a beat. Though, as I've hinted at, I haven't roundly heard lauds from all quarters yet, aside from a couple of people "in the know" who've got reason to have "inside" information about how things are going. All to the good. And as the lauds come from more and more people, from our legislators as well, then it'll all help to confirm (along with reports of the clean-up internally) that things are well and truly changed for the good.

Hopeful. But given that mere months have gone by since many of the changes were implemented, I remain circumspect. Rightly so.

Thanks for the timeline list. My objection to TBD ongoing hated of the NRA is because it helps no one and hurts everyone who advocates or just wants to keep rights we have. Make no mistake, we have a few years of warm fuzzies, and they are going to lesson those rights. It is not a matter of if, but when.

My point is that timeline does not matter when taken in context. They were shut down when the story broke and police and AG task force investigators showed up badges and guns and warrants. I have been one of those investigators, and I promise you. The key guys may tell you to take a hike, but. no one at the worker level is going to risk jail. They may lawyer up a week or two, but if guilty of anything the lawyer will rush to make a deal. If they have done nothing wrong, the tell you everything. The point being, anything wrongfull shut down in 202O. The list of events is just the final dates things that were filed were closed. I have had cases that took !0 years, this one was a generic time frame. The bad acts were shut down down in 2020. My question was does anybody have anybody have any evidence of any new crime of fraud since August of 2020? If not it makes no sense to keep trashing them.
Keep in mind, I asked this way.

"""This is the people still trashing the NRA except she lost in court. only 2 guys found to have damaged the NRA, Wayne and Woody. So, again rhetorical question, what evidence do you have that somebody at the NRA today is doing wrong?

And the only answer I got was just more trashing. But the important part is the people still doing the trashing can it tell you what the NRA is doing today.

Most of the trashers have no us has fast the blue states are moving. The just think you can hire some laywhers and shut them down. Theow hz going fruit, surd those are easy. But the NRA had1 been working against more complex like metal detectors every where and some other plans in play, that will not be fixed by lawyers, but at the ballot box.


Heller made it crystal clear, the current second amendment does not prevent elaborate carry schemes at all. Obviously schools, and Superbowls, and Boston Marathons are places to for strict gun control measures and aggressive prosecutions. Heller and McDonald blindsided the radical left. But now it will be pretty easy for them to step up and start strict carry enforcement, the only thing they need in those states is funding.

I worked in the intelligence and counterintelligence communities so my information is dated. However, I can tell you what was available 20-25 years ago to search for terrorists, and easily will be applied to control in the blue states. These methods do not require a warrant , do not violate any privacy rights, and easily find people in crowds where guns nay be restricted, but public aces. And they are happening now.

Facial facial recognition. Every drivers license has a picture. Everyway enforcement and Intel agency has that picture, along with the do not fly list, etc, soon those pictures will be tied to correctional records, a database of prohibited people which will have everyone with a domestic protection offer and everyone with a red flag law case. It is only a matter of time until they can fund that technology at the state level or be allowed to tie into existing federal databases.

Second is probably sniffers, this is not new technology, but is expensive. Any restricted gun area simply has to set them up in any area with a gun restriction. I was involved long ago in times where this technology was in the planning stage. Here is a comment from the office of Justice systems, from 2005. Back then, the idea was to place the devices in restricted areas, and when you get a hit, you have probable cause, you simply rush some guys with. guns and one sniffer dog to the area, to pinpoint the offender and make the arrest. From DOJ, in 2005.
---==-===-----""""
A sniffer detection device is an instrument that takes in a sample of air, processes it through a detector, and then identifies and calculates the approximate quantities of explosive material in the air sample. Most explosives have relatively low vapor pressures that result in a lower number of the chemical's molecules being released from the material. For this reason, detectors for explosives must have higher sensitivity than most detectors or the capacity to sample a large volume of air and concentrate the sample, a process that adds time to the analysis process. This article describes several analytical detection methods used with the devices; namely, ion mobility spectrometry, gas chromatography/surface acoustic wave, thermo-redox, and electron-capture detector. A bomb-sniffing dog is valuable in examining a room full of cargo or luggage. The dog will often go quickly to the area where an explosive is located; whereas, an officer with a chemical detector may have to test many items before locating the suspect material. Features important in a handheld detector are portability and ease of use, as well as the ability to discriminate between explosives and the myriad of other organic chemicals that might be present in a specific environment.
--------

Third is the generic trackers. You cannot put a tracking device on a person or car without a warrant. That said, when a sniffer or metal detector has been activated, in a gun free zone. there is nothing prevents law enforcement from sourcing cell phone data from the minute of the alarm. Once I have the list of cell phone numbers, I can send the bomb dog to the restricted gun zone, and I can activate facial recognition cameras in the area.


"""""Gun-sniffing dogs are becoming increasingly more popular to help law enforcement keep airports, concerts, and even schools safer. These special dogs are trained to use their noses to sense and sniff guns and alert their handlers they have located a gun on a person, in a bag, or hidden elsewhere."""

While this may help stop terrorists, it has much more value, in catching criminals before they act. But just as important to the radical left, it will catch those people who scoff at restricted zones. And there is added value, it only takes one conviction and that person who carried guns everywhere, is banned for life.

Operation Triggerlock is an old federal law. If you will look at every restricted zone law, it make possession of ammo a separate crime. Is is brilliant because the guy can ditch the gun, and get the same sentence for just one bullet. I was grained by the feds at the National District District Attorneys College. I have seen one guy sent to federal prison for possession of nine, 22 rounds.

And it was only common sense that given the green light by Heller, that gun sniffing dogs showed up at Five (5) Houston malls, in 202!.

Most people in the gun community know these spy programs exist, they are just clueless as to how close they are to affecting anyone who carries a gun in public. One rep in Florida filed a bill this week to ban them. All the gun people in Florida know about this, but maybe people elsewhere are not aware. All of this is coming to blue states first.

My point is very simple. Most of the risk to gun guys is at the ballot box. The NRA is the only group who has lobbyist on the ground and the only group who has that massive power.

 

[G66enigma]

Thanks for the timeline list ... My point is that timeline does not matter when taken in context.

My point was simple: much was accomplished just within this past year. And that judge's edict about directing alterations in governance procedures just came out in December of 2024, barely 3mos ago.

I've no idea if out of every mid- and senior-level exec at the NRA that only two bad eggs existed. It's well-known that those two had people sniffing around since 2020. It's a guess that the sniffing around went all different directions (a fair guess), in order to see how far the "rot" went, also in an attempt to find if others were involved in nastiness related to or as an extension of that "rot". My only point regarding this aspect was, again, fairly simple: the Board basically let occur the 20 years' worth of grumblings about the excessive expenditures (and all the appearances of such), essentially including LaPierre's overreaches. Whether they knew about all of it, to the degree of embezzlement, I've no idea. Unless Board members were actually sworn and grilled, somehow I doubt they'd have spilled much if they harbored "warm" feelings for such acts and their part in overlooking such a mess. I'm on the outside of this stuff. So are you, too. Who in the Board, at the time, knew the overreaching and expenditures went into the area of embezzlement (beyond the dirty CFO), it's hard to know. It's not like many of them would come forward and admit they knew of the excess but overlooked it. That's a part we'll probably never know for certain, no matter how much digging occurs.

So, again rhetorical question, what evidence do you have that somebody at the NRA today is doing wrong?

Asked, and answered. Rhetorical or not.

And the only answer I got was just more trashing.

In my case, all you received was circumspection and skepticism. Until I see some history of this past year's changes (and that judge's December '24 demands) implemented and having good effect, surely that's fair.

Actually, doesn't matter a damn about "fairness." It's up to the individual citizen to determine what constitutes good changes and good impacts/effects. Me, I'm a bit circumspect and cautious. It's my nature. I'm more of a "show me the money" type, wanting to see impacts and a history of something before I am willing to say the change has created good history of impact.

Wouldn't surprise me to learn, eventually, it's all rot that was long since erased. My primary question at this point is regarding the Board's essential overlooking of excesses, essential allowance of lax governance procedures. I'll always wonder how far that allowance went across the Board and the organization, irrespective of how far an investigation might have gone.

But there's no changing the fact that a judge's December '24 demand for alterations to governance procedures can't all have been implemented and have created all desired impacts in just 3mos, altered all actions by people in just 3mos. It's a good start. And probably much has changed in behaviors, much in terms of what's now possible to occur under the radar. All to the good. Clearly the haranguing about the 5yrs thing doesn't apply to a judge's December '24 demands, since that just got made and implementations are ongoing.

I doubt there will ever be a public airing of every change made, given it's the internal security system and processes designed to catch bad guys, and it wouldn't do to have all the bad guys know every twist and turn they'd have to navigate in the next plan.

Thank you for the reminding people of the recent (~20yrs) history if the NRA's essential involvements in RKBA legislation, court cases. It's worth revisiting those worthy cases and efforts, and appreciating their impacts and weaknesses. Even now, as you say, all it'd take is money for states to sharply restrict carry at certain venues; witness NYC's mindless efforts to declare everyplace outside of the home threshold as a "sensitive" spot and thus lawfully a spot that can be harshly criminalized. Hogwash, IMO, but that's certainly how NYC is choosing to take this ball and run with it. Thankfully, few other states are so aggravating and twisted in their attempts, and thankfully we've had a couple of court rulings since the attempts that help to show a "kitchen sink" approach isn't going to fully fly.

I'm all for the NRA. Though they are hardly the only game in town, in the legal arena, clearly they've been and continue to be the "800 pound gorilla" in the room from the lobbying and legislating side. Time will tell whether there's been much of a practical dent made in their effectiveness as a result of this (ie reticence on the part of legislators to 'toe the line' with the RKBA as a direct result of the NRA's lobbying 'pressure'). I suspect not much.

As for membership, those who aren't members and those who've had little to do with the NRA in the past, won't have gotten "the memo" regarding all of this. The brand's been tarnished. No matter how much people whine, it's the individual citizen who's got to make up his/her mind about the NRA's goodness and utility. This mess has struck the brand sharply. And perhaps become a towering wake-up call to the NRA as to how little leeway there is, in this RKBA fight. I hope all the chuck holes can get cemented over and that trust can be fully restored in the mind of those unaware of the details. It'll take some doing.

Bashing isn't good.

Circumspection and caution is, though, and people have good basis and every right to be. Something people should keep in mind.

 

[nadafinga]

just because they're the ones who used to do the most in regards to lobbying and courts doesn't mean that new assets shouldn't be being developed. in fact, even if they were still everything they claimed they always were, other assets in those areas should still be created.
there is no sane reason for one organization to carry the football every single time. that's how this mess got started to begin with

 

[OldLawyer]

My point was simple: much was accomplished just within this past year. And that judge's edict about directing alterations in governance procedures just came out in December of 2024, barely 3mos ago.

 

[Gunz]

...if you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing and don't trash talk this noble organization.

I'll say whatever I freaking want. I'm a life member of this website. I've been here 15 years. I was an NRA member for many years but got tired of the constant hysterical junk mail campaign begging for money to fill the pockets of that walking ghoul Wayne LaPierre and his corrupt cronies.

It's going to be a long, long time before I trust your "noble" organization enough to rejoin and start writing checks. As a matter of fact, after the last 2 decades of NRA corruption, myself, and probably many other former NRA members, will never bother with it again.

 

[Gunz]

@OldLawyer

"Trash talking the new new NRA is the new motto for the radical left since they lost trying to kill the old NRA."

Just the "radical left?" How about the entire left. There's nothing new about them trash-talking any organization that promotes gun freedom.

 

[Land_Owner]

I'll say whatever I freaking want.

It's going to be a long, long time before I trust your "noble" organization enough to rejoin and start writing checks.

Go right ahead. Say what you like. No sense getting your undies in wad. It ain't that important. Is this how bar fights start? JK...jk.

I was gasighting anyway. I NEVER asked anyone for a donation to NRA. Just asked for judicious discussion rather than continuous trash talk, which gets old.

 

[Sniper03]

I am still a Benefactor Member of the NRA but think Wayne LaPierre should be in prison for his activities without a doubt!
But I think for the good the NRA Organization does and has done for Decades I will still support and pray for a rejuvenation of the NRA in my lifetime. I also belong to other Second Amendment Organizations. Being in Law Enforcement and also later the weapons industry for years. I also belong to the Shooting Sports Foundation. which directly supports the weapons industry.
03

 

[MPistone]

Ask any California what they think of the NRA and most will reply "What NRA - they're not here in California."

Asking others to support GOA, CPRA, FPC. Etc rather than the NRA is not trash talking the NRA .... It's common sense to put your monies where we get the best results.

 

[Notrighty]

I was a member for many years before quit. I think they blew both my money and my trust in them. If they get back to their core mission, I may well rejoin, but I’m not there yet.

 

[G66enigma]

Been a member of the NRA off an on for the past 35 years. Have supported NRA, GOA, SAF and a couple of other worthy organizations. And will continue to do so, when I feel it's warranted and it will be put to good use.

I hope the NRA's efforts to get over this speed bump work out very well. It's a good lesson for the organization regarding how quickly it can all go down the flusher if they don't watch their backs, each other, their steps, remain on-guard against missteps and inattentiveness, and to forever remain fighting for the members. We all know the anti-RKBA enemy. They won't let many lapses occur without striking for the jugular, not when "just one life" is on the line.

 

[atn269]

It's going to take a long time and lots of good, verifiable service before I will believe they got rid of the mob of liars, cheats and thieves that existed with LaPierre's reign. There were so many crooks in that group that I really doubt I will ever believe they are all gone now. Just will never trust them in my lifetime.

 

[nadafinga]

well, regardless of who likes what, we can all agree that we have one thing in common:
none of us are too fond of gun control nut jobs. one of the most annoying (to me anyhow) is that noodle armed weasel david hogg. looks like he's gone and done us all a real big favor. ya luv to see it. here is something to make everyone chuckle, if only just a little bit

 

[OldLawyer]

nc

It's going to take a long time and lots of good, verifiable service before I will believe they got rid of the mob of liars, cheats and thieves that existed with LaPierre's reign. There were so many crooks in that group that I really doubt I will ever believe they are all gone now. Just will never trust them in my lifetime.

You are misinformed. There were only 4 people who were found to have done anything wrong. That include the lawsuit of Ackerman McQueen in 2018 the one with Ollie North in 2019.

The lawsuit filed August 2020, claiming widespread fraud was thrown out Sept 27, 2021. The judge made it clear, lots of fraud but only 4 guys did anything wrong, out of over 1,074 employees.
National Rifle Association of America Number of Employees, Statistics, Diversity, Demographics, and Facts - Zippia

91713c_18f920f6cde942738778df9fd0ab1bde.pdf.Order dismissing request to dissolve the NRA claiming widespread fraud.

And the link to the six week jury trial is above. The controls on money were kept by 4 guys, Wayne, Chris Cook lawyer, Woody Woodson CFO, and Polston.

There was not widespread fraud, it was big bucks, but only 4 guys.

We vote every year, and the board of directors serve three years, we voted the questionable ones out. In fact we have ballots out now. Anyone have a name I should vote out???











claiming widespread fr
sd frzhc z d tringbto djx anc

 

[atn269]

nc

You are misinformed. There were only 4 people who were found to have done anything wrong. That include the lawsuit of Ackerman McQueen in 2018 the one with Ollie North in 2019.

The lawsuit filed August 2020, claiming widespread fraud was thrown out Sept 27, 2021. The judge made it clear, lots of fraud but only 4 guys did anything wrong, out of over 1,074 employees.
National Rifle Association of America Number of Employees, Statistics, Diversity, Demographics, and Facts - Zippia

91713c_18f920f6cde942738778df9fd0ab1bde.pdf.Order dismissing request to dissolve the NRA claiming widespread fraud.

And the link to the six week jury trial is above. The controls on money were kept by 4 guys, Wayne, Chris Cook lawyer, Woody Woodson CFO, and Polston.

There was not widespread fraud, it was big bucks, but only 4 guys.

We vote every year, and the board of directors serve three years, we voted the questionable ones out. In fact we have ballots out now. Anyone have a name I should vote out???











claiming widespread fr
sd frzhc z d tringbto djx anc

Well I don't believe that either. You can't tell me the rest of the BOD and management were unaware of the crap and scamming going on, but said nothing.

I'll never believe any of them are trustworthy....or, if they are trustworthy, the are totally INCOMPETENT !

 

[G66enigma]

Asking others to support GOA, CPRA, FPC. Etc rather than the NRA is not trash talking the NRA .... It's common sense to put your monies where we get the best results.

That's the thing OL is pointing out, though.

There are two efforts having good effect, out there, against the anti-RKBA'ers:

1. The "ground" game lobbying efforts OL speaks of. Working with and helping to inform the legislative critters so they won't be wholly and utterly misinformed in their work. So that they'll each at least attempt constitutionality and appropriateness in the arms-related laws they craft; and
2. The legal front. And that's where several of these other groups shine (GOA, SAF, CCRKBA, etc, along with the NRA in many key cases, to say nothing of the numerous providers of amicus briefs in support). Along with efforts and brief at the appeals and SCOTUS levels, all of it's vital to help the courts/Court see reality for what it is and not what the mob wishes it would.

As you say, it's important for individuals to determine for themselves where their own money is best spent.

However we slice that onion, however the anti's are gone after to strike down their attempts to unconstitutionally interfere with something that's effectively off the table, I trust that in the aggregate a couple hundred million people will make the best decisions for the efforts. I just wish a greater percentage would chip-in for such efforts, since it really matters inside the legislatures and really matters inside the court rooms. Without both, we'd likely be saddled with a great deal more unconstitutional crap.

 

[OldLawyer]

Well I don't believe that either. You can't tell me the rest of the BOD and management were unaware of the crap and scamming going on, but said nothing.

I'll never believe any of them are trustworthy....or, if they are trustworthy, the are totally INCOMPETENT !

Except we vote every year on 1/3 of them staying on the board. The scandal started in 2018 with Ackerman McQueen, who I know about because I lived in Central Oklahoma then and before they were ousted they came to my gun club monthly meetings. They donated guns to the club which were raffled to support the club. We had no clue.

And then in 2019 the bigger scandal hit with the Ollie North scandal which was tied to Ackerman McQueen. We started looking hard at members of the board at that time. Ollie attempted to blackmail Wayne, which caused me to lose trust in Ollie. I was a military Intel guy during Iran Contra. Then in 1988, I was sent to DC to listen to his testimony before Congress, never met him but listened to every word he said, and respected him until that scandal. At that time many of us started voting for the new guys and none of the old. People like Chuck Norris, Ted Nugent, and Tom Selleck, we never know them but trust because of their public image they are not likely to screw over us. The other thing many of us started when the last scandal broke in 2020, was to stop voting for anyone who had been on the board a long time, getting rid of the old and bringing in new people.

Every year at vote time they publish a resume of everyone up for vote. Being retired military and law enforcement, I pick law enforcement and military and bypass lawyers and corporate officials. Law enforcement guys know a scam when we see one and career military tend to be straight up guys, my opinion anyway.

However, this year is different as to attorneys. Several of them have actually been attorneys in Heller and other recent landmark cases. I have read every resume. These people have a lifetime of 2A activism. big time. There is a retired Senator from Idaho. There in one who spent 42 years in special operations. I worked in that area, never met anybody in the field nearly that long. And maybe 1/3 are retired police of sheriffs.

The point is we have been voting once per year on who gets to be or stay on the board. So, to say many on the board today who knew and did nothing is probably not true. What information do you have about any board member should be voted out? Tell us quick ballots are out now and must be in their hands before April 6.

Once again , we all get one opinion and that is mine. I just hope people realize the NRA is the only 2a outfit that can get millions of votes and that is where our risk is down the road.

A membership is cheap, $35 and you get to vote. get updates and a magazine. And you get a little sticker you can put on your truck to impress all your liberal friends.


Take a calculator and divide your annual salary into $35. Or you can buy 3 combo meals at McDonald or maybe one box of $30-+6 ammo. It is trivial but the number of members what keeps the dems at bay.

There are 43 names on the ballot and we get to pick 28. So. it is easy to vote out the few that are current board members.

Most of the names I have never heard. I will likely not vote for any current Board member , my pattern since 2+18. I need names of anyone you oppose and why. Thanks.

 

[OldLawyer]

That's the thing OL is pointing out, though.

There are two efforts having good effect, out there, against the anti-RKBA'ers:

1. The "ground" game lobbying efforts OL speaks of. Working with and helping to inform the legislative critters so they won't be wholly and utterly misinformed in their work. So that they'll each at least attempt constitutionality and appropriateness in the arms-related laws they craft; and
2. The legal front. And that's where several of these other groups shine (GOA, SAF, CCRKBA, etc, along with the NRA in many key cases, to say nothing of the numerous providers of amicus briefs in support). Along with efforts and brief at the appeals and SCOTUS levels, all of it's vital to help the courts/Court see reality for what it is and not what the mob wishes it would.

As you say, it's important for individuals to determine for themselves where their own money is best spent.

However we slice that onion, however the anti's are gone after to strike down their attempts to unconstitutionally interfere with something that's effectively off the table, I trust that in the aggregate a couple hundred million people will make the best decisions for the efforts. I just wish a greater percentage would chip-in for such efforts, since it really matters inside the legislatures and really matters inside the court rooms. Without both, we'd likely be saddled with a great deal more unconstitutional crap.

Well said, you said it better than me. Before I went flaw school. I could make a point in 2-3 sentences. Now, it takes 2-3 pages.

 

[G66enigma]

Well said, you said it better than me. Before I went flaw school. I could make a point in 2-3 sentences. Now, it takes 2-3 pages.

Oh, no ... I'm not a "2-3 sentences" sort. What are ya smokin'? I need to get me some o' that.

But I can be a 2-3 paragraphs sort. Been investigating, ranting and wailing for a few decades, now. Plenty of time to "hone" the approach. Just doesn't happen all that often, anymore, at least not with complex questions or situations.

Ah, well. There are worse things. Some people take up fly fishing. Some, basket weaving. Some, surfing and frisky shark avoidance.

 

[G66enigma]

Except we vote every year on 1/3 of them staying on the board ... Every year at vote time they publish a resume of everyone up for vote ... There are 43 names on the ballot and we get to pick 28. So. it is easy to vote out the few that are current board members.

Most of the names I have never heard.

That's the same thing I find when voting for local judges. Nearly never have I heard of a single one of them; and "knowing" them is beyond me. So, I resolutely wade through the puff and the articles, the website platitudes and the person's documented history (what little there often is). Being outside of the judge arena, and not an attorney, most of the "known" stuff about such candidates doesn't tend to be things I hear much of. Heck, for that matter, it's somewhat similar even with people up for the state legislatures, or even the federal Congress.

Same with the names that come and go, tossing their hats in the ring for candidacy to NRA Board posts. Never heard of most such people, in the decades since becoming involved.

As you've suggested, there are some techniques that can tend to avoid the "corporate" or "lawyerly" types who would be quite capable of gaming the system. I'm all for a few of such people, but I'd vastly prefer the majority be no-nonsense law enforcement and/or longstanding military and/or well-publicized "known" quantities amongst the small business community who've largely avoided the "corporate / MBWO" types of "training" that all too many have.

I sure hope the internal security, controls, oversight and governance aspects are well buttoned-up now. I think a great percentage of future members are going to flatly require it.