Marion Hammer is suing the NRA. That's not news right now because I've already covered it. Part of that story, though, was that Hammer claims Brady offered her $5 million to retire.

She says that spurred a deal from the NRA and Wayne LaPierre that the organization later reneged on.

The idea of a gun control group offering such a massive payout to get someone to retire is odd, but it makes a certain kind of sense. Hammer was a massive thorn in gun control groups' side, especially in Florida. Seeing her move on would likely benefit them greatly.

But with the allegations comes questions. The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has plenty, and they'd like the IRS to take a look.

From a press release:

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is calling for an IRS investigation into a startling allegation made by former NRA President and Second Amendment champion Marion Hammer in a federal lawsuit in which she says an attorney representing the Brady gun control group allegedly offered her $5 million to “retire and cease advancing the interests of the NRA and defending the Second Amendment.”

The allegation says the offer was made in 2018. According to language in the lawsuit, Hammer immediately reported the offer to then-Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

“This is not the kind of offer a tax exempt organization should be making under any circumstances,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “First and foremost, nobody’s First Amendment rights should ever be for sale, and secondly, the nature of this allegation almost appears as though the gun control group was offering Mrs. Hammer a bribe to walk away from an issue to which she had dedicated most of her adult life.”

Hammer’s legal action involves an apparent contract dispute between her and the NRA. 

“We have absolutely no interest in, nor are we taking any position on, Mrs. Hammer’s lawsuit,” Gottlieb stated. “Our sole interest is in this apparent attempt by a wealthy gun prohibition lobbying organization to essentially silence one of the nation’s most respected and effective voices in support of Second Amendment rights. 

“I am sure,” he observed, “that when the Brady Center applied for tax exempt status, this is not an activity they listed on their application, as I doubt it would qualify as a tax exempt function.

“A claim of this nature, especially in a federal lawsuit, absolutely deserves some investigation,” Gottlieb said. “While it appears no money ever exchanged hands, the idea such an offer was even made raises serious questions about what the gun control lobby does with its money, and whether this sort of thing is acceptable under tax exempt guidelines.”

If the offer happened--and I'm only hedging here because it's not proven in court. It's not that I doubt Hammer's word--then it's sleezy and slimy, at a minimum, even if perfectly legal.

It just reeks of shady, underhanded dealings.

I mean, just pay off your effective opponents because you can't beat them? That just doesn't sit right with me, and it shouldn't sit right with anyone else. It's a bribe, plain and simple.

Yet the CCRKBA is right to ask the IRS to take a look at this offer. Is it even legal? As a non-profit, there are things they can't spend money on, as Wayne LaPierre so amply demonstrated to all of us not that long ago. I can't really believe this is kosher in any way, shape, or form.

But if it is, then it's still something the people who donate to Brady should want to know about and that the organization should have to justify to those donors.

If it's not legal, well...we know what should happen.

There aren't different sets of rules for anti-gun organizations, despite the fact that they've long been untouchable because the bureaucrats liked them. Those days seem to be over, and I'd love to see them get their comeuppance if they broke the rules.

If not, well, again, I think their donors might find this a bit troubling.

If they don't, well, that tells you a lot, doesn't it?