A little over a week ago, I wrote a story about an NRA board member who argued that reforms within the organization were stymied by egos. Now, that's a lot of inside baseball, and I'm not someone who follows the inner workings of the NRA enough to know much about it. I tried to reserve my personal commentary to things I actually understood or my feelings in general, but I still heard from a few folks who knew a lot more about what was happening than I did, including some on the board itself.
And now another board member has penned a piece at Ammoland rebutting many of the claims made in that earlier piece.
I have been an advocate for a smaller Board for years. I have held that opinion both as a Board member and as an external gadfly. My writing in this and other spaces put a spotlight on the issue of Board size, catching the attention of many NRA members as well as the judge in the New York case, who quoted my articles on the subject.
I am a member of the Special Committee on Organization. Our charter includes the issue of the Board size as a priority. The record shows, and I’ll repeat it here, that I was one of the overwhelming majority of Directors who voted to refer President Bachenberg’s Board reduction proposal to our committee. I didn’t vote for referral because I was worried about retaining my seat on the Board. I came in 5th overall in my first election in 2024, and it is likely that I’ll do as well or better in the coming election. Not making the cut wouldn’t be a problem either, as I had previously decided not to run for a second term, but was convinced by friends and supporters to run again to help finish what I’d started. Being on the Board takes up a significant amount of my time and has cut deeply into my other activities, including the activities that I rely on to pay the bills, so financially, getting off the Board would be a boon for me and my family.
I appreciate Dick Fairburn’s perspective on the September meeting and our vote to refer the proposal to the Committee on Organization. Note that I said “refer,” not “refer back.” The organizational change suggested by President Bachenberg had never been considered in the Committee on Organization.
That was one of my major problems with the President’s proposal: it wasn’t run through the process specifically created to address this issue.
The first time Board members heard about his proposal was when the President publicly announced it to members at the 2026 Annual Meeting of Members. I happened to be standing near Amanda Suffecool, who chaired the Organization Committee at the time, and we looked at each other in surprise and confusion. Amanda subsequently requested that the President send his proposal to the Committee for review, and he replied that the Committee would see it when everyone else did.
Now, I recall saying that I thought the size of the NRA board is pretty ridiculous and that I worried about any board of directors for any organization that had more members than one could reasonably fit around a single conference table.
But the point about the president's proposal not having been run through the proper channels is fascinating to me, in a weird sort of way. I count Amanda Suffecool as a dear friend, for the record, and while I haven't talked to her about this, I do know her to be a stand-up individual. I have little reason to doubt she would have given the proposal all due consideration, so if her fellow committee member, Jeff Knox, is accurate in his recounting of what was said, that's a big red flag to me.
Why would he not want to go through the proper channels?
Should he have to? Well, that depends. If no one had to go through them, that would be one thing. If there's a procedure that's supposed to be followed according to the organization's bylaws, then that has to be followed. Failure to follow the rules is how the NRA got in hot water in the first place, after all, and bylaws aren't just internal policies that can be changed on a whim. They must be followed or risk potential repercussions from outside the organization.
Especially since, as Knox argues, the committee was created specifically to address this issue due to a judge's order. I'm pretty sure the judge didn't just order it so the NRA president could opt to ignore it whenever convenient.
So maybe it's not a bylaw, but a judge's order. If that's the case, then there's even less flexibility.
Honestly, while there's still inside baseball at work here, and I won't pretend to be privy to all the inner workings of the NRA, Knox's recounting fits with what others who are up on these matters have said to me, and this is troubling. It's troubling in part because it's happening, but it's also troubling because we need the NRA to be strong and united. We don't have time for petty squabbles because someone in authority wanted to have their way, and the board members pulled him up short.
Do it right or don't do it at all.
The people who want to use the legal process to destroy the NRA are still out there, and just because they were unsuccessful last time doesn't mean they won't try again.
Don't give them the satisfaction of making it easy for them.