Hindsight from The New Gun Week April 20, 1998
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
It would be pretty difficult to conceal the internal power struggle within the National Rifle Association from its members or the public.
The March ballot issues of the three NRA magazines which are the official journal of the 127-year-old organization-from cover through official columns, director campaign ads, official journal announcements and the ballot-make it clear that there are at least two factions competing for control.
In addition, because the NRA, with almost 3 million members, is the largest organization involved in the fight to preserve the right to keep and bear arms and represents a lobbying force with more members than most national unions, it attracts public notice. Major internal conflicts within the Association invite stories in the general media. Anti-gun publications like to focus on NRA troubles, even when they don't exist. Some conservative publications report on internal NRA politics because of their alleged common interest in many issues.
In short, a squabble within the NRA is about as private as a loud marital argument in a small restaurant. Since in most arguments, there is a share of right and wrong on both sides, it is not surprising that some NRA members become confused. Letters like the one received recently from Gun Week subscriber James A. Gotsch of Cody, WY and reprinted below, is not unusual. Here's what he wrote:
Member's Query
"Somewhere filed away is a certificate that identifies me as a charter subscriber
to Gun Week which over the past 30 years has both entertained and kept us
informed of issues that threaten our Second Amendment rights. So while I respect
your decision to distance Gun Week from the internal problems of the NRA (March
20, 1998), I feel that this matter demands more than an occasional neutral
comment.
"I joined the NRA in the late '50s while living in Duchess County, NY, but soon moved west as a refugee from the Sullivan Law. I became a life member in the '60s while heavily involved in both Highpower and Smallbore Prone, including three summers at Camp Perry. I am an avid firearms hobbyist and still occasionally contribute money to the NRA as well as merchandise to local Friends of the NRA banquets. I and perhaps most of the shooting public have come to view the NRA as the primary force standing between us and the anti-gunners, so we can't help but worry that the power struggle within the organization is a threat to our investment and our trust.
"As usual, Neal Knox seems to be in the center of the storm. Neal and I were friends back in Prescott, AZ, where I was the flight instructor who trained and recommended him for his multi-engine rating. I recall his legendary split with Harlon Carter where both gentlemen stated that they agreed on far more than they disagreed. So is this upheaval in the NRA just another minor dispute involving some arcane bylaw language and a few threatened egos with the major mission not impaired, or should the rank and file out here in the hinterlands be concerned? In other words, what the hell is going on?
"As an impartial publication, Gun Week has the capacity to tell
this story without taking sides. As many, if not a majority, of your subscribers
are also NRA members, you have a clear duty to do this. We need an outsider's
primer in NRA internal politics and a clear, plain English look at the issues,
policies and problems within the organization. As the ballots are not due
until May, there may yet be time."
My Reply
Dear Mr. Gotsch:
I must begin by telling you that I believe that even many insiders at the
NRA, including staff and directors, are often confused and concerned as well.
More than 20 years ago, one such insider referred to NRA internal politics
as "Byzantine." That's probably the most correct adjective yet.
As I answer this I must say that I consider people on both sides of the current struggle to be friends. Some I have know for 30 years. I will try to be as candid as possible.
I say that because the leaders of the two contending factions, and most of their allies, were once all part of one camp that competed with an other, older entrenched faction. The insiders of today-I'll have to refer to them as the Mario Hammer faction, a.k.a. The Winning Team-were once part of the same group of people as the outsiders-I'll refer to them as the Neal Knox faction, a.k.a. Second Amendment Action. At one time they were part of the same group and were all once referred as a "handful of dissidents" by others.
You refer in your letter to the split between Knox and the late Harlon Carter. I assume you mean the one that ran from 1982, when Knox was fired as executive director of NRA-ILA by Carter two weeks after the annual meeting (also in Philadelphia) until at least 1985 when Carter supported G. Ray Arnett to succeed him as EVP and Knox lost at Seattle. It is from that era that the Carter column reprinted in the ballot issues was originally written.
Remember, Arnett was elected EVP by the members at a stormy meeting, and the bylaws were later changed by the members to give up their power to directly elect the NRA's top executive officer or amend bylaws at annual meetings. It was argued then that the board was better qualified than the members attending a meeting to choose their EVP and that bold face by laws should be amended on an up-or-down mail ballot rather than debated, amended, and approved or rejected by the members at the meetings.
J. Warren Cassidy, also once an ally of Knox in the late '70s until Knox was dismissed by Carter, succeeded him as executive director of ILA. He was later a driving force in the ouster of Knox from the board for taking a more hardline lobbying position that the staff on Capitol Hill.
Arnett didn't last too long as EVP and the board elected Cassidy to succeed him. At that point, Wayne LaPierre, who had been hired by Tanya Metaksa (then head of state and local affairs for ILA) and Knox then her boss at ILA, back in 1978, became executive director of ILA.
The administrations of Arnett and Cassidy, and the continuing squabbles on the board, inspired Carter to write another article about NRA internal affairs, this one printed in Guns & Ammo. It was clear from that article that Carter had reversed his earlier position and was encouraging a change in the board which made possible the return of Knox and many of his allies to the board that year.
Soon after, Cassidy was removed or resigned from the EVP post as being in conflict with the then NRA president Richard Riley, as well as both factions on the board.
At which point, the different board factions closed ranks and elected LaPierre as EVP.
For the first few years of LaPierre's administration, the Knox faction, which grew stronger in 1992 and 1993's board elections, aided, supported and defended LaPierre against all comers, especially those perceivedto be the then "handful of dissidents," including board members such as Dave Edmundson and Max Goodwin, who raised questions about financial management.
There was probably good reason for them to defend LaPierre. First, because he was a hard-liner on the issue and an effective lobbyist, and second because the then dominant Knox faction on the board were approving major financial appropriations, including very generous ones for ILA in the turn-around 1994 congressional elections and the purchase of the new building in Fairfax.
Shortly thereafter, Knox helped organize a challenge to the election of the late Tom Washington to a traditional second term as president with Marion Hammer as the challenger. That proved unsuccessful, but Hammer was elected first vice president and Knox second VP.
When Washington's second term was cut short by his untimely death, Hammer moved up to president.
In the meanwhile, Knox and a handful of his cohorts on the board became extremely concerned about the financial condition at NRA, the mannerin which large sums paid to vendors were handled, allegedly on a handshake rather than contracts, and started a move to correct what they saw as a dangerous situation. In the early stages of this financial discussion, Hammer and her allies appeared as worried as Knox and his.
But when it was perceived that the Knox faction might oust LaPierre and replace him with Knox as EVP, everything came unglued.
That is what is at the core of the current internal struggle. There is a lot more "He said" and "She said," but the fight is over control of the organization, the board and the Association's policies.
I find it hard to believe that the commitment of both factions to vigorous defense of the Second Amendment is any less today that it was when they were all in one camp. But some of the name-calling and tactics used by both sides, especially those with the leverage, has only made old friends more bitter enemies.
The New Gun Week is published three times a month by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on the 1st, 10th, and 20th. Hindsight is a commentary written by SAF President and Gun Week Executive Editor Joseph P. Tartaro. This commentary may be reprinted so long as credit is given to the author and the publication. For more information or to subscribe, write Gun Week, PO Box 488, Buffalo, NY 14209, or call 716-885-6408 Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, or inquire on Compuserve to John Krull, Production manager-JohnSAF@Compuserve.com or gunweeksaf@broadviewnet.net
Also, check out the New Gun Week at http://www.GunWeek.com
