Tell me about it. My insurance premium went up 10% and the Tahoee is a year older…..Of course I’m a year older too and ‘seasoned citizens’ supposedly are higher risks as they get older.


Why auto insurance costs are rising at the fastest rate in 47 years.

As car prices moderate from a pandemic-era surge, insurance has pushed the cost of car ownership to the brink for many Americans.

New data out this week showed auto insurance costs rose 20.6% from the prior year in February, matching January’s increase as the most since December 1976, when costs rose 22.4% over the prior year.

On an annual basis, motor vehicle insurance costs rose 17.4% in 2023, the most since a 28.7% increase in 1976, according to data from the BLS.

The sticker shock hitting many American drivers is being driven by a rise in accidents, the severity of accidents, and geographical factors combining to create a perfect storm and push costs higher.

The most alarming factor driving insurance costs higher is more severe claims.

“In general, the numbers of crashes, injuries, and fatalities are up, and inflation has made the cost of repairs more expensive,” AAA spokesperson Robert Sinclair told Yahoo Finance.

Sinclair said motorists developed “bad habits” on the road during pandemic lockdowns, contributing to current behavior. For example, as the New York Times reported earlier this year, researchers in Nevada discovered that during the pandemic, motorists were speeding more (and driving through intersections), seat belt use was down, and intoxicated driving arrests were up to near historic highs.

Sinclair also pointed to NHTSA data, which found that in 2021, at the height of the pandemic, road fatalities increased by 10.5% to their highest level since 2005, even while most Americans stayed at home. The NHTSA said it was the highest percentage increase it had ever seen. The agency found that fatalities in 2022 only decreased by 0.3% as compared to 2021.

Insurance tech firm Insurify found that auto insurance premium hikes were “largely due to the skyrocketing price of auto parts and the increasing number and severity of claims.” And while increases may moderate, analysts still believe further premium hikes are on the horizon.

“While the magnitude of rate increases is likely to ease somewhat, after several years of double-digit increases, some lingering claim cost inflation and adverse claim severity and frequency will likely lead to a ‘higher for longer’ auto rate environment,” CFRA analyst Cathy Seifert told Yahoo Finance.

Not surprisingly, severe accidents leave insurance companies with rising loss ratios, or a share of premiums collected that insurers paid out in claims.

Continue reading “”

Nevada Court Signals Suit Against Smith & Wesson Is Improper

Amid ongoing litigation brought by anti-gun Smith & Wesson shareholders over continued AR-15 production, Nevada’s Clark County District Court signals no “substantial likelihood” Smith & Wesson will be found liable, saying the activist shareholders appear not to be aligned with the company’s best interest and requiring them to post a half-million-dollar bond to continue their suit.

On December 5, 2023, Breitbart News reported that that lawsuit against Smith & Wesson was brought by a group of anti-gun nuns, shareholders all, who claimed the gun maker “knowingly allowed the Company to become exposed to significant liability for intentionally violating federal, state, and local laws through its manufacturing, marketing, and sales of AR-15 style rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms.”

The plaintiffs made clear they were aware of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) but suggested the Act does would not protect Smith & Wesson because they continued making AR-15s after one of their rifles was used in a high profile shooting.

The nuns suggested the “board’s unwillingness to exercise any oversight whatsoever in connection with the Company’s illicit manufacturing, marketing, and sales of AR-15 rifles” removes the company from PLCAA protections.

However, a record of the February 20, 2024, exchanges between Clark County District Judge Joe Hardy and attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendants tells a story which shows Smith & Wesson is unlikely liable in the suit.

Hardy noted various reasons for this unlikelihood, one of which was a victory for the anti-gun shareholders would deliver not “benefit the corporation or its security holders.” The transcript of court proceedings make clear that Hardy does not believe the anti-gun shareholders’ positions are in line with the vast majority of Smith & Wesson shareholders.

On December 5, ,2023, Breitbart News noted that the anti-gun shareholders described AR-15 rifles as “machineguns” which should be regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Having posited this argument, they then claimed Smith & Wesson violates federal law by not limiting sales to buyers who submit to NFA guidelines/requirements.

Moreover, the anti-gun shareholders claimed “AR- 15-style rifles have been the weapon of choice for the killers responsible for the deadliest mass shootings in American history, including the recent mass murders in: (i) Buffalo, New York; (ii) Uvalde, Texas; (iii) Highland Park, Illinois; (iv) Colorado Springs, Colorado; (v) Nashville, Tennessee; (vi) Louisville, Kentucky; (vii) Allen, Texas; and (viii) Lewiston, Maine.”

Ironically, they do not mention the April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech University shooting in which an attacker armed with two handguns killed more people than were killed in any of the seven attacks they laid at the feet of AR-15s. The Virginia Tech attacker killed 32 people.

The court also ruled that the plaintiffs’ use of graphic images in their filings apparently had no legitimate reason to be included.

The judge also required the plaintiffs’ to post $500,000 as a bond in this case, which means that if Smith & Wesson wins, the plaintiffs’ will forfeit that money. This too signals that the judge is skeptical of the merits of the plaintiffs’ arguments, and is making them put real skin in the game to continue the challenge.

AR-15 rifles–and AR-15 variants–are made by numerous companies and comprise the most popular rifle and rifle platform in the United States.

What kind of demand exists for the AR-15 rifle/platform? On January 12, 2024, Breitbart News pointed to National Shooting Sports Foundation numbers showing there were over 28 million AR/AK-style rifles in the U.S. as of 2021, and that figure has certainly seen exponential growth during the past three years.

The suit is Adrian Dominican Sisters v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., No. A-23-882774-B in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada.

The Internet Of Things really is hot garbage.


Automakers Are Sharing Consumers’ Driving Behavior With Insurance Companies.

Kenn Dahl says he has always been a careful driver. The owner of a software company near Seattle, he drives a leased Chevrolet Bolt. He’s never been responsible for an accident.
So Mr. Dahl, 65, was surprised in 2022 when the cost of his car insurance jumped by 21 percent. Quotes from other insurance companies were also high. One insurance agent told him his LexisNexis report was a factor.
LexisNexis is a New York-based global data broker with a “Risk Solutions” division that caters to the auto insurance industry and has traditionally kept tabs on car accidents and tickets. Upon Mr. Dahl’s request, LexisNexis sent him a 258-page “consumer disclosure report,” which it must provide per the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
What it contained stunned him: more than 130 pages detailing each time he or his wife had driven the Bolt over the previous six months. It included the dates of 640 trips, their start and end times, the distance driven and an accounting of any speeding, hard braking or sharp accelerations. The only thing it didn’t have is where they had driven the car.
On a Thursday morning in June for example, the car had been driven 7.33 miles in 18 minutes; there had been two rapid accelerations and two incidents of hard braking.
According to the report, the trip details had been provided by General Motors — the manufacturer of the Chevy Bolt. LexisNexis analyzed that driving data to create a risk score “for insurers to use as one factor of many to create more personalized insurance coverage,” according to a LexisNexis spokesman, Dean Carney. Eight insurance companies had requested information about Mr. Dahl from LexisNexis over the previous month.
“It felt like a betrayal,” Mr. Dahl said. “They’re taking information that I didn’t realize was going to be shared and screwing with our insurance.”
In recent years, insurance companies have offered incentives to people who install dongles in their cars or download smartphone apps that monitor their driving, including how much they drive, how fast they take corners, how hard they hit the brakes and whether they speed. But “drivers are historically reluctant to participate in these programs,” as Ford Motor put it in a patent application that describes what is happening instead: Car companies are collecting information directly from internet-connected vehicles for use by the insurance industry.
Sometimes this is happening with a driver’s awareness and consent. Car companies have established relationships with insurance companies, so that if drivers want to sign up for what’s called usage-based insurance — where rates are set based on monitoring of their driving habits — it’s easy to collect that data wirelessly from their cars.
But in other instances, something much sneakier has happened. Modern cars are internet-enabled, allowing access to services like navigation, roadside assistance and car apps that drivers can connect to their vehicles to locate them or unlock them remotely. In recent years, automakers, including G.M., Honda, Kia and Hyundai, have started offering optional features in their connected-car apps that rate people’s driving. Some drivers may not realize that, if they turn on these features, the car companies then give information about how they drive to data brokers like LexisNexis.

Continue reading “”

Former NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre Has Cost the Gun Rights Movement North Of A Billion Dollars

Former CEO of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, has finally admitted virtually everything that he’s been accused of over the past five years, and a jury has found him liable for padding his own pockets to the tune of $5.5 million.

LaPierre’s hand-picked Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, Woody Phillips was also found liable for $2 million in personal profit at NRA members’ expense, and the NRA itself (really the NRA’s current Board of Directors) was found to have failed in its fiduciary obligations to shepherd and safeguard the members’ assets. Keep in mind that none of this really takes into account the millions paid to “consultants” with nothing of substance to show for it, or the hundreds of millions spent on lawyers and the losses in membership and revenue over the past five years.

All told, the bogus spending and lost income amount to something north of a billion dollars!

Now, New York Acting Supreme Court Justice Joel Cohen has the difficult task of deciding how best to remedy the situation. Unfortunately, there’s an important absence in Justice Cohen’s courtroom: the members of the NRA!

On one side of the table is Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York, who, during her election campaign, pledged to destroy the NRA and called it a terrorist organization.
On the other side of the table is the ridiculously overpriced lawyer William Brewer for the NRA (the Board), whose firm has been paid approximately $2 million per month – every month – for the past 5 years.

Every move William Brewer has made in that time has done nothing but dig the NRA’s hole deeper.

AG James and her office have a legal obligation to represent and protect the interests of the members of the NRA. Does anyone believe that she is, or has any interest in living up to that legal obligation? Is the interest of the NRA membership her primary motivation – or any part of her motivation – in this action?

William Brewer, III, the New York lawyer who claims residence in Dallas (and who was a big contributor to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and “Beto” O’Rourke (Seriously!), is supposedly representing the NRA. You’d think that his obligation would be to the NRA members, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. He was initially hired by Wayne LaPierre and has spent almost all of his efforts over the past 5 years making terrible legal moves that gave every appearance of protecting LaPierre at NRA members’ expense. Then, right before the trial started last month, LaPierre stepped down for “health reasons.”

Brewer then declared that the NRA’s position has always been that the Association was the victim of “unscrupulous vendors and insiders,” and, with LaPierre’s departure, the NRA has fixed all of the problems that allowed that victimization…

Sitting next to Brewer at the table isNRA Board President Charles Cotton and the NRA Board of Directors. Like AG James and attorney Brewer, Cotton and the Board have a legal, ethical, and moral duty to act in the best interest of the National Rifle Association – its members.

Well, there’s a problem. Like AG James and Attorney Brewer, President Cotton and the NRA Board appear to have divided loyalties as well.

Not only did they sit by and allow LaPierre, Phillips, and those “unscrupulous vendors” [read friends of Wayne] to siphon hundreds of millions of dollars out of NRA accounts over at least two decades, when the evidence of the corruption came to light in 2019, they rallied around LaPierre, loudly pronounced him innocent of any wrongdoing, and shunned, defamed, and denounced anyone who dared to even ask questions or suggest an investigation.

Rather than demanding an accounting and miscreants’ heads on pikes, Cotton and the assembled Board took every action to cover Wayne’s increasingly exposed backside.

Even as LaPierre’s story shifted over time, with new lies replacing old lies and newer lies replacing the previous lies, Cotton was at the forefront, repeating the lies – and adding in a few of his own – while defending LaPierre at every turn with the docile Board meekly “believing” and parroting each and every iteration as gospel.

So where is Justice Cohen supposed to turn to find a voice that truly represents NRA members?

He certainly can’t have any confidence that AG James, Attorney Brewer, or the officers or directors of the NRA truly represent the interests of rank-and-file NRA members. With this menagerie of conflicted and self-serving individuals, how is the judge supposed to determine what’s best for the NRA and its members? He should realize that the majority of NRA members who vote in Board elections and keep reelecting the same people to the Board, don’t trust the legacy media at all and get almost all of their trusted information about the NRA from NRA publications, which are controlled by the current regime. If he removes the obviously complicit Board members, how many would be left, and how many of those are incompetent and/or cowardly?

It would be pretty arrogant and presumptuous to suggest that the four of us who are running as reform candidates for NRA Board seats in the current 2024 election (Phil Journey, Rocky Marshall, Dennis Fusaro, and me, Jeff Knox) could speak for all NRA members. We do think we understand most members’ interests better than any of the previously mentioned characters, but who could possibly fairly represent three to four million others, and how is the judge supposed to find those representatives?

As you might have guessed, I have a few ideas on this topic.

The NRA has thousands of volunteers working every day all around the country.

From local state Friends of NRA committees, to Volunteer election Coordinators, to coaches, Range Safety Officers, match coordinators, Hunter Safety Education instructors, gun club officers, state association leaders, and more. Most of those volunteers, though not all of them, work through or under their local state association. The state associations are the natural heirs and beneficiaries of NRA’s assets, and they actively work to serve the needs of the NRA members in their state. While not all NRA members in a state are members of the state association, all members of the state associations are NRA members, and they are typically the most active and involved NRA members in the state.

Judge Cohen needs ready access to people who can authoritatively speak for NRA members. State associations and other NRA state affiliates are in the best position to provide him with that access.

It is my hope that the judge will remove all officers and directors who have failed in their fiduciary obligations to NRA members, appoint a Special Master or Receiver to oversee a thorough housecleaning and reorganization of the Association, and appoint a Members’ Committee, made up of candidates recommended by the various state associations, to help guide and direct that reorganization.

It all sounds simple on paper, but there’s a lot to do in a very short time.

  • The first step is to convince you that this is a good idea that should be pursued.
  • The second step is for you to help convince your local state association leaders that they really need to get involved and run with this idea.
  • The third step is for the state association leaders to petition the judge and convince him that he needs their help. Finally, the judge and the state association leaders will need to come up with some guidelines and processes for nominating candidates and submitting them to the judge.

The key to all of this is the involvement of state association leaders, and the key to getting those leaders involved is your advocacy. This can only happen if large numbers of NRA members begin pushing the idea at their local gun clubs and directly petition their state associations. Begin by sharing this article with your gun-owning friends and the leadership of your local clubs, Friends of NRA committees, and state association leaders. Follow that with calls and emails asking those leaders to take immediate action.

The NRA is literally on the verge of insolvency. The Association’s future is about to be decided by a New York judge who has limited knowledge or experience with the NRA or NRA members, and his only points of reference are the NRA-hating Attorney General, legacy media, and the self-serving NRA “leaders” who got the Association into this mess in the first place. The judge needs an alternative source of information. He needs to give NRA members a voice in the future of their organization, and a Members’ Committee nominated by state associations could provide that voice.

I truly believe Judge Cohen wants to do the right thing. He’s been very fair and reasonable throughout this whole long, drawn-out process. Let’s get the judge what he needs to make good decisions about the future of our organization. Let’s get our state associations to intervene in this case and give our members a real voice in the upcoming trial and the Association’s future.

Georgia Bill Makes Property Owners Liable for Injuries in Gun-Free Zones

Georgia House Bill 1364 makes property owners liable if a legal concealed carrier is harmed while barred from being armed for self-defense on the owner’s property.

HB 1364 says, “Any lawful weapons carrier who is prohibited from carrying… and who is injured… shall have a cause of action against the person, business or other entity that owns or legally controls such property,” according to 11 Alive.

The bill is sponsored by State Rep. Martin Momtahan (R).

Momtahan explained his motivation for introducing the legislation.

He said, “All we want to make sure is, if you’re in the store or anywhere and it has a ‘no gun’ sign, then that store needs to understand they have absolute custodial care of that person [who’s denied the ability to be armed].”

The text of HB 1364 clarifies that any posting that bars legal gun owners from being armed for self-defense must be accompanied by signage that makes clear the land owner understands his custodial duties:

Any public notice posted on a property that includes language which provides that weapons are prohibited on such property shall also contain language citing this Code section and providing that any lawful weapons carrier who is prohibited from carrying his or her weapon, including a concealed weapon, while on such property shall be under the absolute custodial care of the person, business, or other entity that owns or legally controls such property.

 

BLACK HILLS PICKS UP $30 MILLION NAVY/MARINE CORPS AMMO CONTRACT

South Dakota-based Black Hills last week beat out five other ammunition makers to deliver 9mm ammo to the Navy and Marine Corps.

The $30,885,083 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract covers the procurement, manufacturing, testing, inspection, and packaging of 9mm barrier blind cartridges to the Navy and Marine Corps. These will be for use in the services’ front-line 9mm pistols including the Beretta M9 and SIG Sauer M17 and M18.

The rounds were chosen for “combat purposes to provide enhanced terminal effects,” as described by the contracting agency, the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Corona Division, in Norco, California. NSWC Corona first listed the contract opportunity last June and had six competitive bids submitted.

Although it is not disclosed what loads were submitted for testing, Black Hills introduced its Honey Badger Line of self-defense ammo in 2015, which used a monolithic copper solid projectile to consistently penetrate barriers. In its 100-grain +P version, the Black Hills Honeybadger 9mm archives 1,250 FPS velocity out of a 4.4-inch test barrel and generates 347 foot-pounds of energy. The company also makes a 125-grain Subsonic Honeybadger.

 

The Black Hills 125-grain 9mm Subsonic Honeybadger
The Black Hills 125-grain 9mm Subsonic Honeybadger. (Graphic: Black Hills)

Compare this to the standard M1152 load developed by Winchester which was selected in 2016 as the ammunition supplier for the U.S. Army Modular Handgun System program. Using a 115-grain flat nose full metal jacketed bullet, the 9x19mm Luger round has a distinctive shape. With a brass case and military primer, it has an advertised velocity of 1,320 FPS at the muzzle which translates to 445 foot-pounds of energy. Downrange these shifts to 1,301/432 at 5 yards and 132/387 at 25 yards, according to the tables provided by the company.

The work on the Navy’s new barrier blind cartridge will be performed at Black Hills’ Rapid City plant and is expected to be completed by February 2029.

Judge Declares Fargo’s Ban on Home-Based Gun Businesses Goes Too Far

For several years the city of Fargo, North Dakota has prohibited FFL’s from operating out of their homes, but the state legislature took aim at that restriction last year and passed a law that bans localities from establishing zoning ordinances that specifically include firearms and ammunition based businesses.

The city almost immediately filed suit challenging the law, but this week state District Judge Cherie Clark ruled against Fargo; tossing out the city’s lawsuit and rejecting its argument that the zoning preemption law violates the state constitution and the home rule powers granted to local authorities.

“While the Court agrees that (the North Dakota Constitution) intends for ‘maximum local self-government,’ the law is not settled that this language alone provides home rule cities the right to legislate on topics the state legislature has limited,” the judge wrote.

But she also expressed concerns about the Legislature’s actions: “If the legislature continues to pare home rule powers, home rule cities lack the discretion to address important issues impacting their respective and unique communities.”

What, exactly, is so unique about Fargo that federal firearms licensees shouldn’t be allowed to operate a home-based business? The city has never offered a good explanation, instead blithely asserting that it “does not want its residents to utilize their homes in residential areas as gun stores.”

Well, tough. There’s no prohibition in either state or federal law that precludes home-based FFLs, and it doesn’t appear that any other locality in the state has tried to erect any similar barriers, so why should FFLs in Fargo be punished or forced to spend money on a brick-and-mortar location, especially if they’re selling guns on a part-time basis?

This is actually the second law that the state legislature has adopted to deal with Fargo’s restrictions, but the city was successful in defending its ordinance in 2021, which led lawmakers to try again last year.

Bill sponsor and Republican state Rep. Ben Koppelman told a state Senate panel in April that the issue came to greater attention in 2016 when, because of the ordinance, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives refused to renew the federal firearms licenses of Fargo dealers who sold out of their homes.

“What is at issue is whether we want local governments creating gun control or whether we want gun regulations to remain a state-controlled issue,” Koppelman said in April. “Without this bill and in light of the (2021) court opinion, I think local political subdivisions could propose all sorts of local gun control, and based on the anti-gun track record of the City of Fargo Commission, I think we could expect it.”

Both sides in the lawsuit agree that the issue at hand goes beyond the zoning laws in question, and instead touches on the ability of home-rule localities to pass their own laws in any number of areas. But even though the North Dakota Constitution compelled the state legislature to come up with a home-rule statute and lawmakers granted home-rule communities the authority to adopt ordinances, resolutions, and regulations that provide for public health, safety, morals, and welfare, it’s still within the state’s authority to declare certain subjects off-limits to local control.

Three years ago the legislature adopted a preemption law stating:

1. A political subdivision, including home rule cities or counties, may not enact a zoning ordinance or any other ordinance relating to the purchase, sale, ownership, possession,transfer of ownership, registration, or licensure of firearms and ammunition which is more restrictive than state law. All such existing ordinances are void.

A state judge ruled that Fargo’s home-based FFL zoning prohibition could still be enforced because the state had no regulations concerning commercial firearms sales. While most of us would conclude that any zoning ordinance would be more restrictive than a state law that doesn’t exist, District Judge Stephannie Nicole Stiel sided with Fargo’s argument that the ordinance in question wasn’t more restrictive than state law because state statutes were silent on commercial gun sales sales.

That’s not the case these days, thanks to the legislature’s response last year, and Judge Clark made the right call, even though her editorializing on the legislature’s actions was completely unnecessary. Fargo officials could still appeal Clark’s decision, but the odds of success are pretty long, and it would be a waste of time and taxpayer money to try to keep this needless ordinance in place instead of accepting home-based FFLs and the tax revenue they generate.

NRA Loses Corruption Case, LaPierre Liable for Millions

Manhattan, New York — The National Rifle Association failed to safeguard its donor’s funds while Wayne LaPierre diverted millions toward lavish personal expenses.

That’s the finding a six-person jury handed down on Friday after a week of deliberations. They sided with New York Attorney General Letitia James (D.) against the NRA and its leadership. In addition to the group and its former CEO Lapierre, the jury also ruled against former Treasurer Woody Phillips and General Counsel John Frazer.

The six-member jury in the civil case found LaPierre did $5.4 million worth of harm to the NRA by using its charitable funds to pay for things like private jet travel. They determined he’d already paid back about a million dollars of that harm, but also that there was enough evidence to bar him from being the group’s CEO in the future.

They found Phillips had violated his duty to work in good faith for the NRA, and that his briefly-lived post-employment contract was an unauthorized related-party transaction. However, they found it didn’t do any monetary harm to the organization. Similarly, the jurors found Frazer had violated his duty to the group and authorized “materially false” statements the NRA made on a government disclosure about related party transactions, but they also found his actions didn’t cause the group monetary harm and there wasn’t cause to remove him.

The jury also found a series of payments made to board members or people related to NRA employees were not properly approved ahead of time, but all but two–hair and makeup for Wayne LaPierre’s wife and speaking fees for former NRA president David Keene–were properly approved after the fact. However, they also found the NRA did not have a proper whistle-blower policy for years and did nothing to prevent retaliation against eight whistle-blowers identified in the case.

Judge Joel Cohen is now tasked with deciding what remedies are appropriate for the damages the jury has identified. What he decides will determine the future of the nation’s largest gun-rights group. In addition to barring LaPierre from working with the NRA or other non-profits, he could force the former CEO to pay the organization back for expenses the jury found were unlawful. But he could also appoint a monitor to oversee the NRA’s operations, which might completely transform the group’s leadership and internal operations.

A significant overhaul of the most prominent gun group in America will have a substantial impact on gun politics throughout the nation, especially since it’s far from clear the group can recover.

Of course, the corruption allegations and legal ordeal have already made a tremendous mark on the NRA. Since news of the illicit spending broke in 2018, the group has experienced an unprecedented exodus of members. Millions of people have abandoned the organization, with nobody quite sure how many remain. That’s led directly to a funding shortfall that has forced the group to slash spending on key programs, such as gun safety training and political campaigns, while pouring an unprecedented amount into controversial legal bills.

The group has continued to see declines in fundraising and will likely only be a shadow of its former self in the upcoming 2024 presidential election.

LaPierre, who resigned in the middle of the trial, and the NRA have argued that downfall was AG James’s goal from the beginning. They noted she had promised to investigate the group during her campaign, which she said wasn’t a charity but a “terrorist organization.” Her initial complaint sought the total shutdown of the NRA.

“The fact is, Letitia James set out to destroy the NRA, and the best way to do that was to destroy Wayne LaPierre,” P. Kent Correll, who represents the former CEO, said in closing arguments.

However, Judge Cohen and an appellate court rejected the argument that the case was solely a political attack when the NRA sought to have it dismissed. However, Judge Cohen also removed dissolution as a potential remedy because he argued it would be detrimental to NRA members–the people James is tasked with protecting in the suit.

“In short, the Complaint does not allege the type of public harm that is the legal linchpin for imposing the ‘corporate death penalty,’” he wrote in his opinion. “Moreover, dissolving the NRA could impinge, at least indirectly, on the free speech and assembly rights of its millions of members.

But he let the case proceed because the allegations “tell a grim story of greed, self-dealing, and lax financial oversight at the highest levels of the National Rifle Association.”

In addition to the argument about James’s political motivations, the NRA focused much of its defense on the claim it had already instituted enough reforms to self-correct. It argued that many of the illicit expenses at issue in the case did happen, but the NRA had since fired some of those involved and established internal controls to address the problems. It also attacked as unreliable former insiders, including board members and executives, who testified against those claims in court.

“The NRA Board of Directors, which is the seat of the NRA’s corporate governance, acted in good faith and with ordinary care,” the NRA’s lawyer argued.

“Ladies and gentlemen, when you’re caught in the act, saying you’re sorry now, saying that you’ll do better, doesn’t mean you didn’t take the cookie,” the AG’s lawyer responded.

As has been the case with some current NRA insiders, the group’s current leadership failed to convince the jury they resolved the issues.

Neither the NRA nor the AG responded to requests for comment.

Judge Cohen will now schedule the next trial phase, where he will be responsible for determining the final settlement of the case.

Jury finds NRA and ex-CEO Wayne LaPierre liable in civil corruption trial

The jurors determined there was cause to remove LaPierre and that he owes the organization nearly $4 million.

Former National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre has been ordered to pay nearly $4 million to the nonprofit after a jury on Friday found him liable in a civil corruption trial brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The defendants, which included the NRA itself, the organization’s general counsel and corporate secretary John Frazer and former treasurer and chief financial officer Wilson “Woody” Phillips, were accused of using the nonprofit as a “personal piggy bank” in a civil lawsuit filed by James in 2020. James alleged that they violated nonprofit laws and misused tens of millions in NRA funds for personal gain.

After a week of deliberation, the jury agreed that the attorney general had proved her case, finding each of the defendants liable for violating their statutory obligations. The jury determined that LaPierre cost the organization more than $5 million but had already repaid $1.4 million. Phillips was held to have harmed the group to the tune of $2 million; the jury did not put a dollar amount on Frazer’s violation.

In their argument, attorneys for the NRA had sought to distance the organization from LaPierre, who announced his resignation as CEO just days before the trial began in January, after more than 30 years at the helm. Sarah Rogers, representing the organization, said in opening arguments that LaPierre, though a “valuable and visionary leader, was “not always a meticulous corporate executive” and questioned why the NRA was even a defendant in the case.

LaPierre’s attorneys, however, maintained that he used private jets not for personal gain, but to raise funds for the organization and for gun rights causes — even as LaPierre himself testified that he improperly expensed private flights and failed to disclose accepting luxury vacations from vendors.

“He was a visionary,” his lawyer P. Kent Correll said in closing arguments on Thursday. “He was a genius.”

NY vs. NRA: Statement by Former BOD Timothy Knight

The verdict in the NY vs. NRA case is due shortly.

Although I believe the case had some political motivations behind it based on the words of the New York Attorney General when she was running for office, I don’t think NRA members should dismiss the grave concerns revealed in what is now several court cases.

I, along with a few other directors, expressed concerns over the misappropriation of funds both internally and then later publicly in 2019.

We recognized who our boss actually was: our fellow members who were faithfully paying their dues.

We did not believe the NRA Board and management were holding to the mission of the Association, nor were they being transparent about expenses. Every NRA Director has a duty to the members, the law, and the NRA’s mission statement. Several of us were dismissed from our committees and accused of disloyalty towards the NRA for raising our financial concerns. Most Board members were too scared to stand up to Wayne and his cronies, especially Marion Hammer. Other Board members were part of the management cabal themselves and had no intention of changing a thing. So, the Board circled their wagons and remained silent. They were unwilling or unable to speak up or divided on where their loyalties lay.

The current NRA Board has failed in its duty to the NRA members, and I think that every single Board member who hasn’t openly spoken up about reform and responsibility should resign immediately.

Our Association deserves bold, honorable, and honest Board members focused on their legal responsibilities and on the members who elected them. No more should they focus on those who can dole out favors, vacations, car rides, consulting fees, and other grafts. We need to stop electing the silent, the complicit, or those who hope to be “trusted remainders” when this all blows over. Board members who are 2nd Amendment heroes, politicians, or captains of industry might once have been effective for our association. They are no longer effective and need to resign as well.

To fix our association, we need a much smaller board with term limits as well as a significant revision of the structure the board operates under. Strict disclosure rules for Board members and management need to be enforced and shared with NRA members during the annual meeting. This information should be disclosed to everyone during the main members’ business meeting, which is open to the public.

I trust the members who make up the association and in the mission statement that should always keep it focused. We need new leadership and a new board now. If both do not change, the slow degradation of our once great association will do more damage to our civil rights, hunting culture, gun safety education, and competitions that we can ill afford. My fellow members, if the court does not grant you the remedy you think is deserved, please stop supporting the do nothing, ne’er do wells, and the faded heroes.

I look forward to the day when the NRA, once again, through hard work and results, regains the trust of millions of law-abiding gun owners. We are stronger when we stand together as hunters, competitors, enthusiasts, advocates, and educators.

Timothy Knight
NRA Board of Directors 2015-2019

Analysis: Can the NRA Recover?

A jury is currently considering the fate of the charges against the NRA and its top leadership. Whatever they decide, it’s worth asking if the nation’s largest gun-rights group can ever reach its former heights under any outcome.

The NRA, former CEO Wayne LaPierre, and the other defendants offered up their closing arguments while the New York Attorney General’s office tried to counter them on Thursday. Judge Joel Cohen then read out his instructions to the jury on how to decide the dispute on Friday. The six New Yorkers then headed back to deliberate and didn’t return.

They’ll be back at it on Tuesday. It’s possible–perhaps probable–that they will find the NRA and its leadership didn’t properly administer the non-profit’s funds. They may then recommend the judge force LaPierre and the other individual defendants to repay tens of millions to the NRA as well as ban them from working at any non-profit again. After that, the judge could appoint an overseer to scrutinize the NRA’s governing structure and operations.

If that happens, the gun-rights group will undergo what’s likely to be a significant internal makeover. If, instead, the jury sides with the NRA and individual defendants, it will probably continue on with the strategy it has been pursuing since the controversy began.

Either way, it will be a huge challenge for the group to return to where it was before the corruption allegations surfaced. In 2018, before the scandal blew up, the NRA’s Form 990 shows it brought in over $350 million. The group’s revenue has shrunk every year since then and was down to just over $211 million in 2022.

Of course, it’s hard to know exactly what will happen. The NRA has lost millions of members, and it’s not clear how many it has left. Regaining their trust will probably be a taller task for the NRA than other groups who’ve found themselves in at least somewhat similar circumstances.

Most non-profit scandals don’t drag on this long or reach the point of a jury trial. NRA leadership would likely argue that’s because the AG’s political bias has motivated her to take this case further than others, and the AG would probably respond by saying the NRA refused to come into compliance with the law by making necessary reforms.

Whichever view you take, the bottom line is that perfect examples of what might happen to the NRA really don’t exist.

However, some recent high-profile scandals might still be instructive. Two examples provide some particularly interesting insight into the different paths the NRA might take and how that could work out.

In 2012, the Susan G. Komen Foundation became the center of a public relations firestorm after it dropped grants for breast cancer screening exams at Planned Parenthood (before later reversing itself). The decision alienated a substantial portion of the group’s donor base and subjected them to political attacks. It also increased scrutiny of how the organization was run.

The scrutiny led to numerous stories on founder and CEO Nancy Brinker’s lavish spending habits and questionable governing style. Critics questioned her $400,000 salary. They also raised concerns over her expensive travel habits.

Brinker, who had built Komen into a nationally recognized charity, eventually stepped down to make way for new leadership. But that decision took over a year to take effect and came after she received a 64 percent raise that only generated more controversy.

Komen’s Form 990 shows it brought in just under $200 million in 2012. It shrunk fast after that, and it’s never recovered. In 2023, the group brought in just over $100 million.

In January 2016, the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) came under fire for extravagant parties and luxury accommodations provided to its leadership and staff during retreats paid for by the veterans’ charity. By March, the group decided to fire its top executives. It cleaned the slate and moved forward under entirely new leadership from outside the organization.

The relatively quick action did not prevent tremendous donor backlash. The group’s 2016 990 shows it brought in over $320 million. It fell to about $225 million the next year and stayed under $300 million the next few years. However, the group has been able to recover its revenue. Last year, it brought in over $400 million.

So, what WWP did to respond to its spending controversy seems to have worked in the long term.

The accusations of misappropriation of funds in the NRA’s scandal eclipses the severity and duration of those for either Komen or WWP. Neither of the other groups ended up embroiled in a court case, and both ended up wiping away their leadership in an effort to win back donors.

The gun-rights group has experienced similar declines in membership and revenue to the other embattled charities. And it appears to still be shrinking.

To this point, the NRA has responded in a way closer to Komen than WWP. Given the makeup of current leadership, which includes LaPierre allies who approved the questionable spending that has them in court, it’s unlikely the group will change course if the judge and jury leave them in charge. If they’re ousted, there’s greater potential for the NRA to see a significant–though unpredictable–shift.

Swift and substantial reform appeared to work better for WWP than the slow and plodding path did for Komen.

It has already been five years since allegations that NRA leadership, especially LaPierre, diverted millions upon millions of the group’s funds toward private flights, five-star hotels, and luxury vacations or sweetheart deals with friends or family. The group is still run by largely the same people it was then, with LaPierre remaining in charge until this month and only stepping down of his own accord.

Even under the best-case scenario imaginable for the NRA, it will be challenging to win back the millions that have now abandoned the group. But it’s not an impossible task.

For your consideration.
I too, ‘sorta’ agree with Ms. Hammer.
And I totally agree with Mr. Richarson.


I Actually Agree With Marion On This

As weird as it may seem I find myself somewhat in agreement with Marion Hammer. I was forwarded an email from her to the NRA-EVP Search Committee.

She made the point that the committee needs to look outside the current NRA operations for the person that can be a success as the next CEO and EVP of the NRA.

Here is her email and the members of the committee:

TO: The Members of the NRA-EVP Search Committee:

Congressman Bob Barr – Chairman
Professor David Coy
Carol Frampton, Esq.
Curtis Jenkins, Esq.
Sheriff Jay Printz
Barbara Rumpel
Chief Blaine Wade

Friends,

At the risk of being redundant, I must say that these are tough times for the NRA.  The right leader or leaders is essential for NRA’s future.  I say leaders because I’m not sure that you can find one person who can do the job.

You might need someone to be the public face of NRA. To do the TV and all media coverage and essentially be the person out front representing NRA and the work we do.

You also might need to find someone to be the workhorse.  Someone to make the tough decisions about running the day to day operations who won’t be afraid to “break some eggs to make an omelet”  and who isn’t afraid to terminate people who are only interested in themselves and not the NRA and our cause.

I seriously doubt that anyone currently involved with NRA operations meets either need.  Don’t be afraid to look outside of NRA for fresh new leaders who care about NRA.  Our members are depending on you to find the right person or persons.

When I look at you, I see 2 current NRA Officers, 2 lawyers, 2 law enforcement representatives and one average person.  None of you is what I would consider a high end business person, yet we must look at the business perspective.

Whatever you decide, Is up to you.  I wouldn’t want to be in your position with the world watching me and expecting perfection.  Nonetheless, you must live in a “fishbowl” until the job is done, and then you must live with your decisions.

Please take your time and be thorough. Please be transparent with the NRA Board and don’t be afraid to reach out to Board members for information and advice. Always remember that there are good business people with incredible business knowledge on the Board who are there to serve.  Use them.

I wish you all the very best of luck as you embark on a mission that is essential for the future of NRA and our members.

Marion Hammer

Now as to what bothers me in all of this.

The committee is composed of the same old Board members who allowed Wayne to get away with his grifting, who didn’t object to Brewer’s billing, and who allowed a whole host of things that has led the NRA to be reduced to a shadow of its former self. Unless I am greatly mistaken and we the members get really lucky, anyone chosen by this bunch will not renovate nor reinvigorate the NRA. The organization will continue to muddle along with same old mindset appealing to an ever aging membership.

Interesting that Buz Mills was left off the list. Likewise, it is interesting Charles Cotton is off the list. Could this be so that Cotton could be their pick for the next EVP? God forbid!

NRA Board Elections: Support the Four for Reform Candidates

Four candidates dedicated to reforming the troubled NRA will be on the ballot for election to the NRA Board of Directors this year. Judge Phil Journey, Rocky MarshallDennis Fusaro, and me, Jeff Knox, all qualified for the ballot by petition of the members.

We are encouraging people to vote for only these four and no one else. This is called “Bullet Voting” and gives your votes more weight, increasing the odds of us winning seats.

Ballots are supposed to be in the March issue of NRA magazines for those members eligible to vote.

Winning a Board seat without the support of the current regime at the NRA is historically close to impossible.

Since only NRA Life Members, and those Annual Members who have been members for at least 5 consecutive years, without interruption, are eligible to vote, and since those eligible voters are only known to the NRA itself, and that information is not available to us, we have no choice but to use a shotgun approach in our attempts to get our message out. If we had access to the voter list, we’d reach out directly to those voters. If we had tens of thousands of dollars in our campaign coffers, we’d have placed ads in the various NRA magazines. But we don’t have access to the list, and we don’t have unlimited resources, so the best we can do is try to reach as many potential voters as we can through broad channels like AmmoLand News, email blasts, and asking others to help spread the word.

Each year, the NRA sends out around 2.5 million ballots to Voting Members, but only about 5% of those are ever returned, meaning that almost 2 million ballots are left on the shelf, taken to local libraries, relegated to the magazine rack next to the toilet, and eventually thrown away. Finding and activating those un-voted ballots this year could be the key to getting the reform candidates elected, so we need your help and the help of gun media nationwide.

  • He could order them to clean up their act and go forth to sin no more – which would leave the same people in charge who allowed this mess in the first place.
  • Or he could go so far as to dissolve the current board, throw out the current election, and order a new election, taking additional months.
  • He could also appoint a Special Master or overseer to take charge of reorganizing the NRA.

He has a lot of leeway and options, and we can only guess at what he might do, so we’re trying to position ourselves in the best position to participate in the resurrection of the Association, whatever the judge decides.

There’s also a good chance that the NRA will appeal any decision that goes against them, resulting in more delays and more NRA member money being poured into the pockets of lawyers. For the time being, our focus must be on getting our four reform candidates elected.

2024 NRA Board Election Reform Candidates Whos Who
2024 NRA Board Election Reform Candidates

Continue reading “”

Financial Big Brother is Watching You
A brief note on an overlooked nightmare.

A few weeks ago, Ohio congressman and Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan’s office released a letter to Noah Bishoff, the former director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, an arm of the Treasury Department. Jordan’s team was asking Bishoff for answers about why FinCEN had “distributed slides, prepared by a financial institution,” detailing how other private companies might use MCC transaction codes to “detect customers whose transactions may reflect ‘potential active shooters.’” The slide suggested the “financial company” was sorting for terms like “Trump” and “MAGA,” and watching for purchases of small arms and sporting goods, or purchases in places like pawn shops or Cabela’s, to identify financial threats.

Jordan’s letter to Bishoff went on:

According to this analysis, FinCEN warned financial institutions of “extremism” indicators that include “transportation charges, such as bus tickets, rental cars, or plane tickets, for travel to areas with no apparent purpose,” or “the purchase of books (including religious texts) and subscriptions to other media containing extremist views.”

During the Twitter Files, we searched for snapshots of the company’s denylist algorithms, i.e. whatever rules the platform was using to deamplify or remove users. We knew they had them, because they were alluded to often in documents (a report on the denylist is_Russian, which included Jill Stein and Julian Assange, was one example). However, we never found anything like the snapshot Jordan’s team just published:

The highlighted portion shows how algorithmic analysis works in financial surveillance. First compile a list of naughty behaviors, in the form of MCC codes for guns, sporting goods, and pawn shops. Then, create rules: $2,500 worth of transactions in the forbidden codes, or a number showing that more than 50% of the customer’s transactions are the wrong kind, might trigger a response. The Committee wasn’t able to specify what the responses were in this instance, but from previous experience covering anti-money-laundering (AML) techniques at banks like HSBC, a good guess would be generation of something like Suspcious Activity Reports, which can lead to a customer being debanked.

If Facebook, Twitter, and Google have already shown a tendency toward wide-scale monitoring of speech and the use of subtle levers to apply pressure on attitudes, financial companies can use records of transactions to penetrate individual behaviors far more deeply. Especially if enhanced by AI, a financial history can give almost any institution an immediate, unpleasantly accurate outline of anyone’s life, habits, and secrets. Worse, they can couple that picture with a powerful disciplinary lever, in the form of the threat of closed accounts or reduced access to payment services or credit. Jordan’s slide is a picture of the birth of the political credit score.

There’s more coming on this, and other articles forthcoming (readers who’ve noticed it’s been quiet around here will soon find out why). While the world falls to pieces over Tucker, Putin, and Ukraine, don’t overlook this horror movie. If banks and the Treasury are playing the same domestic spy game that Twitter and Facebook have been playing with the FBI, tales like the frozen finances of protesting Canadian truckers won’t be novelties for long. As is the case with speech, where huge populations have learned to internalize censorship rules almost overnight, we may soon have to learn the hard way that even though some behaviors aren’t illegal, they can still be punished with great effectiveness, in a Terminator-like world where computers won’t miss anything that moves.

What a crazy time we live in! See you from the Nevada caucus, and watch this space for other news soon.

Alaska joins 28-states in urging Biden admin to not restrict ammunition sales

Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor signed onto a 28-state letter to the Biden administration, responding to another letter that had urged the administration to restrict ammunition manufacturers who receive federal funds from selling ammunition to citizens.

“We Have seen this administration take full advantage of wordplay to restrict the rights of American citizens,” Gov. Mike Dunleavy said in a Jan. 26 statement. “Politicians, ignorant of the tools and practices they fight to restrict, use catchphrases like ‘military grade’ to create the illusion that these rights are not meant for the average citizen. They hate that law-abiding citizens have these rights and will use these underhanded tactics to take them away if allowed. I will always fight to preserve those rights given to citizens at the time our nation was founded and the ability to exercise those rights. In this case, that means fighting to ensure that citizens who have the right to arms also have reasonable access to ammunition.”

The original letter, written by leaders of several Democrat-led states requests that the Biden administration investigate Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. The letter claims that ammunition manufacturers who receive federal funds should not be allowed to also sell ammunition to the general public, and states that the ammunition has been used by mass shooters to commit crimes.

The response letter, joined by Alaska, argues that this restriction would limit law-abiding citizens’ ability to obtain ammunition and to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

240125-Letter

US appeals court revives Mexico’s $10 billion lawsuit against gun makers

BOSTON (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Monday revived a $10 billion lawsuit by Mexico seeking to hold American gun manufacturers responsible for facilitating the trafficking of weapons to drug cartels across the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower-court judge’s decision dismissing the case on the grounds that a U.S. law barred Mexico from suing Smith & Wesson Brands, Sturm, Ruger & Co and others.

That law, the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), provides the firearms industry broad protection from lawsuits over their products’ misuse.

Mexico’s lawyers argued the law only bars lawsuits over injuries that occur in the U.S. and does not shield the seven manufacturers and one distributor it sued from liability over the trafficking of guns to Mexican criminals.

U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta, writing for the three-judge panel, said that while the law can be applied to lawsuits by foreign governments, Mexico’s lawsuit “plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt from the PLCAA’s general prohibition.”
Lawyers for Mexico and the gun makers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Mexico says over 500,000 guns are trafficked annually from the U.S. into Mexico, of which more than 68% are made by the companies it sued, which also include Beretta USA, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Colt’s Manufacturing Co and Glock Inc.

In its August 2021 complaint, Mexico estimated that 2.2% of the nearly 40 million guns made annually in the U.S. are smuggled into Mexico, including as many as 597,000 guns made by the defendants.

Mexico said the smuggling has been a key factor in its ranking third worldwide in the number of gun-related deaths. It also claimed to suffer many other harms, including declining investment and economic activity and a need to spend more on law enforcement and public safety.

The companies deny wrongdoing. Their lawyers say Mexico’s lawsuit is devoid of allegations the gun manufacturers’ gun sales themselves did anything that would create an exception to PLCAA’s broad protections.

Lawmakers propose 11 day sales tax holiday for Georgia gun purchases

The Georgia legislative session for 2024 is underway and Gov. Brian Kemp is aiming to give state residents relief on taxes.

While Kemp’s plan, according to his remarks at the State of the State address, were focused on lowering state income taxes, some lawmakers have an extra plan in mind.

A group of 21 state senators filed legislation on Jan. 11 to make guns, gun safes, accessories and ammunition tax free for 11 days each year.

According to the legislative text of Senate Bill 344, the bill would make firearms, ammunition, gun safes and related accessories exempt from state sales and use taxes from the second Friday of October to the fourth Monday of October each year.