The National Rifle Association, commonly known as the NRA, is one of the most prominent and controversial gun rights advocacy groups in the United States. Founded in 1871, the NRA has evolved from its early days of promoting marksmanship and shooting sports to being a major political force and lobbying organization with significant influence over gun policy. But with recent scrutiny over its finances and allegations of misuse of funds, many are questioning if the NRA still wields the same power and influence it once did. This article will examine the history of the NRA, its current status, and whether it is still a relevant force in the gun debate today.
Brief history of the NRA
The NRA was founded in 1871 by two Union Army veterans, Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate, who wanted to promote and encourage rifle shooting as a recreational activity. The organization received a charter from the state of New York and focused on building rifle ranges, sponsoring shooting competitions, and publishing magazines and newsletters related to marksmanship.
In the early 1900s, the NRA began pushing for the enactment of the first federal gun laws, including waiting periods for handgun sales and banning concealed carry. Ironically, these early gun regulations were supported by the NRA as “reasonable, sane, and fair legislation.”
The NRA saw its mission shift in 1934 under the leadership of Karl Frederick. He focused the group more on sport shooting and hunting. However, in the 1960s and 1970s, under the leadership of Maxwell Rich, the NRA took on a more political tone and expanded its lobbying efforts around the debate over gun control.
This pivot was accelerated even further in 1977, when Harlon Carter became the head of the NRA lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. Carter steered the organization firmly into the political arena to protect Second Amendment rights through campaign donations and lobbying. This activist, uncompromising approach shaped the modern NRA.
The NRA’s power and influence
The NRA derives much of its political power from being a highly organized grassroots organization with millions of dues-paying members. Current membership is estimated to be approximately 5 million.
The organization rates political candidates based on their stances on gun rights. Good ratings bring endorsements and support from a dedicated NRA base. Bad ratings can trigger active campaigns against a candidate. This system motivates legislators to align with the NRA’s stances if they want NRA support.
In addition to grassroots mobilization, the NRA channels money to candidates through its lobbying arm and political action committees. In the 2016 election cycle alone, the NRA spent over $50 million supporting Donald Trump and six-figure amounts backing congressional candidates.
This financial war chest and massive membership base gives the NRA political clout beyond its actual size. Most estimates find that NRA members comprise just 1-5% of the U.S. gun-owning population. Yet its mobilization capabilities enable an outsized influence over gun policy.
Criticisms and controversies around the NRA
The NRA has faced growing criticism in recent years over a number of issues:
Inaction after mass shootings
The NRA typically remains silent for some time after high-profile mass shootings such as Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, and Parkland. After breaking its silence, its typical response is to say that now is not the time to discuss policy changes or that the solutions are focused too narrowly on gun policy rather than mental health or school safety. This draws outrage from gun control advocates.
Hardline stances against any restrictions
Critics argue the NRA routinely opposes even modest, reasonable proposals such as universal background checks and bans on high-capacity ammunition magazines. This unwillingness to find common ground angers gun control supporters.
Heated and controversial rhetoric
NRA leaders draw condemnation for using aggressive, militaristic language. Examples include past president Charlton Heston raising a rifle over his head and proclaiming they would have to take it “from my cold, dead hands,” and current spokeswoman Dana Loesch claiming they were ready to “fist” the New York Times. Critics claim this rhetoric is dangerous.
Foreign influence and Russia ties
Investigations found that Russian nationals used the NRA as part of their efforts to influence the 2016 election. For example, the NRA spent millions in support of Trump. This raises questions about foreign money filtering into the NRA’s political spending.
Financial mismanagement
Recent allegations claim improper insider dealing, exorbitant expenses and consultant contracts, and other graft has depleted NRA reserves from $163 million in 2015 to just $59 million in 2018. Lawsuits threaten their tax-exempt, nonprofit status. This undercuts their claims of wise stewardship of member funds.
Is the NRA losing power and influence?
Given the controversies swirling around it, some signs indicate that the NRA may be losing its vaunted influence, including:
Declining public opinion
Polling shows NRA favorability dropping to historic lows, with just 37% of Americans now expressing a positive opinion. The number who perceive the NRA having “too much influence” has risen to 60%. As public opinion turns, lawmakers may have more freedom to defy the NRA.
Less spending in midterm elections
The NRA spent just half as much supporting candidates in the 2018 midterms compared to 2014 and 2016. With less money to spread around, they have less leverage and sway over legislators.
Corporate backlash
After Parkland, companies such as Delta and Metlife ended promotional partnerships with the NRA after public pressure. Bank of America stopped providing banking services. This corporate backlash deprives the NRA of revenue streams.
Legal and financial challenges
New York state has sued to disband the NRA over financial mismanagement. Washington D.C. sued over improper use of charitable funds for political spending. Ongoing lawsuits and depleted reserves distract and weaken the organization.
Evidence the NRA still wields power
However, there remain signs the NRA retains formidable influence, including:
Political spending remains high
Despite a decline in 2018 midterm spending, the NRA still put $9 million behind House candidates and $25 million overall. They still significantly outspend gun control groups. This spending to shape electoral outcomes remains impactful.
Strong support in Congress
The NRA has cultivated reliable supporters in Congress. In the wake of recent mass shootings, almost all proposals for enhanced gun control measures have failed to advance in the Republican-held Senate. Few GOP Senators dare cross the NRA.
Support among conservative voters
The NRA has high favorability among Republican voters and conservatives. As long as this core base remains aligned, GOP lawmakers will feel little pressure to defy NRA priorities. The NRA can quickly punish dissent.
Continued opposition to gun regulations
After shootings, the NRA still vocally mobilizes members to oppose new gun restrictions. Few meaningful gun regulations have been enacted at the federal level in decades. With its objections, the NRA often succeeds at stopping legislation.
The NRA in the era of Trump
With a gun-friendly president in the White House and Republicans controlling the Senate, the NRA has significant influence on federal gun policy. The Trump era has seen:
– Appointment of two conservative Supreme Court Justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh)
– Stalled efforts in Congress to enact gun regulations
– Rollback of Obama-era rules on gun background checks and Social Security disability reporting
Under Trump, the NRA has an open channel to advocate for its priorities. This demonstrates the NRA can still leverage its connections to shape policy when Republicans hold power.
Conclusion
While the NRA faces growing public frustration and legal challenges, it remains an influential force in the national debate over guns. Its spending and lobbying capabilities still sway many lawmakers at the federal and state levels against enacting new gun control measures.
However, cracks in the NRA’s armor are showing, as public opinion shifts and more scrutiny is directed at its uncompromising stance in the wake of horrific shootings. Its ability to deliver electoral wins for candidates who align with its priorities may be weakened. But until America’s gun culture changes significantly, the NRA’s grassroots support gives it a voice that can’t be ignored.