Earlier this year the NRA filed a lawsuit against sister organization the NRA Foundation making multiple allegations. The NRA Foundation recently filed a motion to dismiss the NRA’s amended complaint.
National Rifle Association v. NRA Foundation was filed in January. In the lawsuit the NRA alleges that the Foundation, a 501(c)(3) “which is a subsidiary of the NRA,” threatened to withhold funds, are in trademark violation, are engaging in “cybersquatting,” and made other allegations. The Foundation has maintained that they’re upholding their fiduciary duties, that the NRA’s claims are without merit, and the NRA is making “speculative claims, mischaracterizations and misrepresentations.” On April 24, the Foundation filed another motion to dismiss the NRA’s case with prejudice. This was in response to the NRA requesting a partial summary judgment.
A representative of the NRA Foundation emailed Bearing Arms a notice about the filing. In the email the representative linked to the website FoundationFacts.org. The origin and ownership of the site has been in question since its publication. That email was the closest that we’ve received to provenance. Further, in the time since the site was published, they have added a copyright notice, “© Copyright – The NRA Foundation, Inc.,” — absent on the original page — in the footer of the site.
Previously the Foundation Facts page was sent to Bearing Arms from someone not publicly and directly linked to the Foundation and there was no verifying its authenticity. At this juncture, between the copyright notification and the message from a Foundation contractor, we can trust the authenticity of the page’s pedigree.
The lawsuit between the feuding entities, the NRA — the 501(c)(4) — and NRA Foundation — the (c)(3) — comes in the wake of two high-profile civil lawsuits. There was a lawsuit filed in New York by Attorney General Letitia James. And, there’s a lesser-known lawsuit that was filed by the Attorney General of the District of Columbia. The outcomes of the lawsuits found that both the NRA and NRA Foundation had to adopt some new governance practices and commit to change.
The NRA Foundation contends that the changes they’ve made the last couple years were in direct response to the stipulated judgment in the D.C. case. The NRA alleges that the Foundation is “passing itself off to donors and the public as the NRA or an authorized NRA affiliate and misappropriating the many millions of dollars that NRA supporters contributed to fund the NRA’s educational and other charitable activities.”
The NRA Foundation continues to state it’s an independent entity and not beholden to the NRA.
“The Foundation is a separate nonprofit organization established to serve the public through education, safety, and conservation programs, not a trust created for the sole benefit of the NRA,” the NRA Foundation said in a press release. “Consistent its our written policies and procedures, all funding decisions are made through formal grant agreements, with the Foundation retaining full discretion over how charitable resources are allocated. The NRA’s attempt at an all-out run on the Foundation’s assets underscores its true motivation: to secure funds to keep the organization afloat while undermining the Foundation’s ability to meet its own mission.”
In their second opposition filing to the case dismissal, the NRA asserted the following:
Called to account for their actions in this lawsuit, the Foundation claims that the NRA is improperly attempting to use the Foundation as a piggybank, threatening its tax-exempt status. That claim is rich coming from members of what the New York Attorney General deemed “the cabal…who circled the wagons around Wayne LaPierre” to shield his “illegal conduct.” In fact, the lawsuits brought by the attorneys general of New York and the District of Columbia were aimed at the same general objective as this case: preventing the misuse of donor-contributed funds. The Foundation was created and funded to support the NRA’s charitable activities, not as a landing spot for disaffected LaPierre loyalists who betrayed the trust of the NRA membership and were voted out of control of the NRA.
The Foundation has a very different view of the alleged facts and in their opposition filing they state:
While the NRA’s Response leans heavily on the “NRA insiders” trope, the NRA’s own description of its claims demonstrates what this case is really about: “[T]he crux of the NRA’s allegations in this case is that all or substantially all funds contributed to the Foundation that are not subject to express restrictions are subject to the implied restriction that they be used to fund NRA Charitable Activities[.]” Resp. at 13 (emphasis added). The NRA boldly asks this Court to unwind the enforcement efforts of the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia (“DC AG”) and cede control of all Foundation assets to the NRA for a specific reason.
The 33-page filing goes into detail on what it says are the nuances of the case; who monies would be allocated to, who has control of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation, who could make changes, and more.
One of the allegations that the NRA has made was that the Foundation failed to notify NRA CEO and Executive Vice President Doug Hamlin of a 2024 meeting. Previously reported that meeting stripped the EVP from the Board of Trustees of the Foundation as well as removed the requirement that a trustee shall be a member of the NRA Board of Directors proper.
An email thread between Foundation lawyer Chris Oprison from the law firm DLA Piper discussed the proposed changes with Hamlin. The most glaring thing is one that the Foundation themselves point out in their own opposition brief: “The NRA doubles down, asserting the Bylaw amendments are void because ‘notice must be given “by the Secretary not . . . fewer than three days before the date of such meeting,”’ and “Plaintiff Hamlin was not provided that notice.’”
Concerning the bylaw change and the EVP being removed from the Foundation board, Hamlin stated in the email: “As long as I can still make recommendations/requests regarding additional funding for education and training and youth programs, etc., within general operations, I’m OK with it. Our programs have been slashed so dramatically with our court expenses we are losing opportunities to connect at the grass roots (sic) level in the USA.”
At the time of those bylaw changes Bob Barr was still the president of the NRA and it was prior to a large contingent of so-called reform-minded directors taking control of the Association. It was not until after the election of those directors and the unseating of NRA President Bob Bar by Bill Bachenberg that rumors about the NRA Foundation began to circulate.
What also came in the wake of the 2025 reform-stacked election results were the waves of directors who resigned from the NRA’s board — 17 as of January 2026.
Was the Oprison email sufficient notice? According to both the 2014 bylaws and the NRA, no. Per the bylaws, the secretary must make the notification, as the Foundation pointed out in their own filing. The email thread ends with Hamlin reporting that he was unable to access the virtual meeting — it’s not known if Hamlin was ultimately able to access the meeting or not after that final message on the record.
The email between Hamlin and Oprison may seem damning to the NRA’s position, however, it does highlight the importance of keeping to the letter of the bylaws. Oprison made several comments in the thread worth repeating:
“Another strong affiliation factor (perhaps the most important) is that the Foundation’s purpose, as stated in its charter, remains the support of the NRA’s charitable programs which it will continue to do. For internal governance purposes, however, members of the Board felt that these changes would better protect the Foundation and facilitate rather than impede arms length transactions with the NRA.” (Emphasis added.)
“Doug – understood and that is precisely what the Foundation is set up to do for the NRA – support its c3 programs and activities in the most appropriate way. Needs of the NRA may change over time, as you know, as will financial capacity of the Foundation. But, the fundamental mission of the Foundation is to support the NRA’s c3 programs and activities.” (Emphasis added.)
The full email thread is worth a read, HERE.
“The NRA Foundation exists to serve the public and uphold the intent of our donors, not to function as a pass-through for any single organization,” NRA Foundation President Tom King said in a statement. “This lawsuit is without merit, and we are confident the Court will recognize that the Foundation operates independently, lawfully, and in full alignment with its charitable mission. Under the stewardship of our new leadership the Foundation has entered a period of transformative efficiency and has goals for strategic growth. By refining operational frameworks and adopting best-in-class practices, we are achieving superior financial margins and will be able to deliver greater impact. This renewed focus will position us as a more agile, sustainable, and visionary organization poised for long-term success.”
Whether or not Hamlin saying “OK” in the email constitutes being in accord with how things have ended up in 2026 is not known. But given the lawsuit, we can speculate that he and the NRA aren’t. Whether or not Hamlin was able to attend the meeting is of no consequence considering the vote tally.
The minutes of the Aug. 23, 2024 meeting showed that only one trustee on the Foundation board voted against the bylaw change and amendments to the articles of incorporation. The trustees of the Foundation and how they voted on both the bylaw change and amendment were as follows:
- Tom King, President: Aye
- Ronnie Barrett, Vice President: Aye
- Anne Draper: Aye
- Barbara Rumpel: Aye
- Blaine Wade: Aye
- Carolyn D. Meadows: Aye
- Greer Johnson: Aye
- J. William Carter: Aye
- Joe Gregory: Not Present
- Joel Friedman: Aye
- Kevin Hogan: Not Present
- Maria Heil: Nay
- Regis J. Synan: Not Present
- Scott L. Bach: Aye
Will the court grant the NRA Foundation’s request to have the lawsuit tossed? That’s not known. As more details surface in this dispute, the further down the rabbit hole of NRA and NRA Foundation history we’ll be headed. To date, the Foundation refuses to disclose who currently makes up their Board of Trustees and a Foundation representative did not respond to Bearing Arms’ April 28 request to discuss this case in more detail. As it stands, this case is still in the early stages of litigation and allegations have yet to be proved or debunked.
For a complete list of related articles and links on this topic please see:
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
