The Barr Papers

For decades, the National Rifle Association has served as a shield for the gun industry, protecting the profits of gun makers and sellers by fighting against any legislative efforts to reduce gun violence and stirring demand for firearms by warning its members of ominous — and largely fabricated — threats to gun ownership.¹Rukmani Bhatia, “Guns, Lies, and Fear: Exposing the NRA’s Messaging Playbook,” Center for American Progress, April 24, 2019, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/guns-lies-fear/.

Utilizing newly uncovered internal NRA documents, this report chronicles the NRA’s efforts to protect gun manufacturers and dealers from dozens of municipal lawsuits by ushering in sweeping federal immunity, as well as the organization’s swift reaction against a gun company that dared to reform its business practices.

Former U.S. Representative Bob Barr, who served Georgia’s 7th congressional district from 1995 to 2003, donated the documents to the special collections archive of the University of West Georgia’s Irvine Sullivan Ingram Library. But Barr, who is the NRA’s president today, also served on the organization’s board of directors during his tenure in Congress, and many of the papers that he donated to the library are related to his work with the NRA, including a number of internal NRA documents and reports from the late 1990s and early 2000s.

These internal NRA documents paint a picture of an organization committed to shielding the gun industry from any type of accountability for its role in enabling gun violence, and a desire to avoid having the industry face similar types of accountability and reform faced by the tobacco industry.

Struggling with persistent gun violence in their streets, over 30 U.S. cities in the late 1990s brought lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers for their role in fueling America’s gun violence. These lawsuits were modeled after successful tobacco lawsuits and settlements,²Edward Walsh and David A. Vise, “U.S., Gunmaker Strike a Deal,” Washington Post, March 17, 2000, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/18/us-gunmaker-strike-a-deal/cd74d3c1-5321-4539-a494-687cb743f8a6/. with the most significant settlement reached in 1998 between 52 state and territory attorneys general and the four largest cigarette manufacturers in the United States.³See Truth Initiative, “Master Settlement Agreement,” accessed June 27, 2024, https://truthinitiative.org/who-we-are/our-history/master-settlement-agreement; and Colorado Attorney General, “Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and Enforcement,” accessed June 27, 2024, https://coag.gov/office-sections/revenue-utilities/tobacco/.

The litigation against the tobacco industry highlighted how these companies knowingly marketed harmful products while downplaying or outright denying the severe health risks associated with tobacco use.⁴Truth Initiative, “5 Tobacco Company Lies about the Dangers of Smoking Cigarettes.” Accessed August 29, 2024. https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-prevention-efforts/5-ways-tobacco-companies-lied-about-dangers-smoking. By holding the industry accountable, the lawsuits resulted in substantial financial settlements, most notably the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, which imposed significant financial penalties on tobacco companies and required them to fund public health initiatives.⁵National Association of Attorneys General. “The Master Settlement Agreement and Attorneys General.” Accessed August 29, 2024. https://www.naag.org/our-work/naag-center-for-tobacco-and-public-health/the-master-settlement-agreement/. In essence, the lawsuits against tobacco makers in the 1990s were a crucial step in protecting consumers, promoting transparency, and ensuring that public health took precedence over corporate profits.

As noted in the archived records of Barr, who was an active NRA board member during this period, the NRA took notice of what it called the “frivolous” lawsuits against the firearms industry as early as 1999. In January of that year, the organization’s lobbying arm — known as the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) — informed the NRA board of directors that Chicago and New Orleans had filed suit against several firearms manufacturers, alleging “that the industry is negligent in failing to include various safety devices on handguns” and “knowingly produces more firearms than can be absorbed by the lawful stream of commerce.” The report’s authors noted that “while the industry’s preference at this point is to have minimal public NRA involvement, ILA stands ready to assist on both legal and legislative fronts in defeating this initiative by anti-gun advocates.”⁶Bob Barr papers, University of West Georgia Special Collections, Sullivan Ingram Library, accessed August 2023, 10-11, https://smokinggun.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Bob-Barr-NRA-Excerpts.pdf.

In that same report, the NRA-ILA noted that it was already “involved with other Congressmen on legislation to specifically prohibit such frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry.”⁷Bob Barr papers, 11.

Click here to read excerpts from the Barr documents.

Months later, the NRA’s then-executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, told the board of directors that NRA President Charlton Heston’s appearance at the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s 1999 Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show aimed “to solidify support against onerous lawsuits filed against gun manufacturers.”⁸Bob Barr papers, 14. At that same board meeting, the directors unanimously pledged their “full commitment to aggressively act to stop these assaults on the Second Amendment,” referring to the “threat” of “gun manufacturer liability suits,” after a motion from board member Marion Hammer.⁹Bob Barr papers, 17-18. Barr himself referred to these lawsuits as “among the most significant legal proceedings of this century.”¹⁰Bob Barr papers, 24.

Barr’s archival records indicate that the NRA’s Federal Affairs team sought to protect the gun industry from the municipal lawsuits by assembling “coalitions among business and industry groups which are coming to recognize the threat that ‘defectless product’ liability suits pose to their members, including the automobile, alcohol, and meat industries.”¹¹Bob Barr papers, 21. This phrasing suggests the NRA does not see guns lacking safety features as “defective.”

The NRA also apparently saw the effort to protect the gun industry as yet another way to fill its coffers: At the NRA’s May 1999 board meeting, then-CFO Woody Phillips “stated that cash has been tight, but that fund raising is going much better than was anticipated.” Phillips acknowledged that the NRA’s “role in the mayors’ suits is a great fund raising issue for us.”¹²Bob Barr papers, 23.

Phillips also reported that the NRA was “spending time and money on” efforts to preempt the lawsuits.¹³Bob Barr papers, 23. Notably, the American Bar Association (ABA) opposed legal immunity for the firearms industry, writing shortly thereafter that it “has long supported the principle that more accountability — not less — is needed with respect to the legal duties of firearm manufacturers, gun dealers, parents and individuals regarding their respective roles in how firearms are used and misused in our society.” The ABA concluded that the “gun industry’s legislative clout has prevented laws from regulating much of its conduct, and made guns the only consumer product…exempt from federal safety oversight.¹⁴American Bar Association, “Opposing Firearm Industry Immunity,” August 5, 2001, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/gun_violence/policy/01a10b/.

Internal documents also shed light on the NRA’s concern that the U.S. Department of Justice might participate in lawsuits against the firearms industry, as it did with litigation against the tobacco industry. An NRA report from March 1999 explained that “while there are currently no signs of DOJ participation, it should be remembered that in April of 1997, Attorney General Janet Reno said that she had determined ‘that the federal government does not have an independent cause of action’ against the tobacco industry — yet President Clinton announced just such a lawsuit in this year’s State of the Union message.” Further, the document notes that the NRA’s Federal Affairs team sought “an appropriations rider prohibiting the U.S. Justice Department from expending funds to file, support, or otherwise participate in these suits.”¹⁵Bob Barr papers, 20.

According to the records, the NRA Office of General Counsel (OGC) had “written memoranda on every aspect” of the municipal lawsuits against the firearms industry.¹⁶Bob Barr papers, 20. As early as 1998, it had presented the NRA-ILA with a memorandum explaining why the municipal lawsuits “should fail,” along with “causes of action against the units of local government.” That memo was updated in 2000.¹⁷Bob Barr papers, 27.

In 2001 and 2002, the NRA-ILA and OGC methodically tracked the municipal lawsuits against the firearms industry and reported the findings to the NRA board, including tables created by the NRA-ILA titled, “Taxpayer Funded Reckless Lawsuits against the Industry.” Barr’s archived files include three separate reports from May 2001,¹⁸Bob Barr papers, 58-63. August 2001,¹⁹Bob Barr papers, 64-69. and April 2002²⁰Bob Barr papers, 76-83. with updated tables featuring roughly 35 municipal lawsuits, their allegations, which law firms were involved, the cases statuses, and whether they were filed in states with preemption laws in place.

As the NRA tables reflect, the municipal lawsuits alleged that gun makers were liable for “defective & negligent” firearm designs, “conspiracy,” “negligent distribution” practices, “deceptive advertising,” and “inadequate warnings” about the dangers of guns, among others.

The NRA-ILA also kept tabs on how many lawsuits were aided by the “gun ban lobby.”²¹Bob Barr papers, 82. In a May 2001 report, the NRA noted that of the 34 ongoing lawsuits, “12 are directly represented by HCI’s, Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, Legal Action Project,” a precursor to Brady United Against Gun Violence.²²Bob Barr papers, 62. By April 2002, the NRA-ILA wrote that Brady was “boast[ing] of their direct assistance to 25 plaintiffs.”²³Bob Barr papers, 83. Each report was labeled for “NRA internal use only.”

The NRA’s attempts to shield the gun industry from legal accountability extended to other lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill. Federally licensed gun dealers must run background checks on prospective customers using the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) system. In 2001, in response to the Justice Department’s refusal to let the FBI “check its records to determine whether any of the 1,200 people detained after the Sept. 11 attacks had bought guns,”²⁴Fox Butterfield, “A Nation Challenged: Background Checks; Justice Dept. Bars Use of Gun Checks in Terror Inquiry,” The New York Times, December 6, 2001, https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/06/us/nation-challenged-background-checks-justice-dept-bars-use-gun-checks-terror.html. Senator Chuck Schumer introduced a bill that would have required the FBI to preserve NICS records for firearms sales for at least 90 days and allowed the agency to use these records to pursue criminal or civil investigations. Further, the bill would have authorized the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to conduct “system audits to detect fraud and misuse.”²⁵United States Senate, S.1788 – Use NICS In Terrorist Investigations Act, 107th Congress, https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/senate-bill/1788. Senator Schumer told then-Attorney General John Ashcroft that he was “very concerned that the F.B.I. is being unnecessarily limited in the tools that it can use to bring the perpetrators of this heinous attack to justice.”²⁶Fox Butterfield, “A Nation Challenged.”

The NRA opposed the legislation, writing in a 2002 internal report to the board of directors that the bill was “tailored to exploit the situation and to achieve a longstanding goal of using NICS as a gun buyer registration system.”²⁷Bob Barr papers, 71. The NRA had another concern, too: that the “bill would be a boon to anti-gun plaintiff lawyers, who would use the ‘civil investigation’ provision to subpoena gun sales records.”²⁸Bob Barr papers, 71. The fact that the NRA would oppose such proposals aimed at aiding law enforcement in terrorist investigations due, in part, to concerns about assisting cities in lawsuits against the gun industry speaks to the NRA’s priority of protecting the gun industry in the early 2000s.

In 2003, Congress enacted an appropriations rider — drafted by the NRA and introduced by then-Representative Todd Tiahrt — that requires the FBI to destroy NICS records within 24 hours of a gun sale being authorized. The ATF has interpreted the Tiahrt Rider, as it is known, as preventing the agency from sharing crime gun tracing data with local officials and researchers, and from requiring gun shops to conduct periodic inventories, among other limitations.²⁹Alan Berlow, “How the NRA Hobbled the ATF,” Mother Jones, February 11, 2013, https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/atf-gun-laws-nra/. At the time of its passage, Tiahrt said, “I wanted to make sure I was fulfilling the needs of my friends who are firearms dealers. NRA officials were helpful in making sure I had my bases covered.”³⁰Everytown Research & Policy, “Repeal Restrictions on Gun Trace Data,” accessed June 28, 2024, https://everytownresearch.org/solution/gun-trace-data/.

As the NRA tracked the municipal lawsuits, the organization went on the offensive legislatively, with the ultimate goal of changing federal law so that similar lawsuits against the gun industry would be difficult, if not impossible, to bring in the future. Representative Barr’s papers reveal years-long legislative efforts by the NRA to provide special legal protections for the firearms industry. The NRA’s then-chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, described the NRA’s efforts during this time period as “a comprehensive legislative and election strategy,” including work “to change the political landscape,” in order to pass legislation that would make it significantly harder for Americans to hold the gun industry accountable in the courts.³¹NRA-ILA, “President Bush Signs ‘Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’ Landmark NRA Victory Now Law, October 26, 2005, https://www.nraila.org/articles/20051026/president-bush-signs-protection-of-br. These efforts eventually culminated in the passage of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005.

In 1998, when members of Congress began negotiating a bill supported by President Clinton to reform product liability laws, particularly around the issue of curbing large punitive damages, Senators Diane Feinstein and Robert Toricelli offered an amendment to the bill to exempt the firearms industry from such limitations on damage awards.³²Katharine Q. Seelye, “Gun-Control Advocates Threaten Liability Bill,” The New York Times, July 7, 1998, https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/07/us/gun-control-advocates-threaten-liability-bill.html. But internal records reveal that the NRA worked to scuttle the agreement. In September of that year, the NRA-ILA reported to board members that “staff worked closely with the U.S. Senate to ensure” that the firearms industry would not “be held responsible for gun related injuries or deaths.” According to the NRA-ILA, Senators Feinstein and Torricelli “made a great deal of noise and attracted some media attention with their amendment…Fortunately, their efforts fell on deaf ears and mute votes in the Senate.”³³Bob Barr papers, 8.

Having successfully defeated the Feinstein-Torricelli amendment, the NRA turned to establishing new protections for the gun industry. The organization had a unique advantage in this regard: Two members of Congress, Representative Bob Barr (R-GA) and Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), were also NRA board members.³⁴James Dao, “N.R.A. Leaders Cast Gore as Archenemy,” The New York Times, May 21, 2000, https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national/052100nra-gore.html. In a May 1999 report, the NRA-ILA described “anti-litigation bills” like the Firearms Heritage Protection Act (H.R.1032), introduced by Barr in the House, and a companion bill sponsored by Craig in the Senate, that “would prohibit all causes of action against the firearms and ammunition industry based on criminal or unlawful uses of these lawful and non-defective products by third parties.” Described as the NRA’s “main response to the municipal lawsuits against the firearms industry,” the bills were precursors to the PLCAA.³⁵Bob Barr papers, 20.

Not only are Barr and Craig still on the NRA’s board of directors today, some 25 years later,³⁶NRA, “2022 NRA Board Election Results,” May 13, 2022, https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/2022-nra-board-election-results/. but Barr is currently president of the NRA.

Over the years, the NRA continued to push pro-industry legislation. In an internal January 2000 report to the NRA board, the NRA’s Federal Affairs team noted that it “continues to seek cosponsors” for Barr’s Firearms Heritage Protection Act and that a “Senate bill will be introduced during the second session of the 106th Congress.”³⁷Bob Barr papers, 28.

Meanwhile, internal records reveal that the NRA was also involved in efforts to pass similar legislation in the states. By 1999, Randy Kozuch, then leading the NRA’s State and Local Affairs, said that his team had “concentrated most of its efforts this session on passing legislation to protect the firearms and ammunition industry against lawsuits filed by cities and counties.” Kozuch, who led the NRA’s lobbying arm until recently,³⁸Stephen Gutowski, “According to an internal email from NRA CEO Doug Hamlin to staffers that I’ve reviewed,” X, December 3, 2024, https://x.com/StephenGutowski/status/1864109480243343446. celebrated the passage of first-of-their-kind bills in four states to shield or aid the firearms industry facing lawsuits from municipalities and listed 16 other states where similar legislation was being considered. Kozuch added that the team was “also working with legislators in a handful of other states to have legislation drafted and introduced this session.”³⁹Bob Barr papers, 22.

As of February 2001, the issue continued to “[top] the list of legislative priorities” for Kozuch’s State and Local Affairs, when Kozuch said he was “proud to report that 23 states have enacted such laws.”⁴⁰Bob Barr papers, 56. According to the report, the NRA’s OGC drafted model legislation for state lobbyists to “prevent lawsuits against firearm and ammunition manufacturers for damages caused by negligent or criminal misuse of firearms.”⁴¹Bob Barr papers, 53.

By 2002, the NRA’s work to build support for industry immunity legislation was in full force. In an April 2002 report to the board of directors, the NRA detailed how its Federal Affairs team was working “to pursue all possible avenues to address the critical threat that the gun industry lawsuits pose to Second Amendment rights.” In addition to Barr’s Firearms Heritage Protection Act, the NRA simultaneously sought sponsors for two other bills on the subject: the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (H.R.2037), which was introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) in May 2001, and the Second Amendment Preservation Act of 2002 (S.1996), which was introduced by Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) and, according to the NRA, “would cap attorney’s fees and institute a ‘loser pays’ rule under which unsuccessful plaintiffs in certain actions against the firearms industry would have to pay the industry defendants’ legal bills and court costs.”⁴²Bob Barr papers, 74-75.

Following at least seven years of legislative work through two administrations, the NRA achieved its longstanding goal of enacting sweeping legal protections for the gun industry when President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA into law in October 2005, a mere eight months after it was introduced by Senator and NRA Board Member Larry Craig.⁴³United States Senate, S.397 – Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 109th Congress, https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/397. At the time, the NRA’s then-executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, called the legislation “the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years,” and claimed it would “save the American firearms industry” from “ruinous and politically motivated lawsuits.”⁴⁴NRA-ILA, “President Bush Signs ‘Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’ Landmark NRA Victory Now Law, October 26, 2005, https://www.nraila.org/articles/20051026/president-bush-signs-protection-of-br. LaPierre said the bill’s supporters and NRA members had “saved the American firearms industry.”⁴⁵William Branigin, “House Passes Gun Lawsuit Shield Legislation,” Washington Post, October 19, 2005, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/technology/2005/10/20/house-passes-gun-lawsuit-shield-legislation/57a3d3a2-8f2f-4b63-8335-ae26996b1d17/.

While the PLCAA made its way through Congress, then-Senator Larry Craig said that it would “not protect firearms or ammunition manufacturers, sellers, or trade associations from any other lawsuits based on their own negligence or criminal conduct,” echoing sentiments by other co-sponsors.⁴⁸Dru Stevenson, “Improvidently Granted: Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos,” South Texas College of Law Houston, November 10, 2024, 5-6, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/5016062.pdf?abstractid=5016062&mirid=1. But in the nearly two decades since the PLCAA was enacted, not a single gun manufacturer accused of negligence has gone to trial.

Years before the PLCAA became law, the NRA made an example of a gun maker that attempted to clean up its business practices. On March 17, 2000, nearly a year after the mass shooting at Columbine High School, the Clinton administration and Smith & Wesson, the nation’s largest handgun manufacturer, announced a landmark settlement agreement. In exchange for dismissing the municipal lawsuits against the company, Smith & Wesson agreed to implement a “code of conduct” for its dealers, keep better track of its inventory, refuse to sell firearms at gun shows where background checks weren’t conducted, and develop smart guns, among several other safety initiatives.⁴⁹White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Clinton Administration Reaches Historic Agreement with Smith and Wesson,” March 17, 2000, https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html. Considering Smith & Wesson’s role as the largest U.S. gun maker, the deal could have led to significant reforms among other industry players.

But the NRA was quick to respond to the news. Three days after the White House announcement, the NRA published a “fact sheet” called “The Smith & Wesson Sellout” that labeled the agreement an “act of craven self-interest” that elevated Smith & Wesson “to the role of self-appointed arbiter of national gun policy.” According to the NRA, “the true intent of this agreement is to force down the throats of an entire lawful industry anti-gun polices [sic].”⁵¹NRA-ILA, “The Smith & Wesson Sellout,” March 3, 2000, https://www.nraila.org/articles/20000320/the-smith-wesson-sellout.

In internal documents, the NRA-ILA said that it issued this “speedy and vigorous” response to the settlement “so that lawmakers, gun owners, and other members of the gun industry understood clearly what was at stake.”⁵²Bob Barr papers, 39.

The NRA’s “fact sheet” was critical of Smith & Wesson for being “the first to run up the white flag of surrender…leaving its competitors in the U.S. firearms industry to carry on the fight for the Second Amendment.” And it revealed the NRA’s frustration with municipalities who, just a day after the announcement was made, “promis[ed] to contort their procurement policies and purchase only [Smith & Wesson] guns.”⁵³NRA-ILA, “The Smith & Wesson Sellout.”

The “fact sheet” also made several claims about the settlement’s impact on gun owners, dealers, and manufacturers. For example, the NRA warned that “[d]istributors and dealers who want to continue to sell S&W products will be forced to agree to a wish list of gun-prohibitionist demands such as: 14-day waiting periods, bans of affordable self-defense handguns, [and] paying for anti-gun advertising to name a few.”⁵⁴NRA-ILA, “The Smith & Wesson Sellout.”

Smith & Wesson’s 23-page agreement tells a different story, however. The company agreed to implement a system for its dealers in which if a customer wanted to purchase multiple Smith & Wesson handguns, they could leave the gun shop with one on the day of the sale but would have to wait 14 days to return for the additional handguns.⁵⁵Smith & Wesson Agreement, March 17, 2000, 17, https://vpc.org/graphics/smith.pdf. Additionally, nothing in the agreement specifically raised prices on “self-defense handguns,” and the “anti-gun advertising” was actually Smith & Wesson agreeing not to “market any firearm in a way that would make the firearm particularly appealing to juveniles or criminals.”⁵⁶Smith & Wesson Agreement, March 17, 2000, 17-18, https://vpc.org/graphics/smith.pdf.

The NRA was critical of the fact that “the agreement dispenses with only a third of the municipal lawsuits, and binds only two federal agencies and two state attorneys general from filing suits in the future,” while “the remaining city suits are unaffected.” Meanwhile, “other state and federal agencies can continue to threaten the industry at will.” The NRA felt that “The price of S&W’s manuever [sic] falls primarily on others — lawful firearm dealers, distributors, other manufacturers and law-abiding American citizens.”⁵⁷NRA-ILA, “The Smith & Wesson Sellout.”

An NRA lobbyist said that Smith & Wesson should scrap the entire settlement,⁵⁹Deseret News, “Smith & Wesson to idle 125, cites slump, boycott,” October 20, 2000, https://www.deseret.com/2000/10/20/19534941/smith-wesson-to-idle-125-cites-slump-boycott/. but the NRA went much further. The organization instigated a boycott of the company and “made Smith & Wesson an industry outcast.”⁶⁰Leslie Wayne, “After taking bullets, Smith & Wesson lives,” The New York Times, April 6, 2006, https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/business/worldbusiness/after-taking-bullets-smith-wesson-lives.html. By September 2000, the boycott had nearly bankrupted Smith & Wesson, forcing its CEO to resign and its owners to sell the company for $15 million, a fraction of its purchase price.

Behind the scenes, the NRA-ILA reported to the board in May 2000 that the Smith & Wesson settlement was a “laundry list of anti-gun demands” and “[p]erhaps worse yet, [Smith & Wesson] agreed to be bound by the terms of future, stricter agreements negotiated by other firms — an open-ended surrender modeled on a provision rejected by tobacco companies in their own settlement talks.”⁶¹Bob Barr papers, 32. The comparison to the tobacco industry in these internal documents, and in others, suggests a real fear among NRA leaders that the gun industry would be forced to make large-scale reforms similar to those required of tobacco companies in the late 1990s, such as agreeing not to market products to children.⁶²See National Association of Attorneys General, “The Master Settlement Agreement,” accessed June 28, 2024, https://www.naag.org/our-work/naag-center-for-tobacco-and-public-health/the-master-settlement-agreement/.

Internally, the NRA-ILA expressed concern about the “general threat that anti-gun legislators will seek to codify the terms of the agreement as federal law.” The May 2000 report states that the NRA-ILA was “particularly concerned” about Smith & Wesson’s agreement “to engage in legislative advocacy” with government agencies, “to be monitored by an oversight commission,” and the possibility that “government agencies may attempt to give preferential procurement treatment to firearms produced by manufacturers which sign the agreement,” which would reward Smith & Wesson’s “ill-advised decision.”⁶³Bob Barr papers, 32-33.

The NRA’s Federal Affairs team noted that it was “considering its best options to address these issues. Fortunately, other manufacturers do not currently find the agreement appealing, as indicated by public statements made by representatives of Glock, Beretta, Browning, Colt, Taurus and other firms.”⁶⁴Bob Barr papers, 33.

In another internal report from December 2000, the NRA said its “goal in addressing this issue is neither to destroy Smith & Wesson by name, nor to save them from the consequences of the agreement they signed.⁶⁵Bob Barr papers, 48.

The NRA of 2024 is a much different organization than that from the late 1990s and early 2000s. Its political and organizing power is greatly reduced, as evidenced by its declining membership,⁶⁶Stephen Gutowski, “NRA Low on Cash Headed into 2024 as Directors Claim Further Loss of Membership,” The Reload, February 8, 2024, https://thereload.com/nra-low-on-cash-headed-into-2024-as-directors-claim-further-loss-of-membership/. revenue,⁶⁷Stephen Gutowski, “NRA Sold Off $44 Million in Assets After Revenue Plunged Again in 2023,” The Reload, May 23, 2024, https://thereload.com/nra-sold-off-44-million-in-assets-after-revenue-plunged-again-in-2023/. and election spending.⁶⁸Jake Fogleman, “Gun-Control Groups Outraise NRA, Gun-Rights Movement in March,” The Reload, April 23, 2024, https://thereload.com/gun-control-groups-outraise-nra-gun-rights-movement-in-march/. Moreover, the NRA has been engulfed in years of scandal, driven largely by revelations of exorbitant executive spending and questionable arrangements with outside vendors. The NRA’s trouble came to a head in February 2024, when a New York jury found that the NRA failed to properly administer its charitable assets and that its leaders diverted millions of dollars from the organization.⁶⁹Jake Offenhartz, Associated Press, “Former NRA chief Wayne LaPierre misspent gun rights group’s money and owes more than $4M, jury finds,” Associated Press, February 23, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/nra-wayne-lapierre-trial-ruling-d4d9b950ee2cbd63380826eb2bf210e6. The NRA’s longtime CEO and executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, resigned on the eve of this trial.⁷⁰Danny Hakim, “Wayne LaPierre Resigns From N.R.A. With Trial Set to Open,” The New York Times, January 5, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/nyregion/wayne-lapierre-resigns-nra.html.

As the NRA emerges from the New York trial, the group appears eager to reestablish its ties to the gun industry. In May 2024, the NRA board selected Doug Hamlin, who previously spent a decade as executive director of NRA Publications, to replace LaPierre.⁷¹NRA-ILA, “Bob Barr Elected NRA President, Doug Hamlin Elected to Serve as NRA Executive Vice President & CEO,” May 20, 2024, https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240520/bob-barr-elected-nra-president-doug-hamlin-elected-to-serve-as-nra-executive-vice-president-ceo. Before he joined the NRA, Hamlin was also the publisher of Guns & Ammo magazine from 1991 to 1995, where he “worked closely with firearm and ammunition manufacturers, as well as congressional representatives.”⁷²NRA, “Doug Hamlin Named to Lead NRA Publications,” archived September 16, 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20210916182708/https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/doug-hamlin-named-to-lead-nra-publications/. As detailed here, gun makers use publications like Guns & Ammo and those produced by the NRA to market their wares with both direct advertisements and “gun reviews” that are far from objective.

In other words, Hamlin has deep connections to the gun industry. In recent interviews, he said that one of his goals as the NRA’s CEO and executive vice president is to “rebuild the trust of the…industry”⁷³Gun Talk Radio interview with Doug Hamlin, June 2, 2024, https://x.com/Guntalk/status/1797425902944715068, at 5:45. and “prove to the industry” that “the NRA is going to make it.”⁷⁴Shooting News Weekly, “EXCLUSIVE: An Interview With New National Rifle Association EVP and CEO Doug Hamlin,” May 31, 2024, https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/2024/05/31/exclusive-an-interview-with-new-national-rifle-association-evp-and-ceo-doug-hamlin/.

Of course, Barr and Craig are still NRA board members as well, and the former was chosen as the NRA’s first vice president in 2023⁷⁵NRA, “NRA Reelects Charles Cotton as President, Wayne LaPierre as CEO/EVP at Indianapolis Board of Directors Meeting,” April 15, 2023, https://home.nra.org/statements/nra-reelects-charles-cotton-as-president-wayne-lapierre-as-ceoevp-at-indianapolis-board-of-directors-meeting/. before being elevated to the role of president this year.⁷⁶NRA-ILA, “Bob Barr Elected NRA President, Doug Hamlin Elected to Serve as NRA Executive Vice President & CEO.” As president, Barr has made it clear that the NRA will continue to oppose legislation that might reduce gun violence. In a recent interview, Barr called the Uvalde mass shooting “the most awful example I’ve ever seen of ineffective law enforcement” but did not discuss the gun industry’s role in producing assault weapons like the AR-15 used in that shooting and so many others. To Barr, the only way to stop gun violence is “by better, more effective enforcement of existing laws.”⁷⁷ABC News, “NRA President Bob Barr explores the organization’s relevance in an election year,” June 21, 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/US/nra-president-bob-barr-explores-organizations-relevance-election/story?id=111276107.

What hasn’t changed since the late 1990s and early 2000s is the gun industry. Gun makers continue to produce increasingly deadly weapons, market them in irresponsible ways, and supply them to dealers who allow guns to fall into the wrong hands. The gun industry has not been compelled to reform its business practices, unlike the tobacco and automobile industries before it, due in large part to the legal protections the NRA helped draft and enact. Perhaps this is why gun makers continue to support the NRA — despite the organization’s recent troubles — with multimillion-dollar donations, sponsorships, and membership drives.⁷⁸NRA Industry Ally, “Top 10 NRA Industry Allies,” accessed June 28, 2024, https://nraindustryally.nra.org/top-10-allies/. For gun makers, it’s business as usual.