In the midst of litigation with parent organization, the NRA Foundation has rebranded itself. Whether or not the lawsuit has anything to do with the name change is not known.
Earlier this year the National Rifle Association sued their subsidiary organization NRA Foundation. In the suit the NRA alleges that the Foundation has been withholding funds, are engaged in cyber squatting, are using trademarks owned by them unlawfully, and makes other accusations. The Foundation asserts that they’re trying to establish independence from their parent organization and are simply upholding their fiduciary duties. The Foundation cites judgments in two past lawsuits as for why they need to establish more so-called independence. In the middle of this battle, the Foundation announced on June 3 they were renaming themselves the 1791 Foundation.
According to a press release, their “leadership emphasized that while the organization’s name and visual identity are changing, the Foundation’s core charitable mission remains unchanged.” It was further stated that “the transition reflects a strategic decision to better position the organization to grow, build new partnerships, engage future generations of supporters, and maximize the impact of its charitable giving nationwide.”
Is that really the case, though? The mission of the NRA Foundation was highlighted by an attorney representing the Foundation in 2024 — in addition to their original governance documents. In an email thread between Chris Oprison from the law firm DLA Piper and NRA Executive Vice President Doug Hamlin, Oprison asserted the Foundation’s mission was to serve the NRA.
Oprison made the following statements to Hamlin when there were talks of restructuring the bylaws of the Foundation:
“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.)
And …
“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.)
NRA Foundation President Tom King says that the mission will not be changing. However, King falls short in saying that the Foundation would be staying committed to the NRA proper.
“This is not a change in mission. It is a renewed commitment to fulfilling that mission as effectively and responsibly as possible,” said NRA Foundation President Tom King. “Our focus remains exactly where it has always been: supporting programs and initiatives that strengthen communities, expand access to the shooting sports, promote firearm education, support law enforcement training, preserve our hunting heritage, and invest in the next generation of Americans.”
1791.org was registered in 2014, however it was updated on May 23. It’s not known if The1791Foundation.org is also affiliated with the Foundation. The latter URL was registered on Mar. 3 and has a similar GoGaddy “Launching Soon” landing page of TheNRAFoundation.org — which was registered last year.
1791.org is also missing any kind of statement that there’s going to be continued commitment to fulfilling distributions based on past donor intent. The absence of this commitment and questioning of donor intent being honored was recently the subject of an op-ed by Chris Dorsey over at the Outdoor Wire.
“But ordinary donors tend to think in simpler terms,” observed Dorsey. “If they attended a Friends of NRA banquet, bought auction items, purchased raffle tickets, and wrote checks because they believed they were supporting NRA-related charitable programs, then they naturally assume the money should continue serving the mission represented by the NRA name. That isn’t a radical legal theory. It’s common sense.”
Is the NRA Foundation simply trying to moot out the NRA’s claims that they’re unlawfully using their trademarks? Is the NRA Foundation changing the “organization’s name and visual identity” while keeping “the Foundation’s core charitable mission” unchanged, as they allege? Will the NRA Foundation honor donor intent to the tune of over $160 million — possibly much much more — by supporting NRA programs or are they going in a different direction now that they’ve tried to make a brand break?
NRA v. NRA Foundation is an ongoing dispute that we’ll be closely monitoring, and reporting on any new developments.
For a complete list of related articles and links on this topic please see:
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Bearing Arms’s pro-2A reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
