An Interview With NRA Board Member Tom King On Upcoming Board Elections

tom king
Tom King (Image via nysenate.gov)

The National Rifle Association’s annual board of directors election is rapidly approaching. In anticipation of the forthcoming election, we had a chat with Board Member Tom King. King is an 18-plus-year member of the board as well as the president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. King is running for reelection.

In this election, as with some in the past, there’s some contention. Two camps have galvanized against one another. There are the so-called reformer candidates, or self-described NRA 2.0 and there’s the old guard, or self-described Strong NRA. 

A portion of the debate and the divide between the groups was covered in Reformer and Old Guard write-ups elswhere. This interview is a full transcript of the King interview (it has been edited for clarity where necessary).

Petrolino: The first question that I’m posing is, because you’re an incumbent, why reelect you to the NRA Board?

King: Because of my experience. Because of the accomplishments and the things that are in the planning stages. I’m the only NRA Board member to institute a case that went to the Supreme Court and has made Second Amendment history. The Bruen decision, that was my case. 

I’m president of the second or third largest state association in the nation and I work at it 12 hours a day. I don’t think that there’s anybody else that has the grasp of what the situation is in a non-Second Amendment friendly state like New York and knows how to deal with it. That’s why.

I could ask the same question. What do these new people have to offer? They have no experience. There’s a couple that are gun dealers. There’s a couple that are instructors. Okay. A couple of lawyers. But they have no Second Amendment experience.

Petrolino: I think that’s fair enough. Now one of the things that brought me to everyone here – and again, out of fairness –  I’d like to get your perspective on this. There’s this whole thought of a “cabal.” These cabal allegations. What does that all mean? Is there any weight to that? What’s going on with this? Because I think that’s kind of a heavy term. 

King: Well yeah, I do too. And if you look up the definition of it, the definition of cabal, it fits the so-called “reformers” more than it does the incumbents.

And you know, I’m not sure what I’ve been accused of. I hear these general terms, “Oh, you’re part of the cabal. You believe things should be proceeding as usual.”

You know? The fact is, is that, no, I don’t, and I never have. But no one has asked me what my positions are, and I’ve been accused of being a Wayne LaPierre supporter…and I was while he was in, while he was in office, until it became apparent and he admitted to doing what the court fined him for. I was a supporter of his. After that, and this is testimony at the trial. I testified at the trial, they asked me, “Are you still a supporter of Wayne, knowing what you know now?” My answer was, “No, I’m not. I can’t, I can’t support Wayne LaPierre anymore. His days at the NRA are over.” But nobody seems to remember any of that

Petrolino: What do you see to be the biggest problems, if any right now with the NRA today?

King: Well, you know, going back to the trial and what the judge said…The only people that were found to have any type of guilt were Joshua Powell, Woody Phillips and Wayne LaPierre. The NRA Board, as it was constituted then and as it is constituted now, were not found liable for anything, and the judge ruled against the AG’s push to put a monitor in. He ruled against them trying to dissolve the NRA, and found nothing. Nothing against the NRA Board. He did make a decision that some people who served on the finance committee at that time or the audit committee at that time should be barred from not serving on either of those two committees. That was as far as he went. Oh, and by the way, Bill Bachenberg, you’re familiar with that name?

Petrolino: Yes.

King: Served on the finance committee at that time. Buzz Mills, who was one of the leaders of the group, was on either the finance or the audit committee and or both at that time. And there’s a number of other people who are supposedly part of the Reformers who are on all of those committees. Were on those committees. And because they’re on the so-called reformer side, they’re not being held responsible like anybody else is.

Petrolino: Well, one of the things to your point about the court order and what the judge did or didn’t rule on, one of the things that I see here, and maybe this is a couple deviations away from what you said, but the idea of a consultant. The NRA is being required to retain a court approved consultant, right?

King: Yeah, but that is a person that we are hiring.

Petrolino: Okay. 

King: That is not [a monitor] and he does not report to the court. He reports to us. He’s an NRA employee. 

Petrolino: Sure. Okay. 

King: Totally different from putting a monitor in. 

Petrolino: Right. 

King: By the way, many of the people on the so-called reform group also wrote to the judge urging him to place a monitor with the NRA.

Petrolino: Do you think a monitor would be to the detriment of the organization? Or, or…

King: Of course it would, because the the monitor was going to be responsive to the Attorney General [of New York].

Petrolino: Back to the question that brought this on, what would you say the biggest problems [at the NRA] are right now?

King: The biggest problems right now are the so-called reformers, who I would call a Cabal, keep on stirring the pot for the benefit of electing more members, rather than working together to try to put this behind us and to heal the NRA.

Petrolino: So then, outside of the reformers, issues with the NRA itself, are there any other issues that you would say are…

King: No. The judge himself said that – and he was very happy with our, the processes we put in place to make sure that the NRA stayed on the straight and narrow that’s been in place, and that’s been in place since…

Petrolino: That’s going back, yeah.

King: Yeah, I want to say [20]19, maybe [20]20. I’m not sure exactly, but going back to that time.

Petrolino: Sure, sure, sure. 

King: Yeah, and he agreed that we have robust checks and balances. 

You know, the problem wasn’t that the board didn’t do their job. The problem was that the treasurer, at the time never informed the board about this. He didn’t even inform the finance committee. He kept it from – he kept it to – himself and I can’t say anything about Wayne, because I don’t know whether or not Wayne knew all of this that was going on. But it was never, ever reported to the board or any of the committees. Without knowledge, we couldn’t do anything. Many of the many of the processes that were in place, that are in place now, were in place then, and would have automatically kicked in and worked if the the treasurer of the of the Association had been truthful and reported everything to the finance committee and or the board. He was supposed to, but he didn’t,

Petrolino: Part of the final judgment, I think, addresses that with the communications portal that should be able to help the board going forward, right?

King: Absolutely, I’m all for that. 

Petrolino: What do you see as the future? And, how are you going to contribute to making it brighter for the organization and the membership? We know what you’ve done, and I think there’s no reason to discredit what you’ve done, like the work with NYSRPA and, of course, the Bruen case, that’s all phenomenal stuff. So now going forward, what is your vision?

King: I’m going to be doing the same thing. Nothing has changed. The problems are still there. And we’re still going to be working to promote the Second Amendment, I’m still going to be pushing an open information sphere. I totally agree with transparency. The members have to know what’s going on. But before the members have to know, the board has to know. We are pushing, as board members and as NRA members for continued transparency. Continued lobbying and supporting the goals and or the programs of the NRA as well as the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

Nothing is changing. I’m doing the same job I’ve done for the past 20 years.

Petrolino:  I see that the move got completely scuttled [at the last meeting]. But were you in favor of the former motions to move the NRA headquarters? 

King: Yes, I was. 

Petrolino: You were, okay. And just what is that based on? I’m curious. 

King: Getting us out of D.C., which is very unfriendly. The D.C. area, which is a very unfriendly political district. Virginia, the state where our headquarters is located, is fast becoming a blue state. I mean, Governor Youngkin is there right now, but he’s out after this term, and both houses are controlled by the liberal Democrats. Virginia is about to turn into another New York, New Jersey, or California. I wasn’t an advocate for Texas. I was just an advocate of getting out of the District and that area so that we could have a legitimate chance of being successful without the political process trying to interfere.

Petrolino: There’s some people that are the ideology that being close to D.C. is a benefit for the actual lobbying work…for that branch of the NRA.

King: They were never moving. They were going to stay in D.C.

Petrolino: Those were my standard questions that I asked everyone else. I got a document that I wanted to pick your brain on. I don’t expect you to answer for other people, I’m just looking for your idea on if this is the atmosphere or not. I’m looking at, I think, an email exchange that Willis Lee sent, and this is going back to 2019.  Are you familiar with what I’m talking about?

King: I don’t know. I’ve seen so much stuff that Willis has put out, most of it spun or not, are not very truthful. So I don’t know. Refresh my memory.

The thread started with now Reformer Willes Lee and included: Charles Cotton, Marion Hammer, Jay Printz, Millie Hallow, Tom King, and Joel Friedman. This is a copy of the text of the document being referenced:

Lee: FB page NRA Members for Accountability just now got to 1052 page likes. Ron Carter is one of the admin, never heard of him. Several more Board members- Schneider, Brown, Maloney- have LIked the page to join Johnny Nugent, Liptak. Just saying.

Cotton: We need to reconsider Nugent’s committees.

Hammer: Please keep a list – there’s more than one kind of accountability. 🔨⏰

Cotton: We also need to discuss Eather’s defamatory statements about the NRA’S president and 1st vice president.

Printz: I would be cautious……. I think Johnny Nugent is an ok Wayne supporter and may only be keeping tabs on the other stuff. Let’s not overreact.

Hallow: Who is close to Johnny so we can get a better feel.

King: Friends, They are waging a war. The number right now is minuscule made up of their friends and acquaintances. I’m more concerned with the 2 hit pieces from unnamed FB members who appear to be bots or trolls. Actions will be taken very soon to neutralize some of these people. Please forward any FB names to me that you don’t know or appear fake. Look for their friend, photos or any affiliation to determine if they are fake identities. Tom

King: Any emails sent to me retarding these events should be sent to [redacted]

Lee: Think Muhammad Ahmed and Alex Arnau are the same but person. Alex Andre May be bot, or just troll. Anyone else get stuff from these pages?

Friedman: As I don’t deal in Facebook I really don’t get any of this information so I appreciate keeping me informed. I believe that there are two strategies that we must follow. One is what Tom King has mentioned and I think that’s very important. I believe the other strategy is just as important and it is getting out the positive messages to our members. All of us, I mean not just this group, all of us must speak in one voice we must have one statement no matter who you go to get information of a positive nature. Our members don’t know all that’s going on, and there are too many things that we are not able to discuss due to internal and legal constraints. Because of this it would seem we look like we need to hide something when in fact we’re just following the rules/laws. Who should be in charge of the positive statements? My guess would be it should be Andrew however against these are just my beliefs and my thoughts.

Petrolino There’s a post that started with, and I guess, it’s either an email thread or a chat and Willis was talking about a Facebook page called NRA Members for Accountability, and talking about several board members that were on it or liked the page, maybe they’re supporting it, or whatever.

Charles Cotton’s remarks were talking about Johnny Nugent, and he said, –  I’ll read what Lee said. He said, “The Facebook page, NRA Members for Accountability, just now got to 1052 page likes. Ron Carter is one of the admin it never heard of him. Several more board members, Schneider, Brown, Maloney, have liked the page to join Johnny Nugent, Liptak, just saying.” Then Charles cotton remarked that, “We need to reconsider Nugent’s committees.”

One of the things that I’ve heard from different people is that committees are leveraged against board members that maybe act outside of the rank and file, and that board members aren’t allowed to have basically their own opinion. Is that the atmosphere that is at the NRA – and again, I know that’s not your remark but –  I’m just asking you if you feel that that’s the temperature.

King: I’ve been on the board for 18 years. I think and in 18 years, no one has ever told me what to think or what to say. I’ve gotten up to –  have you ever been to one of our board meetings?

Petrolino: I actually have not.

King: Okay, well, you know, there’s a días that that all of the officers sit on, with a with a podium, and then there’s usually four microphones. No, there’s six microphones that are out in the audience, which is the board members, We’re seated alphabetically at a row of tables. 

I have never hesitated to get up to speak my peace, whether or not it is in favor of or opposing what the administration said. I’ve even challenged Wayne on a couple of occasions. I’m of the opinion that when you speak your mind, defend your position to the very, very end, and if it comes to a vote, when it comes to a vote, the majority decides. If the majority decides in favor of what you’re arguing for, that’s really good. I did a good job. If the majority votes against me, well, somebody may have done a better job, or maybe I was a little mistaken. 

The NRA Board has always come together after the vote, the majority of the board rules, and that’s one of the things Mr. Lee and a few other people just had a hard time dealing with. They didn’t like to have their opinions not voted into a process or be successful on the vote. That’s not the way a democracy works. It’s not the way a republic works, and it’s certainly not the way a board of directors works,

Petrolino: Okay. I think that’s fair, but this is just talking about people joining a private Facebook group and then one other member saying that we need to reconsider the other member’s committees based on their affiliation. This is much more below the fold. This isn’t above the fold. Everything that you’re saying about accountability makes sense, but this is behind the scenes. So…

King: I, you know, if I’m not, I’m not sure where that came from, but Mr. Lee was part of the group that would make those decisions, if, if they were, I was, I was never involved with picking committees or picking committee chairs. That is left to the officers.  And Mr. Lee was an officer.

Petrolino: Sure.

King: He made those decisions as well, and he enforced those decisions when he was an officer.

Petrolino: Correct. This continued on. Marion Hammer was saying to keep a list, and she said, “There’s more than one kind of accountability.” Charles Cotton..,

King: No one pays attention to Marion Hammer anymore.

Petrolino: Yeah, that’s fine. I’m just trying to give you the information, right? Charles Cotton reports with, “We also need to discuss Eather’s defamatory statements about the NRA’s president and first vice president.” Printz weighed in saying, “I’d be cautious,” He said, “I think Johnny Nugent is an okay Wayne supporter and may only be keeping tabs on the other stuff. Let’s not overreact.” Hallow said, “You know who’s close to Johnny? So we could get a better feel.”

Then you are being attributed to saying this. You said, “Friends, they are waging a war. The number right now is minuscule made up of their friends and acquaintances. I’m more concerned with the two hit pieces from unnamed Facebook members who appear to be bots or trolls. Actions will be taken very soon to neutralize some of these people, please forward any Facebook names to me that you don’t know, or appear fake look for their friend photos and any affiliation to determine if they are fake, fake identities. Tom.” Okay, so those are your statements about…

King: Yeah, I said that in what that was referring to is, is trolls. Okay, that’s, that’s what I was looking for, fake, fake people, you know, and I went from – Facebook, de-platformed, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. We had just under 100,000 followers. And once they allowed me back on, the association can’t get above three or 4000 followers. Anytime I will post anything, and I don’t post much anymore, because the only people that are responding are bots or trolls. The message doesn’t get out to the normal followers we would have had. 

Yes, and I will take credit for saying that, because I wanted to find out who the bots were and who the trolls were so that we could deal with that. I don’t care if a board member says something, and I don’t care about that. And if you look at any of the posts that I had on Facebook, you will see that I’m an equal opportunity, publisher, I allow people to say whatever they want, as long as, as long as they are telling the truth, and as long as it’s not propaganda,

Petrolino: Sure, yeah, no, I’m just trying to understand the comments. So when you say they are “waging a war,” you don’t mean people that are in the group, specifically that started a group that’s being critical of the NRA?

King: No, no, I meant people. I was talking about people on the Facebook page, and, you know, people on social media.

Petrolino: Okay, okay, so, okay. Then when you talk about there being “actions to neutralize” these people. What is that?

King: You know, the delisting them from the websites, blocking their comments and things like that. 

Petrolino: Okay, because it’s just – this is somebody else’s Facebook group. It’s not yours.

King: No, no. But I was talking, I was talking about, if you see them on there, and then you also see them on your own Facebook page, take them off your Facebook page.

Petrolino: Sure. This was something that came up when I was doing my research on the case, and [I was] looking into a lot of this.

I think that’s pretty straightforward. 

Is there anything else that I guess you would want to add – little brevity – on this situation with the election and what’s going on? I want to be able to make sure you’re being heard.

King: Other than the fact that I have a proven record. And you know, in 18 or 19 years on the board, I’ve only missed three board meetings. One because that was one of the meetings was canceled [due to] COVID. My wife was in the hospital for another. And the third one was just this this past year, when I just had bypass surgery. 

I don’t think that Mr. Lee, Mr. Mills, Mr. Bachenberg, or a lot of the people that are claiming to be part of the Reformers can claim to have such an attendance record and such a record of accomplishment.

I just think that, I don’t think that anybody should be elected because of what they did, but I think they should be elected based on the possibility of what they can do, knowing what they did.

Petrolino: I think that’s fair enough. Mr. King, I appreciate your time here, and like I said, I’m just trying to give everybody a fair shake here and remain, you know, as middle of the road on this issue as possible. Obviously, it’s a polarizing thing. People are very animated about this, so I appreciate your time and talking to me on this. Do you have any questions for me? 

King: No, I just have a couple comments. One, I think that you are doing a pretty decent job,

And the other thing is that the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association has 22,000 members or so, give or take some. And I see a lot of people. I go out visiting clubs and associations, and the only thing that people care about is this interceding fighting amongst themselves, and they’re the ones that, and they’re sure that that is going to destroy the NRA. 

Most of them know that what Leticia James did to the NRA, or what she was trying to do to the NRA, was just to destroy it, as she said when she started running for office in her initial kickoff speech. Most of the people have no idea who the Brewer firm is, all they want is to have the NRA survive and until we put all of this behind us and stop all of this, frankly, …the only word that comes to mind is BS, aside, Because there are checks and balances now, and everybody is entitled to their own opinion. What I see going on right now is the consolidation of power around a few people, the same way that it was consolidated around Wayne. And that’s dangerous, and that’s something that we shouldn’t do.

#

The National Rifle Association annual election of directors is rapidly approaching. According to Bob Barr, the ballots will be in the February issues of your NRA magazine. There are 25 seats up for election or reelection via conventional ballot, and an additional seat, the 76th director who is voted on at the annual meeting. For more information about the two prevailing camps, you can visit their sites via the links below. There are also a few candidate who are on neither “team,” where they’re not seeking to make a stance, one way or the other, on this debate.

“Old Guard,” aka Strong NRA: https://strongnra.com/
“Reformers,” aka NRA 2.0: https://electanewnra.com/ 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 thoughts on “An Interview With NRA Board Member Tom King On Upcoming Board Elections”

Scroll to Top