Skip to content

February 18, 2017

8

Top 10 Executives (MEN) at the NRA Made $10.6 Million

by Anne Paddock

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is a non-profit 501 (c) (4) organization that fights tirelessly for our second amendment rights. Whether or not you believe the second amendment refers to “militia” or “the people” has always been controversial but is even more so in the wake of the near daily occurrence of mass shootings in this country. People are speaking out for gun control because quite frankly, there are too many guns and assault weapons in the hands of the wrong people.

But the NRA won’t budge an inch often referring to “the slippery slope” and the right of people to defend themselves from the tyranny of government (that our government along with several others have more than 15,000 nuclear weapons doesn’t seem to be a consideration. I don’t know a lot about guns or assault weapons but I’d go out on a limb here and say these weapons won’t protect anyone from a nuclear weapon).

The NRA is successful because they are organized (more than 5 million members pay about $35 a year for membership) and have a lot of money (they raise about $335 million a year and have $75 million in their net fund balance). They spend these funds on all sorts of things: lobbyists, political action committees, defending pro bono cases, education, training, advertising, public relations and paying their executives very well. In fact, the most recent IRS Form 990 (2015) reveals that the ten most highly compensated key executives received $10.6 million dollars in 2015:

Wayne LePierre, CEO and Executive $5,110,985

Chris W. Cox, Executive Director ILA $1,450,842

Douglas Hamlin, Executive Director, Publications:  $633,948

Michael Marcellin, Managing Director $607,969

Robert K. Weaver, Executive Director, General Ops $598,655

Wilson H. Phillips, Jr., Treasurer $591,207

Tyler Schropp, Executive Director, Advancement $580,302

David Lehman, Deputy Executive Director, ILA $424,191

John C. Frazier, Secretary and General Counsel:  $328,446

James Baker, Director, ILA Federal $313,074

Collectively, 7 of the 10 executives received more than a half million dollars a year in compensation, while 2 executives receive more than $1 million annually, and 1 executive – Wayne LePierre – received more than $5 million in 2015. How is Wayne LePierre worth $5 million a year – which equates to nearly $100,000 per week or about $20,000 per working weekday?

When I think of non-profit, I often think of the greater good so it’s really hard to look at a list of key executives of a non-profit and see compensation packages that range from a low of $313,074 to a high of $5,110,985. That all the executives are male and middle-aged is even more disconcerting because our population (who generally support the second amendment) is 51% female and 49% male. Approximately 54% of our population are under 39 years old, and 28% of our population are non-white. So, why does the who’s who of the NRA look like a good ol’ boys club?

8 Comments Post a comment
  1. Robert H. Smith
    Aug 14 2018

    The NRA is typical of the millions of non-profit organizations in the USA. They are one of the oldest ones and their original mission was to promote hunting and gun safety. Due to the threat to the constitution being waged by state socialists, they have morphed into a defensive gun lobby. As usual, these organizations become the cash cow of the people who control them.
    There should be no argument as to the meaning of the of the 2nd amendment if we know the history of our country. As militias were necessary for the defense, citizens were encouraged to have their own firearms as they could be called up at any time.
    Also, most men owned a rifle for hunting and to protect his home and family. So, congress was prohibited from making any laws restricting firearms. Of course the framers didn’t have a crystal ball and couldn’t have known the advances in firearms that would occur. But they made a provision for these eventualities called “AMENDMENT”. But that is not what the anti-gun lobby wants. It wants to further erode the constitution that is the only protection citizens have from their government.
    There will always be the argument whether we are safer with guns or without and neither side will ever be able to prove their case. There is one thing that is certain: The POLICE cannot protect YOU. They can only catch your attacker. Americans are constantly told to rely on the Law for protection and this has caused many injuries and deaths.
    I personally believe guns are the greatest equalizer ever invented giving the weak a chance to stand up to the bullies in our world!

  2. Aug 14 2018

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I have no illusions about changing your mind but feel compelled to disagree with you regarding “guns being the great equalizer” because the government has nuclear bombs and guns will never protect you from a government with has the capability of detonating a nuclear bomb.

    In countries that have easy access to guns, more people die. The numbers don’t lie. And, I still think it’s a tragedy that the NRA and other guns rights supporters did not come to the table after those 20 little 5 and 6-year olds were gunned down in Connecticut. The NRA and gun supporters remind me of the pro-lifers: Neither will give an inch in a culture that is not black and white but very grey.

  3. Robert H. Smith
    Aug 16 2018

    No one believes that citizens guns are a match for a powerful government with a standing army. That was never the purpose of the 2nd amendment. I don’t believe all the high powered and automatic guns are necessary but I believe in the constitution and that’s where any changes should be made. Not one of the anti-gun lobbies has suggested doing that.
    As to statistics, figures don’t lie but liars figure. Statistics can be made to justify about anything you want them to. America is one of the most violent countries in the world. All the more reason for citizens to be armed.
    As to equalization, I was talking about individuals. I believe self defense is a human right and guns give the small and weak a chance against the big and strong.
    The current string of school violence is not the worst in our country’s history or the world. Schools seem to be a magnet for troubled people to wreak violence on the innocent.

  4. Aug 16 2018

    The people supporting tighter gun laws (not all are anti-gun and in fact many support the second amendment) differ with you on the interpretation of the second amendment, which reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    No, not all people that sprout statistics are liars. Let’s use deaths by gun..that’s a pretty definitive number. Let’s simply count how many people die by gun shot in the US and how many people die by gun shot in Canada, Sweden or England or Spain, and dozens of other countries where guns are restricted. In the United States, there are about 10 deaths by firearms per 100,000 people annually (which equates to about 35,000 deaths based on a 350,000,000 population), according to Wikipedia. The only countries that have higher rates include the obvious: Mexico, El Salvador, Columbia, Honduras, Panama, Guatemala, Brazil, Jamaica, and Swaziland. Contrast the US rate with countries who have stronger gun control laws: Canada (4.8 per 100,000 population), Switzerland (3.5), France (3.0), Israel (1.9), Sweden (1.5), Italy (1.3), Germany (1.1), Spain (0.6), United Kingdom (0.25), and Japan (0.07). Fewer people die by firearms in countries that have stricter gun control laws.

    Your reasoning that we should be armed because we are the most violent country in the world fails to look at why we are a violent country: because guns, automatic rifles, high capacity magazines, etc are readily available, especially to males who shouldn’t have them (see the link below). Your reasoning is also analogous to saying we should all have access to medications to treat high cholesterol, high blood pressure, TYPE II diabetes, and other lifestyle induced illnesses with medicine because we can’t control our impulses to eat all the animal products and crap out there which is making 2 out of 3 Americans overweight and nearly 40% obese and which made heart disease the number one cause of death in the US. Treating these illnesses with medication is not the answer; changing their diet is. Treating the gun problem and all the mass shootings in this country by arming everyone is not the answer, controlling the types of firearms and who has access (i.e. not the mentally ill, not those on the no fly list, etc) is. In your scenerio, more children, teens, and adults die. In my scenario more people live.

    In other words, instead of treating the effect, we need to look at the cause. The effect in the gun issue is that too many people are dying in mass shootings so you propose to arm people. I propose we treat the cause – get guns, high capacity magazines, assault weapons, and more out of the hands of people – primarily males – who are committing these heinous crimes. Less people will die and have the opportunity to live their lives.

    The school violence in our country is the worst in our country’s history. All you have to do is add up the number of school shootings per year and the number of people shot and killed in schools and the conclusion is clear.

    https://paddockpost.com/2012/12/21/young-males-guns-lethal-mix/

    https://paddockpost.com/2014/09/26/who-are-the-mass-shooters/

  5. Robert H. Smith
    Aug 17 2018

    I agree with your answer to my first post, it is very difficult to change minds once they are made up. The ability to reason can cut both ways as each persons life experiences are different. Your reasoning that because we no longer need militias, the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply anymore. You are right about that part but the amendment is still the law of the land, if you believe in law. So, it is time to look into changing the constitution instead of ignoring it. If you believe in the constitution, you can’t support any laws that it prohibits.
    Your second paragraph quoting statistics just doesn’t seem revealent to the problems in America. The reasons we are a violent country is not because of guns. America is a melting pot of many races, religions,ethnic backgrounds and beliefs. Unbridled immigration, decaying cities, politicians separating people into voting blocks and groups are some of the causes.
    Since it is impossible to control guns at this stage, I think we should pass stringent laws regarding the illegal use of them, educate the public on proper use and amend the constitution to limit the size and scope of permissible firearms and limit their use except for protection.
    I would also note that current gun control advocates are focusing on hunting and sport type guns which account for a very small percentage of the injuries and deaths.
    As to school violence, dynamite was used in our worst case, killing about 45 in Michigan. No laws, prisons, police forces or wishful thinking will keep humans from killing each other.

  6. Aug 17 2018

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree. The number of deaths by guns is absolutely relevant to this conversation. What part of “fewer people die by firearms in countries that have stricter gun control laws” don’t you understand? I think you should get all the parents and families of all children, teens, and adults shot in the past 5 years in a room and explain that one. I’m sure they would be totally interested in hearing your rhetoric.

  7. Robert H. Smith
    Aug 18 2018

    We certainly will. Its my hope that your side never wins as our personal freedom is the only reason to exist on this earth. While our constitution has been shredded in many places by people who believe in expediency rather than careful deliberation, we need to save what we can.

  8. Aug 18 2018

    Personal freedom as you define it IS NOT the only reason to exist on earth so please save your arrogance for another blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: