The National Rifle Association (NRA) annual meeting and exhibits just wrapped up in Dallas a couple of days ago. As I mentioned yesterday, the organization is at a crossroads. There were some interesting developments at the Board of Directors meeting yesterday that you can read more about on Stephen Gutowski’s The Reload (some free, some paywalled) and John Richardson’s No Lawyers Only Guns and Money blog (free).
I was interested to receive an email from the NRA this morning announcing the results of the board’s decisions on Monday. I already knew the election results so what interested me was the reported attendance at the meetings and exhibits: 72,000.
I have attended the NRA meetings three times previously. The reported attendance at those meetings was as follows:
- 2019 Indianapolis: 77,000+
- 2016 Louisville: 80,000+
- 2013 Houston: 86,000+
All three of those meetings were very crowded, so the numbers seem reasonable to me. I have no idea where the 72,000+ number for Dallas comes from because the show floor never seemed busy the entire weekend. And I was on the floor quite a bit hawking my book and visiting people.
Vendors who spent considerable time and money to be at the exhibits would know better than me. Those I spoke with said the attendance was way off this year. I’ll be interested to hear what, if anything, those vendors say publicly about it.
Thanks for reading beyond the headline. If you appreciate this or some of the other 1000+ posts on this blog, please consider supporting my research and writing on American gun culture by liking and sharing my work.
Gun Culture 2.0 
I was at Phoenix/2009. It was IIRC 90+K – and felt like it. The dinner was one of the largest and was executed to perfection (good food, everyone’s came out hot: takes work).
Attendance can be N but seem less if people’s visits are of shorter duration (i.e., kinda the integral over time = the ‘feel’). NRA stance/popularity also can be a bit separated from convention attendance: everyone likes a big gun show 😉 and other factors can cause variation – travel cost, economy, desirability of destination, etc.
I’m seeing rumblings on web that “maybe NRA will change its stance to <gun control item>” which is silly; membership actually grows if (productive) harder stances taken, not dilution of stances or activity.
I’m sad NRA lost good staff & lobbyists. There’s still a chance to fix – but it’ll involve people studying the B-school reviews of the Tylenol disaster (poisonings ~30y ago) and how they recovered and even grew their brand again – as well as the United Way scandal with William Aramony. Branding is hard to recover even if attributions are partly false – the Ford Pinto wasn’t a bad car (esp the wagon) but Ford would not bring back that brand today! And the better the brand it is the harder it falls.
-Bill
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very astute observations. Thanks for taking the time to make them. For me a lot of the lack of attendance was noticeable because of the “vibe” on the show floor. The exhibits felt dead. At the same time, there was evidence excitement about Trump’s appearance and the members meeting was very vibrant also.
For me, I don’t say the NRA should change it stance on any particular gun control item. I would just like it to focus on guns and leave all of the conversative culture war baggage behind. That certainly motivates some gun owners to be attached, but it alienates others.
LikeLike
Dave,
Do understand there are kinda 2 NRAs, despite or alongside the recent sturm und drang: there’s the fundraising/PR side and the actual lobbying/litigation side. The latter is pretty ‘clean 2A’; the former tilt is because that’s angle from where the donations often come from (to NRA itself, vs ILA, CRDF, FNRA). I’ve not seen any instances where NRA lobbying at Fed or state level is outside the 2A purview, with minor exceptions relating to 1A issues (like in CA).
It was sad that both past NRA lobbying leaders Chris Cox & Jason Ouimet – capable, untainted etc. – decided to move on. “Institutional” talent/contact pools and back channels walked out the door.
-Bill
LikeLike
Bill –
There are actually 3 NRAs, 2 of which are public facing and those are the ones that most concern me.
There is of course the fundraising/PR side and that was the most offensive side in fighting a right-wing culture war notably via NRA TV. This certainly riles up the conservative base of gun owners but is a small tent approach that alienates others and doesn’t serve gun culture well in the long run.
There is also the education and training wing that should also be a-political outside the 2A. In my experience, it frequently is, though that depends some on individual trainers which obviously the NRA cannot fully control. But the education and training division could also encourage its certified trainers to stick to the curriculum without additional conservative culture war rhetoric.
My view FWIW.
LikeLike