The National Rifle Association (NRA) is under scrutiny after its Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) published an article questioning the validity of an email received by Gun Owners of America (GOA) regarding stabilizing braces and their classification by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). This dispute, which has sparked outrage in the firearm community, raises important questions about the NRA’s motives and its impact on the unity of Second Amendment advocacy.

The Controversy

Last week, GOA shared an email they received from the ATF, which clarified that their previous communication—stating that all pistols with stabilizing braces must be registered as short-barreled rifles (SBRs)—was “overbroad.” GOA’s release of this email was significant, as it addressed concerns about conflicting enforcement of the ATF’s stabilizing brace rule amidst ongoing legal challenges. However, the NRA-ILA responded by publishing an article using terms like “reportedly” and “purportedly,” suggesting the email’s authenticity was questionable.

This response led many, including firearm rights advocates and GOA supporters, to interpret the NRA’s language as an attack on GOA’s credibility. The NRA’s actions are especially troubling given that the ATF’s email has been verified and was addressed directly to GOA Executive Vice President Erich Pratt.

The Verified Email

In the email dated January 13, 2025, Matthew Shear, Chief of the ATF’s Firearms Industry Programs Branch, acknowledged GOA’s inquiry and confirmed that the ATF’s earlier statement regarding stabilizing braces was inaccurate. The ATF explicitly stated that their rule had been stayed nationwide due to a federal court order and clarified the limits of their enforcement authority under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA).

This email provides clear evidence that GOA’s claims were accurate, making the NRA’s skepticism unfounded. By questioning GOA’s integrity, the NRA has not only undermined another Second Amendment organization but has also sown division within the firearm advocacy community.

Why This Matters

The NRA has long been regarded as a leading voice for gun rights, but its recent actions highlight a troubling pattern. Instead of collaborating with other organizations like GOA, which have taken the lead in securing significant legal victories, the NRA appears to be engaging in what Braden of Langley Outdoors aptly described as “green-on-blue fighting.”

For more insights, watch Braden’s video on Langley Outdoors, embedded below, where he delves deeper into this controversy and explains why unity is crucial for protecting our rights.

This infighting is detrimental to the broader Second Amendment movement. With public perception of the NRA already diminished due to allegations of corruption and mismanagement, attacking GOA’s integrity does nothing to rebuild trust or advance the cause of gun rights. GOA has been at the forefront of challenging the ATF’s stabilizing brace rule, securing key injunctions that protect gun owners nationwide. In contrast, the NRA’s contributions to this effort have been limited.

What Should Happen Next

The NRA owes GOA and the firearm community an apology. A retraction or follow-up article acknowledging the authenticity of the ATF’s email and reaffirming GOA’s contributions would be a step toward repairing the damage caused by this unnecessary conflict. Unity is essential in the fight to protect Second Amendment rights, and the NRA’s actions should reflect that principle.

Moving Forward

Second Amendment advocacy requires collaboration and mutual respect among organizations. Divisive tactics only weaken the movement and provide ammunition to those who oppose firearm rights. Gun owners deserve better from the NRA, and it’s time for the organization to refocus on its mission rather than engaging in counterproductive disputes with its allies.