Exclusive Interview with Potential NRA Reformer, Charlie Brown of MKS Supply

With the National Rifle Association’s 2025 Board of Directors election on the horizon, a group of twenty-eight reform candidates are hard at work campaigning for what they call “NRA 2.0,” proposing to change and revive what was once the beacon of Second Amendment advocacy. The group’s website, ElectANewNRA.com, cites restoration of trust and a return to the NRA’s original mission and core values as a fundamental priority to the defense of American gun rights and the development of programs to support firearm safety, education, and shooting sports. 

I had the opportunity to spend time with one of the reformers, Charlie Brown, third-generation steward of a family tradition in the firearms industry, NRA lifetime member, and President of Ohio-based MKS Supply, which is the exclusive distributor for Hi-Point Firearms and Inland Manufacturing. Hoping to inform readers directly from a source within the movement, the conversation started with Brown explaining why he feels it’s time to overhaul NRA leadership.

 “The NRA board needs to change because, you know, we are all aware of all the past issues and mismanagement and that type of thing that NRA went through. You know, financial, the lawsuits, all that type of thing from their mismanagement. And, you know, at the end of the day, the board of directors could have stopped that or changed the trajectory, and they didn’t. So, the board needs to change to what we call the reformers,” Brown said.

I asked Brown to tell me in his own words who the reformers are and what the group intends to achieve if they succeed in earning a majority vote on the NRA board. “The reformers, you know, are the people that feel like the NRA needs to get back to the original mission, you know, of, of responsible gun ownership, public safety, firearms training, and, you know, watching out for the NRA or the Second Amendment, you know, for its members. So, that’s what the reformers are bound to do and we’re going to do it. It’s just a matter of when it’s going to happen,” says Brown. 

Having lived long enough to see the NRA fall from grace as a formidable force behind the Second Amendment, I can’t argue with the sentiment. However, a strong sense of history can oftentimes help us understand where our predecessors were drawn off course, prompting me to ask Brown why he thinks the old guard adopted a direction that has ushered in the current state of the NRA.

“Well, I mean, a lot of it had to do with Wayne and his power over them. You know, there’s a lot of people that were brought on and put on the board by Wayne, you know, by one way or the other, and so, you know, they had allegiance to Wayne. You know, I think Wayne did a really good job for many many years but unfortunately, he became tainted, you know, much like a lot of politicians do, and did not, was not looking out for the NRA and was looking out more for himself and his cronies, and it just went bad,” Brown explained to me. Digging deeper, I was curious about Brown’s perspective on whether those previous decisions were more financially or politically motivated.

“I think that there was a lot of politics that went into play there. I think that, you know, I mean, we all remember NRA as the 800-pound gorilla in the room. They had all the power, which was good for its members when it was powerful. But, you know, I don’t know how long you can remember back, but probably 12 to 15 years ago, I, as a member, saw the NRA changing because they weren’t as hard-core political. They didn’t stand up for our rights. They caved on several issues with the White House. And, that change was pretty obvious to me. I’m standing on the sidelines as a life member going, ‘What the hell is going on?’ You know, I mean, that’s not what the members want,” according to Brown.

Brown went on to explain to me his connection with and empathy for the membership’s discontent regarding the NRA’s direction and leadership, going so far as to question whether he would maintain his status with the organization if he were not already a lifetime member.

“Fortunately, you know I’m a 35-year exhibiter at the NRA Show, and I get to feel and take the pulse of the membership, you know, on a very personal basis, and generally, the membership was thinking like I was, thinking, ‘well, where’s the transparency?’ You know, why aren’t the NRA putting the members first? You know, why aren’t they dedicated to our mission like it used to be? And so, you know, I was disheartened, and to be honest with you, if I wasn’t a life member, I probably would have stopped being a member for a while,” Brown admitted.

With so many options for gun rights advocacy these days, like Gun Owners of America (GOA), Second Amend Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and more, I wondered why not throw support behind one of those groups instead, which Brown later explained to me that he does, but also spoke about a deep-seated philosophy on commitment passed down through several generations of his family. 

“I was raised in the firearms business and, you know, my father and grandfather used to tell me, ‘If you don’t like the way something’s going, either walk away from it or get involved and make a change, you know. So, that's kind of — I didn’t want to walk away because I still think it can be a great organization again doing the things that the members want it to do… The NRA is composed of 76 members, right? I mean, the board is. You know, by having a voting majority of the reformers, we will be able to move the NRA back to what it should be. You know, it should be a member's organization,” said Brown. 

Brown went on to explain his choice, after such a steep decline in the NRA’s power, popularity, and influence, to finally get involved in the organization’s leadership and try to implement the changes he feels are necessary to right the ship. “That feel changed, you know, the proudness and the feel changed at some point, you know, and I think that’s when Wayne, you know, went rotten, you know. I mean, it happened. Everybody saw it happen, you know. And I mean, I was approached five years or so ago to become a board member by one of the very early reformers, and, you know, I told him there’s no way in hell I’m going to get involved until Wayne’s gone because he has too much power over everybody else,” Brown said. 

Now that the proverbial path is clear of what sounds like a major roadblock, I began to ask Brown about details the reformers might prioritize if they do become a voting majority.

“The first and foremost thing we have to do at the NRA is show the members transparency and accountability and spend their money like they want it spent, you know. That’s the number one thing we need to get back to our roots on, you know. We have to prove to them, which is going to be a marketing effort and a, you know, a ‘show me’ effort, you know, the ‘show me’ state, you know. We all know that quote, you know. ‘Don’t tell me, show me.’ So, we’re going to have to prove to them that we’re on a mission to make a change and show them the changes that we’re making, and then a lot of people, I think, will rejoin the NRA and, you know, it will become a more powerful organization like it once was, you know. So, I mean, that’s really the first step, is just showing the members that we’re steering the ship out of the storm. And the NRA has had a credibility issue for many years, and I mean, that’s something that has to be addressed, you know. I mean, we’ve got to show them that our heart is in it, and we’re not going to, you know, waver, and we’re going to go fight the politicians that want to take our firearms, and you know, show them that we have their best interest in mind,” Brown answered.

Speaking of getting back into the fight, I wanted to drill down on particular issues that predate Wayne LaPierre and have plagued the Second Amendment community for much longer than the last decade and a half. Specifically, I asked for Brown’s thoughts on addressing the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).

“Well, I mean, the Gun Control Act, it — it. I think there are great — you know, we can’t abolish those, okay? I don’t think you can, like, abolish them, right, because that’s a little bit, in my opinion, a little too radical of an ask. But we can certainly go in and right size those and make sense of some of the ridiculous things that might be in them. You know like suppressors, you know. Why can’t they be part of the firearms community that you can go into a gun shop and buy it on a 4473 and walk out the door with it, you know? Why do you have to pay a $200 tax stamp to buy a[n] accessory for a firearm?”

From here, Brown began to explain the various committees within the NRA board and the professional demographics of many of those board members, from business people and NRA instructors to local politicians and attorneys. Brown highlighted the talent pool, emphasizing the reform as needing to be at the “epicenter” of what must be done. I found myself unsatisfied by the idea that suppressors could become a consolation prize while the abolition of an infringement expressly forbidden by the Constitution could somehow be perceived as “radical,” and pushed back on the arbitrary nature of restrictions placed on short-barreled rifles (SBR) and shotguns (SBS).

“I certainly feel that you know, the, what we call SBRs, which are rifles with barrels shorter than sixteen inches, you know, could certainly be a transferable item via a 4473 without a tax stamp. You know, I mean, you know, as a lot of things we talk about, you know the devil is in the details, you know. And, you know, what battles do you want to pick to go after and what kind of money do you want to spend on that when it comes to the NRA’s part? Not being a board member, you know I don’t know — I can’t speak for the board or the reformers coming in, but, you know NFA items like SBRs and any other weapons, in my opinion, would certainly have to be looked at and just like suppressors, you know looked at and just, you know, been like, this is a firearm, like you said it’s not easily concealed. You know, do we want to — There would have to be some parameters, I think,” Brown said. 

As the Second Amendment does not mention parameters, I explained my position as a Constitutional originalist and my belief that words like “parameter” and “regulation” are euphemisms for infringement. Do we have a Second Amendment, or do we have this other thing? The words in the Constitution must have a fixed and objective meaning as understood when adopted. If this is not the case, and lawmakers and judges instead choose to adhere to whims of influence and corruption, the words have no meaning, and the country loses its core values and foundation. Naturally, my next stop was the Hughes Amendment, added to the Firearm Owners Protection Act by New Jersey Democrat William Hughes and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. This measure made it illegal to transfer or possess a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986.

“You know, I really — I haven’t really played in the whole full auto realm a whole lot. I certainly think we should be able to be approved to own full auto if we wish. You know, like all firearms, I do think that there should be some type of background, you know, check as we have it. You know, I think that’s a pretty efficient — I think it’s a pretty efficient system that we have. I think it could get better, you know, by merging mental health records in but that walks way out on a, on another high dive, you know, per se, because you know there’s a lot of possibility for infringing on other rights there. Personally, my personal feelings is, I’m kind of like you. I’m a Constitutionalist and I believe that the Constitution allows us to have, you know, access to pretty much any firearm that we want. You know, there’s a lot of full autos out there, and you know, legal full autos, and none of those are ever involved in any kind of, you know, bad acts. I think, you know, the biggest, the bigger problem would be, let's try to push our lawyers and judges to use the laws that we have currently to put the bad actors away, so they don’t commit more crimes and make honest gun owners like you and I look bad,” says Brown. 

At this point, I transitioned to a discussion of the resources that could be available if the government would stop spending tax dollars to criminalize Constitutionally protected behavior. This is followed by more taxes to fight us in court when we sue, dragging even more of our money through the system. When they are defeated, they begin the cycle all over by ignoring the ruling or finding a creative way to circumvent it. Without this purposeful abuse of tax revenue, good laws that don’t infringe on civil liberties could be upheld, and law enforcement could be equipped with the technology and intelligence to focus on the real criminal element. At this point, however, there is no claim to an inadvertent blind eye, as the criminalization of law-abiding behavior has become an intentional tool in the agenda to disarm Americans. I asked Brown why he thought that was and where he thinks it came from.

“Wow, well, I think a lot of the, you know, all of our judges are lawyers, right? They have to be a lawyer to become a judge, typically. So, you know, I — Unfortunately, I think that is handed down through the good old boy network of, ‘Hey, we’ll keep them in the system, and we’ll all make money on this deal,’ you know? I hate to say that, but I think, you know, that has happened in our system.”

I agree that this mentality plays a role in long and drawn-out proceedings where the only ones who win are those charging by the hour, but I brought it back to the disarmament agenda itself, and the motivating factors behind it that should worry all Americans. Brown continued. “Well, we all know the term, you know firearms’ two greatest enemies are rust and politicians, right? So, yeah, I do believe that a lot of politicians are trying to disarm the American public, and whether that’s for, you know, more devious purposes or more deeply rooted, I don’t know. I think that’s above my pay grade.”

I was reluctant to push further on the matter as neither of us had a crystal ball handy, but I pointed out that putting it into context means applying history as a barometer and looking closely into governments that have disarmed their citizens, which ultimately exposed unspeakably undesirable ends. As much as people make reference to tin foil hats when we discuss this, the history speaks for itself. 

Next, I wanted to discuss the NRA having made endorsements on both sides of the aisle in the past, handing down ratings that were perhaps unfitting for politicians who ended up demonstrating a clear anti-Second Amendment bias. A great example would be New York’s rabidly anti-gun Governor, Kathy Hochul, who in 2012 received an A rating and an NRA endorsement preceding her race for the 27th Congressional District seat. I asked Brown what he thought about the vetting process and if anything could be done to improve the accuracy of information disseminated to voters. 

“Personally, I think that, you know, when you have a national campaign, like a Presidential campaign, or you know that type of caliber, I think the NRA can certainly, you know, rate those candidates but, in my opinion, the best people to rate those candidates are state organizations. Everybody has state organizations, right? We’ve [Ohio] got Buckeye Gun Owners [Buckeye Firearms Association] and that type of thing. You know, those people in their states know how their politicians are voting much better than anybody else. So, whenever I need information on a Senator or Congressman or whatever with regard to voting rights, I always try to tap the state firearms organizations for that information because, you know, they’re a little bit more in tune with what they actually do rather than what they say, you know? And I think maybe in the past, the NRA might have been influenced by, you know, again, we’re talking about the old NRA, Wayne’s NRA, right? And you know, I think maybe there was some, you know, ‘Pat my back, I’ll pat your back’ things going on there, you know, with some of the candidates that got endorsed,” Brown surmised.

I asked Brown if he thought the NRA should spend more time in the vetting process, perhaps withholding endorsements until certain actions or deadlined commitments have been made. “That’s hard to say. I think we could probably get at least a good feel for most of them, and you know, I don’t know. I haven’t given that particular thing very much thought, to be honest with you. I think it can be done, but, you know, but whoever’s doing it has to obviously send out questionnaires, and if they’re returned — a lot of them don’t get returned — you know, if they get returned then somebody’s got to back-check with, like we were talking about before, with a state or local people that know more about that person’s actions, because I think actions are definitely way more powerful than words in that case. You know? Show me that you’re a Second Amendment supporter, not just tell me,” Brown said.

To this, I suggested the NRA make ratings and endorsements specific to some form of compliance by incumbent politicians while keeping ratings fluid for challengers based on the commitments, they are willing to make and stripping them of their ratings the moment they don’t follow through. For those who do not respond to the questionnaire, I suggested an automatic category be applied that reads, “I simply don’t think the Second Amendment is important.” Of course, I am one to hold feet to the fire on the subject, as conservative gun owners practically live with their feet to the fire of anti-Second Amendment rhetoric and attacks from the left daily. I find myself lacking any sympathy on the matter nor giving quarter. 

With perhaps our best offense being an investment in the future, I turned to youth education and involvement in shooting sports, asking Brown what his thoughts were on the subject and what plans he may have for the NRA to welcome new shooters and the next generation. 

“Yeah, I think that has to be a focus because unfortunately the old guys like me, I mean, we’re not going to be around a whole lot longer, you know? We’d like to think we are, but, you know, I think we have to utilize the technology that we have now in front of us to be able to reach out to younger people and energize them, you know? Hunting has kind of slowed down a little bit because it’s not such a traditional type thing anymore,” Brown stated. 

We agreed that outdoor activities like hunting and fishing are more prevalent in rural America. However, I am not sure it has slowed down significantly in those areas so much as it has been overshadowed by the rapid growth in shooting, a subject that Brown addressed.

“On the other hand, going to ranges and shooting targets is way up in activity. So, you know, we need to promote what people are doing now and encourage people to get out to the range, and for older people to take a younger person that might be interested to the range and that type of thing. I think there can be a lot done there to welcome new shooters into our sport, you know? I definitely think that needs to be on the table with the NRA, for sure,” says Brown.

There was a time when politicians feared the NRA, and as it represented the voice of the people, I know that is how the Founders meant things to be. Times have changed and now American citizens live in fear of what the ruling class may impose upon their lives and liberty. We have come a long way from our Founding values, a journey that has seen the diametric reversal of that power dynamic that so many sacrificed to guarantee this nation. Whether we are past the point of no return remains to be seen, but the future of the NRA lies in the hands of its voting members, and it is up to them to decide if the organization is worth saving, what that looks like, or if it will serve an alternate purpose, reminding future organizations of the inevitable death rattle that occurs when the people lose their faith. 

Darwin Nercesian is a long-time gun rights advocate and shooter of targets far, far away. As the News Field Editor at Firearms News, Darwin writes about the Second Amendment, firearms, and related gear. Follow him on Instagram, X, and YouTube @DTOE_Official.

RELATED LINKS

• Firearms News Investigates the NRA: Part 1
• Firearms News Investigates the NRA: Part 2 
• Firearms News Investigates the NRA: Part 3 - Holy C.o.W. (Cult of Wayne)! 
• NRA's LaPierre is Riding the Tiger: LaPierre's self-set dumpster fire may never be completely put out.
• Trump All Over Map on Guns as NRA Fights Self-Started Fires https:
• Trump/NRA Mutual Love Fest: Long on Promises, Short on Memory 
• Reorganizing the NRA: The Judge Must Do It: The Knox Report from The Firearms Coalition 

---