This guy, not a USCCA member? Or IS he?

The NRA often claims that criminals with guns are not NRA members. I would like to see the USCCA also disclaim/disavow any members who do stuff like what’s in this article!! In any case, the USCCA won’t be on the hook to pay for this guy’s legal woes!


The reason for the NRA to make that statement is because they are being blamed by media, politicians, Leftists, and other anti-rights people, for instigating their members to commit acts of violence. So far as I am aware, no NRA members have done anything like that, and neither has any USCCA members. The way you posted your comment makes it appear that you are stating NRA and USCCA members have committed such acts.

This last paragraph from that story shows the political bent against those that are law-abiding firearm owners. The last sentence is the tell. The kidnapping was a set-up by the FBI. It was their actions that created the incident. It also makes one question the veracity of the rest of the “facts” in that paragraph, but I just don’t feel like researching that right now.

Evers, a Democrat, was on a hit list of a gunman suspected of fatally shooting a retired county judge at his Wisconsin home in 2022. Others on that list included Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Whitmer was the target of a kidnapping plot in 2020.

1 Like

When I joined the USCCA, when I joined the NRA, and with each renewal, there was no screening process/background check to determine if I was a felon or a violent criminal. It stands to reason that if anyone can join these organizations, anyone will. The nature of the groups is that they are largely made up of law-abiding, rights-oriented citizens, so it is unlikely that violent criminals (or the mentally ill, perhaps) would find satisfaction in their membership. I assert that it is naïve to suppose that it will never happen, especially while the hurdles to membership are barely more than a valid credit card and email address.

“Disavow” -

  1. To disclaim knowledge of, responsibility for, or association with.
  2. To assert to be wrong or of little value.
  3. To refuse strongly and solemnly to own or acknowledge; to deny responsibility for, approbation of, and the like; to disclaim; to disown.

“Disclaim” -

  • To deny or renounce any claim to or connection with; disown.
  • To deny the validity of; repudiate.
  • To decline to accept responsibility for; decline to make any warranty for.

So one of the things here, is that doing this on an individual person level probably won’t happen…for one thing, it would seem to require publicly stating whether or not said person is a member, which isn’t something I’d expect to be done.

I think people just need to figure out for themselves what was already stated eloquently above.

It’s a membership that requires paying money and becoming a member…and with many hundreds of thousands of members, any group or org, eventually, at some point, is going to have somebody do something that maybe they shouldnt’ have.

I dont’t hink that requires any response or reaction from the organization, generally.


I understand the meanings of those words. As I stated, I feel the comment as written appears to impugn all of us of such crimes. These organizations do not support those that commit crime, nor do they incite, instigate, aggitate, etc., members to commit crime.

There was a case in recent years where a woman who planned a murder joined the USCCA for the coverage, then claimed the subsequent murder was self-defense. When it was revealed in court that she had planned to commit murder before joining, the USCCA coverage was terminated.

However, I don’t recall reading anywhere that the USCCA was blamed for inciting her to commit the criminal act she had planned before joining the USCCA. As you stated, anyone can join, but only lawful acts are covered and illegal acts are definitely not encouraged.


I don’t know about this guys membership with NRA or USCCA. However, I do know USCCA encourages every member to follow the law. In sum, I think the guy is just an idiot if not ill. I see in a WSJ report he did get referred for a mental health exam after his second arrest.

1 Like

I’d rather the USCCA stay under the radar in keeping with the “concealed” aspect of the organization.


I’m for that. Just don’t tell the USCCA marketing pros whose responsibilities include growth and development!

1 Like

The interesting thing is that members of organizations like the NRA and USCCA likely have a 100% firearm ownership rate.

If guns and self defense/firearms “culture” were the cause of crime you would expect NRA and USCCA members to be convicted of crimes at a much higher rate than the general public. But I strongly suspect they are far less likely to commit crimes. Studies of licensed concealed carriers show them to be far less likely to commit crimes than LEOs.

Groups like these strongly promote safe and responsible firearms ownership. The only action they are trying to incite is safety. Will an incredibly small handful of their millions of members eventually be caught committing a crime? Probably. But that is completely irrelevant. Bad people will do bad things regardless of what club, group, profession, religion, etc. they are members of.


I am 100% aligned with your reply. My original purpose in posting, which seems like it may have been lost on one or two, was that the anti-gun public takes these events and blames ALL gun owners for bad things that happen with guns. The NRA makes a point of saying “These bad people are NOT NRA members.” I have never seen the USCCA make a public statement of that nature. That the news event in my post happened in Wisconsin suggests to me that, if the USCCA ever were to come out about bad guns vs. good guns, if they ever were to publicly defend the character of its membership - the hundreds of thousands you cite - then this would be a good opportunity. However, “crickets”. I question the advantages of this policy.

I think I might not be 100% sure of the point you were originally trying to make.

I thought you were saying that the USCCA should disavow members who do stuff like the man in this article? Has there been a member who has done something like this for them to disavow?

The recent Kayla Giles case maybe has some parallels as a “member” who committed a crime. Though it seems she joined only as part of the criminal act. In this case I suspect USCCA has to be limited in their comments due to the litigation process.

I’m not so sure it makes sense to make statements after events like these saying “see he wasn’t a member of our organization we are the good guys”. If you do that enough times you may eventually run into a case where they are a member and then have to listen to all the anti self defense people say “see we told your members were dangerous.

I think it would be better to respond to events like these by saying something along the line of “We strive to provide our membership with the training and other tools they need to protect themselves and their families from dangerous criminals like this.”


I very much appreciate your thoughtful reply.

Funny how I thought my original post was clear enough, I don’t like any news story where the gun itself is played up to be “the bad guy.” I would think that the whole USCCA membership would have similar feelings, some members’ feelings being stronger about it than others.

The part about current litigation being a factor is interesting. The NRA is constantly, continuously, and very visibly involved in litigation at state and federal levels, and their position is quite clear about “good guys with guns” and “bad guys with guns.” Of course, all the abuse Uncle Wayne has taken for saying that quote after the Sandy Hook atrocity drew a lot of lightening straight at him. I guess this supports your idea that the best thing for the USCCA to do is “nothing”, or at least, nothing directly visible in the media. On balance, Gun Owners of America also takes a much more public stance on bad guys with guns being separate and apart from its membership.

If you would suggest an edit I could make to the original post that makes it clearer to any given reader, I am open to suggestion.

Thank you again for your thoughtful reply.


It’s probably just me. At first I took your post to mean you were disappointed that the USCCA hadn’t disavowed any members for specific acts. I wasn’t aware of specific acts like that for them to disavow so wasn’t sure what you were wanting them to react to. Now I see you were more likely referring to responding to these acts in general beyond just ones committed by their members.

In the Kayla Giles case it was a civil case directed at USCCA so I would not expect them to be able to comment without the threat of impacting the legal proceedings. The NRA talking about litigation against unconstitutional laws is a different thing. It most likely won’t get them into any legal trouble.

The USCCA-FSL seems to be closely affiliated with the USCCA and takes on more of the political and legal activist roles that groups like the NRA, GOA, FPC, etc do. I suspect that intentionally gives the USCCA a little bit of distance from the messy realm of politics. In an ideal world the USCCA would be drawing in members from all sides of the aisle.

I know many left leaning folks who take defending their families very seriously. Would be nice if they felt a little more welcome in places like this. We need all the firearm owners working together to protect our 2A rights if we want those rights to be around much longer.


Exactly, and unlike the NRA, which is blamed for every criminal act, the USCCA is not, neither are its members. IIRC, there were at least several politicians and AGs/DAs calling the NRA a terrorist organization. I would proffer that they would defend themselves against such crap. I have not read anything even remotely close to that about the USCCA. As such, I see no need for the USCCA to make any public statement regarding its members when some thug commits murder.

The USCCA and its members clearly had nothing to do with that. We are united by our belief in our RKBA and in our right to self-defense. That has zero to do with criminal activity, other than defend ourselves to whatever level of force is needed to neutralize the threat.


Because it’s not necessary.


“But I strongly suspect they are far less likely to commit crimes. Studies of licensed concealed carriers show them to be far less likely to commit crimes than LEOs”

Oh Brother you are Good!
(20) years ago I would have said you should run for public orifice but then you would just get phucked in the head like all the rest and I just don’t want to see that. You know how to keep it REAL.

(I like that!)


Well, well, well…

The suspect who was arrested after bringing a handgun into the Wisconsin Capitol Wednesday afternoon and demanding to see Governor Evers, then returning that night with a rifle after posting bail, is a well-known chef at a Madison distillery and an apparent liberal who made multiple donations to Bernie Sanders.


Is Bernie Sanders now going to “disclaim/disavow any members who do stuff like what’s in this article!!” :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Why don’t we ever hear him do that? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Channeling Bernie Sanders:
“Guns are terrible. There’s too many. The gun manufacturers are getting rich, laughing all the way to the bank while the proletariat suffers. Just look at this poor shmo who was so confused about who his victimizers are. We aren’t going to disavow him. He is our poster child. We have to get government to do a better job taking care of all the poor shmos like this - to provide them government funded support and get Mexico to pay for it. Hillary 2028!!!”


Every once in awhile I get the crazy idea of running for office. Then I realize that I am not willing to promise wealthy individuals that I will vote for their pet projects if they donate to my campaign when those projects will screw over my neighbors. So I’m not sure how I’d be able to fund my inspiring add campaign message of - we have dug ourselves into a huge hole and now need to start taking some painful actions to dig ourselves back out of it. Catchy isn’t it?:wink:

I’m also not good at telling people what they want to hear instead of what I think they need to hear. Plus I wouldn’t be good in a debate because instead of spouting out quick and catchy one liners I like to stop and think before responding to questions. This gets me in trouble with my wife all the time since I’m often pausing to consider the best course of action instead of just saying “yes dear”.:grimacing:

At any rate I seriously doubt I’d ever be able to get enough funding or votes to get elected. Which is probably a good thing at least when it comes to maintaining what’s left of my sanity!