The National Rifle Association released its most detailed accounting of membership as part of a new filing by its outside law firm in a New York civil corruption case, and the numbers confirm the group’s significant decline.

The NRA had just 3,898,759 by the end of 2023, according to a document filed with the court by NRA outside law firm Brewer Attorneys and Counselors earlier this month. That puts the gun-rights group’s membership down another 400,000 from the year before, as The Reload exclusively reported at the time. It’s also down about 1.35 million members from the NRA’s 2018 peak.

The filing confirms the membership decline is driving the NRA’s revenue decline. It includes financials from the first three months of 2024, where membership dues continued to decline year-over-year–indicating a further membership drop even from the 2023 numbers. Dues fell to $17.2 million in March 2024, down 31 percent from the previous March and nearly 80 percent from March 2018.

The NRA’s downturn is likely to play a role in the second phase of its corruption trial. After a jury found the NRA failed to safeguard whistleblowers and former leadership, including Wayne LaPierre, diverted the non-profit’s funds toward lavish personal expenses in February, Judge Joel Cohen will begin hearing arguments on the best remedies to prevent the same problems from reoccurring. The membership collapse could influence his decision.

The NRA did not respond to a request for comment on the decline. However, the Brewer filing indicates the group wants the judge to take notice of it. The filing frames the downturn as the fault of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who called the NRA a “terrorist organization” during her 2018 campaign for office.

“The NYAG’s investigation and lawsuit have negatively impacted the NRA’s ability to fundraise,” Intensity, a firm hired by the Brewer firm, said in its report to the judge. “This observation is supported by an analysis of the NRA’s annual total revenues, members, membership dues, and contributions.”

Several NRA staffers repeat the assertion in included depositions. NRA Treasurer Sonya Rowling argued the lawsuit is primarily responsible for driving away members.

“Well, there’s a multitude of reasons, many being related to negative press associated with this New York AG litigation,” she said. “There is obviously economic factors, meaning inflation is high, people can’t afford — when you cut expenditures, you are going to cut something like membership dues. I mean, there’s — you can’t just look at one piece. But a big driver is this, you know, this weaponization of government against this organization.”

John Commerford, Chief of Operations for the NRA’s Institute of Legislative Action, echoed that assessment. He claimed the NRA’s success in boosting the landmark New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen Supreme Court ruling and passage of permitless gun-carry in most states should have driven membership up but hasn’t because of the suit.

“So with that level of success that has been unprecedented essentially in our organization’s history for representing our members, we still continue to decline,” he argued. “The only common thread that occurs during that period is the action from New York State which started with a campaign and became real when Attorney General James went into office, and then the legacy media continues to harp on that negative. So it’s very hard to overcome that level of adversity against our actions.”

Commerford acknowledged that the jury found the NRA had failed to safeguard its assets and former executives had diverted millions toward things like private jet and helicopter travel. But he said members were more upset and deterred by the lawsuit than what brought it on. He further argued the prospect of a court-appointed monitor would lead to a greater decline in membership.

“So in regards to the jury, yes, there’s a verdict,” he said. “However, I operate outside of New York State, in the U.S. Capitol, in state capitals, and with our membership, and the common theme we hear is New York and the adverse action against the NRA has been motivated to have a chilling effect on our membership, and circling back to potential adverse action or some type of monitor, that would compound that effect exponentially on our ability to recruit and retain members.”

When asked if it was the NRA’s position that “any injunctive relief of any kind that the court orders in response to the jury verdict” would create “a chilling effect on membership,” Commerford said “yes.” That sums up much of the NRA’s defense in the trial. The filing argues, as the Brewer firm has since the beginning, that the NRA self-corrected before James brought her suit, and no further action is necessary or warranted.

Judge Cohen will decide whether that’s true when the second phase of the trial begins on July 15th.