Monday, September 14, 2026
Page 3
National Rifle Association Sued for Offering Favorable Pricing to Female Members
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A self-styled “mens-rights activist” has filed a putative class action complaint against the National Rifle Association of America, accusing the firearm-advocacy group of violating California civil rights laws by offering discounted membership rates to women.
The pleading, filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Steve Frye and Jackie Durazo asserts claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, found at Civil Code §51 et seq., which provides that “[n]o business establishment of any kind whatsoever shall discriminate against…any person in this state on account of” their race, sex, or other protected characteristics.” Frye and Durazo allege:
“This lawsuit is about the NRA treating Plaintiffs and other consumers—male, female and nonbinary consumers—unequally by providing only females with discounted NRA memberships for various terms…while denying men and nonbinary persons…the same discounts based on the person’s sex.”
Disparity in Pricing
The plaintiffs claim that the Virginia-based group has offered discounts, in amounts ranging from $10 to $500 depending on the period covered by the fee, applicable only to female applicants and said that Frye paid $45 for a one-year membership in September 2024 while Durazo paid only $35 for the same package. They add:
“In addition to being denied the above women-only discounted memberships, the NRA also denied Mr. Frye an NRA sherpa fleece blanket, which the NRA provided to only new female members, with the discrimination or disparity against based on the sex of the new members.”
They assert that the NRA qualifies as a “business establishment” within the meaning of the act, highlighting that it “sells a wide variety of products in California…on the NRA’s store at nrastore.com, including men and women’s clothing, footwear, headwear, holsters, hearing protection, purses, wallets, targets, hot sauces, and blankets.”
Frye and Durazo, each residents of the Golden State, seek to represent a California class of “all persons who purchased…memberships to the NRA, for which the…prices were based on the members’ sex, and all persons whom the NRA denied, offered, or provided an NRA sherpa fleece blanket…based on the persons’ sex” as well as those who had “a bona fide intent” to join the group “but did not…because these persons encountered” the disparity in pricing.
Supreme Court Case
Citing the 1985 California Supreme Court decision in Koire v. Metro Car Wash, in which the high court held that so-called “ladies- night” promotions violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act unless a compelling social policy justifies the disparity in pricing, they remarked:
“Any business operating in the progressive state of California in the 21st century should know that California embraces equality and condemns sex discrimination and preferences of one sex over others….Imagine the outrage and sex discrimination lawsuits if the NRA charged women up to $500 more than men for the same type of membership….Fortunately, in California equal rights are for everyone, and California rightfully forbids and has specifically outlawed the sex-based pricing discrimination at the center of this case.”
The California civil-rights statutory scheme provides for statutory damages of at least $4,000 for each offense plus possible treble damages and attorney fees to any prevailing plaintiffs.
Frye has filed dozens of lawsuits accusing businesses of civil rights violations for offering gender-based promotional pricing. In one notable case, he sued the Trump National Golf Course, located in Rancho Palos Verdes, of violating §§51 and 51.5 by offering a discount to women during breast-cancer-awareness month in a 2010 promotional campaign entitled “Think Pink at Trump National in October.”
In 2014, Div. Two of this district’s Court of Appeal affirmed a defense judgment in that case, saying that “breast cancer awareness is a sufficiently strong public policy to warrant the differential treatment permitted by the Promotion.”
The case is Frye v. National Rifle Association of America, 2:26-cv-10208.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company