Julie Golob Makes Four

Competitive shooter and NRA Board of Directors member Julie Golob announced today that she had resigned from the Board. She said the decision was the best “for me and my family.” Other than that, she did not go into any specifics.

Dear NRA Members,

I gave my notice to NRA President Carolyn Meadows, Secretary John Frazer, and Directors that I have resigned my position on the National Rifle Association Board of Directors.

My intentions in running as well as serving in this volunteer position are directly aligned with the purposes and objectives of the organization. I am proud to have had the opportunity to represent the members of the National Rifle Association but I can no longer commit to fulfilling the duties of a director.

This was not a decision I made lightly. I apologize to those members who have supported me that I will not be completing the full 3-year term. I also feel this is the best decision for me and my family.

I wish the director who fills my vacancy and the rest of the board nothing but success. I will absolutely continue to support the NRA’s programs and sports as a proud benefactor member and active participant in the preservation of freedom.

Sincerely yours,
Julie Golo
b

 Julie was only one of three people I endorsed in 2018 for the Board of Directors. The other two were Tim Knight and Adam Kraut. As covered already, Tim has resigned from the Board and Adam declined the chance to fill one of the open positions. I’m not sure what this says about the power of my endorsements.

We may never know Julie’s motivations for leaving the Board and it is her choice to make them known if she so wishes. I do foresee further resignations from the Board especially given the most recent subpoena from Attorney General Letitia James to 90 current and former Board members. If I were an attorney – and I’m not – giving risk management advice to one of the deep-pocketed members of the Board, I’d say you must protect what you’ve earned and it is time to go. You can still support the organization in other ways but you need to get the heck out of there.

Adam Kraut’s “Other Exciting Opportunities”

Adam Kraut in his open letter explaining why he was declining the opportunity to serve on the NRA Board of Directors said he wouldn’t have time to adequately devote to the position. This was “because of the magnitude of time, work, and attention these exciting and important new endeavors that I am currently involved in require.” We now know what those endeavors entail. Adam will be the new Director of Legal Strategy for the Firearms Policy Coalition.

The announcement from the FPC is below. Also joining Adam will be attorney Joseph Greenlee as Director of Research and attorney Matthew Larosiere as Director of Legal Policy.

August 5, 2019 – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today the addition of three constitutional law attorneys with significant research, briefing, litigation, and scholarly experience to the FPC legal team.

“Recent news and presidential debates make clear that those who oppose freedom and the Constitution’s Second Amendment are gearing up to further infringe on fundamental human rights today and in the years to come, so building a unique, mission-focused team of scholars and experienced advocates is important to the future of our rights and liberties,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.

Joseph Greenlee, an attorney, researcher, and Second Amendment scholar, has joined the FPC Family’s legal programs team as its Director of Research. Mr. Greenlee, who formally joined the FPC Family two months ago in June, has already developed groundbreaking new research that has been central in three recent legal briefs filed in a federal appeals court, and other important briefs in state supreme courts and the United States Supreme Court, including one brief in support of the right to carry filed at the United States Supreme Court last week.

Matthew Larosiere, an attorney, scholar, and constitutional policy expert with a background in both firearms and taxation, has joined the FPC Family’s legal programs team as its Director of Legal Policy. Larosiere comes to FPC from the Cato Institute, where he conducted research, authored important legal briefs, and produced scholarship as a member of Cato’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies. He has written extensively on the subject of firearms and taxation both in print and online in outlets including National Review, Forbes, The Federalist, the Wall Street Journal, and The Truth About Guns.

Adam Kraut, an attorney, Second Amendment litigator, and educator, has joined the FPC Family as its Director of Legal Strategy. Mr. Kraut has a long track record of successfully litigating and representing clients in important firearm-related issues in both state and federal matters. In addition to his litigation background, Kraut, who once managed a licensed firearm retailer, has written for firearm-related publications including Recoil, a firearms lifestyle magazine, and writes and hosts the popular “The Legal Brief” video program.

“Each of these extraordinary attorneys has a deep commitment to individual liberty, freedom, and first principles. They are already hard at work in many areas of our key programs, including strong research, policy efforts, and legal action. Especially in light of recent demands for gun control, we look forward to their contributions and forming strategic coalitions with other liberty-promoting organizations,” concluded Combs.

As retired law professor and former NRA Board member Joe Olson commented on Facebook, “Beats a position (1 of 76) on the NRA Board.
Been there, done that, still have a flat spot on my head from bashing Marion.”

No Adam Kraut On The NRA Board

When I reported that Tim Knight, Sean Maloney, and Esther Schneider resigned from the Board of Directors I mentioned that it would put Adam Kraut in line to fill their positions. I also reported a comment from Rob Pincus to the effect that Adam wouldn’t take the seat under the current circumstances.

From an open letter posted by Adam it looks like the NRA did follow procedure and reached out to him about serving. He declined. I have posted his letter below.

Another issue that surfaced today is that the NRA will no longer have Directors and Officers liability insurance for the Board of Directors. I have heard it from four different sources. As I understand it, the new premium given all the turmoil and the multiple investigations was so high that the decision was to go without insurance. I am going to speculate that you may start to see more resignations from the board due to this. I know if I was the attorney for one of the well-heeled celebrities or well-to-do business people on the board that I’d advise to give it strong consideration as a matter of risk management.

The letter from Adam explaining his decision is below:

August 2, 2019


In 2016, I began a campaign to run for the NRA Board of Directors by petition of the members.
The idea to run for the Board started with a conversation between myself and two Board
Members at the Great American Outdoor Show in Harrisburg that February. Those two Board
Members were amongst those who recently resigned. After many phone calls, questions, and a
lot of thought, I decided the pursue a seat, in the hopes that I would be able to lend some new
ideas and a different take on issues of the Organization.



Much to my surprise, my well-documented (and freely available) ideas and proposals met severe
institutional resistance. In spite of that, this past year, I hesitantly pursued a seat again, for a third
time, at the encouragement of friends and many NRA members who believed that I could add
value to the Organization. Once I received the results of the mail ballot, I opted to not pursue the
76th Seat at the NRA Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, as I had done the two years prior. While I
gave my best efforts over the past three years’ election cycles, I respect and have accepted the
choice of the voting members.



After the learning that I was not elected to the Board during this year’s election and coming to
understand that my role would have been reduced to simply ‘filling a chair’ even were I to have
been elected, I began to focus my time and energy on other exciting opportunities to accomplish
my genuine personal desire and goal to advance the Second Amendment, individual liberty
generally, and continuing to help educate and inform gun owners about important issues and
challenges.



Between the time I began to collect petition signatures in 2018 and the election results being
returned this year, news about the NRA began to emerge from a variety of sources. Since these
claims and allegations have been the focus of much discussion within the firearms and Second
Amendment community for the past several months, I need not recount them here.



Based on my review and understanding of the by-laws, the recent resignations of the three
directors would potentially allow me to serve until the adjournment of the next Annual Meeting
in Nashville, Tennessee. Just prior to the release of this statement, I was contacted by the NRA
and informed that there was a vacancy on the Board which I would be able to fill. Prior to
receiving the phone call, I devoted time to consider the possibility of accepting the position,
based on the news that three directors had resigned and my understanding of the by-laws.



After careful thought and consideration, and because of the magnitude of time, work, and
attention these exciting and important new endeavors that I am currently involved in require, it
would not be possible for me to provide the NRA Board of Directors, the Organization, and the
Members with the significant time, work, and attention a board of directors role – especially in
the current climate – would require. Further, I am not willing to put the NRA into a position
where my new position and role in our community could even potentially create a conflict, or
even a bad optical light that could be leveraged against it by the media and its enemies. Thus, I
cannot in good conscience accept a position as an NRA director.



It has been my honor to have your support these past few years. It is humbling to know that so
many share my passion for liberty and supported my proposals to improve our NRA. And I
sincerely hope that the Board and the Executive staff of the NRA will do what is right and
necessary to create a healthy, strong, and positive force for our rights.



I am excited to support the NRA’s good work, and that of many others, from my new position
through coalition building, hard work, thoughtful strategy, and undertaking those efforts that
will, I hope, result in a more free America and restored Republic. I am eager to continue
promoting the advancement of liberty and hope that you’ll continue to join me in doing do.



Yours in Liberty,


/s/Adam Kraut

Extortion? Oh, Puhleeze! UPDATED

Adam Kraut had an opinion piece published in Ammoland.com on Monday. It was entitled “When the Levee Breaks – NRA’s Untenable Position”. It discussed much of the ongoing controversy surrounding the leadership and executive staff of the NRA. At the end, it has this mislabeled comment regarding Adam’s candidacy for the board and Anthony Colandro. Adam considered the statement as an assertion and not a “challenge”.

With that out of the way, there is one more issue to attend to. Numerous individuals have asked if I’d be running for the 76th Board Seat at the NRA Annual Meeting. Others have asked if I would endorse or support Anthony Colandro (who is now being supported by Wayne LaPierre, among others!?). I’ve decided to keep my options open. My name will appear on the ballot, however, if Mr. Colandro will join me in demanding that Wayne and the Board Members who failed to exercise their fiduciary responsibilities immediately resign, I will consider stepping aside and offering my endorsement. Without that commitment though, I could not in good conscience endorse any candidate.

For those attending the NRA Annual Meeting this year, I’ll see you there. I hope you’ll join me in demanding accountability from the Officers and the Board.

Mr. Colandro responded in the comments saying it reeked of extortion.

I’m independent and I will make my own decisions. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I won’t be intimidated by ANYONE to make ANY decision. In New Jersey, we’re all too familiar with corruption and Mr. Kraut’s so-called “challenge” reeks of extortion. This infighting has to stop! We all have a common goal in the 2A community. If we stand strong and stand together, we stand a chance.

Extortion? I didn’t realize the self-described tough guy with pit-bull tendencies was such a snowflake.

Mr. Colandro makes much of the fact that he serves as a non-director member of three NRA committees. As Bitter at Shall Not Be Questioned noted, “Those appointments don’t come without the blessing of the leadership and support of the incumbent board.”

Therein lies the problem in my eyes. Mr. Colandro was 33rd out of 35 candidates and had existing board members in the runner-up position ahead of him. I have a feeling – and it is only a feeling – that some sort of deal or commitment was made between Mr. Colandro and the powers that be. The NRA Board doesn’t need any more people beholden to the executive staff. Indeed that is where many of the internal troubles have originated.

As for me, I plan to vote for the second runner-up aka Adam. I have a level of trust that Adam Kraut will do the right thing whereas I don’t trust Mr. Colandro in the least to do what’s right for the organization and its future.

This is my last post before Indy. I will try to post from the NRA Annual Meeting when I have time.

UPDATE: Rob Pincus has a post on Facebook expressing much of the same misgivings about a deal between Mr. Colandro and the existing executive leadership.

Anthony Colandro has been endorsed by the NRA. Nothing about the NRA suggests they would support him unless a clear deal was in place for him to support the current regime.

Read the whole thing. If you are here and want change, then vote for Adam Kraut. If you are satisfied with the status quo and don’t care if the NRA goes down the tubes, then by all means vote for Mr. Colandro.

This Saddens Me

There were two candidates running for the NRA Board of Directors who had been nominated by petition. They were Adam Kraut and Anthony Colandro. Both had a good deal of support from grassroots Second Amendment activists.

You can guess what I’m going to write next.

Neither Adam nor Anthony were elected.

From Adam on Facebook:

Earlier this morning, I received word that I was not elected to the NRA Board of Directors.

I want to express my deepest gratitude to everyone who supported me the last three years. The amount of time and effort many of you put in was nothing short of amazing. I am forever grateful that so many of you believed in me.

This was never about me obtaining a seat on the Board but about trying to put the organization on a path that reflected our values. I hope that you all continue to remain engaged, communicate your frustrations with the Board directly, look for new candidates that reflect your values and put the same tenacity in your support behind them as you did myself.

Anthony posted a video about it on Facebook and it can be seen here.

This saddens me. I’m sure when I see the final results that a celebrity who never attends meetings will have come out in first place or within the top five. Moreover, just like last year and the year before, I’ll wager that there will be a concerted effort to elect an establishment candidate for the 76th Director.

This sucks because Anthony is doing yeoman’s work behind enemy lines in New Jersey and Adam (along with Joshua Prince) is leading the legal battles against the phone and a pen, wink and a nod bump stock ban rule as well as the illegal activities of the Pittsburgh City Council. They are in the trenches. They are actually fighting for the Second Amendment in all its glory. I wish I could say the same for the NRA which has given President Trump cover on both the bump stock ban and red flag laws.

2019 NRA Board Of Directors Election – A Round-Up Of Endorsements

Voting members of the National Rifle Association – Life or higher members and five-year continuous annual members – should have received their Board of Directors ballot in the February 2019 issue of the NRA magazine that they have chosen. Mine came in my American Rifleman. The ballot this year contains 35 candidates. 33 of these candidates were chosen by the Nominating Committee and two are on the ballot as petition candidates. The Nominating Committee per their usual named a mix of politicians, celebrities, the usual hanger’s on, and, believe it or not, actual gun people.

Out of these 35 candidates, you are allowed to vote for up to 27. However, to be very blunt about it, if you vote for 27 people you are an idiot just checking boxes and you really don’t give a damn about who is on the board or the direction it takes. I say this because you are giving equal weight to both the best candidates and to the worst candidates out of the 27. If you bullet vote or pick a small number of candidates, then they stand a greater chance of actually being elected to the Board of Directors. In other words, the vote for your favorites isn’t diluted.

Lt. Col. Robert Brown of Soldier of Fortune magazine is a long-time NRA Board member who is not afraid of shaking things up. He traditionally publishes a list of his endorsements and this year is no exception. He has endorsed six people for election this year. They are Anthony Colandro, Tom King of the NY State Rifle and Pistol Assn, Adam Kraut, Willes Lee, former NRA President Jim Porter, and Dwight Van Horn. I think it is interesting to note the Lt. Col. Brown has endorsed the two candidates overlooked by the Nominating Committee – Adam Kraut and Anthony Colandro.

The hunting and conservation organization Safari Club International has endorsed Paul Babaz for the Board of Directors. Given he is their current president this is not surprising and should be expected. Babaz was appointed to the Board last year to fill an empty position and is up for election this year.

David Codrea is a journalist and blogger whom I greatly respect. He and the late Mike Vanderboegh were the ones who first brought the BATFE’s gun walking to light. Their articles on Project Gunwalker aka Operation Fast and Furious exposed the plan that ultimately led to congressional hearings and a finding of contempt for former Attorney General Eric Holder. David has endorsed only one person for the Board – Anthony Colandrobased upon his answer’s to David’s hard-hitting questionnaire.

Ammoland.com has been instrumental in collating a number of candidate statements and endorsements. In addition, they have asked that you consider both Anthony Colandro and Adam Kraut for the Board.

Knife Rights traditionally doesn’t make endorsements for the NRA Board of Directors. However, this year they are endorsing a few individuals running for the Board who also serve on their Advisory Board. They sent this out in an email on Jan 31st. The people they endorsed are Sandra Froman, Lt Col. Ollie North, Pete Brownell, Anthony Colandro, Esther Schneider, and Paul Babaz.

My friend Amanda Suffecool of Eye on the Target Radio is bullet voting for Willes Lee. On her ballot she also highlighted Ted Nugent, Oliver North, and Allen West as people she would endorse.

Rock Island Auctions is endorsing their president Kevin Hogan for the Board of Directors. The endorsement points out that in addition to being a collector, he has raised $2.1 million for NRA-ILA.

Lt. Col. Willes Lee has too many endorsements to count. Included in his list of endorsements are Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, Maj Toure of Black Guns Matter, Kenn Blanchard, the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, and many others. You can find all of them on his Facebook photo page.

Of all the people issuing endorsements and recommendations, the one I examine most closely is that from Jeff Knox and the Firearms Coalition. I say this because I trust Jeff’s judgment, I recognize his unparalleled institutional memory regarding the NRA, NRA-ILA, and the Cincinnati Revolt, and because I think he truly loves both the NRA and the Second Amendment and he is willing to fight for both. Jeff has endorsed both Adam Kraut and Anthony Colandro for the Board. He goes on to say that he would give consideration to Mark Vaughan, Mark Geist, and Mark Robinson.


I think all of these guys would probably be good additions to the Board, but it is very unlikely that all 5 can win seats, and every vote for one of them, reduces the likelihood of the others winning. It’s something of a conundrum, and there’s no simple solution.


Personally, I am going to cast a Bullet Vote with only Adam Kraut’s name marked.

As for myself, I’ll start by saying that I’ve long held that 90% of life is just showing up. Ted Nugent, Karl Malone, and Marion Hammer have not attended one BOD meeting to the best of my knowledge since winning election to the Board. I find that reprehensible. You either serve and show up or you resign. I don’t care if the reason for not showing up is due to a health issue, a family issue, or a prior commitment. Running for the NRA Board was a promise that you would serve and these people failed.

I’ve never been keen on the celebrities on the Board with the exception of R. Lee Ermey who took the role of serving on the Board seriously. The same goes for former politicians. I’d make allowances for Rep. Don Young (R-AK) as he is still in Congress and still carries weight.

People whom I consider worthy of your vote include Sandy Froman, Pete Brownell, Willes Lee (whom I consider a personal friend), and Adam Kraut (whom I also consider a personal friend). Mark Robinson of my hometown of Greensboro would also be worth your consideration. My fear with Mark is that he is a newbie to the defense of the Second Amendment and was nominated due to “optics”. However, I don’t doubt his sincerity in the least.

I think Sandy Froman, Pete Brownell, and Willes Lee have enough backing to get re-elected without my vote. I fear the same cannot be said of Adam Kraut and for that reason I will be bullet voting for him. I hope my friend Willes will understand.

Change needs to come to the NRA or we will have lost all we have won in the last few decades. I see the gun prohibitionists getting stronger, better organized, and certainly better funded. Their misleading messages are repeated daily by the mass media. In an era of changing demographics, they are doing a better job of targeting women and suburban voters as well as the younger voters. If the NRA doesn’t return to its Second Amendment roots and leave the broader social conservative commentary to other organizations, we will lose.

I think Adam is the change that the organization needs.

Bumpstock Ban, Part III (Updated)

Attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut have filed suit today in US District Court for the District of Columbia today on behalf of Damien Guedes, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Firearms Policy Foundation, and the Madison Foundation. The lawsuit seeks an injunction as well as challenges the legal authority of Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to issue such a rule when he has not been confirmed by the Senate.

From the plaintiffs release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (December 18, 2018) — Today, attorneys for an owner of a “bump-stock” device and three constitutional rights advocacy organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s new confiscatory ban on firearm parts, additionally challenging Matthew Whitaker’s legal authority to serve as Acting Attorney General and issue rules without being nominated to the role and confirmed by the Senate or by operation of law. A copy of the court filings can be viewed at www.bumpstockcase.com.

The plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from implementing and enforcing the new regulation. The lawsuit, captioned as Guedes, et al. v. BATFE, et al., is backed by Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and Madison Society Foundation (MSF), also institutional plaintiffs in the case.

“Bump-stocks” were legal under federal law and prior determinations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives until the agency issued a new final rulemaking today. Under the new rule, owners of the devices have just 90 days to surrender or destroy their property, after which they could face federal ‘machinegun’ charges that carry up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for each violation.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. Prince and Kraut previously filed a nearly 1,000-page formal opposition to the proposed regulation, which included a video exhibit showing the actual operation of a “bump-stock” device on an AR-15 type firearm. That opposition and its 35 exhibits can be viewed at www.bit.ly/fpc-bumpstock-reg-opposition.

“The ATF has misled the public about bump-stock devices,” Prince said. “Worse, they are actively attempting to make felons out of people who relied on their legal opinions to lawfully acquire and possess devices the government unilaterally, unconstitutionally, and improperly decided to reclassify as ‘machineguns’. We are optimistic that the court will act swiftly to protect the rights and property of Americans who own these devices, and once the matter has been fully briefed and considered by the court, that the regulation will be struck down permanently.”

In a January statement, Firearms Policy Coalition said that the federal “DOJ and BATFE clearly lack the statutory authority to re-define the targeted devices as ‘machineguns.’” Following that, in February, FPC also commented that as they “opposed the lawless manner in which President Obama often ruled by ‘pen-and-a-phone’ executive fiat,” they objected to and would fight “President Trump’s outrageous lawlessness here.”

“In its rulemaking, the Trump Administration is attempting to abuse the system, ignore the statutes passed by the Congress, and thumb its nose at the Constitution without regard to the liberty and property rights of Americans. That is unacceptable and dangerous,” explained Adam Kraut, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “It is beyond comprehension that the government would seek establish a precedent that it can arbitrarily redefine terms and subject thousands of people to serious criminal liability and the loss of property.”

Anyone who owns a “bump-stock” device and who would like to consider participating in the case should contact the FPC/FPF Legal Action Hotline at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline or (855) 252-4510 (available 24/7/365) as soon as possible.

Count One of the lawsuit refers to Whitaker  as “purported Acting Attorney General” and challenges his authority to issue the final rule. They refer to 28 U.S.C. § 508(a) which states that the Deputy Attorney General shall exercise the duties of the office of Attorney General in case of a vacancy. Given this, they argue that Whitaker cannot “lawfully perform the duties and
responsibilities of Attorney General, including the execution on December 18, 2018 and
implementation of the Final Rule.” I think even the Democrats might agree with this.

Count Two of the lawsuit alleges violations of the Adminstrative Procedures Act. Specifically, it accuses BATFE of a) failing to provide records as requested with regard to Proposed Rule; b) failure to provide a 90-day comment period as there were website issues; c) failed to consider cost impact and ignored any analysis on compensating bumpstock owners for a taking; d) failed to provide a hearing when requested; and e) issued a rule that is arbitrary and capricious which is a violation of the APA.

Count Three alleges that the final rule exceeds the legal authority of BATFE because it rewrites clear statutory terms to suit itself. Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein herself has said that BATFE lacks the clear legal authority to ban bumpstocks. Now, of course, she wants Congress to do it but that would be legal.

Count Four says the final rule violates the Internal Revenue Code. Since NFA items are taxed, this is why this comes into play.

26 U.S.C. § 7805(b) provides that “no temporary, proposed, or final regulation relating to
the internal revenue laws shall apply to any taxable period ending before … [¶ … ¶] [t]he
date on which any notice substantially describing the expected contents of any temporary,
proposed, or final regulation is issued to the public.”

Thus, any rule against any bump fire stock manufactured before March 29, 2018 could not be enforced on them.

Count Five goes to the fact that the Final Rule bans bump fire stocks and says no compensation need be given. This the suit alleges violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Count Six alleges an Ex Post Facto violation as bump fire stocks were previously classified by the BATFE to be legal. Changing the law after the fact would seem to violate Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S Constitution.

Count Seven alleges that the Final Rule violates the Contract Clause of Article 1 of the Constitution by destroying the value of investments that had been made consistent with previous BATFE rulings and classifications of bump fire stocks.

Count Eight is the final count. It accuses BATFE of violation of the Freedom of Information Act for failing to provide records that were properly requested by the Firearms Policy Foundation months ago.

The prayer for relief seeks both a preliminary and permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Final Rule, a declaration that Matthew Whitaker did not have the legal authority to issue the Final Rule which makes it null and void, and for declarations that the aforementioned violations are Constitutionally impermissible.

The full 37-page complaint is here.

UPDATE:  The Guedes case had some changes today. First, the Firearms Policy Coalition dropped out of the lawsuit in order to file a separate lawsuit on procedural grounds. More on that lawsuit in a separate post but the intent is to have one lawsuit argued on the merits of the case – Guedes – and a second lawsuit challenging the Final Rule on the grounds it was issued by someone who didn’t have the authority to do so.

Second, in their amended complaint, the plaintiffs added Missouri St. Representative Shane Roden (R-Franklin County) and Florida Carry. Moreover, it dropped Count One (see above) which challenges the authority of the purported Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to issue the rule. That will now be moved to a separate case involving only the Firearms Policy Coalition.

The goal in separating the issues is to have one case that will move quickly on procedural issues – FPC v. Whitaker – and a second case that move at the speed that it moves on the merits of the case. The challenge on procedural issues is an effort to stay the case in the short term.

Even MORE Gun Control Laws In California?

Just when you thought California had more than enough gun control laws, the California legislature sends nine more to Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) for signature. With some sort of luck, he may – and I emphasize “may” – veto some of these laws. He has done that in the past.

Gun law attorney Adam Kraut discusses a number of these laws in this video from The Gun Collective. He also has some great alternative names to the official ones for these laws.

If you would like to know even more about these bill and would like to let Gov. Brown know your opinion on them, the Firearms Policy Coalition gives you that info in this release that went out on Friday.

FPC Seeks Veto of 9 Gun Bills from California Gov. Jerry Brown,

Asks for Approval of Public Records Act Bill

SACRAMENTO, CA (September 7, 2018) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition asked California Governor Jerry Brown to veto nine “dangerous” gun bills that would “radically change” the state’s already-voluminous and complex laws. The advocacy organization also requested that Gov. Brown sign one bill that would help prevent state and local agencies from abusing the Public Records Act attorney fee provisions to chill the public’s right to access government files.

Historically, Brown signs most bills sent to him by the Legislature. But, FPC said, he does sometimes veto bills that don’t make sense to him and has rejected gun bills in the past. FPC’s legislative advocate and spokesperson, Craig DeLuz, thinks that Brown has plenty of reasons to reject the nine gun bills they oppose. “Some of these pieces of legislation are just headline-grabbing garbage because it’s an election year,” he said. “And Brown has vetoed some of these bills before, for good reasons. He may just put the brakes on expanding California gun laws in the last year of his last term to leave these decisions to the next governor.”

SB 1177, “just a few months ago an Education Code bill – would make it a crime to apply for the otherwise lawful purchase of a constitutionally protected firearm more than once a month. This bill is a case study of what happens when opportunistic legislators don’t have any real rules (or ethics),” FPC said in a letter. “The sky is blue, the sun sets in the west, and SB 1177 is yet another ego and animus-driven bill to put Senator Portanino’s name in bold print on yet another bill to attack the right to keep and bear arms.”

Another letter points out that San Francisco state senator Wiener’s SB 221 puts people and rights he doesn’t like in the crosshairs of the state. The bill, that would ban gun shows at the Cow Palace in Daly City if signed, was a health-related bill until it was “gutted and amended” just a few months ago. “In SB 221 the Legislature has targeted for especially unfavorable treatment those who would have the audacity to peacefully exercise their fundamental, individual rights protected under the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments,” FPC argued.

FPC-opposed bills that were passed by the Legislature include AB 1903, AB 1968, AB 2103, AB 2888, AB 3129, SB 221, SB 1100, SB 1177, and SB 1346. FPC supports SB 1244, a Public Records Act bill, by Bay Area Senator Bob Wieckowski.

Gun owners are encouraged to send Governor Brown a message voicing their opinion using FPC’s free Grassroots Take Action Tools at http://bit.ly/2018-ca-gov-brown .

FPC’s letters to California Governor Jerry Brown can be viewed or downloaded at http://bit.ly/fpc-2018-9-7-gov-brown-letters .

Proud To Be A “Gundamentalist”

I learned a new word today – gundamentalist. From what I can tell from the Reuters’ story, it means those of us who want the NRA to fight harder and compromise less. If that is the case, then I’m a proud gundamentalist.

The Reuters story in question is about the effort to get Adam Kraut elected to the NRA Board of Directors and the efforts of those for and against Adam. You may remember that I both solicited petition signatures and endorsed Adam for the Board. As to why this story is being published months after the NRA Annual Meeting in Dallas is anybody’s guess.

From the article:

Adam Kraut, a gun rights lawyer, fell about 4,000 votes short of the 71,000 needed for election, but earned 5,000 more than the previous year, a sign of the growth of the Second Amendment purists within the NRA known to many as “gundamentalists.”

With opinion polls showing U.S. public support for more gun control growing in the wake of mass shootings in recent years, the NRA is facing internal pressure from this little-known force that is demanding that the leadership concede zero ground to gun-control advocates.

Its rise has rattled the NRA leadership and threatens the association’s ability to hold on to moderate supporters and to make compromises that might help fend off tougher gun control measures, according to some of the two dozen gun-rights activists, policy experts and gun-control advocates interviewed for this story.

The article does make mention of the attack on Adam by Marion Hammer and the unofficial but really official backing of an alternative candidate for 76th director.

The article is worth reading and is generally accurate. According to a post by Adam on Facebook he was interviewed multiple times for the article. He has also started receiving hate mail from barely literate anti-gunners.

I will conclude by saying that if Adam Kraut decides to subject himself to the board election process again he has my full support.

A Timely Reminder From The Local Gun Prohibitionists

I want to thank North Carolinians Against Gun Violence, a wholly owned subsidiary of Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown, for this timely reminder.

Subject: Easy ASAP To Do: Email ATF on Bump Stocks by June 27 Comment Deadline


Jack —

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka ATF)
 is again receiving comments on bump stocks. The new comment deadline
is Wednesday, June 27. Simply click
here to comment.
.

Please take a moment to comment today. The other
side has been flooding ATF with comments against the proposed
regulation and we need to show public support for it.

–Becky

—————–

On the night of October 1,
2017, a gunman opened fire from a hotel room on the 32nd floor of the
Mandalay Bay hotel into the 22,000 person crowd at the Route 91
Harvest country music festival in Las Vegas, Nevada, killing 58 people
and injuring more than 500. The gunman fired more than 1,100 rounds of
ammunition in 11 minutes, using semi-automatic rifles modified with
dangerous firearm accessories designed to dramatically accelerate the
rate of gunfire, commonly known as “bump fire stocks.” These devices
are intended to circumvent the restrictions on possession of fully
automatic firearms in the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National
Firearms Act of 1934 by allowing an individual to modify a
semiautomatic rifle in such a manner that it operates with a similar
rate of fire as a fully automatic rifle, posing a substantial risk to
public safety.

In the absence of immediate
action by Congress, I urge ATF to finalize its proposed rule
clarifying that bump fire stocks, along with other “conversion
devices” that enable semiautomatic weapons to mimic automatic fire,
qualify as “machine guns” under the National Firearms Act. And then
Congress must act as well—to ensure that manufacturers cannot continue
to endanger public safety by designing devices that imitate machine
guns and subvert the law. The continued presence of these dangerous
devices puts all of our communities at risk, and both Congress and ATF
must take action quickly to address this threat.

North Carolinians Against Gun Violence

NCGV
http://www.ncgv.org/

While I may think bump fire stocks are a novelty and a good way to waste ammunition, I don’t want them banned. My rationale is that banning them is merely a first step towards more regulation of semi-automatic firearms of all sorts. The Department of Justice’s legal rationale as published is an exercise in legal sophistry and they know it. 

I would refer readers back to this post from April which features a video by Adam Kraut if you need some suggestions on how to respond to the request for comments. There is more on the comment period from Adam’s Prince Law Firm blog. You can also check out this Facebook page, Americans Opposed to ATF 2017R-22, for more ideas.

I’ll admit that I’m not an optimist when it comes to stopping this ban. However, getting objections on file is the key to bringing a lawsuit. Take 5-10 minutes and submit a comment. Make sure to include “ATF 2017R-22″ in your comment.