Adam Kraut

Uncategorized

Bumpstock Ban, Part III (Updated)

December 27, 2018 by 1 Comment

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.

Uncategorized

Even MORE Gun Control Laws In California?

September 10, 2018 by 3 Comments

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 .

Uncategorized

Proud To Be A “Gundamentalist”

August 5, 2018 by 2 Comments

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.

Uncategorized

A Timely Reminder From The Local Gun Prohibitionists

June 21, 2018 by

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.

Uncategorized

Adam For 76th Director

May 1, 2018 by

I endorsed Adam Kraut for the NRA Board of Directors before the balloting started. The other two people I endorsed – Julie Golob and Tim Knight – made it on the board but Adam came up a bit short. He has let me know that he will be running again for the 76th Director position. It is a one-year post and ALL members are eligible to vote for this director. You don’t have to be a Life Member or a 5-year continuous member to vote on this position. However, you must vote in person at the NRA Annual Meeting in Dallas.

As Adam posted on his Facebook page:

You didn’t think we were giving up did you?

Who can vote – ALL NRA Members
Where to vote – Outside Exhibit Hall A
When to vote – Thurs. 2 PM to 6 PM, Fri. 8 AM to 6 PM and Sat. 8 AM to 4 PM.

Last year we lost by only 60 votes. Bring everyone with you to cast a ballot.

If you are going to be at the Annual Meeting, I would urge you to vote for Adam. We need young blood like him on the Board of Directors now more than ever. 

Uncategorized

Comment Period Opens On Proposed Bump Stock Ban

April 2, 2018 by

Adam Kraut gives a good thumbnail overview of how to respond to the BATFE proposed rulemaking in the video below. He suggests taking a shotgun approach as the more objections you can raise, the more the BATFE has to work to respond to them. Moreover, if it isn’t brought up now, it can’t be brought up in court later.

Here is the document released by the lawyers of the Department of Justice with their legal rationale (or bullshit, to be more honest about it) saying why they can now define bump fire stocks as machine guns. It is important to note that if this rule is enacted then all existing bump fire stocks become contraband unregistered machine guns and must be destroyed or turned into BATFE. Why? That little amendment to FOPA 1986 called the Hughes Amendment comes into play as bump fire stocks were developed, manufactured, and sold after 1986.

Here is the correct link to the comments page.

I say correct link because www.regulations.gov has two links to the proposed regulations. One is the correct link and the other says comments are closed. Remember, never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence or stupidity.

So scan through the DOJ document to find areas on which to make comments. There is nothing to say you can’t make multiple comments on different things. The comment period closes on June 27, 2018 at 11:59pm. So do it now while it is still fresh in your mind.

Uncategorized

And In Your Morning News From The DOJ…

March 10, 2018 by

The Beltway method of releasing news that you don’t want to get a lot of attention is to release it on a Friday afternoon. I’m guessing the Department of Justice under Attorney General Jeff Sessions is taking it a step further with this release regarding bump fire stocks.

From the DOJ:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Saturday, March 10, 2018


Department of Justice Submits Notice of Proposed Regulation Banning Bump Stocks

Today the Department of Justice submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a notice of a proposed regulation to clarify that the definition of “machinegun” in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act includes bump stock type devices, and that federal law accordingly prohibits the possession, sale, or manufacture of such devices.

“President Trump is absolutely committed to ensuring the safety and security of every American and he has directed us to propose a regulation addressing bump stocks,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “To that end, the Department of Justice has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a notice of a proposed regulation to clarify that the National Firearms and Gun Control Act defines ‘machinegun’ to include bump stock type devices.”

This submission is a formal requirement of the regulatory review process. Once approved by the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Justice will seek to publish this notice as expeditiously as possible.

I don’t have a need, want, desire, or love for bump fire stocks. I do, however, believe in the rule of law. 26 USC Chapter 53 § 5845 (b) defines a machinegun as:

Machinegun. The term ‘machinegun’ means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can
be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single
function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part
designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in
converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be
assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

Arbitrarily saying that a bump fire stock is the same as a machinegun flies in the face of both the black letter law and in the face of numerous BATFE regulatory rulings. It makes a mockery of the rule of law and should be condemned as such. If the DOJ and the Trump Administration want to ban bump fire stocks, they should, as I suggested in my own comment on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, submit a bill to Congress to add them to the NFA and GCA 68.

In the meantime, I plan to send a few buck to the Firearms Policy Coalition as they have already hired attorneys Adam Kraut and Joshua Prince to submit their comments and fight this in court. By the way, donations to fight this are tax-deductible.

Uncategorized

Firearms Policy Coalition Is Preparing For Litigation On Bump Stocks

February 28, 2018 by

President Donald Trump, the black letter law notwithstanding, told the nation’s governors on Monday that he is “writing out” bump fire stocks.

“Bump stocks, we are writing that out. I am writing that out,” he said, addressing a group of state governors at the White House. “I don’t care if Congress does it or not, I’m writing it out myself.”

The president’s comments come after the Feb. 14 shooting at a Florida high school that left 17 students and staff dead. Last week, he directed the Department of Justice to create regulations that ban bump stocks.

Trump also said bump stocks should be put into the same category as certain firearms, making it “tough” to get them.

“You do a rule, have to wait 90 days,” he said. “That’s sort of what’s happening with bump stocks. It’s gone, don’t worry about it. It’s gone, essentially gone, because we are going to make it so tough, you’re not going to be able to get them. Nobody’s going to want them anyway.”

Now yesterday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said he thinks the Department of Justice has the legal authority to prohibit bump fire stocks.

“We believe in that, and we have had to deal with previous [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] ATF legal opinions, but our top people in the Department of Justice have believed for some time that we can, through regulatory process, not allow the bump stock to convert a weapon from a semi-automatic to a fully automatic,” Sessions told state attorneys general, according to Reuters.

ATF has previously said that it does not have the authority to regulate bump stocks, which increase the firing rate of semi-automatic rifles.

For once, I think BATFE actually got it right when they said they don’t have the authority to regulated bump fire stocks. So does the Firearms Policy Coalition.

They have retained attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group to submit their response when the rulemaking is announced and to help with any litigation related to the rulemaking. They have promised to go to court if any rule banning bump fire stocks is adopted without any Congressional change in the law.

From their release sent out Monday evening:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (February 26, 2018) — In a press conference today, President Donald Trump
said
that, “I don’t care of Congress does it or not, I’m writing [so-called
‘bump stocks’] out myself.” In response to these troubling statements,
constitutional rights advocacy organizations
Firearms
Policy Coalition (FPC) and
Firearms
Policy Foundation
(FPF) have announced that they have retained attorneys Joshua Prince
and Adam Kraut of the Pennsylvania-based Firearms Industry Consulting
Group, a division of Civil
Rights Defense Firm, P.C., to submit their legal opposition to any
rulemaking and begin preparing for litigation. Last month,
FPC
submitted a legal letter of opposition
to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ advanced
noticed of proposed rulemaking on the “Application of the Definition of
Machinegun
to Bump Fire Stocks and Other Similar Devices.” In its comments, FPC
explained that the “DOJ and BATFE clearly lack the statutory authority
to re-define the targeted devices as ‘machineguns’,” and that these
ATF-approved and legally-possessed devices could
not be regulated firearms under the statutes. FPC and FPF oppose
restrictions on the acquisition, possession, carry, transportation, and
use of semi-automatic firearms, ammunition, and firearm parts and
accessories by law-abiding people.
 “We will use every resource
and remedy available to us in our ongoing defense of the Constitution,
the rights it protects, and millions of law-abiding American people”
said FPC President Brandon Combs. “While we would
prefer to block any executive action or rulemaking that would ban
currently-legal firearms parts before it becomes law, we would not
hesitate to file a federal lawsuit to protect the rights and legal
personal property of gun owners if that’s what it takes.” Those who wish to support
FPC and FPF’s efforts to oppose executive branch gun control and support
legal action a can make tax-deductible donation at
www.defendgunparts.com.
Individuals can become a member of FPC at www.firearmspolicy.org/join. Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org)
is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit
organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
 Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org)
is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to
defend the Constitution
of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities
deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the
inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms. Firearms Industry Consulting Group
(www.firearmsindustryconsultinggroup.com) represents individuals,
organizations, firearms licensees, and others
located across the United States in all matters relating to firearms
and ATF compliance. FIGG is a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm,
P.C. 

As an aside, the Adam Kraut mentioned in the release is the same Adam Kraut running for the NRA Board of Directors and the same Adam Kraut I have wholeheartedly endorsed. 

Uncategorized

My Endorsements For The NRA Board Of Directors

February 2, 2018 by 5 Comments

Ballots for the NRA Board of Directors have been mailed out in the February issues of American Rifleman, American Hunter, First Freedom, and Shooting Illustrated. These have only gone out to Life Members and annual members with five or more years of continuous membership as they are the only people eligible to vote in the Board election.

I have received my ballot and you can see how I’m voting in the picture below. If you look closely, you will see I’m only voting for three people. I’m a strong believer in bullet or targeted voting. Voting for up to 25 people dilutes the power of your vote and makes your top choices equal with your bottom choices.

This has been an unusually contentious election thanks to those in the old guard like Marion Hammer. I want to explain why I voted for these three deserving individuals and only these three. This is not to say that some of the others on this ballot would make good choices but rather that these three need to be on the board.

First, and I’ll be perfectly blunt about this, none of these three were endorsed by Marion Hammer. The fact that they weren’t endorsed is an endorsement in and of itself. I was greatly surprised that someone with the accomplishments of a Julie Golob was passed over for inclusion Ms. Hammer’s endorsements. This is especially true when you have a political hack like Grover Norquist endorsed who has only a marginal connection to the Second Amendment community.

Second, both Adam Kraut and Tim Knight have grassroots support as evidenced by the fact that they were both nominated by petition. Tim sought the petition nomination even though he was nominated by the Nominating Committee. Tim’s grassroots efforts in Colorado led to the recall of anti-gun Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron. He, along with fellow board member Sean Maloney, were on the ground helping to organize the recall and both would later be elected to the board. As to Adam, I was one of the people helping to gather signatures for him as I gotten to know him at the 2017 NRA Annual Meeting and afterwards. While Julie was nominated by the Nominating Committee, I think she has significant grassroots support given her past outreach efforts especially to women shooters.

Third, they are all relatively young when compared to the rest of the board. Adam is in his 30s, Julie is 40, and Tim is in his late 40s. If the NRA is going to appeal to Gun Culture v2.0, they are going to have to appeal to a younger demographic and you don’t do that by having a board composed of people my age (60+).

Fourth, both Adam and Julie are masters of the use of social media. Both use Instagram to get their message out and both have podcasts or YouTube channels related to firearm topics. Julie has JulieG Radio while Adams contributes the Legal Brief to The Gun Collective.

Fifth, I think these three will help return the NRA to the reforms engendered by the Cincinnati Revolt of 1977. None are part of the old guard that helped neuter that changes in the NRA wrought by the Cincinnati Revolt as organized by Harlon Carter and Neal Knox. Adam, especially, has publicly promoted bylaw changes that would introduce modified term limits, encourage attendance at board meetings, and provide a means for celebrities to help the gun rights movement without having to serve on the board.

Finally, all three are accomplished in their own right. Rather than rehash their accomplishments, you can read about Tim, Julie, and Adam on their own web pages.

Uncategorized

“The Enemy Within” Is Not Adam Kraut

January 20, 2018 by 4 Comments

In a recent commentary published at Ammoland.com, former NRA President Marion Hammer released her list of endorsements. Missing from that list were people like Julie Golob, Tim Knight, and, her obvious target, Adam Kraut. She alleged that those who were nominated by petition, that is the real grassroots, were somehow tainted or less worthy than those nominated by the exalted Nominating Committee.

However, some of the candidates on this year’s ballot were not nominated by the Nominating Committee, but rather they placed themselves on the ballot by collecting petition signatures. Petition signers had no way of knowing the real motives or qualifications of these petitioners.

As someone who signed the petitions of both Adam Kraut and Tim Knight and as someone who actually got off my ass and gathered signatures for Adam Kraut, I take great offense at her comment. I have met both Tim and Adam, I knew their qualifications, and I support them. I am most definitely a fan of Adam’s proposed bylaw changes regarding board attendance and the Nominating Committee.

Ms. Hammer also cast aspersions on those in 1997 who stood up and demanded accountability from hired staff of the NRA. Jeff Knox whom I greatly respect has a very good rebuttal to that rewriting of history.

Adam Kraut, who was the primary target of Ms. Hammer’s screed, has made a video rebuttal that is worth your time watching.

I have made my feelings known in the past about the celebrities and old hacks on the Board of Directors of the NRA. The world has changed and so has the gun culture. Frankly, most of the Board wouldn’t recognize Gun Culture v2.0 if it bit them on the ass. That is a recipe for disaster and it is one that people like Adam are challenging. He has my support. I’m unsure whether I’ll “bullet vote” Adam or add a couple of more people to my list. You can be damn sure I’m not voting for anyone of Marion Hammer’s list. While some are good, there are a lot of old hacks and celebs on it.