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 Golob

 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 Colandro - based 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.

Adam For 76th Director

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. 

Comment Period Opens On Proposed Bump Stock Ban

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.

And In Your Morning News From The DOJ...

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.

Firearms Policy Coalition Is Preparing For Litigation On Bump Stocks

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. 

My Endorsements For The NRA Board Of Directors

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.

"The Enemy Within" Is Not Adam Kraut

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.

Reclassification Of Bump Stocks By BATFE - Comments Due By January 25th

As many already know, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives anticipates opening a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with regard to bump fire stocks to clarify whether or not they meet the definition of a machine gun under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Before they release any proposed rule, they are seeking comments from manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. These must be received by midnight EST on January 25, 2018.

The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with the questions to be answered is here. All comments must include this identification number - 2017R-22. Comments can be submitted online, by fax, or by US Mail. So far, 2,309 comments have been received. Here is the link to submit them online. It also allows you to upload a document.

These are the questions that they have for consumers:

Consumers

21. In your experience, where have you seen these devices for sale and which of these has been the most common outlet from which consumers have purchased these devices (e.g., brick and mortar retail stores; online vendors; gun shows or similar events; or private sales between individuals)?

22. Based on your experience or observations, what is (or has been) the price range for these devices?

23. For what purposes are the bump stock devices used or advertised?

 Gun law attorney Adam Kraut had these suggestions for responding to the ANPRM. Adam has more on the notice here.

Comments vary in form, length, and specificity. However, there are some things that a person submitting a comment will want to consider. Specificity is key. Providing a basis for the support or opposition to a proposed rule is crucial. Citing to studies or other evidence-based information is useful to show the agency why or why not a proposed rule is useful. In the instance of an ANPRM, responding to the specific questions posed by the agency is a particularly good strategy (not to say a commenter could not and should not go broader in their response). Regulations.gov has some more tips.

As important as comment “dos” are, there is one comment “don’t” that should be avoided: the Form Letter. As comment periods are not a measure of “popularity”, flooding the agency with form letters do not serve a useful purpose in the rulemaking process. A comment that is well reasoned is a much better avenue to pursue and not very difficult.

David Codrea has his take on the notice of rulemaking here.

The danger in this anticipated rulemaking is the same as it is with the proposed bills banning bump stocks before Congress:  where does it stop? With the Slidefire Bump Stock or will it go further to mean any modification that could increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm? Because of this, it is important that we comment.

While it might feel good to tell the BATFE to just f*#k off, go away, and mind the letter of the law, that will get us nowhere. It will be expressly ignored as it includes profanity. I think Adam's approach to address some part of the questions asked is a good one. These cannot be ignored as readily. I think the key thing is to kill the attempt to issue a rule before it gets off the ground. That is better than having to respond to an actual proposed rule which is more likely to be adopted.

"Why Can't We Import Cool Guns" - Adam Kraut

Firearms attorney Adam Kraut explains some of the nuances of the sporting purposes exemption for the importation of firearms. He notes that the BATFE has consistently determined that shooting competitions like IDPA, USPSA, IPSC, and 3-Gun are not a sporting use nor is plinking.




There are a couple of corrections that Adam points out need to be made in his video. First, he used an image for the USAS-12 shotgun that was actually the AA-12. Second, around the 4:14 mark, the video says the "FBI determined" when he actually meant BATFE.

For those that don't know, Adam, in addition to his firearms practice, is a podcaster at The Gun Collective. He is also a petition candidate for the NRA Board of Directors for whom I helped secure signatures as I support his candidacy. You can find more on that at adamkraut.com.

90% Of Success Is Just Showing Up

Adam Kraut, a firearms law attorney in Pennsylvania, is running for the NRA Board of Directors again this year. He qualified to be on the ballot by petition under the new, harder rules. Last year, he was about 60 votes shy of being the 76th Director. I supported Adam last year and I plan to vote for him again this year. I had dinner with Adam at the 2017 NRA Annual Meeting and came away impressed. I have spoken to him a few times since and his knowledge of firearms law has been helpful to me with my blogging. Frankly, we need energetic young people who will rock the status quo on the Board of Directors.

In addition to running for the Board, Adam has promulgated four bylaw changes that I think are well worth your time examining. The first proposed bylaw would require a candidate for the Board to run by petition-only after serving two consecutive terms. They would not be eligible to be nominated by the Nominating Committee. Think of it as a soft term limit. They wouldn't be precluded from serving more than two terms on the Board but would be required to go to the voting members and get their support if they wanted to serve a third term or more.

The second proposed amendment would require attendance at two out of three Regular Meetings in order to be renominated by the Nominating Committee.

Proposed Amendment Two would require that a Director attend two of the three Regular Meetings held each year or lose their eligibility to be nominated by the Nominating Committee. There is a provision which would allow for an excused absence due to 1) a medical emergency, 2) death in the family, 3) natural disaster, or 4) their flight, etc. being canceled by the provider (eg. airline). However, if a Director were to miss three or more successive Regular Meetings due to a medical emergency OR two or more successive Regular Meetings due to the other 3 exemptions, they would be ineligible for consideration by the Nominating Committee.

The third proposed amendment would amend the section of the Bylaws pertaining to the Nominating Committee to contain these restrictions on nominations while the fourth proposed amendment would create an Honorary Board whose job would be to advise the Board of Directors as their time permits. This would be an ideal place to put the celebrities. It is akin to what many colleges and universities have with a Board of Trustees (the BOD) and a Board of Advisors (the Honorary Board).

Look at the three charts below to see the current attendance records of the existing Directors. Some directors take their job very seriously and some are flat out slackers. The worse offenders seem to be the celebrities and the politicians. If you want the honor of serving on the NRA Board of Directors, I think it is incumbent upon you to get yourself to the meetings. Time conflicts should generally be resolved in favor of the Board meeting.

Below is a copy of the ballot that will be sent to Life and 5-Year members with the February issues of the official NRA magazines (American Rifleman, American Hunter, etc.) You will note that only two candidates are on the ballot solely by petition and another three who were both nominated by petition and by the Nominating Committee. I would give strong attention to the attendance records of existing Directors when casting a vote. By my count, only nine of the Class of 2018 Directors have a perfect attendance record which is and of itself embarrassing.

Adam has created a page with short videos on his amendments, the attendance issue, and how to fill out the bylaw petitions. You can find it here.

I have served on boards ranging from a quasi-judicial board dealing with zoning adjustments to the Catholic Social Services of the Diocese of Charlotte Board of Directors. All of these boards were composed of work horses and not show horses. That is how it should be with the NRA's Board of Directors. The enemies of gun rights are getting increasingly sophisticated in their attempts to abridge our civil rights. We need a Board of Directors that not only shows up but can be proactive rather than reactive to these threats.

Attorney Adam Kraut On Slide Fire Stocks And The PLCAA

I spoke with attorney Adam Kraut of the Prince Law Firm earlier today. I had asked him a question about the Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act and whether Slide Fire Solutions would be protected by it. He went over the requirements of the law and said he'd be posting on the case this afternoon.

He published The Protection in Lawful Commerce of Arms Act and the Fate of Slide Fire in the Aftermath of Las Vegas this afternoon and it is well worth a read if you want a better understanding of just who is protected by the law.

His conclusion?

Had Slide Fire not been a licensed manufacturer (or dealer or importer) it is likely that they would be an open target to be sued without the PLCAA coming into play.

UPDATE: Adam has a second post on the issue up at RecoilWeb.com that goes into more depth about the lawsuit itself.