Attorney, Aspiring NRA Board Member Clarifies Court Decision Saying ‘2A Rights Forfeit 4A Rights’

S.H. Blannelberry: Adam Kraut is hoping to become a member of the National Rifle Association’s Board of Directors. To do so, he needs your help. Specifically, he needs lifetime NRA members and those who have been members for five consecutive years to check his name on the ballot box.

The obvious question is, why Adam? Why should you vote for him over some of the other qualified candidates on the ballot?

Well, let’s ask him. Why should NRA members vote for you?

Adam Kraut: Members should consider voting for me because I am an individual actively engaged in working to expand Second Amendment Rights at the state and federal levels through litigation. I host a weekly show, The Legal Brief, on YouTube that is designed to dispel the various legal myths and misinformation about our gun laws so that gun owners can go out armed with the proper knowledge of the law. Additionally, I have worked behind the counter of a gun store for the past three years, so I know the burdens that both the industry members and those purchasing firearms have to deal with. 

While I may be a younger candidate, I’ve invested a great deal of my time and career into furthering gun rights. I try to be as connected to others in the community and even on a national level as possible. One of the things I want to do, if I am elected, is be easily accessible to members for questions, concerns, etc. I have an email account where I’ve been corresponding with individuals since I announced I was seeking signatures for the petition to be placed on the ballot, I have a Facebook page where I regularly communicate with followers and I have a newsletter list that I’ll utilize to keep members up to date on important issues they should know about.

To hear some of my thoughts on the issues the NRA faces, you can watch this short video I did on the subject. Readers can also find samples of my selected works on my website: 

S.H. Blannelberry: As mentioned, you may know Adam from his educational and informative Youtube videos on TheGunCollective. See, Adam is an attorney who specializes in 2A issues. More often than not, when you have a question on some pesky issue with respect to one’s right to keep and bear arms (SSA Gun Bans, Will HPA Become law? Ins and Outs of AOWs), you can watch Adam dissect the issue in layman’s terms. He is very helpful. I’ve been a fan of his for a long time.

On that note, let’s put his legal acumen to the challenge and inquire about a recent decision by the 4th Circuit Court that intimated (I’m paraphrasing) that when one carries a firearm in public one may be subject to a search by law enforcement irrespective of whether one has a concealed carry permit. Basically, if you’re armed, your not only armed but also dangerous in the eyes of the law, and you may be treated accordingly.

What are your thoughts on this case?

Adam Kraut: Let me preface this by saying that I think that one should not need a permit to carry a firearm and that all of the constitutional carry bills being passed in various states are a step in the right direction. The other thing people need to be aware of is that this is a 4th Circuit decision, meaning it is only binding in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. That being said, I am not sure how many people have read the decision versus some of the headlines that have been floating around.

I think the facts of the case are important to understand in order to see how it actually may affect lawful gun owners. The gentleman who was involved was handling a firearm in his car in a parking lot that was notorious for drug deals. He was not carrying the firearm lawfully and was not able to procure a permit to carry a firearm even if he wanted to due to his previous criminal history (although this part was unknown to the police at the time of the call). The police pulled over the vehicle Robinson was in as a result of an anonymous tip that was rather specific in nature to what the individual had seen (which is consistent with prior case law from the Supreme Court). After stopping the car and asking Robinson to exit the vehicle, the officer asked if he had any weapons on him. Robinson did not respond verbally but rather made a face that indicated to the officer that he had one but was not going to say anything. As a result, the officer frisked Robinson and found the firearm.

The decision goes on to cite to prior Supreme Court precedent that a frisk may be conducted if two criteria are met. The investigatory stop is lawful and there is a reasonable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous. The part of the decision that I think has upset most firearms owners is that the Court said that it did not matter if you were carrying the firearm lawfully, if you are armed, you are therefore dangerous. That part of the decision I take issue with from a personal standpoint, as I’m sure most of the readers who carry a firearm take more precautions than most to ensure that they are behaving in a lawful manner.

While I think there are other arguments that could have been made which may have resulted in a different decision by the court, they were not. As such, this is the case law we are now left with.

S.H. Blannelberry: Here’s a hypothetical situation for residents who fall within 4th Circuit jurisdiction: You’re pulled over for a routine traffic stop. In addition to giving the officer your license, registration, you notify him that you are a lawful CCW holder and that you are currently carrying a firearm. Based on this ruling, the presumption is (a) you’re dangerous because you are armed and (b) the officer can lawfully frisk you because you are dangerous.

That is not to say that that will be the norm, but by the letter of the ruling, is that a reasonable extrapolation?

Adam Kraut: I cannot say definitively that it is a reasonable extrapolation. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? It is going to depend on the officer and the context. I do not know which of those states (if any) require you notify the officer that you are carrying a firearm. If you are not required to notify the officer and you are not being removed from your car, why would you notify them? If you are required to notify them, they may thank you and that be the end of it. Just because the decision allows an officer to frisk an individual because they have stopped them lawfully and have a reasonable belief they may be armed does not mean that a frisk will occur, just that one would be lawful.

S.H. Blannelberry: Yes, I couldn’t resist the urge to ask him a legal question. Not every day that you get to talk to an attorney who specializes in 2A rights.

Anyways, back to questions about his goal of joining the NRA board of directors.

What one thing would you like to change about the National Rifle Association?

Adam Kraut: The image. Most of America believes the NRA is an evil gun lobby. It has been and still is an educational institution first and foremost. I want to see the NRA pushing an educational message. I think that would help its image amongst the general public and even some gun owners. One of the things I would like the see NRA members and clubs do is invite the public for a day at the range to teach them about basic firearms safety and allow them to shoot some guns in order to get a real life experience. I think that would do a world of wonder for the public image of the organization. That positive one on one contact will do more than any marketing campaign could ever do. However, that is not to say the NRA should not continue to engage in lobbying or donating to political campaigns. 

S.H. Blannelberry: In my own personal opinion, I see the NRA as being a bit old-fashioned and a bit stodgy in terms of its appeals to millennials. In recent years the NRA has made attempts to broaden its appeal to spread the gospel of guns to people who fall outside the existing NRA base of old fat white guys. LOL.

I’m wondering if you (a) believe the NRA has been successful at diversifying its membership and (b) what you would do to address the millennial gap in the NRA?

Adam Kraut: To some degree I think it has. I think the NRA has to find a way to get into the cities and show people there why gun rights are important. But the NRA has certainly done a better job of diversifying its membership than in the past. As far as millennials, that is a tough one. Let me be clear, I am not a millennial. That said, I joined the NRA because I cared about the Second Amendment and gun rights. It was not because the NRA was edgy or relatable to me but more so that it would protect my rights. I think the NRA is headed down the right path to attracting millennials with some of the younger commentators and getting on board with NFA firearms. The easiest thing to do might be to ask millennials what would get you to join the NRA now instead of later in life.

S.H. Blannelberry: I’m also curious to know your thoughts about the NRA’s apparent conflation with GOP politics and politicians, which has seem to really pick up over the past decade or so. Do you see this as a good thing? Do you believe in alienates liberal and left-leaning gun owners?

Adam Kraut: I do not know if it is a bad thing as they tend to share similar views. That said, I do think blanket statements as to politics and politicians can be dangerous. Instead of looking at solely the party, the questions being asked should be “Do you support the Second Amendment?” and “What does that individual’s voting record show?” I suppose it is possible that it could alienate liberal and left-leaning gun owners to some degree, but if they are members of the NRA, it should be because they are concerned about the Second Amendment, not about other social or fiscal issues. 

What the NRA should be doing is backing the candidate who is pro-Second Amendment.

S.H. Blannelberry: Lastly, although, I’m including the video on how folks can vote for you (see video above), but can you just quickly remind them?

Adam Kraut: Ballots have been arriving in the February issue of the NRA magazine to which you are subscribed. You must be a Life Member or an annual member of the past 5 consecutive years to vote. You will want to be sure to follow the instructions carefully and use the enclosed envelope to return the ballot. The method to employ when voting is to vote for only the candidates you wish to see elected to the board. The fewer people you cast votes for, the better chance they have of being elected. As for the suggested by-law change, there is a video on my Facebook page where I explain what the proposed changes are. Rather than telling you how to vote, I hope that you will look at the proposed changes, consider how they may affect the organization and cast a vote accordingly. 


Well, NRA members, it’s now up to you.  If you like Adam, vote for him.  If you have questions or concerns or just want to post a comment, visit his Facebook page.

Remember: Ballots must be received by April 9th in order to be valid. 

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Richard K Baldwin September 21, 2018, 7:57 am

    The actions of criminals, no matter how bad those acts may be, do not justify illegal actions against the public. Such logic is emblematic of the irrational behavior of so-called progressives in general. It is a sign of people who need medical treatment and are not getting any. It represents, among other problems, the logic error, appelare desperadi, “we must do something.” You should not do something, you should do the right thing.
    Disarming the public is not even remotely a solution to the actions of criminals or insane people. In fact, it only makes matters worse, by leaving the innocent helpless in the face of miscreants and sociopaths. Failure to see this is a sign of untreated hoplophobia.

    One way of fighting this, untested at the current time, is creed discrimination. It is illegal to discriminate based upon creed. Though creed is often viewed in a religious context, it is also equally valid in a socio-political context. The fierce attachment with which many Americans cling to their right to arms is indeed a creed, dating back to Colonial times. Singling citizens out for special legal action is creed discrimination and illegal under civil-rights statutes. Where are the creative and ambitious civil-rights attorneys looking to break new ground and make a name for themselves… Alan Korwin

  • Richard K Baldwin September 21, 2018, 7:48 am

    I feel if it weren’t for the NRA we would have no rights because the left would have stripped us of them long ago . Stop whining about your personal rights or thoughts , The NRA is here for us all , you only hear what the media wants you to hear and the writers have their own agendas. Vote like your life depends on it !

  • Kalashnikov Dude March 3, 2017, 1:29 pm

    Well, from the perspective of an old fat white dude, Blannelberry can fuck off. As far as the NRA, after many years of being a dues paying member, who watched the Hughs Amendment, bullshit misdemeanor domestic violence convictions without due process resulting loss of rights forevermore, proliferation of ridiculous background checks, permits to exercise a natural born right expressly affirmed in our Bill Of Rights, and a host of illegal 2nd Amendment violations take place in this country. All while the NRA was gladly taking the money I gave them to defend my rights. Instead they compromised them away, and gave validation to the illegal, oppressive, tyrannous, manner in which the 2nd Amendment to our Bill Of Rights has been treated by politicians, lawyers, and judges in the Unites States. And if that injury was not enough, tje NRA has added the insult of lapdogging for corporations to secure sweet deals like forcing private gun owners to submit to mandatory facilitation and recording of private through federally licensed dealers in many states, which also creates a list of gun owners that has been deemed illegal from the highest court in the land. Really? Reslly? With friends of our 2nd Amendment like that, who the fuck needs Feinstein? How about somebody, anybody answer to any of that? Waiting……

  • Dusty February 12, 2017, 10:05 am

    FYI- A “traffic stop” has a particular purpose- enforcement of traffic laws, like speeding, red lights etc. It is NOT supposed to be a ‘fishing’ expedition- that is another kind of stop- sometimes designated pre-textual- and usually thrown out. A stop relating to some citizen reporting a person fiddling with a gun in a car in a high crime neighborhood-will be viewed under the doctrine presented in Terry v. Ohio. In the circumstances described, the analysis seems a little strained or incomplete…
    My advice is to be polite, stay in your car, keep your hands in view, present the paperwork requested to the officer and otherwise keep your mouth shut. Under Arizona v. Gant- officers are not allowed to search your car without probable cause for the specific crime you’re stopped for in most states, and not without a search warrant in some. I.E.- Even if speeding is a crime in your state, there is no lawful reason for officers to be searching for other stuff. An informed, competent officer knows all this- If an officer is demanding to search your vehicle without a warrant or probable cause- ( know your state’s 4th amendment type laws…)- politely request the officer have his supervisor respond. Police departments are liability, and lawsuit shy. 4th Amendment violation issues tend to give supervisors and commanders indigestion or worse, because they can cost Departments embarrassment and a LOT of money, very rapidly. If you are ‘frisked’ (see again Terry v. Ohio) and your firearm is removed for the duration of the stop/event, you are entitled recover your property immediately afterward, unless it is seized under authority of law. Removing your property lawfully is codified in every state- otherwise it is called theft- call your attorney- the criminal law ones maybe, but the civil laws and rights ones for sure. YMMV

    • William Capps, MD,JD February 16, 2017, 10:48 am

      So much depends on the officer, and often they are given significant latitude by their departments and the courts. Once, after a traffic stop, a FHP officer became very angry and verbally abusive when he discovered I had a permit and had not informed him immediately upon being stopped. I told him I had not done so because I was not carrying nor did I have a gun in the car. He said that made no difference and continued his tirade. A call to FHP gave no satisfaction. I had to be satisfied that no real “harm” was done. DrBill

  • Ron Winship February 11, 2017, 9:40 am

    *As Benefactor Life Members since 1975, we have a rhetorical question for Mr. Kraut and all those that are running for the NRA Board of Directors: *With over 40 million folks addicted to Opioid Abuse, Psychotropic Prescription Drug Abusers and millions more addicted to illegal drugs…..are these folks considered LAW ABIDING CITIZENS? Should any or all of these folks be allowed to purchase or transfer a firearm legally? Just asking…

  • nukembig February 11, 2017, 2:40 am

    Never trust anyone running for any office claiming that they support the second amendment without checking their voting or veto record. I live in Montana where your 2-A is your god given right. But we still have an idiot Governor who still restricts our rights and can’t even balance a budget.
    Here’s where the NRA and GOA do an awesome job by researching their records and warn us about politicians.

  • Mahatma Muhjesbude February 10, 2017, 8:22 pm

    Adam is too good for 2nd/A liberty to be weighed down by the NRA’s duplicitous political agenda based on weakness of compromise, lack of focused dedication to fighting any and All anti-Constitutional gun laws, and wasted time and money on anything and everything else but the necessary total Repeals of all existing gun control laws to shut down the totalitarian enemies of our Freedoms once and for all. Remember the NRA was actually ‘for’ background checks, with full understanding that background checks of any kind are nothing less than outright registration for a future confiscation by a disarmament agenda based regime. And you can’t blame them too much from ‘business’ point of view. After all, If true Constitutional firearms liberty were returned to the people, there would be no need for the NRA?

    Adam should run for a legislative position and go from there. I’m sure he’d be a rising star and his talent and Patriotic dedication would be better valued.

  • Tom Horn February 10, 2017, 5:44 pm


    If you are still tuned in, how about you promise to return to GunsAmerica from time-time, if you are elected to the board, to give us updates on what the NRA is up to, inform us of the reforms you have been able to bring about, and accept feed-back from the rank-in-file, in exchange for our votes?

    • Adam Kraut February 11, 2017, 7:44 am

      If I’m elected, one of the things I plan on doing is making myself accessible to the members. I’ve said time and time again, it is your organization. There is a way to contact me on my website and through my Facebook page.

      I also have a newsletter list on my website that I plan to utilize to send updates from time to time.


  • CoreyA February 10, 2017, 2:52 pm

    I’m really growing tired of the misleading headlines presented on GA emails… Attorney, Aspiring NRA Board Member Clarifies Court Decision Saying ‘2A Rights Forfeit 4A Rights’ should read ‘Video: Attorney, Aspiring NRA Board Member Adam Kraut Pleading for your Votes.’

  • Scott February 10, 2017, 2:12 pm

    I am a Life Member and I have looked at my January issue of American Rifleman and I don’t see any envelope.
    I have not received a ballot in the mail, but I would like to vote for Adam. I also don’t see the clarification of the court’s idea that if I exercise my 2A right I lose my 4A right…:? If the Rights are ‘Unalienable’ then it is impossible to lose any of them unless convicted of a crime!

    When is this voting supposed to happen?

    • Adam Kraut February 11, 2017, 7:43 am

      If you are an eligible member and you did not receive a ballot, give membership services a call at 1-877-NRA-2000. They’ll be able to get you fixed up.


  • Tom Horn February 10, 2017, 1:10 pm

    On a side note:

    I see R. Lee “The Gunny” Ermey is on the ballot, too. They ought to make him Sgt at Arms. I can see him dressing-down one of the $10,000 suites in a meeting, “Shut your pie hole, Maggot!”

  • Brad Hanson February 10, 2017, 12:53 pm

    I am an Endowment member and my wife a Life member. I checked back on who we voted for ( I always X on the names in the description in each magazine that we voted for). It shows that we both voted for you Mr. Kraut. We pick up to 29 of 37 candidates. I don’t really like that they list 32 “favorites” that the NRA Nominating Committee lists next to the ballots.

  • Rich February 10, 2017, 11:58 am

    Adam, thanks for reaching out. Now, I’ve actually heard from a candidate.

    I’m a life member, but I am also a member of the ACLU. I’m tired of the fear mongering, conspiracy theory, crap that comes from Wayne Lapierre and his surrogates. I hope you’ll work on improving the image of the organization, and its members. And more importantly, I hope you’ll look at replacing the self-serving, highly paid executives, who have ruined our image.

    • michael doyle February 10, 2017, 2:10 pm

      ACLU, you must be a registered Communist then. I’d spent my last cent to put ACLU out of business.

      • Rich February 11, 2017, 12:27 am

        Wow, you’ve cut me to the quick…

        Let’s see, as a young soldier I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; as a police officer in Phoenix AZ I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; and with the Federal Courts I swore to protect and defend the Constitution. I’m confident enough in my patriotism to support an organization whose sole purpose is to protect and defend the constitution.

        • Chris Baker February 11, 2017, 12:43 pm

          The problem is that we know from watching politicians that swearing an oath to protect and defend the constitution is absolutely useless to restrict a person with no personal honor. I don’t know you, and I have no idea if you have personal honor by my definition or not. That would require that you do what you can to protect all our civil liberties. From everything I’ve seen about the ACLU they are firmly in the progressive’s pockets. I hope you are different but you’d have to prove it to me because of you being a member of that association.
          As for Wayne LaPierre and his ilk. My personal opinion is that they are the 2nd amendment version of RINOs. They do not stand hard and fast for my constitutional right under the second amendment. They compromise much to readily about things that should not be compromised. The last real defender of the actual right as stated in the second amendment that I can remember is/was Neal Knox.

      • Jeff February 11, 2017, 12:31 pm

        You sound like you’re quite an emotional person. Would it help your cognitive dissonance if he gives up supporting the 2A? Or maybe you could just grow up and start acting like an American.

      • MICHAEL OKELLY February 12, 2017, 11:19 pm


    • Scott February 10, 2017, 7:29 pm

      OUR image is fine. Thew dubious perceptions of people like you are not relevant.

    • Cleophus February 10, 2017, 7:52 pm

      Wow, talk about diametrically opposed! How much more schizoid can a man possibly be than to belong to the NRA and the ACLU? Thanksgiving at your house must be a laugh a minute………..

    • Rex February 10, 2017, 10:38 pm

      What “fear mongering, conspiracy theory crap” are you referring to? “Self-serving, highly paid executives, who have ruined our image”? Hogwash.
      From my NRA point of view, defending the 2nd Amendment with a no holds barred attitude is just what Wayne Lapierre and his surrogates do!

  • Lee Foley February 10, 2017, 11:24 am

    This e-mail arrived today. My February magazine I received a couple of weeks ago. So “the horse is already out of the barn”. If I wanted to vote for you, it is too late now. Sorry maybe next time.

    • Travis Taylor February 10, 2017, 12:51 pm

      Why is it too late? You already voted? Just received my ballot today.

    • Tom Horn February 10, 2017, 1:32 pm

      The magazine just showed who was on the ballot. Mr. Kraut is #18, of 37 candidates.

  • Ken Millard February 10, 2017, 6:54 am

    I, Being a life member, find your positions sound refreshing. The loudest rhetoric I feel from the common image projection is one of fear, paranoia of losing rights, all right-wing views, and old white men in $10,000 suits telling me to send more money to their fight.
    I am an instructor, I am a veteran, I own suppressors and CHL carry, but I am not anti-choice, I don’t feel building a wall and fearing all immigrants are productive. Our country lost millions of jobs as industries automated, but also as rich people sucked companies dry with leveraged buyouts and skimming profits to enrich themselves (while raping the company’s ability to grow, evolve and innovate). Other than 2nd ammendment issues, I’m way left of the rightest bend most pundits want to pigeonhole most 2nd ammendment people.

    • bison1913 February 10, 2017, 11:04 am

      Well, in all honesty Sir… you sure don’t sound like a Life Member. You seem to sound more like an individual who has a personal 2A anti agenda. In reference to the $10,000 suit… I’m sure you are way off. In my opinion if you can give and support the NRA do so if you can not afford to then don’t, but be quiet about it.

      • Rex February 10, 2017, 1:11 pm

        Amen Bison. My impression is exactly the same.

      • Tom Horn February 10, 2017, 1:41 pm

        “The loudest rhetoric I feel from the common image projection is one of fear, paranoia of losing rights, all right-wing views…”

        A resonable and logical thinking person should feel, “fear, paranoia of losing rights,” in lieu of the push from the anti-gun, Left to end 2A, and the recent laws passed in many states across our Nation violating 2A Rights. Hillary stated in her campaign that she would consider an Australian style ban (fact).

        • Dewey February 10, 2017, 10:33 pm

          You might want to look into the Australian “ban”. In Australia, one can own just about anything, including semi-auto pistols and rifles. You have access to the internet, talk to people who actually live (and shoot) in Australia.

      • Dewey February 10, 2017, 10:17 pm

        So, he’s anti-2A because he holds differing opinions than you about non-2A issues? That makes sense.
        I guess all NRA lifers have to be party-line, wall-building Republicans who spout off about illegal immigrants taking their jobs and how concerned they are about the unborn, but don’t give a shit once the child is born. If an immigrant, who can’t even speak English, can take your job, maybe you’re just a loser. If you’re not adopting unwanted children, shut the fuck up about abortion. Your imaginary friend in the sky doesn’t care about abortion, he’s imaginary.
        By the way, Wayne Lapierre makes over 1 MILLION dollars a year, I’ll bet his suits cost 10K.

    • loupgarous February 10, 2017, 12:55 pm

      You sound like a racist to me. End of discussion.

      • Tom Horn February 10, 2017, 2:16 pm

        WTF? There was no mention, or even innuendo of race in any of the above posts. That makes you a race-baiter, and a Racist Troll. Be gone, Troll!

  • Chick February 10, 2017, 5:11 am

    When does the proxy come out, to vote? Does the vote of Life members or 5 year members carry more weight than the new members?

    • 2B or not 2B 2A February 10, 2017, 6:07 am

      I believe the article stated ONLY Life Members and 5 years or more members are eligable for the vote, so no, it does not carry more weight compared to a new member since new members may not cast a vote.
      I am on my 3rd year as an NRA memebr and this year my membership is up, I will renew by the end of this year and I give domations when I can, other then the member dues. as a member you are automatically eligable to enroll in the Firearms Insurance up to $2500 for free. I own 3 firearms but all total they do not equate to $2500 in the event of loss.

  • Justin B February 9, 2017, 9:12 am

    Just a little over year ago, I had no interest in owning my own gun. I grew up in the South but live in a liberal town, you might know it – NYC. But then, somehow, I developed a love for shooting after visiting the range with my brother and father. Now I’m working on my NYC premise and my Utah CCW. But here’s the thing, I’m fairly liberal on most issues but conservative on issues relating to taxes and probably foreign policy. My main point, and for this comment consider me a full own liberal, there’s a huge disconnect between what the NRA does and what most liberals (like me) think it does. I’m now somewhere in the middle because my liberal friends sometimes say dumb things when I tell them I’m working towards owning my own weapon. But I still have deep reservations about joining the NRA.

    This post was the first time I read someone say that the NRA’s primary reason for existence was education first. What? When? lol…I know that’s true but the reality is the picture shows NRA as being a lobby-hungry organization with members that are insensitive and unflinching when it comes to common sense gun law. All you need is a headline reading gun lobby moves to permit the mentally ill to legally obtain firearms and you have yourself an issue with millennials. I don’t know much about the NRA but sometimes it feels like a blunt weapon instead of a strategic instrument.

    Whenever I see a congressman say things in favor of loose gun laws or an NRA spokesperson quoted in an article, it’s like they’re not even thinking about anyone but their membership when they talk up their agendas and stances. I don’t believe all the things and opinions gun owners have but i do believe in the right to bear arms. I don’t believe there should be red tape for the purpose of red tape when you’re getting your gun license but I do believe there should be a better evaluation of a person before they become a legal gun owner (whether that be mental health checks, interviews, and background checks) – any sort of thing that would actually protect us versus just making it harder for us to get guns for no reason other than bureaucracy.

    A quick browse across the internet on gun blogs and comment sections just further makes the divide more clear. Its us or them. It’s what liberals picture as gun owners (the fat old white guy or the redneck or the hunter whatever stereotype you’d like) and then everyone else that thinks gun ownership is wrong and only leads to more school shootings and other types of violence. I think there’s a sensible middle ground – i.e. people like me that the NRA could do better of messaging to. I’m rambling but all that to say, there are liberal folks out there that do believe in gun rights, and honestly, I can’t wait to start purchasing weapons (and one day see better gun laws in NYC if that’s even possible) but right now the NRA and gun advocates do a great job of educating on youtube and talking about gun education but a crap job of demonstrating that they understand the common concerns of all citizens and not just their own card carry members.

    Lastly, I don’t think must gun owners know about all the jargon or rules and regulations that most gun owners complain about on these blogs or comment sections. I mean, if I had to ask a random grouping of friends in multiple states they couldn’t even tell you what an FFL is. They probably don’t even know what constitutional carry is. Yet, most gun owners and participants on these tights rail against rules and regs that people outside of the world don’t care about unless they decide one day to want to carry or sport shoot. I think you have to start connecting to people who wouldn’t shoot unless they had a subtle introduction into this world. Because once you shoot, I think you fall in love. But when you operate at a distance, and you’re liberal, you have a lot of this “guns are bad” mentality without anyone to broker that peace. Hope that sounds reasonable.

    • Alan February 10, 2017, 11:12 am

      NO, not reasonable at all.
      First, you show true colors and your background with your words.
      You’re already convinced the NRA is “lobby hungry” and “insensitive”, and then you speak to “loose” gun laws and so on.
      It sounds very much as if you haven’t bothered to educate yourself at all.
      And that’s after criticizing gun owners for not knowing “all the jargon or rules”.
      You speak to school shootings, but Ill wager you have no idea as to the background of the several shooters, and the role that psychotropic drugs and the VERY powerful Pharmaceutical lobby has played in those.
      Why aren’t you calling for less “loose” drug laws??
      No, you like so many others, fixate on the gun.
      You then end with talking about having no one to “broker that peace”.
      The history of gun control has been one of the right ‘giving’ and the Left taking, and demanding more.
      You talk about “common sense” gun laws???
      We have them already, there is no “gun show loophole”, there never was. That was all propaganda.
      Back ground checks have been in place for decades, but one would think you can legally buy a gun off the internet like you would buy a TV.
      All this, and so much more has been the work of Left wing organizations that OUTNUMBER the NRA by millions.
      And they want, and have not so publically stated, a total ban on guns.
      But they lie to the media, and the media knows this and still carries the message of “common sense” gun control.
      Sorry, you need to Preach in the OTHER direction. Not to us.
      We’ve given all that we’re gonna give. “Stand and fight” IS the catch phrase of the new millennia, and it’s high time.
      There is a price for freedom, people will always kill and murder.
      It’s time for the Left to give, or we’re gonna shove it down their throats Constitutionally.
      No more Mr. nice guy.

    • Tom Horn February 10, 2017, 11:26 am

      Glad you saw the light. The right to bear arms is not just for conservative Republicans. There was a time in this Country when even liberal Democrats believed in 2A. That changed with the assassinations/attempts in the 1960’s + 70’s. Even the Left needs to protect themselves from oppressors from time-to-time (think Matewan, Kent State Massacre).

      I contacted the NRA several years ago about the need for an NRA Lite, to attract Democrat gun owners. I don’t think they were interested.

    • C. Aldridge February 10, 2017, 12:39 pm

      You should look more closely at where the criminals get their weapons. The “common sense” gun laws don’t apply to criminals. Criminals are criminals because they don’t follow the law. They get their weapons from the black market, straw purchases, or theft from gun owners. There are plenty of gun laws that would take care of most of the criminals already in place if they were enforced. But the bleeding heart liberals don’t want the criminals to be punished too severely, so they won’t send them to prison, or let them out early, even if they were convicted for a crime where a gun was used. I believe that most federal gun-related crimes are punishable by a sentence of at least 10 years or more in prison for each offense. Law-abiding people are NOT the problem, which is counter to what the anti-gun people want you to believe. “Common sense” gun laws only hurt the law-abiding people by placing undue restrictions on them, while the criminals are not affected by them. They only serve to disarm the wrong people. Do your homework.

  • Will Drider February 9, 2017, 12:07 am

    No mention of Krauts shooting or firearm interests. There are too many gun owners that love their bird or deer guns but despise others preferences for MSRs and magazines that hold more then 10 rounds. That rice bowl mentality needs to stop and everyone must collectively protect the rice pot!

    There are more then just Millennias to to bring in. What must be done is to eliminate the TV stereotypes and mystery of firearms to those with no experience. A safety class and familiarization fire (22LR) will either spark their interest or nothing will. We are at a disadvantage with urban sprawl reducing need and oppertunity for hunting/recreational use and the non stop anti gun agenda pushed in public schools and secondary education. You must plant seed for any crop to grow.

    • Adam Kraut February 9, 2017, 5:38 pm

      Hi Will-
      I wasn’t asked about my firearms preference. Let me put it this way. I have more SBRs than I do rifles. I helped plan an inaugural machine gun shoot last year and the law firm I work for sponsors what is now an annual machine gun shoot at a local club (it used to be bi-annual). All you need to do is look at my Facebook page or Instagram account (if you have either) to see the kind of firearms I enjoy. For what its worth, I believe the Second Amendment protects them all.

      You’re absolutely correct in your second point and it is one that I have made as well.


      • Chick February 10, 2017, 5:13 am

        SBR = Short barreled rifle?

        • Adam Kraut February 10, 2017, 8:11 am

          Correct. SBR = Short Barrel Rifle.

  • Tom Horn February 8, 2017, 5:43 pm

    “Instead of looking at solely the party, the questions being asked should be “Do you support the Second Amendment?” and “What does that individual’s voting record show?”

    I believe the NRA does this already, and exceptionally well. Before every major election there is a section in American Rifleman, and similar NRA publications that rank national and state politicians on a scale of, ‘A plus, to, F minus,’ on where they stand, and have voted on 2A. I have seen Democrats with good ratings, and Republicans with bad ratings. Mr. Kraut does realize this, doesn’t he?

    • Adam Kraut February 9, 2017, 5:44 pm

      Hi Tom-
      You are correct and I am aware the NRA does do that. In fact, I’ve sent those ratings to numerous individuals before when asked where certain candidates stand on the issue of firearms.

      Perhaps my answer could have been a bit more clear, but my point was that rather than looking at the party of the candidate (in response to the “NRA’s apparent conflation with GOP politics and politicians”, the only issue should be their stance on the Second Amendment.


      • Tom Horn February 10, 2017, 11:31 am

        Agreed. I’ll give you my vote. I feel the need for the NRA to be more inclusive.

Send this to a friend