NRA Board candidate Adam Kraut writes:
Yesterday, I became aware of Marion Hammer’s commentary on the 2018 NRA Board Election. After reading the editorial, it was clear that she believes I am the “enemy”. For those wondering how that conclusion was drawn, allow me to explain.
Marion states “…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.”
Almost immediately, Marion downplays the significance and dedication of individuals who collected enough signatures to appear on the ballot, despite the recent bylaws change, which made it increasingly more difficult to do so by requiring candidates to collect almost 700 signatures from qualified members this year.
At the same time, she insults those who signed the petitions of candidates, like myself, insinuating those who signed did no research into the qualifications of the individual for which they submitted a petition. This year, there were only five individuals who successfully collected enough signatures to be nominated by Petition of the Members.
Of those five, three were also considered and recommended by the Nominating Committee.
Just so there is no confusion, I did not submit my name to the Nominating Committee. There is only one individual, other than myself, who was nominated only by Petition of the Members. To my knowledge that gentleman has not been very vocal as to his positions, at least that I’ve seen.
Thus, it seems logical to infer that Marion is referring to yours truly in her remarks.
As this is my second attempt at running for the Board, I have been subjected to scrutiny from individuals for the past two years. When I first decided to run, I set up a website, made videos, and wrote articles about my thoughts, views, and opinions on various issues the NRA and gun rights advocates face. From Day One, I’ve been open about my position on issues and accessible to the members to discuss those positions.
During the past two years, I’ve spent countless hours speaking with members of the NRA in person, answering their emails, and responding to their comments on YouTube, Facebook, etc. in an attempt to ensure that my position on various issues were clear or known to the person asking. There are a variety of ways in which a person can inquire of my position on the issues. I even have a contact form and email address listed on my website for people to do so.
Yet, Marion Hammer has not once reached out to me to inquire about my positions, thoughts, or aspirations for the NRA. If she believes it is some secret, she hasn’t been looking for any answers.
However, I’m not the only one who has been vocal about their positions. Marion Hammer sent an email to other Board Members, shortly after the NRA received criticism of its statement about the Las Vegas tragedy, which stated that “the bump-stock circumvents federal law” and that bump-stocks “[convert] a semi-auto rifle to a full-auto rifle”. She also claimed that “[i]f it were not for ATF’s wink and nod to the manufacturer of the bump-stock, it would already be regulated under federal law.” The problem with her statements is two-fold.
First, ATF did NOT wink and nod to any manufacturer. It examined the sample submitted and determined that it was not a machine gun. It’s a pretty straightforward process, especially when the law specifies that a machinegun must be able to “to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” Second, it would appear that she does not believe bump-fire stocks are something that you or I should possess absent regulation.
Marion also mentioned the Cincinnati Revolt of 1977. What is unclear, from her one paragraph blurb, is whether she agreed with the individuals staging that revolt. She simply labeled them as an “activist group” and then proceeded to explain how she stopped a purported rebellion that was “bad” for the organization.
However, it is possible to derive her true view on those individuals by looking at comments she made about one of the men who was responsible for the planning and execution of the 1977 Revolt, Neal Knox. Marion has been quoted as saying that “Knox had an arrogance like I’ve never seen, so we chopped his head off.”
While I’m no Neal Knox, I too have introduced proposed changes to strengthen the organization and start the process of returning control to the members. I’ve introduced proposed by-law changes which would institute an attendance policy, prevent directors from repeatedly running without being nominated by petition, and form an Honorary Board.
You can learn more about the proposed by-law amendments on my website (www.adamkraut.com). I also created a form that allows members to more easily contact the Board of Directors in an effort to facilitate communication between the members and the individuals tasked with controlling the polices of the organization (www.theguncollective.com/nra).
While we’re on the subject of Marion Hammer, perhaps she can pen an editorial explaining to the members why she has not attended a single meeting in the past three years (since January 2015 – for attendance of all Board Members, see – www.adamkraut.com/attendance). For what it’s worth, she was nominated by the Nominating Committee last time she ran, which might give some insight into how important the Committee believes showing up to do your job is.
“The Enemy Within”