Hey everybody, welcome back to Freedom Under Fire, our new series here where I bring you the faces, the people who are actually fighting behind enemy lines for our Second Amendment. And we have back again Adam Kraut, who is the big boss man over at Second Amendment Foundation. Last time he was on, we were actually in person together at SHOT Show. A lot of things have happened since then, so Adam’s gonna try to get us caught up before we jump into it. If you haven’t already, jump over to Blackout Coffee, buy some Second Amendment Foundation’s coffee.

Every time you buy any item from them, we give $2 for each item right back to Second Amendment Foundation so they can sue the government. Nothing tastes better with our coffee than reading lawsuits where Saf is suing the government. Adam, thank you for your time buddy. I know you’re crazy, crazy busy. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for having me again. Absolutely. So what do you want to talk to the folks about? I know the big one that everybody is doing over is the assault weapon ban case, Snope B Brown, which hopefully the Supreme Court looks kindly upon in two days.

Yeah, so Snope is obviously the one I think that’s still on everybody’s mind. We still don’t have resolution on that. It was distributed for conference last Friday, for conference this Friday, which will be the 21st. I had to look at the calendar to figure out the date. Apparently, math is not my strong suit. Who knew? And so, we may hear something Friday, but it’s probably more likely that on Monday’s order list, we will finally, potentially anyway, get an answer as to whether or not the Supreme Court’s going to hear it. Of course, and as I’ve kind of gone over a couple times, both on podcasts and elsewhere, you know, the number of re-lists, one re-list is not the death knell or nail on the coffin for case two, it starts to become questionable once you get past two.

It’s like, all right, odds of a cert grant, you know, continuously go down, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the end of the road yet. So, either we will get a cert grant, we will get a cert denial, or we will get a denial with the dissent. Unfortunately, I’m in no position to tell anybody what’s going to happen because the only people who know are going to be the people in that room. Yeah, right. And I’m looking at the docket here from the Supreme Court. So, it’s been distributed one, two, three, four.

This is the fifth time it’s been distributed now. So, hopefully, hopefully, and Ocean State Tactical is right there with it. So, we’ve got two cases that the country is watching, and hopefully our justices get their head out of their keisters. I also want to say, welcome back, our congratulations. It’s good to see you back over on The Gun Collective with the big 2A. When you did the episode with me last month, you know, I don’t know if you saw how many people were in the comments, but they were making a lot of comments hoping you were coming back.

So, good on you, man. It’s good to see you back in your environment. Well, we’ll say that they’re the driving force behind that. I don’t know. It’s something that John and I have been talking about back and forth for a while. The legal brief, you know, I stopped doing it partially because of just the amount of time and then where I was going as far as my career and whatnot, you know, that became very difficult to do. So, we came back and we kind of reevaluated where things were. So, it won’t be the legal brief.

I’ll just flat out say that. So, anybody who’s expecting the legal brief to return, that’s not it. We may get in depth from time to time, but I think one of the kind of more interesting things to me has been since I stopped doing the legal brief, the people in the firearms community are much more well-informed. In fact, when the legal brief was a thing, part of it was because that the average person, the bar of understanding was a lot lower. So, it really makes me happy to see that the gun community as a whole has raised their level of knowledge as far as not only what’s going on, but what do things mean and how do they work.

So, the idea is that now that we’re working with a group that understands a lot more than when I was originally doing it, we can cover things at a higher level and kind of get a little more accomplished as far as over here and over there versus a more in-depth on one subject. Not to say that that may not happen from time to time, but we’re figuring it out as we go. You just be a back man, and if you all aren’t subbed over at John Patton’s The Gun Collective, do that.

John does a lot of great work over there. Big giant bushy beard. I’m telling him he should braid it and look like a Viking, but we’ll see what happens. I’ll push him on that when I see him. He could be the gun, the gun, the gun community is Ragnar Lothbrok or something like that. Yeah. So, what else you got that’s brewing? I know you guys have a lot of activity here in the last week or so. What you got? Yeah. So, obviously we filed a new lawsuit along with some other groups up in Massachusetts challenging their 18 to 20 ban on carrying and purchase of handguns.

That fits in with our 18 to 20 strategic plan across the country. We will have more of an update in that general area probably within the next day or two. There’s some other things going on that we’re working out here, but really the Second Amendment being relegated to a second class right for that age bracket of 18 to 20 year olds who are adults, they shouldn’t get a Second Amendment light version. They should get the full Second Amendment. We extend constitutional rights to minors in some form or fashion, maybe not the whole breadth of it, but you look at the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment.

People under 18 get those protections, and yet we’re saying here are adults where every other constitutional right, when they hit 18, they get the full gamut, but for some reason we’re going to take the Second Amendment and treat it as if it’s an inferior right for this age bracket. It doesn’t comport with our nation’s history and tradition. We’ve litigated both purchase and carry, so right now worth our 18 to 20 challenge out of Minnesota for carry is on a cert petition filed by the government up at the Supreme Court. We’re actually asking the court to take that case, mainly because we want the court to deal with the issue that 18 to 20 year olds in fact do have full Second Amendment rights.

We have two purchase cases that are, you know, have recently been in the news, Reese coming out of the Fifth Circuit, which was a challenge to the federal prohibition on 18 to 20 year olds being able to acquire handguns from FFLs. And then the day that that opinion was released, there was oral argument in Brown versus ATF, same, same challenge that came out of West Virginia case that I litigated when I was in between employers. And then while I was at staff, which we wanted the district court, Reese, they reversed the district court because the district court said no, they don’t have that right.

So that all fits in with our strategic plan on making sure that 18 to 20 year olds are able to exercise their full Second Amendment rights. And, you know, we hope to add Massachusetts to that list. If the Supreme Court isn’t inclined to take one of these, it just gives us another bite at the apple of, hey, you guys do need to settle this area of law. And I think that’s something that a lot of people kind of don’t necessarily understand. You know, you look at Second Amendment jurisprudence, and of course you have some cases that are before Heller, but really the world kind of begins with Heller when it comes to Second Amendment related law.

And we’re in its infancy. I mean, Heller was decided in 2008. We’re not even 20 years into it. And then you look at First Amendment jurisprudence, and there’s a good 120 years ever. So at this point of court decisions dealing with interpreting the First Amendment, how it applies. And at this point, you know, other than some nuanced issues, the main big stuff, it’s all settled law. Like we, we know that this is either constitutional or unconstitutional, and then you get some off, you know, the beaten path things that come up and people get sued for it, or people just get straight put in their place.

So that’s what’s happening in the Second Amendment area right now is there’s big overarching issues that need to be decided. Well, they are, you know, Heller, you get the individual right on tether to malicious service, you get the types of firearms as far as common arms being protected, you get McDonald incorporating it to the states, you get Katano, which was a percarium opinion saying that stun guns are protected arms, even though they didn’t exist at the time of the founding, you get Bruin that talks about Kerry. So what’s next? Well, the types of firearms more specifically, so like Snope, you know, semi automatic firearms, where these are constitutionally protected, you get the 18 to 20 issue, you get sensitive places, you get more things related to carry.

So unfortunately, and I think, as most of your viewers know, by now, it’s not a fast process. And you look at how long it took for the First Amendment to evolve, it took some time, but we are, we are part of the group that is going to establish what Second Amendment jurisprudence looks like long term. And that’s actually pretty cool. Yeah, it’s, you know, we all wish it was something that could happen immediately, because, you know, the Constitution says what it says. But unfortunately, our, our system was designed to take time on the judicial side.

So a lot of people don’t, they get frustrated with that. And that’s why I like having y’all on is you can, you can actually speak from your experience of, you know, cases you guys are working through and how long it actually takes, unfortunately, which I’ll say this guys and gals, there are a lot of people out there than when I had Bill sack from staff on announcing the Massachusetts lawsuit, there was a lot of people that reached out and like, Hey, what about us here? What about us there? So one of the things you can do is first become a member of Second Amendment Foundation.

These groups, they can’t really take up K and Adam, you can speak to this. But if there’s no membership, it’s really hard for you guys to take a case because you’re not representing people in that in that state. So people should become members and people should try to donate regularly if it’s whatever it is, five bucks, it all adds up and it helps you guys actually fund these lawsuits, correct? Yes, that is correct. Sorry. So one of the, one of the things on that point, again, of course, membership helps. We do have a monthly recurring donation program, whether it’s five bucks, or we do have a program that’s $70 and 76 cents as well for recurring donations.

But all that drives, you know, lawsuits are not inexpensive endeavors. We have over 55 active lawsuits across the country right now. So and we got to pay for all of them. You know, we, I will say that we do work closely with a lot of attorneys to get discounted rates in order to help drive that cost down and our members and supporters more value for their dollar, over 80% of every dollar that somebody gives us does go directly to our mission. So I’m very happy to say that. And when you look at the nonprofit world, that’s a really good number.

It’s exceptionally high. So we strive for that value proposition. But the, what about us? You know, that’s a comment I hear all the time. What about us? There’s a couple things. One, resources, and it’s not just monetary, it’s, it’s lawyers in part. There are only so many lawyers that we’re willing to work with that have shown that they are competent. And we want to make sure that if we’re bringing lawsuits, we’re using competent counsel to do so. The other thing is, is just from a strategic standpoint, it might not make sense to take that challenge for any number of reasons.

What we don’t want to do is set bad precedent. It’s a lot harder to unwind bad precedent than it is to establish good precedent long-term. So being strategic where we bring cases, you look at how the Supreme Court takes cases. And ultimately the goal is to get the Supreme Court to take cases. Although if you can get a circuit court to say, Hey, this is unconstitutional, great, like definitely helpful. Don’t get me wrong. Or even a district court, as long as the circuit doesn’t overturn it. But when we look at, you know, what the Supreme Court looks at, it looks for circuit splits.

So we may have the issue decided in an area where we got a positive decision and we already have a negative one. And you may live in a state where the district court’s not going to be a good venue to be in and the circuit court might even be worse. So like the first or the second circuit, the Northeast, not great places to bring second amendment challenges. And there’s a high likelihood that in that instance, you know, if we’re unsuccessful, that that just becomes the law of the land and becomes the law of the land for quite a while, unless the Supreme Court picks up that issue elsewhere and decides that, yeah, these, these courts were wrong.

So I know it’s frustrating. I have a lot of friends who live in states where they do live with laws that are, you know, not as good as where I live or not as good as other places that are much less stringent. And they do have more second amendment freedoms. And I think the important thing to emphasize for your viewers is that we understand that. But sometimes it’s a strategic decision not to bring a lawsuit in a certain location to avoid creating bad precedent long term. And unfortunately, you know, we can’t fix, you know, how judges decide you would think it’s a fairly straightforward thing.

Well, the Constitution says and the Supreme Court has said, but you’d be shocked at how judges go and rationalize bad decisions that you just look at. I see how you rationalized it, but it’s wrong. Yeah, right. And that’s unfortunately, you know, judges are people. Yeah, well, maybe. Yeah, most of them are I haven’t met a robot judge yet, but so we got we’re waiting for snoop. Hopefully we hear something good this week. Another addition to the stable of lawsuits for 18 to 20. What else y’all work in or any other updates and anything else you have pending? Yeah, I think one of the more interesting things is we got a decision in the case in Illinois that actually predates me being at Saf by a couple of years.

So there was an individual who was charged criminally for possessing a rifle in their home in Illinois without a void card or fire amount or ID card. And so that case had been up to the Supreme Court, I think twice now in Illinois. So this is going to be its third run at it. But this time at the trial court, the judge found that the Ford card was in fact unconstitutional, just blanket unconstitutional, at least as it relates to possessing a firearm in your home. The Ford card also covers a whole number of other things in Illinois, like being able to purchase stuff and whatnot.

So I believe that the government may have already filed a motion to stay that opinion. People were asking us, well, does that mean we can just do whatever now that the Ford cards unconstitutional? And that’s the favorite, I think when whenever there’s a decision, people want to know, well, how does that impact them? So our message to the public was, don’t go and do something that you think you can do now, because that’s not unconstitutional, mainly because the government’s going to ask for a stay, they’re going to get it. So that’s going back up to the Illinois Supreme Court.

And hopefully with this decision behind it, and a little more of Supreme Court, you know, actual Supreme Court precedent, they’ll make the right decision that yes, a Ford card to possess a firearm in your home is blatantly unconstitutional. It’s no different than hell or where your guns had to be disassembled and locked up, right? That can’t possibly comport with the Second Amendment. So that’s where that is. And that was a great decision to get the other day. And we’ll see where that one goes as it continues to be litigated. Now, that’s the third time that I can recall at least the minimum of three, that the Ford card has been ruled unconstitutional.

What’s your take on that? Why is it still a fight when it’s been called unconstitutional now three times? Well, I think because you have judges that find ways, as I said before, to rationalize the constitutionality of something. You look at Bruins footnote nine, that deals with permits. That one is, you know, while I think it was dicta, and I think it was being in dicta for your viewers who don’t know, it’s just language and an opinion that isn’t really part of the holding, but people go and point to it to support their rationalization of upholding or striking something down.

But that one in particular, I think is going to haunt us long-term, much like Heller’s language about these presumptively long-standing prohibitions, like against felons and the mentally ill and things like that. That was dicta and Heller, and you see that cited to all the time. So I think the permits that they were talking about, you know, dealt with shell issue. And that basically, like, as long as Terry permits are shell issue, we don’t really see a problem with that. It was the subjective criteria, like, oh, you need an imminent threat to your life.

And even if you show them, they’re like, yeah, that’s not good enough. You know, that’s not actually a threat. So I think the permit side of things is going to be probably the next bigger uphill struggle. You see it already, like Colorado’s assault weapons ban, where it went from straight up assault weapons ban to, well, actually, we’re going to morph this into kind of a purchase permit thing with some requirements around it. And I think that’s going to be the playbook that blue states use next. And hopefully the Supreme Court take if my guess would be if the Supreme Court takes snow and finds that those types of firearms are constitutionally protected, the next move blue states are going to make like they did post brutal where everything’s a sensitive place is fine.

That’s that’s great, but you need a permit to acquire one of these and here are the requirements to get it. And they’re going to the process is going to be the punishment, essentially. So I think it’s kind of the same thing with the Floyd card, like the process is the punishment. Now, what about standing Supreme Court precedent where they say I think it was was I think it was the Marbury case back in the 1800s, where it’s unconstitutional to license a constitutional right? Well, I mean, can we start going after things that way? So I think I think it was Murdoch.

You know, I think it’s been argued before. I don’t think it’s fared very well in arguments. It’s no different in a lot of ways than like a poll tax, you know, at the end of the day. There are arguments that can be made, but whether or not they’re successful, I think, unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s language kind of saying like permitting is fine is going to haunt us more so than being able to point to Murdoch and say, well, this is just strictly unconstitutional. Yeah. You know, but that’s that’s just my guess. I don’t know how that will shake out.

Cool. Well, 55 plus cases. What is more common? Yeah, more common. Could you maybe be one is it too early to maybe talk about those or? Yeah, we’ve got a few on our drawing board here that, you know, we’re getting close. We’re in the process of plaintiff searching. There’s a couple that we’re just waiting on draft complaints to get those under underway here. So I don’t I don’t want to spill the beans to say before before we do it. Well, I can’t wait. And guys and gals, you know that you’ll see it here as well.

So if you are a member of staff, there’s links down below. You can go down and you can donate because the membership is the lifeblood. You’ve heard Adam talk about it as well. And if you’re not a member, don’t know what you’re waiting for. Skip a large pizza. That’s basically the cost of a membership for the year. And over 80% of your each dollar you give to them goes right to the fight, which is huge, like Adam said. So if you’re a member of this, this community, there’s depending on the platforms, if you combine them, there’s over a million and a half of us on this community.

We should all be members of these groups. And we should all be donating regularly. I know times are tough. But sometimes we need to skip a little creature comfort and put it to the cause. Brother, do you have anything else for the people out there that they need to know about or a call to action at all? Yeah, I mean, you know, certainly if skipping the large pizza is not in the cards this week, and I get it, I’m a pizza con sore myself. So I enjoy pizza. You know, the other way you can help us certainly is by just checking us out on social media and sharing our posts and, you know, help spread the word that more for the work we’re doing.

That also helps immensely. So of course, dollars drive the world. But you know, word of mouth is also a great place to start. So you can find us on pretty much all the social platforms, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, probably forgetting one or two, we’re under Second Amendment Foundation on all of them, except for Twitter, where it’s to a FDN. But check us out on social and you know, give us a like, help us out there. All right, you’re I know where you live and you’re in the New York style pizza huge where I was from Boston.

It’s huge. Pizza sucks here in Appalachia. Sorry, guys, it does. But the question for you, Adam, on a pizza, pineapple, yes or no? Well, God help your soul. That’s what you’re into. Have you? All right. I’m gonna say this, I’m just gonna enrage people. Try this, if you can get bacon, like make sure it’s extra crispy bacon on the pizza with pineapple. It’ll, it’ll change your mind. I think it’s pretty good. I don’t love pineapple to begin with. So maybe I’m already just adverse to it based on I don’t really care for pineapple.

I know probably a hair tick in a lot of ways because of that. Now I enjoy a good margarita pizza. There’s a bunch of other, you know, kinds out there that I like. Finding good pizza, finding good pizza in certain parts of the country can be tough. The Pacific Northwest, forget about it, Vegas. Good luck. Yeah, it’s it’s terrible, especially like, you know, you grew up on it and you don’t know what you got until it’s gone. Well, I’ll ship you some pizza if that’ll help you out. Yeah, right. Actually, not having so much pizza in my life’s been working lately.

Brother, I appreciate your time. Thank you so much. On behalf of all the good owners out there, thank you and Second Amendment Foundation for your relentless efforts on, you know, pushing back and suing the government. And guys, like I said, links down below, join SAF, donate to SAF. If you like coffee, grab some blackout coffee because it’s a direct donation to Second Amendment Foundation as well. And these bags will be phasing out. This is their anniversary, the 50th from last year. So this is like a limited edition. And when these bags are gone, they’re gone because we’re going to switch up the design for them.

So yeah, bro, thank you again. I appreciate you. And if there’s anything I do, just let me know to help out. Well, thanks for having me. And, you know, it’s the privilege of a lifetime to be able to do this on behalf of everybody. So we take it very seriously, and we’re hoping to win. All right, y’all do everybody a favor, like the video so more people see it and join these groups. Appreciate y’all. See you in the next one. Take care. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.