By Jeff Knox

(March 28, 2017) Eight years ago, shortly after Barack Obama was elected, a group of citizens protesting his policies gathered outside a Phoenix venue where the new president was giving a speech.  Several of the protesters were openly carrying sidearms, and one had an AR-15 slung over his shoulder. The armed protesters raised eyebrows and attracted national news media attention. MSNBC in particular hinted that the armed protesters were racially motivated showing closeups of the rifle-toter’s back, with the “evil black rifle” silhouetted against his white dress shirt.  The photos they showed were cropped in such a way that only the rifle and the shirt were visible, though the uncropped photos clearly showed the back of the African-American man’s head, the side of his face, and his hands. MSNBC later offered up a “clarification,” to correct their “mistake,” but the narrative that violent racists were carrying guns as a threat against America’s first black president persisted.

Fast-forward 8 years, and the scene in Phoenix was more threatening, and received much less coverage.  A couple of hundred supporters of President Donald Trump showed up for a Make America Great Again march from a nearby park to the Arizona State Capitol.  In response a couple of dozen counter-protesters showed up with rifles and shotguns strapped to the plate carriers on their chests, and red bandannas tied around their necks.  Many also had scarves covering their faces. The protesters marched in a 2×2, paramilitary formation past the capital in a grim show of resistance and intolerance.

A reporter from the very liberal alternative weekly New Times, fell in with the anti-Trump marchers, videoing them and trying to ask questions about their objectives.  Rather than explaining their positions or stating their goals, the marchers responded with physical intimidation and not-too-veiled threats.

The incident generated little coverage outside of the reporter’s Facebook Live, which has gone viral among pro-gun social media.  The lack of attention is not just because Americans have been desensitized to seeing armed protesters at various open carry events around the country.  It’s also because the media prefers to focus on radical right-wing extremists and militia members. People wearing body armor and openly carrying rifles and handguns have become routine for Black Lives Matter protests and anti-Trump events, but we rarely see them on the evening news.  Instead we see the “extremists” among Trump supporters, yelling obscenities and falling for the bait being offered by the anti-Trump crowd. While journalists still like to make an issue about armed protesters, they much prefer to limit their coverage of such things to the right-wing.

The groups on display at the recent Phoenix Trump rally were an interesting mix of communists, anarchists, Chicano nationalists, and confused libertarian populists.  The counter-protest was apparently organized by the local chapter of a group called Redneck Revolt, which paints itself as a populist movement of poor whites who blame all of the world’s problems on rich white men and the capitalist system.  The local group calls itself the Phoenix John Brown Gun Club, in honor of the infamous, radical abolitionist. They were joined by members of Antifascist Action Phoenix, and members of the Brown Berets, a Chicano nationalist group. All of the groups have similar rhetoric decrying fascism, capitalism, and rich, white people, and advocating for the poor and working class of all races, religions, ethnicities, and sexual denominations.  None of them seem to have any suggestions for better systems, just rejection and destruction of the current ones. All espouse revolutionary philosophies that sound very much like communism, but few will come right out and admit to being communist.

There are many unanswered questions regarding where these groups get their funding.  The Brown Berets, as part of the Chicano/Aztlan/Reconquista movement, have long had ties to communist groups and funding, but the newer “anarchist” groups that have popped up primarily since last November’s election, don’t have the historical connections, but seem to have no trouble coming up with thousands of dollars to provide signs, buses, and travel expenses to get their troops on the ground in various places around the country.

Most of the core activists in these Antifa groups are the same black-masked vandals we’ve seen turning peaceful demonstrations violent in big cities around the country for years.  Many were also involved in the Occupy protests. Now they are energized by a common enemy – Donald Trump – and anyone who supports him or anything he does. They are actively recruiting disgruntled young millennials at a startling rate.  Their core message sounds good, if you don’t think too hard about it, and their philosophy embraces the idea of violent rebellion in a way that has not been seen in this country since the days of the Weather Underground with Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.  Then, as now, the agenda was the destruction of the American capitalist structure. The only difference in the propaganda of today from that of the Weather Underground in the ’60s, is that Dohrn and Ayers openly advocated a classless, communist society as the ultimate goal.  Today’s radicals just refer to the goal as a classless society, minus the reference to communism.

As Bob Dylan said in the song that gave the Weather Underground its name, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”  Better batten down the hatches.

By Jeff Knox

(March 15, 2017) The state of Maryland has prosecuted, convicted, fined, and sanctioned a pair of political activists for producing and delivering an automated phone message thanking a candidate for taking a particular position on a controversial issue.  Everything said in the message was true and accurate, but the ad hoc organization the two men created to carry their message was ruled to be invalid, so the disclaimer at the end of the message declaring the group responsible for the message, was ruled to be inadequate to meet Maryland’s campaign laws.  The men, Dennis Fusaro and Stephen Waters, were sentenced to 30 days in jail, 3 years of probation, and fines of about $1000 each, but they are appealing the conviction based on rights to free speech under the First Amendment and a corollary recognized by Maryland’s constitution. The cost and inconvenience of the appeal will far exceed the sentence, but Fusaro and Waters say that their prosecution and convictions raise serious constitutional questions and should not be allowed to stand.

The right to free speech is sacrosanct to Americans, except, it seems, political speech of a flavor disagreeable to the bureaucrats in charge.  Back in the early days of the Republic our founding fathers valued political speech above all else – even above religious speech – and they routinely exercised that right anonymously.  But today in America, campaign contributions, political advertisements, and producing electioneering materials are tightly regulated, and unlike voting, they require identification. Of course anonymous political speech hasn’t gone away completely.  We still have some semblance of anonymity on the internet, even though though true anonymity online is very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. The rich and powerful can still hide behind front-groups and layers of PACs and bundlers to conceal their involvement, but for Joe Average American, anonymous political speech is difficult and can be, as Fusaro and Waters found out, a criminal offense.

The gatekeepers of free speech in Maryland disapproved of what Fusaro and Waters chose to say during a County Council race in 2014.  The duo did not advocate for or against any candidate, but they wanted to highlight one of the candidates’ position on certain issues, and they wanted to do it anonymously.  The method of political speech they chose was an automated phone message, so-called Robocalls, and the way they cloaked their involvement was by forming an ad hoc association to take credit for the calls.  They wrote a script, pooled their money, and paid for the calls to be recorded and delivered to a select group of people in the county. To meet identification requirements and disavow any connection to any other candidate, committee, or party, they included an obligatory statement at the end declaring that the ad was paid for and authorized by their ad hoc organization.

If Mike Bloomberg wants to impact a local political race, as he frequently does, he doesn’t buy a billboard or send out postcards with the message “I’m Mike Bloomberg and I paid for this political hit-piece.”  Instead, one of his minions finds a few local people – or just moves to town and declares herself a local – and creates a front-group with a name like “Nevadans for Gun Safety.” Then Bloomberg gives money to Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America or Everytown for Gun Safety – or one of their subsidiary or related organizations – which passes the money on to the astroturf “local group” to buy ads saying what Bloomberg wants said.  That is considered perfectly acceptable by the political speech police in Maryland and elsewhere.

What Fusaro and Waters did was no different.  They formed an organization – which legally requires nothing more than agreeing to form it – contributed some money to that organization, and as principals in the organization, arranged to have their message delivered to local residents.  The judge in the case noted that the two took pains to meet the requirements of Maryland election law, but he painted those efforts as attempts to skirt the intent of those laws because they did not identify themselves directly. The penalty he meted out to the two activists was even harsher than the prosecution had requested, because he said a message needed to be sent to future scofflaws who might want to express a political belief without clearly identifying themselves.

Legal observers say the case is unusual in several respects, and that it appears that Maryland is intentionally using the case to establish some legal precedents to make it easier to control political speech in the future.  There is no shortage of case-law already on the books regarding free speech issues, but those precedents can be confusing and in some cases are contradictory.

Fusaro and Waters’ case has attracted some attention and assistance from a few civil rights groups, but none of the heavy hitters like the ACLU have waded into the case, probably due to the fact that Waters and Fusaro tend to advocate for “conservative” and libertarian positions that are not looked upon favorably by “liberal,” legal assistance groups.

The message itself, and Fusaro and Waters’ objectives in delivering it, should have no bearing on the legal case.  There is no argument that the message was true and accurate. The only real bone of contention is attribution of the call to an informal organization that couldn’t be easily tracked down and its members identified.

Appealing this case is going to cost thousands of dollars, and your help is needed to fund the case.  Losing the appeal – or not appealing at all – leaves a very dangerous precedent on the books, cutting deeper into your right to express yourself on political matters.

If you’d like to assist in this case, you can make a tax-deductible donation through www.RightsWatch.org.  Every little bit matters – whether it’s a little bit of money to help with this case, or a little more encroachment on rights by politicians looking to protect their seats.  Please donate if you can.

By Jeff Knox

(February 16, 2017) The nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court has triggered the expected ranting and railing from Senate Democrats, and the left in general.  In response, many conservatives are calling for Senate Republicans to give Democrats a taste of their own medicine by pulling the trigger on the so-called “Nuclear Option” – majority vote to change Senate rules, revoking the right to filibuster Supreme Court nominees.

That would be a strategic mistake.

Senate Democrats invoked the “Nuclear Option” a couple of years ago when Republicans were actively using the filibuster rules to block Obama’s judge appointments, but they stopped short of making the new rule apply to Supreme Court nominees.  Had they held the majority in Obama’s last year, there can be little doubt that they would have extended the filibuster ban to SCOTUS picks in order to overcome Republican objections, but Republicans should not resort to the same tactics.

Not only would invoking the “Nuclear Option” set a precedent that would surely come back to haunt them in the future – just ask Democrats how they like not being able to effectively block Trump’s lower court judicial appointments – but it would also jeopardize the filibuster in general, removing one of the few tools the minority has for forcing compromise.  Which again is fine when your party is in the majority, but not so good when you find yourself in the minority.

There are ways for Republicans to win confirmation of Judge Gorsuch without resorting to the “Nuclear Option.”  Some of the experts at the Heritage Foundation wrote a paper on the subject before Gorsuch was even nominated. Their suggestion of using what is called Rule XIX to limit debate, thus limiting the duration of a filibuster, is pretty straightforward, but even that is not likely to be necessary.

The purpose of the filibuster is not to block an action in the Senate, but rather to delay action to give time to whip votes and bring pressure to bear.  In the current situation, the delay and attention works to the advantage of Republicans, not Democrats. Gorsuch is clearly qualified and widely respected, and he has a reputation for standing up to executive and bureaucratic overreach.  He is actually more likely to rule against Trump if he tries to accomplish too much with a pen and a phone.

By delaying, Democrats give more opportunity for the public to realize that they are simply being petulant.  Public pressure will weigh on Democrat senators who will be facing reelection next year – particularly those from states that supported Trump, some by a wide margin – convincing them to cross the aisle and support Gorsuch’s confirmation.

Democrat leaders are making a big mistake going all out to block Gorsuch’s confirmation.  There might already be enough votes to overcome a filibuster, and if not, those votes will come soon enough.  Republicans just need to move forward with confirmation hearings and a vote. If they really feel they don’t have enough votes to overcome a filibuster, they can invoke Rule XIX and let the Democrats talk themselves out.  But just moving forward will probably be enough.

Naturally, Democrats are pointing to Republicans’ refusal to hold hearings on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy left after the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and they have a point, but only to a point.  Republicans foolishly rushed to declare that they would reject any candidate Obama chose after Scalia’s death, just as Democrats were foolish to reject Trump’s appointment sight unseen. But unlike Republicans, who treated Garland respectfully, even while they refused to hold hearings on his confirmation, Democrats have launched scurrilous and baseless attacks on Gorsuch.  These tactics are not painting Democrats in a favorable light.

Court watchers know that Gorsuch’s appointment does little to shift the balance of the Court the way Merrick Garland’s would have.  In fact, while Gorsuch is considered a judicial conservative, in some areas, like 4th amendment, he can be expected to side more with the “liberal” wing of the Court.  Blocking a confirmation vote, and saying nasty, patently untrue things about the nominee, just makes the Democrats look petty and vindictive.  That won’t play well with the public at large, and is peel off enough Democrat senators to break from their leadership and vote to bring the nomination to the floor.

Minority Leader Schumer has to oppose Gorsuch’s confirmation, because he is accountable to the radical Democrat base.  Individual senators – especially those from “conservative”-leaning states – have no such mandate. Their first obligation is to their home-state voters, and for many senators, those voters are tired of petty, partisan politics.

If Republicans push forward with confirmation hearings for Gorsuch, they will force the Democrats’ hand, and should win a surprisingly easy victory.  All of the Democrats can vote against Gorsuch in the final vote if they want to, because all it takes for Republicans to prevail is a simple majority.  Getting to that vote is the challenge, as it requires 60 votes for “cloture,” that is, to shut down a filibuster. Democrat senators can vote to end the filibuster, then vote against Gorsuch’s confirmation.  That would allow them to pick which vote to focus on, depending on the audience they’re addressing. That is a very easy out for politicians facing a potentially tough reelection campaign.

Republicans can win this fight without deploying the “Nuclear Option.”  Using that option would be the height of hypocrisy, and would diminish Republican support.  They need to stick to the high ground, push forward with confirmation hearings, and bring public pressure to bear against the Democrats’ weaker links.

by Jeff Knox

(January 24, 2017) I usually try to avoid using this venue as a stump for talking about the politics inside the NRA. I generally write an annual article offering my suggestions for Board of director candidates and leave it at that, but this year, the NRA Board of Directors has introduced some sweeping bylaw amendments that every NRA member should be concerned about.

Every year at this time, a third of the NRA’s 76-member Board comes up for election. This year, a slate of fifteen bylaw changes is being proposed by “unanimous recommendation” of the Board of Directors. These bylaw changes, presented without debate and no dissenting opinions, are claimed to continue the spirit of the “Cincinnati reforms,” and according to press releases put out under NRA President Alan Cors’ name, to give more power to the members.

Quite to the contrary, the proposed bylaw changes destroy the last vestiges of the reforms enacted during the Cincinnati member revolt of 1977. They remove power from the members, further consolidating control over the Association within the Board’s inner circle and staff.

For most of the past century through 1977, the NRA ballot typically contained 25 names for 25 Board vacancies, unless someone died in office in which case the ballot carried 26 names for 26 vacancies. The names on the ballot were chosen by the Nominating Committee, which was tightly controlled by an inner circle of the Board and staff. No petition process existed. In short, the process was as insular closed as the Russian Politburo of the Cold War.

This slate of bylaw changes puts the NRA firmly on the road back to the “Russian ballot” of days gone by, and locks the Association on that course.

In 1977 a group of members and renegade Board members, upset by the NRA’s reluctance to fulfill its duties in the political arena, and the closed electoral system that made change all but impossible, staged a member revolt at the Annual Meeting of Members in Cincinnati. Operating under the bylaws and not-for-profit law, an insurgent team of members and rebel Board members including Neal Knox and Harlon Carter, moved a slate of bylaw changes that reorganized the organization’s structure and imposed a petition process to get access to the ballot. The members, already angry at a proposal being floated by the NRA brass to move the headquarters out of Washington, were primed to join the rebellion. The meeting lasted from 10:00 in the morning Saturday to 4:00 Sunday morning.

In subsequent years, those member-empowering bylaw amendments have been chipped away. Each strike of the chisel was made with assurances that the latest change would “protect the Cincinnati reforms.” The current proposal paves the way to wipe away the last vestiges.

The proposed bylaw amendments would soon put the petition process out of reach of most members, returning to a closed system that virtually guarantees control of the Board by staff and incumbents.

When Dad wrote the current standard, he set the threshold at 250 voting members. That number was deemed achievable an average member who wanted to take a hand in NRA affairs as a Board member. In this internet age, gathering 250 qualified signatures has become somewhat easier, but setting the bar at anything higher than about 500 would take the process out of reach of most members.

The Board proposes setting a threshold at 0.5% of the voters in the past year’s election. The new threshold will be around that acceptable 500 number, but that’s only true as long as less than 6% of eligible members cast ballots. If turnout were to go up to just 8%, the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot would go up to close to 900 – beyond the reach of an average member.

As an Endowment Life Member of the NRA who has been very active in NRA politics for almost four decades, I’m very troubled by the key provisions of this bylaw change proposal, and I am urging all voting members to Vote “No” on this proposal. While some of the proposed changes are mostly cosmetic, and others seem logical, the overall effect of the proposed changes is to take power away from the members, and this is an all-or-nothing proposition. You can’t get the good without also accepting the bad – and that’s unacceptable.

If you are an NRA member, I urge you to take a look in your February 2017 issue of your NRA magazine to see if there is a voting package bound into the middle of it. If there is, go to the back of the package where you will find 2 ballots and an envelope. One ballot is for voting on the Board of Directors, the other is for voting on the proposed bylaw amendments.

Whether you vote in the Director election or not, be sure to completely fill in the circle next to the word “No” on the bylaw ballot, put it in the envelope, sign it, and drop it in the mail.

“As the NRA goes, so go our gun rights.” My dad first penned those words more than thirty years ago when the NRA was embroiled in another of its internal struggles. The NRA management likes to think that a placid, compliant NRA is good for gun rights. That is not true. The organization was born out of strife and is at its best when there is tension. For its leaders to relax into complacent incumbency will not yield an NRA that is willing to press the strategic advantage we have now, nor dig in and fight the hard battles that will come when the political pendulum moves the other way.

* * *

For the Board of Directors election, I am recommending just 3 candidates, and no others. They are Sean Maloney, Adam Kraut, and Graham Hill. There are others on the ballot who are also good, but they don’t need my help.