Adam Kraut is the executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation. He’s been on the leading edge of Second Amendment litigation and advocacy for well over a decade. Kraut is also a proud Eagle Scout.
SAF was founded in 1974 by Alan Gottlieb and Kraut was brought on just about four years ago to serve as the organization’s executive director. Since joining the Foundation, Kraut has grown the group in different ways, but the organization has remained focused and mission-specific: to bring on litigation against so-called gun control.
In this interview we loosen our ties a bit and have some fun talking about the Foundation’s past, present, and a little bit about the future. You’re not going to want to miss this one, so do check out the video in the embed above.
The interview was conducted through my participation in the Voices of the Second Amendment — made possible by Beretta Holding.
I serve as an unpaid volunteer member of the Board of Directors of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. CCRKBA is the 501(c)(4) sister organization to the Second Amendment Foundation. Portions of this interview have been edited for clarity and brevity. Since this interview was conducted in mid April, some of the topics are dated.
John Petrolino: Here we are at the NRA Annual Meeting 2026. We’re on the voices of the Second Amendment row brought to you by Beretta Holding, and I have with me Mr. Adam Kraut from the Second Amendment Foundation, really good friend of mine. And Adam, how you doing today?
Adam Kraut: I’m good. How are you?
JP: I’m doing great. I’m doing great. First of all, let’s talk about your position at Second Amendment Foundation. Who SAF is and what do you guys do?
AK: Okay. Well, my name is Adam Kraut. I’m the executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation. “SAF,” as we like to call it, is a 501(c)(3), not a (c)(4) like most of the other organizations. The difference between those, for those who don’t know, (c)(4)s engage in direct lobbying and grass roots lobbying more freely than (c)(3)s can. So because of that, we just don’t do that. Our mission focuses on legal action and education.
JP: And some of the other benefits of being a (c)(3) are?
AK: The tax deduction for your donation.
JP: The tax deduction for your donation, absolutely. So you guys have been involved in tremendous things since its inception, and then you’ve come on board. Now this is your fourth or fifth year?
AK: We’re going into year four.
JP: You’re going into your four?
AK: Yeah, about three-and-a-half or so.
JP: I have a hard time keeping track myself. But you know, obviously, some of the big wins historically in the past, pre-Adam, include the McDonald case, and also fair housing. I think you could talk about that too, a bit.
AK: If you haven’t heard of McDonald versus Chicago, you should have, because it’s the lawsuit that allows all these groups, including us, to sue states and municipalities for Second Amendment violations. When you talk about the world of Second Amendment jurisprudence at the Supreme Court level, I say the world starts with Heller. There were a couple decisions before that, but Heller — you get (the) individual right, untethered to militia service, right to keep arms in the home — (it) does talk about bear. Two years later, you get McDonald, which means we get to sue all the states because incorporation via the 14th Amendment. That was one of our big cases.
Over the years, we’ve been involved in a lot of different issues, set a number of precedent-setting wins. Including things like — you mentioned fair housing. People who are in public housing challenging flat bans on possession of arms in public housing. We’ve had four cases on that, of which we’ve all won. We have cases that dealt with prohibited persons who have non-violent misdemeanors. The Binderup case that came out of the Third Circuit, was one that SAF sponsored and was successful in winning. The Ezell series of cases dealing with Chicago and the ban on ranges, another big set of wins. And any number of other issues over the years.
Most recently, we just got an injunction against a ban on carry in post offices, as an example of something a little more recent. So kind of the whole gamut, if you will. Whether it’s a big blinking neon sign issue or it’s a smaller, kind of discreet that still affects the right just not as many people.
JP: All right, what are we looking forward to going into the future? We’re talking about 2026, and beyond,
AK: Realistically, we’re hopeful that …. the Supreme Court right now, has a couple cert petitions before it to deal with “assault weapons bans.” I candidly think that those are a little unlikely, just given their procedural history and other vehicles coming to the court.
We do have a cert petition challenging the 18-to-20 federal handgun ban. That one, I think is a good candidate, because there’s a circuit split on that issue. And by that, what I mean is, when we’re talking about the structure of the federal courts, you have the district courts, which are in the trial court, you have the circuit courts, which are the intermediate appellate court, and then you have the Supreme Court. One of the things the Supreme Court looks for when it’s going to grant cert is, is there a circuit split? Do circuits disagree on this issue? And in this instance, yes. The Fifth Circuit has said that this is an unconstitutional law. The Fourth Circuit upheld it, saying it was constitutional. That’s attractive to the Supreme Court. Why? Because there’s a circuit split. There’s an unequal application of the law across the United States on that very issue, at least within those two circuits.
JP: Yeah, and I believe also the Third Circuit has ruled similarly, haven’t they?
AK: Not on the federal handgun…
JP: Okay, not in the federal handgun ban, okay, but just conceptually, but so …
AK: I’m looking at 18-to-20 more broadly, that itself has been ruled on inconsistently as to whether or not 18-to-20-year-olds have full Second Amendment rights. States have passed all kinds of laws, whether it’s restricting 18-to-20-year-olds from buying all guns, just center-fire rifles, whether they can bear arms in public. A lot of states, the carry permit age was 21 but if there’s a right to keep and bear arms, shouldn’t somebody who’s the age of majority be able to exercise that right in toto? Or in full. Yeah, they should. But some states have said, “No.”
JP: Okay, cool. Well, what is your your overall message to people who aren’t familiar with SAF, the work that you do or to gun owners at large? What would you say?
AK: Well, if you’re not familiar with SAF, I would encourage everybody to go check us out. You can find out more on the website SAF.org. Also follow us on social media, Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube, to get a good idea of what we’re doing on any given day. The comms team is great about putting out the latest updates.
Sign up for our newsletter on the website. Get direct in your inbox once a week. We don’t harass you all the time. (We send a) good weekly roundup of what’s been going on the past week. Some case highlights things like that.
You know, far as gun owners in general, stay engaged. Don’t don’t give up. I had this conversation twice now today, with two people prior to getting here. We were talking about elections generally, and this idea that a lot of the Second Amendment community has this purity test that they like to apply. If you’re not entirely for everything I believe in, then you’re just not a good candidate. The problem is you’re never gonna have an ideologically pure candidate, it just isn’t gonna happen. They exist on paper only, and when you use that and decide not to be engaged civically by going to vote, you’re just allowing the other side to steamroll us.
Then the laws get passed, and what happens? We have to sue them. Now you have your tax dollars paying to defend the law. If you’re one of those people that donates to a group like SAF, you’re also paying to fight the law. And on top of that, it takes a long time for things to get through the litigative litigation process. So it’s not a quick fix of, hey, they pass the law, we sue them, and it gets overturned tomorrow.
JP: It’s a lot easier to not have these crummy laws passed in the first place.
AK: 100%.
JP: For sure. Any events that you want to plug?
AK: Gun Rights Policy Conference happens at the end of September. It’ll be in Dallas, Texas (September 25 – 27) this year. It is a day-and-a-half gathering of scholars, lawyers, (and) politicians. Really, it’s the people that are at the forefront of defending your Second Amendment rights. It’s a great networking opportunity to meet the people that are doing that. (Participants get to) ask questions, figure out how you can be involved, learn more things like that.
And then, prior to GRPC, AMM-Con will be held, the Alternative Mass Media Conference, which you’re heavily involved in planning, so I’ll plug it for you.
JP: Sure.
AK: It is designed for new alternative forms of media, which are actually really kind of becoming the mainstream media, if we’re being honest, today; podcasts, YouTube channels, blogs, things like that. It’s an opportunity, if you have one of those to meet people who have established successful ones, learn tips and tricks from them, ask questions, help plug your own stuff, but really it’s designed to teach you how to be better at doing the thing you’re doing from people who have been doing it for a while and are very good at it.
We are also hosting that same day, a legal scholars conference that’ll be open to attorneys. We’re going to start with that — it may get open to more. We’re working to have that accredited for CLE. So if you’re a lawyer (and) you want to hear from people that are on the forefront of litigating it — on very less publicly interesting things, but more lawyerly things — that’s the place for you.
And then we’re also having an opportunity for state groups to get together (for an invitation only conference), for them to have a networking opportunity, to hear from the people that are kind of in front of leading those organizations, to figure out: “Hey, this works really well in our state.” “Here are issues we’re running into.” “How are you dealing with this problem?” Stuff that is more applicable to them directly than it would be for you sitting in a room as a public at large to hear about.
JP: Sure, and you can learn all about that at SAF.org/GRPC
AK: Yes.
JP: And then AMM-Con.org
AK: Yes.
JP: Adam, thank you so much. I really appreciate your time today, and let’s do this again.