UPDATED: Who is Richard Feldman?

4

Richard Feldman, president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association, Inc.  called me early this afternoon in response to an email I had sent, but only took two questions.

I asked about his membership numbers.

“We’re a little over 5,000 – a small group. We just got going last month in terms of membership,” he said.

I asked him for a copy of the IFOA’s IRS form 990. He wanted the request in writing. I sent an email. I have not heard back.

I then asked him to describe the circumstances surrounding his departure from NRA.

“I’m sure opinions vary,” he said. “I am not going to conduct this conversation at the moment. We’ll have to arrange another time for this discussion.”

Feldman then hung up the phone.

Earlier:

If you’ve watched cable TV coverage of the ongoing gun debate, you’ve seen Richard Feldman.

He calls himself the president of a supposed pro-gun group called the Independent Firearm Owners Association, Inc.

I had never heard of them.

Feldman is also the author of the book “Ricochet, Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist,” in which he blasts he former employer, the National Rifle Association.

Feldman supports some of the current gun control initiatives. Lately he’s practically living under the Klieg lights of one TV news studio or another.

Feldman is in demand.

A closer look at his group, however, raises questions.

The IFOA website looks like it was hastily thrown together. It’s chock full of typos and incomplete sentences.

Some of the group’s positions also raise questions, and eyebrows.

I am sure, however, the site is receiving a lot of traffic, because Feldman is granting interviews nearly every day.

It’s newsworthy when a supposed pro-gun group backs gun control. There are stories about a “schism” within the gun community.

Right.

When it comes to gun groups, there is NRA and then there’s everybody else.

Become a discriminating news consumer.

Realize that an alleged pro-gun group may consist only of a website and a handful of followers, and that the group’s president may be taking controversial positions not because he believes they will make the country safer, but because he’s writing another book.

 

 

 

Share.

About Author

Lee Williams can’t remember a time in his life when he wasn’t shooting. Before becoming a journalist, Lee served in the Army and worked as a police officer. He’s earned more than a dozen journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. He is an NRA-certified law enforcement firearms instructor, an avid tactical shooter and a training junkie. When he’s not busy as a senior investigative reporter, he is usually shooting his AKs, XDs and CZs. If you don’t run into him at a local gun range, you can reach him at 941.284.8553, by email, or by regular mail to 1777 Main St., Sarasota, FL 34236. You can follow him on Twitter: @HT_GunWriter and on Facebook @The Gun Writer.

4 Comments

  1. Pingback: Preemptive Surrender on Guns as Futile as Appeasement | 1 In The Chamber

  2. Pingback: Preemptive Surrender on Guns as Futile as Appeasement - AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News

  3. JACK R. OWENS II on

    ASSULT GUNS:
    BANNING ASSULT GUNS IS USELESS. TOO MANY ARE OUT THERE. IT MUST BE A CRIMINAL OFFENCE FOR OWNING OR POSSESSING ONE.
    A SHOTGUN WILL DO A WONDERFUL JOB FOR HOME PROTECTION.
    I AM A VIETNAM VET, X-NRA MEMBER, BECAUSE OF ASSULT RIFLES WHO’S REAL USE IS HUNTING MEN AND A CONCEALED CARRY PERSON.

  4. William Heino Sr. on

    A second look at the Second Amendment

    I received a one page response from our President, dated Feb. 12, 2018, regarding his understanding of the Constitution, replying to my letter of 7/29/2017, regarding my understanding of our Constitution.

    His understanding,….. in part. “Thank you for taking the time to express your views regarding the Second Amendment. ——

    As President, I have no higher obligation than to protect the safety of America and its people. In these efforts, my Administration will always be guided by the wisdom of our Constitution, which ensures the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The Founders enshrined this protection in the Second Amendment because they understood that the ability of law-abiding people to defend themselves and their families is a hallmark of a free and sovereign people.

    Undermining our Second Amendment rights will not enhance our safety. Rather, we must redouble our efforts to prevent criminals from obtaining and using firearms to harm innocent Americans. My administration will always enforce Federal law and work with State and local officials to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and protect Americans from violent criminals.”——-

    Thank you again for writing. As president, I am committed to upholding the rule of law and keeping America safe and secure.——-

    The President who “loves the Second Amendment” explained that he is committed to upholding the rule of law. At the same time, flustered due to my questioning his Second Amendment reasoning. So much so, he explained the Constitutions “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” by a reactionary alternative. Reading, “..the right of individuals…” Using the plural “individuals” rather than the singular individual. Clearly, the words in the Preamble of the Constitution, in setting the tone, “We the people…. provide for the common defence.”

    Merriam-Webster dictionary defines individuals, as a single member of a category; a particular person.

    The Second Amendment …”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”——- The need and reason for “A well regulated militia, …” exactly… because we fight among ourselves.

    My letter to him listed and stated my argument. The Constitution mentions “person/s” 49 times (Articles of Confederation 11 times), to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a Constitutional legal standing as to a “person”, his or her Constitutional right and duty.

    Whereas in the Second Amendment, reference to “person/s” is not to be found. The obvious question arises, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did, in Amendments establishing a Presidency, and throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey same legal standard in defining Second Amendment’s right to bear arms as a “person”?

    Finding it hard to accept, the Second Amendment coming up short as it relates to “persons,” the President, envisioned his justification by replacing the Second Amendment’s “people” for an unsupported “individuals” argument.

    The President was not elected because of any “individuals” classification. A word not in our Constitution, but elected as a “person” (Article 2 Section 1.) Elected however, and “..guided by the wisdom of our Constitution..” and it’s 49 references, the legislative Constitutional legal understanding as to a “person.” The President was elected on 11 of these references. Of which 9 are Amendments, conditioning a “person” to the role of the President of the United States.

    “…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President…” (Article 2 Section 1)
    “…No person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen,…shall be eligible to the Office of
    President” (Article 2 Section 1)
    “…they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,…” (Amendment XII)
    “…the person voted for as Vice-President,…” (Amendment XII)
    “…all persons voted for as President,….” (Amendment XII)
    “…all persons voted for as Vice-President…” (Amendment XII)…”
    “…The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, …” (Amendment XII)
    “…But no person constitutionally ineligible to the Office of President (Amendment XII)
    “…No person shall be elected to the office of the President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
    “…and no person who has held the office of President,…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
    “..to which some other person was elected President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
    “…shall not apply to any person holding the office of President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
    “..prevent any person who may be holding the office of President…” (Amendment XXII Section 1)

    The President taking the time and effort in his explanation of the Second Amendment is meant to line up with my analytical reasoning of “person/s” does not make it so. Clearly and unmistakably another example of this president’s feeble attempt again at misdirection.

    The President was so interested in my letter that he took the time out of his busy schedule tweeting to look up my middle name when addressing his reply. My letter put him to all that trouble. Why? There must have been a purpose?

    Copies of original letters are available.

    William Heino Sr.

Leave A Reply