The 2nd Amendment Responsibility Project
Contact

The 2nd Amendment Responsibility Project

The Code of Conduct

How members of this community conduct themselves - with each other, in public, and in the broader world - and how we hold ourselves accountable when we fall short.

The Standards are what we believe and commit to as responsible American gun owners. The Code of Conduct is how we live those commitments - in our dealings with each other, in our public representation of this project, and in the way we hold ourselves and one another accountable.

Standards without conduct are slogans. Conduct without accountability is theater. This document closes both gaps.

It is written, as the Standards are, in two voices. “We” describes the community - the collective standard we keep together. “I” describes the member - the personal commitments each of us renews by being part of this work.

Article I

Among Ourselves

We are a community of peers, not a fan club and not a faction.

The members of this community come from different backgrounds, different states, different parts of the gun-owning world. What we share is the standard. What holds us together is the way we treat each other while we keep it.

My Commitments

  • -I treat fellow members as peers, regardless of experience, role, or rank within this community.
  • -I correct in the spirit of mentorship, not confrontation. When I see a fellow member fall short of the Standards, I speak to them the way I would want to be spoken to - directly, calmly, and in private when possible.
  • -I receive correction as a gift. When a fellow member raises a concern with me, I listen before I defend, and I adjust when the correction is fair.
  • -I disagree without forming factions. Disagreement among responsible owners is expected and welcome. Personal attacks, factional splits, and public shaming on social media are not.
  • -I protect the confidentiality of fellow members when they share concerns, struggles, or personal information in good faith. This community is a place where members can be honest about where they fall short without fear of public exposure.
  • -I mentor those newer to the standard. I share what I know without condescension, and I remember that I was once new to this myself.

Article II

In Public

Every member is a representative of this work, whether they intend to be or not.

Making the responsible majority visible is done one member at a time, in public. How we conduct ourselves - in person, online, at the range, in our communities - either earns the standard a hearing or undermines it.

My Commitments

  • -I represent the project accurately. I do not overstate its scope, claim positions it has not taken, or speak for it without authorization.
  • -I use the name and logo of the project only in ways consistent with its mission and only as permitted. The brand is not a personal accessory.
  • -I conduct myself online - on social media, in comment sections, in private groups - as if every post will be screenshotted and shown to a non-gun-owner. Because eventually, one will.
  • -I do not engage in personal attacks, threats, or harassment - against other members, against critics, against journalists, or against anyone. There is no version of this work that includes that conduct.
  • -I do not perform. No range flexing, no tactical cosplay, no “come and take it” theater. Quiet competence is the standard. Loud display is not.
  • -I do not associate the project with content I would not want it associated with - including content that glamorizes irresponsible gun ownership, however popular it may be.

Article III

With the Broader Public

We engage non-members - including critics - with the same seriousness we ask of ourselves.

This project does not exist to argue with critics. It exists to demonstrate a standard. But when engagement happens - with neighbors, with journalists, with people who disagree with us - how we conduct ourselves is how the standard is judged.

My Commitments

  • -I engage critics in good faith when I engage at all. I do not assume bad intent. I respond to what is actually said rather than to a strawman.
  • -I concede what is fair to concede. When a critic raises a legitimate behavioral concern about gun owners, I do not pretend it is invented. I answer it through what we do, not through what I argue.
  • -I do not personalize policy disagreement. People who disagree with my views on firearms are not my enemies. They are fellow citizens who reached different conclusions.
  • -I refer press inquiries to authorized representatives rather than speaking for the project. Personal views remain personal.
  • -I do not amplify reckless examples from either side - not the irresponsible gun owner who embarrasses us, not the bad-faith critic who misrepresents us. Outrage farming is not part of this work.
  • -I remember the audience that matters most is the responsible owner who has not yet found this community. Everything else is noise.

Article IV

Accountability

A standard without enforcement is a wish. A standard enforced without proportion is tyranny.

We hold ourselves accountable to the Standards and to this Code - and we hold one another accountable in proportion to the seriousness of what has fallen short. Not every lapse is a violation. Not every violation is the same. The response must match the conduct.

The framework below defines how we think about it.

Tier I - Lapses

Falling short of the standard in ways that are correctable through conversation.

Examples: a heated online exchange that crossed a line, a single instance of failing to police brass, letting training lapse, a social media post that misrepresents the project.

Response: Member-to-member correction in the mentorship spirit of Article I. No board involvement. No record. The matter is closed when the correction is received and the conduct adjusts.

This is the everyday operating norm of the community. Most accountability lives here.

Tier II - Serious Violations

Conduct that materially damages this work, repeated lapses, or behavior that brings the standard into disrepute.

Examples: public conduct that embarrasses the project, a pattern of unsafe handling witnessed by other members, misrepresenting the project’s positions publicly, refusal of Tier I correction after repeated good-faith attempts.

Response: Formal review by the Accountability Review (see below). Possible outcomes include a private formal warning, suspension of membership for a defined period, or revocation. The matter is handled privately - the member is named to the Review and to those who raised the concern, but not publicly identified.

Tier III - Disqualifying Conduct

Acts that disqualify the person from membership in this community, full stop.

Examples: criminal misuse of a firearm, negligent acts causing serious injury or death, knowingly providing firearms to prohibited persons, public conduct so egregious that continued membership would damage the project’s credibility.

Response: Immediate suspension pending review, followed by revocation upon confirmation. The fact of the expulsion and its general category are noted publicly - not the personal details. A community defined by the standard cannot quietly carry members who flagrantly violate it.

The Duty to Speak Up - Calibrated to Tier

  • -For Tier I conduct, the duty is personal. I speak directly to the member, mentor-style, in the moment. I do not report up.
  • -For Tier II conduct, the duty is personal and communal. If direct correction does not resolve the issue, or if the conduct is too serious for peer correction, I raise it to the Accountability Review.
  • -For Tier III conduct, the duty is unconditional. If I become aware of disqualifying conduct by another member, I report it. This is non-negotiable.
  • -I do not weaponize this process. Reporting in bad faith - to settle a grudge, to silence disagreement, to damage a rival - is itself a violation of this Code.

The Accountability Review

Tier II and Tier III matters are handled by the Accountability Review - a standing body within the project responsible for receiving reports, reviewing conduct, and determining response.

The Accountability Review will be seated as part of the formation of the 501(c)(3) board, with composition and process documented as a separate operational policy. Until that body is seated, the founder serves as the Review.

Formal process - how a concern is submitted, what evidence is required, how a member is notified, what right of response they have, whether and how decisions may be appealed - will be published as a separate document once the Review is formally constituted.

Leadership Is Not Exempt

The Standards and this Code apply to every member - including the founder and every member of the board. The same tiers, the same process, the same possible consequences.

When the subject of a review is a board member, that member is recused from the proceeding. When the subject is the founder, the board conducts the review without the founder’s participation. A standard that exempts its own leadership is not a standard. It is a privilege.

This commitment is not aspirational. It is the credibility of the entire project.

The Pledge

How We Live the Standard

I belong to a community of responsible American gun owners.

I treat fellow members as peers,
I represent this work with the conduct it deserves,
and I engage the broader public with the seriousness I ask of myself.

I will speak up when I see the standard compromised -
in proportion to what I see,
in the spirit of mentorship,
and without fear or favor.

I accept accountability for my own conduct,
including from those above me in this project.
The standard applies to all of us, or it applies to none.

This is how we keep the right we hold -
not by arguing for it, but by being worthy of it.

The Companion Document

The Standards define the bar. This Code defines the practice.

These two documents are the operational spine of the project. Together they describe what we believe and how we live it - as individuals, as peers, and as a community.

Read the Standards