The decision by New York’s Democrat Attorney General Letitia James to sue the National Rifle Association (NRA), aiming to dissolve that gun rights group, is legally preposterous. It is also politically revealing. Look deeper than the filing, and you will see what is afoot.
This is not a dispassionate lawsuit. This is a bold political shot, fired across America’s bow by an emboldened Democratic-Socialist – or rightly put, Socialist-Democrat – political party. Behind the curtain, is an audacious agenda.
For starters, understand that James is a diehard Democrat. She sued New York’s Police Department and tried in 2016 to pressure financial institutions into cutting off gun makers. Like the national party, she is against police, against gun manufacturers, and against gun owners.
Second, as the Wall Street Journal noted, the suit is laughable: “You have to smile at her audacity.” It is also serious, like trying to dissolve the other political party, impeach a president without facts, or end conservative advocacy. It has profound meaning – because the intent is nefarious. See, https://www.wsj.com/articles/gunning-for-the-nra-11596756500.
Third, the suit makes clear 2020 Democrats are taking aim at the 2nd Amendment, which gives Americans their right to “keep and bear arms.” Founding Father Richard Henry Lee explained: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”
Nevertheless, while Democrats 75 years ago would have fought for those rights – they are today pushing to strip Americans of them. The contrast is startling. Democratic president Harry Truman not only loved guns; he loved the NRA.
In a letter of November 1945, Truman observed that NRA training “materially aided our war effort,” and hoped “the splendid program which the National Rifle Association has conducted for three-quarters of a century will be continued.”
What a contrast to anti-gun ownership sentiments of Democrats today. Former Democrat presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke said “hell, yes, we are going to take” your guns, and pushed for confiscation. https://www.foxnews.com/media/beto-orourke-gun-confiscation-buyback-police. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden says he will put Beto in charge of gun control. See, e.g., https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-biden-promises-to-put-beto-orourke-in-charge-of-gun-control/.
Ironically, 60 years ago, Democratic Vice President Hubert Humphrey wrote: “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.” Where are those Democrats now? All gone.
The threat goes deeper. The goal is not trimming the 2nd Amendment but uprooting it from the Constitution. We heard this from Democrat surrogate John Paul Stevens. In 2018, he penned a column in the New York Times – another dying institution – arguing we should “get rid of the Second Amendment.” Ironically, illustrating how out-of-touch the paper is, they pictured an 18th century musket and labeled it a “rifle.” Muskets have no rifling. See, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html.
Fourth, profound things happen if you mix bad ideas – like defunding police and leaving criminals with guns. Can you imagine? If the both ideas are lunatic, together they spell disaster. Average Americans know it, which is why gun purchases are going through the roof. No one in their right mind wants to defund police and empower criminals.
Already 2020 has seen more FBI background checks than ever. “March saw 3.7 million checks, May 3.1 million, and June 3.9 million.” See, https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/01/2020-gun-sales-june-record-fbi/. Americans know gun ownership is essential, even if Democrats do not.
Fifth, an unspoken truth needs re-speaking. Gun ownership is not just about protecting the family, or even the right to own. It is about protecting all other rights in our Constitution – including free speech, religion, assembly, travel, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and rights reserved to the People. They all depend on gun ownership – which is why socialists want to crush that right first.
Sixth, if the law can be twisted by a state-level Attorney General, it can be twisted at the federal level. A Biden presidency would create the opportunity. Beware: Once laws are made senseless and fungible, subject to political whim, socialists will have breached our gates. Freedom dies.
Seventh, if a prosecutor can curtail gun ownership, sovereignty vanishes. People are no longer sovereign, no longer in charge. As in Communist China, Venezuela, Cuba, Laos, or former Soviet Union, the government is then in charge.
That is why, a man of non-violence – Mahatma Gandhi – wrote: “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” If non-violence is best for promoting change, People are sovereign only so long as they can enforce their sovereignty and deter government from stealing it.
Eighth, Democrats seem not to understand the seeds they are sowing. Disbanding the NRA is tantamount to threatening the right of Americans to protect themselves, families, and sovereignty. Tying that to defunding police, Democrats push lawlessness. This is how societies are lost. That is not just un-American – it is anti-American.
Ninth, if the notion of dissolving an advocacy group is nonsensical, the irony is this lawsuit may accelerate gun buying, broaden those concerned about the right, and amp up fear of Democrats.
Finally, to quiet all worried hearts, one thing is clear. If this suit were taken seriously, and mismanagement banished the NRA – or any conservative group – new groups would spring up to defend our constitutional freedoms. The best spur to freedom is a political threat.
What is the bottom line? What is the meaning of this noxious suit, aimed at dissolving a national organization fighting for constitutional rights? It is a warning. Do not take freedom for granted. The suit is preposterous but reveals where socialist-leaning Democrats are headed. They have an agenda – and it is not defending your constitutional freedoms.