Political Boycott: An Assault On NRA Members 1st & Second Amendment Rights 2nd

By Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law and Stephen L. D'Andrilli

NRA Membership Card
The political boycott is not merely utilized by antigun activists to harm the NRA; it is an attack on the NRA members, American citizens.

New York, NY  -(Ammoland.com)-  Antigun activists seek to dispossess the civilian population of this Country of their firearms.

That is the reason for their existence. That is the reason for their being. They will deny this of course. They will tell you they don’t want to take all your firearms away, just some of them. They will also tell you they don’t want to prevent every American citizen from owning and possessing firearms, just some of them.

But, when pressed, they will admit they abhor firearms and they will tell you that, in a civilized society, no one needs firearms anymore, anyway.

They will also tell you that law-abiding, rational citizens today may become lawless, rabidly insane tomorrow. That is highly improbable, ridiculously so, even if only logically possible in a philosophical sense. But mere possibility is enough, for antigun proponents and activists, to support the elimination of civilian firearms’ ownership and firearms’ possession.

Those who espouse the elimination of firearms would like to see civilian ownership and possession of firearms relegated to the dustbin of history. They hope that guns, as with buggy whips and corsets, will become merely a distant memory. But, there is one hitch to the antigun activists’ goal and that hitch is the presence of the right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as categorically affirmed by the high Court in the landmark Heller and McDonald cases.

The Bill of Rights and U.S. Supreme Court rulings prevent antigun legislators from instituting wholesale confiscation of guns in the vein of the Australian scheme. So, antigun proponents in this Nation employ an incremental approach. Instead of banning firearms en mass,they attempt to ban categories of guns.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 made possession of machine guns and “sawed-off” shotguns illegal. In fits and starts, many semiautomatic weapons, called “assault weapons” by antigun proponents, have become illegal for the average American citizen to own in several States. Antigun legislators also expanded and wish to continue to expand the domain of individuals who cannot lawfully own any firearm.

With the murder of students and teachers at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida by a deranged gunman, antigun activists immediately began to harness public outrage at the senseless deaths.

Antigun activists directed public anger toward the activists’ perennial favorite targets: guns, gun owners, gun manufacturers and dealers; and toward their arch-enemy, the NRA.

Antigun groups might have reasonably directed public anger at Hollywood for producing movies filled with gratuitous, horrific violence and carnage. They didn’t. And, they could have directed the public’s wrath toward manufacturers of violent video games. They didn’t. Nor did antigun groups look at the cultural milieu in which we live as the true root cause of violence in our Nation: broken homes; illicit drugs; criminal gangs running amok; moral relativism; multiculturalism; historical revisionism; bizarre social constructs; gender dysphoria, a mental disorder, masquerading as mere “life choice;” and the rise of atheistic and socialistic tendencies in this Country, belief systems that are incompatible with natural law and incompatible with the idea of a Divine creator in whom an effective normative ethical system derives.

No! It is far easier, although absurd in the contemplation, to direct public anger at an inanimate object, the firearm, and toward the NRA, and toward any person or business entity that espouses support for the right of the American citizen to keep and bear arms.

One tactic antigun activists employ recently to achieve their ends is the “political boycott.” The way it works, is this: antigun groups attack companies that have partnership arrangements with NRA. Some companies, for example, offer discounts to NRA members. Antigun activists have coerced companies into ending programs offering discounts to NRA members under threat of economic ruin and public shame and condemnation. The purpose of these political boycotts is expressive and coercive, not economic. Antigun activists seek social and political change here, not economic benefit.

The use of the political boycott invariably has a First Amendment free speech component, but even those who support the use of political boycotts recognize its danger. “Boycotts are indeed powerful. They do, in fact, have the ability to exact real-world, human costs from those businesses and individuals targeted. The concern over boycotts exists because they have consequences that might have the potential to extend outward from their target to impact a boycotted business's employees or community.” Democratizing The Economic Sphere: A Case For The Political Boycott, 115 W. Va. L. Rev. 531, 534 (Winter 2012), by Teresa J. Lee.

Scrutiny of both motives and effects of using political boycotts to achieve political and social ends is warranted, lest our rights and liberties be destroyed.

Use of the political boycott by antigun activists against the NRA is legally and morally suspect and, from a historical perspective, incongruous. The reason is that the NRA, as a Civil Rights organization—the original Civil Rights organization—has, as its first stated purpose and objective the strengthening and sanctifying of our sacred heritage:

“To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens.”

NRA is the only Civil Rights Group that has, as its salient raison d’être, the defense of a sacred right and liberty as codified in the U.S. Constitution. And the NRA is attacked for this! There is something both odd and deeply disturbing in antigun activists’ reliance on the exercise of one sacred right, free speech, to attack an organization whose stated objective is simply to defend a second sacred right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, “NRA Freedom, Join It and become one of the good guys!”

Keep in mind, too, that the political boycott is not merely utilized by antigun activists to harm the NRA; it is an attack on the NRA members, American citizens. Basically, NRA members have their own First Amendment right of free speech, as expressed in their support othe Second Amendment. The political boycott is used by antigun activists, and is meant to be used by antigun activists, to squelch free speech. This is an impermissible coercive use of the political boycott.

“To be protected under the first amendment, the boycott advocates' appeal to their listeners must be persuasive rather than coercive. The distinction is crucial. Persuasive speech has always been accorded the highest first amendment protection on the theory that the free flow of ideas is central to our democratic system of government: ‘the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.’ By contrast, speech that deprives its listeners of freedom of choice, i.e., coercive speech, distorts the marketplace of ideas by causing listeners to accept an idea not for its ‘truth’ but to avoid some sanction. Coercive speech also undermines the political process, since a democratic society depends upon the autonomy of those who publicly espouse a point of view and of those who listen.” Secondary Boycotts and the First Amendment, 51 U. Chi. L. Rev. 811, 825 (Summer 1984), by Barbara J. Anderson.

There is, though, no autonomy between those who publicly espouse the elimination of civilian gun ownership, ergo de facto repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, comprising antigun activists, antigun legislators, antigun billionaire Globalists, andmembers of the mainstream media who shriek at and attempt to cajole into submission, the American public and businesses, the listeners, who may happen to harbor contrary views.

These antigun influences, some domestic and some foreign, intend to speak to and for the American public and for the business community. For companies that do not willingly accede to the antigun agenda, the political boycott operates as a club to coercecompliance with that agenda. The political boycott is not used here as a mechanism meant merely to persuade.

The political boycott is as well, a club wielded against NRA members. Antigun proponents ostracize Americans who are NRA members. But, NRA membership is a legitimate First Amendment expression of one’s Second Amendment right. By attacking a citizen’s membership in NRA, antigun forces seek to control speech, crushing dissent. In a free Republic this cannot be countenanced. NRA members should challenge these boycotts.

Alert: Contact Your Republican Representatives In Congress Now!

Tell Congress to enact laws to prevent antigun groups from coercing and threatening retaliatory action against companies that do not adopt the groups’ political views.


Arbalest Quarrel

Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

  • 12 thoughts on “Political Boycott: An Assault On NRA Members 1st & Second Amendment Rights 2nd

    1. The NRA is a vile organization that is primarily supported by the gun manufacturers who then fame the flames of the 2nd amendment nonsense, and are directly responsible for the enormous increase in gun deaths ever since the Supreme court ruling. In my opinion, every employee of the NRA and member of the NRA has some blood on their hands for all these killings. Innocent children mowed down by 2nd amendment.

      1. Why would you visit this site if you hate firearms and owners? You really have that “socialist hate” libtard attitude. You’re just a little “snowflake” sitting around looking at your smartphone screen, laptop screen, tablet screen, and play online video games. You’re probably an obese dude from doing nothing in your pathetic little libtard life. Actually, I think you’re one of the “trolls” that roam the internet placing your “swill” comments in an attempt to bad-mouth the US. MAN-UP! Leave the US, or better yet, go to LA and HollyWeird!

    2. So there is this part of the population that is not to be trusted with firearms. Either because they have mental health issues or are already criminals but bottom line is society says these people would be a danger to others if they had a gun. Sometimes it’s just a specific type of gun they can’t be trusted with. That answer the gov’t and the anti gun groups have come up with is to remove one of the tools these dangerous people have access to. They are ok with leaving these people in public who can’t be trusted to not harm others as long as we remove one type of instrument they could use. It’s ok to leave access to all the other deadly/dangerous things they could use to kill/injure people with like gas, trucks/cars, knives, swords, homemade explosives, or just a simple gun from some illegal source. If that’s not the biggest, dumbest game of Whack-A-Mole I don’t know what is. The one constant in all these shootings/killings is the human factor. If you remove the tool they kill with they can just get another tool. If you remove the human from the equation you have stopped the problem. No gun =use different tool/method. No person= no killing/shooting/injury.

      That is the one way you can stop these things for certain. If these people are so dangerous to not be trusted with a gun why do we trust them with all the other things they can use to kill/injure with? We shouldn’t be surprised when they just use a different tool or ignore the law that says they can’t have a gun and get one illegally.

    3. Although they quietly announced it, it is not common knowledge that Bass Pro Shops, and through them, Cabelas, has ended the military discount program on all firearms related items. found this out today when I went to replenish reloading supplies at Cabelas. I will cease doing business at either store now since the military discount only applies to the over priced clothing lines they carry.

    4. Interstate consumer laws and tax are dangerous for the Second Amendment: look at California. We need to remember if the fed violates or any high courts violate citizens Second Amendment rights it makes the law null and void: no exceptions, so says the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, it renders their office or court unconstitutional: thereby voiding their powers. If the industry and all FFL’s, and law-abiding pro-Second citizens ignore unconstitutional laws it would back up the system so much it would force the anti-gun Globalist plants to beat sand. We would need to revert back to the days where no paper or digital records were kept. Let’s face it, law-abiding Americans have put up with the anti-gun song and dance long enough, it’s time to separate ourselves from them. They are clearly Globalist gangsters, bullies, and they have plants in the 9th Circuit, and Supreme Court: judges who are taking handouts to sell out the U.S. Constitution and citizens rights. They are in violation of their sworn oaths and should be disbarred and removed from office with no chance for re-election.

    5. Chipping away at our rights bit by bit is the Marxist way to control the citizens. Without abolishing our amendment rights, they will convince lawmakers to slowly make small adjustments and rules to eventually eliminate that right altogether. We need to worry more about the politicians who listen to and are elected to positions by these anti-gun fanatics.

      1. CBS radio news reported this very morning that DC police will have the authority to confiscate a citizen’s firearms if it is thought the citizen MIGHT be dangerous. Police come to home, probably dressed like little toy soldiers, and confiscate firearms with no due process. We’re entering a dangerous time here with the new “thought police”! Sooner or later, consequences will occur. Thank you Trump and NRA….!

      1. Middle of the Great Depression, a $3500 tax in today’s dollars, I think that can qualify as it effectively made legal ownership effectively illegal for the majority of people.
        Post 86 did make machine guns almost entirely illegal, except for the ones made before the bill’s enactment date.
        If one becomes class 7 ffl with the class 2 SOT and a demo letter, sure you can have a modern machine gun.
        Again how many people can afford to spend even just $1000 every year for the privilege of a modern machine gun?
        De jure, sure it is all legal. De facto, not even remotely.

    6. NRA members can boycott stupid management, such as Dick’s, REI, Delta, why should we spend our hard earned money with companies that hate us.

    Leave a Comment 12 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *