Musk’s ‘America Party’ Long on Exploiting Disgruntlement, Short on Specifics for Gun Owners

“If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day,” Elon Musk posted on X. “Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE.”

The bill has passed, and many MAGA supporters, particularly activist gun owners, are feeling betrayed, angry, and demoralized after a perceived commitment to remove suppressors and short-barrel firearms from the purview of the National Firearms Act was rejected by the Democrat Senate Parliamentarian. That’s because the rebuff was not overruled by Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune with administration backing by Vice President/President of the Senate JD Vance.

Instead, despite previously using procedural tricks to get around the Parliamentarian on California’s electric vehicle mandate, Republicans allowed the NFA ruling to stand, settling for no fees but leaving the registration requirement intact. And sentiments from some disgusted gun owners, feeling like they’d been sold a bill of goods — including by “gun rights leaders” portraying GOP fecklessness as the “next best win” — indicate receptivity to a third-party alternative at a time when critical midterms are fast approaching.

One prominent influencer went so far as to equate the “great victory” with D-Day (disregarding that over 100,000 American soldiers were killed in action in the European theater after the Normandy invasion up to the end of the war in Europe). One of the best rebuttals is in a comment by NRA Board reform member Dennis Fusaro, with this perceptive observation that too few are making:

“[W]hat was lost was the opportunity to build grassroots political power and an outside movement that tells the politicians what they must do for us. And that is the winning long-term strategy. It was the opportunity to educate the Republicans  – ‘our friends’ – how to behave, but now instead the Republicans have ended up educating us how to behave telling us what we must settle for in terms of policy.”

It’s a small comfort to many that the fight can continue on in court, especially noting how many judges are in-your-face Democrat obstructionists, how often the Supreme Court punts or ducks infringements altogether, how often Republicans snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and how awful Democrats can be and still get voted for.

Meanwhile, a right delayed is a right denied.

So, it’s understandable that Elon Musk is attracting some gun owners to turn their backs on self-serving poltroons who continually let them down. But doing so demands an answer to a question: Is it really in their interests to split the gun vote, and will a third-party effort play into the hands of the Democrats, who we know are all about citizen disarmament and just lack the votes to go all in?

“The Second Amendment is sacred,” Musk promised when asked how his America party will regard the right to keep and bear arms. Agreed, but what does he mean, and how and when will he answer a replying question posed by FeniX Ammunition?

“Actions speak louder than words, Elon. Either allow gun companies to advertise on X, or, stop pretending you actually believe it’s a sacred right.”

It’s not unfair to keep in mind a rather standard line gun owners have heard from the politically ambitious before, generally right before they’re about to be swindled:

“I believe in the Second Amendment but…”

All we have to determine what Musk believes are his own words, and they don’t exactly scream, “Shall not be infringed.” From my June 2022 Firearms News report:

“He said in emails to CNBC on Wednesday that he supports ‘tight background checks’ for all gun sales and limiting sales of assault weapons to people in special circumstances, like gun range owners, or people who live in a ‘high risk location, like gang warfare,’” CNBC elaborated. That was followed with a cognitively dissonant statement, or at least one that shows a glimmer of Musk understanding the Second Amendment’s intent.

“I strongly believe that the right to bear arms is an important safeguard against potential tyranny of government,” Musk declared. “Historically, maintaining their power over the people is why those in power did not allow public ownership of guns.”

Realizing that, he still wants infringements on those who have the means to resist totalitarian abuses? The next day on Twitter, Musk doubled down.

“Assault rifles should at minimum require a special permit, where the recipient is extremely well-vetted imo,” he replied to an inquiry “on the AR-15 discussion.” “To be more precise, I mean any semi-automatic gun with supersonic ammo and a large magazine.”

It doesn’t look like Musk’s America Party will provide the safe haven to jump to that some gun owners are kneejerk responding to (and no, the Libertarian Party, that “support[s] free and open migration across borders” contradicts itself on the Second Amendment with a position that has proven disastrous for gun owner rights).

As for what to do and how to vote (or not), that’s for each of us to decide, with the clear understanding that a political win for Democrats will be a real-world loss for gun owners.

We can’t forget the actual 2A progress that has been made with this administration and the importance of controlling judicial nominations, even with the disappointments some ostensibly “pro-gun” ones have turned out at times to be. Democrats dominating the Senate confirmation process will be catastrophic.

The thought strikes that much of this disconnect between executive promises and legislative performance would have been avoidable if the much ballyhooed “Second Amendment Task Force” included gun owner representative members weighing in on priorities so that the President, who is in effect the  head of the Party, could make his expectations to Republicans in Congress clear. That it doesn’t, he hasn’t, and none of the gun groups repeating the “next best win” mantra have demanded a seat at the table won’t cut it.

If the GOP doesn’t want Musk’s America Party to act as a spoiler by attracting  a critical mass of the disaffected, Pam Bondi’s DOJ will need to more actively join with gun owners against infringements. She could start by arguing, as Bill Cawthon of the  Second Amendment Society of Texas has observed, “that the remaining requirements for registration violate the Firearm Owners Protection Act, signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1986. It includes a blanket prohibition on the creation of a federal registry of guns or gun owners. The NFA has survived this prohibition only because it is a tax.”

Whether that will be enough to stem a midterm exodus to a new party is something each of us will decide when we vote, or in the case of TINVOWOOTers, if we vote. No one can seriously argue that Uniparty Republican squishes haven’t done this to themselves, and armed Americans who won’t disarm regardless of who’s “in charge” are the wrong people to ask about choosing “lesser evils.”

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.