AstroTurf Harassment Campaign against Gun Owner Rights a FACT
Article first appeared at Ammo Land.
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “A Pro Bono Dream Team Takes on the N.R.A.,” the editorial board of The New York Times positively gushes in anticipatory glee. “The coalition, called the Firearms Accountability Counsel Task Force, plans to devote tens of millions of dollars in free legal services to this work … The coalition’s cooperating lawyers are already drafting lawsuits, which could be announced as soon as next month.”
And the “glaring flaws in gun safety” FACT will be going after? They evidently want the taxpayers to foot the bill for Democrat apparatchiks “to advocate or promote gun control” after Congress took funding away from their unmasked propaganda designed to render guns “dirty, deadly and banned.” They’ll “also seek ways to challenge state lawmakers who have invited millions of citizens to pack guns in public buildings and businesses,” go after “a crazy quilt of state and national gun laws … drawing upon public safety, antitrust and property laws,” and seek ways around the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
In other words, these officers of the court are themselves going to collude in “highly coordinated” efforts to undermine the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But they do have one point—there should be no “crazy quilt.” It all ought to fall under “the supreme Law of the Land,” that is, under “shall not be infringed.”
Unsurprisingly, The Times is silent on the relatively few string-pullers behind FACT, admitting only to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Mark Kelly’s and Gabby Gifford’s “Americans for Responsible Solutions” is one of the other main players, along with the Brady Campaign and the (George Soros-funded) Brennan Center for Justice.
“The law firms have committed hundreds of lawyers, thousands of hours, and millions of dollars to this effort, which will operate in tight coordination with ARS and the Law Center’s team of gun law experts,” they claim. Meaning they intend to make existence expensive for us.
What this is, obviously, is a lashing out at the results of the November elections, and an attempt by the monopoly of violence lobby to gain in “friendly” jurisdictions what was denied them at the polls. It is further an attempt to worry and harass in a “thousand cuts” strategy, hoping to drain reserves and even “win” through selecting targets that will be hard-pressed or not inclined to fight back.
What it illustrates more than anything is how critical the election was in terms of who will now be nominated for federal court openings, and particularly for the Supreme Court. Had Hillary won, it would be “game over,” at least as far as “legal” recourse.
What will be needed is for the right people to be put on federal benches to slap the lawsuits down before they advance too far, and then to make the offending parties start feeling some of that pain they’ve been trying to cause, through court costs, through sanctions for frivolous filings, and though countersuits if they continue to harass.