Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Order KEEP AND BEAR: THE MOVIE now for FREE shipping and a FREE bumper sticker!
Store

Given the undeniable strength of the Second Amendment, it comes as no surprise that a number of the left’s latest attacks on the right to bear arms would be absurd.

When you repeatedly find yourself losing an argument such as this one, you grow desperate.  That’s where the liberal left is at this point, attempting to convince someone, anyone, that guns are “bad”, and failing.  Miserably.

They’ve tried using emotion.  They’ve tried guilt.  They’ve even tried to make guns seems cowardly.  Yet they simply continue to fail.

Now, in what has to be one of the most brazen establishment attacks on the wishes of the Founding Fathers, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is using the First Amendment to attack the Second.

New York’s Andrew Cuomo is engaging in a deliberate campaign to use state power to drive the NRA out of business. It’s using a combination of consent decrees and warning letters directed at financial institutions to coerce them into cutting of business relationships with the NRA.

Cuomo’s intentions aren’t hidden. He’s on a crusade. “If I could have put the NRA out of business, I would have done it 20 years ago,” he said earlier this week. He followed up with this pithy statement: “I’m tired of hearing the politicians say, we’ll remember them in our thoughts and prayers. If the NRA goes away, I’ll remember the NRA in my thoughts and prayers.”

Clever. But when statements like this are accompanied by state action, there’s another word that applies — unconstitutional.

Trending: Chicago Mayor Wants MORE Gun Control

Here is where the issue lies:

New York’s lawyers argue that the state’s letters represent nothing more than government speech. The NRA and the state are engaged in nothing more than a frank exchange of ideas. But while the government does have broad power to engage in its own advocacy, that power has its limits. As the Second Circuit has recognized, there is a difference between “permissible expressions of personal opinion and implied threats to employ coercive State power to stifle protected speech.” When “comments of a government official can reasonably be interpreted as intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action will follow the failure to accede to the official’s request,” a First Amendment claim exists.

While Cuomo isn’t exactly the sort of guy who’ll yield to the truth, (or to his constituents for that matter), he may be the kind of guy who can be coerced by legal action…and if that’s what it takes for him to be stopped, so be it.

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Become an Insider!

Enter your email address below to stay in the loop and read our latest and greatest updates!

Send this to a friend