In a First Amendment decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously supported the National Rifle Association (NRA), potentially making it more challenging for state regulators to pressure advocacy organizations.
In the case NRA vs Vullo, the former New York State official Maria Vullo is said to have pressurized financial institutions of the state of New York to cut ties with the NRA after the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, curbing their free speech.
The NRA portrays itself as a civil rights group that advocates for gun rights. Since it is one of the most influential advocacy groups, it is involved in any debate regarding gun violence and rights in the United States. The NRA was founded in 1871 as an organization to provide training to marksmen and hunters on how to use the gun safely and has now become one of the most potent gun lobbies in the States.
The NRA aligns itself with the Republicans and has several former U.S. Presidents as members of the organization, such as Donald Trump, Theodore Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. The NRA, in the last decade, has come under fire over its CEO’s corruption trial.
Ruling Strengthens NRA’s Claim as an Advocacy Group
The National Rifle Association is in conjunction with other public interest groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
According to Ted Deutch, a Democratic Congressman, the NRA is serving the interests of gun companies so that they continue to invest millions of dollars in the organization directly through their corporate sponsor programs. One such program is ‘Golden Ring of Fire’ by the NRA, and its members are companies like Ruger, Beretta, and Remington that manufacture assault weapons.
The Supreme Court ruling boosts the NRA’s agenda and the companies associated with it to hijack the conversation and divert attention from problems caused by easy access to firearms. In a CNN interview, Dana Loesch, the spokesperson for the NRA, swayed the debate about restricting gun rights by suggesting that the state should identify “crazy people” to limit access.
The gun used by the shooter in the Parkland High School shooting that killed 17 people was manufactured by Smith and Wesson, a company that fills the coffers of the organization, indicating that the NRA is less of a public interest group and more of an industry lobbying one. Conflicting interests and the contradictory nature of the NRA make engaging with their spokesperson about gun control apprehensive.
The NRA’s Boosting Influence and Media Tactics Against Gun Control
Advocates for stricter gun control fear that this decision could empower the NRA and similar organizations, making it more difficult to implement policies aimed at reducing gun violence and gun control. If regulatory actions are viewed as politically motivated attacks rather than public safety measures, officials may be hamstrung by the need to avoid legal issues.
The existence of these organizations under the blanket defense of public interest groups strengthens their contributor’s agenda. The NRA also enjoys a little bit of a blame game with the media. Dana Loesch claimed, “many in legacy media love mass shootings” as a means to increase ratings. “You guys love it. I’m not saying you love the tragedy, but I’m saying you love the ratings. Crying white mothers are ratings gold to many in the legacy media,” says the spokesperson.
In 2021, the Centre for Disease Control reported that firearms were involved in approximately 81% of U.S. murders, with 20,958 out of 26,031 homicides, marking the highest percentage since 1968. Additionally, over half of all suicides in 2021, 26,328 out of 48,183, or 55%, involved a gun, the highest rate since 2001, suggesting easy access to firearms.
1 Comment
Pingback: Under the Gun: Hunter Biden's Trial Takes Centre Stage