n Defense of (the Rights) of U.S. Citizens

——————————————————————————–
Washington Times.

———————————————————–

IN DEFENSE OF U.S. CITIZENS

Jay Ambrose

———————————————————–

There’s a problem in the land, or so said the so-called

reformers. Powerful organizations, they told us, are taking

over our politics. They are drowning out the voice of the

people. Democracy is in peril unless we can reconstitute our

campaign finance laws to shut these organizations up when

elections draw nigh. Need an example? They had one they

loved to trot out — the National Rifle Association.

There are many problems with the analysis. One is that the

First Amendment’s free speech guarantee applies to everyone,

even the powerful. Another is that the threat to democracy —

at least according to any traditional understanding of

democracy — is not people speaking out, but governmental

attempts to control these people. And still another problem

with the reformers’ view is that many of the groups in

question — including the NRA, their favorite whipping boy —

are nothing more than collections of citizens exercising

citizenship. They are the people.

It may serve the purposes of those who don’t like the NRA to

portray it otherwise. Some references make it seem a dark,

menacing force of secretive conspirators. The truth is that

it is a group that operates in the open and has 4 million

members, some of whom are almost surely your neighbors and

friends.

These people may join the NRA for lots of reasons, such as

the training the NRA provides in rifle shooting, but they

also join to do what people are supposed to do in a free,

self-governing society. They are working together for the

political ends to which they subscribe. Their dues are not

much — $35 a year. And the average contribution to the

political action committee’s fund ranges from $12 to $18, I

was told.

A powerful group? Yes. But why is it powerful? Some of the

answer has to do with passion, I suspect; these people care

about their beliefs. The money counts because it facilitates

research and communication and other activities. But the

biggest reason for the power is that the members and others

— including many of America’s 70 million or so gun owners —

respond with their votes. Talking about the connection

between the organization and voters, an NRA lobbyist once

said in a speech, “We flush ‘em, you bust ‘em.” Once

alerted, voters sympathetic to the NRA will often vote the

NRA way.

I myself agree with the NRA more often than I disagree with

it. Even some constitutional experts of a gun-controlling

disposition now concur with what ought to be obvious to

anyone: The Second Amendment establishes a personal right of

gun ownership. Despite a dearth of attention to the fact,

the legitimate ownership of guns saves many lives each year.

And, as the NRA keeps observing, the chances are slim to

zero that still another gun law is going to accomplish what

so many others have failed to do, namely, prevent the

murderous-minded from acquiring the means of their mayhem.

But suppose you disagree with the NRA. Suppose you think its

positions lead to bloody consequences. Would that justify

you in silencing the group? Obviously not. The NRA does not

write the laws. Legislators do. If you think the legislators

are writing bad laws and that some are too much under the

influence of the NRA, vote against the legislators or start

your own group to fight back or do both.

Don’t do as Congress did in passing the McCain-Feingold

bill. Among other provisions in this legislation, one says

that when elections get near, advocacy groups had better

disappear. Mention a federal candidate’s name in a political

ad on TV or radio close to a primary or general election

and, if you did not use political action committee money,

you could be in violation of the law. The reformers’

rationale, as best I can puzzle it out, is that politics

will be purer under this safeguard and that the voters will

be protected from critically voiced views that might cause

them to make wrong decisions.

Call that democracy or liberty or sound policy if you like,

but you will thereby show yourself up as someone who

actually has qualms about the people’s capacity for

self-governance, and if you are running for re-election, you

will demonstrate that you are less interested in free speech

than a free ride back to office.

Court arguments began last week that will likely lead to a

Supreme Court decision deciding whether portions of this law

live or die. Let’s hope death is the verdict. We do not need

to control the speech of the NRA or any other association of

citizens. We need to inhibit politicians who have such huge

disrespect for their fellow Americans.

Jay Ambrose is director of editorial policy for Scripps
Howard Newspapers.

———————————————————–
This article was mailed from The Washington Times