The NRA vs. the Censorship ‘Mob’

SFC13557

NES Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
4,229
Likes
5,436
Location
Central Ma.
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0

New York state financial regulators make the gun-rights group’s insurers an offer they can’t refuse.​

From Today's WSJ.
The NRA better tell NY to go F*** Themselves!
Nice to know the Mob is alive and well in NY except now it's the Govt.

"It’s the classic threat of B-movie mobsters: Nice business you got there, it’d be a shame if something happened to it. Government shouldn’t operate like that, but it too often does, sometimes to evade the Constitution’s limits on its power. A recent decision by the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the practice and provided a road map for officials to circumvent the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of speech.

Maria Vullo led the New York State Department of Financial Services, which has broad power to regulate almost every major financial player in the U.S. After the February 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Fla., Ms. Vullo and then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued a press release stating that the department would “urge” the insurers, banks and companies it regulates “to review any relationships they may have with the National Rifle Association” for “reputational risk.”

The goal was to punish the NRA for its gun-rights advocacy. The press release quoted Ms. Vullo as saying that corporations need to “lead the way” on “positive social change . . . to minimize the chance” of future shootings. “DFS urges all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York to join the companies that have already discontinued their arrangements with the NRA.”

Ms. Vullo followed through with official guidance to regulated entities. Citing “the social backlash against the National Rifle Association” and society’s “responsibility to act,” the guidance directed insurers and banks to evaluate the “reputational risks” of “dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations.”

Behind the scenes, Ms. Vullo was pressuring senior executives of the insurance syndicate Lloyd’s of London. In 2017 she had launched an investigation of insurers that formed partnerships with the NRA to sell “affinity” insurance, including gun-owner policies. The basis was twofold: technical violations of disclosure rules and alleged violation of state law by covering losses, including criminal-defense costs, even when policyholders were found to have illegally discharged their weapons.

The NRA alleges in a lawsuit that, in a meeting with Lloyd’s, Ms. Vullo acknowledged that these problems were widespread in the marketplace but made clear that her focus was the NRA policies. The key to minimizing liability, she emphasized, was joining the department’s efforts to combat the availability of firearms by weakening the NRA.

Lloyd’s got the message. Despite its reputation for insuring even the most controversial risks, it understood that its regulator considered working with one of the nation’s most broadly supported advocacy organizations to be off-limits. Lloyd’s publicly announced that it was terminating all business with the NRA. It signed a consent decree with DFS permanently barring it from participating in any insurance program with the NRA—rather than the usual remedy of bringing policies into compliance and possibly paying a fine. The decree didn’t cover the non-NRA policies that ran afoul of the same New York laws. The NRA says its corporate insurer refused to renew its policy because it feared similar reprisals after seeing DFS target Lloyd’s and another NRA-affinity insurer.


In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), officials from the Rhode Island Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth sent letters to booksellers informing them that it had identified certain books and magazines as “objectionable” and noting its power to recommend obscenity prosecutions. The U.S. Supreme Court held that this “informal censorship” violated the First Amendment. Although the government didn’t seize or ban any books, it “deliberately set about to achieve the suppression” of protected speech.

So did Ms. Vullo. As the Second Circuit observed, she “plainly favored gun control over gun promotion” and therefore “sought to convince DFS-regulated entitles to sever business relationships with gun promotion groups.” Yet the judges concluded that was reasonable.

Their logic is circular: The NRA’s advocacy led to a “backlash” that could “affect the New York financial markets,” given that “a business’s response to social issues can directly affect its financial stability in this age of enhanced corporate social responsibility.” So Ms. Vullo’s entreaties to drop the NRA weren’t threats, but actions “to protect DFS-regulated entities and New York residents from financial harm and to preserve stability in the state’s financial system.”

It’s fanciful to suggest that selling insurance to, or in partnership with, the NRA poses a threat to New York’s financial system. More important, the Constitution’s protections don’t amount to much if government officials can censor disfavored opinions simply by labeling them “reputational risk.” And even if such risk is real, empowering government officials to engage in censorship on that basis creates a heckler’s veto over controversial speech: Gin up enough online outrage or disagreement by officials or purported experts, and you can justify censoring anything or anyone.

The Biden White House successfully pressed Twitter to shut down accounts, including journalist Alex Berenson’s, for bucking the expert consensus on Covid vaccines. The FBI and Twitter cooperated in 2020 to censor humorous tweets about the election and voting. The Cato Institute’s Will Duffield has identified 62 recent instances of government officials making specific demands to censor speech on social-media platforms. This kind of “jawboning” by government officials usually occurs in the shadows and rarely comes to light. It can be difficult to identify when official encouragement crosses the line into coercion.

The Supreme Court will have to take up the question sooner or later, and an NRA appeal would present a strong opportunity to do so. The DFS has broad discretionary power to regulate industries on which almost everybody depends. That makes it all the more crucial to ensure that it respects the Constitution."

Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Mr. Grossman is a senior legal fellow at the Buckeye Institute. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.
 
NRA bashers in 1, 2, and 3..........................

Plenty of those bashers in the WSJ comments. But it is not as 1-sided as you’d see on NYT or WaPo. Many express the perspective that the means employed can be used by government to quash anyone/anything they oppose while others believe the ends they support justify the means employed.

I consider NRA as “on our side” even given all their deficiencies. One less 2ndA organization only helps the opposition. If they die a natural death by ascension of the other 2ndA organizations, that’s OK.
 
The NRA is basically useless but this new attack they are experiencing is just the tip of the iceberg with this ESG type bullshit. It will infect everything if left unchecked.
But the Left considers the NRA public enemy #1, they are an easy target for the Left. They don't know WE consider them useless as of now.
You are correct that this is another tactic in the Leftists Arsenal to target, harass and eliminate all opposition to their takeover.
 
The way I see it, the NRA is the one organization that seems to irk the liberals. And if you go by what the libs say it is because of them that we maintained many of the rights that have been under attack for a long time. So I am all for the NRA. Whether the power is real or not doesn't really matter to me.
 
The way I see it, the NRA is the one organization that seems to irk the liberals. And if you go by what the libs say it is because of them that we maintained many of the rights that have been under attack for a long time. So I am all for the NRA. Whether the power is real or not doesn't really matter to me.
You are correct, think like your enemy. Learn your enemy's motivation, beliefs, tactics.
The Anti's have had the NRA in their crosshairs for years because they believe the NRA is the most powerful 2A organization.
 
"It’s the classic threat of B-movie mobsters: Nice business you got there, it’d be a shame if something happened to it. Government shouldn’t operate like that, but it too often does, sometimes to evade the Constitution’s limits on its power. A recent decision by the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the practice and provided a road map for officials to circumvent the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of speech.
Out and out bullies.

Imagine if the NRA asked for help from their members? All NRA members please push back against insurance companies. Not even sure how that would work. Do they just boycott all insurance? How do you hurt them back?
 
Out and out bullies.

Imagine if the NRA asked for help from their members? All NRA members please push back against insurance companies. Not even sure how that would work. Do they just boycott all insurance? How do you hurt them back?
claims?
 
The way I see it, the NRA is the one organization that seems to irk the liberals. And if you go by what the libs say it is because of them that we maintained many of the rights that have been under attack for a long time. So I am all for the NRA. Whether the power is real or not doesn't really matter to me.
I think it's finally dawned on them the NRA is a paper tiger.
25 -30 years ago they would have been too afraid to pull this crap.
They had actual power to put your seat in danger.
Too much compromise , too much back room dealing.
Once they started supporting red flag laws and screwed over constitutional carry in New Hampshire and Florida it became pretty apparent that Wayne's suits were more important than the rights of gun owners.
Never back up from a growling dog and never show weakness to these people .
It will get you eaten.
 
No shit. This comment was as far as I made it so far. Can’t wait to read the rest of the tripe.

“Bah! What has the NRA done for mAssaChUsEtTs?”

“Wayne needs a new suit! Hahhahaaa!”
So they didn't support red flag laws ?
So they didn't queer up constitutional carry in N.H. and Florida ?
Hint , they did all three and it's a fact.
It's not our Dad's NRA anymore.
 
I'll take the bait.

So they didn't support red flag laws ?
So they didn't queer up constitutional carry in N.H. and Florida ?
Hint , they did all three and it's a fact.
100%on the same page...

It's not our Dad's NRA anymore.
Sure it is.

How long did anyone really expect the "Revolution of 76" to last? The NRA has been interested in nothing but OFWGs with pump guns for generations.

Sure, they'll still trot out old Heston when it's time to beg for money. Then, like you said, they'll shit on guns and their owners who don't fit neatly in the "sportsman" mold.

RespectfulViciousArmadillo-max-1mb.gif
 
The NRA became irrelevant when Wayne's corruption become too obvious at least six years ago.

The SAF, GOA, and FPC have been doing all the lobbying and lawfare in the vacuum left by the NRA imploding.

Until Wayne and his hand picked cockholsters are defenestrated I don't see the organization being relevant again. He is the Mitch McConnel of the NRA.
 
I never heard about that.
Can someone explain?
Dunno about FL but in NH they influenced the process and turned con carry into a no win for republican legislators, so they punted on it instead of potentially pissing off rkba voters. "Too many chiefs" problem. (Too many cc proposals, the nra one had lard in it too) Reason eventually won out but it set CC in NH back by at least a year. Maybe longer, details are fuzzy.
 
The way I see it, the NRA is the one organization that seems to irk the liberals. And if you go by what the libs say it is because of them that we maintained many of the rights that have been under attack for a long time. So I am all for the NRA. Whether the power is real or not doesn't really matter to me.
I'm all for the NRA remaining the whipping boy du jour, because they draw attention from the groups actually doing real pro-2A work.

I stopped giving them money 25 years ago, because even then it was clear it was a grifter organization.

NRA wants to end gun control just like Al Sharpton wants to end racism.
 
Stephen Stamboulieh aka "NoloCotendere" on ARFCOM - firearms attorney who has won a lot of cases favoring 2a across the US.
I just saw a .pdf of something from him. It looked well written and clear, and seemed to go for the jugular. I wonder how much success he has with things like that.
 
I'm all for the NRA remaining the whipping boy du jour, because they draw attention from the groups actually doing real pro-2A work.
Exactly... and that is why I remain an NRA member and supporter. The deranged anti-2A left still hates and fears them and that's good enough for me.

Meanwhile, the new breed of Pro-2A groups is doing the bulk of the work for us. It's important to support them to the absolute max. [thumbsup]
NRA wants to end gun control just like Al Sharpton wants to end racism.
LOL!!! Truth. [laugh]
 
Plenty of those bashers in the WSJ comments. But it is not as 1-sided as you’d see on NYT or WaPo. Many express the perspective that the means employed can be used by government to quash anyone/anything they oppose while others believe the ends they support justify the means employed.

I consider NRA as “on our side” even given all their deficiencies. One less 2ndA organization only helps the opposition. If they die a natural death by ascension of the other 2ndA organizations, that’s OK.

Yep. It would be great to see them split between the advocacy and education. Let GOA or something take over teh advocacy.

Sort of like what Citizens for Limited Income Taxation (giggle) did. Chip's an ass. He thought he was teh cause. But eventually, he realized he was done and handed the reins over to MFA - an organization that was doing more than he was for several years. MFA was very gracious. Chip was his typical ass self. "Oh I did this and oh you people don't want that but I died on this hill." SHADDUP! Just go retire you bitter old man. Sheesh!
 
Yep. It would be great to see them split between the advocacy and education. Let GOA or something take over teh advocacy.

Sort of like what Citizens for Limited Income Taxation (giggle) did. Chip's an ass. He thought he was teh cause. But eventually, he realized he was done and handed the reins over to MFA - an organization that was doing more than he was for several years. MFA was very gracious. Chip was his typical ass self. "Oh I did this and oh you people don't want that but I died on this hill." SHADDUP! Just go retire you bitter old man. Sheesh!
Sometimes the closer you get to founding leaders of great organizations the more you wish you just stayed on the fringe. What it takes to jumpstart such organizations is charisma that turns on/off, with off being A-hole mode. Good leaders have on/neutral.
 
Back
Top Bottom