Paul Valone, political commentator and president of the gun rights and education organization Grass Roots North Carolina, has shared his views on the issue.
Sputnik: In your opinion, does the decision of the SF Board of Supervisors contradicts the concepts that were put in the first two amendments of the US Constitution?
Paul Valone: Like a Third World Banana Republic, the SF Board of Supervisors attempts to make political differences into criminal offenses, in violation of both the language and intent of the United States Constitution.
Sputnik: Given the logic of the SF Board of Supervisors, could this case set a precedent and other gun rights advocacy groups will be branded as domestic terrorists? How likely is it that other US cities would pass similar resolutions?
Paul Valone: The resolution is a threat to every civil rights organization in the US because the NRA is exactly that – a civil rights organization which has never been implicated in any crime, and has never urged violence against anyone.
The bigger threat is not that other cities might pass similar resolutions, but instead the fact that SF urged Congress to pass legislation designating the NRA – and by association its 5 million members – as “domestic terrorists”.
Sputnik: How could such initiatives affect ordinary gun owners?
Paul Valone: If the NRA as an organization is designated as a “domestic terrorism” organization so, by association, are its 5 million members.
Given the penchant of Democrats for “red flag” gun confiscation laws, which deny due process to the accused, one could easily envision a Congress controlled by Democrats using “domestic terror” legislation to confiscate guns from untold numbers of lawful Americans.
The single most dangerous thing about the resolution is that it demonstrates clearly that the American political left is quite willing to corrupt the legal process in its pursuit of power.
Sputnik: What is the likelihood that the NRA will win their lawsuit?
Paul Valone: Not being a lawyer, I cannot assess the legal strengths and weaknesses of a particular case, but even absent material damages, claiming that a lawful civil rights organization engages in “domestic terrorism” seems on its face to be defamation.
Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of Paul Valone and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
