It’s been only a few years since the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution calling the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization.” Earlier, in 2018, then-Governor of New York State, Andrew Cuomo – who had previously announced that pro-gun supporters were extremist conservatives that “have no place in the state of New York” – tweeted that the “NRA is an extremist organization. I urge companies in New York State to revisit any ties they have to the NRA and consider their reputations, and responsibility to the public.”
The takeaway is that you can’t take at face value how political actors characterize their opponents. Which brings us to Germany, where political incumbents are using charges of “extremism” to crack down firearm possession by members and supporters of a popular opposition party.
Earlier this year, in a speech that “stunned Europe,” Vice President J.D. Vance warned European politicians that the biggest challenge they faced was not Russia, China, or some other external actor, but the “threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values.” In particular, freedom of speech was “in retreat,” he said, citing incidents of government censorship of so-called “misinformation” or offensive speech; arrests and convictions of those silently praying in abortion buffer zones; and the annulment of the results of a Romanian presidential election based on “flimsy suspicions” of Russian advertising that may have swayed voters. The organizers of the Munich security conference Vance was speaking at, he noted, had even “banned lawmakers representing populist parties on both the left and the right from participating in these conversations,” presumably because the views of such parties were, as political differences invariably are, not in accord with the ruling government’s standpoints or policies.
To truly safeguard democracy, Vance said, “we must do more than talk about democratic values. We must live them,” because “dismissing people, dismissing their concerns, or, worse yet, shutting down media, shutting down elections, or shutting people out of the political process protects nothing.” The current U.S. administration, he said, was willing to work together to further freedom of speech and the openness to allowing dissent: “we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square, agree or disagree.”
One of the uninvited populist parties Vance likely meant is the right-leaning AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, or Alternative for Germany).
According to a 2016 AfD policy document posted online, its political program includes many notions that are widely embraced by Americans: the separation of powers, which “guarantees the existence of checks and balances, which enables the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government to exercise mutual control over one another;” and lean government for free citizens (“Government should serve its citizens, and not vice versa. Therefore, only lean government is good government”); reducing bureaucracy and punishing government waste and fraud with respect to tax revenues; unbiased law enforcement and ending the “influence of political parties on the appointments and nominations of judges and prosecutors, and to prevent such influence in the future;” an emphasis on protecting victims of crime, not the offenders; and “a simpler and fairer taxation system, which primarily reduces the tax burden of middle and low-income earners.”
The AfD maintains that the existing German policies on asylum and immigration have failed and need to be reformed, yet the topic is characterized by “an ideologically-biased climate of political correctness, accompanied by banned terms and newspeak,” and those who do not comply face social stigmatization and job-related discrimination. “Such treatment of non-conformist opinions has been a characteristic of totalitarian countries, but not of free democratic societies... The fundamental right of freedom of speech must be re-established when dealing with this policy area.”
The AfD position on firearm laws could just as easily have come from America:
A liberal and constitutional state has to trust its citizens. The state has to live with the fact that its citizens legally buy and own weapons. The constitutional state has to guarantee the freedom of action of its citizens, and has to minimise any interference therewith. The AfD opposes any form of restrictions of civil rights by tightening firearms legislation. By criminalising gun ownership offenders are not deterred, but victims are made more vulnerable. The tightening of firearms legislation will not restrict terrorists or other criminals in obtaining illegal arms, trading them, or putting them to use. The tightening of firearms legislation presents another step towards the criminalisation of respectable citizens, as well as comprehensive state surveillance and paternalism. [Spelling as in the original.]
It was ideas like these that apparently prompted the German domestic intelligence agency (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, the federal Office of the Protection of the Constitution, or BfV) designating, in 2021, the entire AfD Party as a “suspected case of far-right extremism” and a suspected threat to the country’s democracy, which entitled the BfV to spy on, wiretap and monitor AfD members. German courts subsequently dismissed the AfD’s challenge to that designation and upheld the intelligence agency’s designation and right to formal surveillance.
Since then, several news reports have advised that AfD members and supporters face, as well, the prospect of having gun ownership licenses revoked and their guns seized.
One article states that a court in the state of North-Rheine Westphalia last year upheld a ban on AfD members owning firearms following the BfV classifying the AfD as a “suspected threat” to democracy. The case involved a married couple who had lawfully possessed over 200 firearms but whose permits to do so had been revoked due to their membership in the AfD, meaning their guns had to be surrendered to authorities or destroyed. The court’s reasoning, it seems, was that members of the party are suspected of anti-constitutional activities and therefore, fail to satisfy a “reliability” requirement in current gun laws. A court in another jurisdiction ruled that the state of Thuringia could not impose a wholesale revocation of firearms licenses of all AfD members, but stopped short of prohibiting such actions in individual cases.
AfD members with gun licenses in the state of Saxony-Anhalt were also targeted due to the designation of the party as “confirmed right-wing extremist.” Last fall, a newspaper reports, the authorities were “checking the reliability of AfD members with a gun license. This has been confirmed by the State Administration Office …According to the report, there are currently 109 AfD members in Saxony-Anhalt with weapons permits. In 72 of these cases, a withdrawal procedure is underway, and another 35 applications are being reviewed.” The examination of “reliability” (a prerequisite for a firearms license) includes whether the license holder is a person who has pursued efforts “that are directed against the constitutional order.” As a spokesperson for the leftist Green Party of Saxony-Anhalt, cited in the article, explains, Weapons have no place in the hands of enemies of the constitution and therefore have no place in the hands of AfD members.”
Dr. John Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center (CRPC) followed up on the AfD-related gun license revocations in Saxony-Anhalt and reports that an administrative court in Magdeburg has dismissed lawsuits by AfD members and former members seeking to overturn the license revocations. The CPRC cites a March 28 newspaper article indicating that the court ruled “that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing under firearms law because they were AfD members or had supported the party. The AfD in Saxony-Anhalt is an association that works against the constitutional order in Germany. The reason for this is the classification of the state association as confirmed right-wing extremist by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.”
A German newspaper editor describes the BfV terminology used in this context as “gradations of ostracism that are expressed towards a party” that serve to make the political party “toxic.” In addition to the loss of an individual’s personal privacy, gun licenses, and firearms, once the BfV designates a party as “right-wing extremist,” civil servants may find their employment jeopardized due to being AfD members or supporters and likewise, people who worked for the AfD and who seek other employment “will be rejected by other institutions.”
As if to confirm Vice President Vance’s observations (“you cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail”), German citizens appear undeterred by this government-mandated marginalization. Polling as of early April shows that the AfD is now Germany’s most popular political party, surpassing the popularity of each of the three parties now governing Germany.
International events like these are a valuable reminder of how government repression often unfolds. It’s not that large a step between being branded an “extremist” to becoming an unreliable citizen, an “enemy of the constitution” who has no business lawfully owning a firearm.
Don’t think firearm prohibitionists in America are above the tactics seen in Germany. No less a gun control advocate than Joe Biden was found of labeling his political opposition as enemies of “democracy,” and his administration even claimed that “domestic extremism” was among the greatest threats to national security.
Biden’s run in politics may be over, but there are plenty of even more radical anti-gunners eager to take his place. Americans would do well to take notice of what is happening in Western “democracies” overseas and vote accordingly.
More Like This From Around The NRA
