It's actually even worse than that. After all, in Harry Potter they got around mentioning Voldemort by referring to him as He Who Shall Not Be Named. In the case of Hunter Biden, gun control groups don't want to refer to him in even the obliquest of terms. He's a non-entity as far as they're concerned. 

Yesterday I wrote about the silence from anti-gun orgs during Biden's trial and after his conviction, and took a swipe at the media for aiding and abetting the self-censorship from Everytown, Brady, and other gun groups. Coincidentally (or not), a few hours after that post was published POLITICO became the first "mainstream" media outlet to note the refusal of groups like Brady, Giffords, and Everytown to discuss Biden's case.

 In the day since President Joe Biden’s son was found guilty of owning a gun while being a drug user and lying about his drug use on a purchase form, POLITICO asked seven top gun control groups how they are navigating the verdict and likely appeal. Several advocates were asked directly if they believe — as the president’s son argues — that it is unconstitutional to ban drug users from possessing guns. 

Not a single one commented on the case or the broader legal question, underscoring how uncomfortable the politics around the case are for the gun control groups pushing hard for Biden’s reelection.

“That’s all about politics,” said a gun violence prevention activist, granted anonymity due to the political sensitivities. “This is just: ‘No, we’re not going to get in the middle of this shitstorm. Nothing good can come of it.’"

That was the only anti-gun activist POLITICO quoted, so apparently even the offer of anonymity isn't enough to get gun control advocates to open up about Hunter Biden's case or the statute he was convicted of violating. 

I'll give POLITICO some credit for at least reporting on the silence from the gun control lobby, though the outlet should have called out by name the seven groups that turned down their request for comment. We can assume the big players in the movement like Everytown, Brady, and Giffords all refused to answer POLITICO's questions, but I'd like to know what other outfits turned them away without responding. 

I expected that POLITICO would find a talking head or two who would offer comment on the radio silence from gun control groups, but maybe that was just as impossible as finding an anti-gun activist willing to speak on the record, because the rest of POLITICO's story is basically a rehash of Joe Biden's speech to Everytown hours after Biden's conviction, as well as an explainer on the Second Amendment argument that Hunter Biden is likely to raise on appeal. 

They did note that Second Amendment groups have been much more open about Hunter's trial and conviction, even if they're not exactly on the same page. 

Second Amendment advocates have been much more vocal on the conviction than their restrictionist opponents. The National Rifle Association issued a statement obliquely praising the conviction.

“The National Rifle Association has always stood for the lawful use and possession of firearms. Mr. Biden’s documented lifestyle choices at the time of purchasing a firearm made him a prohibited person under current law,” said Randy Kozuch, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, in a statement to POLITICO. The NRA did not respond to a follow-up question on whether the organization believes the Second Amendment allows for bans on drug users from having guns.

Other gun rights organizations used the verdict to bolster their push for looser gun laws. The Firearms Policy Coalition reiterated an offer to aid Hunter Biden in his challenge.

“Countless lives are destroyed every year under the federal government’s unconstitutional and immoral regulations. We proudly work to eliminate these laws and create a free world. Just as we have in many other cases, we stand ready to assist Mr. Biden in his challenge of federal gun laws,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.

To be honest, I'm not impressed with NRA's statement, but at least they're taking a position, unlike their counterparts in the gun control debate. 

As Combs pointed out, gun control laws do damage; not only to our rights in the abstract, but to real lives. There are those Americans who can't exercise their rights lawfully because of the restrictions where they live, but there are also those who end up charged with crimes for merely possessing a firearm without a government-issued permission slip. Then there are the folks like Hunter Biden, Donald Trump, and Bryan Range who are prohibited from exercising their right to keep and bear arms for the rest of their lives because of a non-violent conviction. 

Hunter Biden's case highlights the harm done by these "commonsense gun safety laws", which is one reason why the anti-gun groups are staying quiet. They could issue statements praising the president for saying he'll respect the jury's decision and won't pardon his son (though a commutation is a different story). They could borrow a page from the NRA and say that while they're not opposed to lawful gun ownership, Biden broke the law and should pay the price. 

But even an anodyne statement like that is too much for the Everytowns of the world. For as much as they talk about the necessity of putting more laws on the books, they really don't like to talk about what enforcement of those laws looks like in practice... especially when the son of their endorsed presidential candidate is involved.