The National Rifle Association hasn't exactly had a great time lately. The organization that has served as the 800-pound gorilla in the gun debate is mostly a shadow of its former self. They haven't notched a lot of wins lately, at least so far as most average Americans can see.

Sure, they've done stuff at the state level and behind the scenes, but things aren't what they used to be.

On Thursday, though, the NRA notched a massive win courtesy of the Supreme Court, which ruled 9-0 in their favor.

The case stemmed from former New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo essentially trying to warn businesses away from working with the NRA because the NRA held the wrong politics. This wasn't even off-the-cuff, friendly advice to people in a social setting but something sent out with her official letterhead.

The decision, written by Justice Sonya Sotomayor, one of the three justices nominated by Democrats, was quoted in a statement by the NRA:

The opinion of the court, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, states, “Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ against a third party ‘to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment… Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that.” 

“This is a landmark victory for the NRA and all who care about our First Amendment freedom,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. “The opinion confirms what the NRA has known all along: New York government officials abused the power of their office to silence a political enemy. This is a victory for the NRA’s millions of members and the freedoms that define America.” 

In the opinion, Justice Sotomayor writes that Vullo was “free to criticize the NRA” but “could not wield her power, however, to threaten enforcement actions against DFS-regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy.”

So, by all accounts, this is a free speech issue.

But this is also very good news for gun rights as a whole.

Let's be honest here, there are powerful forces who don't respect your right to keep and bear arms. New York state officials, for example, have a great deal of influence over the financial sector since many firms are headquartered in the Big Apple. The population of the state also gives them a certain degree of power.

And they don't like the Second Amendment, no matter what lip service politicians try to pay.

If these entities can decide that certain organizations are saying the wrong thing, this ruling just reinforces the idea that they can't use that power to threaten companies because of those companies' customers.

After all, Vullo threatened Lloyd's of London, dropping accusations of wrongdoing by the company provided they cut off all associations with gun groups. Gun groups aren't illegal, mind you, she just wanted to make life more difficult for the NRA.

Yet if she could get away with this, how long would it have been before more anti-gun officials started using similar tactics to hurt gun rights groups? As it is, we saw numerous financial companies sever ties with the firearm industry--ties that often existed for years without an issue--all because of Vullo's actions. Does anyone think it can't start all over again?

If gun rights groups cannot get banking or offer benefits to members, some of which would be financial, how can these groups thrive? How can they speak freely if they can't trust that they won't be silenced for having the wrong opinions on the right to keep and bear arms?

While the Supreme Court's decision doesn't end the case, it does make it very clear that Vullo's actions cannot be ignored or explained away as the Second Circuit tried to do. Even the liberal justices knew what they were looking at was wrong, which should tell you everything you need to know about the case.

If officials can't silence groups they dislike in the manner Vullo tried, it means there are better chances for gun rights groups to continue to defend our rights, no matter how much New York or other state officials dislike it.

This was a free speech issue, but it protected gun rights for generations to come.