Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    NRA Sues San Francisco After City Declares Group a Domestic Terrorist Organization

    NRA Sues San Francisco After City Declares Group a Domestic Terrorist Organization

    “This action is an assault on all advocacy organizations across the country. There can be no place in our society for this manner of behavior by government officials. Fortunately, the NRA, like all U.S. citizens, is protected by the First Amendment.” — William A. Brewer III, the NRA’s lawyer

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJo2xlmT29I

    The National Rifle Association has filed a complaint against the city of San Francisco after a city resolution designated the non-profit group “a domestic terrorist organization.”

    From the AP:

    The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses city officials of violating the gun lobby’s free speech rights for political reasons and says the city is seeking to blacklist anyone associated with the NRA. It asks the court to step in “to instruct elected officials that freedom of speech means you cannot silence or punish those with whom you disagree.”

    Last week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution calling the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization,” contending the group spreads propaganda that seeks to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence.

    “This action is an assault on all advocacy organizations across the country,” said William A. Brewer III, the NRA’s lawyer. “There can be no place in our society for this manner of behavior by government officials. Fortunately, the NRA, like all U.S. citizens, is protected by the First Amendment.”

    And from The Hill:

    “This action is an assault on all advocacy organizations across the country,” said William A. Brewer III, the NRA’s attorney. “There can be no place in our society for this manner of behavior by government officials. Fortunately, the NRA, like all U.S. citizens, is protected by the First Amendment.”

    CEO Wayne LaPierre said the lawsuit “comes with a message to those who attack the NRA: We will never stop fighting for our law-abiding members and their constitutional freedoms,” according to the AP.

    Stefani called the lawsuit “a desperate move by a very desperate organization,” noting recent turmoil within the organization over LaPierre’s alleged use of organizational funds for expensive clothing and housing.

    Complaint here:

    NRA sues San Francisco by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    Meanwhile a federal judge, anthony J. trenga, ruled the fbi terrorist watchlist as un-Constitutional. Identifying potential, real terrorists is un-Constitutional, yet a city counci officially proclaiming pro Bill of Rights Americans as terrorists is somehow ok? You can’t make this stuff up. “liberalism is a mental disease” isnt just a saying, it is absolutely true.


       
       0 
       
       2
      puhiawa in reply to CKYoung. | September 11, 2019 at 3:00 am

      An interesting and entertaining point. This is the judge we need ascertain the efficacy of this resolution. LOL


       
       0 
       
       0
      DaveGinOly in reply to CKYoung. | September 11, 2019 at 9:58 pm

      I believe the judge was correct to say the watch list is unconstitutional. The decision could come in handy against a gun registry (a watch list of gun owners/potential criminals from which you may only remove yourself by surrendering your right arms) and against universal background checks.


         
         0 
         
         0
        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | September 12, 2019 at 6:34 pm

        I don’t believe the mere existence of a list can possibly be unconstitutional. The government is entitled to compile whatever lists it likes. The question is to what use it’s put. If it were used to deprive people of any constitutional right, such as the RKBA, then that would be absolutely unconstitutional, no doubt about it, which is why the Dem proposals to do just that are unacceptable.

        The same would apply if it were used to arrest people, or to restrict their right to travel between states. But there is no right to board an aeroplane. People on the list are free to travel in any other way they like. Many of them are even free to fly, provided they submit to some extra screening. The question is whether the level of inconvenience they’re put to is enough to require due process — which there’s no question that they’re not getting.

        It seems to me that the judge may well have been right that the way people on the list are being treated now is bad enough that it requires due process. But the answer is not to stop using the list, it’s to improve the way people on it are treated. I think LEOs have an unfortunate tendency to treat people who trigger a need for extra scrutiny as if they’re probably guilty, when in fact they’re very probably innocent. LEOs need to remember, and to be constantly reminded, to treat such people with extreme courtesy, apologize for the delay and inconvenience, and basically just treat them as they themselves would want to be treated in the same circumstances.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend