https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/7593...lawmakers-declare-it-a-terrorist-organization
over domestic terrorist claim!
over domestic terrorist claim!
NRA sues San Franciso
- Thread starter kenpo333
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
complaint
https://www.scribd.com/document/425...zyq-zrspsGQMdXpCWyWvy084sd01ui9uj6mkMbT5QZSKI
My initial thoughts is
How is the resolution not government speech?
The government speech doctrine, in American constitutional law, says that the government is not infringing the free speech rights of individual people when the government declines to use viewpoint neutrality in its own speech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_speech
That is the easier question though. They have a decent chance of getting around that. The harder question to me is standing.
How is the NRA harmed by a symbolic resolution?
If I am not mistaken the resolution is more of an aspirational document and does not compel any specific action.
I.e how is there a case or controversy for the Court to rule on that is redressable by Court action.
it would be a much stronger case if the complaint actually pointed to specific examples of the NRA being harmed by the resolution so they can establish standing.
Company X would have donated to the NRA but it was afraid that it would lose its contract with the government in San Francisco. See Exhibit 1 Declaration of Company X.
Something like that would allege a chilling affect on the NRA's First Amendment rights that they could prove down the road at trial.
Here, all I see is a speculative claim that this resolution is going to chill the NRA's free speech rights without actually alleging any specific facts.
I get that this is a preenforcement challenge meaning the resolution has not been signed yet but even so the complaint should be able to allege some manner that the NRA is harmed. For as many members as the NRA has, you'd think that it find someone who is willing to sign something.
e.g.
We can prove at trial that Jon is not going to renew his membership because Jon does not want to be associated with a organization that has been deemed a terrorist organization by the government of San Francisco.
I see they are trying to allude to a chilling effect on speech because San Fran vendors will stay away from the NRA. However, I don't see any facts alleged demonstrating that.
I am not saying that they can't win with what they have. I am just saying this is what I would point out if I were defending the resolution and San Francisco has people a lot smarter than me defending its policies.
https://www.scribd.com/document/425...zyq-zrspsGQMdXpCWyWvy084sd01ui9uj6mkMbT5QZSKI
My initial thoughts is
How is the resolution not government speech?
The government speech doctrine, in American constitutional law, says that the government is not infringing the free speech rights of individual people when the government declines to use viewpoint neutrality in its own speech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_speech
That is the easier question though. They have a decent chance of getting around that. The harder question to me is standing.
How is the NRA harmed by a symbolic resolution?
If I am not mistaken the resolution is more of an aspirational document and does not compel any specific action.
I.e how is there a case or controversy for the Court to rule on that is redressable by Court action.
it would be a much stronger case if the complaint actually pointed to specific examples of the NRA being harmed by the resolution so they can establish standing.
Company X would have donated to the NRA but it was afraid that it would lose its contract with the government in San Francisco. See Exhibit 1 Declaration of Company X.
Something like that would allege a chilling affect on the NRA's First Amendment rights that they could prove down the road at trial.
Here, all I see is a speculative claim that this resolution is going to chill the NRA's free speech rights without actually alleging any specific facts.
I get that this is a preenforcement challenge meaning the resolution has not been signed yet but even so the complaint should be able to allege some manner that the NRA is harmed. For as many members as the NRA has, you'd think that it find someone who is willing to sign something.
e.g.
We can prove at trial that Jon is not going to renew his membership because Jon does not want to be associated with a organization that has been deemed a terrorist organization by the government of San Francisco.
I see they are trying to allude to a chilling effect on speech because San Fran vendors will stay away from the NRA. However, I don't see any facts alleged demonstrating that.
I am not saying that they can't win with what they have. I am just saying this is what I would point out if I were defending the resolution and San Francisco has people a lot smarter than me defending its policies.
danb
dont be a dumbass
I am not sure that the point is to win. The point may simply be to make a point and show that they are not taking this lying down. Maybe they hope to raise money off it "help us fight the socialists in San Fransisco, donate now..."
Oh I think San Fran just did the NRA the biggest favor it anyone has done it this year. This deflects from what is going on at the NRA and gives the leadership an enemy to point to.
Legal point...
I thought it went beyond a resolution.
It went to Government overreach and intimidation. No contracts to people affiliated with NRA. Discrimination
Dammit Jim I'm not a Lawyer. The patient is still in trouble.
I thought it went beyond a resolution.
It went to Government overreach and intimidation. No contracts to people affiliated with NRA. Discrimination
Dammit Jim I'm not a Lawyer. The patient is still in trouble.
One of the interesting questions that NRA members may have to deal with over this is one of those questions on the SF86 when making application for a security clearance-- "are you a member of or have you ever been affiliated with an organization that..." paraphrased of course but...you get the picture. Just more meat for the grinder. 
One of the interesting questions that NRA members may have to deal with over this is one of those questions on the SF86 when making application for a security clearance-- "are you a member of or have you ever been affiliated with an organization that..." paraphrased of course but...you get the picture. Just more meat for the grinder.
San Francisco doesn't administer the SF86 or have any authority to declare anyone or anything a terrorist organization. It's just more liberal insanity.
One of the interesting questions that NRA members may have to deal with over this is one of those questions on the SF86 when making application for a security clearance-- "are you a member of or have you ever been affiliated with an organization that..." paraphrased of course but...you get the picture. Just more meat for the grinder.
For that question... San Francisco can shove itself up its own ass. Problem is... It might enjoy it.
Agreed but... been working in government long enough to know that some folks will flip on this-- like I said just more meat for the grinder.
For that question... San Francisco can shove itself up its own ass. Problem is... It might enjoy it.
True!
Mike OTDP
Ultimate Member
- Feb 12, 2008
- 3,324
Defamation of character would be the most workable approach, I think.
Park ranger
Ultimate Member
- Dec 6, 2015
- 2,327
F that place anyhow.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
Hair-trigger posting... please include more than just the "headline" (4 Viewers)- Started by Mr H
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
(Duplicate - mods please close) MoCo trans student arrested for threatening school- Started by Lafayette
- Replies: 2
-
