Monday Monday, can’t trust that day, Monday Monday sometimes it just turns out that way. Mamas and the Papas
What a news day this has been. Everything from Wilbur Ross’ participation in SharpieGate to Todd and Sarah Palin calling it quits, to a House investigation of Rudy Giuliani’s dealings with Ukraine, and now we find out that the NRA filed suit Monday against the City of San Francisco. The suit, linked to here, is in response to a recent resolution passed by the city’s Board of Supervisors, declaring the NRA a terrorist organization. New York Times:
The resolution was introduced by Supervisor Catherine Stefani on July 30, two days after a shooting at a garlic festival in Gilroy, Calif., in which three people were killed and more than a dozen others injured.
Before the resolution was put to a vote on Tuesday, Ms. Stefani spoke about the “carnage across this country,” also citing mass shootings last month in El Paso; Dayton, Ohio; and near Odessa, Tex.
Ms. Stefani said the N.R.A. conspires to limit gun violence research, restrict gun violence data sharing and block every piece of sensible gun violence prevention legislation proposed at local, state and federal levels.
“The N.R.A. exists to spread pro-gun propaganda and put weapons in the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us,” Ms. Stefani said in a statement. “Nobody has done more to fan the flames of gun violence than the N.R.A.”
The NRA denounced the resolution as a ” worthless and disgusting sound-bite remedy” and a “publicity stunt.” Nevertheless, they lawyered up and filed suit in U.S. District Court, alleging violations of their constitutional rights, to wit, freedom of speech and freedom of association. Here’s a brief excerpt from page 4 of 23:
“….the Resolution’s ‘terrorist’ designation is a frivolous insult — but San Francisco’s actions pose a non-frivolous, constitutional threat. In the face of recent, similar blacklisting schemes, financial institutions have expressed reluctance to provide bank accounts for disfavored political groups and city contractor’s fear losing their livelihoods if they support or even work with the NRA. Where, as here, the government’s conduct would ‘chill a person of ordinary firmness’ from continuing to engage in protected speech or association, the First Amendment mandates swift relief.”
With any luck, we’re witnessing the first spasms and death throes of the NRA. They’ve been under siege for quite some time — and so have the rest of us. 53 people died in mass shootings in the month of August in El Paso (twenty-two) Dayton (nine) Odessa (seven) and three others died in Gilroy, July 28 — not to mention the shooters, who either killed themselves or committed suicide by cop.
“Every country on earth has video games, movies and mental health issues, and yet only the U.S. has gun violence at elementary schools, at the movies, at Walmart,” Ms. Stefani said. “The difference is guns. No other country has so many assault rifles on their streets.”
This will be interesting to watch. What if other municipalities across the country adopt similar resolutions? What’s the NRA going to do, sue ’em all?
Oh f them. This will go nowhere.
Death spasms for sure.
My sense of this is that they felt they had to “do something” and so this is that effort. I agree that it’s an effort in futility.
And that decision by S.F. restricts the NRA’s freedom of speech *how*? They’re not saying it can’t have members in their city/county, and being designated as a terrorist organization doesn’t seem to have stopped other groups from having members and sending out polemics.
PJ Evans, I love your comment! So True!
I honestly think they’re just making noise with their suit. The terms “specious” and “makeweight” come to mind.
And the declaration is pretty much a feel-good act by the supes.
Possibly “nuisance” as well. Lawsuits cost money for defense.
Bullies never like being called out, P J. It’s the same reason why Nazis don’t like being called the genocidal terrorists they actually are.
Well…that escalated quickly. I’m looking forward to the NRA incurring more bad press over all this. Picking a fight with a municipality at a time when your finances are under siege is…questionable as a tactic.
I wonder how long the NRA will pursue this. It’s possible they didn’t think matters through and had a knee-jerk reaction & like Trump immaturely lashed out. Why do I say that? A formal lawsuit opens them up to legal discovery. It will be interesting to see how the NRA reacts to the first batch of discovery motions. I don’t see the city of San Francisco being bullied & suspect they will have some very, VERY talented lawyers willing to work pro bono on this. If the NRA wanted to amp up its hard core faithful they should have just threatened the lawsuit. Now if they walk away they are going to look weak, and piss off the very hard core adherents they desperately need to keep renewing memberships. OTOH there’s surely a lot of stuff subject to discovery they won’t want in the hands of perhaps the most progressive jurisdiction in the country, a jurisdiction which I might add happens to be represented in Congress by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
As I said, I don’t think the powers-that-be at the NRA thought this through.
Consider where their leadership, finances and mission focus has been over the last year…is there any room for thought reflected by any of the above?
There are some striking similarities to the NRA and the Trump administration. Faction fights in an organization with deep, structural financial issues that increasingly appear to be a house of cards, or at least a house with balsa wood for studs and joists. Also the hardest core people having the ear of the leader – a leader who has never faced REAL consequences of screwups before and is devolving before our very eyes.
Hope they go bankrupt trying to fight this and the slew of other up and coming lawsuits!