City of Los Angeles hostile to Civil Liberties

[tude dog]

The city of Los Angeles decided to eliminate the Natural, Civil and Constitutional Rights of many of its citizens, that being the right to assemble and petition the government. This is not so much about the NRA but the arrogant City Council of Los Angeles.

I can just imagine the outrage had the action been taken against any number of activities organizations.

NRA sues Los Angeles over city’s contractor disclosure law

The National Rifle Association is suing the city of Los Angeles over a new ordinance the gun rights group says violates free speech rights and equal protection rights.

Under the law, which took effect April 1, prospective contractors must disclose under affidavit any contracts, sponsorships or other ties they or their affiliates have with the NRA. If a business does not fully cooperate, the city can terminate the contract.

The Los Angeles City Council approved the ordinance, 14-0, in February. The city has similar policies about companies involved in the construction of President Trump’s proposed border wall, or that invested in or profited from slavery, the Los Angeles Times reported.

“The ordinance has nothing to do with awarding contracts to the best candidates,” according to the NRA lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court. “Instead, it is about discriminating against a lawful organization and its members and supporters because the City does not approve of their political speech."

The NRA, which has nearly 5 million members, is one of the most vocal and visible gun rights groups in the country.

[NRA membership is up since Parkland killings, group’s magazine subscriptions suggest]

Pressure on businesses to cut ties with the NRA surged last year after 17 people were killed in a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Consumers and companies alike rallied around the hashtag #BoycottNRA. Their argument: A business with any ties to the NRA is complicit with the status quo, even as the country grapples with one mass shooting after another.

Los Angeles, meanwhile, is grappling with its own torrent of gun violence. Los Angeles County accounted for nearly 32 percent of homicides in California — and nearly 4 percent of all the homicides nationally in 2012, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“I support this policy, I’m confident in it, and we’re not going to be bullied by the NRA,” said Mayor Eric Garcetti, who was also named as a defendant.

The NRA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The NRA sued New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and the state’s Department of Financial Services in May for what it called a “blacklisting campaign” meant to persuade banks and insurers to stop doing businesses with the gun rights group. The lawsuit was filed after the Financial Services agency imposed a $7 million fine against an insurance broker that administered an NRA-branded insurance program dubbed “Carry Guard,” Reuters reported. It also levied a $1.3 million fine on another insurer for having “unlawfully provided liability insurance to gun owners for acts of intentional wrongdoing,” Reuters reported.

The city ordinance says the NRA “has sought to block sensible gun safety reform at every level of government across the nation.” It also claims that the group ignores the wishes of some of its members by lobbying for “easy access to firearms, no background checks, no limits on magazine capacity, no regulation of assault weapons, no mandatory training and no age restrictions.”

“The City’s residents deserve to know if the City’s public funds are spent on contractors that have contractual or sponsorship ties with the NRA,” the ordinance says. “Public funds provided to such contractors undermines the City’s efforts to legislate and promote gun safety.”

For its part, the NRA’s lawsuit claims that L.A. hopes to pressure NRA supporters to bow out. The new ordinance, according to the NRA’s suit, aims to “silence NRA’s voice, as well as the voices of all those who dare oppose the City’s broad gun-control agenda.”

[Ahso!]

This seems similar to the anti-BDS laws.

[LarsMac]

I was a member of the NRA for years.

but since Ol' Wayne took over, I haven't had much use for them.

On the other hand, I suppose that a City might bounce a contractor who affiliates with them may be a tad too far.

Though the article doesn't say that the city will bounce contractors who associate with the NRA. It says it will bounce them for not disclosing an affiliation.

That is a pretty slippery slope, though.

But don't expect any sympathy for La Pierre and his loser cronies from me.

[tude dog]

Ahso!;1522999 wrote: This seems similar to the anti-BDS laws.


I guess I wasn't clear. It is not about BDS or the NRA but rather the abuse power by the government to suppress the right to assemble and petition the government.

There is no place for any government entity to punish citizens for exercising their natural, civil and Constitutional rights.

[LarsMac]

tude dog;1523004 wrote: I guess I wasn't clear. It is not about BDS or the NRA but rather the abuse power by the government to suppress the right to assemble and petition the government.

There is no place for any government entity to punish citizens for exercising their natural, civil and Constitutional rights.


I really don't see that as being anything to do with a suppression of rights of citizens.

Firstly, the NRA is not a citizen, and I don't see where they, or anyone else is being prevented from assembly or petitioning the government by this ordinance.

It's really not unlike Yeti deciding to no longer honor the discounts they once offered to people who used their NRA sponsored VISA card to purchase Yeti products.

[tude dog]

LarsMac;1523005 wrote: I really don't see that as being anything to do with a suppression of rights of citizens.

Firstly, the NRA is not a citizen, and I don't see where they, or anyone else is being prevented from assembly or petitioning the government by this ordinance.

It's really not unlike Yeti deciding to no longer honor the discounts they once offered to people who used their NRA sponsored VISA card to purchase Yeti products.


This law is not directed at the NRA

Under the law, which took effect April 1, prospective contractors must disclose under affidavit any contracts, sponsorships or other ties they or their affiliates have with the NRA. If a business does not fully cooperate, the city can terminate the contract.

Since when is the affiliation with any activist group or organization the business of the government?

Remember the phrase ARE YOU NOW OR EVER BEEN?

What if the City of Los Angeles were to target the ACLU? How many other targets can I name to show the offensive nature of that city council?

[LarsMac]

tude dog;1523006 wrote: This law is not directed at the NRA

Under the law, which took effect April 1, prospective contractors must disclose under affidavit any contracts, sponsorships or other ties they or their affiliates have with the NRA. If a business does not fully cooperate, the city can terminate the contract.

Since when is the affiliation with any activist group or organization the business of the government?

Remember the phrase ARE YOU NOW OR EVER BEEN?

What if the City of Los Angeles were to target the ACLU? How many other targets can I name to show the offensive nature of that city council?


Well, Yes, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party, etc., etc.,"

However, it still does not yet infringe upon the 1st Amendment.

It may, perhaps, touch upon the 4th and 5th.

[tude dog]

LarsMac;1523007 wrote: Well, Yes, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party, etc., etc.,"

However, it still does not yet infringe upon the 1st Amendment.

It may, perhaps, touch upon the 4th and 5th.


Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 4th and 5th are what one relies on after persecution by the govenment.

[LarsMac]

tude dog;1523020 wrote: Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 4th and 5th are what one relies on after persecution by the govenment.


Still don't see the relevance. Now, if the city rescinds their contract because they failed to list some affiliation with the NRA, then the city does not allow them an appeal, THAT might do it.

[tude dog]

LarsMac;1523021 wrote: Still don't see the relevance. Now, if the city rescinds their contract because they failed to list some affiliation with the NRA, then the city does not allow them an appeal, THAT might do it.


bull

This is not about the NRA but a city council out of control.

[LarsMac]

tude dog;1523022 wrote: bull

This is not about the NRA but a city council out of control.
So, perhaps you should explain to me what, exactly, raises this to a constitutional crisis.

I just don't see it.

City says contractors should list any affiliations with the NRA. Yes?

City says that if they fail to do so, the city might decide to rescind any contract with them.

This is not really unlike the State of Texas, or some Cities wanting to know if contractors and employees have participated in any so-called BDS activities, and threatening to rescind contracts and even fire employees who have done so.

While both strike me as over-reach, neither seem to specifically violate the citizens' rights to assemble or petition the government.

And if you feel that I am wrong, I should like to know why you are so upset about the one, and not about the other?