NRA Sues SF Board of Supervisors

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Paul7, Oct 21, 2019.

  1. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Excellent, this is why the NRA is my favorite civil rights organization. From the NRA American Hunter magazine:

    "Thanks to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, local officials cannot use the force of government to rid themselves of their political opponents.

    The NRA's lawsuit pointed out that the Board of Supervisors is "intent on targeting the NRA for its advocacy, chilling the NRA's and its members' rights of free speech and association under the First Amendment, all with an eye to silence the NRA from the debate on Second Amendment rights." Elaborating, the suit made clear that, "the Resolution intentionally violates the First Amendment....," as "Defendants' conduct would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to speak against gun control, or from associating expressively or commercially with the NRA." The complaint went on to explain that it is the Board of Supervisors' goal to establish an "implicit censorship regime" targeted at those who do not subscribe to the Board's anti-gun viewpoints.

    42 U.S.C. 1983 provides Americans with a civil remedy for the deprivation of their constitutional rights. The statue states:

    "Every person who, under color of any statue, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....."
     
  2. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is left out of the article, is that the city of San Francisco backed down and rescinded the initial classification that provoked the lawsuit.

    Likely due to being financially unable to defend itself in a court of law, as a result of tending to the collateral damage of so many homeless individuals.
     
    Doofenshmirtz likes this.
  3. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you, I didn't know that. Probably knew they would lose the legal action.
     
    jay runner likes this.
  4. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Now Miami needs a shet patrol. Drugs, a slow, slow death.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
  5. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    It should have backed down because what they said was a politically motivated lie intended to breed hatred for fellow Americans.
     
  6. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,308
    Trophy Points:
    113
    SF only supports number 2 on their sidewalks, not in the constitution!
     

Share This Page