NRA Sues San Fransisco Over Terrorist Designation

NRA Sues San Fransisco Over Terrorist Designation

NRA Sues San Fransisco Over Terrorist Designation

Monday the NRA sued the city of San Fransisco over the declaration that lobbying group is a “domestic terrorist organization.” The NRA is asking the court to step in and instruct the elected officials that freedom of speech is for more than Drag Queen library hour.

Last week Deana wrote about the SF Board of Supervisors passing a resolution labeling the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization.” To say that the resolution had a profound impact is an understatement. Apparently, American’s get a little put out when they’re labeled as “terrorists.” Go figure. The NRA was quick to show the mothers, daughters, fathers, and sons who are proud hardworking Americans, and members in the NRA.

2A Protects 1A

It’s often said that the First Amendment is protected by the Second Amendment. I believe this true, and far more important than people understand. Therefore, it’s oddly serendipitous that the NRA has filed a “Freedom of Speech” lawsuit against the city of San Fransisco Board of Supervisors. William Brewer III, counsel for the NRA, states,

“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.”

The actual lawsuit contends that the City of San Fransisco is violating the NRA’s free speech rights based on political reasons, and that the city is seeking to blacklist anyone associated with the NRA.

Remember New York…and the NRA

This isn’t the first foray the National Rifle Association has had with overt hostility, and strong-arm tactics from state or local government. Last November a federal judge allowed the NRA’s First Amendment lawsuit to proceed against Governor Cuomo of NY. US District Judge Thomas McAvoy concluded that the governor was sending a message to financial institutions and insurers who do not sever ties with the NRA, will be the subject of retaliatory action by the state of NY. As reported by Reason Magazine, the judge wrote,

“However controversial it may be, ‘gun promotion’ advocacy is core political speech entitled to constitutional protection,” McAvoy noted. He ruled that the state’s regulatory guidance to banks and insurers, combined with Cuomo’s public comments about the NRA, “provides a sufficient basis to invoke the First Amendment.”

Backhanded Blacklisting

The frontal assault on the NRA hasn’t proven a successful battle plan for the anti-gunners. The pesky Second Amendment is well written, and very simple. The NRA, and particularly their Legislative Affairs arm has done a tremendous job of protecting the relentless assaults on the Second Amendment. This frustrates the opposition to no end.

They have found their best, and most effective, work-around is to attack the supporting structure of the NRA. The focus has been on blackballing any associated business, or corporate supporters. This is a proven strategy, and something the Left keeps in their playbook. A private business is justified in making decisions based upon the beliefs of the stakeholders. But government officials wield far greater power and potential for realizing implied threats. The state is suppressing a group because it disagrees with the group’s political stance supporting a constitutional right.

Instead of taking on the actual Constitutional Amendment, the state of NY and city of SF are nibbling away at the only organization dedicated to supporting the amendment. Because the NRA is the big scary money laden dragon on K street.

Unfortunately, that’s a false narrative. Last year the NRA spent approximately $5.08 million on lobbying. The top tier lobbying groups spent between $12 million, and $94 million dollars over 2018. Including Google and Facebook with $21 million and $12 million on lobbying efforts. To put the NRA lobbying in the top 20, they’d have to almost triple their donation efforts. But these facts will not stop the anti-gunners from charging ahead in their quest to eradicate the only group fighting for the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms.

Protecting the 2nd

This brings us back to San Fransisco and the latest lawsuit. The Board of Supervisors was wrong to designate the NRA as a “Domestic Terrorist Organization” because the NRA doesn’t encourage people to buy guns and use them in terroristic ways. It doesn’t even encourage people to buy guns. What it does do is provide training for those who want it. Teach marksmanship and hunting for those who want to learn. The NRA advocates to maintain the Second Amendment as written by the Founders.

San Fransisco’s Board of Supervisors don’t like what the NRA has to say, but they don’t have the right to prevent them from saying it. They certainly don’t have the right to take those threats to the associates and partners of the NRA. I fully expect that the membership list is next on their list of censorship. I believe that this move by anti gunners in SF is a paper tiger, and the courts in NY and CA will have a verdict favorable to the First Amendment. The right to speak freely and associate with those of our choosing should not be second to the suppressive will of the state or elected officials.

Edit: Regarding the featured image: I’m aware that it’s not the National Rifle Association. However, the image conveys my tone in this post. I appreciate the readers who have pointed out that it’s from the National Recovery Act. Please follow the link for further information.

Best Regards ~ NC

Featured Photo: Flicker  By: Don O’Brien License: CC BY 2.0 Image cropped: 400×400

Written by

"CC" to her friends. Recent escapee from Northern VA to the Great State of Texas. I'm a Pro-LIfe, Pro-Gun, Libertarian type... There is very little that fresh lime juice and good tequila can't fix.

  • Geoff Withnell says:

    The NRA is not the only organization dedicated to supporting the amendment. albeit the largest. and Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership are two others, and there are more

    • And when they are listed by name as a Domestic Terrorist threat, and are forced to sue in order to engage in freedom of speech, I’ll happily write about them.

      There are multiple pro-2A groups, but none wearing the target of the NRA.

  • GWB says:

    Sounds like they missed the opportunity to hit where it hurts: class action libel suit.

    A private business is justified in making decisions based upon the beliefs of the stakeholders.
    NOT according to the judicial interpretation that allows the idea of “public accommodation” to exist!
    If a baker has to make the cake, then the bank has to hold your money (and loan more to you)! Especially given the huge barriers to entry the gov’t has placed around that particular business.

    It doesn’t even encourage people to buy guns.
    Well, I’ll disagree a little there. They do carry ads for guns. And, more importantly, they foster an environment that encourages lawful gun use and they advocate for people to enjoy their firearms.

    I believe … the courts in NY and CA will have a verdict favorable to the First Amendment.
    You do?!? o.O And what would give you that confidence? Because you couldn’t base that prediction on previous jurisprudence out of those states’ courts. (After all, the NY courts upheld the NYC ban on transporting guns outside the city limits, and CA managed to get a state constitutional referendum overturned.)
    I have zero respect for those in black robes who would rule us. (I respect immensely those who rule only according to the law and the appropriate constitutions.)

    The right to … associate with those of our choosing
    You lost that right with “public accommodation” laws. And, unless we can turn the hearts and minds of a large enough group of voters (large enough the progs can’t manufacture votes to cover the gap) back toward freedom and the responsibility that goes with it*, we aren’t getting it back.
    Sure would be nice if the NRA included “freedom of association” in that lawsuit. Like most Republicans, they really don’t fight this fight as well as they could.

    (* I do have hope here, based on some rulings that have come down on things like high school and college student groups. But it has to go beyond that.)

    • GWB says:

      BTW, Legal Insurrection commenters seem to think libel isn’t actionable when it’s a gov’t entity (committing the libel, that is), and not for a group (the libeled party).

      Which seems wrong, no matter the precedents involved.
      (Not that the commenters are wrong, but that that concept seems wrong.)

  • Tom says:

    Everyone knows, of course, that the accompanying illustration has nothing to do with the National Rifle Association.

  • SFC D says:

    Ladies, you may want to adjust the pic used on this story. That’s the wrong NRA.

    • Appreciate the heads up on the image, and the link to the original use. But I like the double entendre of the picture, and “We do our part” supports the tone of defending the First Amendment and keeping grabbers away from the Second Amendment. A picture tells a thousand words, even when those words may be different from the original intent. 🙂 If you follow the link to the photographer, he’s got some great shots of classic cars and Americana.

  • CaptDMO says:

    It has been said that (para) one should not pick fights with people that buy ink by the barrel.
    I certainly hope the city of San Fransisco Board of Supervisors considers their very next breath wisely.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner