San Francisco officials brand NRA a ‘domestic terrorist organization’

[44 AMP]

as, “The use of any…explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device, with intent to
endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or...

If this is to be taken at face value then their own POLICE must also be a terrorist organization. Like wise their own security forces, public or private.

Everyone who goes armed, be they private citizen or public employee do so with the intent to endanger the safety of one or more individuals, by SHOOTING THEM when justified. This goes from the SF police to the Secret Service protecting the President.

The whole point of being armed is so that one can "endanger the safety" of an attacker, to the point where they cease being an attacker. \

Using the exact same logic, the people providing security for the SF board of Supervisors are ALSO a terrorist organization, and since the city PAYS them, under (I assume) the authority of the Board of Supervisors, then, the SF Board of Supervisors is supporting a terrorist organization, which, by the definition they are using also makes them a terrorist organization!

So, in effect the SF board is admitting that they, themselves are terrorists!!
seems to me they didn't really think this through, but that's no surprise, is it?

 

[tipoc]

This won't stand in the courts but it helps set a precedent. N.Y. State is openly going after the non profit status of the NRA because it believes (so they claim) that the organization promotes "gun violence". In reality, because they don't like it's politics.

The ACLU and others have already spoken out against the labeling of the NRA as terrorist in S.F. (Wonder if that makes the ACLU a terrorist sympathizer?) But it takes money and effort to fight things out in the courts.

It also means that if a county librarian, or mechanic is a member of the NRA they could be fired from their job with the county.

This is more about the 2020 elections than it is about "gun violence".

tipoc

 

[MTT TL]

If this is to be taken at face value then their own POLICE must also be a terrorist organization.

No worries. I guarantee you they already believe that.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The resolution is non-binding, so it has no legal effect even in San Francisco. It’s also a strategic blunder in that what it describes is classic viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. Generally, if you plan to attack the 1A, saying that you will in an open and unambiguous manner in a document with no legal force is a bad idea.

It will certainly anger and stir up a lot of gun owners in the run up to 2020 though.

 

[Tom Servo]

Let's steer away from liberal/conservative politics and generalizations about California. Both are off topic for this forum. Some posts have been deleted for that.

 

[natman]

So now if you're a member of the NRA, you are a Domestic Terrorist.

The First Amendment doesn't apply to you.

In other words, you're a second-class citizen. If you dare exercise a right specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, you lose others.

Sorry, but the Constitution is not served a la carte. It's an all inclusive package.

It's one thing for random posters on the internet to call the NRA a terrorist organization, but it's quite another for a government entity to do so. Would a libel suit be possible? It would be sweet for the Board of Supervisors to be held accountable. A multi million dollar judgement would make a nice statement.

 

[tipoc]

As B. Roberts said above it's non binding resolution. So they can't put it into practical effect. It does though, play a role in setting a tone that folks with firearms are somehow suspect, criminal and dangerous. It also tells you what they want and are looking to accomplish.

The Mayor of San Jose has raised a proposal that all gun owners be required to have insurance against the mis-use of their guns. That the funds raised go to help the victims of "gun violence".

There will be attempts to enforce various new laws and in some states that will happen. Possibly federally. This can be fought, some fights will be lost.

What seems to me dangerous is the political labeling of a political opponent as terrorist and reworking that word to have a different meaning than what it has for centuries meant. The NRA has done no politically motivated violence, nor advocated it, if they have charge them with that crime. Killing is a crime as is conspiracy to commit murder. So they have left it that defending a constitutional right to have a firearm is support for terrorism and makes the NRA terrorist. This is a stretch but one they are willing to make.

Reminds me of the fight in S.F. when the S.F. School Board tried to destroy a mural on the life of George Washington at Washington High School. They argued that because the 80 year old mural showed that Washington owned slaves and that a dead Indian was shown that the mural was racist and traumatized the youth. They also argued that the scenes of the revolution had too many guns in them and this also traumatized victims of gun violence in the school.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...troy-controversial-george-washington-n1042111

It's an ongoing fight. They had to create a new definition of racism. The school board was forced to back off some.

tipoc

 

[MTT TL]

I will also add this.

For all of those who stood fast against the "Watch list" barring certain freedoms like gun buying this demonstrates pretty clearly why. Restricting a freedom or creating a rights disabled class of people is seldom a good idea.

 

[Chris_B]

This is the definition of libel

 

[berettaprofessor]

The news from SF prompted me to finally add a life membership to the SAF alongside my previous Patriot level NRA life membership. I'd been considering it for quite some time because I appreciate what the SAF has done for us, but never "pulled the trigger" until last week. I figured that if those idiots in SF could label me, harmless and nonthreatening little old me, as a terrorist, I might as well double-down in my support of our 2nd rights. Join me, everyone, in supporting your favorite gun-rights organizations.

 

[natman]

Good news! The NRA has sued the SF Board of Supervisors.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nra-sues-san-francisco-domestic-terrorist-organization-gun-control

First, the accusation that the NRA is a terrorist organization is spectacularly untrue. Second, this is yet another example of the labeling that some seem to think is a substitute for rational debate. Since racist, sexist or homophobic aren't applicable, use terrorist.

Proving libel should be a slam dunk and the courts have traditionally taken a very dim view of viewpoint discrimination. I hope the NRA gets a nice big $ judgement, although just seeing the SF Board of Supervisors get smacked down would be satisfying enough.

 

[davidsog]

So now if you're a member of the NRA, you are a Domestic Terrorist.

That accusation is simply ludicrous and will not stick. However, you will begin to diminish members from joining. Those on the fence will now be subject to innuendo associated with extremist which may be the straw that keeps them from joining while existing members now have to face the choice of living with that innuendo or rejecting it. A defense against it will have to be established and just like in all humor, there is a grain of truth the same idea exist's. If you must defend against it, then some grain of truth must exist especially when that accusation comes from a base of power as a major city council.

Most of us won't reject the NRA because this political stunts patent ridiculousness. However, those membership list form a convent list of dissidents should that be needed by those in power in the future. It also gives a solid list of people to search for weapons should politicians like Beto's vision come true.

The idea that these steps must be done to protect the greater good of society is very powerful and historically responsible for some of the greatest loss of both freedom and life.

This is a move designed to start that cognitive shift. It is right out of Rules for Radicals.

 

[davidsog]

If you think about it, the Holocaust began with just as ridiculous an accusation.....

An accusation of a worldwide conspiracy of those of Jewish decent.

This is the result of idea of emotional storytelling being more important than fact.

And it is more important if you do not care about the truth.

 

[DaleA]

Good news! The NRA has sued the SF Board of Supervisors.

Any of our legal beagles (you know who you are) care to weigh in on this?

Is it going to be slander, liable, defamation or all of the above? Will the NRA have to prove damages? Could they possibly get away with claiming that it's just their opinion?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Right now, I’d be more concerned about who NRA hired and whether the main goal is to redirect NRA money to a favored source or whether it is to grab some money from SF taxpayers for the stupidity of their leaders.

Luckily, those goals aren’t mutually exclusive.

 

[KyJim]

Perhaps a link to the city's resolution is in one of the previous posts, but, in case it isn't, you can see the resolution here. The last page of the resolution contains the legally problematic language:

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to assess the financial and contractual relationships our vendors and contractors have with this domestic terrorist organization; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco should encourage all other jurisdictions, including other cities, states, and the federal government, to adopt similar positions

The first two paragraphs above call for blacklisting the NRA due to protected First Amendment rights. That is the core of the NRA complaint---various violations of the organization's First Amendment rights. A copy of the complaint can be found here.

As of right now, I can't see any economic damage to the NRA, though that could change later down the road. I am not versed well enough in this area of the law to know whether the alleged harm would be too speculative or if the resolution standing alone chills the NRA's rights to such an extent that the suit can be maintained. Certainly the directive to blacklist those doing business with the NRA seems compelling to me.

The lawsuit mentions a possible veto (within 10 days) by the mayor and I think the NRA is hoping to strong-arm a veto. I doubt if the mayor would do so because she is playing with house money.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Right now, I’d be more concerned about who NRA hired and whether the main goal is to redirect NRA money to a favored source or whether it is to grab some money from SF taxpayers for the stupidity of their leaders.

I believe the Brewer law firm is handling the SF suit.

 

[zxcvbob]

It looks like a Bill of Attainder to me.

 

[mehavey]

Bill of Attainder

Hmmmmmmm.....,
That would depend on what the perceived punishing action would be,
and a veeeeellly intellesting precedent if allowed to go forward.


.

 

[USNRet93]

Good news! The NRA has sued the SF Board of Supervisors.

They gonna use this guy?

NRA-ILA hires new counsel, who has no experience as a lobbyist, worked in the video game industry, and is being sued by his former employer for embezzlement.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/nr...ts-of-baggage/