marion hammer nra
(AP Photo/Phil Coale)
Previous Post
Next Post

A federal appeals court Tuesday rejected arguments by prominent National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer in a lawsuit centered on graphic emails she received from a California attorney after the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district judge’s decision to dismiss Hammer’s lawsuit against attorney Lawrence Sorensen, who sent two emails to the lobbyist that included photos of gunshot wounds. Hammer raised a series of arguments in the case, including that Sorensen had violated Florida laws about cyberstalking, harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The appeals court, in a 14-page decision, said Hammer’s lawsuit did not allege “enough facts” to show that the laws were violated. As an example, the court said proving cyberstalking requires showing that the disputed communications served “no legitimate purpose.”

The court said Sorensen’s emails, which were “clearly intended to dissuade Hammer from continuing to support the availability of assault rifles,” had a legitimate purpose.

– Jim Saunders in NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer loses appeal over graphic emails of gunshot wounds sent to her

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I’m no fan of her but she is clearly of the wrong color and wrong political affiliation to expect justice.

    Recently you keep hearing conservatives say that we should “make Leftists live by their own draconian rules” but unfortunately that only works where there is an impartial set of people in the black robes. In other words…”Good luck with that.”

  2. Eh, is this how she’s fighting for our rights? I’m sure there are better uses of NRA member cash.

  3. Marion should focus on the 2nd Amendment rather than trying to chip away at the 1st simply because someone was rude to her. Photos of gunshot wounds, absent some specific threat, are clearly protected speech, just like photos of abortion victims.

    • Bingo. If she can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Clearly protected speech, and if she didn’t like it, she didn’t have to look at the pictures. On top of which, I think that most of us, particularly hunters, have a pretty good idea what a gunshot wound looks like. In my view, it was a frivolous suit right off the bat, and I sincerely hope she was using her own money to pursue it, or was lucky enough to hire an attorney dumb enough to take it on contingency.

    • She should have responded with pictures of someone stabbed, hacked or bludgeoned to death and then linked a self-defense article using a firearm where another person avoided that type of death.

  4. The example the court gave for “legitimate purpose” leaks water from all sides. Since when does sending horrific gore pictures of gunshot wounds have anything to do with support or not for gun rights? That said, just delete the damn email and go on with your life, Marion. Not everything has to end up in a lawsuit. You’ll have your hands full defending yourself shortly with the NY AG’s office.

    • Since she clearly dislikes intrusive e-mail then she might stop sending them herself. Always begging for more money and talking about what she did 25 years ago.

  5. I haven’t gotten to play one of my favorite rhetorical games in a while. Let’s do so now!

    Let’s apply the same logic to different circumstances.

    “Availability of assault rifles” = “availability of abortion”
    Marion Hammer = PP board member (or similar)
    Photos of GSWs = photos of aborted humans

    I wonder how courts in the 11th district would act?

    (Note: this isn’t an invitation to debate abortion or abortion policy; it is an attempt to apply a ruling that favors protecting graphic/threatening/salacious “speech” involving one ideological position to analogous graphic/threatening/salacious “speech” involving a different ideological position.)

  6. She’s wasting NRA member’s money suing over trashy emails?

    If she can’t take the shit storm from the Hoplophobes, she should resign.

  7. I wonder what would happen if you sent pictures of black people hanging from trees to the family of Rep John Lewis???
    Or what would happen if you sent pictures of aborted babies to Sen Dianne Feinstein??? Or perhaps send her pictures of the gas chambers and ovens with the bodies and ashes still in them???

    I know what would happen if you sent pictures of blacks hanging from trees to Ret Lt Col Allen West. Nothing. No action would be taken by the government.

    • Apparently, if you’re “encouraging” them not to support the availability of a civil right, that’s a legitimate purpose and you’re good to go.

  8. Why was she bringing up violation of Florida state law in a Federal court? Federal courts will decide if state laws violate Federal law or the Constitution, but they don’t enforce them. Is this our NRA dollars at work?

  9. Instead of a lawsuit she should have sent the pervert attorney photos of cow manure and a warning that if he makes’s it personal his face would be rubbed in it until he learned some manners.

  10. What an idiotic lawsuit. So some classless sleaze sent gunshot pics to try and sway you to his moronic viewpoint; delete them.

    And if you can’t handle gunshot pics without being emotionally damaged, or whatever, I’d say A) you have no business defending rights cause your clearly too emotionally weak to stand firm when it’s needed most and B) you’d better steer WAY clear of severe blunt force trama, farm accidents or motorcycle wreck pics, because those can get truly disturbing.

  11. Marion Hammer should have declared the pictures as veiled death threats especially in the current political climate in which anti-gunners have literally issued death threats against law enforcement for their publicly stated intent to comply with the constitution.

Comments are closed.