NRA Sues City of Los Angeles Over Contractor Disclosure Requirement

nra heaquarters hq

Courtesy NRA

“Are you now, or have you ever been associated with the National Rifle Association?” That’s the tenor of a new question all contractors who do business with the city of Los Angeles will have to answer. We noted the new ordinance mandating the declarations when it was enacted back in February.

Now that the law has taken effect, the NRA has sued the City of Angels over their anti-gun McCarthy-ite tendencies. We like their chances in federal court. The Supreme Court struck down a similar law in Arkansas back in 1960. But as far as Los Angeles is concerned, this is different because guns.

Here’s the AP’s report . . .

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The National Rifle Association is suing Los Angeles over a new law requiring companies that want city contracts to disclose whether they have ties to the gun rights group.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday claims the law violates the First Amendment right to free speech and association and its 14th Amendment right to equal protection.

The city says it will defend the ordinance, which took effect April 1.

Councilman Mitch O’Farrell sought the ordinance in the wake of U.S. mass shootings. He said the NRA has been a “roadblock to gun safety reform” for decades.

NRA attorney Chuck Michel calls the law “modern-day McCarthyism” that would force NRA supporters to drop their memberships for fear of losing their livelihoods. Michel says he’s confident no judge will uphold it.

comments

  1. avatar TexTed says:

    >>” the NRA has been a “roadblock to gun safety reform” for decades.<<

    Thank heavens.

    1. avatar Neil says:

      How about enforcing laws in gangland?

      I don’t mind if a felon is arrested for gun possession.

      Ghad, the rules have gotten bad. Termites were found, so here comes the tent. The fumigation company will not allow a closed safe as people open them and inhale enough poison to die, or at least sue. I’m not allowed to loan a friend guns or store them there. I’m not allowed to leave the safe open with ‘the gun’ in there (lower, pistol grip).

      So now I must beg friends to allow me to put guns in their safe and for a room (so it is my residence to legally have a gun there) and some space for my lighter (portable when unbolted) safes. Hard as I have young kids and friends have young kids. The ones ok with it (and a spare room) have anti-gun wives.. ugh!

      Ok, I have other friends ok with it with pregnant wives due within 6 to 8 weeks. I’m not able to be there for emergency kid sitter (work) which I feel I have to offer…

      1. avatar Pm says:

        If my wife was antigun I wouldn’t have married her.

        1. avatar VicRattlehead says:

          True.
          One of the keys to a good marriage: make sure your fundamental beliefs are aligned.

        2. avatar Peatro says:

          1st rule of thumb when dating Take the girl / woman to the range , indoor outdoor ! If you find she is repelled by firearms. End the relationship. There are FOUR excellent reasons to end it quickly. 1st. is You share zero interest in common . 2nd is 99.9 % of the time anti firearms girls/ women are quite often self centered ,selfish in all aspects ” leaches ” Whom want everyone to preform all task everything for the end only them. These anti firearms girls/ women will not willingly lend a helping hand in building A life together. 3rd. she isnt a female who shall stick with you through the good or the bad times. 4th. In all likelyhood one shall find she is also quite self under the sheets.
          ( Its all about her SATISFACTION Her interest )

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Speed bump, yes. This rule is still nonsense, although the consequences of it being upheld would likely be rather unexpected for everyone (you can now deny civil contracts to members of the DNC or Soros/Bloomberg orgs, which would basically force their unions & school teachers & professors and other means of production out of hostile areas for good)

  2. avatar TexTed says:

    Besides, if you want REAL “gun safety reform” that actually improves public safety… let’s get rid of the stupid manual safety and replace it with a grip safety. That’s “real” gun safety reform! 😀

  3. avatar Thom Ream says:

    It’s quite amazing where stupidity goes, when given free reign. The asswipes have spoken, and voted. If you took the accumulated IQ of all those retards, and compare that to the IQ of the 7 or 8 NRA members left in that cesspool, the NRA members would still beat them by better than double digits. And my apologies to those suffering from genetic retardation. THIS, is a special kind of stupid…

    1. avatar Binder says:

      “It’s quite amazing where stupidity goes, when given free reign.”

      Nope that was amazing smart. Come election time the city government can vilify the NRA even more. I think the City will still covered with qualified immunity.

      What the NRA relay needs to do is get the ACLU involved. I don’t think ACLU suit will look as good.

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        Qualified immunity doesn’t protect against violation of Constitutional rights. Governmental entities are the only ones it applies to.

  4. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Lets have a requirement that anyone running for public office will have to sign a statement that they have never and will not promote , encourage, vote for any laws or regulations that violate our constitutional rights in this country. if applicant violates this sworn statement , they will be removed from office, fined $ 10’000 and serve a 10 year prison sentence. This would also apply to appointed or hired city, county, state or federal employees.

    1. avatar Toni says:

      lol $10,000…. I would make it all monies earned while in the position. If that happened to be more than 6 months it would end up a hell of a lot of money. i would also still apply the 10 years jail. No room for traitors and that is what anyone who wishes to through “legal” means remove others rights is

  5. avatar Oliver says:

    “The city says it will defend the ordinance”. There is no way any court would uphold this ordinance. The council members surely know this. As such, aren’t they liable to being removed from office for violating their fiduciary responsibilities. I mean, it’s going to cost the city tons of money to essentially lose in pretty much any court of law, never mind scotus. I just don’t get how there are zero consequences for brazenly squandering funds. Normally I wouldn’t care, since it’s LA, but as a nation, everyone else will be federally forced to bail out these people when the city goes bankrupt. You as a taxpayer are forced to give money to the fed, they in turn will dole it out to Cali and Cali will pour it into LA. Rinse lather and repeat until we all go broke.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      ““The city says it will defend the ordinance”. There is no way any court would uphold this ordinance.”

      Say, *what*?

      That is Los Angeles, Cali-fucking-fornia we’re talking about here! No way in *hell* would I ever bet on that not happening! You can be sure the 9th ‘Circus’ will break bones bending over backwards o find that constitutional!

      SCOTUS will likely strike it down, thanks its current make-up, but that’s about it…

    2. avatar Count Chocula says:

      California is the 7th largest economy in the WORLD. Los Angeles is responsible for over half of this gross Domestic profit. California has historically carried the rest of the country through several economic down turns. The Los Angeles economy is larger than most other states, and probably yours. Why in hell would you presume the rest of the Federal tax payers would be put on the hook? Oliver you are a numbskull.

      1. avatar Don't Be A Commifornian says:

        This argument is always stupid.

        They are the 7th largest economy because they are connected to the united states market, with headquarters of companies that earn their money from citizens of all states. So, they aren’t really the “7th largest economy”, because if they were on their own that would end immediately. Their economy can’t be separated and compared to individual countries.

        1. avatar Texican says:

          California can’t exist on its own but Texas can! 😉

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Texas having its own power grid helps greatly with that…

      2. avatar Oliver says:

        New York is where I’m from. It’s a fairly large economy. Maybe not as large as Los Angeles, but Wall Street does see some significant amount of activity on a daily basis that tends to tie in with the rest of the Nations economic status. The city also nearly went bankrupt in the 70s through liberal socialist policies and the belief that someone, ie taxpayers, banks, Santa Claus, would bail it out. Didn’t happen but it came close. But that was then. These days bailouts seem to be the norm. But I’m glad to hear that CAs economy is so huge and such a well oiled machine financially that it can afford to run its cities at a loss without the rest of the nation paying attention. Puts my mind at ease. Perhaps every other state should copy the fiscal policies of CA.

        1. avatar Count Chocula says:

          I don’t think that anybody would admit to any city as being a well oiled machine. Los Angeles has problems much like any other city, the more money they generate the more they waste. Annually California pays about 17 billion more to the federal government than it receives. However you want characterize the fiscal strength or weakness, I personally do not see a national bailout stemming from this one lawsuit nor will it be any more of a waste of tax payers assets than what is already happening. If it isn’t wasted this way then it will be wasted another. Also I would like to point out that the Arkansas case in 1960 was about direct employment of a School Teacher for the city. This is not about applying for a city position, it is about a contract bidding process-completely different. Very interesting to see how it ends up.

        2. avatar Oliver says:

          It shouldn’t be the norm in our thinking that wasting taxpayer money should be the alright just because we can afford it thus it’s business as usual. Sloppy thinking like that has gotten plenty of people fired for financial improprieties at best and the federal slammer at worst. And yes, it’s just a city council.But let’s see what would happen if Fargo’s city council would insist that they needed a list of all registered Democrats or NAACP members from bidders before they made a choice. All of these tiny situations lead to bad precedents if they are left unchecked. I know, it’s really hard to pull your head out your ass once it’s so far up but if you do manage to pull it out Count Chockula you just might see the.forest instead of your own ass hairs. Give it a try.

  6. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Are you now, or have you ever been associated with the National Rifle Association?” That’s the tenor of a new question all contractors who do business with the city of Los Angeles will have to answer.”

    But the 2020 census can’t ask about citizenship…

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      That may soon change. In any event, the reasoning for exclusion of the question is fairly straightforward: asking the question will likely mean that illegals will not return their questionnaires, and thus will not be counted as persons residing in the US, which is the purpose of the census in the first place.

      1. avatar J Gibbons says:

        The result of excluding the question is that those sanctuary cesspools get more and more representatives in the House, tipping the scales more and more Leftist.

      2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “In any event, the reasoning for exclusion of the question is fairly straightforward: asking the question will likely mean that illegals will not return their questionnaires, and thus will not be counted as persons residing in the US, which is the purpose of the census in the first place.”

        OK, meaning, that’s what the current administration is hoping what will happen?

        It’s a sly move, if that’s the case. If not counted at the federal level, that pushes fiscal responsibility back onto the states, like California, straining them even further.

        That’s outright devious, using ‘Cloward and Piven’ tactics against the California Leftists. Stress the system to the point of collapse. Perhaps with that and the San Fransisco city streets covered in human shit will the voters finally wake the fuck up and vote them the hell out of there.

        *snort*

        Like that will ever happen…

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    “Are you now or have you ever been a Communist er community organiz”…oh wait. This deserves a middle finger salute. And I don’t think the NRA shares their membership roles.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      An oath of allegiance was often required of teachers (“I am not and have never been a member of the Communist Party”). I don’t remember when the practice was officially abolished.

  8. avatar strych9 says:

    But I thought the NRA was a gun control organization? I seem to remember reading that repeatedly somewhere….

  9. avatar Rodny Queens says:

    I would like to see the NRA go after more meaningful objectives than to waste their resources on petty gripes. The ordinance does not keep anybody from doing anything. Because the City is accountable for spending the public’s money, they are allowed to have more scrutinizing requirements than a regular employer. The law does not qualify or disqualify any contractor for doing work, it only requires that they disclose whether or not they are NRA members. Why would a contractor care? Is the NRA that much of a negative image that they are afraid they wouldn’t get the job? Maybe they should separate themselves then. Or is a contractor likely to give up their livelihood out of dedication to the NRA? I wouldn’t. If the City of Los Angeles starts to exclude NRA associated contractors, then the Non-NRA folks will raise there prices with the lack of competition. These guys know the game, it’s what they do all dayt. The only thing the city is angling for is to be able to put more of a ‘squeeze’ on the contractors.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I disagree. The City council has no Republican members, as I recall, and the NRA is roundly criticized and stigmatized. Declaring oneself an NRA member will likely result in no city work–we are talking tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of business–for members. The City is mandated to take the “lowest responsible bid,” and is not allowed to discriminate against contractors based on race, religion, national origin, sex or sexual orientation. Why should they be allowed to discriminate based on political affiliation?

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “The City is mandated to take the “lowest responsible bid,” and is not allowed to discriminate against contractors based on race, religion, national origin, sex or sexual orientation. Why should they be allowed to discriminate based on political affiliation?”

        Damn straight. We need to build lawsuit case precedent that gun owners are being discriminated against, and we won’t take it anymore…

        1. avatar John Chismroy says:

          What you refer to would apply to one seeking to be a city employee. Completely different rules for contract bidding process. It is only discriminatory if one was denied specifically for that reason. Before you can win a contract you need to bid and you will have to provide this information to bid. Discrimination would probably be hard to prove considering all the different reasons they can use for exclusion. Also this can go both ways. A non-NRA member who gets turned down can just as easily say that it is for that reason as well. Also those who are familiar with city politics would know that the city manager holds all the power. Arguably more than the city council and more than the mayor. They are the ones who get the money and ultimately decide where to spend it. They are not elected officials so they don’t care who they piss off.
          Politicians are known to amend certain situations if the price is right. I’m sure a “favorable” contract bid would go a long way in offsetting any NRA affiliation.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          We need to build lawsuit case precedent that gun owners are being discriminated against, and we won’t take it anymore…”

          Now you’re cookin’.

          And seriously, no more html tags in your posts? WTAF!?

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          “Also those who are familiar with city politics would know that the city manager holds all the power. Arguably more than the city council and more than the mayor. ”

          Is this true in LA? I haven’t looked up their particular system but this statement only applies to certain set-ups for the city. A strong mayor situation would vest most of the power with the mayor. A city manager system usually is designed specifically to make the mayor a figurehead and the city council largely irreverent but there are a bunch of different models depending on which city is in question.

      2. avatar barnbwt says:

        Because “it’s for the greater good” of course

        1. avatar Ollie West says:

          Of course!!

      3. avatar Kenny says:

        The NRA is not a political party nor should they be.

  10. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Oh Sir!, Sir! Your papers. Your NRA papers please!
    Now that you have submitted, you will wear on your shirt this “star badge” with the letters “NRA” in the center for your public identification.

  11. avatar Alan says:

    Tell the city of L.A.to take a hike.

  12. avatar Chris Morton says:

    And yet, I’m sure these jackasses think that Djokar Tsarnaev should be able to vote from prison…

  13. avatar Sam Iam says:

    I’ve answered some pretty crazy questions on a job application before. If you want the job then you best not be concerned. Ford asks what kind of car you drive on their application. So you get turned down and you take them to court because you drive a Toyota ? Good luck with that.
    Also Mr Moron errr Mr Morton, Djokar Tsarnaev is a convicted felon.
    Convicted Felons forfeit their right to vote.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      Gee Mr. Learning Disability, Bernie Sanders is on VIDEO saying that Djokar Tsarnaev should be able to vote, FROM PRISON. Kamala Toe Harris says we should “have that conversation”.

      Run along, it’s time for Judge Wapner…

      1. avatar Spectator says:

        Sorry, he’s right. Felons can’t vote. But if it is on VIDEO then it must be true, right.
        Berny can do anything.

        1. avatar Chris Morton says:

          Actually there are places where felons CAN vote.

          And Bernie Sanders wants them to be able to vote FROM PRISON.

          Yeah, convicted abortion clinic bombers should be able to vote on women’s reproductive rights… FROM PRISON..

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          There are also places where a convicted felon can, gasp, carry a gun!

          Once felons are out and have demonstrated they are rehabilitated many places allow them to apply for their rights to be reinstated. It’s just that most don’t bother and the courts often reject the application.

          But it does happen. Last year a convicted felon who had gotten his gun rights back used his CCW pistol to assist a police officer. It was here on TTAG.

        3. Once felons are out and have demonstrated they are rehabilitated many places allow them to apply for their rights to be reinstated. It’s just that most don’t bother and the courts often reject the application.

          if that bomber is pardoned (however unwise and unjust such pardons may be), then his rights would be restored, no conditions.

          Sanders was advocating that the bomber be able to vote while still on death row.

          Pretty big distinction.

  14. avatar tjokav Dsarnaer says:

    I’m sure the NRA rather not get involved but they have to support the members. Kind of a rock and a hard spot. If they do nothing then the resolution goes unchecked and members walk to protect their livelihood while others walk due to a lack of performance. And we are not talking about Rudy Gonzales mowing the grass at city hall. Some of these contractors are large, million dollar companies that contribute significantly to the NRA. These companies submit bids 3-4 times higher than what you or I would pay because it is from the deep pockets of the city while the taxpayer gets burned. Considering the poor performance of the NRA of the recent years they should be concerned.

  15. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    We should wait for California to secede, we should throw them out!!! And the Ninth District with them. The communists do this kind of crap. The DOJ should be suing them. Or the FTC.

  16. Should these people not after gang affiliations instead?

  17. avatar Chewy says:

    Where the heck is the so called ACLU when they’re needed?
    Any law like this should send chills down the spine of anyone interested in preserving what freedom we have left.
    Let’s see conservative business owners start asking “Do you now or have you ever had ties to the Democratic party ?” and see how long THAT goes without a full on media propaganda blitz and legal assault.
    These “small” fights really matter.

  18. avatar SurfGW says:

    This law will be upheld if they can show it only requires disclosure and is not a ban. Courts traditionally like transparency and government contracts often ask some weird questions like “have you performed a project in a desert tortoise environment “?
    Any company passed over for work will not have access to other bidders’ info to prove discrimination for NRA affiliation or failure to disclose. LA is a union town but they are not idiots.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email