NRA Sues City of San Francisco Over ‘Domestic Terrorist Organization’ Declaration

nra sues san francisco

Courtesy NRA and Twitter

Last week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to designate the National Rifle Association and its 5 million members a domestic terrorist organization. It’s a purely symbolic move that got the feces-smeared city by the bay plenty of press.

As you might expect, the NRA didn’t take well to the political stunt.

In today’s cancel culture, being named or identified as a member of an alleged terrorist organization — even if it’s done by a far-left urban backwater — could get you thrown off of some social media platforms, or worse.

Yesterday, the NRA responded by filing a lawsuit on behalf of its 5 million members against the City of San Francisco over the declaration (read the suit here).

From the Associated Press

By Lisa Marie Pane

The National Rifle Association sued San Francisco on Monday over the city’s recent declaration that the gun-rights lobby is a “domestic terrorist organization.”

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses city officials of violating the gun lobby’s free speech rights for political reasons and says the city is seeking to blacklist anyone associated with the NRA. It asks the court to step in “to instruct elected officials that freedom of speech means you cannot silence or punish those with whom you disagree.”

Last week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution calling the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization,” contending the group spreads propaganda that seeks to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence.

“This action is an assault on all advocacy organizations across the country,” said William A. Brewer III, the NRA’s lawyer. “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.”

San Francisco’s resolution follows some recent high-profile shootings, including one in Gilroy, California, about 80 miles (129 kilometers) southeast of San Francisco, where a gunman entered a festival with an AK-style long gun, killing three people and injuring 17 before killing himself. Since that shooting on July 28, there have been at least three mass shootings — in El Paso, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; and in the West Texas towns of Odessa and Midland.

San Francisco Supervisor Catherine Stefani said she drafted the resolution after the Gilroy shooting, driven in part by the vision of one of those killed while playing in a bouncy house at the festival. Stefani, an attorney who has been involved for years in gun-control organizations, said the thought sickened her. “I had enough,” she told The Associated Press.

“They continue to stand in the way of gun violence reform and people are dying because of it,” she said.

She also criticized NRA leadership for how it spends dues from its self-proclaimed 5 million members — a sore point among some gun-rights activists as well who believe its longtime CEO, Wayne LaPierre, and some of those in his inner circle have misspent hundreds of thousands of dollars on such things as expensive clothing, travel, housing and inflated salaries.

Stefani told the AP that she believes the lawsuit is a “desperate move by a very desperate organization,” taking note of those allegations by some NRA members. “I truly believe their time is up.”

The NRA has been battling a number of challenges to its operations in recent months, including an investigation by the attorney general in New York, where its charter was formed, and the attorney general in Washington, D.C., where authorities are questioning whether its operations are in violation of its non-profit status.

There also have been internal battles over NRA leadership with the group’s then-president, Oliver North, and its top lobbyist, Chris Cox, stepping down, giving gun-rights activists pause about the NRA’s ability to hold sway in the upcoming 2020 presidential elections.

Democrat leaders in Congress on Monday urged President Donald Trump, a favorite of the NRA, to push Republicans to agree to expand background checks, and there have been efforts to make it easier to seize firearms at least temporarily from people who are exhibiting mental health issues.

The NRA would rather go to court than tackle the “epidemic” of gun violence in the U.S., said John Coté, San Francisco City Attorney’s Office spokesman.

“The American people would be better served if the NRA stopped trying to get weapons of war into our communities and instead actually did something about gun safety,” Coté said. “Common-sense safety measures like universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and restricting high-capacity magazines would be a good start.”

LaPierre, NRA’s CEO, vowed to fight the move by city officials saying in a statement: “This lawsuit comes with a message to those who attack the NRA: We will never stop fighting for our law-abiding members and their constitutional freedoms. Some politicians forget that all 5 million of us in the NRA stand for freedom and that we believe it is a cause worth fighting for. We will always confront illegal and discriminatory practices against our organization and the millions of members we serve.”

The move by city officials has received some pushback from those who believe it amounts to “virtue signaling.” An editorial in the Los Angeles Times written by Michael McGough argued that although the NRA should be criticized for blocking efforts to stem gun violence, it’s not accurate to label it a “domestic terrorist organization.”

“Police shootings and gun violence understandably inspire strong emotions, and elected officials are no exception. But they need to watch their words, especially when those words are contained in legislation or, in this case, pseudo-legislation,” McGough wrote.

The San Francisco resolution also follows steps by corporate America in recent years to cut ties with the NRA and its membership — from Delta Airlines ceasing discounts for NRA members to last week’s moves by Walmart, CVS, Walgreens and Albertsons chains all asking customers to not openly carry firearms into their stores.

comments

  1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    I wish I could donate to the NRA for specific actions only. I’d give $20 for this lawsuit, if I knew it was for the lawsuit, and not LaPierre’s suit.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Bingo. Same here.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Until the NRA announces that WLP and his sycophants are gone from the organization and it has returned to it mission of upholding the 2 nd. amendment,any funds that would have went to the NRA now go to GOA FPC and SAF,I’m not interested in anything out of WLP’s Negotiating Rights Away.
      Not One More Penny !

      1. avatar Tim says:

        I wonder if you can classify antifa, and other so-called liberals as terrorists? Oh wait that does not fit their agenda.

        I wonder if they will put out a bounty on WLP like what was on OBL?

      2. avatar Craig in IA says:

        And just who would you suggest take over NRA? Can you name anyone who could raise the daily $1.6 million WLP has had to do over the past 20+ years? Certainly wasn’t Ollie, nor Chris Cox. Allen West? Shee-it! Oh, I’ve got it- Ted Nugent…

        Most of you out there trashing NRA and WLP cannot even fathom the amount of money it takes for NRA to fund its operations. Dues don’t amount to a drop in the bucket and aren’t used for lobbying, campaign contributions, scientific studies, etc., but those trashing NRA know that. Then there are a number of wealthy donors who would like to “buy” NRA, or a place into its leadership without having to run for a Board spot. Just too big and “rich” to have to do that. The big problem is once they would become “successful” they’d not have a clue as to how to proceed and things would be in a downward spiral to the end of the Second Amendment.

        There is no way GOA, the NAGRs, or all of the little yapping “no compromise gun groups” together could make up the void if NRA would somehow go away. The wonks around here claiming GOA will take up the slack aren’t even dreaming- they’re absolutely delusional. So, go ahead, reserve any amount of donation/contribution you might send to NRA- and for a lot of you, that’s a stretch, too. Bloomberg, Steyer, San Fran Nan and the rest are thanking you every day for your support. You are useful idiots- no more than that.

        1. avatar I1uluz says:

          NRA barely spent any money in VA last election cycle for the Gov, Lt Gov and AG races if any. On the other hand bloomyberg cleaned out the limo seats and dumped into VA to win, Gov race: $1,260,000 Everytown for Gun Safety, I didn’t see where the NRA donated to Gillispie at all. NRA headquarters is in VA, after the next election cycle VA could fall into the likes of NJ/NJ. SF/bay area of CA would be more welcoming.
          NRA failed their members in VA the last election. They should have felt the wind of change blowing and invested in VA.
          https://www.vpap.org/offices/governor/outside-groups/?year_and_type=2017regular

        2. avatar IN Dave says:

          I am going to disagree with you on many points. I really don’t care about what WLP did for the organization over the last 20+ years. I care about what he is doing for the NRA currently. I for one think bump stocks are the dumbest things that have ever been invented but WLP tried to convince everyone that he was playing chess while everyone else was playing checkers. They decided to give up bump stocks to “protect” us from AWB, magazine ban, & universal background checks. Yet here we are still struggling against AWB, magazine bans, and universal background checks. Such progress!!

          You stated that dues are only a drop in the bucket. If this is the case then where does the vast majority of the money come from and more importantly are you saying that WLP is the ONLY man that can secure these funds? I know I didn’t join because of WLP, did anyone? This is all starting to sound like the “too big to fail” sell. We seen it with the auto industry, airlines, and banking, where ineffective leaders were left in place because…………?(yeah, I don’t know either)

          You wanted someone to name somebody that could pull in 1.6 million daily, and I will admit that I can’t. I don’t know anyone that high up on the food chain. However if enough members are withholding donations/contributions that Bloomberg, San Fran NaN, and Streyer are laughing at us then it appears that you and I are in the same boat because WLP isn’t getting that done either, otherwise It wouldn’t be a concern of yours.

          The big donors that are calling for WLP to leave are only making news because they are saying the same thing that many peasant members have been asking for for years but have the money to make WLP sit up and take notice. You can’t tell me that the board isn’t too big (76) well what is left of them. Especially when they can’t find their way to a meeting. I would be opposed to putting any of these big donors on the board or in any position of power unless they are the best person for the job. But let’s face it the NRA has never supported trying to get the best people on the board. Of those that have had the most influence or the largest business experience are the ones saying “peace out”.

          I am not getting the impression that anyone on here wants the NRA to fail and I will agree with you that the other groups you named can’t hold a candle to the NRA but that doesn’t mean that NRA should get a pass on mismanagement. You are right about few members being able to fathom the amount of money that is needed to run something like the NRA but I can do basic math. To me it seems a little ironic to complain about someone not sending in their $45 dollars and defend someone who was just going to use it on $39,000 worth of suits. But that probably just makes me a useful idiot. Anyways you just stick with Marvin Lewis….I mean WLP, I am sure this year will be different.

        3. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          In my experience all the NRA does is show up for photo ops after others have done the hard work. NRA has also enthusiastically supported every federal gun to law to ever pass such as NFA ’34, GCA ’68, FOPA with the Hughes amendment, and the 1994 AWB. With friends like that who need enemas.

        4. avatar IN Dave says:

          @the crimson pirate, holy crap I was in the middle of taking a big drink when I read your post. Now I got soda all over my lap….and I am still laughing. “…who needs enemas”. Not me!! Lol. I am stealing that.

    3. avatar enuf says:

      I feel the same way about cable television ……

    4. avatar Carl B. says:

      San Franfreako goes full fascist and we have “gun owners” whose first response to the NRA’s lawsuit is to slam the NRA. The “firearm community,” such as it is, is its own worst enemy.

      1. avatar MIO says:

        That’s because the NRA isn’t our friend. They in fact are the enemy. Figure it out.

    5. avatar Will says:

      A little up-evil in the NRA is a good thing. It will come out of this better. Right now they will need not just money but numbers of members to keep fighting for your rights. I just sent in 2 yrs because I still feel they are our best chance. You can make contribution with becoming a member. There are other gun groups you can support if you do not want to support the NRA at this time. GOA and one other I think. If you do nothing what will be the result.

  2. avatar pwrserge says:

    In the 9th circus? Let’s see how many amendments the left coast decides to throw out “because guns”.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Depends. Remember that the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of gun rights in ‘Young v. Hawaii’, a case which may go higher up the food chain to affect more than only Hawaii, pending the outcome of an important case in New York. The Hawaii AG requested an en banc hearing, which is a lose-lose situation for gun grabbing judges on the 9th Circuit, so it’ll be interesting to see how it proceeds.

      http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/

  3. avatar bob says:

    How can the NRA be a domestic terrorist if we declare the state of California to no longer be in the union?

  4. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

    (In a courtroom)

    “Your honor, we have been accused of being a terrorist organization. I have but one question for San Fransisco – “How many mass shootings were done by NRA members?”

    {Crickets softly chirping…}

    “We rest our case, your honor…”

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      And how many were done by registered Democrats?

  5. avatar DaveL says:

    From a legal perspective, however, isn’t it problematic for the lawsuit to claim the resolution was “purely symbolic?” Wouldn’t you need to demonstrate damages to sustain a claim?

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “Chilling effect” on commerce by recommending the cancellation and avoidance of business contracts with entities that have any positive affiliation with the NRA. The loss of income due to an official government entity (the Board) is considered damaging.

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        But will they have to show they’ve lost income? Or is the threat thereof enough?

    2. avatar Ed Rogers says:

      Excellent question. A governing body chose to interfere with the rights of another organization. Symbolic or not, damage occurred. How much is for the court to decide.

    3. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Claims are generally severable. Failing on tbe damages leaves other claims intact.

      Claimi g financiql damages puts tbe anti-people in a dilemma. If NRA small, so tiny damages, they’re not much of a political threat. Plus other variations.

      Arguing this claim puts NRA stats, n anti-people messaging ops into news cycles.

  6. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    This is going to be a very interesting law suit with a lot of good points being made on both sides of the law suit.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Please clarify. What “good point” does the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco have in declaring the NRA organization and its membership of 5+ million Americans domestic terrorists?

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        Would you please just stop it? This is a brand new lawsuit and nobody has written anything for me to copy and paste yet.

        -The Real True Original Vlad Tepes

        1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

          I just want to let you know I adore and appreciate your work. It always cracks me up, thank you so much!

        2. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          ChoseDeath is a Vlad groupie.

        3. avatar Tom in PA says:

          I completely agree with ChoseDeath – some of your stuff is savage. While smartassery is my super power, it’s clear you have ascended to a whole other level. I bow before your Smartassery Level – Grand Master. Remember – you are the resistance.

      2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        Their ” good point “, just because. It’s a much easier sell to the public to blame the NRA than to blame the Second Amendment.

    2. avatar napresto says:

      That’s some C-minus trolling, Vlad. You can do better. See me after class.

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      I always find it amusing that I have a better grasp of the English language than these commie trolls.
      Lawsuit one word.
      English is my 4th or 5th language (depending how your count). What’s your excuse?

      1. avatar Tom in PA says:

        There’s a high probability you heard his “excuse”, or something similar, in the land of the yellow footprints: “Why did you (fill in the blank) Recruit Schmuckatelli (or anything suitably demeaning) ?!?!” Response: “Sir, stupidity, Sir!”. The only problem is he lacks any level of self awareness to actually realize that. It’s like when someone is dead – they don’t know they’re dead, but everyone else does. The same holds true when they’re being stupid. I’m almost willing to wager that I’ve killed fungus on my feet that could best Vlad, and those of his ilk, in the arena of critical thinking skills. I hope there’s a coherent thought from him in our future – I really can’t imagine the suffering that must be involved in formulating a rebuttal to the mindless word drool effortlessly cascading from his yammering vocal orifice.

      2. avatar Someone says:

        Some of Dracula’s babbling makes me suspect that he is not an American. French, maybe? He certainly hates everything America stands for.

  7. avatar Jim Warren says:

    If you happen to be traveling near the San Andreas Fault, please stop and do a few jumping jacks. You’ll be helping us all.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      That would be LA (let er slide, please). San Degenerate would be the Hayward Fault

  8. avatar guesty says:

    I can see both sides of this.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      You mean both the side that’s informed by rationality and the First Amendment right to freedom of association, plus the side that’s pure lawless, hysterical virtue-signalling? Those two sides?

      1. avatar LazrBeam says:

        Maybe he meant that he could see both sides of the San Andreas and/or Hayward Faults.

  9. avatar Todd in the sticks says:

    Anyone know a good lawyer for a class action lawsuit on behalf of all veterans that are members of the NRA? NRA’s financial foolishness is beyond comprehension, but as a veteran, I sort of object to being called a member of a terrorist organization. Think we are real close to a libel lawsuit. Guess I could have just fought myself instead of taking that plane ride to the middle east a few years ago.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      The Michelle Lawyers group is the go-to group for major gun rights cases.

      http://michellawyers.com/

      If you start something up, I’ll pitch in a personal donation.

  10. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Hmmm….. a short while ago Presidential Hopeful Kamala Harris said one of the first things she would do if she became president is issue an excutive order demanding the confiscation of guns from a list of ‘bad people’ including anyone connected to a ‘Domestic Terror Organization.’

    Fast forward just a bit and San Francisco decides the NRA qualifies as a ‘Domestic Terror Organization.’

    I am not one to lean towards the tinfoil hat ideas, but this one doesn’t even require you to get out of your chair let alone ‘leap’ to the conclusion.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The big problem with Progressives is they don’t coordinate their actions. The city acted without coordination of the grand plan.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        Doesn’t take much of coordination to come up with the same idea Chip did.

  11. avatar Hoyt Claggwell says:

    NRA is also using this “Domestic Terror Organization” opportunity to raise funds. I’ve gotten several emails from the NRA about how it’s urgent that I join the fight.

    1. avatar Jonathan Long says:

      well of course they are going to fund raise off of it. The dilemma is this: WLP is unfit (at best) to lead the NRA and needs to be booted and while he is still at the head of the NRA they don’t deserve any funding from us, at the same time the loss of the NRA would pretty much be the end of gun rights in this country since GOA et al. are nowhere near the size needed to take on the civilian disarmament complex. So what do we do? I personally am leaning more toward cutting off my donations to the NRA until WLP and his cronies get the boot. As it stands now with WLP in charge we are only delaying the inevitable anyway, we need someone in the NRA to push back against this push not just hold the line so to speak.

      1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

        Jonathon, how does one go about registering a username on TTAG and submitting an avatar? I haven’t found any instructions on this site.

        1. avatar Jonathan Long says:

          I wish I could tell you, I made this account 8 years ago and my old brain cant remember how I did it…

        2. avatar Geoff “I love cheese dip” PR says:

          Ask Dan, this place is a mockery of itself.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Ask Dan, this place is a mockery of itself.”

          It’s not indentured servitude.

          Are you finding you checked out, but can never leave?

        4. avatar Ing says:

          Go to http://en.gravatar.com/ (run by the WordPress people, independent of any other website). It’ll associate an avatar with your email address and you’ll have the same avatar on any site that connects with Gravatar, which means just about every blog that exists.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        So says every member of the MSM and every idiot progtard in the US.

        1. avatar Jonathan Long says:

          perhaps you haven’t noticed but under WLP we have actually LOST rights, not gained them. Losing rights is exactly what the NRA was supposed to fight but in these cases they willingly supported the losing of those rights and they continue to support losing more of them. If an organization that is supposed to uphold something not only fails to uphold it but actively participates in eroding what its supposed to uphold how can you still support it?

        2. avatar Ing says:

          People tend to forget that shall-issue concealed carry went from 5 states to 46 during WLP’s tenure. And there are, what, 21 Constitutional carry states now?

          Correct me on the numbers if you want, but that’s definitely an expansion of Second Amendment rights, not a loss.

          Problem is, LaPierre has let the NRA become fat, soft, and weak by treating it as his personal fiefdom, which puts all of that progress in danger.

  12. avatar Ima Yeti says:

    Maybe the Second Amendment Foundation will sign on, then there’s a better option to donate to. SAF is a worthwhile charity anyway. IMHO.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      Firearms Policy Center is a good one too.

  13. avatar GS650G says:

    They smell blood in the water hence the bullshit declaration. Not only is it bullshit it’s libelous and has legal ramifications.

  14. avatar Fully Involved says:

    “Common-sense safety measures like universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and restricting high-capacity magazines would be a good start.”

    Operating word: “start”.
    They are openly admitting that all the proposals they mentioned above will not appease them (or, from a gun control perspective, it wont be enough to ‘solve the gun violence problem in America’); they are merely stating that it will be the “start” for their final solution: total gun confiscation.
    We need to ask those on the fence: “Ok, clearly gun control advocates lied when they said they dont want to take all guns away. So if they lied about that, what else did they lie to you about? Food for thought….”

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I still stand firm on the statement that background checks upend the constitutional premise of presumed innocence. A UBC suspends a right pending approval from TPTB, based upon the mere possibility that you might be someone they don’t want having possession of a gun. And as we all know, a right delayed is often a right denied. Add to that the application of a monetary fee for the UBC, and now you have to pay for the violation of your right.

      Somehow, this nation functioned just fine without any background checks for 179 years (1789 – 1968).

    2. avatar Anymouse says:

      When it’s found that those things don’t work, they don’t get repealed. Instead, antis ask for more restrictions that won’t work. It’s a more proof they aren’t interested in solving problems – they’re fixated on doing anything they can to get rid of guns.

  15. avatar Nanashi says:

    The NRA is going to lose badly. The city will show Olivier North’s comment that gun control supporters are terrorists and show the NRA’s support for gun control.

    1. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

      They will show North’s statement and it won’t matter, because San Fransisco is a government entity they don’t have free speech as a corporation or individual does. Were I NRA, I would have spent the money paying for ads describing San Fran as the city of the cesspit, the toilet bowl of America, the place where there are more druggies than grade school kids.

      Frankly I think the rest of the states should offer free plane tickets to any illegal who commits a misdemeanor flying them nonstop to any city in the sanctuary state of California. If they love them, then let them have them.

      1. avatar Nanashi says:

        Doesn’t matter if they have free speech protection or not. The NRA can’t have it both ways. They can’t let North’s comment go without disavowal for a year then only disagree with it when it hurts them.

        1. avatar Anymouse says:

          Ollie’s statement referred to the actions of intimidation, harassment, and lawbreaking by the groups as “civil terrorism.” Specifics included splashing fake blood on the private residence of an NRA official. Seems like tactics similar to KKK burning a cross on someone’s lawn. SF stated no illegality from the NRA, other than not adopting the antis’ group think.

    2. avatar James Campbell says:

      …….”Olivier North’s comment that gun control supporters are terrorists and show the NRA’s support for gun control.”
      The attorney for the NRA will just point out the first comment (gun control supporters are terrorists) refers to those attempting to limit the 2nd Amendment. That second comment (NRA support for gun control) refers the ability to dump an entire mag of ammo into a target bullseye.
      Motion for case dismissal.

  16. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Contrary to our comfortable imaginings, gun-grabbers, leftists, Demoncrats, are not mentally deficient, stupid, or mindless (well, the leadership isn’t). At the very least, SF just created a wonderful opportunity for people to initiate red flag complaints against anyone who displays an NRA logo. Just as the hate group label from SPLC has no legal standing, given the ease with which red flag complaints can be registered, adding “member of a terrorist group – NRA” should do the trick.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      Where is the NRA in Ca? Every court room drama seems to be chaired by CalGuns. Why isn’t the NRA fighting for shall issue in all Ca counties?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Where is the NRA in Ca?”

        A whole passel of us have the same question.

  17. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    It’s amazing how Libertarians Liberals and the Left, white Homosexuals, the progressive socialists all say the Klu Klux Klan has 1st amendment rights. A group with a 130 plus year record of murder rape and mayhem.

    Now, minus the Libertarians, the rest of them are saying the NRA is a terrorist group????
    A group that has helped blacks get guns. And where the NRA facilities were always open to black people.

    Historically the gays that run San Francisco welcomed KKK marchers to show the world that white gay people support the 1st amendment. It’s not truth that gays support the 1st amendment. Just ask the christians. White gays use the KKK as a 1A fig leaf.

    1. avatar Guesty says:

      Do Christians support the gay community?

      1. avatar Ing says:

        No, and they don’t have to. What’s your point?

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        guesty
        “Do Christians support the gay community?”

        If you mean do christians support gays public masturbation or other public sex acts, at pride parades. No. Shooting up crystal meth to improve their sexual experience? No. Golden showers? No. Using government funds to pay for “free marijuana or free cocaine”, at a government facility? No. Saying that a man can now call himself a woman? No.

        If you mean do christians support the 2A right of gay people? Yes they do. In fact christians don’t understand why gay people say guns are for heterosexuals. Or they say having a gun is a heterosexual sex act?

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          btw
          Homosexuals need be more concerned about atheists and how they view gay people and their conduct in public and private.

          “The Real Reason LGBTQ Acceptance is Declining Among the Young” 11 minutes long.

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      The NRA supported laws restricting minorities from firearms for many years as did the GOP in many states, your hero, Ronald Reagan among them. Take the log out of your eye……

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Many people use Ronald Reagan as a distraction instead of getting into the weeds, or I should say specifics, about how gun control laws are written and who wrote them.

        For example while gov Reagan did sign the Mulford Act into law he didn’t write the law. It went through the same legislative process as any law does. It was written by 6 legislators in california. One of those six was a man by the name of Alan G. Sieroty.

        State Senator Sieroty was a member of Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee, American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of b’nai b’rith and he served on the board of directors of the American civil liberties Union.

        So when I say that the ACLU, WROTE THE MOST RACIST GUN CONTROL LAW in modern US history. I’m not lying about it.

        It was members of the John Birch Society, lawmakers, who stood up for the Civil Rights of the Black Panther Party for self-defense on the California State Legislative floor. It was these conservative Republicans who supported the first and second Amendment rights of the Panthers. Not the white Liberals.

        How did I learn all this? I researched it and wrote a college paper about it.

        “Firearm Education: Teaching the Second Amendment in Kentucky school system grades K through 12”
        http://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/bis437/149

  18. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

    “said William A. Brewer III, the NRA’s lawyer”

    The problem with even donating to NRA even if you could limit the donation to going to this and this issue alone….Brewer is that lawyer and he is rumored to have his hand deep in the NRA wallet. Closely associated with WLP is enough to turn this guy out in my book.

    I will instead send my money to GOA and SAF as they seem to spend it better than NRA.

  19. avatar former water walker says:

    Meh…Commiefornia indeed. I’ll be off the terrorist list by next May😫

  20. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Some of these moms should read the 1999 Emerson decision by a U.S. District Court in Texas regarding social cost and the utility of rights. And Ben Franklin’s idea that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety.” And usually, do not get either. Just ask the people of Venezuela who Chavez scammed in 2012 with give me your guns and I’ll keep you “safe”.

  21. avatar MouseGun says:

    Can’t have that, the NRA has the illusion of a reputation to uphold.

  22. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    Is this really what they need to be spending money on right now? San Francisco engages in the meaningless political theater, meanwhile politicians (including republicans for christ’s sake) are discussing material concessions on gun control in the Senate back in Washington.

    Am I missing something here?

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Every dollar spend on this by San Fran is one less spent attacking gun owners there. If I thought the NRA had better things to spend money on that would be one thing but I kinda suspect this is as good as any.

  23. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

    There’s an old saying “You can’t fight city hall”. My dad used to counter with “no but I can sure as hell take a dump on the front steps”. Now then, that being legal and all in San Freaksyco, I suggest that all 5 mil or so of us fly, drive, whatever out there and do just that – . Then put a card in it that says “I’ll be back, Signed: Your friendly terrorist”. As a Vietnam veteran, NRA member, and patriot, I too am incensed! A lawsuit for libel/public slander sounds reasonable to me.

    1. avatar James Campbell says:

      Tell your dad that’s a looonnngg line to wait on. The SF homeless are lined up 3 deep to shit on those steps (and almost every other vertical surface in that shithole of a city).

  24. avatar Cam says:

    Politicians and public sector employees should not have immunity from lawsuits. These politicians should have to defend themselves personally and pay the legal cost for thier actions.

  25. avatar BMcGill says:

    So, back in the well fortified base, the sound of warfare can be heard in the distance. Casualties are many and losses are great. But the safe and gathered, all with their lap tops, pads and smart phones, sit around camp fires and their rations. They grumble and complain over the camp commander. Some feel a change is needed. Some want to collect a few arms and supplies and fight the fight on their own terms, for some other’s terms, what ever they may be. But alas, the enemy is patient and great and is in vast numbers and with great camouflage and not, they get closer and surround the camp, all the closer to the final assault because those defending against the enemy are too occupied with the internal petty fighting within to notice. The “new” resistance will get what they want but the price will be their liberty and freedom to keep and bear arms. They will slap each other’s back, down another beer and feel justified that they helped to destroy the enormous fortification, its commander and all his lieutenants. In reality they let the real enemy destroy the biggest and largest and most effective weapon for preservation of our precious 2nd amendment in the history of our republic. Hoorah…Hoorah to all of you.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Putting your faith in a demonstrably corrupt, but powerful individual, will give the same result as the condition you describe. If one person is the entire organization, the only means of success, you are doomed already because no one can add a minute to their life. Death is the stalker, and asks no permission. Nor does it care that your “rights” depend solely upon the individual death marked for capture.

  26. avatar Randy Jones says:

    I haven’t found the entire resolution on line, but from what parts I have read, it makes me think that organized crime (aka the Mob) was behind it. There are things in there that, if it was anybody but government doing it, would be considered extortion.

    While I realize it is unbinding at this time, it makes me wonder how long before the NRA membership roster gets out . Then we will know what persecution is like.

  27. avatar Mikial says:

    Folks, we need to stand with the NRA. Make no mistake, I am plenty pi$$ed off by the things that have come to light recently and we need to be sure the NRA cleans up its act, but we also need to stand together against the Liberals who want to emasculate the Constitution and crush our rights. Otherwise we will be doing their job for them.

  28. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Why do I think the NRA will hire a Sh*tty lawyer for this, instead of a quality one who might not like Wayne?

  29. Well, I hope THEY beat the $!#T out of the SF Fascist Left-a-Loons….$$$$$$$$$ Maybe Wayne and The NRA can use a new Amanti suit $$$$$$$$$$$$!!!

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