Victory: NRA Drops Suit Against Los Angeles Disclosure Law After City Backs Down

Councilman Mitch O’Farrell

Los Angeles City Councilman Mitch O’Farrell (AP Photo/Nick Ut)

Associated Press

The National Rifle Association is dropping its lawsuit against Los Angeles after the city repealed a law that required would-be city contractors to disclose ties to the gun-rights group, according to a court filing Friday.

Both sides said they have agreed to an injunction permanently blocking enforcement of the law and asked a federal judge who temporarily blocked it to vacate a Feb. 25 trial date.

The law passed last year by the City Council required firms seeking city deals to disclose any NRA contracts or sponsorships with them or their subsidiaries.

Councilman Mitch O’Farrell pushed for the rules following a spate of U.S. mass shootings, including a November 2018 attack that killed 12 people at a bar in Thousand Oaks, California. He said at the time that the NRA had been a “roadblock to gun safety reform” for decades.

The NRA sued, arguing that the requirements violated the constitutional First Amendment right to free speech and association and the 14th Amendment right to equal protection.

In December, the NRA won a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance. On Jan. 21, the City Council voted to repeal the law.

In the settlement filing, the NRA said it was satisfied that the city “cannot and shall not re-enact” the law or any similar measure.

The NRA won’t seek damages in the case. The city agreed to negotiate over how much it will pay toward the organization’s legal fees and costs.

The NRA also sued the city of San Francisco last year over a resolution by the Board of Supervisors that declared the group a “domestic terrorist organization.” The NRA alleged the resolution, which had no legal weight, violated the group’s free speech rights. However, it withdrew the lawsuit in November.

comments

  1. avatar James Campbell says:

    The NRA needs to go after compensation for damages in these cases. Only when taxpayer are hit HARD in the pocketbook will they consider NOT voting for dimwitted City Council members and politicans who attempt to restrict the 2nd A.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Agree 100%. Since it’s other peoples money , they won’t do it.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Only when taxpayer are hit HARD in the pocketbook will they consider NOT voting for dimwitted City Council members and politicans.”

      We wish.

      Read where SF just instituted a $300 new tax on all property owners. City needs the money to fund the crap clean up from all the homeless. No taxpayer revolt reported.

      In large cities, judicial costs are generally reduced to pennies per individual, in increased taxes.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Sam, if you can afford an $800k starter home, then $300 bucks is nothing.

    3. avatar Dude says:

      They can’t afford to stay on the offense because they blow their money on themselves and their own legal fees.

      1. avatar Batterycap says:

        Take a hike Sros troll.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          The worst part of any NRA article are the NRA shills that inevitably show up.

    4. avatar Craig in IA says:

      “The NRA needs to go after compensation for damages in these cases. Only when taxpayer are hit HARD in the pocketbook will they consider NOT voting for dimwitted City Council members and politicans who attempt to restrict the 2nd A.”

      They (NRA) could try but they’d just spend more money in a case that they couldn’t win under current state laws. That’s always the mission of things like this, or what Andy Cuomo is trying to do in NYS- Force organizations or groups to spend money they don’t want to. It’s basically what the dems have been trying to do to all the Trump supporters..

      We (NRA) won, for those of you who hate NRA in the first place- get over it.

      1. avatar Prndll says:

        I’m not seeing a win. I’m seeing a withdraw.

        1. avatar Batterycap says:

          Then you are only seeing what you want to see, instead of what is there.

        2. avatar Jim from LI says:

          I’m afraid you’re right. The law was NOT repealed; the city agreed to a “permanent” injunction to not enforce the law. If and when they think they have a sympathetic judge couldn’t the injunction be lifted?

        3. avatar Prndll says:

          “ However, it withdrew the lawsuit in November.”

          Are you really going to tell me that doesn’t say what that says?

        4. avatar Chuck Michel says:

          This is a HUGE win. To be clear, the NRA did not dismiss this case. The NRA turned the temporary preliminary injunction that it won in December into a final JUDGMENT of PERMANENT Injunction against the City and this blacklisting law. A Judgment is the best you can get from a court, even if you go to trial.

          Now the City has to pay NRA for its attorneys’ fees and costs.

        5. avatar Prndll says:

          “ The NRA won’t seek damages in the case. The city agreed to negotiate over how much it will pay toward the organization’s legal fees and costs.”

          I reread the article. This paragraph is a bit misleading. The whole thing is legaleeze double talk to me And I suspect To a lot of people but I see what your saying.

      2. avatar Chuck Michel says:

        Also, the City DID repeal the law at our insistence.

        1. avatar Ron Beason says:

          Thanks for clearing this up Chuck, most of these people do not know who you are, or that you have been the lead in dozens , if not hundreds of cases, to insure that “government” stays in their lane. Just wanted to let you know that some of us know, and greatly appreciate your efforts.

      3. avatar enuf says:

        If not for the massive stacks of membership cash the NRA wasted on Wayne La Pierre’s perks and shilling for that traitorous scum Trump, they could have afforded to keep going. Drag those politicians into court and demand damages, court costs, have them branded on the forehead as MORONS.

        But nope, NRA quit the fight and went home.

        Luckily we have other outfits on our side. The GOA and SAF for example.

        My wish is the New York State prosecutors would force Wayne out, along with a few of his sycophantic fellow travelers. Then the NRA could move it’s corporate registration to a free state, as they should have done long ago.

    5. avatar Chiefton says:

      I actually think the NRA should assist the members in filing their own lawsuits against these cities. We, as members, have been called terrorists by San Fransisco and therefore have been slandered. If NRA members in ever state sued San Fransisco from their home states imagine that city having to send attornies all over the country to defend themselves. One state or city going to 49 other states would be impressive and I agree, require damages prior to settling. Let them incur the costs.

  2. avatar Robster says:

    Glad to see the NRA winning. I think the anti-gunners fear the legal power the NRA exhibits. Seems one of the Democrat talking points is always to abolish the NRA. We need the NRA fighting for our rights, so it’s good to see a Win in the courts.

  3. avatar Wally1 says:

    Total wrong to settle this, and it is still on the books, they just are not going to enforce it. NRA needs to go full boat after these council members and sue them civilly (civil rights violation). This would be a easy case to win. The only way to stop this is to spank them hard with fines, damages and jail time. Nothing else will solve this.

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      NRA can’t go much further with it as things stand. If there is really any hope for California, it’s in the voter’s hands. That’s really how it should be, anyway.

    2. avatar Mike B in WI says:

      Wally,

      The article says “On Jan. 21, the City Council voted to repeal the law.” So, based on that statement, it is NOT “… still on the books.”

    3. avatar Chuck Michel says:

      The law WAS repealed. It is no longer on the books, and there is a permanent injunction judgment to keep it and anything like it from ever being reenacted.

  4. avatar Prndll says:

    Withdrawing a lawsuit is a stalemate. What’s the point?

    1. avatar Chuck Michel says:

      NRA got a JUDGMENT. They didn’t withdraw the suit or dismiss it – NRA finalized it with a JUDGMENT OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION. That’s all you can get from a court even if you go to trial.

  5. avatar Randy Jones says:

    The original statement from the city didn’t repeal the resolution, they said they wouldn’t enforce the resolution. Then they said they would repeal that contractors would be ‘screened’ about ties to the NRA and that part would not be enforced. Unless there is something I haven’t seen elsewhere, this could still mean NRA members are considered ‘Domestic Terrorists’. Whether the enforce that or not, I am offended by the comment. I dang sure have done nothing to cause any problems for that city. Blocking the ‘enforcement of the law’ is not the same thing as removing it from the book and issuing an apology for classifying us as Domestic Terrorists.

    Just to be clear, I live a law-abiding, peaceful life 1,000 miles from there, the city council allows people to build tent cities, defecate on the street, do drugs on the street, pan handle and leave piles of rat infested trash for tax paying citizens to clean up. Not to mention the diseases that are slowly spreading. A diabetic has to pay for their needles but a drug addict is given needles. Which of us sounds more like a Domestic Terrorist? The one who allows/causes that to happen or the one who has nothing to do with it?

    I will not vacation to California and I do not intentionally buy products made in California.

  6. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    If that had gone through it would have been time to demand connections to BLM and Antifa. Both of which are disruptive with Antias promoting violence. You know, a goose and gander thing.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      WHAT???

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    Good job NRA…still not renewing if Old Wayne stays!

  8. avatar Chuck Michel says:

    This is a HUGE win. To be clear, the NRA did not dismiss this case. The NRA turned the temporary preliminary injunction that it won in December into a final JUDGMENT of PERMANENT Injunction against the City and this blacklisting law. Now the City has to pay NRA for its attorneys’ fees and costs.

  9. avatar Alan says:

    In a fit of legislative largess???, the city has repealed the offensive legislation it had enacted. How long before it once again pulls a similar stunt? After all, it had escaped judicial sanctions that might have been obtained, and the same crowd that pushed the original legislation remains in office, right?.

  10. avatar James Campbell says:

    NRA still keeping Wayne La P on the payroll?

    1. avatar Jimmy C from Dallas says:

      Who asked you?

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        Really?
        You need a hobby, other then being a lame distraction on TTAG.

      2. avatar Loophole says:

        Your mom.

  11. avatar possum and the Coons of Doom says:

    Cease fires don’t work. When the advisory backs down its time to amp up the volume

  12. avatar Geoff "I got your Super Bowl right *here*" PR says:

    TTAG, you are black holing when I comment.

    That bullshit is getting very old…

  13. avatar Deprivation Of Rights: Under The “Color Of Law” says:

    They violated the 1st Amendment rights of 400 million people! Hanging is not enuff!!!!!!!!!! That will stop this crap!

    TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 Deprivation Of Rights: Under The “Color Of Law”

    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    Love the last part!

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