NRA v LA ruling

Discussion of firearm-related news stories. Please use "Off Topic" for non-firearm news.
Forum rules
Do NOT post the full text of published articles. If you would like to discuss a news story please link to it and, at most, include a brief summary of the article.

NRA v LA ruling

Postby jdege on Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:53 pm

https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/gov.uscourts.cacd_.744044.34.0.pdf
National Rifle Association of America et al v. City of Los Angeles et al
For the reasons provided above, Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
User avatar
jdege
 
Posts: 4465 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am

Re: NRA v LA ruling

Postby Holland&Holland on Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:06 pm

What is the layman’s summary?
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12478 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: NRA v LA ruling

Postby jdege on Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:04 pm

Holland&Holland wrote:What is the layman’s summary?

https://ktla.com/2019/12/11/federal-judge-blocks-enforcement-of-l-a-law-requiring-city-contractors-disclose-nra-ties/
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of a Los Angeles law requiring businesses that want city contracts to disclose whether they have ties to the National Rifle Association.

The NRA’s request for a preliminary injunction was granted by U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Los Angeles. It temporarily prohibits enforcement of the measure while the case unfolds. The next step could be an appeal by the city or an NRA request to make the injunction permanent.

The judge also threw out part of the lawsuit on technical grounds and removed the city clerk and Mayor Eric Garcetti as defendants but he refused to entirely dismiss the lawsuit.

[...]

In his ruling, the judge said the city contends that granting contracts to those “with business ties to the NRA invariably creates more NRA membership, which leads to more pro-gun advocacy, laxer gun laws, and inevitably more mass shootings.”

“Even if this chain of logic was supported by fact, the city is not permitted to restrict political speech as a means of achieving its goal of safer cities,” Wilson ruled.
User avatar
jdege
 
Posts: 4465 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am

Re: NRA v LA ruling

Postby Holland&Holland on Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:06 pm

jdege wrote:
Holland&Holland wrote:What is the layman’s summary?

https://ktla.com/2019/12/11/federal-judge-blocks-enforcement-of-l-a-law-requiring-city-contractors-disclose-nra-ties/
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of a Los Angeles law requiring businesses that want city contracts to disclose whether they have ties to the National Rifle Association.

The NRA’s request for a preliminary injunction was granted by U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Los Angeles. It temporarily prohibits enforcement of the measure while the case unfolds. The next step could be an appeal by the city or an NRA request to make the injunction permanent.

The judge also threw out part of the lawsuit on technical grounds and removed the city clerk and Mayor Eric Garcetti as defendants but he refused to entirely dismiss the lawsuit.

[...]

In his ruling, the judge said the city contends that granting contracts to those “with business ties to the NRA invariably creates more NRA membership, which leads to more pro-gun advocacy, laxer gun laws, and inevitably more mass shootings.”

“Even if this chain of logic was supported by fact, the city is not permitted to restrict political speech as a means of achieving its goal of safer cities,” Wilson ruled.


So some small win but also a small loss.
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12478 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: NRA v LA ruling

Postby jdege on Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:33 pm

Holland&Holland wrote:So some small win but also a small loss.


The question in front of the court was a temporary injunction, which was granted.
User avatar
jdege
 
Posts: 4465 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am

Re: NRA v LA ruling

Postby daleamn on Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:31 pm

“Even if this chain of logic was supported by fact, the city is not permitted to restrict political speech as a means of achieving its goal of safer cities,” Wilson ruled.

"Goodness, Captain Obvious! It's possible the court has read the Constitution!!! What if they read past the FIRST amendment???!!!"
daleamn
 
Posts: 444 [View]
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:10 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: NRA v LA ruling

Postby Holland&Holland on Sat Dec 14, 2019 7:45 am

daleamn wrote:“Even if this chain of logic was supported by fact, the city is not permitted to restrict political speech as a means of achieving its goal of safer cities,” Wilson ruled.

"Goodness, Captain Obvious! It's possible the court has read the Constitution!!! What if they read past the FIRST amendment???!!!"

It is California, do not expect much.
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12478 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: NRA v LA ruling

Postby Sorcerer on Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:26 pm

The head scratcher in this, if the law is upheld, what would happen to California politicians that receive NRA money.Ya I know that is a long shot for California.
Sorcerer
 
Posts: 798 [View]
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:30 pm

Re: NRA v LA ruling

Postby jdege on Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:29 pm

http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2019/12/twitter-as-tool-of-self-disembowelment.html
Twitter as Tool of Self-Disembowelment
Los Angeles passed an ordinance requiring contractors to disclose any ties to the NRA. Contractor John Doe filed suit, alleging that this required disclosure would impair his ability to get contracts and force speech--a First Amendment violation. The decision granting preliminary injunction against Los Angeles is here and includes this self-disembowelment:

In this context, O’Farrell’s off-the-record statements further confirm an overwhelming intent to suppress the message of the NRA.6 Through his verified Twitter account, O’Farrell wrote: “The @NRA “assault weapons everywhere” agenda can and will be challenged in the City of Los Angeles. It’s time for action. @WAGV @MomsDemand @Bradybuzz @eqca @shannonrwatts” Mitch O’Farrell (@MitchOFarrell), Twitter (Mar. 28, 2018, 2:20 PM), https://twitter.com/MitchOFarrell/statu ... 7632123904. “My #NRA disclosure motion passed unanimously in Budget & Finance committee today. TY Chair @PaulKrekorian for your partnership. Next up; full City Council to draft the Ordinance. @WAGV @Bradybuzz @Everytown @MomsDemand @sandyhook.” Mitch O’Farrell (@MitchOFarrell), Twitter (Oct. 1, 2018, 6:27 PM), https://twitter.com/MitchOFarrell/statu ... 1761850368. “And by the way, @amazonprimenow @AppleTV @Google -isn’t it time to end your relationship with @NRATV & stop aiding and abetting their violent, extremist rhetoric?” Mitch O’Farrell (@MitchOFarrell), Twitter (Oct. 24, 2018, 11:19 AM), https://twitter.com/MitchOFarrell/statu ... 7224783872. “I told @FedEx executives earlier this year, ‘there is no high road in doing business with the @NRA.” Mitch O’Farrell (@MitchOFarrell), Twitter (Oct. 31, 2018, 11:35 AM), https://twitter.com/MitchOFarrell/statu ... 6045058048.

See also Dkt. 1-3 at 2–32. O’Farrell’s statements reinforce an already robust record of anti-NRA animus. The face of the Ordinance, the legislative history of its passage, and the statements of its primary legislative advocate all demonstrate an intent to suppress the political speech of the NRA.

User avatar
jdege
 
Posts: 4465 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am


Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron