Opinion
Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- It seems that not all the powers-that-be in San Francisco are sure how to move forward with the Board of Supervisors’ widely-publicized “declaration” that the NRA is a “domestic terrorist organization.”
On Sept. 23, 2019, the office of Mayor London N. Breed, in conjunction with City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera, issued a memo to all San Francisco city department heads basically declaring the resolution a bunch of hot air with no legally binding effect whatsoever.
“The Resolution,” according to the memo, “does not impose any obligations on City Departments or members of the public.” In particular, “no department will take steps to assess the relationship between City contractors and the NRA, and no department will take steps to restrict any contractor from doing business with the NRA or to restrict City contracting opportunities for any business that has any relationship with the NRA.”
The resolution itself had expressed an intent to “assess the financial and contractual relationships [San Francisco] vendors and contractors have with” the NRA and to “take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with [San Francisco] from doing business with” the NRA.
In other words, the resolution sought to use San Francisco’s official authority to intimidate and punish businesses that serve what it considers to be a political enemy. The goal, of course, was to reduce the NRA’s ability to engage in its constitutionally protected political and advocacy efforts.
Needless to say, that goal is itself unconstitutional, and the NRA filed suit on Sept. 9 to block implementation of the resolution.
The city’s legal counsel obviously understood the untenable legal position of trying to enforce or give affect to the resolution, and the mayor not only declined to sign it but officially disavowed it with the Sept. 23 memo.
The actual resolution, however, has not been repealed by the Board of Supervisors, and the Mayor’s Office released an additional statement where she seemed to offer continued support for the resolution.
The episode in this way illustrates a common tactic of extreme anti-gun activists who hope they can send a sufficiently strong message to affect the behavior of others, even if they can’t legally compel the outcome they want.
We have seen a similar pattern with the Obama Administration’s Operation Choke Point, New York State’s attempt to intimidate banks and insurance companies into refusing business with pro-gun organizations, New York City’s travel ban for premises licensees, and various local preemption violations.
In each case, the anti-gun entity takes an unconstitutional or illegal action to “send a message” and to create a pall over firearm-related advocacy groups, businesses, and/or activities. The message is spread far and wide by the accommodating anti-gun media. The entity then gets called out for it by another branch of government, the public, or via litigation. Realizing it has overplayed its hand, the entity purports to “clarify” its “true intent” by rescinding the action or issuing some further interpretive guidance.
But the original message is still communicated to the public: the entity doesn’t like guns, gun owners, or gun-related businesses, and it doesn’t look favorably on anyone who takes a different view.
For some, the chilling effect will remain, even when the threat of overt legal compulsion is lifted.
Fortunately, the NRA and its members don’t scare so easily, and we will continue to oppose these oppressive efforts wherever we encounter them. As NRA CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said in response to San Francisco’s reversal: “[W]e hope the message is now clear. The NRA will always fight to protect our members and the constitutional freedoms in which they believe.”
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
I would have liked the NRA to FIGHT AGAINST the “back ground checks” that have been PROVABLY USELESS!!!
I would have liked the NRA to FIGHT AGAINST the “bump stock” accessory that allows government to claim and ban an anything gun related they deem “dangerous”!!!
I would love to see the NRA FIGHT AGAINST the communistic governmental agencies that are trying to INFRINGE Americans’ RIGHT to purchase what they deem PRUDENT for SELF DEFENSE against CRIMINALS, THUGS and TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT(S)!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ Laddyboy Wouldn’t that have been the supposed mission of the NRA,what the Leftards of S.F. fail to comprehend is Negotiating Rights Away are their allies in infringement of the second amendment. History 1791: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” After That 1871: The National Rifle Association was formed by Union Army veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate. After that, they start going the… Read more »
Expecting the NRA to fight gun control is like expecting Demorats to give up on their gun control wet dream!!
AINT. GONNA. HAPPEN.
Join GOA and/or FPC.
How is it a win when the ordinance still stands! A mere resolution can be pulled at any time. Who ensures the resolution is followed and what penalties are violators subject too? The NRA should take a lesson from the Supremes – the New York case is a good guide. When government over reaches and chills, steps on and even spits on citizens Rights, law suits are filed, and that very government backs off claiming issue now moot, seeking dismissal of the suit, (no doubt a feeble attempt not to have a ruling against such treasonous conduct), the Supremes resisted… Read more »
San Francisco needs to become a bottom feeding area for the fish in the Pacific…
They can’t even get themselves out of trouble let alone standing up for our rights. They sure fooled a lot of people for a long time, including me. Sadly, I have to say no more money to pad their pockets. This shows what they are not capable of.
I’m pleased to see the NRA had filed suit on Sept. 9 to block implementation of the resolution to label the NRA is a “domestic terrorist organization.”. The NRA, all pro gun groups and gun owners need to continue to push for a full retraction.
If these buffoons in San Francisco were successful in discriminating against NRA members it would be a matter of time before other pro gun groups like GOA, SAF, CCRKBA, JPFO etc. would be next in line to be labeled a “domestic terrorist organization.”.
Can the person that down voted explain why? Was it because I supported the NRA in filing the suit? I’m an NRA member that dislikes being called a domestic terrorist?
NRA needs to CLEAN UP THEIR DUMPSTER FIRE and FIRE WHINY LaPEE-YEW! Until THAT is done, no one who isn’t a fudd is going to give a single flipping penny to this WORTHLESS group!!