NRA files lawsuit

[SassyIrishLass]

Exactly how does a NRA member profit from being a member? What a dumb ass

With all due respect Lass, before you call someone a dumb ass, you had better understand what you are responding to. Did I write members? I did not. I wrote patrons, i.e. which include the gun and arms manufacturers where the bulk of NRA funding comes from.

The dumbass is clear
But alas
It is the SassyIrishlass.

Untrue. The bulk of the NRA's funding comes from membership fees. Granted the NRAILA gets some funding from corporations, the amount of political contributions is limited by law.

He's a doofus talking smack

Fer sure. Libtards seldom know what they're talking about.

Bunch of friggin Contard morons on this thread who are in denial or don't realize that gun manufacture give money to the NRA and benefit from NRA activities.

You're a sore loser libstain. Keyword in your Yahoo fluff piece was "could" go find it.

Then lick your wounds and try another thread

 

[JLW]

With all due respect Lass, before you call someone a dumb ass, you had better understand what you are responding to. Did I write members? I did not. I wrote patrons, i.e. which include the gun and arms manufacturers where the bulk of NRA funding comes from.

The dumbass is clear
But alas
It is the SassyIrishlass.

Untrue. The bulk of the NRA's funding comes from membership fees. Granted the NRAILA gets some funding from corporations, the amount of political contributions is limited by law.

He's a doofus talking smack

Fer sure. Libtards seldom know what they're talking about.

Bunch of friggin Contard morons on this thread who are in denial or don't realize that gun manufacture give money to the NRA and benefit from NRA activities.

You're a sore loser libstain. Keyword in your Yahoo fluff piece was "could" go find it.

Then lick your wounds and try another thread

Christ...what a bunch of conservative snowflakes on tonight. Can't make an argument with out ad hominem attacks. I am forced to respond on your base level.

I've got better things to do than to argue with an overly emotional poster.

 

[elongobardi]

So if the laundry soap eating generation lacks the wisdom and maturity to qualify for the 2nd Amendment, then why are they allowed to vote for who will have their finger on the nuclear missile launch button?

They won’t change that. The soap eaters will vote the way they are told.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Untrue. The bulk of the NRA's funding comes from membership fees. Granted the NRAILA gets some funding from corporations, the amount of political contributions is limited by law.

He's a doofus talking smack

Fer sure. Libtards seldom know what they're talking about.

Bunch of friggin Contard morons on this thread who are in denial or don't realize that gun manufacture give money to the NRA and benefit from NRA activities.

You're a sore loser libstain. Keyword in your Yahoo fluff piece was "could" go find it.

Then lick your wounds and try another thread

Christ...what a bunch of conservative snowflakes on tonight. Can't make an argument with out ad hominem attacks. I am forced to respond on your base level.

I've got better things to do than to argue with an overly emotional poster.

Go find your safe space then. Better luck next time.

 

[JGalt]

Gun massacres are too good for business. They can't let legislation that might reduce the number of them stay in place.

The NRA will never let a little blood stand in the way of a good profit for its patrons.

Exactly how does a NRA member profit from being a member? What a dumb ass

With all due respect Lass, before you call someone a dumb ass, you had better understand what you are responding to. Did I write members? I did not. I wrote patrons, i.e. which include the gun and arms manufacturers where the bulk of NRA funding comes from.

The dumbass is clear
But alas
It is the SassyIrishlass.

Untrue. The bulk of the NRA's funding comes from membership fees. Granted the NRAILA gets some funding from corporations, but the amount of political contributions is limited by law.

The NRA had revenues of 400 million dollars in 2015 of which 164 million came from its members. The remaining amounts came from its patrons, sponsors and larger donors i.e. gun and ammo manufacturers, among other sources.

The real reason the NRA wins

Even if the NRA were 90% funded by the gun industry, why would that even matter? Regardless of who is funding the NRA, if they are fighting for a constitutional civil right that I want to see protected, I personally don't care where their money comes from or how much they receive.

Does complaining about any alleged corporate control over the NRA convince anyone to let their memberships expire? Does it convince anyone that the NRA somehow lacks legitimacy?

 

[JGalt]

Exactly how does a NRA member profit from being a member? What a dumb ass

With all due respect Lass, before you call someone a dumb ass, you had better understand what you are responding to. Did I write members? I did not. I wrote patrons, i.e. which include the gun and arms manufacturers where the bulk of NRA funding comes from.

The dumbass is clear
But alas
It is the SassyIrishlass.

Untrue. The bulk of the NRA's funding comes from membership fees. Granted the NRAILA gets some funding from corporations, the amount of political contributions is limited by law.

He's a doofus talking smack

Fer sure. Libtards seldom know what they're talking about.

Bunch of friggin Contard morons on this thread who are in denial or don't realize that gun manufacture give money to the NRA and benefit from NRA activities.

Who really cares? I like the firearms industry.

 

[JGalt]

Untrue. The bulk of the NRA's funding comes from membership fees. Granted the NRAILA gets some funding from corporations, the amount of political contributions is limited by law.

He's a doofus talking smack

Fer sure. Libtards seldom know what they're talking about.

Bunch of friggin Contard morons on this thread who are in denial or don't realize that gun manufacture give money to the NRA and benefit from NRA activities.

You're a sore loser libstain. Keyword in your Yahoo fluff piece was "could" go find it.

Then lick your wounds and try another thread

Christ...what a bunch of conservative snowflakes on tonight. Can't make an argument with out ad hominem attacks. I am forced to respond on your base level.

I've got better things to do than to argue with an overly emotional poster.

There is no argument about the Second Amendment, and there is no discussion. It stands as it is and there's nothing you or anyone else can say or do to change that.

The sad truth is that my Second Amendment right to protect this constitutional republic, trumps your first amendment right to destroy it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The hypocrisy of conservatives in telling, but not surprising.

The suit claims that the Florida measure violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, that by prohibiting adults under 21 from purchasing firearms manifests as an undue burden to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Which is fine, a 14th Amendment violation claim has at least some merit.

However, when gay Americans likewise made a 14th Amendment violation claim when states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, most on the right rejected the argument on “states’ rights” grounds – that the states alone should decide such matters.

If conservatives wish to be consistent in their advocacy of “states’ rights,” then they should respect the ‘will of the people’ of the states to regulate firearms as they see fit, and not challenge those measures in court.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[JGalt]

The hypocrisy of conservatives in telling, but not surprising.

The suit claims that the Florida measure violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, that by prohibiting adults under 21 from purchasing firearms manifests as an undue burden to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Which is fine, a 14th Amendment violation claim has at least some merit.

However, when gay Americans likewise made a 14th Amendment violation claim when states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, most on the right rejected the argument on “states’ rights” grounds – that the states alone should decide such matters.

If conservatives wish to be consistent in their advocacy of “states’ rights,” then they should respect the ‘will of the people’ of the states to regulate firearms as they see fit, and not challenge those measures in court.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Whut? The right to bear firearms is a constitutionally-protected Second Amendment right.

There is no constitutionally-protected "right" to sodomize your neighbor.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I'm all for this lawsuit. It needs to happen now. The handgun ban until 21 needs to go as well. But...

The legislation we really need from the USSC is what are we going to use as the age of an adult. We have so many stupid laws right now we need a serious discussion on when someone is of age to take on the full responsiblity of being an adult.

Military service- 18
Adult prison- 18
Drinking- 21
Healthcare- 26
Voting- 18
Consent to sex- 18
Buying a gun- 21

I think we need a ruling that at 18 you're an adult. You get the full responsibility and benefits of being one.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Read the NRA lawsuit aiming to shut down gun control law

thanks for posting that

 

[jon_berzerk]

I'm all for this lawsuit. It needs to happen now. The handgun ban until 21 needs to go as well. But...

The legislation we really need from the USSC is what are we going to use as the age of an adult. We have so many stupid laws right now we need a serious discussion on when someone is of age to take on the full responsiblity of being an adult.

Military service- 18
Adult prison- 18
Drinking- 21
Healthcare- 26
Voting- 18
Consent to sex- 18
Buying a gun- 21

I think we need a ruling that at 18 you're an adult. You get the full responsibility and benefits of being one.

it is relatively new that the age of majority has been lowered from 21 to 18

maybe we need to revisit raising the age to 21 perhaps 26 as obama says

immaturity was used as the reasoning to bar the sale of handguns to persons

18-20 case number 11-10959-cv0

NRA v ATF

 

[jon_berzerk]

this law is different then the handgun sales ban to 18-19-20 year olds

since in the handgun sales ban a person that age could still have a handgun just not buy one

in this instance the class of persons targeted must forfeit the right to keep such arms or face criminal actions to include a felony

and large fines


Second, these laws do not strike the core of the Second Amendment because they do not prevent 18-to-20-year-olds from possessing and using handguns “in defense of hearth and home.” See id. at 628–30, 635; cf. Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1255–58 (applying intermediate scrutiny to D.C. registration

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions\pub\11/11-10959-CV0.wpd.pdf

 

[busybee01]

I'm all for this lawsuit. It needs to happen now. The handgun ban until 21 needs to go as well. But...

The legislation we really need from the USSC is what are we going to use as the age of an adult. We have so many stupid laws right now we need a serious discussion on when someone is of age to take on the full responsiblity of being an adult.

Military service- 18
Adult prison- 18
Drinking- 21
Healthcare- 26
Voting- 18
Consent to sex- 18
Buying a gun- 21

I think we need a ruling that at 18 you're an adult. You get the full responsibility and benefits of being one.

due process with the confiscation of firearms if some jackass government weenie thinks you may be a threat because your hateful bitch ex wife is pissed at you.[/QUOTE]

I would disagree. When you look at drinking and buying a gun, those activities can get people hurt. Either yourself or others. The other activities do not physically hurt anyone. The government has every right to determine at what age you get certain benefits.

 

[busybee01]

Most of the NRA lawsuit is going nowhere. The only thing they have a shot at is the taking of guns from people deemed to be mentally ill or a danger to others. It will come down to whether there are safeguards that protect people's rights. If there is, all of it will be thrown out.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Read the NRA lawsuit aiming to shut down gun control law

thanks for posting that

the lawsuit is different then the handgun one from a few years ago

that the NRA lost in the 5 circuit

 

[jon_berzerk]

seems to me it should be pretty easy to get around the ar confiscation law

simply turn in the stripped lower

that is the only part of an ar that is considered the "firearm"

it is the only serial numbered part

save all the other parts barrel stock bolt springs hammer everything

then simply attach them to a completed 80 percent lower billet

no serial number no lookie lookie

not a crime either

 

[Zorro!]

Where was the NRA during the Legislative debate? I didn't hear much from them. They should have been raising holy hell.

Gun owners and defenders of the 2A raised hell in Rhode Island

Rhode Island Defends 2A with overwhelming support.

Looks like the NRA is going to kick some ass in CA too.

First Amendment Challenge to L.A.'s Requirement That Contractors Disclose Ties to NRA

Just filed yesterday, and should prevail.

Courthouse News Service:

The ordinance states,

Each [contract] Awarding Authority shall require that a Person fully disclose prior to entering into a Contract, all of its and its Subsidiaries' contracts with or Sponsorships of the NRA.

The disclosure required under this section shall continue throughout the term of the Contract, thereby obligating a Person to update its disclosure each time the Person or its Subsidiary contracts with or enters into a Sponsorship with the NRA.​

And it makes clear that it is motivated by the NRA's political advocacy, as you can see from the recitals at the start of the ordinance (e.g., "the NRA leadership, with the financial support of its dues paying members, continues to lobby against gun safety regulations").

But the Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment generally bans (see O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake (1997)) the government from "retaliating against a contractor, or a regular provider of services, for the exercise of rights of political association"—precisely what the ordinance implicitly threatens.

And the Court has also made clear that compulsory disclosures of political association is also presumptively unconstitutional, precisely because they deter such association, see Shelton v. Tucker (1960), a case requiring such disclosures of schoolteachers:

Even if there were no disclosure to the general public, the pressure upon a teacher to avoid any ties which might displease those who control his professional destiny would be constant and heavy. Public exposure, bringing with it the possibility of public pressures upon school boards to discharge teachers who belong to unpopular or minority organizations, would simply operate to widen and aggravate the impairment of constitutional liberty.​

That case involved government employees, but the logic of O'Hare,which applied government employee First Amendment precedents to government contractors, makes clear that it applies to government contractors, too.

So the ordinance violates the First Amendment just because of its disclosure requirement alone. And it also invites First Amendment discrimination lawsuits by individual contractors who are denied contracts after they disclose that they deal with the NRA, just as an employer's asking applicants to disclose their religion would invite religious discrimination lawsuits by applicants who aren't hired (and even in the absence of specific regulations barring such question).

Naturally, the same would be true if a city asked companies whether they do business with or sponsor the NAACP, the ACLU, or any other group because of the group's political advocacy. This principle applies when the disfavored groups are selected because of what they say or what laws they support.

First Amendment Challenge to L.A.'s Requirement That Contractors Disclose Ties to NRA