Brickbat: Are You Now or Have You Ever Been?

Chris Dorney / Dreamstime.com

The Los Angeles City Council has unanimously voted to require those who do business with the city to disclose any ties to the NRA. That includes both contracts with the NRA and sponsorships.

Comments

[Rat on a train]

I hate LA.

[Dan S.]

Isn’t singling out the NRA for special reporting requirements illegal discrimination?

[rudehost]

It sounds an awful lot like a bill of attainder.

[Sigivald]

… no? Not even close, honestly?

But it is gonna be hard to tell apart from governmental viewpoint discrimination, on the grounds that “disclosure” of relations with one specified civil liberties organization can have no other likely motive than to discourage same or allow it to be punished.

(A bill of attainder is a law that declares someone guilty of a crime.

This is … not a bill of attainder. It’s not even vaguely like one in any way.)

[Fist of Etiquette]

The NRA should ask members to sign a pact not to have ties with Los Angeles, Two can play at that game!

[loveconstitution1789]

The federal government should require all grants be denied to states and cities when these jurisdictions enact unconstitutional statutes.

Los Angeles would flip out because they have so many people on welfare and food stamps.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Hey those fine folks are the ones who put and keep Maxine Waters in office, you know.

[Kivlor]

Does this mean that in deep red cities we can make people disclose if they have ever been affiliated with leftist organizations, like the Democratic Party, media organizations, unions, etc?

[Tony]

I’m really curious about this… When FOX News pickles your brain, do they add dill? What is the traditional spice melange for pickled human brain?

[loveconstitution1789]

Look at Tony the troll.

[El Oso]

I’d rather not…

[vek]

And this is the thing: The leftists think it is acceptable for them to do something insane like there, whereas I could never see the right doing something like this… And if they ever do, it will purely be in retaliation because of the left stepping up their offensive against them.

[Jerryskids]

Is there a requirement that city employees disclose any ties to the NRA or any other organization? Maybe somebody should propose such an ordinance and see if the unions howl.

[Cy]

Someone in California is wiping their ass with the US Constitution?

Am I crazy here, or is this a clear violation of the 2nd?

[Kivlor]

More likely a violation of the 1st, but honestly, we gave up much of the 1st decades ago

[Alcibiades]

Don’t think so, the FA seems to me to be in pretty good shape. FA cases that end up at SCOTUS are often resolved unanimously in favor of freedom of expression and further strengthen FA jurisprudence.

[Anomalous]

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution says “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

Article 1, Section 9 of the California Constitution says “A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed.”

[loveconstitution1789]

+1

[Sigivald]

… why do people keep imagining this is a bill of attainder?

It doesn’t claim to turn anything into a criminal conviction by legislative action.

It can’t be a bill of attainder. It’s not even like one in any meaningful way.

(It might well be – and ought to be taken as – a threat to punish contractors with denial of business if they admit to such connections.

But that’s a viewpoint discrimination problem under the First Amendment, not a Bill of Attainder.)

[Adans smith]

So, freedom of speech and association is dead in dead in L.A. ?

[geo1113]

LA should take the next step and disarm their police force. How can you be anti-gun if you buy guns to arm the police.

[JWatts]

They aren’t absolutist in their anti-gun position. They just don’t want the hoi polloi to have guns. Their perfectly ok with their security and the police having guns.

[Michael Ejercito]

Why do they want police to have guns?

Is it because they habitaully gun down unarmed black men?

If so, that means they should also want the Crips to have guns.

[sarcasmic]

They want police to have guns because they believe the police use their guns to protect the public. When the truth is that the police carry guns to protect themselves from the public. And to execute peasants to fail to obey.

[D-Pizzle]

Don’t forget those damned dogs.

[KiwiDude]

Well they were all coming straight at them. All tongues out and tails wagging, thats enough to panic any highly trained warrior

[sarcasmic]

It’s so the city knows if businesses taking city money are spending it on the evil NRA. I imagine if conservatives enacted a similar measure requiring disclosure of ties to Planned Parenthood there would be national outrage. Principals, not principles.

[Ordinary Person]

If govt can blacklist the people who object to the practices of the hard right govt in Israel then you can bet where this is going.

[damikesc]

Whos been blacklisted?

Specific examples, please.

[Jerry B.]

Here’s one.

Bank Boycott

Search “BDS Movement” for more.

[Rossami]

That doesn’t answer the question yet, Jerry. The church’s pension fund did boycott Israel (probably as part of the BDS Movement) but that article does not allege that anyone at the government blacklisted the church’s pension fund as a result. To answer damikesc’s request, you’d have to show actual government retaliation against someone who participated in BDS.

The closest I can find to that is the (non-governmental) condemnation of a Univ of Mich professor who retracted a letter of recommendation after finding that the student hoped to use it for a position in Israel. From what I’ve read, most of the condemnation has been allegations that the professor is using BDS as a pretext for anti-semitism and/or that the part of the BDS platform that calls for academic boycotts is a fundamental contradiction to the principle of academic freedom.

At last count, there were 21 states that passed some sort of resolution condemning BDS but I’m not aware of any of those containing actionable penalties, much less of any penalties being applied and upheld by the courts.

[Alcibiades]

Prof. Volokh should chime in here on the legality of this requirement.

[Tom Bombadil]

Allie Oop, and Jumanji!! Kavanaugh slam dunks on the LA City Council.

Should be the first of many suck-my-dick decisions in his long career.

[damikesc]

Yet again, Progs prove that they didnt dislike McCarthyism. Just its target.

[Ordinary Person]

Why would they unilaterally disarm if Republicans do shit like this?

[damikesc]

Youre aware its not Republicans doing this, right?

And Democrat Palmer dramatically did McCarthyism far more harshly than McCarthy did.

[Michael Ejercito]

Why are they more scared of the NRA than the Crips and the Bloods?

[sarcasmic]

NRA members vote.

[Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless]

The Los Angeles City Council has unanimously voted to require those who do business with the city to disclose any ties to the NRA.

“It’s not unconstitutional because nobody likes the NRA!”

[Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless]

In other, unrelated news: Study Reveals U.N.’s War On Narcotics Is A Failure

The United Nations’ drug strategy of the past 10 years has been a failure, according to a major report by the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), which has called for a major rethinking of global policy on illegal narcotics.

The report claims that UN efforts to eliminate the illegal drug market by 2019 through a “war on drugs” approach has had scant effect on global supply while having negative effects on health, human rights, security and development.

Which means: we need to build a wall to hide ourselves from the effects of our own(*) policies!

(*)Since they pretty much follow the same UN policy.

[loveconstitution1789]

This smells like a lawsuit.

A big one too.

[Rich]

require those who do business with the city to disclose any ties to the NRA.

“I plead the Fifth, and by the Fifth I mean the Second. Anyway isn’t it the business of the LAPD to determine any such ties?”

[Quo Usque Tandem]

As prior comments clearly attest this is not Constitutional; however, given the demographics of LA [Maxine Waters, after all] they are assuming there will be enough sympathy for this travesty to override any such concerns. I mean the Constitution, that sadly outdated document, once protected slavery, right?

[loveconstitution1789]

Hey, if the USA can ban slavery from the Constitution we can surely keep Lefty slavers from fully taking over.

[Don't look at me!]

If a ratty piece of paper is standing between you and your goals of power, the first thing you need to do is get rid of that piece of paper.

[Ben of Houston]

It might be constitutional if they applied it to all political groups. In fact, it might be proper for them to do so, as a matter of determining conflicts of interest. However, applying it solely to one group is absurd.

[KevinP]

The dark cloud of intolerance is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

NRA Sues New York for Punishing Financial Institutions Doing Business With Group

Quotes:
The National Rifle Association on Friday sued the state of New York for fining and coercing financial institutions until they severed their connections to the gun-rights group.

Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo and the Department of Financial Services, the state financial regulatory agency, engaged in a “blacklisting campaign” against banks and insurance companies who did business with the NRA, infringing upon the group’s constitutional right to “speak freely about gun-related issues and defend the Second Amendment”.

The NRA presented an April letter from Maria Vullo, the DFS’s superintendent, warning banks about the “reputational risk” of doing business with gun-rights groups. The state also pressured the companies behind the scenes.

“Directed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, this campaign involves selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats with a singular goal?to deprive the NRA and its constituents of their First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related issues and defend the Second Amendment,” the complaint states.

[darkflame]

Not that I agree with this in any way shape or form, or that I doubt for a second that once the council know who’s NRA in LA that they’ll try to use that knowledge to harass the nonbelievers, but as the law stands now, does it violate a bill of attainder, since they’re only asking for companies to disclose ties? Legitimately asking.

[Rossami]

Unless there’s a punishment explicitly associated with the law, I don’t think there credible argument that this violates the prohibition against bills of attainder.

I think the challenges are on much stronger ground based on the chilling effect this will inevitably have on clearly protected political speech. As someone else said above, those same LA councilmen would be up in arms if someone passed a similar law demanding contacts or sponsorships with Planned Parenthood or the Sierra Club.

[darkflame]

Thanks, that’s pretty much in line with what I was thinking.

[Dillinger]

bit of a free association violation, no?