Guns

Los Angeles Demanding That City Contractors Disclose Ties to the NRA

But the new ordinance violates the First Amendment, because it tends to deter (and deliberately so) association with an advocacy group.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

The ordinance, enacted yesterday, 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 "retaliat[ing] 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. But note that this principle applies only when the disfavored groups are selected because of what they say or what laws they support; the analysis would be different if an ordinance focuses on nonspeech actions. Asking companies where they have any contracts for building a border wall, for instance, would not violate the First Amendment, because such building isn't protected by the First Amendment. (Some such queries might in some situations violate other rules, such as those related to federal preemption, but that's a separate matter.)

Advertisement

NEXT: 'Sex Offenders Are Not Second-Class Citizens,' Says Judge While Nixing Alabama Rules on First Amendment Grounds

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does Los Angeles not have a lawyer who would advise them that this ordinance is ultra vires? Or do they see a political advantage in passing ordinances they know to be unconstitutional?

    1. If LA is anything like Chicago then the political halls have become such an echo chamber that they literally think there is nothing wrong with this, including the lawyers who are supposed to tell them what’s wrong with this

    2. It’s just buying a lottery ticket; No matter how “ultra vires” a law might be, there’s a non zero chance that it won’t be struck down for one reason or another.

      Even if it is struck down, unless it’s instantly enjoined, it’s not like they’re going to lose track of who instantly assured them of the lack of such associations, and who kept quiet.

      1. I should add that, since the disfavored organization is the NRA, there’s a lot more than “non-zero” chance that the 9th circuit would find some excuse to uphold this. I’m almost curious to see what excuse they come up with.

        1. Meh. The NRA doesn’t represent my pet hobby, so I’m not alarmed by this.

          Requiring disclosure (i.e., providing more information) is not the same thing as taking action based on the disclosures.

          If (when) someone has a case that they were denied a contract because of association with NRA, that’s concerning.

          I generally favor disclosure of sponsorship of lobbyists. Regardless of which lobbyists, and what specifically they’re lobbying for.

          1. Yeah, I gather that a lot of things don’t alarm you, so long as you approve of the victims.

            “Requiring disclosure (i.e., providing more information) is not the same thing as taking action based on the disclosures.”

            Trivially, sure, but it’s basically the only reason they’d bother demanding the disclosures, so who do you think you’re fooling?

            1. “Yeah, I gather that a lot of things don’t alarm you, so long as you approve of the victims”

              And I’m alone in this, right?

              “Trivially, sure, but it’s basically the only reason they’d bother demanding the disclosures”

              And… what did I say about if (when) that happens? Hint: It was the very next sentence.

              1. So, you’re admitting that the only reason they want the information is to do something illegal with it, but you’re ok with them demanding the information until they get caught doing the illegal thing?

                Not concerned that they might invent a pretext for doing it?

                No, of course you’re not.

                1. “So, you’re admitting that the only reason they want the information is to do something illegal with it”

                  I notice you didn’t quote me for this proposition. Maybe because I didn’t say it?

              2. It’s a bullshit excuse and we and you all know it. “Disclose everything, but we promise not to use the information against you. Note, you will be punished of you don’t disclose.”

                Two weeks later, imagine that I’m not selected for “other reasons”. We all know what other reasons are. But keep lying to yourself.

                1. So, you’re mad at me because I’m not annoyed by something that hasn’t happened?

          2. I generally favor disclosure of sponsorship of lobbyists. Regardless of which lobbyists, and what specifically they’re lobbying for.

            Uh, this has nothing to do with lobbying or lobbyists.

            This is if the city hires a construction company to build a road, and the construction company happens to have a contract with the NRA, regardless of what it’s about, the construction company has to disclose that contract to the city.

            This is about the implicit threat of the city refusing to do business with companies that do business with the NRA.

            1. “Uh, this has nothing to do with lobbying or lobbyists.”

              Come back when you learn how things work.

              1. Go away til you learn how our Constitution works

                1. What if I already know more about than you do?

                  1. Objection. Assumes fact not REMOTELY in evidence.

                    1. ” Assumes fact not REMOTELY in evidence.”

                      We can leave you out without losing anything of significance.

                    2. I accept the fact that I’ll never convince you. Stupidity, after all, is never a self-diagnosed condition.

                    3. “I accept the fact that I’ll never convince you.”

                      It’s good that you accept the fact that you’ll never convince me of a falsehood. Are you open to learning other falsehoods you should stop trying convince people of?

              2. If it was “all lobbying organizations”, you would have a point, James. However, it’s not. It’s one politically unfavored organization. This is one small step removed from a writ of attainder. To the point where I would argue that voting for such a targeted proposal is treason against the constitution.

                1. “If it was “all lobbying organizations”, you would have a point, James. However, it’s not. It’s one politically unfavored organization”

                  Every organization is politically unfavored by someone. I imagine the list would grow over time to become closer to “all lobbying organizations”. Or go away, if the powers-that-be get caught abusing it.

              3. Come back when you learn how things work.

                Oh, I learned how you work about five minutes after you showed up at the VC: you play petty semantic games that you mistakenly think make you look smart.

              4. You are a fucking dope

              5. So if they built a fence for an NRA office that counts as lobbying?

                1. Yeah, I guess that’s his position.

          3. Right….remind me, where did you come down on asking about Citizenship on the Census? Just requiring disclosure, right?

          4. The government simply asking for political affiliation has a chilling effect on free speech, regardless of whether the government ultimately does anything with it; the implicit threat of such action is sufficient.

            1. “The government simply asking for political affiliation has a chilling effect on free speech”

              The government asks you what political affiliation you have every time you register to vote.

          5. Would it alarm you more if the disclosures related to ties to Planned Parenthood or some immigrant rights group?

            1. “Would it alarm you more if the disclosures related to ties to Planned Parenthood or some immigrant rights group?”

              Maybe. There’ve already been attempts to defund PP from Medicaid, despite the fact that the services they provide for Medicaid are both desireable and useful.

              But the other? Not really.

          6. First they came for the NRA, and I did not speak out because it did not represent my pet lobby…..

          7. I appreciate your honesty, JP.

            And I’m sure you’re far from alone.

            But part of the libertarian argument is that you have more to gain in the long run by opposing this sort of government policy because one day it might be your pet hobby in danger of unreasonable government discrimination.

            Do you have anything to gain by taking this chance on a limited upside govt. discriminatiory policy other than pissing off a tribe that you enjoy pissing off?

            If you think that makes it worth it, you definitely would be far from alone.

    3. In my experience (as somebody who has worked with municipal governments in the past), the lawyers absolutely do inform the leadership in the municipality that their intended ordinance is unconstitutional (or otherwise invalid or flawed for a variety of reasons) and the leadership simply ignores the legal advice and passes it anyway. Most of the time, they either think they know better than the lawyers, or they don’t care if it is unconstitutional and they are simply passing the law for political reasons.

      1. Which will continue until people who pass the laws anyway are fined or put in jail, the way Florida law allows.

        1. No, it will continue until some company bids for city work, discloses affiliation or support of the NRA or other disfavored advocacy group, does not win the bid, and brings suit against the city claiming that the disclosed affiliation was the reason their bid was rejected.
          The company will claim monetary damages and the city will settle out of court and pay damages and attorney fees.

          Then, after this happens 6 times, the law will be changed.

          1. No, it won’t. As long as the people who do it to virtue signal aren’t PERSONALLY held responsible, they have no incentive not to do it.

          2. That’s not true because it’s not their money being lost it’s the tax payers and we all know the people who would pass these laws are also the ones least concerned about the taxpayers.

          3. ” does not win the bid, and brings suit against the city claiming that the disclosed affiliation was the reason their bid was rejected.”

            Unless, of course, the city really can, and does, show that the reason the bid was rejected really was because of something else.

            Then, filing nuisance suits against the the city is a reason to permanently disqualify them as a bidder.

      2. Virtue signaling doesn’t cost them a dime personally, and if the city gets stuck with the legal bills, oh well.

      3. As a former Assistant City Attorney, my experience is that some will give an honest opinion, but others (especially those at the top) will offer a rationale that lets the elected officials hear what they want to hear. That’s how those at the top got there and stay there.

    4. Of course they do. Decades have taught the Statist Left that they get credit for passing laws that please their base, and nothing happens to them (or not very often) when they put the government they work for in the position of having to pay out large damage claims.

      1. Which is why we need a “New Texas” amendment that places politicians into a special legal group, and makes it legal to physically chastise them when they go off the reservation.

        1. I once read a science fiction story in which, among the many planets that had been colonized, was once settled by Texans and called Lone Star. On Lone Star, it was a defense to murder if it could be shown that the decedent was a practicing politician.

          1. It was a defense to a murder charge if the decedent was a practicing politician who had proposed or enacted a law that reduced citizens’ liberty.

            If you kill a politician who proposes a law requiring driving on the right side of the road, the court is unlikely to find that the decedent needed killing.

            -dk

            1. I dunno. General Ne Win, in Burma, decided–overnight!!!–that henceforth, driving would on the right side of the road, rather than the left side. Of course, all the cars were “English” cars (i.e., steering wheel on the right side), so you no longer could safely see ahead while you were driving. Given that it’s been going on for 4+ decades, it looks like Burma’s odd system is here to stay.

              1. Like politicians on Lone Star, dictators are fair game for death, but 100% of the time. This example works in reverse.

          2. Lone Star Planet. Pretty good book, bought it as half of an Ace Double. Later published by itself as “A Planet for Texans”.

            The actual rule was, that it was legal to assassinate a politician as long as you could show he “needed killin'”.

            1. And that was actually a justification for homicide in the Texas legal code for IIRC about a hundred years. Shame we no longer allow it.

            2. You should probably add that the author was H. Beam Piper, whose other works include the SF classic “Little Fuzzy” and a mystery novel, “Murder in the Gunroom”.

              Who killed himself in 1968.

              1. Sad, that. I really liked his works. I can understand his motivations, I nearly did myself in for the same reasons.

                Guys who’ve just been divorced have a remarkably high suicide rate, they, IIRC, account for about half of all suicides in the US.

                If it were women, they’d be doing something about that…

                1. ” I nearly did myself in for the same reasons.”

                  You thought you were going to unable to provide for yourself?

    5. It is rank virtue signaling and a mere tick in the CV of its proponents.

    6. Shows how woke they are. Even if it gets squashed in court, they can still tell their SJW buddies they tried. But the awful courts shut us down and we need to fix the courts so they can’t do that. All just little steps towards tyranny.

    7. It will still have served its purpose. Contractors and their personnel will know that they will be discriminated against for corporate or even personal advocacy for gun rights. It will have a true chilling effect.

      After the law is struck down, the bureaucrats of the city will still know that their political masters will look unkindly on contracts to advocates for gun rights. And – good luck getting that struck down!

    8. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…

      So I started….>>>>>>>> http://www.payshd.com

    9. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour.
      visit this site right here……..>>>>>> http://www.payshd.com

  2. Yeah, very dumb ordinance.

    I forget, what’s the case about fed and state gov’s requiring companies not support Israel’s boycott?

    1. IIRC they can support it, just not participate in it.

    2. apedad: A law requiring contractors not to advocate or lobby for a boycott would be clearly unconstitutional, and I don’t know of any such law that has been enacted.

      A law requiring contractors not to boycott Israeli companies (i.e., not to discriminate in their contracting decisions against Israeli companies) — that would be constitutional, I think, because the actual discrimination is not protected by the First Amendment. I know lower court decisions are split on that, and I’ve been meaning to blog on that, and still hope to in the coming weeks; but in any event, those cases are all about requirements not to discriminate, not requirements not to speak.

      An analogy: A law requiring contractors not to lobby against bans on sexual orientation discrimination would be unconstitutional. A law requiring contractors not to discriminate based on sexual orientation would be constitutional.

      1. How about a law that requires contractors to disclose who they lobbied, and what they lobbied for?

        (with penalties for failing to disclose, or lying, but not for the answers provided if they’re accurate.)

        1. Yup, still unconstitutional. It would have a “chilling effect” ? people would be afraid to join unpopular groups because the government would punish them for it.

          1. Your working theory is that people wouldn’t join the NRA because in L.A., contractors would have to report it when they use the NRA to lobby?

            1. Duh. That’s what a “chilling effect” is.

              Think about- the only reason LA is asking for it is to choose other contractors who don’t support the NRA.

              So then contractors would choose between making money and not making money.

              So they will no longer support the NRA.

              I mean this is simple logic.

              1. “Duh. That’s what a “chilling effect” is.
                Think about- the only reason LA is asking for it is to choose other contractors who don’t support the NRA.”

                Dimwit, it doesn’t say the disclosure has to be before the contractor is selected.

                “I mean this is simple logic.”

                Just right for your simple mind.

                1. “Dimwit, it doesn’t say the disclosure has to be before the contractor is selected.”

                  Yes because most contractors only ever perform a single contract for the city and never bid again. There is additional safety built in because the entire city council by law must have anterograde amnesia.

                  Dear fuck! People born without noses look at you and think “mouth breather”

                2. “You will have to disclose after contracting, and will be known as such before all future contracts.”

                  Seems pretty damned chilling to me.

                  Some of you are getting rrrrreallly confused here. We, The People, tell the government what laws we want, and what form the government will take. Not the other way around.

                  The King is disallowed from using the mechanisms of government from punishing his enemies.

                  1. ” We, The People, tell the government what laws we want, and what form the government will take.”

                    They. The people. of Los Angeles elected the twits they wanted. Someone must have been telling them that they wanted this law.

            2. This law goes rather beyond how you’re describing it.

              “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”

              As written, it isn’t limited to lobbying. You’d have to report if you’d ever done business with the NRA, or any subsidiary had.any arrangement with the NRA .

              Reading it, it’s intended to require any company or individual that does busyness with LA to report almost any interaction with the NRA of a contractual sort.

              This is pretty clear what the aim is:

              “WHEREAS, in 2015, the NRA collected $163 million in membership dues. In
              return for membership in the NRA, members receive an array of benefits and corporate
              discounts to products and services including: home, car, health, and life insurance;
              travel discounts, including vehicle rentals and hotel stays; online privacy and personal
              data protection services; club memberships; and access to an exclusive medical
              network and global security services;”

              They’re aiming to cut the NRA off, if possible, from being able to provide any membership benefits that involve outside companies that might want to do business with LA.

              1. “This law goes rather beyond how you’re describing it.”

                My description of a hypothetical law isn’t accurate? Do you understand hypotheticals?

                1. My description of a hypothetical law isn’t accurate? Do you understand hypotheticals?

                  True, that wouldn’t be the first time you completely made shit up.

                  1. “True, that wouldn’t be the first time you completely made shit up.”

                    Good thing for you weed is legal in Cali, Isn’t it?

        2. Nice to know you support the Klan’s position on disclosing membership in the NAACP. Makes sending the mob to members’ homes soooo much easier.

          Klan yesterday, Antifa today: Democrats always.

          1. “Klan yesterday, Antifa today: Democrats always.”

            If you’re attempting to refer to me, you went 0 for 3.

            1. You support the Klan’s position, so it’s fair to call you out as a Klan supporter.

              1. You’re 0 for 1. Theoretically better than the other guy!

  3. Unfortunately, when it comes to issues of gun control in California, there are all sorts of mental contortions that folks are willing to undertake in order to rationalize the result that serves their political agenda.

    1. When it comes to issues of anything in anywhere in America (and most places beyond), there are all sorts of mental contortions that folks are willing to undertake in order to rationalize the result that serves their political agenda.

      1. California’s special. I can’t imagine anywhere else that would require a new “safety feature” for a common product, a feature that was impossible in practice. And uphold it.

        1. Obviously, your failure of imagination is somehow my fault. I apologize profusely that you can’t imagine any other place where people twist logic and sense to support their preconceived notions.

          1. Oh we know. You demonstrate it quite well.

            1. I apologize that you weren’t gifted with normal intelligence at birth, nor reading ability via education. Totally my fault somehow.

    2. No, no mental contortions are required – once you accept the axiom that private gun ownership is wicked and malum in se criminal, and that it’s a barbaric outrage that it is protected by law. Given that, the anti-gun types are just as straightforward and sincere as the anti-abortion types. The only twistiness is in the by-hook-or-by-crook tactics applied to reduce and ultimately eliminate the Great Evil.

      (Disclosure: I’m pro-choice on both guns and abortion.)

      1. Be very sure of your backstop if you try to combine those views.

        1. I thought we said fourth trimester was cool now!

      2. Good luck finding pro-life people as devious as the anti-gunners.

  4. I am so glad my city has solved the myriad terrible issues currently plaguing all the other afflicted cities across this great land, such that this is the final gross injustice to be made right.

  5. California has gutted the 2nd amendment to the point that they are not worried about respecting any other citizen’s rights.

  6. Why are they worrying about associations with the NRA instead of associations with the Crips?

    1. The NRA doesn’t lean on their enemies for them when needed?

  7. Typically posts like this from EV include something such as, “I’m pleased to announce that my students and I have filed a claim for relief…” or mention of another interested party doing so. Nevertheless, I’ll add this to my list of reasons why I’ll never move to the People’s Republic of California.

  8. O’Hare was wrongly decided.
    The government as business partner should not be held to a higher standard than any other business partner.
    (Are you people who disagree with me going to say that the ordinance would still be unconstitutional if you change “NRA”, to, “KKK”?)

    1. You think it was okay of the the city government to remove O’Hare from their list of contractors because he did not donate to the mayor’s campaign and instead supported his opponent?

    2. “The government as business partner should not be held to a higher standard than any other business partner.”

      Do you hold that opinion regardless of how much of some market the government controls? If the government controlled, say, 100% of the market, wouldn’t that pretty much gut the First Amendment?

      Suppose, for example, the government said that doctors who advocate for gun control can’t receive Medicare reimbursements? Any whiff of a free speech problem there?

      1. “Suppose, for example, the government said that doctors who advocate for gun control can’t receive Medicare reimbursements? Any whiff of a free speech problem there?”

        Reminds me of how medical establishments are asking whether patients own guns or not in their new patient/catching up paperwork. With the increasing nationalization of our medical system there’s no way I’m going to answer that, not least because it’s irrelevant to my yearly check-ups.

        1. IIRC, the questions have been added the the script Medicaid recommends doctors follow, and asking the question is reimbursable.

          1. “the questions have been added the the script Medicaid recommends doctors follow, and asking the question is reimbursable.”

            No, it’s got nothing to do with Medicaid.

            1. It’s being driven by the scripts in EMR software, which Medicaid penalizes participating doctors for not using.

              1. And then your medical record is available to ANY government agency that wants to snoop. Registration list? The feds already have it IF you told your doctor “in confidence” that you own gunz.

    3. I’ll disagree. I think the Shelton case protected teachers from disclosing associations with subversive organizations so I don’t think the perceived opprobrious nature of the organization alone makes penalizing the association constitutional proper.

    4. “(Are you people who disagree with me going to say that the ordinance would still be unconstitutional if you change “NRA”, to, “KKK”?)”

      Yes.

      Is the KKK a legal organization? If yes, then that is where the analysis stops.

    5. The KKK commits criminal acts pretty regularly though so it’s likely no business that could get a government contract would be associated with them anyway so it would be a pointless law that I still would see no reason to support.

      1. “The KKK commits criminal acts pretty regularly though”

        Is the KKK a single organization, or a group of related organizations with similar goals?

  9. No firearms company or gunsmith should sell to or work for the LAPD. Boycott them.

    Heck, don’t sell to ANY California government organization.

    1. If I didn’t live in California, I would buy a gun from every company that refused to sell to any gun control jurisdiction. At least until my wallet stopped me.

      1. Well, how about one of the CA legal Barrett rifles?

        (admittedly, your wallet will protest)

    2. No firearms company or gunsmith should sell to or work for the LAPD. Boycott them.

      Heck, don’t sell to ANY California government organization.

      Firearm companies are for profit companies with investors. And since the NRA can’t use scare tactics anymore now that Obama is not president anymore – sales of firearms have dropped dramatically. If I was an investor in one of these companies and they boycotted California – I would move to remove fire the executives.

      1. True, but the state of california obviously wants to put gun makers out of business. So, it would be in your companies’ long-term best interests to squeeze their nuts til they cry uncle.

      2. And since the NRA can’t use scare tactics anymore now that Obama is not president anymore – sales of firearms have dropped dramatically.

        This is not true. Using NICS data as a proxy (since the vast majority of gun sales go through NICS), you see that while sales did spike to a record high in 2016, there were more sales in both 2017 and 2018 than in any other year of Obama’s presidency, with 2018 coming pretty close to the 2016 record.

        That’s leaving aside that the NRA doesn’t lobby for gun manufacturers (they have their own lobby, called the National Shooting Sports Foundation). It’s a bit like calling AAA the car manufacturer’s lobby.

        1. “This is not true. Using NICS data as a proxy ”

          That may not be a valid way to measure. The same gun sold 15 times would show up as 15 sales.

          1. There are four lines for make, model, caliber, ser num, on the last 4473 I filled out. That’s one NICS check.

            If you are buying a whole gun collection (think estate auction lot), you can attach a list to the 4473. That’s one NICS check on the transfer of two to umpteen guns.

            When I bought my wife a revolver and a shotgun as gifts, that was one 4473, two guns, one TICS + NICS check.

            When my son bought identical rifles, one for himself and one as gift for me, that was two guns, one 4473, one TICS + NICS check.

            The hypothetical that one gun may exchange hands through FFLs multiple times in a year and account for multiple NICS checks on the same gun in one year and the reality that a NICS check can represent multiple guns, probably balances out in the long run if you use NICS checks as a proxy for legal gun transfers.

            1. All true. There are other ways that NICS!=new gun sales. Some states don’t run NICS checks at all for permit holders, some states run NICS checks routinely (on e.g. CCW holders) with no sale involved, etc. Kevin O’brien did a nice summary a couple of years ago.

            2. “The hypothetical that one gun may exchange hands through FFLs multiple times in a year and account for multiple NICS checks on the same gun in one year and the reality that a NICS check can represent multiple guns”

              That’s two reasons why the proposed proxy isn’t accurate.

              1. Proxies are rarely totally accurate, but they can give an idea of what’s going on. A booming gun sales market is going to show more NICS checks than a market where few guns are being sold.

                But I’m curious…if you object to NICS data, what data do you think would work as a better stand in?

      3. Firearm companies make much much more money from the general public than law enforcement. If they all started to stop supporting anti gun police, they different would be made up by better sales from
        Consumers.

        1. I’m pretty sure any arrangement to do that would be an illegal restraint of trade.

          As well as wildly unlikely; While it would hurt the whole industry hardly at all, any single company that broke the boycott would likely make enough sales to California to do pretty well, if they weren’t a really large company.

          1. I’m pretty sure any arrangement to [not sell to governments that are anti-gun] would be an illegal restraint of trade

            Thread summary, government to The People: Lobby for guns? Lose government business. Unless your business involves selling guns to government.

  10. I eagerly await the ACLU’s advocacy against this ordinance. Both on behalf of a client, and on behalf of itself and its own members which could be targeted by other jurisdictions.

    1. I haven’t seen anything from the ACLU on this particular city ordinance, but here’s the ACLU’s condemnation of the State of New York’s attempt to go after companies that do business with the NRA.

  11. One of the reasons I would not be utterly opposed to California secession is my curiosity as to how they would go about replacing the Bill of Rights. It would almost automatically be an object lesson to the rest of the country.

    1. Replacing? You mean destroying.

      1. No, they wouldn’t destroy it directly. The Amendments wouldn’t go away. They’d go Soviet style and there would be 100’s of new amendments added. So many and with so many inherent contradictions that the Courts would have no problems finding a reason to favor one amendment over another. After all the California Constitution is a living document.

        1. They’ve already done that. The CA Constitution is a thousand pages of bullshit. See my comment below…

          1. The main reason for that is how easy it is to amend. Some other states have the same problem… get a majority of voters who actually show up in an off-year election… maybe 15% of the total eligible voters… and you can get your pet amendment added in.

    2. The reason you should oppose California secession is that California is the economic driver of this country and produces 13% of America’s food.

      1. I m willing, eager, to find out what we would do it California seceded.

        First, do you think CA wouldn’t be willing to sell its agricultural products beyond its borders once it became independent? Where do you think that food would go? They can’t eat all that broccoli themselves.

        Second, where would they get the water the need for agriculture? Do you think it would still be “free,” coming from Colorado and elsewhere?

        Do you think they would remain the sixth largest economy in the world, without the financial, diplomatic, and military backing of the United States?

        I’m thinking from secession to Venezuela in a decade.

        1. “Where do you think that food would go?”

          Given that California has about 12% of the U.S. population, I suspect they’d eat most of it 🙂

          1. Personally, I wouldn’t assume they’d get to take all of the state with them, in as much as most of the land area is occupied by people who’d want to stay in the US, and quite a bit is federally owned.

            Maybe a 20-50 mile deep stretch across some of the coast, striking inland a bit more around LA and SF.

            1. I’ll bet the Californians who led the secession movement would have statues commemorating them in 20 or 30 years.

      2. California produces almost no rice, wheat, corn, or any other staple food product.
        California DOES produce significant quantities of fruits and nuts – like grapes and almonds.

        Do you think the rest of the US will notice if the supply of almonds is cut off?
        Do you think California will notice if the supply of wheat and corn is cut off?

        Let’s just say – these things are not the same.

      3. Given that Kalifornia is over 12% of the US population, producing 13% of the US’s food is basically a break even proposition. I’m pretty sure I can survive not having California almonds.

      4. “The reason you should oppose California secession is that California is the economic driver of this country and produces 13% of America’s food.

        40 million California population
        330 million USA population

        So a state with 12% of the US population produces 13% of the food. If they secede, they might keep that 1% of surplus. OMG. I guess I’ll starve . . . or start a victory garden in my backyard.

        1. I did renew my NRA membership. When I can spare it I guess I may again make a donation to NRA-ILA. Carry on LA and Cuomo.

      5. I am OK with California seceding from the US but only under certain conditions:

        1) Unilateral secession will not be permitted. The rest of the United States will have to consent.
        2) Each county in California will vote on whether it remains with the United States or joins the newly independent People’s Republic. Well over 20 counties with large land masses will likely remain in the United States.
        3) The People’s Republic will be liable for a proportionate share of the national debt, about $2.4 trillion.
        4) The United States will retain a corridor to the Pacific near or including San Diego. It will lease key military facilities for the next 100 years. All other military facilities will be closed down and the People’s Republic will become responsible for its own defense.
        5) The People’s Republic will need to pay market rates for water and power from its neighboring states in the US.
        6) To prevent discrimination against and mistreatment of its citizens, the People’s Republic will need to enshrine certain strong rights in its Constitution, including the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, free speech, religious freedom, and the right to equal treatment under the law for all citizens. Violations will be correctable by United States courts for the first 25 years.

    3. I recently read the California Constitution. After wading through tens of pages where one might reasonably find some mention of something like the 2nd Amendment, I finally resorted to search terms for it’s thousands of pages of bullshit. I found no reference to guns, except one, which was some reference to some proceedural thing so boring I’ve forgotten what i was. They have nothing like a 2nd Amendment that I could find. I’m curious whether they never had it, or whether they secretly deleted it, or… I just couldn’t find it.

      1. Nope, as far as I know, they never had it. You can read their original constitution, and it’s not there.

        There 1879 constitution, the current one, has also been lacking in that regard from the start.

        Given that they repeat most of the other elements of the Bill of Rights in both, I’d have to say the omission probably wasn’t accidental.

        1. California’s first gun control laws prohibited the sale of guns to Indians. They had to keep the brown people down.

          The Racist Roots of Gun Control by Clayton Cramer

  12. I really Really REALLY wish there was some legal accountability for passing known unconstitutional laws. Even cops only have qualified immunity. Why should politicians have even better immunity than prosecutors and judges?

    The voting booth just isn’t enough. They deliberately violated their oath to uphold the Constitution with intentionally unconstitutional laws. This kind of crap is worse than a living wage for those unwilling to work.

    And politicians wonder why the public despises them.

    1. There is actually. Soveign immunity is only supposed to apply when state officials are not violating known and clear laws with their actions. So, the people who passed this should be liable for violating the 1st Amendment rights of anyone affect by it. The problem is that sovereign immunity is rarely applied properly and laws that should be held to be clear are not.

  13. “Are you now or were you ever a member of the NRA, or have you ever associated with a member or members of the NRA, or anyone sympathetic to the NRA, at any point in time?”

  14. Some people are betting on the NRA.
    Some people are betting on LA.
    I can’t bet until I get the point spread, but I’m rooting for LA.
    That progressive city is wise enough to know disarming the masses is the best and quickest way to a socialist slave state or at least a municipality with a high crime rate through shooting.
    So, can someone out there give what the Vegas line is?

    1. I think there will be two games, 9th circuit and then SCOTUS

      I’m betting LA in the 9th circuit battle, The are crazy and will invent something to justify.

      At SCOTUS I’m betting NRA but in a close game 5-4. Roberts is shakey though and the 4 lib SCOTUS judges are basically an extension of the 9th circuit.

  15. You would think with the hundred thousand other problems LA has currently contractors who belong to the NRA or give them money would be the least of their worries.

  16. Los Angeles, in my experience, doesn’t grok the Second Amendment so I’m not surprised they don’t grok the First Amendment either.

  17. How does this statute differ from the state statutes requiring contractors not to boycott Israel? Or do you believe such statutes suffer from a similar constitutional defect?

    1. One is a federal commerce law.

  18. IANAL, but would NAACP v Alabama apply?

    Alabama attempted to obtain membership lists via subpoena. Not exactly the same here, almost looks like trying to work around it.

  19. Let’s see them instead demand contractors disclose their connections to organizations that advocate for sexual deviancy to be celebrated. Homosexual men do more damage to society with their genitals than every gun ever made has done.

    1. What organizations would those be, Pat?

      1. Nearly every major corporation? Anyone who celebrated “pride” or whatever the LGBTAJDKJVCMER agenda is these days.

  20. Another example of where the LEFT and the Democrats do not respect our traditions or law.

    They are targeting people for what they believe in.

  21. It’s California. “Constitution? We don’t need no steenking Constitution!”

  22. This sounds less like a real ordinance and more like a law-school hypothetical – “spot the constitutional problems!”

    1. Seriously. They probably should have called it the “Unconstitutional animus act of 2019”; 3/4 of the ordinance at least is devoted to making it clear they hate the NRA.

  23. Is it worth listening to some bullshit I’d scan and bypass?
    Transcript or STFU.
    You $2 donation is falling fast.

    CLICK HERE…?????? http://www.Aprocoin.com

  24. I’m a Dem and not a gun guy but that ordinance is chilling.

  25. Well the NRA is not without means so they will challenge this and it is obviously unconstitutional. Imagine having to disclose gasp, associations with the NAACP or Black Lives Matter.

    Will the 9th invent some excuse? Sure they will. Then it will slowly meander to SCOTUS with the newly invented Roberts-Kennedy being the swing vote. The 4 lib SCOTUS judges don’t give a crap about he constitution. Has anyone seen RBG lately?

    1. There’s a movie coming out titled “Weekend at RBG’s”

  26. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here…… >>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  27. What is the difference between this and the anti-BDS contractor provisions that are en vogue?

    1. The “anti-BDS contractor provisions” are a reminder to contractors that they are legally obligated to comply with an existing Federal commerce law.

  28. Jesus. And some people think we’re NOT in the middle of a cold civil war already… This isn’t the kind of shit that happens when a country is just humming along. This level of animosity and literally trying to use the state to bludgeon your enemies to death only happens before some serious shit goes down.

    I’m just waiting for somebody to be caned in congress…

    1. I would argue that caning in Congress back in the day was actually good. It let off steam and probably led to people being more cooperative once they found out that Congressman Jackson wasn’t screwing around.

  29. Who are the real fascists?

  30. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here…….2citypays.com

  31. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k —->> http://www.payshd.com

  32. Once you accept the axiom that private gun ownership is wicked and malum in se criminal, and that it’s a barbaric outrage that it is protected by law.

  33. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here……. http://www.2citypays.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.