ACLU Supports NRA in NY Attack

SFC13557

NES Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
4,229
Likes
5,436
Location
Central Ma.
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
In a WSJ editorial today David Cole, National Legal Director of the ACLU calls NY's attack on the NRA unprecedented and an extreme action. He notes if this action is allowed and successful than a AG in a Red State can take similar action against the ACLU, Common Cause, Everytown for gun safety, etc. NY bit off more than they could chew and with the ACLU on our side it don't look good for the repressive's. Pay backs a bitch.
 
While I will welcome with some skepticism the ACLU's entry, lets not forget the lawsuit against the NRA has to do with some questionable financial dealings that enriched Wayne LaPierre.

I would like to say the suit is without merit, but I suspect there is reason to believe there may have been some hanky panky going on with the books and funding Wayne's lavish lifestyle.

This suit would be very similar to the one that dissolved The Trump Foundation and cost Trump 2 million of his own money for using his foundation for personal gain.
 
While I will welcome with some skepticism the ACLU's entry, lets not forget the lawsuit against the NRA has to do with some questionable financial dealings that enriched Wayne LaPierre.

I would like to say the suit is without merit, but I suspect there is reason to believe there may have been some hanky panky going on with the books and funding Wayne's lavish lifestyle.

This suit would be very similar to the one that dissolved The Trump Foundation and cost Trump 2 million of his own money for using his foundation for personal gain.
We all agree Wayne and his cronies need to go but this lawsuit has nothing to do with his spending. The NY AG and Governor hate the NRA and it's members and are trying to take advantage of Wayne's misdeeds. Remember a few years ago when Cuomo had the news conference when a few Republican Senators were trying to get the reciprocity bill passed? He stated that even if the bill passed NY would not recognize the law and would arrest any non-resident caught carrying a firearm in his State. He stated that only folks who displayed New York values were welcome in his pathetic State. NY Values include infanticide, no recognition of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, oppressive taxation, emptying the jails, hatred of the Police and Military, etc.
 
NY is trying vast overreach. If you are a high earner and move out of state, better not travel back to see that world class cancer MD treating you or you are still a taxable resident. Move to another state, then move again within an indeterminate period of time? You guessed it, the first move was only to temporary housing while you remained a NY resident and searched for your long term home and thus still a tax resident of NY. Ditto if you have a vacation home in NY and use it too much, or keep your valuable personal possessions in NY instead of taking them all with you.
 
Holy shit, I'm buying a bunch of lottery tickets today. I do not know of a single instance of ACLU supporting anything 2A.


Not the first time. From 2018

New York State Can’t Be Allowed to Stifle the NRA’s Political Speech
web16-david-cole-2906x2606.jpg

By David Cole, ACLU National Legal Director
AUGUST 24, 2018 |

It’s no secret that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is no fan of the National Rifle Association. A mailer his campaign sent to New York voters this week proclaims, in bold letters: “If the NRA goes bankrupt, I will remember them in my thoughts and prayers.”

There’s nothing wrong with the governor singling out a political adversary for criticism, or even mockery. That’s just politics, and the NRA itself is no stranger to hardball tactics.

But in a lawsuit the NRA filed against Cuomo this spring, the organization contends that he did more than criticize it. The NRA alleges that Cuomo and top members of his administration abused their regulatory authority over financial institutions to threaten New York banks and insurers that associate with the NRA or other “gun promotion” groups, and that those threats have jeopardized the NRA’s access to basic insurance and banking services in New York.
In the ACLU’s view, targeting a nonprofit advocacy group and seeking to deny it financial services because it promotes a lawful activity (the use of guns) violates the First Amendment. Because we believe the governor’s actions, as alleged, threaten the First Amendment rights of all advocacy organizations, the ACLU on Friday filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the NRA’s right to have its day in court.

The state has asked the court to dismiss the case without even permitting discovery into the administration’s actions. Our brief supports the NRA’s right to discovery on its First Amendment claims. To be clear, the ACLU does not oppose reasonable restrictions on guns (you can read more about that here). Our position in this case has nothing to do with our opinions on the NRA’s policies — it’s about the First Amendment rights of all organizations to engage in political advocacy without fear that the state will use its regulatory authority to penalize them for doing so.

Political advocacy organizations like the NRA (or the ACLU or Planned Parenthood) need basic business services, like insurance and banking, to operate. The NRA says that the state, using its regulatory powers over those industries, is threatening financial companies that do business with the NRA.
The NRA points to both public and non-public actions taken by the Cuomo administration to penalize it for its views. State officials issued press releases and sent threatening letters to banks and insurance companies, and also allegedly communicated “backchannel threats” to companies with ties to the NRA, warning that they would face regulatory action if they failed to end their relationships with the organization.

If the NRA’s charges are true, the state’s actions would clearly violate the First Amendment. Public officials are, of course, free to criticize groups with which they disagree. But they cannot use their regulatory authority to penalize advocacy groups by threatening companies that do business with those groups. And here the state has admitted, in its own words, that it focused on the NRA and other groups not because of any illegal conduct, but because they engage in “gun promotion” — in other words, because they advocate a lawful activity.

Substitute Planned Parenthood or the Communist Party for the NRA, and the point is clear. If Cuomo can do this to the NRA, then conservative governors could have their financial regulators threaten banks and financial institutions that do business with any other group whose political views the governor opposes. The First Amendment bars state officials from using their regulatory power to penalize groups merely because they promote disapproved ideas.
In April 2018, the New York State Department of Financial Services sent “guidance letters” to banks and insurance companies. It wrote, “The Department encourages its insurers to continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations… The Department encourages regulated institutions to review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, and to take prompt actions to managing these risks and promote public health and safety.”

Two weeks later, the department announced consent decrees with two insurers, imposing millions of dollars in fines and barring them from selling consumer insurance products that are endorsed by the NRA. Days later, the NRA says that its corporate insurance carrier severed ties and said it would not provide the NRA with insurance at any price.

The NRA says that it has since had serious difficulty replacing its corporate insurance because nearly every potential replacement was afraid of being investigated by the state. The NRA also says that numerous banks have withdrawn bids to provide basic financial services because the April letters from the state indicated that any association with the NRA could expose them to regulatory retaliation.

The state argues that even if all of the NRA’s claims are true, the First Amendment doesn’t apply. We disagree, and as we note in our brief, dismissing the NRA case:
would set a dangerous precedent for advocacy groups across the political spectrum. Public officials would have a readymade playbook for abusing their regulatory power to harm disfavored advocacy groups without triggering judicial scrutiny.
There are acceptable measures that the state can take to curb gun violence. But using its extensive financial regulatory authority to penalize advocacy groups because they “promote” guns isn’t one of them.
 
NY is trying vast overreach. If you are a high earner and move out of state, better not travel back to see that world class cancer MD treating you or you are still a taxable resident. Move to another state, then move again within an indeterminate period of time? You guessed it, the first move was only to temporary housing while you remained a NY resident and searched for your long term home and thus still a tax resident of NY. Ditto if you have a vacation home in NY and use it too much, or keep your valuable personal possessions in NY instead of taking them all with you.
Yup, NY screwed all those temp Nurses who deployed to NYC during the beginning of the commie flu by sending them tax bills for their wages. The residents deserve Comrade Bill and Fredo's big brother.
 
Sending donations to ACLU... NOT!

“American” and “Civil Liberties” go well together. Add “Union” and I have my doubts...
 
In a WSJ editorial today David Cole, National Legal Director of the ACLU calls NY's attack on the NRA unprecedented and an extreme action. He notes if this action is allowed and successful than a AG in a Red State can take similar action against the ACLU, Common Cause, Everytown for gun safety, etc. NY bit off more than they could chew and with the ACLU on our side it don't look good for the repressive's. Pay backs a bitch.
holy crap
1598653075241.png
 
Lol. That is awesome. And they're 100% correct if successful that Rs will retaliate.

While he's factually correct, I'm sorry to say that Republicans do not have the balls to retaliate in kind. They're mostly spineless creatures who will cave at the slightest pressure.

f*** New York, but there's no way any red state AG has the balls to return the favor on this.
 
Yes. Have you not been paying attention lately? I stand by the statement: no balls.
Cocaine Mitch has been feeding Senate Donks their own "new rules" for judicial confirmation,
good and hard,
for how many years?
(After explicitly warning them back in the day
that if they discarded the old rules,
they'd find that payback was a bitch).

I don't think the ACLU would lift a cuticle to protect the NRA's legal charter
if they weren't scared <bleep>less that somewhere out there is a pol
willing to stick it to Lefty organizations the same way.
 
The ACLU is certainly no friend to gun owners. But they do pay close attention when "because gunz" rulings are likely to set a precedent against the first or fourth amendments. Here is a thread about where they gave extensive support to a gun owner over a fourth amendment violation.


I think of the ACLU as the type of frenemy where the saying "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" really applies. In many cases, they are against gun rights, but sometimes they will work with gun owners to support a shared goal. And in either case, they are a powerful opponent that everyone else needs to account for. When you keep your enemies close, then at least you know what they are up to.
 
In a WSJ editorial today David Cole, National Legal Director of the ACLU calls NY's attack on the NRA unprecedented and an extreme action. He notes if this action is allowed and successful than a AG in a Red State can take similar action against the ACLU, Common Cause, Everytown for gun safety, etc. NY bit off more than they could chew and with the ACLU on our side it don't look good for the repressive's. Pay backs a bitch.

Or a red state could go after BLM or Planned Parenthood... then they may get the message.
 
Back
Top Bottom