Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-26-2018, 12:35 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default ACLU DEFENDS THE NRA AGAINST CUOMO’S ‘BLACKLISTING CAMPAIGN’

ACLU DEFENDS THE NRA AGAINST ANDREW CUOMO’S
‘BLACKLISTING CAMPAIGN’

Daily Caller. Aug 25, 2018
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/25/ac...against-cuomo/
Quote:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defended the National Rifle
Association (NRA) by opposing the New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s
attempts to put the gun advocacy group out of business.

The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in federal court on Saturday, weighing
in on the on-going battle between the Democrat and the NRA.


Did Hell just Freeze Over ?


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-26-2018, 12:49 PM
The Duke's Avatar
The Duke The Duke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Inland Empire
Posts: 279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If they were always that philosophically consistent, I would have a lot more respect for the ACLU
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-26-2018, 12:51 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,312
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I guess something so obvious can't be ignored.
Now we'll see if they can recover in New York or have to set up shop elsewhere.Insurers in New York even long time insurers for the NRA will continue to be bullied by the New York political bosses and DFS.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-26-2018, 12:54 PM
MJB's Avatar
MJB MJB is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 4,079
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We shall see if this helps
__________________
One life don't blow it!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-26-2018, 2:03 PM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 9,840
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

New York State Can’t Be Allowed to Stifle the NRA’s Political Speech
By David Cole, ACLU Legal Director


-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-26-2018, 4:18 PM
gcvt's Avatar
gcvt gcvt is offline
Do you like beer Senator?
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco :(
Posts: 10,516
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Someone should post this over on Democratic Underground and link us to the **** show
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
I want to be Princess Anastasia today because I feel pretty
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuarterBoreGunner View Post
Kes is really just an errand boy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
I am NOT...anything other than a schmuck...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-26-2018, 5:09 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,177
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default


Well, at least they had the guts to admit this is nothing more than self interest.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-26-2018, 5:31 PM
WWDHD? WWDHD? is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 1,661
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The ACLU is right this time. Whichever one is least likely: a broken clock being right twice a day or the blind squirrel eventually finding a nut- that's what this is.
__________________
NRA & CRPA member
semi-docile tax payer
amateur survivalist

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-26-2018, 5:31 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,981
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustoff31 View Post
Well, at least they had the guts to admit this is nothing more than self interest.
Exactly
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.

I'm thinking tactics like those used by Cuomo are the sort of things that lead to civil war!

As it now stands we have 34 governorships and or state legislatures!
Our good friends in Louisanna have already punished Citibank and Bank of America for their anti gun agendas.
How long will it be before a free state retaliates more against corporations like those?
Maybe something along the lines of any corporation headquartered in New York will not be allowed to do business in a GOP led state.
__________________
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand

"LIARS MAKE
THE BEST PROMISES"
Pierce Brown
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-26-2018, 6:56 PM
Wordupmybrotha's Avatar
Wordupmybrotha Wordupmybrotha is offline
From Anotha Motha
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 3,902
iTrader: 50 / 100%
Default

I think I see a pig flying over yonder.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-28-2018, 7:10 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 526
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wordupmybrotha View Post
I think I see a pig flying over yonder.
It may not be a pig, but it's pink and oinking.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-28-2018, 3:48 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,038
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ACLU having a civil war over supporting the NRA

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...nternally.html
Shortly before the American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief in support of the National Rifle Association on Friday, David Cole, the ACLU’s national legal director, sent out a short email to staff. Cole explained that he felt that New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo had “explicitly target[ed] the NRA” based on its “constitutionally protected political advocacy” by advising banks and insurers not to do business with the pro-gun group. “If the state can penalize gun promotion advocacy groups by threatening their service providers,” Cole continued, “it can do the same to other groups”—including Black Lives Matter. Thus, the ACLU had decided to urge the courts to “carefully scrutinize” whether Cuomo has tried to unconstitutionally punish the NRA based on “hostility to [its] viewpoint.”

Within hours, the organizationwide listserv had lit up. Staffers at both the national office and state affiliates wrote back to register their frustration with Cole’s decision. The ACLU of New York sent out a statement on Monday explaining why it had declined to support the national office’s position. Some attorneys vigorously defended the group’s brief; others cautiously endorsed it, while complaining that its authors had failed to seek input from other stakeholders before committing to a contentious stance. Privately, some litigators fumed, concerned that the organization had needlessly tarnished its reputation by devoting limited resources to help the NRA, a formidable lobbying group with the means to defend itself.

Friday’s brief marks the third time in about a year that the ACLU has come to the defense of conservative expression and incurred backlash among its own staffers. That fallout illustrates a fierce dispute within the organization over who deserves its aid during this violent moment in American history, as a resurgence of xenophobia and racism threatens vulnerable people across the country. The rift is not only a conflict over resource allocation or bad publicity. It is a fight over the true definition of civil libertarianism in the Trump era. In the fierce backlash to the NRA decision, those who favor standing up for the marginalized—while letting the powerful fight their own battles—seem to be winning.

The ACLU’s decision to fight for the NRA’s free expression would appear to be at odds with its ostensible shift in priorities.
In one sense, the internal debate over the NRA brief shows the ACLU at its best. In line with its free-speech credo, the organization tolerates and even fosters a commendable amount of dissent in its ranks. “We not only take great pride in the diversity of our employees, but also the diversity of their own viewpoints and opinions,” Cole told me. So, on Monday, with Cole’s assent, three members of the New York Civil Liberties Union sent a companywide email explaining why they did not join the NRA brief and urged the national office not to file it. The email—which was signed by Art Eisenberg, legal director; Chris Dunn, associate legal director; and Donna Lieberman, executive director—laid out a series of key objections.

First, Eisenberg, Dunn, and Lieberman asserted that the NRA case does not “present any novel legal issue” worthy of the ACLU’s attention. Instead, it “turns on a fact-intensive inquiry” regarding information that is “deeply contested.” The lawsuit alleges that Cuomo penalized the NRA by exhorting insurers and financial institutions to cut ties with the group because of its pro-gun advocacy. But the state has been investigating the NRA’s Carry Guard insurance products, which indemnify members who fire guns in self-defense, since 2017. In 2018, the New York Department of Financial Services fined Lockton Affinity, the company that administered Carry Guard, $7 million for illegally covering criminal shootings and operating without a license. It also fined Chubb, the insurance giant that underwrote Carry Guard, $1.3 million for financing these unlawful practices.

If Cuomo really implored financial institutions to drop the NRA because he dislikes the group’s pro-gun expression, then he violated the First Amendment by retaliating against political speech. If, on the other hand, he issued his warning because the NRA was engaged in financial wrongdoing, then his actions were perfectly lawful. The Carry Guard fines, which ended in settlements from both Lockton Affinity and Chubb, point toward the latter possibility.
Eisenberg, Dunn, and Lieberman argued that they “suspect [the NRA] has contrived a First Amendment legal claim for its own political purposes.”

Second, Eisenberg, Dunn, and Lieberman noted that the NRA “has enormous resources and is fully able to present its First Amendment claim” and litigate the case. They further contend that, in light of the ACLU’s own “limited resources,” the organization should “distinguish between groups—like the NRA—that have enormous resources at their disposal” and those that do not, such as Black Lives Matter. They added that “we are mindful of the impact that defending the NRA may have on our work with important allies.”

A number of staffers made this final point in starker terms, directly criticizing Cole’s analogy between BLM and the NRA. One litigator at a state affiliate wrote to the listserv: “While I do respect the reasons others posit for taking this case on, I don’t respect the continued refusal of privileged decision-makers to recognize how deeply problematic it is to use BLM as a shield for actions that support white supremacy, particularly [from] an organization that enjoys the immense level of privilege we do.”

Another attorney at a state affiliate also argued that BLM was being used as a “shield” and added, “Comparing BLM to the NRA is a false equivalence. Show me one BLM rally/march/protest where a bunch of people of color are allowed to run around with guns hoisted on their hips.” Cole told me he did not mean to “equate the NRA and BLM” but rather to point out that “if a governor can get away with this against a well-resourced group like the NRA, then groups with fewer resources, like BLM, could also be targeted.”

The ACLU has struggled with this problem before. In August 2017, it helped white nationalists secure a permit to hold an armed demonstration at a downtown Charlottesville park. After white-nationalist demonstrators attacked counterprotesters and a man with ties to neo-Nazi groups allegedly killed Heather Heyer with his car, the ACLU was condemned for supporting the free-speech rights of the white supremacist rallygoers. Myriad ACLU members lodged complaints about the incident, and the organization decided to stop representing protesters who planned to carry loaded firearms. That same month, the ACLU defended white-supremacist troll Milo Yiannopoulos’ right to advertise his book on D.C.’s metro system. In response, staff attorney Chase Strangio issued a sharp statement denouncing his organization’s involvement.

Strangio was one of the first ACLU attorneys in the listserv discussion to dispute Cole’s characterization of the NRA case, writing that “a comparison between the NRA and BLM fails to account for the very different ways these groups face discrimination and violence and access power.” On Monday, he told me that “I am always questioning who has access to power and am wary of any suggestion that somehow a principled defense of the powerful will benefit the disempowered. I just have not seen our system work that way.”

Most of the ACLU staff members I spoke with echoed Strangio’s belief that by rushing to aid the NRA, the organization had failed to learn the lessons of last year. “The events of Charlottesville prompted a long-overdue internal discussion about how to balance our First Amendment advocacy with our work advancing other constitutional principles, like equal protection, and serving coalitions working with marginalized communities,” one ACLU attorney told me. “In that context, this decision feels like a step backward.” A state affiliate attorney told me that “our choices reflect little understanding of how power and privilege work in the real world.”

The ACLU had, in fact, previously moved toward incorporating what one staff attorney described as “power analysis” into its free speech litigation. In June, the Wall Street Journal published a leaked internal memo that sought to address potential “conflicts” between the organization’s “values and priorities.” In choosing which cases to take, the memo said, ACLU attorneys would consider structural power dynamics as well as the impact of the “proposed speech” on “marginalized communities” and the extent to which the speech may advance views that “are contrary to our values.”

The ACLU’s decision to fight for the NRA’s free expression would appear to be at odds with its ostensible shift in priorities. At bottom, the quarrel over Friday’s amicus brief is a debate over what civil libertarianism means in 2018. Does it require absolute fidelity to neutral principles like freedom of speech? Or does it require certain principles to yield in the face of renewed and devastating daily assaults on the equal-protection rights of marginalized groups across the country? The ACLU has long boasted that it defended Nazis in the 1970s. At the time, American Nazis seemed like vile but mostly harmless bigots. Today, both the president and his allies have embraced key elements of their white-supremacist ideology to varying degrees. And modern racists are able to demonstrate—and commit mass murder—with a terrifying arsenal of firearms, thanks in large part to laws promoted by the NRA.

“In the real world,” an ACLU litigator wrote on the listserv on Friday, “where our black allies live all the time, the single thing that is most impeding the speech of vulnerable communities is the fear of violence and targeting … every single day, everywhere.” The NRA has contributed to that horrific reality, helping to create an epidemic of gun violence that has disproportionately affected communities of color. Does the ACLU have an obligation to defend the NRA’s speech when that speech contributes to the oppression of communities whose lives and liberty the ACLU strives to safeguard? A growing number of civil libertarians in Donald Trump’s America have concluded that it does not. And as widespread pushback over the NRA brief proves, the ACLU may soon abandon its adherence to formal neutrality—and adopt a vision of liberty that openly favors the oppressed over the oppressors.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-28-2018, 5:02 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,833
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Slate is a ****ing rag.

Quote:
If Cuomo really implored financial institutions to drop the NRA because he dislikes the group’s pro-gun expression, then he violated the First Amendment by retaliating against political speech. If, on the other hand, he issued his warning because the NRA was engaged in financial wrongdoing, then his actions were perfectly lawful. The Carry Guard fines, which ended in settlements from both Lockton Affinity and Chubb, point toward the latter possibility.
Why does the author even propose this, when Cuomo outright said why he was doing it.

Quote:
"New York may have the strongest gun laws in the country, but we must push further to ensure that gun safety is a top priority for every individual, company, and organization that does business across the state," Governor Cuomo said. "I am directing the Department of Financial Services to urge insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any relationship they may have with the NRA or similar organizations sends the wrong message to their clients and their communities who often look to them for guidance and support. This is not just a matter of reputation, it is a matter of public safety, and working together, we can put an end to gun violence in New York once and for all."
The there was this drivel:
Quote:
Today, both the president and his allies have embraced key elements of their white-supremacist ideology to varying degrees. And modern racists are able to demonstrate—and commit mass murder—with a terrifying arsenal of firearms, thanks in large part to laws promoted by the NRA.
What a load of bull****.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-28-2018, 5:26 PM
Oldmandan's Avatar
Oldmandan Oldmandan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,391
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Its about time.... where have they been?

Its always been my opinion that the ACLU should be fighting for the rights of gun owners, especially CCW rights in big cities like NYC, LA & Chicago. Where only the rich and connected people have the right to protect themselves by obtaining a CCW permit.
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them" - Richard Henry Lee

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-28-2018, 6:50 PM
SAD338 SAD338 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 347
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ACLU has also come out against the GVRO expansion bill that's being sent to the Governor.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:19 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.