NRA Wins MASSIVE Case Against Democrat Controlled City

1
3161
NRA

Despite increasingly heavy backlash from liberals, the National Rifle Association (NRA) did manage to secure a massive win in a First Amendment case.

NRA Wins Big

On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Wilson ordered the City of Los Angeles to pay the NRA almost $150,000.

This came after a 2019 ruling surrounding a city ordinance which contributed to negatively impacted city workers who happened to be members of the association, the California Globe reports.

City Ordinance 186000 specifically requires that any prospective contractor with the city must disclose all contracts or sponsorships with the NRA.

The ordinance brought about many significant mass shootings such as the 2012 Sandy Hook School shooting, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting and the 2018 Thousand Oaks shooting.

Ordinance Deemed Wrong

The ordinance them tried to put the blame of these shootings on the NRA because of their support of the Second Amendment which includes not promoting strict gun-control laws.

It also noted how the liberal cities where the shootings occurred went on to increase greater gun control methods.

"

In turn, it showed that because Los Angeles adopted ordinances and positions that favored stricter gun control, it would ensure the NRA members and supporters would be basically shunned by city contractor business.

“The City’s residents deserve to know if the City’s public funds are spent on contractors that have contractual or sponsorship ties with the NRA,” read the ordinance. “Public funds to such contractors undermines the City’s efforts to legislate and promote gun safety.”

In April 2019, the NRA sued the city of Los Angeles. The association made a strong case and despite the city as well as ordinance sponsors Mayor Eric Garcetti and Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, expecting to win, the constitution was on the NRA’s side.

Judge Issues Ruling

Judge Wilson ruled in agreement with the gun-supporters in December.

“The text of the ordinance, the ordinance’s legislative history, and the concurrent public statements made by the ordinance’s primary legislative sponsor evince a strong intent to suppress the speech of the NRA,” Judge Wilson wrote in his ruling. “Even though the Ordinance only forces disclosure of activity that may not be expressive, the clear purpose of the disclosure is to undermine the NRA’s explicitly political speech.”

“The City has no interest in the suppression of political advocacy — regardless of how distasteful it finds the content. The Ordinance is therefore incompatible with the Constitution, and Plaintiffs are likely to be successful on the merits of their First Amendment speech claims.”

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here