NRA drops lawsuit, accepts branding as a 'domestic terrorist organization' by San Francisco

[riversedge]

Source: daily kos






Friday November 08, 2019 · 12:11 PM CST

On Thursday, the National Rifle Association dismissed their lawsuit against the city of San Francisco for branding the Second Amendment cult a “domestic terrorist organization.” NRA officials said that they had gotten the satisfaction they were looking for and therefore pulled their lawsuit. Of course, as the San Francisco Chronicle explains, that is a strange bit of spin. After SF Mayor London Breed explained that the resolution did not require the city to limit its interactions with vendors that did business with the NRA, the NRA responded by saying they would not drop their litigation until the city “officially withdraws its unconstitutional threat and makes amends for the harm suffered by the NRA.”

Of course, that hasn’t happened. The NRA is still deemed a “domestic terrorist organization” by San Francisco. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera released a statement calling the NRA’s decision to dismiss their “frivolous lawsuit,” a good one, but also warned that “If the NRA doesn’t want to be publicly condemned for its actions, it should stop sabotaging common sense gun safety regulations that would protect untold numbers of Americans every year, like universal background checks, an assault weapons ban and restrictions on high-capacity magazines.”..........................

Read more: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/11/8/1898078/-NRA-drops-lawsuit-accepts-branding-as-a-domestic-terrorist-organization-by-San-Francisco?utm_campaign=trending

---

[Lochloosa]

1. Discovery would have been a bitch.

[cstanleytech]

4. Especially if it uncovered the sources of it's money and to

which politician's were the intended recipients.

[dalton99a]

13. +1

[Grokenstein]

2. If the shoe fits, wear it with pride, I guess

[Mc Mike]

3. Russkie connected terrorists. Who the repug party lurves.

Bad for national security.

[IronLionZion]

6. That would make them international terrorists, not just domestic

[Mc Mike]

8. I'm fairly comfortable with that description of our esteemed colleagues on the right.

[blugbox]

11. Absolutely correct.

[mountain grammy]

5. They don't want to expose themselves.

Plus, I think they're low on cash these days.

[MissMillie]

7. They don't want to spend their money on this

They need the cash to buy off politicians

[warmfeet]

9. They are terrorists.

Time to shut them down.

Close up shop. NOW!

[MichMan]

10. Will dues paying members therefore get arrested and charged with terrorism?

[Buckeyeblue]

12. I wonder what bank they use? Where do they deposit their donations?

How does the bank manage the due diligence that anti-money laundering laws require? We need to find this out and start a national boycott of any FI that handles NRA accounts.

[metalbot]

14. I have a different take on this

Branding the NRA as a terrorist organization was a bad move politically, and helps the NRA. I think they figured this out and dropped their lawsuit because the PR that they are going to get from using this is going to be worth many millions of dollars, whereas getting the resolution reversed would just make this go away.

The NRA is an extreme right-wing organization with many nutjobs in its membership and leadership. Their political ads are shady at best, and in many cases full-on offensive. Their finances are unquestionably dirty.

None of that makes them a terrorist organization (though they could certainly be investigated criminally on several fronts). Words have meanings, and stretching them to include new meanings dilutes their value.

But let's go out on a limb and say "sure, they're a terrorist organization". What actions should we take next? Start investigating members? Put them all on no-fly lists? Can we charge its membership for the actions of its leadership?

I realize that the San Francisco ruling is symbolic, and none of those things are going to happen. But those are all things that I _would_ expect to happen to a domestic terror group. I would want those things to happen. So if we let sit the notion that some domestic terror organizations are "real" and some are "symbolic", we've completely diluted the meaning of the phrase.

So why do I think the NRA dropped its lawsuit?

It became clear that there were literally no consequences to the resolution, and attorneys had time to think, I think the NRA landed on the following line of reasoning:

Being labeled a terrorist organization when the label doesn't really fit is a marketing boon to the NRA. For the last three decades, the NRA fundraising machine has been focused on "the Democrats are coming for your guns!". That message has been largely weakened by the fact that nobody has really been coming for anyone's guns. NRA membership has been slumping in part _not_ because they are extreme, but because you can only cry wolf so many times before you get ignored. It's also losing membership from people who feel that they don't do enough to restore gun rights (as opposed to fighting their loss). Between Beto's "we are coming for your guns", and San Francisco, the NRA can run with "See, they really are coming for your guns!" and "the liberals are labeling you a terrorist because you have a hunting rifle in your safe".

What does SF get from their symbolic resolution? The ability to be smug in their condemnation.
What does the NRA get from the resolution? Literally tens of millions of dollars to pump into Republican campaigns

[crickets]

17. Good points to ponder. nt

[Nitram]

15. YES!

The NRA's lame attempt to put a positive spin on their utter failure is pathetic.

[BlueIdaho]

16. Drag their asses into court - everywhere.

Bleed them dry. If the rumors of their financial troubles are true, bankrupt them in court.