Posted on 02/27/2021 7:14:40 AM PST by MarvinStinson
City will pay gun-rights group about $150,000 for lawsuit over unconstitutional ordinance
A federal court ordered Los Angeles to hand over more than $100,000 to the National Rifle Association after ruling that the city had violated the gun-rights group's First Amendment rights.
Federal district court judge Stephen Wilson struck down a city ordinance aimed at punishing prospective contractors with ties to the NRA as an infringement on the right to free speech and association. On Tuesday, he ordered city officials to pay for the Second Amendment group's attorney fees, which totaled nearly $150,000.
"In this case, 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," Wilson ruled in December. "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 NRA filed suit against the ordinance shortly after it was implemented in April 2019. Amy Hunter, a spokeswoman for the NRA, told the Washington Free Beacon the rulings prove the city unfairly targeted the group because of its advocacy.
"Violations of any constitutional rights by government officials should carry consequences," she said. "The courts have rightfully imposed those consequences upon Los Angeles. The NRA will continue our fight and, as always, work to hold politicians accountable."
Neither Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti (D.) nor councilmember Mitch O'Farrell (D.), who sponsored the ordinance, responded to requests for comment.
Los Angeles is not alone in targeting the group. San Francisco's Democratic mayor stopped a similar ploy in response to an NRA lawsuit. The group is still locked in a First Amendment challenge over a letter sent by New York officials that warned banks away from working with the group. The ruling may put a damper on enthusiasm for similar measures from other government officials opposed to the NRA.
Los Angeles Ordinance No. 186000 took effect on April 1, 2019, and explicitly stated it was intended to prevent the city from doing business with anyone who had ties to the NRA.
"The City of Los Angeles has enacted ordinances and adopted positions that promote gun safety and sensible gun ownership," the ordinance reads. "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. Public funds provided to such contractors undermines the City's efforts to legislate and promote gun safety."
City leaders publicly defended the ordinance. In interviews with NPR, Garcetti said he had confidence in the policy while O'Farrell charged that "the NRA's First Amendment rights remain firmly in place."
Judge Wilson disagreed, saying, "the City adopted the Ordinance ‘because of disagreement with the message' of the NRA and with the explicit intent to suppress that message—the Ordinance should therefore be considered a content-based regulation of speech." The city agreed in February to repeal the ordinance, stop any enforcement of it, and notify contractors they do not have to disclose ties to the NRA.
So when is anybody going after the banks?
That’s 10 new suits for the big guy.
I have been critical of some of the things the NRA has done.
Today is the day to say, “Good job NRA.”
This proves their value.
I may have to consider sending them a donation.
Still More ComDem Insanity!
$150,000 is nothing compared to the payouts for all of the racial and job discrimination lawsuits against L.A. for decades. Probably in the billions. You gotta hurt em where it counts. The pocketbook.
They need to be sued too. If bakers have to bake a cake, banks have to serve reasonable financial services.
patience, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but they turn toward justice.
All this current silliness will end with lawsuits and legislation, mark my words. But it will take years to work through the courts. The purpose was not to permanently impose them.. it was to temporarily impede Trump and his chances to be re-elected or to run again.
6 figures won’t even cover legal expenses. If the NRA keeps getting tied up in these lawsuits, they will be broke. Which may be the plan...
Thanks LA, discriminate against us any time.
Harassment by lawfare should have serious consequences for those who engage in it.
“wheels of justice turn slowly, but they turn toward justice”
Disagree.
California has a history of activist judges overturning the expressed will of the people.
Prop 187...for example, which defined marriage as between a man and woman passed with 60% of the vote. A single homosexual judge on the 9th circuit in San Francisco overturned that and the democrats running CA did not appeal.
Now this degeneracy is ‘law of the land’.
I was taught to respect ‘the law’ but as I learn more about how society really operates I see judges as little more than dirt bag lawyers who got promoted due to their dirt bag skills. I retain a healthy fear of our corrupt legal system, but little respect.
The problem here is the only people who pay this are the taxpayers. Would love to see these asshats get sued personally.
Neither Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti (D.) nor councilmember Mitch O’Farrell (D.), who sponsored the ordinance, responded to requests for comment.
Agree! Pleased to read a little 2A good news today.
Didn’t this happen last year?
$150,000? Wow, that really sends a message.
We need to see our Legislators "check" activist judges by getting impeached.
Elections have consequences. Stick it to the taxpayers of LA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.