It is more likely tortuous interference with business relationships. Basically, it is unlawful for a third party to extort and coerce an entity to stop doing business with someone it has an established business relationship. Seems pretty clear cut to me that the NRA has a good case.
Under financial attack, NRA might "be unable to exist"
- Thread starter Adrian
- Start date
It is more likely tortuous interference with business relationships. Basically, it is unlawful for a third party to extort and coerce an entity to stop doing business with someone it has an established business relationship. Seems pretty clear cut to me that the NRA has a good case.
The1791Society
Inactive
Andrew Cuomo is waging war on gun owners in New York. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
We need people who are dedicated to resisting Cuomo's intolerable an unconstitutional subversion of civil rights in New York.
We need people who are dedicated to resisting Cuomo's intolerable an unconstitutional subversion of civil rights in New York.
Don Dayacetah
New member
I see the problem as twofold. OTOH, the NRA has a struggling membership issue, only a
paltry 4.2% of all serious gun owners are members, because of the impact of 40$ upon their budget.
BUT, if the membership were charged MONTHLY, not only would it reduce dues to a paltry $3.50 a month, it would fit in perfectly with the NRA's monthly request that you send in
your "annual" fee, a perfect match for the NRA's postal paradigm.
paltry 4.2% of all serious gun owners are members, because of the impact of 40$ upon their budget.
BUT, if the membership were charged MONTHLY, not only would it reduce dues to a paltry $3.50 a month, it would fit in perfectly with the NRA's monthly request that you send in
your "annual" fee, a perfect match for the NRA's postal paradigm.
The ACLU has weighed into support the NRA. There's a post and a copy of the brief at: https://reason.com/volokh/2018/08/26/aclu-on-the-nras-lawsuit-against-ny-gov. The ACLU is supporting the NRA strictly on First Amendment grounds.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I've seen that also. Let's discuss this action and not go off on a tangent about other ACLU actions not relevant to the issue. We know they do not support a strong RKBA position. No need to replay that or their other social views.
turkeestalker
New member
^^^^
Kind of hate to admit it but I agree.
Kind of hate to admit it but I agree.
The ACLU Press Release
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/new-york-state-cant-be-allowed-stifle-nras-political-speech
OK, so maybe I changed the advocacy organization and the Governor a bit in that second paragraph.
I think it might illustrate the problem to those who will simply refuse to see any problem with anything bad done to the NRA.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/new-york-state-cant-be-allowed-stifle-nras-political-speech
OK, so maybe I changed the advocacy organization and the Governor a bit in that second paragraph.
I think it might illustrate the problem to those who will simply refuse to see any problem with anything bad done to the NRA.
An insightful discussion of this action can be found at:
www.whenpigsfly.com
Naw. Just kidding. But didn't the ACLU side with the gun folk during the social security debacle where they tried to have a bunch of people put on the 'no buy list'?
Sheesh! What is that group (the ACLU) coming to??? (Maybe their senses?)
Some of the regional ACLUs support the Second Amendment. The National ACLUs position is hypocritical, especially since Heller.
If this were a strictly 2nd Amendment issue, the ACLU wouldn't lift a finger. However, they are ferocious when it comes to defending the rest of the Constitution. Since this is a First Amendment / abuse of government power issue, they are front and center. They sided with the NRA when the Obama administration wanted to make being on a secret "terrorist" list grounds for a NICS denial.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
I’m not sure I’d agree with that; but in any case the ACLU is reconsidering its defense of the First Amendment due to pressure from donors. For example:
“The backlash has already spurred other ACLU chapters to declare that they don’t believe free-speech protections apply to events like the one in Charlottesville, and led the ACLU’s national director, Anthony Romero, to declare the group will no longer defend the right to protest when the protesters want to carry guns.” - https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazis-charlottesville
This reminds me of the words attributed to Gandhi, “There goes my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.”
If only the ACLU had a history of claiming broad 1st Am. protections, especially for the odious. The ACLU is self governing and free to chase the desires of its membership, but this is like the NRA rethinking whether it considers the 2d Am to describe an individually held right.
Bartholomew Roberts said:
If only the ACLU had a history of claiming broad 1st Am. protections, especially for the odious. The ACLU is self governing and free to chase the desires of its membership, but this is like the NRA rethinking whether it considers the 2d Am to describe an individually held right.
Two different issues there.
On the SS one, the claim was that people who did not manage their own financial affairs shouldn't have guns. The ACLU supported the NRA position.
On the "no fly/no buy" list, the claim was that people who are on a secret list for secret reasons shouldn't have guns. The ACLU again supported the NRA position.
And now this. I'm starting to think buying the ACLU was one of the NRA's smartest investments. Or something.
The ACLU won't lift a finger to defend the Second Amendment, at least at the national level. However, they are ferocious in defending the other amendments. So while they won't defend the Second directly, they will jump in if other amendments are involved. They don't like secret lists, declaring broad classes of people outside constitutional protection or commercial blackmail.