Los Angeles requiring contractors to disclose support of NRA

[KyJim]

The Volokh Conspiracy has a post today about a newly-passed ordinance that requires disclosure by contractors of ties with and support of the NRA. A draft of the ordinance is at http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/...01-18-2019.pdf. Professor Volokh points out that, on the face of the ordinance, it is motivated by the NRA's political advocacy. He cites a couple of cases that squarely cast doubt onto the constitutionality of the ordinance on First Amendment grounds. Note that the ordinance itself has some exemptions.

Part of the problem is the obvious intimidation aspect of the ordinance. If you want to contract with Los Angeles, you need to give up any support or ties with the NRA. I suspect any challenge would have to be by a "John Doe" lawsuit anonymously challenging the ordinance.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by KyJim

Part of the problem is the obvious intimidation aspect of the ordinance. If you want to contract with Los Angeles, you need to give up any support or ties with the NRA. I suspect any challenge would have to be by a "John Doe" lawsuit anonymously challenging the ordinance.

Even better, an identifiable denied applicant.

Yes, retribution of the sort seen during the issue 8 referendum in California is a real issue, but even without the prospect of retribution or contracting discrimination, compelled speech is itself a problem.

The 1st Am. protects not the freedom to speak or associate, but freedom of speech and association, which includes a right not to speak or associate. Government compelling one to declare, opine or associate via disclosure seems a straight down the middle violation of those rights, the same rights at stake in the Masterpiece Cakes case.

[44 AMP]

Looking through the text, it appears that businesses also have to inform the city if they do business with anyone who is an NRA member.

...means an agreement between a Person and the NRA to provide a discount to the NRA or an NRA member of the customary costs, fees or service charges for goods or services provided by the Person to the NRA or an NRA member.

As I read it, in order to comply a business would have to ask everyone they provide a discount to (for any reason), if they are an NRA member, and then if yes, provide that information to the City of LA.

Also, nearly everything said after the word "Whereas", is a load of excrement, at best. "over 1600" mass shootings in the US since Sandy Hook (2012)???

I note they do not define "mass shooting".

They make several points about NRA membership, and how dues money supports opposition to "sensible"gun control laws, without mentioning that, by law, not one penny of member's dues is, or can be legally used for lobbying.

Aside from the outright lies, and half truths, I wonder, can this ordnance pass legal muster as "equal treatment under the law?" If businesses are required to report association with the NRA or NRA members, but not required to do so for every other social organization (including religious groups) they have dealings with, how can it be "fair"?

What's next for these people? An ordnance requiring NRA members and people who do business with them to wear yellow stars or pink triangles, or a Scarlet Letter??
(or some other more currently "PC" symbol?)

have they submitted budget requests for the "re-education" camps yet?
its just disgusting.

[mehavey]

Originally Posted by 44AMP

"...have they submitted budget requests for the "re-education" camps yet?"

What part of "State-Run Education Institutions" do you fail to understand ?

[KyJim]

can this ordnance pass legal muster as "equal treatment under the law?"

The equal protection clause normally only comes into play when there is disparate treatment toward members of a "suspect class," i.e., some racial minorities, women in some circumstances, etc. I think this is just a straight up First Amendment issue involving compelled speech and punishing free speech and the right to free association. From time to time, certain chapters of the ACLU have sided with 2A advocates when their first amendment rights are being abridged. It's probably expecting too much to think the California chapter would do so.

[zxcvbob]

I thought I asked this already, but maybe that was on another forum. How is this not a Bill of Attainder?

[5whiskey]

I thought I asked this already, but maybe that was on another forum. How is this not a Bill of Attainder?

My very brief research on case law indicates that proving a law is a bill of attainder is a high standard. I’m sure Zukephile, Spats, or Frank can chime in and provide more detail. It looks as though proving an unconstitutional bill of attainder means the law must specifically identify a class of people to be punished, impose a punishment, and do so without judicial trial. To further muddy the waters, “punishment” could survive scrutiny if their is a non-punitive goal. Further, it must be concluded that punishment is an intent of the law, and not merely a side affect.

If this is passed into law, and I had business in California, and I had the means to do so, I would submit low-ball bids to LA and disclose my NRA membership (or contractual obligations, whatever they are looking for... I would make a point to be a class that requires reporting). Once you’ve been rejected repeatedly, drop a FOI request (if state law allows it for items such as bidding contracts, which I am almost sure that it does), and see who the winning bid was. After a few of rejections, the company may have a case. But then you would have to prove that you were to provide equal or greater quality services. And then the courts could still ultimately decide that punishment wasn’t the goal, but merely a side affect. I believe that last outcome very likely.

[44 AMP]

the law must specifically identify a class of people to be punished,

the class is anyone "supporting" the NRA by offering a discount to the NRA or NRA members.

impose a punishment, and do so without judicial trial.

The punishment is being refused city contracts, because they support the NRA

edit: I tool another look at the linked text, and it does not state contracts would be refused. it says this

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;

so while it doesn't specifically say you won't get the contract, how likely are they to award City money to those who undermine their efforts..etc??


And yes, I understand that while this seems clear to myself and the rest of the great unwashed, its something arguable in legal circles.

[JohnKSa]

https://constitution.findlaw.com/art...otation47.html

"The clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, ''no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial."

Reading through that link provides a number of examples of behavior that was prohibited. Some of it isn't that different from what is happening here.

"...the Court struck down a statute that required attorneys to take an oath that they had taken no part in the Confederate rebellion against the United States before they could practice in federal courts."

Assuming that they thought it through, they may be counting on the fact that they aren't actually prescribing punishment to sidestep the prohibition. They're just asking for the information--there's nothing in the law that explicitly states they will be penalized for having ties.

It will depend on whether or not the courts agree. Some of the quotes that the sponsor has made will make it relatively easy to show that it is intended to be punitive in nature and that would make it hard to defend, IMO.

[DaleA]

Good land, "virtue signaling" of the highest order.

[TDL]

Kendeda Foundation, which isn't even in the top five of gun control funders, as part of its ~$50 million/annual gun control funding, put millions and millions into an effort solely to attack corporate contribution or affinity with the NRA ("gusndownamerica"). The gun control lobby has so much money they can spend 5 times as much money attacking NRA funding compared to how much money they actually manage to defund from the NRA.

The Everytown and others funded children's/"march for our lives" has a specific professionally staffed effort to go after the NRA itself and any business or entity that supports it.

I am not expert on the legal issues in the LA case, but what you are seeing with it is just the outer boundary of this effort. It may well be over the line legally, but they did so well stripping the NRA in the clearly legal ways, they probably have plenty of money left in in the pot to pull this kind of thing, even if it is knocked out by the courts.

LA is so heavily Democratic, one has to ask, even if this gets thrown out: what is the downside for the LA council or the gun control lobby?

[44 AMP]

Public funds provided to such contractors undermines the City’s efforts to legislate and promote gun safety;

I do wonder what kind of chowder head thinks
#1 that there IS any effort on the part of LA to promote gun safety.
WHERE are the LA funded safety programs?? Where are they teaching people how to use guns safely???? As far as I can see, they aren't. Their only answer to gun safety is not to have (or be around) guns.

THE NRA is the largest (and often the only) group TEACHING GUN SAFETY. And they've been doing it for nearly 150 years!!

We know this, THEY know this. But they won't mention it or admit to it, ever. Honesty doesn't fit their plan.

[Metal god]

Also, nearly everything said after the word "Whereas", is a load of excrement, at best. "over 1600" mass shootings in the US since Sandy Hook (2012)???

That's because the government 3 or 4 years ago maybe longer now lowered the number from 4 killed to 3 killed to qualify as a mass shooting . It may be just injured or involved , I'm not sure . Either way is significantly raised the official number of mass shootings in the US each year . My guess is that it was something nobody would notice but helps the anti's argument , but that's just a guess .

[raimius]

I don't recall any US agency changing their definition recently. The FBI still uses 4 or more fatalities, as far as I know.
A lot of political groups and gun control proponents use lesser definitions to inflate the numbers, which are usually quickly repeated by most media outlets.

[44 AMP]

There are those who define a mass shooting by the number of people wounded, NOT killed. That also makes quite a difference in how many incidents qualify in their eyes.

One place this was glaringly obvious (to everyone who wasn't in the media, or who didn't stand to profit from it) was America's "Obesity Epidemic" a few years ago. Overnight, a much larger percentage of the population was "obese". And, of course, something had to be done about that...

We weren't any more obese than we had been, its was the medical community revising their standards about what was, and wasn't obese, and moving the limit DOWNWARDS that created the "epidemic". Some one who was 200lbs at a given height was obese, 180lbs at the same height wasn't. Then they changed their standards and the 180lb guy was now "obese". No change in the person, just a change in their standard of classification.

1600 mass shootings since 2012? Not the way I count them...