![]() |
|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,148
|
U.S. Supremes Accepts Review of NRA Suit Claiming NY Violated First Amendment
The NRA today announced the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted review of its suit claiming New York officials improperly used their authority to "persuade" banks and other financial institutions to blacklist the NRA due to the NRA's First Amendment right to advocate gun rights. https://www.nraila.org/articles/2023...d-free-speech. The Supreme Court order granting review on one issue is at https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...323zr_5if6.pdf.
That issue, from the NRA's petition for certiorari, states: Quote:
As in most grants and denials of review, the Court did not reveal those voting for or against. It does take four votes to grant review. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
I would think the answer to that question SHOULD be obvious!
I wonder what the arguments and evidence will show. |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,259
|
I believe even the ACLU is siding with the NRA on this. Even they can see the slippery slope NY opened up if allowed to stand.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Posts: 2,667
|
The ACLU is funny. They still cling to the "collective right" interpretation of the Second and won't lift a finger to defend a Second Amendment case. However, let a case touch any other aspect of constitutionality and they are all over it, as they are with this First Amendment case.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom: Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow. If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,552
|
Quote:
It's even less subtle than the process by which Congress pondered revoking section 230 immunity for online platforms, then the exec sent out agents to perform ongoing consultation to these communication choke points to let them know which messages should be impeded. The prospect that you wouldn't be able to effectively speak about your reservations about government power because the government is also your editor maybe the more straight down the middle 1st Am. question. The NY twist of making opponents of your rights violations unable to conduct banking through threats to third parties may show greater creativity. I'm not sure which is more horrifying.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|