Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

San Francisco declares NRA to be a ‘domestic terrorist organization’

San Francisco declares NRA to be a ‘domestic terrorist organization’

Board of Supervisors: “RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco intends to declare the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization”

Early in August, San Francisco substantially sanitized the language associated with convicted criminals in the city’s official documentation.

Crime-ridden San Francisco has introduced new sanitized language for criminals, getting rid of words such as “offender” and “addict” while changing “convicted felon” to “justice-involved person.”

The Board of Supervisors adopted the changes last month even as the city reels from one of the highest crime rates in the country and staggering inequality exemplified by pervasive homelessness alongside Silicon Valley wealth.

The local officials say the new language will help change people’s views about those who commit crimes.

If San Francisco politicians truly believed words could change hearts and minds, perhaps they should rethink their new classification of the National Rifle Association as a ‘Domestic Terrorist Organization.’

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution declaring the National Rifle Association a “domestic terrorist organization” and urged the federal government to do the same – the latest escalation in the heated rhetoric from Democrats regarding the NRA in the wake of several deadly mass shootings.

The resolution, which passed Tuesday and says the U.S. is “plagued by an epidemic of gun violence,” accuses the NRA of using “its considerable wealth and organization strength to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence.”

“All countries have violent and hateful people, but only in America do we give them ready access to assault weapons and large-capacity magazines thanks, in large part, to the National Rifle Association’s influence,” the resolution says.

Here’s the language from the resolution:

https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7568748&GUID=DF64490F-D8BC-4BF7-A43D-287F02BECCCA

Based on the language sanitization policies, wouldn’t it be better to classify the NRA as an “individual protection organization” or a group of “projectile weapons involved individuals”? It certainly would be kinder, gentler…and more accurate.

The NRA was neither amused or moved by this latest virtue-signalling extravaganza.

“This is just another worthless and disgusting ‘soundbite remedy’ to the violence epidemic gripping our nation,” spokeswoman Amy Hunter said in an emailed statement.

“This is a reckless assault on a law-abiding organization, its members, and the freedoms they all stand for. We remain undeterred – guided by our values and belief in those who want to find real solutions to gun violence,” the statement says.

And while the Board of Supervisors were focused on smearing a group of law-abiding Americans with a detestable lie, they ignored the exploding homeless population and its associated disease and crime.

Of course, it doesn’t help that the Bay Area elites seem to prefer platitudes to common sense policies.

In June, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted 10-1 to back a pilot program that would allow the city to force people suffering from serious mental illness and drug addiction into treatment. That didn’t sit well with liberals who argued that it would be a deprivation of civil liberties.

A few frustrated residents say it might be time to cut and run.

“The city is running out of strategies,” Anna Suarez told Fox. “I’m moving to Austin.”

I can’t imagine what the city officials were thinking when they crafted this vote. Members of the NRA I know would place San Francisco dead last in the places to which they would like to visit, much less live.

Truly, this is a case of virtue signalling so bright it blinds politicians to Bay Area’s real problems.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This is what totalitarian jackboots do, right? Declare their political opponents to be “enemies of the State,” an “enemy of the proletariat,” etc.

These Dhimmi-crats are so utterly vile. But, at least they are becoming more transparent in revealing their innate totalitarian antics and ethos. Before, they’d at least pay lip service to respecting dissent and liberty.

I suppose such resolutions have no legal force, but they do have propaganda value for the left (while persuading sane patriots that the left is irredeemably evil.)

    Milhouse in reply to pst314. | September 5, 2019 at 1:57 am

    Not only no legal force, but no legal meaning. The term “domestic terrorist organization” is unknown to the law. There is no such legal category. (And if there were one, city boards would not be able to apply it.) It’s just a meaningless term of abuse.

      rabidfox in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 1:24 pm

      If California is a red flag state the city council might use their ruling as an excuse to exercise their anti-gun agenda.

        Milhouse in reply to rabidfox. | September 5, 2019 at 2:19 pm

        This pronouncement will not help them in the least. Any judge that would grant such an order would do so with or without it. The evidence, whatever it is, has to be about the person. Membership in an organization cannot be used as evidence of mental instability or unfitness, no matter what the organization is. No judge can declare someone unfit to bear arms simply because he’s Moslem, or gay, or belongs to a whacko political party, let alone a civil rights organization like the NRA or the ACLU.

          Subotai Bahadur in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 10:08 pm

          You are making the assumption that the Left has any intention of following either law or the Constitution. All they need is an accusation. Then the full force of the State will fall upon their enemy.

          Subotai Bahadur

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 6, 2019 at 11:06 am

          You contradict yourself. If they don’t intend to follow the law then they don’t need any pronouncement or excuse. This pronouncement doesn’t get them anywhere, in any scenario.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 7:46 pm

      Milhouse,

      Not sure that is wholly accurate. While Federal law doesn’t explicitly state what a terrorist organization is, the Patriot Act DOES define what terrorist activity is, both domestic and international. I would argue that the defined actions conducted by a dues paying membership group vs an individual actor is a domestic terrorist organization.

      California also has a terrorism act almost exclusively addressing the possession, use, regulation of WMD. I presume due to research universities possessing and testing same.

      Finally assuming the SF Board implements the proposal to limit county and city contacting to vendors who are Not directly affiliated with the NRA and to attempt to coerce business who have contracts with the city or county from doing business with vendors who do have a relationship with the NRA but no relationship with the city or county, that seems pretty shaky ground for SF Board.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | September 5, 2019 at 10:06 pm

        Defined terrorist activity is not a problem. Neither the NRA nor almost any of its members engage in such activity. No pronouncement by anyone can affect that in any way.

        What we are talking about is designating an entity as a terrorist organization. There is such a thing in US law as a foreign terrorist organization, and being designated as such has serious legal consequences. And no, the San Francisco supervisors can’t do that. But there is no such designation for domestic organizations, and probably can’t be.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | September 5, 2019 at 10:07 pm

        Finally assuming the SF Board implements the proposal to limit county and city contacting to vendors who are Not directly affiliated with the NRA and to attempt to coerce business who have contracts with the city or county from doing business with vendors who do have a relationship with the NRA but no relationship with the city or county, that seems pretty shaky ground for SF Board.

        They’d be in some deep legal sh*t if they tried that.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 11:40 pm

      Milhouse writes: “Not only no legal force, but no legal meaning. The term “domestic terrorist organization” is unknown to the law. There is no such legal category. (And if there were one, city boards would not be able to apply it.)

      Please be aware that 18 U.S. Code § 2331. (18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 113B—TERRORISM, Definitions, (5)) states:

      (5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
      (A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
      (B)appear to be intended—
      (i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
      (ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
      (iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
      (C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

      So, the term certainly exists in federal law. I am sure you shall quibble that the SF BOS used the term
      “domestic terrorist ORGANIZATION” (emphasis added), but that quibbling distinction is in fact meaningless.

      If San Francisco passed a local ordinance similar to and mirroring federal law, they could declare the NRA a terrorist organization and sanction it as per the authorities vested as a sovereign entity. It would take action by local, state, or federal courts to invalidate such code or associated actions. In the mean time, they could conceivably do things like arrest members of the NRA if called for in their local code, or take other actions such as deny such individuals necessary permits, etc.

      As for you other posts, I am afraid you wildly miss the mark. It is very conceivable that since the SF BOS has declared the NRA a “Domestic Terrorist Organization,” then it follows the members of that organization are declared to be domestic terrorists. This assertion is implied, but certainly derivative from a statement asserted as a matter of fact by the SF BOS, and thus potentially slanderous and actionable by any member of the NRA. This issue would be one of damages to any such person moving as plaintiff such as resulting denial of business with the city or some other quantifiable damage. It is certainly, however, not frivolous by any means.

        You are full of sh*t. The law you cite deals with terrorist acts, not organizations. Someone who commits one of these acts is a criminal and can be prosecuted. Someone who does not is not and cannot be. It’s as simple as that.

        There is no such thing as a domestic terrorist organization, and therefore no possible way to punish someone for belonging to such an organization, no matter what crimes other members might commit, let alone the NRA, whose members are not known for committing any crimes at all.

        This is not quibbling, it is crucial. It is definitional. If you can’t see that you’re a blind, blithering idiot.

        Even if San Francisco were to pass a local ordinance similar to and mirroring federal law, they could not declare the NRA a terrorist organization and sanction it, any more than the federal government could do so now. The Secretary of State has the statutory authority to designate foreign organizations as terrorist, and even that can be challenged in court; no such authority exists for domestic organizations (and probably can’t exist).

        Even RICO doesn’t allow people to be prosecuted merely for belonging to an organization; RICO charges require two acts by the person charged. Attempts to ban membership of criminal gangs have been struck down as obviously unconstitutional.

        No, they could not arrest members of the NRA, under any circumstances at all. If they did they’d immediately be arrested themselves and face kidnapping charges.

        And no, it does not follow at all that members of a “terrorist organization”, were such a thing to exist, are terrorists. Not even members of a designated foreign terrorist organization are automatically terrorists. They can be charged with giving material support to such an organization, but not with terrorist acts, since they haven’t committed any.

    MattMusson in reply to pst314. | September 5, 2019 at 6:10 am

    Ms. City councilperson, why are their potholes in the street?

    Because.. Gender Inequality!

    Mr. City councilperson, why is their feces on the sidewalk?

    Because.. The Rain Forest!

    Ms. City councilperson, why is their graffiti on the buildings and garbage in the street?

    Because.. White Surpremacy!

      Not only gender (i.e. masculine, feminine, transgender) inequality, but sex (i.e. male, female) inequality, too. Fortunately, liberals are divergent, and there is political congruence (“=”), a sociopolitical construct.

      And rabid diversity… color supremacy, is a clear and progressive risk. Well, it is, but as all things projected (e.g. transphobia/homophobia, xenophobia), they are mischaracterized for the sake of political, social, and, for conforming individuals, corporate progress.

    MarkS in reply to pst314. | September 5, 2019 at 9:28 am

    No legal force? Could SF decide that a member of a terrorist organization have guns confiscated or maybe even jailed?

So SF has now announced the NRA members are Kulaks.

    Zinovy Roark in reply to Sally MJ. | September 5, 2019 at 11:17 am

    The first order of tyranny by Stalin in Ukraine was to eliminate the members of the rifle clubs and disarm the Kulaks. Then he stole their grain then deported or executed them. Thereafter, he starved to death 3+million Ukrainian peasants all in the name of collectivized socialism. If law abiding, moral and ethical citizens become disarmed in America, they will experience the fate of the Kulaks who suffered projected pejoritives from Stalin as the NRA has from the SanFransicko city council.

      Milhouse in reply to Zinovy Roark. | September 5, 2019 at 2:20 pm

      Which is why we can’t let that happen. But this silly pronouncement by the SF supervisors doesn’t bring that any closer.

        OnTheLeftCoast in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 2:54 pm

        What it’s meant to do is to encourage individual action on the part of, for example, mail carriers. Maybe making note of the addresses to which any NRA mailings are sent and leaking them to activists.

They don’t have any other crap to worry about. The city is perfect.

“All countries have violent and hateful people, but only in America do we give them ready access to assault weapons and large-capacity magazines thanks, in large part, to the National Rifle Association’s influence,” the [San Francisco Board of Supervisors’] resolution says.
———

I must point out the laughable, totally un-self-aware hypocrisy of these self-congratulatory Leftist, Dhimmi-crat twits, whereby they decry allegedly “hateful and violent people,” while vilifying and slandering millions of law-abiding Americans — who have the temerity to reject Leftist political views — as “terrorists,” thereby ostensibly sanctioning and advocating for a violent government response, against said “terrorists.”

Hypocrisy, thy name is “Dhimmi-crat.”

How many police are members of the NRA? How many Jews? How many Women?

http://jpfo.org

But start with the first. Every cop who is a member of the NRA should be immediately fired! (then we can form the rational states of America separate from the people’s republic of the goin’ coastal).

Only illegal aliens like the one who killed Kate Steinle should be allowed guns! Especially if they are multiply deported.

Just when you think the crazy can’t get any worse…

What next (and I’m not unserious), not cleaning the human feces from the sidewalks to pay for the underfunded pensions? Or for Drag Queen Story Hour in schools?

“The city is running out of strategies,” Anna Suarez told Fox. “I’m moving to Austin.”
______________________________________________________________

fine but please leave your sf bullshit in CA

regards the resolution, simply cannot believe a major city in this country would craft such an in-your-face slander of an organization who has long been a guardian of the 2nd ammendment

just pathetic

“The city is running out of strategies,” Anna Suarez told Fox. “I’m moving to Austin.”

No No No No

Too many SanFran progressives in Austin now and they just bring their bullshit and are turning Texas Blue and when they do, it’s over
And Austin has a wanna be a San Fran mayor and City council already, this person will be in for a surprise!

All the electoral votes will be forever Blue

    Anonamom in reply to gonzotx. | September 5, 2019 at 9:57 am

    I know this isn’t a popular opinion, but I think Texas’ days as a Republican stronghold are over. Just like in many other western states, the cities are going blue, with the rural areas remaining red. It’s just a matter of time for the numbers in the cities to hit critical mass. Demographics win. Every. Time.

      Edward in reply to Anonamom. | September 5, 2019 at 12:28 pm

      I sincerely hope you are wrong. But I know we will need to work ever harder to maintain any sort of conservative government in Texas. There’s no doubt that the cities are getting bluer and demographics can’t be overcome – per se. But there are lots of people who don’t vote. Normally I say good riddance, if they can’t be bothered we are better off without their votes. We need to convince those who don’t vote but are/lean on our side to get out and vote and hope the Socialist-Democrats have less success in GOTV efforts. Thankfully we have Voter ID which reduces the probability of the large numbers of illegal aliens we have voting.

Spoken from the place where it is ordinary to poop in the streets?

San Francisco is no longer even part of America. Instead, it has become a place where they would kill Jesus Christ it that were possible.

Tom Cruise was not immediately available for comment.

I declare San Francisco to be a shit-hole. Literally.

“wouldn’t it be better to classify the NRA as an “individual protection organization” or a group of “projectile weapons involved individuals”? It certainly would be kinder”

“Those who enjoy their Armed Privilege.”

How many of the sf city council do you think have been to an NRA meeting or event? It seems they know nothing about the NRA and passed this resolution out of ignorance and fear. They’re like the pitchfork and torch wielding villagers, or Salem witch trial perpetrators. If they bothered to learn about the NRA, they would find out the NRA is an educational, safety, and rights advocacy organization. This is actually probably good for the NRA on a national level, further exposing the left’s insanity.

    Milhouse in reply to CKYoung. | September 5, 2019 at 2:00 am

    You’re probably right that they are ignorant of the facts, but you’re wrong in thinking that knowing the facts would alter their opinions.

      Edward in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 12:21 pm

      When you are right, you are right. But I’m not sure you have ever been more accurate in a comment.

      CKYoung in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 5:03 pm

      I believe in giving them the benefit of the doubt. I also listen to what they have to say, instead of dismissing them outright. I guess I’m an optimist in this regard, but I do suspect you’re correct Milhouse. Sometimes people have to experience things first hand to gain knowledge or an appreciation for another point of view, video related.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g

since i live in #Failifornia, and am a Life Member of both the NRA & CRPA, i’m thinking i’ll draft a demand letter to the Board of Sups, threatening legal action if they do not retract.

    alaskabob in reply to redc1c4. | September 5, 2019 at 12:06 am

    Be ready for a 4 AM visitation. The exposed nail must be hammered.

    DINORightMarie in reply to redc1c4. | September 6, 2019 at 12:26 am

    Good – I hope you and many more do just that, and the NRA organization as well. Hit them HARD and go after every individual who voted for that disgraceful, slanderous, monstrous Resolution. Also the State, too, if possible. They ALL need to stop this. It’s dangerous, libelous.

    You see, they declared you (and me, and every other NRA member)-because of your choice of free association as a member of a legal, historical, actual civil rights group-to be a TERRORIST. A threat to the US. Dangerous.

    We are now, according to an elected legislative body in the US, declared without any basis or merit labelled as TERRORISTS just because we decide to join the NRA, to freely associate and pay dues to a civil rights group in this nation, one that THEY do not approve of, or like.

    No facts. No reason. No basis for their Resolution whatsoever. That is slander, libel, defamation. And believe me, it won’t stop with San Fran. It’s poisonous, toxic, and will spread…. Legal action is needed–hitting them HARD is the only way to stop these over-reaching zealots who are slandering law-abiding citizens because they don’t like the Constitution or a legal, historically grounded and lauded group. Sue!!

I always suspected hard core progressives are mentally retarded. Now I know for sure.

San Francisco is a terrorist sanctuary.

This is just another in a long, long list of things that Dems/Progs cannot accept as reality. What sort of convoluted thinking results in Bruce Jenner recognized as a woman. It’s no wonder that their ideas are so unworkable.

In the late 1800’s the Dems embraced Jim Crow and the Klan while the NRA rallied to the dire needs of freed and free Blacks in the South . The Left’s hatred expands and strengthens …. their sanity is gone..if really it existed. They are creating hell and calling it heaven. We can’t laugh at San Fran because their ilk are embedded all around us. To give in is to give up.

Well, if that’s the way they play the game, let Trump declare the Democrat Party a terrorist organization. At least he’d have some evidence on his side.

I expect before long the SF Board of Supervisors will declare the Republican Party to be a terrorist organization. After that takes hold for a couple of years, they will declare all capitalists to be terrorists and class enemies, subject to dekulakization.

They have to convince all their citizens to turn against the NRA and lay down their arms. Otherwise, the liquidation of Republicans and capitalists will not go smoothly.

Honestly, that seems rather like slandar. Is it actionable?

These people are living in an extreme bubble insulated from the damages they cause, that has so distorted reality it’s scary. Hoping there are enough sensible people to flatly reject their wrongheaded ideas.

What agenda makes the series of actions by SF make sense?

It is critical that the leftists disarm the citizens “by any means necessary.” Everything else has failed so they are simply trying something different (or perhaps recycled) to see if this works. SF is the test market.

The Democrats disarmed the freed slaves so the slaves could not protect themselves. Now, they want to disarm the law-abiding citizens for the same reason.

By any means necessary. More than a slogan. A principle.

    Firewatch in reply to TX-rifraph. | September 8, 2019 at 10:00 am

    OOPs! Accidental downvote, sorry! Maybe the San Francisco commies have heard about my Halloween tradition of dressing like a politician. This year I’m going as Nadler if I can find pants that do to my armpits.

SF just declared quite a few million law-abiding American citizens to be domestic terrorists simply for exercising a constitutional right. All of our politicians, government employees and military took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is the primary purpose of government. So didn’t the SF City Council just declare themselves to be enemies of the US? Can’t we just show up en masse to their next meeting and stage a massive citizens arrest?

CAIR just won a court case declaring terrorist watch lists to be unconstitutional.

https://apnews.com/f8abc66af1a64cc7a5f4fba0420cfc54

Is being a member of the NRA now the same as being on such a watch list? Can we arrest the SF City Council for THAT?

    Not even close. There is no right not to be put on a list. The CAIR case was that the list was being used to seriously harm the people on it. The whole legal justification for the list is that it’s not used to deprive anyone of any constitutional right, but the judge decided that the treatment listed people get is severe enough to amount to such a deprivation.

    Assuming the decision stands, rather than getting rid of the list, the government could get around this by simply reducing the practical impact on listed people. Which it should do anyway, and should have done long ago, just because it’s the right and just thing to do. Everyone using the list must be consciously aware at all times that most people on it are not terrorists, and should not be treated as if they were. The list is an initial screening tool, not a determiner of guilt. So they must treat any listed individual as someone who may be a terrorist, but is very probably not. Just consider that any one of us could end on the list; how would you want to be treated if that were to happen to you? I would expect to be treated with caution but courtesy, but apparently that is not happening.

    Meanwhile the SF Board declaration has absolutely no impact on NRA members. It has no meaning at all. The board is just calling NRA members poopyheads. There is no cause of action.

    Finally, even if there were a cause of action against the city, there is nothing the supervisors could be arrested for, any more than anyone at the FBI could be arrested for compiling the terror watch list (even assuming this decision stands, which I would not bet on).

      Voyager in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 10:21 am

      Just because something does not have legal force behind it does not mean it is not slanderous.

      For example, would your employer want to retain employees who are also members of a known domestic terrorist organization? Can they be legally prohibited from discontining employment of domestic terrorists?

      Should members of domestic terrorist organizations pass background checks and have access to fire arms? When a Federal form asks if you areor ever have been a member of a terrorist organization, are you now legally obligated to check yes?

        Milhouse in reply to Voyager. | September 5, 2019 at 11:09 am

        1. You can’t get arrested for slander.

        2. If the declaration had contained a false statement of fact, the NRA could sue the city, and the supervisors individually, for slander. But saying it’s a “domestic terrorist organization” is not a statement of fact, it’s an opinion, exactly like saying “the NRA is very very bad”, and therefore by definition cannot be slander.

        3. Even if false facts were alleged NRA members couldn’t sue because they were not slandered. Even if the declaration had said “NRA members” rather “the NRA”, it’s pretty much impossible to slander a large group of people (anything over 20 or so), because it’s assumed that it’s a generalization and has exceptions. Even if the declaration had explicitly stated “every single member” that would be assumed to be hyperbole.

        Should members of domestic terrorist organizations pass background checks and have access to fire arms?

        Absolutely, which is the whole point of the debate about the Dems’ attempts to block people on the No-Fly list from buying guns, and why Reps resist it. You cannot deprive someone of a constitutional right without due process.

        When a Federal form asks if you are or ever have been a member of a terrorist organization, are you now legally obligated to check yes?

        No such form exists, because there is no such legal category as a domestic terrorist organization. There are designated foreign terrorist organizations, and giving one material assistance is a federal felony, but there aren’t (and probably can’t be) domestic ones.

          Politics is just a pedantic game of legal precision with you isn’t it? The rest of us recognize we are engaged in a fight where law and logic are irrelevant and yet you insist on handicapping our side with pointless pedantry. We get it! Could you try to get in the game? The game isn’t going to be won by whoever dots all of the i’s and crosses all of the t’s. We are at war and in war, people like you who argue pointlessly get killed by reality.

          pst314 in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 9:32 pm

          How about the passage in the resolution that states that the NRA “incites violence”?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 10:10 pm

          If you don’t give a d*mn about truth and are willing to pervert justice then you’re fighting a war, all right — on the other side.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 10:47 pm

          How about the passage in the resolution that states that the NRA “incites violence”?

          Yeah, that might work.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | September 6, 2019 at 12:04 am

          “But saying it’s a “domestic terrorist organization” is not a statement of fact, it’s an opinion, exactly like saying “the NRA is very very bad”, and therefore by definition cannot be slander.”

          Completely incorrect. That a government declares something, the government is making a statement of fact. For example, when the a judge convicts you of a crime, it is not an opinion, but a statement of fact. Same for a declaration by any sovereign entity, even if couched by language such as, “RESOLVED, it is the opinion…” Because from that “opinion” can be derived actions and consequences for the object of the expressed opinion. It has the force of a sovereign act, and therefore a statement of fact.

          The question is what is proper redress for an individual wrongly accused. In fact, if there is a supporting law, there is not much because of sovereign immunity. But in this case, there is no supporting law within the sovereign domain of the SF BOS to buttress the claim, and therefore is gratuitous and slanderous, and external to the sovereign domain of the SF BOS, and therefore potentially actionable. Likely to prevail is an entirely different question.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 6, 2019 at 11:29 am

          And, once again, you’re full of sh*t. A statement of opinion does not become a statement of fact merely because it’s made by a government entity. Were they to claim that the NRA had committed terrorist acts, then the NRA (but not any of its members) could sue, because it is an objective fact that it has not done so. But claiming that it is a “terrorist organization” is inherently opinion; it cannot be proven false, because there is no definition of such a thing. Therefore it is not defamation. (The claim that it incites gun owners to commit violent acts is a factual claim, and therefore I’m pretty sure the NRA can sue each of the supervisors who voted for it. Again, NRA members cannot sue individually, because nothing was said about them, as well as because they are a large group and US law does not recognize group defamation.)

Silliness which is not quite what it seems.

SF is just doing its little bit to render another plain English phrase meaningless. The declaration is silly and meaningless because it’s intended to be.

Should—as they clearly hope—this bit of verbal perversion catch on, when the federal government declares, say, CAIR a terrorist organization, everyone will just say “meh, so what?”

Chicken Little effect—when all organizations are terrorist organizations, none are.

    Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | September 5, 2019 at 8:38 am

    They’ll say it anyway, if they want to. There’s no such legal category as a “domestic terrorist organization”. It’s just a name, and anyone can use it of anyone.

      Voyager in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 10:32 am

      I believe there is, actually. There are a number of federal forms that require you to list of you’ve ever been a member of a terrorist organization. The question is whether or not San Fransisco has the legal authority to make that designation.

        Milhouse in reply to Voyager. | September 5, 2019 at 11:12 am

        No, there aren’t. You’re thinking of “designated foreign terrorist organizations”. By definition these must be foreign, and they are designated by the Secretary of State (though that can be challenged in court). No city can make such a designation.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 10:42 am

      Milhouse,

      Criminal charges no please just no.

      Civil tort claims sure. They arguably defamed every individual member of the NRA by stating as fact that the organization as a whole is a terrorist organization. Imagine how much fun it would be to depose the SF Board of supervisors on their knowledge of each individual NRA member, several million of them. No we won’t stipulate that SF Board of supervisors did not possess individual knowledge of each NRA member.

      So yeah, civil tort go for it. Find a deep red county in a deep red state, file in federal court under diversity of citizenship rule and move to certify a class. Probably wishcating on my part, but I can dream.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | September 5, 2019 at 11:15 am

        A, they didn’t say anything about NRA members, only about the organization itself; B, group libel pretty much doesn’t exist. Once the number of people defamed grows beyond 20 or so, they can’t sue, because it’s assumed that it’s not aimed at every single member of the class. E.g. “Bernard Madoff is a ganeff” would be slander if it weren’t true; “Jews are ganovim” (or even “all Jews are ganovim”) is not slander, and no individual Jew can sue for it.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | September 5, 2019 at 11:23 am

        I misremembered the number the courts have used as a rough indication of the maximum size of a group that can be libeled. It’s approximately 25, not approximately 20. Certainly not 5 million. See Neiman-Marcus v Lait, 13 F.R.D. 311 (S.D.N.Y. 1952). The defendant wrote that “most of the sales staff are fairies” and that some of the company’s saleswomen were “call girls.” The court held that since there were only 25 salesmen they could sue, but since there were over 350 saleswomen, only some of whom were supposedly call girls, no individual saleswoman could show that she was meant, and therefore none of them could sue.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 11:41 am

          Milhouse,

          The point is finding a single NRA member to file. Proceed to discovery, make deposition process painful. Exact a cost of defense in terms of time and money from the SF Board.

          Additionally the last paragraph of the resolution says that the Board will seek to encourage other government entities at local, state and national levels not to adopt similar policies. One of those policies is not utilizing NRA ‘affiliated’ vendors. Tortuous interference?

          My point is to utilize the federal court system employing lawfare as a deterrent, not necessarily to prevail.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 2:25 pm

          Knowingly filing frivolous lawsuits for the purpose of harassing the defendant is against the law and invites sanctions.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | September 5, 2019 at 6:15 pm

          Milhouse,

          The primary goal of every court action is to prevail. The secondary goal in my hypothetical example are to one inflict cost of defense in time, money and reputation. The tertiary goal is to make the board admit in deposition process that they don’t know anything about the individual NRA member who filed suit and despite the ability to gather information about that individual they did not prior to making a statement of fact that the individual is a member of a terrorist organization. That seems easily disproved to me.

          Finally, I understand precedent. However every case is on opportunity to create, modify and sometimes nullify precedent. Just because a particular legal argument has yet to prevail doesn’t mean that it cannot.

          Let’s use a sports analogy. The University of Alabama plays New Mexico State this weekend, the line is Bama by over 55 when I last checked. That means Bama is almost certainly going to win by a very large margin. However come game time the ball will be kicked off, neither team will say golly gee on paper the outcome is predetermined so why bother playing.

          So what I am attempting to communicate is you are, in this argument assuming the role of University of Michigan while I am Appalachian State. Appy State beat Michigan. To return to legal realm, the Sullivan Decision wasn’t in place until SCOTUS carved it. Neither was Roe or Heller or…….bottom line is fight tooth and nail to win. Don’t simply say ‘oh we are not likely to win so let’s not try’. Especially when secondary and tertiary goals can only be achieved if we try.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | September 5, 2019 at 10:53 pm

        No, you are saying knowingly file a suit that can’t win, because the law is clear against it, and you openly say the purpose is to “inflict cost of defense in time, money and reputation” on the other side. That is illegal and unethical and sanctionable.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | September 6, 2019 at 10:37 am

          Milhouse,

          No. I believe the suit could prevail. Why?
          1. Terms used are NOT subjective, each word in the phrase domestic terrorist organization has a specific meaning.
          2. Your assertion that because the combination of these three words as a unit is not defined that we are precluded from using reason to draw logical conclusion is IMO, not persuasive.
          3. Proceeding from this point, the plaintiff simply demonstrates that he has not committed acts which would classify him as a terrorist. Likewise the SF Board would need to demonstrate that the NRA as an organization committed or at least planned terrorist acts.
          4. Frankly speaking IMO using defamatory language against an organization, a dues paying membership that are self declared as opposed to more nebulous groups, is actionable IMO. Precisely because the allegations are those of fact which can be disproved vs opinion, and that in this instance the organization is it’s individual identified members.

          Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I always appreciate reading your posts.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 6, 2019 at 11:44 am

          No, CommoChief, while “domestic” and “organization” have objective definitions, “terrorist” does not. And even if it did, the phrase would not have an objective definition.

          Even if you were to call an individual a “terrorist” he could not sue. If you were to claim that the person has committed acts of terrorism, as defined by law, then he could sue, but merely calling him a “terrorist” does not mean that he has committed such acts.

          This is exactly the same as the well-established law that calling someone a “traitor” does not imply that he has committed an act of treason against the USA, as defined by the US constitution. “Traitor” means anyone who has betrayed a trust, and since there is no objective definition it’s opinion. The same applies to “terrorist”.

          Yes, defaming an organization is actionable — by the organization, not by its members. Saying the organization has done something does not mean that each of its members has done that thing. But even a statement that most of its members have done that thing would not be actionable if there are more than 25 of them, because no individual could show that they meant him.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | September 6, 2019 at 1:32 pm

          Ok then, we clearly disagree. No worries, this is the USA and we can still do that.

A literal $#ithole has declared the NRA a terrorist organization. Lack of interest to follow.

I’m waiting [and hopeful] that the “really big one” will come soon and dump the whole silly place beneath the waves.

    CKYoung in reply to walls. | September 5, 2019 at 5:17 pm

    When (not if) the big one comes, there is going to be a period of time where the peninsula will be on their own. Whatever police force is there will be instantly overwhelmed and become ineffective. The looting will begin right away. It will continue unabated for several days, until outside law enforcement agencies/National Guard Forces gather and deploy. Depending on any bridge failures, it could take a week or more to deploy law enforcement/National Guard. If I worked or lived on the peninsula, I would be prepared for this. A semi-automatic rifle and plenty of ammunition would be part of this plan.

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/as-rooftop-koreans-knew-you-are-your-own-first-responder/

      Subotai Bahadur in reply to CKYoung. | September 5, 2019 at 10:16 pm

      If you are an American, it would better to not be there when the big one comes. And when it does, I would hope that there would be sufficient logistical delays to keep relief out for say a week.

      Subotai Bahadur

if anyone is wondering how San Fran got so bad, go back to when the mayor was DiFi. She is woman who atarted promoting commie polices. Declaring the NRA a terrorist organization is just another step-in total control.

Just as the assault on The 2nd Amendment is once again gathering steam, the NRA has been weakened by Wayne Lapierre running it as a personal bank to finance his extravagant lifestyle, all approved by sycophants on the board of directors. Not one dollar of mine will go to the NRA until Lapierre has left. Please consider donating to the Second Amendment Foundation or Gun Owners of America.

And just like that, SF shows just how easy it would be to abuse the “red flag” laws democrats are pushing.

Time to flood the city with NRA merchandise.

millhouse misses the point again–would remind him of niemoller but would probably be viewed as an alarmist–so be it

rather, would remind him of a wise and much, much older bit of advice: ” he who tolerates insult, invites injury. ”

by declaring the NRA(and by extension its members,as after all, any organization is comprised of its members) a terrorist organization, these sf clowns have defamed a rather large and patriotic group of my countrymen

have been a member and contributing to the NRA for longer than millhouse has been alive–whether agree with ALL their activities or not, NRA is not and has NEVER been anything resembling a ” terrorist organization ” and to publicly declare so is to personally and collectively defame myself and my fellow members by any rational definition of the word ” defame “

    Of course the NRA is not a terrorist organization, even if there were such a thing.

    But (1) defaming an organization is not defaming its members; (2) opinions are not defamation; (3) individual members of a group larger than approximately 25 cannot sue for general statements made about the group as a whole.

      Voyager in reply to Milhouse. | September 6, 2019 at 12:23 pm

      So are you or have you ever been a member of a terrorist organization? Please answer carefully and truthfully.

        Milhouse in reply to Voyager. | September 6, 2019 at 6:42 pm

        It’s not answerable. And nobody is required to answer such a question. Now if you change that to “a designated foreign terrorist organization” it has a precise meaning; there’s a list of such organizations, and you can fairly easily determine whether you have ever been a member of one of them.

Whereas the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco declared the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization without due process, I hereby declare that the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco are outlaws in the Common Laws meaning of the term “outlaw”.

Therefore the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco outside all the protections of the Constitution that the have denied to others.

How many has the NRA killed? How many has planned Parenthood killed?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend