L.A law requires companies that want city contracts to disclose NRA ties

[silicosys4]

"The Los Angeles City Council voted on Tuesday to pass a law that requires companies seeking contracts with the city to disclose any ties to the National Rifle Association (NRA).

The Los Angeles Times reported that council member Mitch O'Farrell crafted the ordinance in response to the wave of mass shootings in the U.S. The councilman described the NRA as a "roadblock" to gun law reforms.

The measure passed on Tuesday with a 14-0 vote."

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobb...quiring-companies-that-want-city-contracts-to

 

[SilentStalker]

Geez. Surely, this will get bumped out in court. This is kind of like asking someone if they are gay during a job application.

 

[<*(((><]

Discrimination, hope that the NRA's lawsuit collects from Los Angeles and uses the money to further the 2A cause.

 

[Slotback]

Absolutely this is discrimination. I'm waiting for the lawsuit.

 

[loose noose]

So what's new, California, especially LA and San Francisco are notoriously against the 2ND Amendment, doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

The 1950's- "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"
2019- "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the National Rifle Association?"

 

[danez71]

Its discrimination but what discrimination law are they violating?

 

[TomJ]

Its discrimination but what discrimination law are they violating?

Attached is an article addressing the Right of Association.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html

 

[danez71]

Attached is an article addressing the Right of Association.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html

Thank you. I'll read it at home.

 

[Zoogster]

Freedom of association has been going out the window for awhile.

I think it really progressed at a rapid pace once localities began using gang injunctions.
I believe places like Los Angeles were some of the first to start applying them to common street gangs.
A very effective tool in dealing with street gangs by making it a crime for individuals to even be together in public (including members of immediate family.)
Yet should have been ruled unconstitutional as making it illegal to be around specific people is setting a precedent that the government can in fact ban people not in custody from associating or being around who they wish, even when who they wish to be around also wishes to be around them.
As most groups can be found to have committed some illegal acts, especially those heavily involved in lobbying or politics or any social struggles that ability effectively enables governments to make it illegal to actually make the freedom of speech meaningful.

Once again the end justified the means at the time, and the precedent reduces the rights that are the peoples'. Rights uniquely secured for the people against government and what was unique to the United States. Our government structure itself is not that unique and is similar to others in the world, and we won't be the top economy forever either, the only thing unique to the US government was inalienable rights that make it harder to govern the people, but give them greater liberty.

A lot of the Constitution has been reinterpreted to mean something totally different than what it meant when the founders put it on paper. I once saw some wisdom in some changes, but have come to realize they actually got far less wrong than I gave them credit for.