Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: NRA taking Governor Cuomo, New York to court over 1st Amendment violations
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05 ... ourt-1st-amendment-violations/
Published: May 12, 2018
Author: Jazz Shaw
Post Date: 2018-05-12 09:15:49 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 1051
Comments: 7
Filed on May 11, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, the lawsuit claims that Cuomo, Vullo, and DFS engaged in a “campaign of selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats” designed to coerce banks and insurance companies to withhold services from the NRA. The NRA argues that such tactics vastly overstep DFS’s regulatory mandate, and seek to suppress the speech of Second Amendment supporters and retaliate against the NRA and others for their political advocacy. The lawsuit seeks millions of dollars in damages to redress harms inflicted by the DFS campaign. “Political differences aside, our client believes the tactics employed by these public officials are aimed to deprive the NRA of its First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related issues and in defense of the Second Amendment,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to the NRA. I’m still not entirely clear how this adds up to a First Amendment issue rather than some sort of suppression of trade question. The maneuvers in question involved an advisory letter sent by DFS to most of the banks and insurance companies doing business in the Empire State. The letter suggested the institutions should take action to avoid “reputational risk” which could supposedly arise from doing business with “gun promotion organizations.” The same day, the Governor himself issued a press release quoting DFS Superintendent Maria T. Vullo in which she urged all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York” to “discontinue their arrangements with the NRA.” The New York Post adds some additional background to the story, citing a recent $7M fine on the NRA’s insurance broker, Lockton Cos. The state claims that Lockton doesn’t have a license to do business in New York. But even if that’s the case, how would that justify an effort to blacklist the NRA from any business with banks and other insurance companies? Perhaps the better question is whether or not it’s legal for a state government to actively press businesses such as banks and insurance companies to cut ties with a group which is engaged in political activism and not breaking any laws. It certainly sounds like New York is doing something illegal here, but I’m hard pressed to say exactly what law is being violated. I’m not finding any similar examples to go by, possibly because this may be entirely unprecedented. Maybe there isn’t a specific law against it because nobody ever expected a state government to act in such a fashion. But a First Amendment violation? We’ll have to wait and see. Poster Comment: I have to like NRA's moxy in bringing this suit despite the long odds. Given how many judges Trump has appointed (over half of them replacing Dem-appointed federal judges), this might not be a bad bet for NRA. Maybe they think they have a good chance to prevail or to engage in discovery tactics. They are after something in a case this big. NRA may believe that this is the time to mount legal challenges and move the ball downfield in a year where gun rights have been revived as a salient political issue with Camera Hogg leading the gungrabbing charge, covered non-stop by the anti-gun libmedia.
The National Rifle Association appears to be sailing into some uncharted legal waters this week with a lawsuit targeting the Governor of New York and the state’s Department of Financial Services (DFS). The NRA claims that recent “regulatory” actions and advisories issued to banks doing business in New York represent a violation of the group’s First Amendment rights. While attacking the NRA is a proven winner politically for liberals like Cuomo (who is currently engaged in a primary battle, faces a general election in November and has 2020 presidential aspirations), the Governor may have gone too far this time and run afoul of the law. (NRA-ILA) The National Rifle Association of America (“NRA”) today announced that it filed a lawsuit against the New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and DFS Superintendent Maria T. Vullo alleging violations of the NRA’s First Amendment rights.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)
The outcome will depend on who appointed the presiding judges. If Mini-Mario or another CPUSA Governor appointed them,the NRA will lose. The judiciary was one of the first targets of the USSR and the Dim Party back in the 30's and 40's. In other words,it doesn't matter what the law SAYS anymore on any issue with political overtones. What matters is how the judges rule. Establish a legal precedent,and it's unlikely to ever be overturned until we become the North American Economic Zone of the NWO.
You sound a lot like Vic on "judges rule". Even so, Mueller has run into two judges that were real buzz saws in the last 10 days, one of them a Reagan judge, the other appointed to the federal bench by Trump after 10 years on the federal sentencing guidelines board. And what were the chances of Mueller, having picked the Beltway to operate from so he could get friendlier judges, having that much trouble as soon as he got close to a courtroom? So I'm not so sure I'd bet against the NRA on this case. They aren't known for filing frivolous cases just for publicity. When they file, they do go for a win. They have a pretty serious legal team.
Yep. Republican control of the judiciary is what is going to bring Mueller to heel. There are too many McCain/Graham/Bushites in the GOP Congress. They WANT to bring down Trump, and they can always pretend that the Democrats "force" this or that, because they don't WANT a lot of what Trump wants. But judges are monarchs.. One judge in California can stymie the President's immigration plan for a year. And one judge can stop Mueller dead. Supreme Power in America reposes in the judiciary, because the judiciary is the final arbiter of all things.
An artificial convention, mostly in the last 70 years. Nothing in the Constitution makes the judiciary the supreme arbiters of morality or grants them leave to invent constitutional rights out of thin air by fiat. But Mueller certainly drew two rotten cards with that Reagan judge and that Trump judge. They are on his case, big time.
The Constitution means what judges say it means. That has been true since 1802, and it's more true than ever.
There are no replies to Comment # 6. End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#1)
In other words,it doesn't matter what the law SAYS anymore on any issue with political overtones. What matters is how the judges rule.
#4. To: Tooconservative (#2)
Even so, Mueller has run into two judges that were real buzz saws in the last 10 days,
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
Supreme Power in America reposes in the judiciary, because the judiciary is the final arbiter of all things.
#6. To: Tooconservative (#5)
Nothing in the Constitution makes the judiciary the supreme arbiters of morality or grants them leave to invent constitutional rights out of thin air by fiat.
Replies to Comment # 6.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]