From the LA Times:
To do business with L.A., city contractors now must disclose ties with the NRA
The L.A. City Council passed an ordinance Tuesday requiring companies that have contracts with the city to disclose whether they have ties to the National Rifle Assn., already prompting threats of a lawsuit.
The vote was 14 to 0. Councilman Jose Huizar was absent.
What kind of ties? If the owner of the company is a NRA member, does that count?
Prospective contractors now must disclose under affidavit any contracts or sponsorships they or their subsidiaries have with the NRA. The city has similar policies about companies involved in the construction of President Trump’s proposed border wall and over the historic investment in or profits from slavery.
So the L.A. City Council thinks of the NRA the same way as they do slaveholders. Nice.
The ordinance on the NRA was sought by Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, who cited several recent mass shootings in the U.S. At Tuesday’s meeting, he said the NRA has “been a road block to gun safety reform at every level of government now for several decades.”
If by “gun safety reform” you mean total gun ban, than yes the NRA has been a road block. Also, yes gun bans are what Californians think gun safety means.
Several gun safety groups who support the NRA ordinance gathered with O’Farrell outside City Hall before the vote.
“Let’s take a look at who we’re doing businesses with who is doing business with the NRA,” said Margot Bennett, executive director of Women Against Gun Violence.
I am actually fine with this. Really.
I am a principled person, and since I think states should have the right not to do business with organizations that support BDS, I have to accept this.
I wonder how many business this will really affect. I want to know how many NRA members are still sticking around in L.A. and why? What do you do that is worth the taxes, crime, and having your civil rights trampled?
Here is what I don’t think the L.A. City Council thought about when they passed this ordinance.
Every gun and ammo maker I know of has ties to the NRA. So does every major distributor.
If L.A. doesn’t want to do business with companies that have ties to the NRA, who will provide the Lost Angeles Police and Los Angeles County Sheriff with guns, service and maintenance contracts, and ammo?
I say let the LAPD and LASD run out of ammo, and functioning guns, and maybe body armor (one word: Safariland). Why should they get an exemption to this ban on NRA friendly business?
Barrett did it, and it didn’t hurt them. Lets see if the rest of the gun industry does the same thing.
According to the Wiki, LAPD has 9,988 officers and LASD has 9,972 sworn deputies for a total 19,960 armed personnel.
Let’s sat tomorrow we give each LEO a main sidearm, a back up, a rifle and a shotgun, it would represent a total of 79,840 weapons.
Remind me again how many guns are sold in the US per month? 🙂
The WSJ had an op-ed a few days ago about ACLU hypocrisy, because they push legal arguments in favor of these sorts of boycotts — except for the BDS case where they claim boycotts violate the 1st Amendment.
Given that we already know they hate the 2nd Amendment, this sort of thing isn’t really a surprise. But it’s unfortunate — at one time that outfit looked like one that had actual principles.
“I am a principled person, and since I think states should have the right not to do business with organizations that support BDS, I have to accept this.”
You can indeed have it both ways. See legal analysis here: http://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/13/los-angeles-demanding-that-city-contract
The difference is that membership in the NRA is protected by the First Amendment. No government entity can violate the First Amendment rights of a person to petition for a redress of grievances through their membership in any organization.
“The NRA disclosure law contains more than a dozen exemptions, including contracts involving the city’s pension funds and other investment agreements”
Maybe they are covered with this.