NRA 1, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 0

[PeteS in CA]

NRA 1, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 0

Remember last month when San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed a resolution declaring the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization and ordered city employees to “take every reasonable step to limit” business interactions with the NRA and its supporters? The one that our David French labeled “a retaliatory public attack on constitutionally protected speech”?

The NRA sued, and lo and behold, San Francisco is backing down, before the suit even went to court.

In a formal memo to city officials, San Francisco mayor London Breed declared that “no [municipal] department will take steps to restrict any contractor from doing business with the NRA or to restrict City contracting opportunities for any business that has any relationship with the NRA.”

The memo declares, “resolutions making policy statements do not impose duties on City departments, change any of the City’s existing laws or policies, or control City departments’ exercise of discretion.”

The article misspells "Stuporvisors".

[verga]

BKMK

[PeteS in CA]

This opinion piece points to the reason that this "victory" may be less than meaningful:

San Francisco Backs Down To The NRA… For Now

As you may recall, San Francisco recently passed a municipal resolution effectively blacklisting the NRA in their city and encouraging everyone to refuse to do business with the organization or its members. This predictably resulted in the group bringing a lawsuit against the city in short order. It looks like their Mayor, London Breed, saw the writing on the wall and didn’t feel like waiting around for a court to smack them down. On Friday she issued a memorandum basically saying, our bad, nevermind.
...
On the surface, this certainly looks like good news for Second Amendment fans and an embarrassing loss for Mayor Breed and the City Council. You don’t issue that sort of a walk back unless someone with a basic understanding of the law whispered in your ear and let you know that you were walking into a legal buzzsaw. This was such a blatantly illegal maneuver that the authors of the original resolution should really be evaluated for criminal incompetence.

But is it really over and should the NRA drop the suit at this point? Yes, the resolution is being rescinded and the Mayor’s instructions sound clear enough. But in some ways, the damage has already been done. The city put out a very clear signal with their bungled resolution and both the people making contracting decisions and the private businesses around the city undoubtedly got the message loud and clear.

It may not be an “official policy” to reject deals with businesses associated with the NRA, but that doesn’t mean that anyone has to do business with them either. If there are multiple bidders for any particular bit of business and there’s an unofficial list of NRA associates floating around ...

Once an entity expresses an intent to discriminate, the appearance of backing down may simply be a smokescreen for discrimination by less visible means.

[Cyber Liberty]

This opinion piece points to the reason that this "victory" may be less than meaningful:

San Francisco Backs Down To The NRA… For Now

Once an entity expresses an intent to discriminate, the appearance of backing down may simply be a smokescreen for discrimination by less visible means.

SF's latest action is an attempt to moot the suit being brought against it.  It didn't work in NYC when they tried to do that with the gun club lawsuit presently before the SCOTUS.