Judge Lets NRA's 1st Amendment Lawsuit Against Andrew Cuomo Move Forward

from the when-the-2nd-meets-the-1st dept

Let's put some cards on the table to start off this post: I think Andrew Cuomo is a terrible governor of NY (and he was a terrible Attorney General before that), and doesn't deserve to be in office. I also think the NRA is a joke of an organization, that stirs up bullshit fear and racial divisions, and frequently shits on the 1st Amendment plenty of times when people try to challenge the 2nd Amendment. I recognize that some percentage of you probably feel differently about Cuomo and (chances are...) a non-overlapping venn diagram of you probably feel differently about the NRA. I think they're both terrible and should disappear from public life. And I say that upfront because my position on this particular lawsuit has nothing to do with which side I "like." I don't like either one.

But on the law in this particular case, clearly the NRA is in the right, while Cuomo is wrong. And thankfully, so far a judge agrees.

Let's take a step back, though, to look at what's happening. Cuomo is no fan of the NRA. And he decided to use his position as governor to punish the NRA for its advocacy. Back in April, he put pressure on banks and other financial institutions to cut all ties with the NRA. It's kind of incredible that he would think this would fly. Indeed, the situation is pretty damn close to that time that Cook County (Illinois) Sheriff Thomas Dart pressured credit card companies to stop doing business with Backpage, leading to a pretty massive judicial smackdown from Judge Richard Posner.

A public-official defendant who threatens to employ coercive state power to stifle protected speech violates a plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, regardless of whether the threatened punishment comes in the form of the use (or, misuse) of the defendant’s direct regulatory or decisionmaking authority over the plaintiff, or in some less-direct form.

Posner, in the Dart/Backpage case, recognized that allowing government officials to pressure third parties into avoiding businesses they disliked over speech was a real problem:

For where would such official bullying end, were it permitted to begin? Some public officials doubtless disapprove of bars, or pets and therefore pet supplies, or yard sales, or lawyers, or “plug the band” (a listing of music performances that includes such dubious offerings as “SUPERCELL Rocks Halloween at The Matchbox Bar & Grill”), or men dating men or women dating women...

Or, you could add to that list, and say "the 2nd Amendment." And it would fit right in with what Cuomo did regarding the NRA:

"I am directing the Department of Financial Services to urge insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any relationship they may have with the NRA or similar organizations sends the wrong message to their clients and their communities who often look to them for guidance and support. This is not just a matter of reputation, it is a matter of public safety, and working together, we can put an end to gun violence in New York once and for all."

Even if you think that the NRA is a horrible organization, and that various private entities should rethink any association they have with the NRA, that's entirely different than a powerful government official making such a statement.

But, of course, what many in the press writing about this have ignored is that this kind of bullying has been Cuomo's playbook for years. When he was Attorney General, we had a ton of articles about the same grandstanding move, in which Cuomo would pick some high profile issue, then publicly threaten to sue organizations if they didn't go along with his "voluntary" plan, which would be announced at a giant press conference with a smiling Andrew Cuomo. He did this in forcing broadband providers to set up porn filters. He did it in forcing social media sites to block access to porn sites again. He also did it in trying to force broadband providers to kick users off their networks over copyright infringement. And no one calls him on this abuse of power.

Except, now the NRA has. And a federal judge is letting the case move forward after denying a motion to dismiss from Cuomo's team. The order makes it clear that Cuomo might finally face some constitutional push-back on his intimidation techniques. It's still early in the case, so things could change, but Judge Thomas McAvoy is not impressed by Cuomo so far.

Viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the NRA, and drawing reasonable inferences in its favor, the temporal proximity between the Cuomo Press Release, the Guidance Letters, and the Consent Orders plausibly suggests that the timing was intended to reinforce the message that insurers and financial institutions that do not sever ties with the NRA will be subject to retaliatory action by the state.

The judge finds, as in other cases, that there's a clear implied threat in the message coming from the Governor of the state of New York:

While neither the Guidance Letters nor the Cuomo Press Release specifically directs or even requests that insurance companies and financial institutions sever ties with the NRA, a plausible inference exists that a veiled threat is being conveyed.

There's still much more to go in the case, and as the case moves into discovery, perhaps there will be other revelations, but right now it certainly looks like a government official abusing his position to try to retaliate against an organization he doesn't like for their expressive speech.

And, yes, there's something potentially ironic in the NRA now being protected by the very same 1st Amendment that it so frequently complains about in blaming video games, TV, and movies for gun violence, but it turns out that you don't actually have to believe in the Constitution to be protected by it, and that's kind of a good thing.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Dan, 14 Nov 2018 @ 9:43am

    "Late" Judge Posner?

    the late Judge Richard Posner.

    Judge Posner is still very much alive. Retired, and perhaps senile (which he may or may not have been before he left the bench), but certainly not ready to go on the cart.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 9:54am

      Re: "Late" Judge Posner?

      Came here to post this too.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 10:23am

      Re: "Late" Judge Posner?

      Ooops... Fixed that line. Not sure where that brain fart came from...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      K`Tetch (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 10:25am

      Re: "Late" Judge Posner?

      Masnik: Here's one
      Posner: I'm not dead!
      MORTICIAN: What?
      Masnik: Nothing -- here's your nine pence.
      Posner: I'm not dead!
      MORTICIAN: Here -- he says he's not dead!
      Masnik: Yes, he is.
      Posner: I'm not!
      Posner: He isn't.
      Masnik: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
      Posner: I'm getting better!
      Masnik: No, you're not -- you'll be stone dead in a moment.
      MORTICIAN: Oh, I can't take him like that -- it's against regulations.
      Posner: I don't want to go in the cart!
      Masnik: Oh, don't be such a baby.
      Posner: I can't take him...
      DEAD PERSON: I feel fine!
      Masnik: Oh, do us a favor...
      Posner: I can't.
      Masnik: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
      Posner: Naaah, I got to go on to Prenda -- they've lost nine today.
      Masnik: Well, when is your next round?
      MORTICIAN: Thursday.
      Posner: I think I'll go for a walk.
      Masnik: You're not fooling anyone y'know. Look, isn't there something you can do?
      Posner: I feel happy... I feel happy.
      [whop]
      Masnik: Ah, thanks very much.
      MORTICIAN: Not at all. See you on Thursday.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 14 Nov 2018 @ 10:24am

    Is BDS Protected As Well?

    Does the US First Amendment protect against those who would try to suppress the anti-Zionist Boycott, Divestiture and Sanctions movement?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 10:39am

      Re: Is BDS Protected As Well?

      Only here in the US...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 10:46am

        Re: Re: Is BDS Protected As Well?

        This bears repeating. 1st Amendment should apply to any attempts to criminalize boycotts within the US of A. It is irrelevant as a matter of law for any country that is not the US of A.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 10:45am

      Re: Is BDS Protected As Well?

      Boycotts in general should be categorized as a form of expression, and thus, yes, protected under the 1st Amendment, whether or not you agree with the boycott and the reasons behind it.

      That is what should occur, of course. Whether that is what will occur is going to depend on a whole lot of things.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:06pm

        Re: yes, protected under the 1st Amendment

        So things like the Israel Anti-Boycott Act and the Combating BDS Act should be blocked as Unconstitutional?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Thad (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:20pm

          Re: Re: yes, protected under the 1st Amendment

          Yes, and the ACLU has stated it would "strongly consider challenging [the Israel Anti-Boycott Act] in court" if it were to pass.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2018 @ 12:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: yes, protected under the 1st Amendment

            So boycotting boycotts is legal in Israel, but unconstitutional in USA? Or is it boycotting anti-boycotts boycotting boycotts illegal in Israel, but constitutional in USA?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:31pm

      Re: Is BDS Protected As Well?

      Given that Palestinians are also a Semitic people (the main difference between them and Israelis is religious not ethnic), I don't understand how supporting them over Israel is in any way anti-Semitic.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Christenson, 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:05pm

        Re: Re: Is BDS Protected As Well?

        You are splitting hairs about a word that is blurring the lines... anti-semitic to most of us means anti- (semitic) jewish people. The other one is anti-arab or anti-muslim (but what are all those muslims doing all over the world??)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 15 Nov 2018 @ 5:58am

      Re: Is BDS Protected As Well?

      Does the US First Amendment protect against those who would try to suppress the anti-Zionist Boycott, Divestiture and Sanctions movement?

      Hell to the yeah!

      Whether you agree with the movement or not, success in legally suppressing their speech against organisations, etc., that they don't like could ultimately lead to success in legally suppressing your speech against organisations, etc., that you don't like.

      See Poland's Holocaust denial law for details; it bans mention of Poland's role assisting the Nazis and characterises this as a hate crime.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 10:30am

    Holiday Reminder PSA

    Please remember this holiday season that firearms make excellent gifts for the entire family. Family packs available at participating retailers. Check out the new Starter Guns sized just right for the little ones. Please use firearms responsibly when drinking. The NRA offers discounts to those who can show proof of mental impairment or illness.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 10:41am

      Re: Holiday Reminder PSA

      I trust this means you're giving your 7 year old on the spectrum a 5th of Jack and a Desert Eagle for Christmas.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        DannyB (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:38pm

        Re: Re: Holiday Reminder PSA

        Either sarcasm or do not sarcasm. There is no try.

        Point: the NRA will never accept even common sense ideas like keeping firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people or others who clearly should not have them. It is a gun manufacturers association masquerading as trying to protect gun owners' rights.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: Holiday Reminder PSA

          No argument there. The NRA, in my view at least, is both necessary and corrupt. Without the NRA we would likely have lost our constitutional gun ownership rights a long time ago. But with them we get stupid resistance any kind of gun control and licensing improvements.

          I don't give them any of my own money but some of what they do would be pure comedy gold if the outcome wasn't so tragic.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Toom1275 (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:48pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Holiday Reminder PSA

            The NRA's main problem was letting itself be parasitized by that hack LaPierre. Unfortunately, the only way to get him out looks for him to leave voluntarily - they can't just vote up a replacement.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:50pm

            Re: Without the NRA we would likely have lost our constitutional

            And maybe your cops would not have had such an entrenched shoot first, ask questions later mentality by now.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 3:01pm

              Re: Re: Without the NRA we would likely have lost our constitutional

              That mentality has next to nothing to do with (neither cause nor effect) legal gun ownership. Nice try though.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                L, 17 Nov 2018 @ 12:49pm

                Re: nothing to do with legal gun ownership

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 17 Nov 2018 @ 12:50pm

                Re: nothing to do with legal gun ownership

                Legal gun or illegal gun, they both kill just the same. Should cops check your gun licence before they let you shoot them? No. That’s why they have to shoot you first and ask questions later.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:31pm

          Re: Re: Re: Holiday Reminder PSA

          Who's definition of 'common sense' do we use? For instance, to me, its clearly common sense that the Federal Restrictions on silencers should be lifted and that state anti-semiautomatic rifles (aka assault rifles) should be found unconstitutional.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:35pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Holiday Reminder PSA

            Or if you want to keep the restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights, then it's only common sense to apply them to other rights as well.

            Universal background and mental health checks to vote.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Holiday Reminder PSA

            The problem with that is that your definition of "assault rifles" is probably wrong (if it agrees with recent political tripe at all).

            The AR-15, for example, is a single-shot, magazine-fed semi-automatic. So are many "hunting rifles" and shotguns. It looks very much like the military model it is based on but it is definitely not the same gun. Despite this, politicians have been holding up pictures of the AR-15 as the root of all gun evil. All this demonstrates is a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

            Automatic (fully auto, burst, etc) weapons already require special licensing to own and may even be outright illegal in some areas. Still, they're not unconstitutional.

            However...

            anti-semiautomatic rifles

            Wth is that? Did you mean "automatic rifles"?

            Federal Restrictions on silencers should be lifted

            So... silencers should be ok for everyone?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:56pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holiday Reminder PSA

              it was supposed to be 'anti-semiautomatic rifle laws should be found unconstitutional'.

              And yes 'silencers' should be ok, there's absolutely no reason for restrictions on suppressors.

              My eyes are blurring some from a day staring at DSP code....

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 2:00pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holiday Reminder PSA

                > My eyes are blurring some from a day staring at DSP code....

                If you can't see the front sight clearly then somebody's common sense argument would be that you shouldn't have access to a gun

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 8:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: Holiday Reminder PSA

          Point: the NRA will never accept even common sense ideas like keeping firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people or others who clearly should not have them.

          I would like to push back on this idea that mentally ill people are violent. The mentally ill, as an entire group, are no more likely to commit violence against another person than the public at large is. Certain specific people may be at risk for causing harm to themselves or others, but this is no reason to deny any rights - whether gun ownership or anything else - to the entire group. Understand I am coming at this from the position of better understanding of mental health, not from a desire to see a gun in every hand. I believe we'd be much better off with many fewer guns, and almost everyone is safer without a gun than with one.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 15 Nov 2018 @ 10:29am

            Re: this idea that mentally ill people are violent

            Your President seems to think there is a connection. Is he off his rocker?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 6:16pm

              Re: Re: this idea that mentally ill people are violent

              Your President seems to think there is a connection. Is he off his rocker?

              Is that a serious question? In case it is, yes, he is off his rocker, and no, he does not have the slightest idea what he talking about when he discusses guns, mental health, or very nearly any other topic.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2018 @ 12:12pm

          Re: Re: Re: yes, protected under the 1st Amendment

          Keeping firearms out of the hands of angry people is so much more likely to prevent gun violence.

          Where is the study for that? Common knowledge that most people are sicker to death of being told what to do by mad people than being told what to do by a mentally challenged person.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 2:06pm

            "Keeping firearms out of the hands of angry people"

            We'd save more lives keeping firearms out of the hands of drunk people.

            Here in California, in order to legally handle firearms you have to be sober enough to fly (that is 24 hours since your last drink). It's one of the gun regulations I actually agree with.

            A lot of gun related deaths and injuries are in circumstances complicated by inebriation.

            Regarding angry people, people driving cars get angry all the time without deciding to aggress with their vehicle. I suspect that most gun owners by far can get pissed off without being even tempted to pull out Mrs. Jones.

            And both the legal departments and psych sector are pretty sure that people who shoot others or themselves aren't merely angry.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              C W, 21 Nov 2018 @ 6:26pm

              Re: "Keeping firearms out of the hands of angry people"

              Stop selling booze and your problem is solved without having to go to the Supreme Court.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 6:48pm

                People want to be drunk (or stoned, or loaded)

                Stop selling booze and your problem is solved

                Yeah, that didn't work out the last time.

                Though we are in the process of changing culture to where it's not okay to drive while drunk. In the eighties and nineties, DUIs were the norm, not the exception.

                Maybe we can do the same with guns.

                Ultimately, the problem is that we don't have a state that can watch over us and keep us safe when we are determined to be stupid and irresponsible, given our state agents are also human beings, equally determined to be stupid and irresponsible.

                Because of this, we have a paradox where we have to trust the people to be adult and observe safety rules around things that are dangerous, and yet people so often demonstrate they aren't trustworthy and will kill themselves or each other if left to their own devices.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 15 Nov 2018 @ 9:49pm

            Re: Where is the study for that?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 10:45am

    like I alwasy state

    People do not care about the Constitution unless it fits into their politics.

    The NRA is no staunch supporter of the 2nd as they claim, and they certainly do not believe in 1st Amendment rights until now when it suits their "needs".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Nov 2018 @ 7:10pm

      Constitutional rights

      Political hypocrisy has become so widespread and epidemic that I've begun to wonder if it is a human condition. It may just be that we need to be trained to recognize how it works e.g.

      Choose one:

      ~ Everybody gets this right.

      ~ Nobody gets this right.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    techflaws (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 10:51am

    > Back in April, he put pressure on banks and other financial
    > institutions to cut all ties with the NRA. It's kind of
    > incredible that he would think this would fly.

    Seems to be working just fine for rightsholders and Paypal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:26pm

      Re:

      Perhaps you should start paying some attention. Then perhaps you won't embarrass yourself with boneheaded comments like that one.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        techflaws (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 9:41pm

        Re: Re:

        Oh, I will definitely start because of insightful comments like yours.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 6:38am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Hey, it's not my fault you're equating government action with private action.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            techflaws (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 10:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm not, genius. I simply made the point that this might very well be his inspiration and why given the current climate it may have seemed reasonable for him to get away with it.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Toom1275 (profile), 16 Nov 2018 @ 7:16am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Poe strikes again.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Toom1275 (profile), 16 Nov 2018 @ 7:19am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I had considered that as a possibility, but your comment comes across as serious - like it was an endorsement of the idea. There wasn't enough cues of sarcasm or hinting that it was supposed to depict Cuomo's thoughts (such as they are).

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  techflaws (profile), 17 Nov 2018 @ 9:48pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  So, simply mentioning an angle/idea is endorsing it. Got it.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Toom1275 (profile), 19 Nov 2018 @ 4:57am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    ... and with that strawman respect for you is gone again.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      nasch (profile), 19 Nov 2018 @ 7:52am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      What strawman? You said "your comment comes across as serious - like it was an endorsement of the idea." techflaws replied "So, simply mentioning an angle/idea is endorsing it." How else are we to interpret your comment other than as expressing your belief that techflaws was endorsing the position he mentioned?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Toom1275 (profile), 19 Nov 2018 @ 3:36pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Wrong part of the comment. The issue is the "simply mentioning it" part, which is not exactly the case.

                        In this current environment, here there and everywhere I see dozens of trolls are making false equivalances and fallacies like "well if they pull support from Gab why not Facebook?" "So you're a hipocrite for saying the baker was wrong"

                        And then comes something that appears as written to suggest "If private companies can deny service without issue, then why would anyone think it's wrong when Cuomo gets involved?"

                        It's not just that the statement itself suggests endorsement, it's that it's functionally indistinguishable from the other statements that have been made that do seriously endorse the idea.

                        That's what I mean by referring to Poe.

                        Some context to suggest that the second part supposed to be Cuomo's thought process rather than the commenter's own and it would have been hard to confuse:

                        >Back in April, he put pressure on banks and other financial institutions to cut all ties with the NRA. It's kind of incredible that he would think this would fly.

                        "Seems to be working just fine for rightsholders and Paypal, I should try this."

                        That would still be "mentioning it" but clearly not be an endorsement, hence why "mentioning=endorsement" doesn't hold up.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      techflaws (profile), 19 Nov 2018 @ 9:54pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      And I care about your respect because...?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Toom1275 (profile), 19 Nov 2018 @ 10:30pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Well non-trolls, at least, I would expect to care at least little about the level of integrity they exhibit.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Eric Hamilton, 14 Nov 2018 @ 11:01am

    NRA

    I dislike what the NRA has become. The NRA I like died somewhare after the 60s and became what it now is. I became a life member in the 60s, but now I wouldn't waste my money on them and their single minded logic.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bamboo Harvester (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:06pm

      Re: NRA

      Me as well. Their brokering GCA'68 out of an un-passable, Un-Constitutional Bill was their most blatant treachery.

      I learned to shoot rifle and pistol on NRA ranges. Try and find an NRA range now. They're nothing more than a private political group, constantly begging money to "fix stuff", 99% of which goes to "overhead".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Hans, 14 Nov 2018 @ 11:20am

    Delusional

    No matter what you think about the NRA, this is delusional:

    "... we can put an end to gun violence in New York once and for all."

    Without the NRA, poof!, criminals will no longer use guns in NY.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 11:33am

      Re: Delusional

      Well obviously. The NRA supplies their guns and would have to repossess them if it left NYC. Clearly without the NRA involved it would be impossible to bring new guns into NYC, too.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:33pm

        Re: Re: Delusional

        I'm just wondering if Andrew Cuomo has bodyguards? Or is he just like the rest of us? If he does, do THEY have guns? If so, how can that be? No one else has any rights to protect themselves, but he can have security guards and with guns?

        Typical leftest garbage. You the people, who cares, we the ones above you only get that right.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:13pm

          Re: Re: Re: Delusional

          "Rules for thee but not for me" is not limited to the left.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          K`Tetch (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: Delusional

          well, it might have something to do with him being a much higher target for attack than, say, your worthless self.

          I mean who wants to target and attack a worthless anonymous coward, compared to the Governor of NY. It's all about profile, and you're too scared to log into yours.

          Coincidentally, even cabinet officials generally wander around without much security in countries like the UK, probably because with a lack of guns, the most they'll be targeted with is an egg or two.

          Tell you what though, with your piss-poor approach to risk assessment, I hope you don't have a gun (or are you an example of current NRA training - 'everyone's out to get me' coupled with 'my opponents are cowards'?)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:00pm

      Re: put an end to gun violence in New York once and for all

      Actually, violence in New York has been in decline for decades. And tougher gun laws played a part in that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:24pm

        Correlation fallacy?

        The suicide rate for New York dipped in the aughts and are on the rise again, even higher now that 1995.

        Most gun violence (by far) comes in the form of suicides.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:28pm

          Re: Correlation fallacy?

          And he's acting as though it isn't the case in the US that new gun laws consistently flatten or reverse the downward trends of death and violence when and where they take effect.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:48pm

            Re: Re: Correlation fallacy?

            That may be true but gun ownership isn't why people are committing suicide. Perhaps we should be addressing that instead of pushing people toward other methods of offing themselves.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Christenson, 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:17pm

              Re: Re: Re: Correlation fallacy?

              You are wrong there...Noone claims gun ownership is correlated with suicide... but we are claiming that gun possession is highly correlated with dying as a result of suicide attempts. It is also known that suicide is an impulsive act, so setting up situations where planning ahead is required to use weapons saves lives.

              But that problem is better solved through voluntary culture, perhaps with a bit of legal encouragement to create the structures that require the planning ahead, like safe storage spaces for weapons similar to regular household storage spaces for your extra furniture. Would you store a weapon for a friend of yours in need?? Would someone know if someone was in need?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Norahc (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:20pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Correlation fallacy?

                > Would you store a weapon for a friend of yours in need??

                Except in some places like Washington, that is now illegal without going through an FFL and a background check.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Cdaragorn (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:33pm

        Re: Re: put an end to gun violence in New York once and for all

        There is literally no way you can possibly prove that statement. You're assuming that because tougher gun laws were made during that period they therefore must have had some part in the result. That kind of assumption only leads to bad laws seated firmly in the certainty that you've proven something you haven't even begun to explore.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: put an end to gun violence in New York once and for all

          FOSTA anyone?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 14 Nov 2018 @ 4:14pm

          Re: There is literally no way you can possibly prove that statem

          Oh, there most certainly is. It’s called “science”. The kind of thing the gun nuts are so scared of that they try everything they can to denigrate it, suppress it and cut off any funding for it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Toom1275 (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 4:30pm

            Re: Re: There is literally no way you can possibly prove that statem

            [facts not in evidence]

            And don't even start with that worn-out "CDC isn't allowed to research guns" lie.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 14 Nov 2018 @ 5:29pm

              Re: CDC isn't allowed to research guns

              Has the Dickey amendment been repealed?

              You and your gun-nut “alternative facts” are too easy to refute.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Toom1275 (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 6:30pm

                Re: Re: CDC isn't allowed to research guns

                If your intent was to prove that you've got reading comprehension issues, then congratulations on succeeding?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 15 Nov 2018 @ 10:59pm

                  Re: reading comprehension issues

                  Ah, the wonderfully vague, general pejorative remarks that carefully avoid giving any details about actual factual arguments. Because you don’t have a clue about them anyway.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:11pm

      Re: Delusional

      "... we can put an end to gun violence in New York once and for all."

      Only way that will happen is if cops stop shooting people on the slightest imagined threat.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Neil Harris, 14 Nov 2018 @ 12:48pm

    2nd Amendment

    I am in favor of gun control.
    I will support any law that the bad guys and mentally ill will obey.
    Otherwise, no.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 6:26pm

      Re: 2nd Amendment

      >bad guys and **mentally ill** will obey.

      Except guys like Larryboy here already don't have guns, so obeying it wouldn't be an issue for them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    MDT (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:23pm

    Venn Diagram

    I recognize that some percentage of you probably feel differently about Cuomo and (chances are...) a non-overlapping venn diagram of you probably feel differently about the NRA.

    Yeah, I make Venn Diagram's heads hurt. :P I'm one of those few people who are both for stricter gun laws (stricter rational gun laws, like universal background checks and laws against anyone with mental illness owning them, or anyone in a household with someone with mental illness owning one) and also very much pro 2nd amendment (I've had guns around me all my life, and my mother is a 76yo woman who keeps one in her purse for protection, with a conceal carry permit).

    So, I think both that (A) Cuomo is a lousy governor, and that (B) the NRA is full of bull excrement. The NRA is no longer about actual gun ownership, and is now all about money and being a Republic political arm. Doesn't mean I think we should get rid of guns, just need a new alternative to the NRA to uphold 2nd amendment without backing nutjobs for office.

    Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      MDT (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:25pm

      Re: Venn Diagram

      Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there were more out there like me.

      But hopefully who can finish the sentence before hitting 'submit' when trying to 'preview'. LOL

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 1:59pm

      Re: Venn Diagram

      anyone with mental illness

      While there are certainly people who have mental illnesses that should prevent them from owning a firearm, you're painting with a discriminatory broad brush here. Most people with mental illness are neither violent nor dangerous, and indeed the mentally ill are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.

      This country's approach to mental illness is sorely lacking, and I believe it would do us a lot of good to look at the ways that it is lacking and how it can be improved. But it seems like we only ever talk about the mentally ill in the context of scapegoating them as dangerous people who we need to fear. That is neither productive nor helpful.

      It also lets many shooters off the hook -- "oh, he only did it because he was mentally ill." While some shooters are indeed mentally ill, many are not. Domestic abuse is a far better predictor of gun violence than mental illness.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        stderric (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 5:55pm

        Re: Re: Venn Diagram

        While there are certainly people who have mental illnesses that should prevent them from owning a firearm, you're painting with a discriminatory broad brush here.

        Cardinal Richelieu could condemn any of us with six lines and a copy of the DSM-5.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 6:29pm

          Diagnoses

          The modern psychiatric sector tries to be self aware regarding how easy it is to interpret ordinary behavior as symptomatic mental disorders. The way that our court systems could indict a ham sandwich our psychology professionals could make a case to have anyone committed, including themselves or each other. And it can be easy to get stuck and forgotten in a mental institution, if no-one is managing your case.

          As such, it's not enough to be crazy to get diagnosis and treatment. If a man hears the voice of God, it's not the place of his doctor to decide he's delusional.What's more important to (assuming caregivers abide by ethics of western medicine) is whether or not those voices interfere with his day-to-day functioning. If not, he's not crazy enough to warrant treatment. If so, it's a problem, even if it really is the voice of God.

          That's the bar for treatment: If a symptom causes dysfunction, and interferes with life, then it's time to get assessed by a psychiatrist. And until then, not.

          And the bar for denying someone their basic rights is if they present a danger to themselves or others. If they do, it's time to take their gun away or do what is necessary to keep them safe. If they don't pose a danger, even if they're clearly truly gone fishing they get to keep their gun collection.

          It can totally be tricky. The patients that come in for fear they're going to do something radical are often the ones that can vent just by talking about it. The ones that ultimately become a gunman or an assailant or a vandal are often quiet or isolated.

          Then there's our president. Clearly a danger to others, but President of the United States is a hard position to assess or commit.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    KeillRandor (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 2:06pm

    Note:

    The US second amendment is already dead, killed by a Republican Supreme Court in 2010, but most people haven't realised it.

    The whole point about the US Bill Of Rights is that it was intended as a limitation on FEDERAL power, vs the States, and the second amendment therefore existed within the context of such State led, managed and regulated militias being something the FEDERAL government should have no power or influence over. (Without this as a bulwark against potential Federal overreach, there wouldn't have been enough states to ratify the new Constitution.)

    So the whole point about the 2nd amendment was that it was up the States to manage the use of firearms as part of their militia and the Federal government had no say in the matter. This meant that managing the use of arms within the context of state militia, was intended to be managed as a local issue, by local people, dealing with local context. (There's always going to be a difference between necessary regulation in rural and urban areas, and the second amendment allowed for this.)

    In 2010 EVERYTHING CHANGED.

    The Republican-led Supreme Court chose to incorporate the 2nd amendment under the 14th.

    This means that rather than being of the States for the Federal government to obey, the second amendment, is now of the FEDERAL government, FOR the States to obey, and so any changes in regulation etc. that the Federal government makes to the second amendment is something the States can no longer resist, as a matter of law.

    ---------------

    It seems that many people have no recognition and understanding of just how and why the US Republican Party has been slowly putting the pieces together to support a fascist state for quite some time, with this being one of the main ones.

    (Note: in case people don't fully understand fascism:

    It is essentially a dictatorship writ large - (which is why the tend start in such a manner, though it's not required) - with the state itself (or the ruling government/party as is usually the case), acting as a dictator in its whole. Such political structure is therefore extreme right wing, next to dictatorship/monarchy itself. As far as their economic and social orientation is concerned however, that can vary, of being either side, depending on the whims of the 'state'.

    "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state". (For state: read government/party))

    If people don't think the US Republican Party would like to, and is trying to do everything they can to turn the US into an effectively 1 party state, then... (Unfortunately, I think Trump came a bit too soon for them to get the most out of him following the midterms - though if they get even more Supreme Court justices, then...)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 3:05pm

      Re: Note:

      I think Trump came a bit too soon

      Assuming he's even still capable, I'm betting that has been a lifelong problem for him.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2018 @ 11:44am

        Re: Re: Note:

        Isn't your judgement of the President of the United States of America a tad premature?

        Nevertheless, I'm sure most of the world doesn't care how too soon he gets there or if he gets there at all as long as his hand isn't gripping the doomsday button too tightly.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      K`Tetch (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 4:32pm

      Re: Note:

      "The whole point about the US Bill Of Rights is that it was intended as a limitation on FEDERAL power, vs the States, and the second amendment therefore existed within the context of such State led, managed and regulated militias being something the FEDERAL government should have no power or influence over."

      yeah... no.

      US Constitution, Article 1, clause 8
      "The Congress shall have Power..
      ...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

      If you go through the late 18th and early 19th century litigation ont he topic, you'll see that the entire point of the militia was federal.

      In fact the first use of the militia, just months after the 2ndA was passed, was a federal use under General St Clair. It was a disaster, and led to the first congressional investigation into Washington. He in response appointed the first secretary of War, then held the first ever Cabinet meeting, before holding off the congressional investigation by asserting the then-unknown 'executive priviledge'.

      The response then was to basically abandon the whole idea of the 2nd Amendment, and reinstate the idea of a military (the army, navy and marines had been disbanded in 1783, except for a single regiment on the northwest frontier to act as a militia core, and a single battery of artillery troops to guard West Point armory (and presumably, instruct militiamen how to use the stuff when needed). That was followed by the establishment of the US Navy in 1894, and the US Marines in July 1798 (yeah, all those that celebrated the Marines birthday on Saturday, that was the completely unrelated Continental Marines birthday, it's a PR lie, much like 'the shores of tripoli' in the hymn, when they never went closer than Dasha, as far from the shores of Tripoli as Columbia SC is from Washington's crossing of the Delaware)

      And the use of the 14th to apply the 2nd to the states, happened in the mid 19th century when it passed, not 2010.

      Facts, they're lovely. Try em. You can have these for instance, I have lots more!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Bamboo Harvester (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 4:15am

        Re: Re: Note:

        Not to mention Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution Proper:

        16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

        So he's partly right - the States get to appoint the Officers of the Federal Militia.

        I'm too lazy to look up the US Code section on who the Federal Militia is, but as I recall, it's every able-bodied male between the ages of 16 to 65.

        Which is also one of the arguments legalizing the Draft.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2018 @ 11:32am

        Re: Re: Note:

        Facts, they're lovely..

        Not when some arrogant airhead plagerises from a textbook, then doesn't check facts for errors and typos..

        You should try it sometime.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 2:43pm

    Damned Nazis. won't be long now until they start kicking in doors. Excuse me, they have already begun.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 3:08pm

    Not many true 2nd amendment people are still with the NRA, with all the compromises and cave-ins the NRA has been famous for, and especially since they recently supported bans on bumpfire stocks.

    The rival Gun Owners of America (GOA) is another "gun lobby" organization, a small upstart that the NRA hates and is trying to crush.

    https://www.gunowners.org/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    madasahatter (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 3:24pm

    Father Like Son

    Andrew's father Mario was about as arrogant and bad. Mario got in pissing contest with the Seneca Indians over whether NY had tax jurisdiction on the reservation (short answer no state does). Needless to say the Senecas won by the simple expedient of shutting down the section of the NY Thruway which ran through the reservation. The locals in Western NY solidly backed the Senecas.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thisisajokerite, 16 Nov 2018 @ 11:04am

      Re: Father Like Son

      So basically, they used embargoes and instead of getting angry, the americans caved like a house of cards. Interesting.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 11:52pm

    Cuomo: A Visionary Model Solution for ANY Kind of Violence

    I am directing the Department of Financial Services to urge insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any relationship they may have with the Catholic Church or similar organizations sends the wrong message to their clients and their communities who often look to them for guidance and support. This is not just a matter of reputation, it is a matter of public safety, and working together, we can put an end to religion-motivated violence in New York once and for all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2018 @ 11:18am

    If you are going to put your feelings and personal preferences admonishing such hot topics or deriding organizations and people in a techdirt post, please ascribe your name first at the top of the story so readers can tell you how much they care or don't care what you believe and feel.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Thisisajokerite, 16 Nov 2018 @ 11:01am

    The person who wrote this doesnt understand anything about law.

    When has the NRA ever suppressed 1st amendments? You're trash talking the NRA right now. Lots of people do. And when the NRA trash talks back (not "tries to suppress free speech by murder/threats/legal trickery") then you're suddenly so, so shook.

    I was never for the NRA until I woke up and started really looking at the dishonest nature of such arguments from lefty fanbois.

    Furthermore, the NRA isn't even racist. You're thinking of nazis or KKK. Is Colion Noir an Uncle Tom for the NRA? Who invented the law of "no handguns to people under 21" wherein the reason for that law is due to the OVERWHELMING number of shootings coming from young males being of a certain ethnicity/race? Not the NRA. They want you to be able to own a gun for self-defense regardless of skin color.

    No, that law was made by leftists. The law which targeted black people between 18-20 years old and stripped them of their right to self-defense, but was "generalized" to all people to perform a catch-all to reduce black gang violence/deaths.

    And yet the NRA are the racist ones. Lol. What a joke.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    alicekhan (profile), 20 Nov 2018 @ 9:03am

    APC UPS Service Center | APC Sales & Installation | APC Dist

    Multilink Engineering ! APC Smart UPS,APC Batteries, APC Easy UPS Online,Data Center and 3 Phase Facility,Easy UPS 3S,MGE Galaxy 5500 UPS and installation & maintenance services

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    alicekhan (profile), 20 Nov 2018 @ 9:05am

    APC UPS Service Center | APC Sales & Installation | APC Dist

    Multilink Engineering ! APC Smart UPS,APC Batteries, APC Easy UPS Online,Data Center and 3 Phase Facility,Easy UPS 3S,MGE Galaxy 5500 UPS and installation & maintenance services

    http://www.multilinkeng.com/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Close
Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.