THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
Translate
Showing posts with label NRA-National Rifle Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NRA-National Rifle Association. Show all posts
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The National Rifle Association (NRA) fired back on Monday against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors by filing a lawsuit claiming that the board’s resolution declaring the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization” violated its First Amendment rights to free speech.
A simple declaration by the board would likely have not generated the pushback from the NRA, which supports the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech. But the board overreached, according to the NRA, when it resolved to “take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with” the NRA.
The NRA’s lead attorney, William Brewer, declared that the board’s “action is an assault on all advocacy organizations across the country. There can be no place in our society for this manner of behavior by government officials. Fortunately, the NRA, like all U.S. citizens, is protected by the First Amendment.”
In its opening statement the lawsuit refers to a landmark Supreme Court case ruling from 1943 that has already settled the matter: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. The court concluded:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
The lawsuit states that the non-binding resolution “is a frivolous insult — but San Francisco’s actions [in seeking to limit entities from doing business with the NRA] pose a nonfrivolous constitutional threat.” The lawsuit went further:
The Resolution intentionally violates the First Amendment speech and association rights of the NRA and its members. Defendants’ conduct would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to speak against gun control, or from associating expressively or commercially with the NRA; these ongoing constitutional violations constitute irreparable injuries.
There’s another Supreme Court ruling that also blocks San Francisco from limiting its entities from doing business with the NRA: Board of County Commissioners, Wabaunsee County, Kansas v. Umbehr, decided in 1996. Keen Umbehr owned a trash hauling business and a sharp tongue. After suffering much criticism from him, the commissioners voted to terminate his contract with the county. As the Supreme Court ruled in that case:
The First Amendment protects independent contractors from the termination or prevention of automatic renewal of at-will government contracts in retaliation for their exercise of the freedom of speech….
We recognize the right of independent government contractors not to be terminated for exercising their First Amendment rights.
As Jacob Sullum, writing for Reason, pointed out, the board’s resolution, if upheld, would have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech not only of the NRA but of any person in any way supportive of the organization who has even the most tenuous of ties to the city of San Francisco. He wrote:
Imagine a printer who does work for the NRA at a discounted rate because he agrees with the organization’s goals. If the city stopped hiring the printer because of his “financial and contractual relationships” [language included in the resolution] with the NRA, it would likewise be discriminating against him based on his political views.
The safest bet for the Northern District Court, San Francisco division, would be to uphold the NRA and rule against the city’s board of supervisors as an appeal of an opposite ruling would surely be filed with the Supreme Court. As that court has at least two precedents in similar cases on which to rely, the board’s resolution would more than likely be tossed in favor of the First Amendment.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
On Tuesday, The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to label the National Rifle Association (NRA) a “domestic terrorist organization.”
The resolution alleges the NRA “incites gun owners to acts of violence,” and “has armed those individuals who would and have committed acts of terrorism,” among other things.
San Francisco’s District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani, who wrote the declaration, said, “the National Rifle Association spreads propaganda that misinforms and aims to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence.”
“The NRA exists to spread disinformation, and knowingly puts guns into the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us,” she continued.
Stefani wrote the resolution following the mass shooting at California’s Gilroy Garlic Festival in July.
“The NRA has it coming to them, and I will do everything that I possibly can to call them out on what they are, which is a domestic terrorist organization,” she said.
The NRA, the longest-standing civil rights group in the nation, responded with the following statement:
“This ludicrous stunt by the Board of Supervisors is an effort to distract from the real problems facing San Francisco, such as rampant homelessness, drug abuse and skyrocketing petty crime, to name a few. The NRA will continue working to protect the constitutional rights of all freedom-loving Americans.”
While the Constitution is mentioned in the resolution, the Second Amendment is never mentioned.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Once President Trump is gone, and the next Obama/Clinton/Sanders,
etc. holds the reins of the executive branch, there will be no legal
barrier to the Attorney General “recognizing” the “danger” of all those
“machine guns” in public hands, and criminalizing them with a scratch of
a pen.
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)-
The Second Amendment means what it says, and laws restricting access
to, or possession of firearms, ammunition, firearms accessories, knives,
swords, nunchaku,
billy clubs, black-jacks, or other implements of war or personal
defense, violate the fundamental right to arms and the Second Amendment.
Any gun is every gun, and any law restricting anything that can be
characterized as a personal arm is an assault on all types of arms.
That's the philosophy. Now let's talk about existing law and bump-stocks.
Under
the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act, machine guns are
tightly regulated, and no new machine guns can be added to the existing
pool of legally transferable machine guns. The BATFE has promulgated –
at the president's instructions, and with the agreement of the NRA
– new regulations “clarifying” the terms “single function of the
trigger” and “automatic” as they relate to the definition of “machine
gun” under these laws. The effect of these “clarifications” is to
support their declaration that “bump-stock-type devices” convert
semi-automatic firearms into full-automatic firearms, thus making the
devices themselves “machine guns” and subject to the restrictions
outlined in the NFA and GCA.
The new determination
also opens up a new avenue of attack on all semi-automatic firearms, as
they all now meet the definition of a weapon that “can be readily restored to shoot” more than one shot with a single function of the trigger. That is a very big problem.
This
new ruling is almost certainly going to survive the legal challenges
being brought against it. I see it as highly improbable that those
challenges will be successful at doing anything more than possibly
delaying the enforcement of the new restrictions for a short time, and
just maybe getting some compensation for owners who are forced to
surrender or destroy the devices (though I think that is very unlikely).
Unfortunately,
we the people have allowed the federal government to restrict certain
classes of firearms for over 80 years, and in that time, substantial
case law and precedent supporting those restrictions has been built up.
The core issue of the constitutionality of these restrictions has never
had a serious day in court, and this reinterpretation of the regulations
is not going to provide that constitutionality hearing. If it did, we
would almost certainly lose. Not because we're wrong and the
restrictions on machine guns are right, but because there is not enough
jurisprudence and scholarly opinion in place to effectively support our
arguments, and most judges and politicians are terrified at the idea of
machine guns being legal. They will bend over backward to make sure that
doesn't happen. Even the late Justice Antonin Scalia made it a point to
exclude machine guns from the Heller decision, on the basis of an “in common use”
test. He applied a heavy dose of cognitive dissonance to argue that
machine guns are not commonly owned in the U.S. while ignoring the fact
that the only reason they are not more common is that they have been
heavily restricted for over 80 years, and virtually banned since 1986.
Regardless
of the devious and circuitous ways we got to where we are today, the
fact is, the cards are heavily stacked against machine guns, and there
is little that can be done against the phalanx of laws, regulations, and
judicial prejudice lined up against them.
That's not to say we shouldn't try. I strongly support efforts to challenge this new BATFE regulation.
The
first challenge case was filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition and is
being handled by attorneys Josh Prince and my good friend Adam Kraut (who I am again endorsing in his run for a seat on the NRA Board of Directors in 2019).
Erich Pratt at Gun Owners of America has also announced plans to file a
suit against this BATFE reversal, and I applaud both efforts. I just
don't think it's likely that either will be successful, because I
believe BATFE's arguments for their decision will be very convincing to
any judge who hears them.
The argument boils down to whether a firearm employing a bump-stock is “automatically” cycling the action and firing more than one shot with “a single function of the trigger.”
Our side says no because each shot requires some manual action on the
part of the shooter to actuate the next shot. The counter-argument from
the new BATFE Firearms Technical Branch analysis contends that the act
of maintaining steady forward pressure with the support hand – which is a
critical requirement of all bump-fire-type devices, and is included in
all of their operator instructions – constitutes a “single function.”
The shooter's steady forward pressure on the fore-end replaces the
trigger finger as the actuator of the firing cycle, and that steady
forward pressure can readily be characterized as a “single function.”
The shooter is not releasing and reapplying pressure as they would
firing in normal semi-auto mode, but rather maintaining a steady
pressure, which is momentarily overcome by each recoil pulse. The gun
automatically repeats the firing cycle as long as the forward force is
maintained, and there are only a handful of judges in the country who
would not agree with that explanation and conclude that the described
process meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of a machine gun.
We
can argue among ourselves about these technical distinctions, but until
everything goes to hell in a hand-basket, a group of judges reading
current laws, regulations, and judicial precedents will be the ones
making the final decision, and I see virtually no chance of them
agreeing with our side.
While I'm not happy about how this has
all gone down, and where it has ended up, I'm much more concerned about
the broader implications of this new regulation going forward.
For
decades, rights advocates have argued that conversion of a
semi-automatic into a full-automatic, is a complicated and challenging
process requiring specialized skills and equipment. Though there have
been various workaround techniques demonstrated, such as the infamous,
full-auto shoestring, and the time-honored, file-down-the-disconnector
trick, there has never been an easy way to truly convert a
semi-automatic into a machine gun. This new regulation changes that.
Whether
you agree with the BATFE's new definitions or not, once this goes into
effect, under the color of law, it will be a straightforward thing to
technically “convert” any semi-auto into a “machine gun.” And that creates some severe issues because the law also defines “machine gun” to include “any weapon” that can be “readily restored to shoot” more than one shot with a single function of the trigger.
Interdynamic_KG-99 Pistol
It is also long-established law, that “readily restored” actually means “easily converted”
to fire full-auto, such as the KG-9 pistol, which was classified as a
machine gun because it fired from an open bolt, and could be relatively
easily converted to full-auto by filing off the secondary sear.
By legally defining “bump-stock-type devices” as “machine guns” that can convert semi-automatic guns into “machine guns,” then by these same definitions, any semi-automatic rifle becomes a “machine gun” because they can all be “readily restored” to be “machine guns.”
We're
not likely to see an attack from this direction while Donald Trump is
in the White House. But he won't be there forever, and once he's gone,
and the next Obama/Clinton/Sanders, etc. holds the reins of the
executive branch, there will be no legal barrier to the Attorney General
“recognizing” the “danger” of all those “machine guns” in public hands, and criminalizing them with a scratch of a pen.
The
Supreme Court has already allowed a lower court to get away with
distorting Justice Scalia's dicta in the Heller case to mean that AR15s
are not covered by the Second Amendment. Because they are “like M-16s,”
and Scalia himself, made it clear in his dicta that he didn't want to
include machine guns in the protections of the Second Amendment, so we
can't expect much support from that quarter.
The bump-stock issue
has been mishandled from the beginning, and now it has turned into a
matter that can do little more than raise some money for a few groups
and reduce unemployment for lawyers while blowing a gaping hole in our
future defense of the Second Amendment.
Jeff Knox
About Jeff Knox:
Jeff
Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The
Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun
rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.
The
Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second
Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by
Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots
activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with
a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms
Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- Lest there by any doubt, the National Rifle Association (NRA)—as the preeminent defender of the Nation’s singularly critical core, defining precept, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and as preeminent defender of the very bedrock of a free Republic—is the first civil rights organization. It was founded in 1871 ((incidentally, nine years before the founding of the National Association for the deaf (NAD), in 1880, and almost forty years before the founding of the NAACP, in 1909)).
Left-wing progressives, becoming increasingly emboldened and radicalized, and with the backing of the mainstream media, have the audacity to call NRAa terrorist organization.
Left-wing progressives seem oblivious to the fact that NRA is the first and certainly the most important civil rights organization in this Country. By calling NRA a terrorist organization, left-wing progressives are implicitly, ludicrously calling millions of NRA members, terrorists, too. And, by calling the NRA a terrorist organization,these left-wing progressives explicitly denigrate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,impugning Americans who choose to exercise their natural right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment,and making a mockery of the Nation's Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a salient, critical part.
The mainstream media does not so much as try to restrain the inane pronouncements of and the dangerous actions of these left-wing progressives elements in society but ignores—indeed, even repudiates—the sacred duty owed to all Americans, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, namely, to defend the rights and liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights—all ten of them—by seriously investigating and calling out the Un-American activities it observes through the words and actions of these left-wing progressive elements. The mainstream media unconscionably echoes the sentiments of this faction, thereby assisting in and hastening the breakdown of the institutions comprising our society; the destruction of ourConstitutionand its system of laws; the collapse of our Country as an independent, sovereign Nation State; the extinction of our traditions, our history, our core values and our code of ethics; and the defilement of our citizenry.
Offensive Anti NRA Signage Carried by Clearly Ignorant Children
Of course, the silent majority of this Country can readily dismiss the vitriol and antics of these left-wing progressives who attack NRA, who attack supporters of NRA, and who seek de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. These left-wing progressives in our society have no credibility. For, the Silent Majority knows what they aim to do. They seek nothing less than to destroy the sovereignty of the United States and to subordinate our Constitution and laws to those of foreign bodies.
It is one thing for individuals and for the Press to attack our Constitution, repugnant to the conscience as that is. It is quite another thing when politicians, themselves, denigrate the Second Amendment and attack NRA. For politicians—the representatives of the people—were elected to represent the citizenry. They have taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the preservation, protection, and defense of the Second Amendment, as a critical, and, arguably, most critical component of the U.S. Constitution.
When these politicians—these representatives of the people, themselves—voice opposition to the sanctity of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and to the premier Civil Rights Organization, NRA, that exists for the sole purpose of defending that right, then, they have betrayed their oath of Office; they have betrayed the Constitution they swore to protect, preserve, and defend; and they have betrayed the American people, the Nation's citizenry, they claim to represent.
At that point, the American people, the silent majority of this Nation, can no longer remain silent; must no longer remain silent. The silent majority has the duty to call these disrupters out for the evil they do.
On May 11, 2018 NRA filed a lawsuit against the Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS).** In the lawsuit,NRA sets forth:
“This case is necessitated by an overt viewpoint-based discrimination campaign against the NRA and the millions of law-abiding gun owners that it represents. Directed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, this campaign involves selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats with a singular goal – to deprive the NRA and its constituents of their First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related issues and defend the Second Amendment. The foundation of Defendants’ selective-enforcement and retaliation campaign is a series of threats to financial institutions that DFS, an agency created to ensure the integrity of financial markets after the 2008 credit crisis, will exercise its extensive regulatory power against entities that fail to sever ties with the NRA.”
Last month, NRA filed its Amended Complaint. Cuomo immediately fired back with a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing that NRA’s lawsuit is “frivolous.” But, the appellation, ‘frivolous,’ is more aptly applied to Cuomo’s lack of regard for and respect for the Second Amendment. For, in his outrageous attack on NRA, incongruously using the mechanism of a boycott—a singularly bizarre and illegal maneuver by a Governmental entity to utilize—Andrew Cuomo has made clear that, as Governor, he intends to destroy the efficacy of the Second Amendment in New York.
This should give all Americans pause. For, as President of the United States, Andrew Cuomo would do much, much more damage to the Second Amendment. He would work toward excising the Second Amendment from the Constitution of the United States, altogether.
ANDREW CUOMO MUST BE STOPPED!
Cuomo’s malevolent ill will toward NRA is clear. Indeed, he has had the affront to call NRA–as the first and premier Civil Rights organization, defender of a sacred component of our Bill of Rights—an “extremist organization.” And, in a mocking tone, as reported by the Daily News, denigrating NRA, and by implication, mocking the organization's members, millions of Americans, the silent majority of our Country, and mocking our Nation's sacred Bill of Rights, Cuomo retorts: “If the NRA goes away, I’ll remember the NRA in my thoughts and prayers.”
In making these insulting statements, Andrew Cuomo can no longer be considered a respectable leader of New York, much less of this Nation, in the event he decides to make a run for the Office of U.S. President in 2020. Cuomo has shown an utter lack of restraint and demonstrates a marked deficiency in character. He does not identify with and, obviously, he has no desire to identify with the vast number of Americans, the silent majority, both in New York and in the Nation as a whole, that reveres the great document,the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution that our founders lovingly gave us and spilt their blood for, on our behalf. Cuomo identifies himself with a small, albeit vociferous, faction of society, left-wing progressives, who do not represent the vast majority of the American citizenry, who do not represent, we the silent majority.
Cuomo has through both his words and deeds made himself into an outlier, even an outcast, who, has cast his lot with a small virulently Anti-American segment of the population, left-wing progressives. Cuomo is not the defender of our Nation's liberty and security that he pretends to be. He is, as with the left-wing progressives he identifies most closely with, a disruptor and destroyer of our Nation's traditions, values and history. He is openly contemptuous of the salient right of the people of this Nation to keep and bear arms as etched in stone in our sacred Bill of Rights,and therefore disdainful of all those–the silent majority of this Nation–that support NRA and that support the Bill of Rights in its entirety.
Cuomo says he merely seeks to make New York and the rest of the Nation “safe” and will work with other States to make his vision of America a reality as he cannot get Congress on board with is plan for America. Yet Cuomo's vision for New York and for the rest of the Nation serves not to defend the American people but seeks to undermine our Nation and to dismantle our Constitution. Cuomo resides well beyond the pale of decency and respectability and properly merits the condemnation of the American people.
IN CONCLUSION
Andrew Cuomo has given up all pretense of representing the interests of the people of New York, and he has made abundantly clear, both through his statements and actions, that he has no desire or inclination, whatsoever, of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States. He should not serve a third term as Governor of New York. That would do a disservice to the citizens who reside in New York. And, Cuomo definitely should not serve as President of the United States, if he harbors any secret inclination to do so. For, were he to do so, that would inevitably prove fatal to the Nation’s Bill of Rights;fatal to the continued existence of a free Republic; and fatal to the continued existence of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation State, neither subordinate to or subservient to nor beholding to any other nation, federation of nations, or transnational authority.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
Published on May 7, 2018These are dangerous and challenging times for the Second Amendment.We face an enemy that is willing to spend whatever it takes to drown out our voice and disgrace the name of our great association and our members. They don't just want to ban every semi-automatic firearm in America ... they want to repeal the Second Amendment once and for all. For any other organization, these challenges would be too much to face. But the NRA has fought through times like these before—and we know how to win. Back in the '90s, Bill Clinton waged war on gun owners and the Second Amendment ... he banned entire classes of semi-automatic firearms and thought he had us on the run. But NRA members and Charlton Heston fought back with a principled fury that rallied the entire nation.We taught Bill Clinton a lesson that both his wife and Barack Obama would have been wise to follow: Don't mess with the National Rifle Association of America. No organization has a more proven track record of doing what it takes to win in the toughest times than the NRA.And this is a time for warriors. In times like these, we don't shrink and we don't run. We ready ourselves for battle ... and get stronger than ever before. This time is no exception. I am proud to announce LtCol Oliver North as the next president of the National Rifle Association of America.I can think of no one better to serve in this critical position. Oliver North is a legendary warrior for American freedom, a gifted communicator and a skilled leader. He's an unflinching, unapologetic defender of Second Amendment freedom who has earned the enduring respect and admiration of our members. And he strikes genuine fear into the freedom-hating political elites who so desperately wish for a weakened NRA.He understands what all the so-called Washington and media experts still don't: that the strength of this organization will always and forever come from our nearly 6 million members. They can outspend us a thousand to one ...They can have every talk show, every celebrity and every elitist college professor in the country ...But they will never, ever, convince the American people to give up their freedom.So to you, the almost 6 million members of the National Rifle Association of America ... it has been the honor of my life to serve you for all these year. And we’re not done yet.I am proud to report that we have never been stronger, never been more energized, and never been more equipped with strong, courageous and battle-proven leaders. And to all those who dream of stealing the freedom of every law-abiding American ... you'd be wise to take a lesson from Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and every other political retiree who picked the wrong fight with the wrong people.We're the toughest defender of individual freedom this country's ever seen ... and we are, now and forever, freedom's safest place.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Fairfax, VA –-(Ammoland.com)- In the wake of the Parkland, Florida, murders, there has been an unusual amount of anti-gun and anti-NRA commentary by private corporations with plenty of problems of their own.
In February, Delta announced it was ending a discount program for passengers who used the airline to travel to the NRA’s 2018 Annual Meeting in Dallas, Texas. The move had nothing to do with any problems Delta itself experienced with the NRA or its members, but supposedly came in response to what the airline called “the current national debate over gun control amid recent school shootings.” Bizarrely, Delta characterized its decision to link innocent NRA members with school shootings and to punish them by reneging on a contract as a reflection of its “neutral status” and an attempt to “refrain from entering this debate.”
You can make your views known to Delta CEO Ed Bastian by emailing him at edward.bastian@delta.com, or calling Delta’s corporate headquarters at (404) 715-2600.
The Washington Post, however, characterized Delta’s move differently, situating it squarely within the #BoycottNRA movement. The airline, in other words, had merely jumped on a self-glorifying corporate bandwagon that has done nothing to harm the NRA but has done much to remind gun-owning Americans just what is at stake in the gun control debate.
Ironically, Delta’s move hurt its own shareholders far worse than it did NRA members. While only 13 NRA members took advantage of the now revoked Delta Discount, the airline’s attempt to implicate the NRA in school shootings led the Georgia legislature to eliminate tax breaks that were expected to be worth some $50 million to the Atlanta-based company.
Delta CEO Ed Bastian, however, remained defiant. “Our decision was not made for economic gain and our values are not for sale,” he said in a statement on the legislative reversal, as if Delta’s “values” and his job first and foremost involve pursuing a political agenda against gun owners and NRA members.
Bastian then went on to brag during a television appearance on CNBC that his company “gained a lot of fans” for its discriminatory treatment of NRA members and for not “selling out to political interests.”
We have some news for Mr. Bastian: Our Second Amendment rights aren’t up for negotiation, either.
As the NRA has already made abundantly clear: “The loss of a discount will neither scare nor distract one single NRA member from our mission to stand and defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the greatest nation in the world.”
Freedom-loving Americans, meanwhile, have responded to these elitists attacks the way they always have, by renewing their support for the NRA, the most uncompromising champion of America’s constitutional freedoms.
It’s clear from recent customer reviews of Delta that the airline’s time and efforts would be more profitably spent on addressing its own operational issues, rather trying to deflect attention to NRA members.
If you agree, feel free to contact Delta CEO Ed Bastian and tell him all about it. Mr. Bastian’s email is edward.bastian@delta.com. You can also ask to speak to him by calling Delta’s corporate headquarters at (404) 715-2600. Should you prefer to write a letter to Mr. Bastian, Delta’s corporate address is Delta Air Lines Inc., P.O. Box 20706, Atlanta, GA 30320.
Other options for making your views known are available in this USA Today article aimed at helping aggrieved Delta passengers get redress from Mr. Bastian, who apparently tends to hide behind legions of staffers to avoid direct contact with his company’s customers.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
Delta Airlines Suffer Huge Losses Following NRA Boycott
Delta Airlines has lost a $40 million tax break following their unceremonious boycott of the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Following the announcement that they would no longer be offering NRA members group discounts, a $40 million tax break that they would have received in Georgia is likely to be withdrawn by state lawmakers.
Thegatewaypundit.com reports: Delta’s move doesn’t go over so well with the pro gun sentiments in the state, and a former state senator says “If Delta is so flush that they don’t need NRA members hard-earned travel dollars, it can certainly do without the $40 million tax break they are asking Georgia taxpayers for.”
Greg Bluestein for Politically Georgia writes:
Delta’s decision to sever marketing ties with the National Rifle Association on Saturday sparked outrage from Georgia conservatives who urged state lawmakers to defy the Atlanta-based airline’s push for a multimillion dollar fuel tax break.
Several conservative groups seized on the airline’s decision to end a discount for NRA members to rally members against the measure. And former state Sen. Rick Jeffares, a candidate for lieutenant governor, urged his Republican colleagues to reject it.
“If Delta is so flush that they don’t need NRA members hard-earned travel dollars,” said Jeffares, “it can certainly do without the $40 million tax break they are asking Georgia taxpayers for.”
The airline’s decision came as several blue-chip companies broke ties with the gun rights group amid debate over firearms restrictions in the wake of the mass shooting at a Florida high school this month.
It’s difficult timing for Delta in its home state, where the airline is on a mission to restore a lucrative sales tax exemption on jet fuel that was first adopted in the mid-2000s when the company was in financial distress.
Critics called it a special-interest tax giveaway after the company recovered to post record-breaking profits. It was done away with in 2015 when Delta officials got on the wrong side of lawmakerslooking for extra cash for infrastructure improvements.
The tax break came roaring back this year after the airline hired David Werner, Gov. Nathan Deal’s former executive counsel, as its top state lobbyist.
This year, it has been pitched to lawmakers as an “airline tax break” rather than one that would exclusively help Delta. The jet fuel provision would save airlines and cargo firms more than $50 million, but the biggest beneficiary would be Delta.
And state Sen. Michael Williams, a Republican candidate for governor who has long opposed the Delta tax break, called it proof that lawmakers “do the bidding of lobbyists.”
“Delta isn’t even worried about insulting a huge portion of voters who belong to the NRA,” said Williams, who on Friday tried to strip the jet fuel provision from the broader tax-cut bill. “They have their backroom deal in place & know the politicians can’t survive without their donations.”
Delta quickly took to the defensive. Werner tweeted that the company’s announcement “was not a political statement” and that the airline “merely confirmed its neutral status on a politically and emotionally charged debate by removing its name from the debate.”
Atlanta’s NBC 11 adds:
Within about 2 hours of Delta reaching out to the NRA, former Georgia Senator Rick Jeffares tweeted “if Delta is so flush that they don’t need NRA members’ hard-earned dollars, they can certainly do without the $40 million tax break they are asking Georgia taxpayers for.”
He’s talking about the proposed jet fuel tax break that would save Delta $40 million if it passes. 11Alive spoke to a representative for Jeffares who sent us a statement on his behalf.
“I have supported this tax break for Delta in the past but not this time,” it read. “If Delta can afford to write off the travel business of all those folks, they clearly don’t need a special tax break from Georgians.”
In Delta’s full statement, the company said they are trying to stay neutral during the national debate over gun control. They want to focus on business, but the company continues to support the second amendment.
Cobb County Republican Party Chairman Jason Shepherd isn’t buying it.
Delta LIED About What They Did With NRA Discount Program And It Just Backfired Bigger Than Ever!
Delta Airlines officially announced their decision to cut ties with the National Rifle Association (NRA). This occurred shortly after the Parkland Florida high school shooting that left 17 dead mainly because the Broward County Sheriff’s department is full of cowards and the FBI was too busy allegedly working for the Clintons and Obama.
In a bid to remain neutral, Delta announced that it would end the NRA’s contract for members to receive discounted rates through their group travel program.
Via The Hill:
“In a memo to employees, Delta CEO Ed Bastian said that the company’s decision was not made for “economic gain” and that by cutting ties with the gun rights group, Delta wanted to “remove” itself from the gun debate. A copy of the memo was obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“While Delta’s intent was to remain neutral, some elected officials in Georgia tied our decision to a pending jet fuel tax exemption, threatening to eliminate it unless we reversed course,” he wrote.
“Our decision was not made for economic gain and our values are not for sale. We are in the process of a review to end group discounts for any group of a politically divisive nature.”
Delta joined several other companies in ending benefits and discounts for NRA members in recent weeks, following a deadly shooting last month at a South Florida high school that reignited the national debate over gun control.
