2019年2月28日，CPAC，马里兰州国家港口，执行副总裁韦恩·拉皮尔的照片出现在国家步枪协会展台上。
旧金山要求联邦法官驳回全国步枪协会9月份提起的诉讼，此前该市通过了一项决议，宣布该国最大的枪支权利组织为“国内恐怖组织”
全国步枪协会抱怨说，旧金山监事会9月3日通过的不具约束力的决议呼吁该市审查和重新评估其与也与全国步枪协会有业务往来的承包商的关系。
该法案通过后，全国步枪协会迅速表示反对，并在联邦诉讼中指控该市侵犯了该组织的第一修正案权利。旧金山很快撤退了:伦敦市长n .布里德在9月下旬向所有市政部门领导发出备忘录，指示该决议“不对官员强加任何义务”。
“没有一个部门会采取措施来评估城市承包商和全国步枪协会之间的关系，”她写道。“任何部门都不会采取措施限制任何承包商与核管理机构开展业务，也不会限制与核管理机构有任何关系的任何业务的城市承包机会。”
旧金山在周四驳回申请的动议中辩称，由于该决议不具约束力，也没有导致采取任何官方行动，全国步枪协会没有起诉该市的资格，这意味着非营利组织没有遭受任何需要赔偿的具体伤害。
加利福尼亚州参议员斯科特·维纳(左)和加利福尼亚州议会议员苏珊·伊格曼(右)观看旧金山市长伦敦布里德在新闻发布会上的讲话，以显示对2018年9月4日在加利福尼亚州旧金山健康权利360城市范围内安全注射点的支持。
该市还声称，因为该决议“没有限制”全国步枪协会的言论自由，该组织不能声称其第一修正案的权利受到侵犯。
全国步枪协会认为，该市虽然没有完全禁止自己的观点，但却发起了一场“旨在压制全国步枪协会言论”的运动全国步枪协会指责旧金山悄悄恐吓可能与之做生意的承包商，其依据无非是宪法保护的亲枪宣传，实际上是惩罚该组织行使第一修正案规定的权利。
但旧金山的律师认为，该市的监管者自己有受宪法保护的表达自己观点的权利，全国步枪协会不能因为政府机构表达的反对意见而根据法律要求受到伤害。
在周四的动议中，旧金山引用了美国核监管机构发布的新闻稿，称这些新闻稿是默认，由于一项不具约束力的决议，从未有任何真正的理由发出警报。在一份备忘录中，NRA描述了布瑞德在她全市的信中如何将该决议描述为“一堆没有任何法律约束力的空话”
旧金山认为，这似乎破坏了核监管机构在法庭上采取的核心立场，即该组织因该决议而受到具体损害。然而，在同一份备忘录的后面，美国核监管机构确实断言，对其业务的“寒蝉效应”依然存在，即使在这种情况下法律云可能会消散。
此外，该市要求法院驳回对旧金山监管者提起的诉讼中国家步枪协会的部分。该动议援引的理论是，在立法活动中，给予地方立法者"绝对豁免权"。
预计将于11月就该市的动议举行听证会。
SAN FRANCISCO SEEKS DISMISSAL OF NRA LAWSUIT, SAYS IT DID NOT RETALIATE WITH 'DOMESTIC TERRORIST' RESOLUTION
A picture of Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre is seen at the National Rifle Association (NRA) booth during CPAC 2019 February 28, 2019 in National Harbor, Maryland.
San Francisco is asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) in September, after the city passed a resolution declaring the nation's largest gun-rights group a "domestic terrorist organization."
The NRA complained that the non-binding resolution, passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on September 3, called on the city to review and reevaluate its relationships with contractors who also do business with the NRA.
After its passage the NRA swiftly objected, and in a federal lawsuit accused the city of violating the group's First Amendment rights. San Francisco quickly retreated: a late-September memorandum from Mayor London N. Breed was sent to all city department heads instructing that the resolution "does not impose any obligations" upon officials.
"No department will take steps to assess the relationships between City contractors and the NRA," she wrote. "And no department will take steps to restrict any contractor from doing business with the NRA or to restrict City contracting opportunities for any business that has any relationship with the NRA."
In its motion to dismiss on Thursday, San Francisco argued that because the resolution was non-binding and did not result in any official action being taken, the NRA lacked standing to sue the city, meaning that the non-profit did not suffer any specific harm that would necessitate compensation.
California state senator Scott Wiener (L) and California assembly member Susan Eggman (R) look on as San Francisco mayor London Breed speaks during a news conference to show support for safe injection sites within city limits at HealthRIGHT 360 on September 4, 2018 in San Francisco, California.
The city also alleged that because the resolution "does not restrict" the NRA's free speech, the group cannot claim its First Amendment rights were being infringed.
The NRA had argued that the city, while not barring its viewpoints outright, constructed a campaign that was "designed to suppress the NRA's speech." The NRA accused San Francisco of quietly intimidating contractors who might do business with it, based on nothing more than its constitutionally protected pro-gun advocacy, effectively punishing the organization for exercising rights under the First Amendment.
But San Francisco lawyers argued that the city's supervisors have a constitutionally-protected right themselves to express their own viewpoints, and that the NRA cannot claim an injury under the law for adverse views being expressed by a government body against it.
In Thursday's motion, San Francisco cited press releases from the NRA which it claimed served as tacit acknowledgments that there was never any real cause for alarm due to a non-binding resolution. In one memo, the NRA characterized how Breed described the resolution in her city-wide letter as "a bunch of hot air with no legally binding effect whatsoever."
This would appear to undermine a central position taken by the NRA in court, that the organization suffered concrete harm due to the resolution, San Francisco argued. However, further down in the same memo the NRA does assert that a "chilling effect" on its business remains, even if the legal cloud in situations like these may dissipate.
Furthermore, the city asked the court to dismiss the NRA's portion of the suit filed against San Francisco supervisors. The motion cited doctrine providing local legislators with "absolute immunity" from liability in conjunction with lawmaking activities.
A hearing on the city's motion is expected in November.
