4 ms·
I don't live in the US, and the consequences of this aren't 100% clear to me, but am I correct in assuming - Members of the NRA are now 'domestic terrorists',
by mikejb 7y ago
I don't live in the US, and the consequences of this aren't 100% clear to me, but am I correct in assuming
- Members of the NRA are now 'domestic terrorists', i.e. when entering the US they have to tick the "I'm a terrorist" box?
- Donating to the NRA can be considered financing terrorism?
I'm not a big fan of private gun ownership, but if these interpretations are accurate, this move seems pretty excessive.
- luckylion 7y agoI don't believe a city (or even county) view of who's a terrorist has any relevance to federal procedures.
- keiru 7y agoImagine if the NSA suddenly had to spy on 5 million people. Oh wait.
- rendall 7y agoHi mikejb I'm a US citizen who lives in Europe, and I'm here to help. San Francisco is a city only, and has no Federal power, so the answer is "no" to both of your questions above. As for what it actually _means_, the action by San Francisco is merely rhetorical, and has no legal meaning. It would be unconstitutional for San Francisco to actually use the force of government to punish NRA or its members, since this would violate the 1st Amendment.