Editing National Rifle Association (section)

===Litigation===
In November 2005, the NRA and other gun advocates filed a lawsuit challenging [[San Francisco Proposition H (2005)|San Francisco Proposition H]], which banned the ownership and sales of firearms. The NRA argued that the proposition overstepped local government authority and intruded into an area regulated by the state. The [[San Francisco County Superior Court]] agreed with the NRA position.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Egelko |first1=Bob |last2=Goodyear |first2=Charlie |date=June 13, 2006 |title=Judge invalidates Prop. H handgun ban |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Judge-invalidates-Prop-H-handgun-2494855.php |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |publisher=Hearst Communications |access-date=November 21, 2010 }}</ref> The city appealed the court's ruling, but lost a 2008 appeal.<ref>{{cite news |last=Egelko |first=Bob |date=April 10, 2008 |title=State high court shoots down S.F. handgun ban |url=http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/State-high-court-shoots-down-S-F-handgun-ban-3218562.php |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |publisher=Hearst Communications |access-date=May 30, 2014 }}</ref> In October 2008, San Francisco was forced to pay a $380,000 settlement to the National Rifle Association and other plaintiffs to cover the costs of litigating Proposition H.<ref>Matier, Phillip; Andrew Ross (October 27, 2008) [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BADT13NUQI.DTL&hw "Newsom's city car makes trip to his wedding"]. ''San Francisco Chronicle''. (Retrieved on November 2, 2008.)</ref>

In April 2006, [[New Orleans]], Louisiana, police began returning to citizens guns that had been [[New Orleans Police Department#Hurricane Katrina|confiscated after Hurricane Katrina]]. The NRA, [[Second Amendment Foundation]] (SAF), and other groups agreed to drop a lawsuit against the city in exchange for the return.<ref name=AP060419>{{cite news |title=N.O. Police Returning Guns Confiscated Post-Katrina |url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/04/19/no-police-returning-guns-confiscated-post-katrina/ |date=April 19, 2006 |publisher=FOX News Network |agency=[[Associated Press]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140607224514/http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/04/19/no-police-returning-guns-confiscated-post-katrina/ |archive-date=June 7, 2014 |url-status=dead |access-date=June 7, 2014 }}</ref>

The NRA filed an [[Amicus curiae|amicus brief]] with the Supreme Court in the 2008 landmark gun rights case of [[District of Columbia v. Heller|''District of Columbia v Heller'']].<ref>{{cite web |last1=McArdle |first1=Elaine |title=Lawyers, Guns and Money |url=https://today.law.harvard.edu/feature/lawyers-guns-and-money/ |website=Harvard Law Today |access-date=December 11, 2018 |date=July 1, 2007}}</ref> In a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the District of Columbia's gun laws were unconstitutional, and for the first time held that an individual's right to a gun was unconnected to service in a militia.<ref name="Siegel-2013a"/><ref name="Walden-2015">Walden, Michael. "The Road to ''Heller.''" ''Legal Change: Lessons From America's Social Movements,'' edited by Jennifer Weiss-Wolf and Jeanine Plant-Chirlin, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2015, pp. 53–62.</ref> Some legal scholars believe that the NRA was influential in altering the public's interpretation of the Second Amendment, providing the foundation for the majority's opinion in [[District of Columbia v. Heller|''Heller'']].<ref name="Walden-2015" /><ref>Siegel, Reva B. "Dead or Alive: Originalism as Popular Constitutionalism in Heller." ''The Second Amendment on Trial: Critical Essays on District of Columbia v. Heller'', edited by Saul Cornell and Nathan Kozuskanich, University of Massachusetts Press, 2013, pp. 81–147.</ref>

In 2009, the NRA again filed suit (''[[Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority]]'') in the city of San Francisco challenging the city's ban of guns in public housing. On January 14, 2009, the San Francisco Housing Authority reached a settlement with the NRA, which allows residents to possess legal firearms within a SFHA apartment building.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/BALM15A1SG.DTL&type=printable|title=San Francisco Housing Authority settles gun lawsuit|last=Egelko|first=Bob|date=January 14, 2009 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|location=San Francisco, CA|access-date=January 16, 2009}}</ref>

In 2010, the NRA sued the city of [[Chicago]], [[Illinois]], (''[[McDonald v. Chicago]]'') and the Supreme Court ruled that like other substantive rights, the right to bear arms is incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and therefore applies to the states.<ref name="landmark">{{Cite news|title=In McDonald v. Chicago another Supreme Court landmark ruling on guns?|date=March 1, 2010|newspaper=[[The Christian Science Monitor]]|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/0301/In-McDonald-v.-Chicago-case-another-Supreme-Court-landmark-ruling-on-guns}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Mears|first=Bill|title=Court rules for gun rights, strikes down Chicago handgun ban|website=[[CNN.com]]|date=June 28, 2009|url=http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28/court-rules-for-gun-rights-strikes-down-chicago-handgun-ban/?iref=allsearch|access-date=February 2, 2013|archive-date=March 11, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140311023602/http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28/court-rules-for-gun-rights-strikes-down-chicago-handgun-ban/?iref=allsearch|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In March 2013, the NRA joined a federal lawsuit with other gun rights groups challenging New York's gun control law (the [[NY SAFE Act]]), arguing that Governor [[Andrew Cuomo]] "usurped the legislative and democratic process" in passing the law, which included restrictions on magazine capacity and expanding the state's assault weapons ban.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nra-joins-lawsuit-challenging-new-yorks-gun-control-law/ |title=NRA joins lawsuit challenging New York's gun control law |publisher=FOX News |date=March 25, 2015}}</ref>

In November 2013, voters in [[Sunnyvale, California]], passed an ordinance banning certain ammunition magazines along with three other firearm-related restrictions. The ordinance was passed by 66 percent in favor.<ref name=Chokshi /> The ordinance requires city residents to "dispose, donate, or sell" any magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds within a proscribed period of time once the measure takes effect.<ref>{{cite news|last=Jones|first=Carolyn|title=NRA vows to fight Sunnyvale's tough new gun law|url=http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/NRA-vows-to-fight-Sunnyvale-s-tough-new-gun-law-4962573.php|access-date=December 16, 2013 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|date=November 6, 2013 }}</ref> The following month, the NRA joined local residents in suing the city on second amendment grounds.<ref name=Chokshi>{{cite web | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/18/nra-sues-sunnyvale-over-its-new-ammunition-ban/ | title=NRA lawyer sues Sunnyvale, Calif., over its new ammunition ban | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=December 18, 2013 | access-date=February 26, 2018 | last=Chokshi | first=Niraj}}</ref> A federal judge dismissed the suit three months later, upholding the Sunnyvale's ordinance.<ref name=Wadsworth>{{cite web | url=http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2014/03/06/judge-dismisses-nra-upholds-sunnyvale-gun-control-measure/ | title=Judge Dismisses NRA, Upholds Sunnyvale Gun Control Measure | website=San Jose Inside | date=March 6, 2014 | access-date=February 26, 2018 | last=Wadsworth | first=Jennifer}}</ref><ref name=Richman>{{cite web | url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/03/07/sunnyvales-ammo-magazine-ban-is-in-effect-but-to-what-effect/ | title=Sunnyvale's ammo magazine ban is in effect – but to what effect? | newspaper=[[The Mercury News]] | date=March 7, 2014 | access-date=February 26, 2018 | last=Richman | first=Josh}}</ref>

The city of San Francisco then passed similar ordinances a short time later. The San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association (SFVPOA), represented by NRA attorneys, filed a lawsuit challenging San Francisco's ban on the possession of high-capacity magazines, seeking an injunction.<ref>{{cite web|last=Richardson|first=Valerie|title=Veteran cops challenge San Francisco's gun limit laws|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/20/veteran-cops-challenge-san-franciscos-gun-limit-la/?page=all|newspaper=[[The Washington Times]]|access-date=December 18, 2013 }}</ref> A federal judge denied the injunction in February 2014.<ref name=Wadsworth /><ref name=Egelko>{{cite web | url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-wins-ruling-on-high-capacity-gun-magazines-5249792.php | title=S.F. wins ruling on high-capacity gun magazines | newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] | date=February 20, 2014 | access-date=February 26, 2018 | last=Egelko | first=Bob}}</ref>

In 2014, the NRA lobbied for a bill in Pennsylvania which grants it and other advocacy groups [[legal standing]] to sue municipalities to overturn local firearm regulations passed in violation of a state law [[wikt:preemption|preempting]] such regulations, and which also allows the court to force cities to pay their legal fees. As soon as it became law, the NRA sued three cities: [[Philadelphia]], [[Pittsburgh]], and [[Lancaster, Pennsylvania|Lancaster]]. In Philadelphia, seven regulations the NRA sued to overturn included a ban on gun possession by those found to be a risk for harming themselves or others, and a requirement to report stolen guns to the police within twenty-four hours after discovery of the loss or theft.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Howard|first1=Brian|title=Here's the Lawsuit the NRA Just Filed Against Philadelphia Organization says city has "openly defied state law for decades."|url=http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/01/14/heres-lawsuit-nra-just-filed-philadelphia/|access-date=February 22, 2015|magazine=[[Philadelphia (magazine)|Philadelphia]] |date=January 14, 2015}}</ref> In Lancaster, a city of fewer than 60,000, mayor [[Rick Gray (Pennsylvania politician)|Rick Gray]], who has chaired the pro-gun control group [[Mayors Against Illegal Guns]], was also named in the suit. In that city, the NRA challenged an ordinance requiring gun owners to tell police when a firearm is lost or stolen within 72 hours or face jail time.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Ward|first1=Miriam|title=NRA quick to draw new weapon in Pennsylvania|url=https://msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/nra-quick-draw-new-weapon-pennsylvania|access-date=February 22, 2015|website=[[MSNBC]]|date=January 17, 2015}}</ref> The basis for the lawsuits is "a 1974 state law that bars municipalities against passing restrictions that are pre-empted by state gun laws". At least 20 Pennsylvania municipalities have rescinded regulations in response to threatened litigation.<ref name=2015USN-Penn>{{cite web|last1=Rubinkan|first1=Michael|title=NRA uses new state law to sue Pennsylvania cities over gun measures; mayor vows fight|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/01/14/nra-suing-pennsylvania-cities-on-gun-laws-mayor-vows-fight|access-date=February 12, 2015|agency=[[Associated Press]]|issue=online|magazine=U.S. News & World Report|date=January 14, 2015}}</ref><ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/nra_s_new_legal_strategy_for_killing_guns_laws_pennsylvania_s_act_192_is.html The NRA's Diabolical New Plan for Killing Gun Laws] Alec MacGillis, ''Slate'' February 4, 2015</ref>

The NRA has worked with the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU) in opposing [[National Security Agency|NSA]] collection of the call records of calls in the United States.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.aclu.org/blog/writers-lawmakers-and-nra-support-aclu-challenge-nsa-spying|title=Writers, Lawmakers, and the NRA Support ACLU Challenge to NSA Spying|publisher=American Civil Liberties Union|access-date=October 27, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=MacAskill |first1=Ewen |title=NSA surveillance: National Rifle Association backs ACLU challenge |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-national-rifle-backs-aclu |website=The Guardian |access-date=May 25, 2022 |date=September 4, 2013}}</ref>

On September 4, 2019, the [[San Francisco Board of Supervisors]] passed a non-binding resolution which declared the NRA a domestic terrorist organization and said the city should "take every reasonable step" to limit vendors which do business with the city from also doing business with the NRA. On September 9, the NRA filed a lawsuit in response, accusing city officials of violating the organization's free speech rights by discriminating against the organization "based on the viewpoint of their political speech."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/us/san-francisco-nra-terrorist.html|title=San Francisco Declares the N.R.A. a 'Domestic Terrorist Organization'|last=Padilla|first=Mariel|date=September 4, 2019|work=The New York Times|access-date=September 5, 2019|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref name="guardian-10sep2019">{{cite news |last1=Beckett |first1=Lois |title=NRA sues San Francisco for declaring group a 'domestic terrorist organization' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/10/nra-san-francisco-domestic-terrorist-lawsuit |access-date=September 10, 2019 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=September 10, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Chappell |first1=Bill |title=NRA Sues San Francisco After Lawmakers Declare It A Terrorist Organization |url=https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759333549/nra-sues-san-francisco-after-lawmakers-declare-it-a-terrorist-organization |access-date=September 10, 2019 |publisher=NPR News |date=September 10, 2019}}</ref> On September 23, mayor [[London Breed]] and city attorney [[Dennis Herrera]] announced in a memo that "the city's contracting process and policies have not changed and will not change as a result of the resolution." On November 7, 2019, the NRA dropped their lawsuit against San Francisco.<ref name="sfchron-7nov2019">{{cite news |last1=Egelko |first1=Bob |title=NRA drops lawsuit against San Francisco, which labeled it a 'terrorist organization' |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/NRA-drops-lawsuit-against-San-Francisco-which-14818778.php |access-date=November 8, 2019 |work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |date=November 7, 2019}}</ref><ref name="cbs-8nov2019">{{cite news |title=NRA drops lawsuit against San Francisco over "terrorist organization" resolution but claims victory |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-vs-san-francisco-nra-drops-lawsuit-against-san-francisco-over-terrorist-organization-resolution-claims-victory/ |access-date=November 8, 2019 |work=[[CBS News]] |date=November 8, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Hakim|first=Danny|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/san-francisco-nra-faceoff.html|title=In a Face-off With the N.R.A., San Francisco Blinks|date=October 1, 2019|work=The New York Times|access-date=October 28, 2019|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nraila.org/articles/20191001/san-francisco-backs-down-facing-a-lawsuit-by-the-nra-mayor-breed-declares-we-won-t-blacklist-nra-contractors|title=NRA-ILA {{!}} San Francisco Backs Down: Facing a Lawsuit by the NRA, Mayor Breed Declares – We Won't Blacklist NRA Contractors|last=NRA-ILA|website=NRA-ILA|language=en|access-date=October 28, 2019}}</ref> Los Angeles had passed a similar ordinance but the NRA won a [[Injunction|preliminary injunction]] on December 11, 2019<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/gov.uscourts.cacd_.744044.34.0.pdf|title=National Rifle Association of America et al v. City of Los Angeles et al}}</ref> and subsequently dropped the lawsuit after Los Angeles repealed the law.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://apnews.com/425574f20c0186e9c842e8ca679ee387|title=NRA to drop lawsuit over Los Angeles disclosure law|date=February 1, 2020|website=AP NEWS|access-date=March 30, 2020}}</ref>