California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Saturday announced a bill cracking down on the gun industry that would be modeled after Texas’ abortion law that allows private citizens to sue abortion providers.
I guess it’s like a Swiss Army knife, but you need to be a crack shot to get the can of beans open without damaging the contents.
This is awesome, except this Supreme Court is utterly shameless. They would have no problem ruling the opposite way on this gambit. But if they do that, they make it perfectly clear they’re entirely corrupt and political. If they don’t, we finally get reasonable gun laws in blue states. Either way, SCOTUS loses and it’s probably the nightmare scenario Roberts was trying to warn his fellow mouth breathers away from.
Only if there was something in the Bible about arrogance these folk could have read up on…
Good idea, but the difference is neither “privacy” nor “abortion” is mentioned in the Constitution, while the Second Amendment expressly protects a certain “right to bear arms.” Heller didn’t involve firearms outside the home, that is the precise issue that was argued a couple of weeks ago in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen , in which the Court clearly seemed to think that NY’s requiring those who wanted to publicly carry guns to tell the State why, “went too far” and imposed too heavy a burden on the population.
OT but no surprise:
Gavin’s got the right idea. Let’s do this thing.
Oh, is Trump “President” all of the sudden? 'Cause, if not, his “orders” don’t mean shit.
Don’t forget to add that we can also sue anyone who “aids or abets.”
Also, why limit it to these types of guns? Abortion on the whole is constitutional - not only limited to certain types. So, the gun law needs to attack guns one the whole - not only limited to certain types.
It should be “anyone with any combination of more than 6 guns/rifles and/or bullets.”
Got four handguns and a rifle? Then you get only one bullet total.
Good things usually start in California and it isn’t too long after when many sane States follow suit.
Bring it, Gavin. Make 'em earn their dirty money…
Merry Christmas honey, I got you an AR-15, “good for both home and battle.”
Sad state of US affairs when an AR-15 is a “normal” Christmas present.
The Constitution does not guarantee a right to manufacture arms though, or the right to make weapons that can kill massive amounts of people quickly. And, Heller was the first time that the 2nd was interpreted to allow an individual right to bear arms that way…the idea that people individually can bear arms outside the home whenever they want without restriction has never been the legal interpretation of the 2nd, though this SC is likely to change that. Remember, even in the Wild West guns were to be checked in at the local law office…local regulation of firearms is well founded in our legal history, the undoing of that in the name of “gun rights” is the thing that’s out of line.
It’s good to see CA taking this on, it is the state that can readily challenge these things. And, the argument that the states can make their own laws that don’t contravene federal law is totally on point, and using gun rights to show how absurd the abortion ruling is makes that clear. It’s also good that CA is going to help poor women in other states get an abortion here, though I suspect the red states will pass laws making it illegal for women to go out of state to get one…they aren’t really interested in the freedom of women.
You’re going to have to define “normal.” I don’t think there’s anything at all normal about that.
The Gums of Navarro.
The Supreme Court will stay any such California law from going into effect 9-0. The 3 liberals and Roberts will rule consistent with their findings on Texas. The 5 right wing hacks will make up some garbage to pretend their outrageous allowance of the Texas vigilante law wasn’t about stopping abortion.
Assault rifles are an easy target, so to speak…no one needs one for home defense or hunting, they are just a toy. The bigger deal I see is the ghost guns, those are becoming a real problem with the advent of home 3D printing so stopping that is really, really important. Guns aren’t going to go away completely, and this is a bit of theater about abortion instead of actual gun law reform…to get real reform we need a Democratic Congress that will pass laws and a legal system that isn’t captured by gun fetishists, and those are not in place now and will take a lot of work to make happen.
I agree with all that, Riddle. All I’m saying is there’s a logical (though to this Court not necessarily legal) difference between the Constitution’s approach to guns and abortion.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the argument goes something like: There’s an explicit wording on right to bear arms; there’s no explicit wording on right to abortion in the Constitution. Leave it to the right-wingers on the Supreme Court to to create different and fluid categories of constitutional rights.
Whether the right involved is written into the constitution, or implied by the rights afforded thereunder, should not matter. The moment the court permitted Texas to eviscerate a constitutional right by allowing a private cause of action, it set a precedent for every other constitutional right. While we expect the court to reverse Roe, it didn’t rely upon any claim that Roe is unconstitutional to permit the Texas law to remain in effect.
Yes. So, make the theater the most effective: Go after all guns just like Texas went after all abortions.
Presumably, people who bear (and use) the arms will not be sued under the law. The ones who manufacturer, distribute, and sell the guns will be sued. And the right to manufacture, distribute, and sell the guns is not mentioned in the constitution. So the people’ right to bear arms (that they inherited or produced themselves) will not be infringed. And just to be clear, manufacturers of 3d printers allowing gun printing are not protected by the Constitution either, so they will be subject to the law.
@tcollier Sure, the 6 corrupt scotus justices will say just this. But they will just further expose themselves as corrupt because (among other things) as I said above there is no explicit wording in the Constitution allowing manufacture, distribution, and sale of guns is not explicitly mentioned.
