Gavin Newsom calls for bill modeled on Texas abortion ban to crack down on gun manufacturers

thus 'crappy'

 

again, reading is hard. here's the post:

First I write "Newsom wants to model a bunch of new crappy California laws after a crappy Texas law." my words, not anyone else's, not in quotes.

Second I echo DaDakota by writing "Brilliant."

Third I complete my homage to the illustrious DD by signing my post "DD"

Fourth, I add a post script in the form of "fwiw" (for what it's worth, in case that's not apparent). Following the "fwiw" I include the tweet by Turley. Kind of an added bonus to the post. I probably could have split the post into two separate posts.

Nay, the Turley tweet probably deserved its own thread!!

 

here's John Lott, unfortunately (for some of you) writing for the Federalist. His argument is still an argument though.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/1...n-abortion-doesnt-affect-california-gun-laws/

excerpt:

Newsom wants to use this private legal action to enforce California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and privately made guns (what gun control advocates call “ghost guns”). But his whole strategy is a bit of a mystery. California already bans anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells assault weapons or ghost gun kits or parts. Their assault weapon ban has been in place for decades. There is no evidence that gun dealers in California have continued selling these banned weapons.

In addition, the Democrat-dominated Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld all of California’s gun control laws, so this indirect method of enforcement through private parties isn’t even necessary. The whole point of the Texas law is to avoid using state law enforcement to restrict abortions.

A number of legal experts believe courts will eventually strike down Texas’s law. In any case, Gorsuch’s opinion allows pre-enforcement challenges, and it has implications for what Newsom wants to do.

Pre-enforcement challenges will avoid any “chilling effect” on gun ownership. In addition, unlike the Texas law that targets anyone who “aids or abets” abortion, Newsom’s limiting his proposal to just manufacturers, distributors, or sellers means that he will be up against businesses who will be less intimidated by litigation costs.

One aspect missing from the whole debate is that the private enforcement of laws is hardly new. It is used for everything from minimum wage laws to rent control.

For example, if employers pay workers less than the minimum wage, the workers can sue to get back double the underpayment of wages. If a worker earns $5 per hour when the minimum is $7.25, he’d have about $4,500 in underpayments for a year — and a $9,000 payoff for suing. He will get compensated for however long he gets underpaid.

As a result, only a tiny fraction of 1 percent of Americans covered by the minimum wage are paid too little, and these rare violations mainly involve mistakes by employers, not outright lawbreaking. The only “cops” needed are fewer than 1,000 federal agents who are busy enforcing recordkeeping, child-labor standards, over time, and other labor regulations. Similarly, rent control laws are enforced by the renter being able to sue for overpayment of rent.

The entire debate over Newsom’s enforcement of gun control at this point is more theatrics than logic or legal substance. But that shouldn’t be surprising. Politicians can never pass up the opportunity to energize their base.​

 

no better eg than

Trump promoting the lie of stolen election, even tho he had lost by ~ 6 million votes, the largest losing margin in US election,
leading to the 6 Jan 2021 insurrection in the US Capitol​

 

Gum up the system and Starve Da Beast!

YEEEHAAAWWWW

 

I can dig it. Even as a pro gun guy I'm tired to the pussyfooting SC. If they want to play this stupid game with Roe then let's get some stupid prizes going.

 

I cannot stand Turley, he really doesn't bring much to a conversation IMO, but that is neither here nor there.

The Texas law is garbage, and the law Newsome is suggesting is flaming garbage..... it is all political theatre, because they have nothing better to do.

 

Got em!!!

 

nm

 

that was a good comment about Lott and the minimum wage example

related:

 

Yeah no that doesn't really matter. Guns aren't explicitly protected at all, let alone the ones that exist today.


Anyway that's irrelevant - state bounty regimes are the problem here.

The supreme court conservatives (minus Roberts)* are going to have to eat a great big plate of **** to say 'only state bounty programs for things we like" and further show that they're a ****ing fraud, which most people outside the elite SCt media complex know, OR they uphold this law.

*Of course it also reflects badly on Roberts who helped wreck the court, and believe me that **** deserves it

It's a win either way. If 6 unlected, unaccountable stooges are going to murder democracy make them own it. Might not change the outcome but better than nothing

 

Why not a bounty on Texans who collect a bounty?

 

We don’t need anymore Californians moving here
Newbson

 

Too bad all the criminals don’t get guns from the store
Didn’t you suckers play San Andreas ?
@Xerobull

 

Bounty legislation could be the golden opportunity we need to ditch the current failing constitution and build a new country.

 

And here it comes...



California bill would allow citizens to enforce assault weapons ban

https://ktla.com/news/california/ca...llow-citizens-to-enforce-assault-weapons-ban/

 

One big difference it sounds like between the proposed CA law and the TX law is the TX law allows anyone from any state to sue for abortions whether in TX or not. The CA law appears to be limited to CA.

To me this adds to the problems of the TX law as it's not just a law for TX but TX is imposing it's views on other states.

Either way both are bad ideas and if they are upheld will lead to worse.