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

I don’t agree with it, but finally a dem that isn’t a complete p***y

 

Good. I thought of the same thing when it happened.

Scratch that, SCROTUS.

 

I'm going to sue an unborn baby

 

Love it.

 

I'm not sure how this will work since guns are explicitly protected in the constitution where abortions are not. I'm pro choice and believe in some control on how guns are sold.

 

It would presumably work the same way as the texas bill until the high court changes their mind and says it doesn't.

That law is bonkers for anyone who cared about legitimate tort reform before.

 

If the goal is to get this whole concept overturned, do it for masks. Anyone seen violating a local or state mask mandate can be sued by anyone else. All these dumbasses in stores who claim freedom can be free - they'll just be sued for $10k.

 

I think @rockbox point is that the courts could easily strike down the CA one on the basis of constitutional protection while keeping the TX one. If the goal is to point out the ridiculousness of it all, it seems like there are better things to use than guns to force this particularly issue. Don't give the USSC a chance to void one but not the other.

 

Is that possible though? The logic of the Texas law is that the lawsuits don't come from government, so the constitutionality of it can't be tested by the courts. Lawyers can get pretty slick, but it'll be a neat trick to say constitutionality can be tested in one case and not the other. And the hypocrisy of doing so couldn't be more stark.

 

Gun Companies being liable for civil damages via snitch hotline does not infringe on peoples right to bear arms.

This is what those Big Brians have done in texas.

 

Yes. I think the whole point of the Texas law was to avoid a supreme court check, since abortion is considered legal due to roe v wade. It's a nice move because the Texas law being thrown out would invalidate the California law and vice versa. If the Supreme Court buries it's head in the sand then states are able to use vigilante justice on anything. So this move might force them to make a ruling on these terrible laws.

 

If you're a judge being intellectually honest, I 100% agree. But if you're a judge trying to figure out a legal loophole to justify a view, I think the fact that guns are specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendment maybe gives you an opportunity to create some convoluted justification to differentiate between the two? I could be wrong though.

Bigger picture, I think Dems need to form the legal policy army that the GOP seems to have. It seems that the GOP is really good about having bills ready to go, and then passing them in like 15-20 states pretty quickly. We saw it with things like transgender sports bills, voting rights stuff, previous abortion bills, etc.

Dems don't do that - they need to have a policy arm that can push through their priority laws in every state where they hold full control of government. This would be a fun one to push, whether it be on guns, masks, or whatever else. Instead of coming up with their own stuff in this case, I would actually copy and paste the Texas legislation changing abortion to whatever policy they want to push. And then pass it all across the country and force the courts to deal with this ASAP. My favorite would be something that could get bipartisan support, like giving people the right to sue any public official for taking a gift from a lobbyist, but of course that would never pass.

 

Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind, GOP

 

I think more blue states need to test this. And not just going after the gun manufacturers (and guns) but choose a list of different targets. Texas opened the door for other red states... now blue states should follow in. This Roberts' Clown Court needs to be kept busy to truly earn their place in history books.

 

Assault weapons are already illegal under California law (California Penal Code section 30605). Ghost guns are not, but you cannot carry concealed or in a vehicle any loaded weapon of which you are not the registered owner (which you cannot be of a ghost gun, because it has no serial number to register). Violation of these laws is punishable by imprisonment and fine. They can allow people to sue as well, I suppose, but the legal landscape is radically different, because there are already criminal penalties in place.

 

Maybe you can sue people who are the owner or provider of so called ghost guns to the people carrying them. That's really the only way to curb gun proliferation. Make it very expensive to F up, so companies have to build that liability in the cost.

 

Spoiler