California to Use Texas Abortion Ruling as Anti-Gun Law Model

[Soph0571]

California governor Gavin Newsom has called for a new California law that will effectively bar the manufacture and sale of assault rifles in the state, modeled on Texas’s victory in the U.S. Supreme Court that keeps in place state legislation banning most abortions.

Newsom has directed his staff to work with the state legislature and Attorney General Rob Bonta to create a law that would allow private citizens to sue manufacturers, distributors and sellers of assault weapons, according to a statement Saturday.

The proposed California law would be shaped on the Texas legislation that makes abortions illegal after six weeks of pregnancy and allows private citizens to sue doctors or anyone who helps facilitate an abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday narrowed a legal challenge to the Texas law and left it in force.

“I am outraged by yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place, and largely endorsing Texas’s scheme to insulate its law from the fundamental protections of Roe v. Wade,” Newsom said in the statement. “But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.”

[link:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/california-to-use-texas-abortion-ruling-as-anti-gun-law-model]
Emphasis mine

And the law of far right theocratic nasty consequences is going to bite righty arse. Huzzah. The outrage that their anti-democratic, anti-constitution, anti- women playbook is going to be used against them is going to kick in, in 3...2...1...
Well played Newsom.

[SoCalDavidS]

1. Not Holding My Breath

The Supreme Court is going to use the 2nd amendment as justification for negating any meaningful laws or legislation limiting gun rights. Just my opinion.

[Sherman A1]

3. I'm not either, but certainly enjoy the hoist them on their own petard

Part of this.

[Busterscruggs]

2. Good for California

This is the state that proves our policies are the greatest in the nation. If there is another way found to better any gun control initiatives, I am all for it. Even better that they found it in a Texas abortion law. Brilliant people in the golden state

[Old Crank]

4. I can't

Get the link to work.

[ShazzieB]

8. Same here.

[tirebiter]

5. Vigilanteism sucks. Period. End of story.

Ain’t gonna happen.

[Scrivener7]

16. Private citizens suing gun manufacturers is not vigilanteism. So your story, ended or not,

does not apply.

Private citizens sued cigarette manufacturers. There is not much difference here.

No reason it shouldn't happen.

[tirebiter]

50. Then it's not just like Texas.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

19. If you spell a word correctly then one will know what a word means.

[LiberatedUSA]

6. Another crack forms.

Soon all states, depending on their color, will be very different from the other half.

[SYFROYH]

7. Arent "assault weapons" and "Ghost Guns" illegal in CA already?

[LiberatedUSA]

9. I figured they would just go all the way.

I am surprised they stopped with what they consider assault weapons…of course their definition pretty much fits the majority of guns.

But this is their chance to just ban all guns in the manner of abortion.

[sanatanadharma]

11. Just ban all guns developed from the 1789th year of the Lord to today

All guns manufactured prior to 1789 can be grandfathered in under the new law/ regulations.
All guns known to the Founders will be protected, just as they wanted.
They knew circumstances can not remain constant and thus included the power of changing (amending) the Constitution,

[PTWB]

28. That type of gun ban would be perfectly legal.

As long as we amended the constitution first, as you suggested. Until then, though, no dice.

[Dial H For Hero]

48. By that logic...

Just ban all books written by the 1789th year of the Lord to today.
All books published prior to 1789 can be grandfathered in under the new law/ regulations.
All books known to the Founders will be protected, just as they wanted.
They knew circumstances can not remain constant and thus included the power of changing (amending) the Constitution.

Um....no thanks.

[Scrivener7]

17. Lol. That's not what they are doing at all, but hey, if you like fire in your hair, have at it.

[Doremus]

46. I believe there's a federal law that doesn't allow suing gun manufacturers.

That's the law that California would be circumventing.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. This will be fun to watch

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Alexander Of Assyria]

20. Yes. Don't see any daylight between anyone being able to sue anyone having an abortion

made illegal to anyone suing anyone over assault weapons possession made illegal.

The second amendment doesn’t prohibit lawsuits, and scotus may open the barn door but meanwhile the issue of citizens enforcing state law and not law enforcement has already been struck down in Texas and is winding it’s way to scotus where I think even the most rw fascist judges aren’t going to stomach this nonsense.

Frankly this attempted law is unconstitutional as hell, meant only to get around Roe cause enforcement is not with the state, so state can’t be sued. Not to mention utterly unworkable as the courts in Texas will be jammed with idiot plaintiffs…like every church will be plaintiff.

It’s a charade, Kraken level law, doomed.

[NCjack]

12. Gov. Newsom, I see what you are doing! Thanks!

[oldsoftie]

13. Exactly as I predicted long ago. And why the SCOTUS will toss the Texas law.

Because if you let it stand, Ca can do their gun "law". And then some other state could ban free speech. And on and on

[PTWB]

31. I think that's a stretch.

What is stopping SCOTUS from saying that the 2nd amendment protects against such laws, and finding that there is no such constitutional protection for abortion rights?

Anyone who thinks that this is an apples to apples comparison has no concept of politics, the constitution, and SCOTUS’ role in determining constitutionality.

[oldsoftie]

33. But I think Kavenaugh gave a hint at it with his comments earlier

However, I also think you're right about the actual Constitutional issue. I mean, it IS a stretch for the Due Process clause; especially as a pregnancy progresses & medical advances make viability earlier & earlier. I think abortion medications via the mail is about to have a boom

[Dorian Gray]

14. Well, this is the best case scenario

for the thriving states rights/anti abortion/anti gun lobby. (Read twelve people in the USA.)

I find it interesting that the supreme court limited their power. huh.

[LiberatedUSA]

15. It is the worst case scenario.

I don’t blame California one bit, as the Texas (and the Republicans) started it. But this is not a good thing. We are all going to lose from this.

This will cement it. Gun control will never happen in red states now without an army being sent in to red states to forcefully disarm the citizens. Abortion will only be available in blue states.

And it won’t stop there. This is how it ends.

This is NOT the best case scenario. This is the worst case.

[Scrivener7]

18. Abortion will only be available in blue states soon regardless of what happens with

guns.

Did you post that "this is how it ends" when Texas passed the abortion law?

[LiberatedUSA]

21. I understand you are angry about it all right now and how it is working out.

We all are. Very stressful times.

You have my shoulder to cry on.

[Scrivener7]

22. Don't need it, dear. And the California rule is a great idea in many ways.

When it gets to the Supreme Court, pass or fail, we all win.

Unlike the abortion law, that you apparently did not see as quite as bad as the gun law that you call "the end."

[PTWB]

32. How do you figure?

SCOTUS can easily uphold the Texas law and strike down the California law by ruling that gun rights are constitutionally protected and abortion rights are not.

[Scrivener7]

35. Read what Roberts, of all people, said about the effect of the Texas law on the authority

of the Supreme Court.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/chief-justice-john-roberts-warns-supreme-court-over-texas-abortion-n1285747

He is beginning to panic that he will be at the helm when, in upholding the Texas law, the Court demolishes its own authority.

There are more basic Constitutional issues at stake, and the California proposal in no way violates the rights of the people to bear arms.

[PTWB]

37. I'm familiar with what Roberts wrote.

The California law violates the second amendment if SCOTUS decides it violates the second amendment. Just look at what they decided in Heller.

To suggest that they must rule the same way in both these cases is simply inaccurate.

The court is losing legitimacy because it is overtly partisan. That very overt partisanship should tell you that what’s OK for Texas isn’t necessarily OK for California.

[Scrivener7]

38. We have to disagree. This Texas law stands, the states can do what they want and the SC

is kneecapped. And as the California law only covers gun commerce that is already illegal, it doesn't bear on the second amendment.

[PTWB]

41. The Texas law is still being litigated.

And the 2nd amendment protects whatever SCOTUS says it protects. They’re only kneecapped if they choose to be kneecapped.

In your view, what’s stopping them from upholding the Texas abortion ban and striking down the California law?

[Scrivener7]

42. I should have said "If the Texas law stands." And again, we'll have to disagree.

Even they would not be so stupid as to rule two opposing ways on the same issue at the same time. If they did, that would nullify their power faster than if they pass the Texas law.

They are not ruling on abortion or gun laws. They are ruling on whether state laws can ignore the Supreme Court's precedent rulings. If the state can do it in one case, the state can do it in another.

[PTWB]

44. I suspect that the Texas law will ultimately be struck down.

But I feel I’d be naive to expect consistency for consistency’s sake from this court. There is more than enough difference between these two cases for SCOTUS to justify inconsistent rulings if they desire.

[Dorian Gray]

23. I was being sarcastic

Thought that was clear when I Specifically said for the states rights/antiabortion/anti gun lobby. (That doesn’t exist). Should have made my sarcasm more clear. Lol

[oldsoftie]

34. Now did you ever really think the government was going to disarm citizens?

Do you really think ANY state would pass such a law, much less any Congress?
Unless you're only talking about restarting the assault weapons ban. Even that had a grandfather clause

[LiberatedUSA]

36. Likely not.

But “hell yes, we’re gonna take it”, sure doesn’t come off well does it?

[Crepuscular]

24. ...

As laudable as the sentiment behind this effort may be, the practical reality is that tens of millions of taxpayer dollars will be expended in an effort that has almost zero chance of not ultimately being overturned by the Supremes. Meanwhile, homelessness, poverty and dozens of other social ills, which continue to flourish due to lack of funding, will continue to get worse. Instead of tilting at windmills trying to build political capital, instead re-direct the funding to where it will have a tangible and immediate impact on those in our society who need it most.

[Scrivener7]

25. Either it nullifies the Texas abortion law, or it takes ghost guns off California streets.

Either of those seems to be a worthy pursuit for the common good to me.

If it is, indeed, overturned by the SC, that means the Texas abortion law will also be overturned. Stopping that plague before it spreads is a very good thing. Homelessness and poverty will only get exponentially worse if we have to suddenly contend with thousands of unwanted children and thousands of trapped mothers.

[Crepuscular]

26. ...

It's unlikely to have either of those impacts, as it will be mired down in litigation and appeals for years, before ultimately being overturned by the S.C.

The Texas abortion law will be resolved, one way or another, long before this law is even addressed in the courts.

It's a meaningless, feel good gesture, on which millions of dollars of public resources will be spent, which could be better directed towards solving the immediate needs of a significant number of disadvantaged individuals.

[Scrivener7]

27. Then it can be withdrawn. And, no, it is absolutely not meaningless. Do you think the SC

is not completely aware that this is just the first of the laws that it will be presented with if they allow the Texas abortion law to stand?

Honestly, every time someone on our side does something that makes sense, one of us - or many of us - have to chime in and say, "It's not enough" or "it won't work immediately so therefore is not worth the effort" or "I want the money spent on this other thing."

This is a great idea. It rings an alarm that the SC can't help but hear, one that says, "If you want to nullify your own authority, have at it. If you do, we will take advantage of that, and you will be the biggest failure of a court since Dredd Scott."

[Zeitghost]

39. Ghost guns

and assault weapons are already illegal in CA. This is Newsom scoring political points and getting headlines.

[Scrivener7]

40. Nope. It's Newsom broadcasting to the SC that they are committing institutional suicide.

And if it has a positive effect on CA gun safety in the process, all the better.

[Zeitghost]

43. The TX law

The TX law uses civil procedure to go ofter actions that can't be addressed through criminal charges. The same situation does not exist with regards to ghost guns or assault weapons because there are already significant criminal charges that can be used. This will do nothing to make gun laws in CA stronger. It's publicity, which isn't a bad thing on this issue. But that's what it is.

Had they wanted to get tough on guns, this would apply to handguns.

[kpete]

29. WELL PLAYED NEWSOM!!!

a million, billion, trillion recommends!

[dalton99a]

30. Do It ASAP.

[LeftInTX]

45. At this point, it's nothing but talk

A bill still needs to be filed, passed by both houses, and then signed by the governor

So far, none of this has happened.

Gov Newsom can't do anything by himself.

[sl8]

47. One difference is that there is no PLCAA for abortion rights.

PLCAA is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and precludes many lawsuits against gun makers, distributers, etc.

[ripcord]

49. Oh goody

Let's send another gun case to this SCOTUS.