Gavin Newsom proposes bounty on assault weapons after Supreme Court Texas abortion law ruling

[UCmeNdc]

In a move predicted by legal experts, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has proposed enacting a law in California that would allow Californians to sue manufacturers and sellers of assault weapons or ghost gun kits used in crimes.

As in Texas, successful lawsuits would result in at least $10,000 per violation plus the cost of their legal fees.



https://www.rawstory.com/newsome-weapoins/

Link to tweet

[Phoenix61]

1. He should go for it. nt

[Scrivener7]

2. Good move.

[Beachnutt]

3. Go For It

Gavin, and how about liquor producers for folks hit by drunk drivers, and pharma for folks overdosing and maybe even antivaxxers who spread disease to our vulnerable folks.
Hell yes do it Gavin.

[LymphocyteLover]

4. That's the way you do it! Show them up with their fucking BS.

I'm still furious the Supremes couldn't find it to overturn the blatantly insane and unconstitutional Texas law (SB8).

[Trueblue Texan]

5. Oh, HELL yesssss!nt

[TDale313]

6. I think it's a good move.

Unfortunately, suspect this Supreme Court will not be concerned with a silly thing like consistency and will be tripping over themselves to block it, but hey, I could be pleasantly surprised.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

7. How many silly lawsuits have the fascists filed lately? This one does not require belief in

Jewish laser beams and is on solid legal footing, even if unsuccessful.

Ofc the political value has some value.

[Texin]

24. Yes, I'm sure the Court will. If it involves a monetary component for a corporation,

which, BTW, are "people too", they'll fall all over themselves to "protect" the "rights" of corporate moguls to profit from gun slaughter.

[Mz Pip]

37. Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh noticed this possibility during the Texas abortion law case.

Be careful what you wish. Newsom is just pointing this out.

[ShazzieB]

41. If they block this now,, they'll look pretty silly.

They'll have to tie themselves in knots trying to justify letting one vigilante law stand while blocking the other one.

[TeslaNova]

8. Include ALL guns used in committing crimes

Allow suits to go after the manufacturers, sellers, and owners of ANY gun used in a crime. Time to go after the 2nd with a vengeance.

[bucolic_frolic]

9. SCOTUS opened the road

Don't really want to go there, I think it will lead to social engineering by costly litigation in which law firms will be the main beneficiaries, but that's the path the looney right wingers on the Court chose to go.

Correct me if I'm wrong, potentially Religious Crusaders could pick on any group - unwed couples, tattoo exhibitionists, progressive authors, election result challengers - and just sue them into oblivion.

[uponit7771]

10. +1, now they're going to expose how much of hacks the MAGA justices are

[Johonny]

16. The problem as I see it

Is they're such hacks that they will rule this bounty unconstitutional while the abortion one constitutional without caring about the consequences of a completely arbitrary lawless society. They are complete hacks after all.

[oldsoftie]

21. I dont think so. Kavenaugh hinted at this possibility earlier. I think they'll toss it

The Mississippi law is a different story. But i think the Texas fiasco gets the boot

[oldsoftie]

20. Exactly right. And why I think the law will get tossed. nt

[twodogsbarking]

11. Turnabout is fair play.

Politeness is not a weakness but is often perceived as such.

[Kablooie]

12. I'll bet SCOTUS will kill this right away but leave the abotion ban.

They are becoming pure political tools.
The law is malleable based on Repuglican views.

[Orrex]

15. That's my feeling as well

Newsom must know this, so I infer that the point of such a law would be to spotlight the SCOTUS' inexcusable hypocritical and arbitrary interpretation of law.

[Kablooie]

23. Their argument will be...

Guns are a right in the constitution.
Abortion isn’t.

Guns have been given as a right above just about anything since they are one of the few specifics in the constitution.

[Orrex]

26. You're correct, of course

To them, the rights of guns must be protected uber alles.

Funny how they've claimed for years that they need their guns guns guns to protect against tyranny, but then when the tyrant showed up they goose-stepped happily in line behind him.

[mitch96]

13. Yup, the repukes let pandora out of the box...... go for it...nt

[Happy Hoosier]

14. Good. This is the right move. But not far enough...

Outright ban the sale of them in CA and leave enforcement to the private suits.

[Dial H For Hero]

17. Actually, assault weapons (as defined by CA law) are already illegal in California.

[Happy Hoosier]

31. Expand the definition. We have to make this HURT

The point of the Texas law was to avoid judicial review entirely. If that is allowed to stand, it means states can simply ignore the Constitution.

[Dial H For Hero]

32. How should they define them?

[Happy Hoosier]

34. Personally....

For the purposes of this effort? Extend it to any semi-automatic center-fire rifle.

I wouldn’t support such a broad definition normally, but we are in a existential struggle. We have to make it HURT!

[Dial H For Hero]

35. That would outlaw the sale of numerous rifles considered to be traditional hunting weapons.

The political will for such a draconian measure isn't there. Even if it were, the SC would throw it out in a heartbeat.

[Happy Hoosier]

46. Would they?

Only if they they rule that states can't evade Constitutional review by passing enforcement on to private citizens.

The whole point of taking this measure is to demonstrate that if The Texas law is allowed to stand, Constitutional review can be evaded.

[NJCher]

18. ding dong

republicans:

The pendulum swings both ways.

[Jon King]

19. Good, also do it on climate change, voting rights, everything.

Every blue state should just make up laws allowing bounties for every issue, bounties for companies causing pollution, gun violence, bounties against poll watchers who intimidate.

[Pepsidog]

22. He should tax the shit out of products like viagra and require rectal

examinations before men are prescribed ED drugs.

[dlk]

25. Why not? The Supreme Court intentionally opened this door

Let all of the sane governors who truly value human life, proceed!

[Joinfortmill]

27. I get why Gov. Newsom is doing this, but long-term not so sure what the consequences will be.

[Doremus]

30. I'm betting that it forces the repukes to curtail bulldozing the Constitution

Dems have leaned back and watched with our mouths agape at the audacity of rightwing mouthbreathers. We'd write some sternly worded letters and cluck at the talking heads, i.e. do absolutely nothing.

Force feeding them a small taste of their idiocy may train them, like pavlov's dog, to stop doing this shit. IF --and that's a big "if"-- Newsom and the Calif legislature have the cojones to actually do it.

[Baitball Blogger]

28. I hope it works, or creates the Yin for their Yang

that brings fairness and common sense to this country.

[Doremus]

29. Yesssss! This guy kicks ass. Love him!

[Zeitghost]

33. It's meaningless as proposed

The only guns targeted are already illegal. There are no ghost gun or assault weapon dealers selling to the public in CA as those guns are illegal to sell. There is no need for a private civil enforcement action when there are plenty of available criminal statutes that can be used.

[Dial H For Hero]

36. Not to mention that firearms manufacturers are protected from this sort of lawsuit by federal law.

[moondust]

38. How about some disenfranchisement?

Can the vigilante scheme be "adapted" to disenfranchise GQP voters?

What say, Boofer Boy? Handmaiden?

[iluvtennis]

39. Supremes set the way for this. I like that Dems are trying to fight back. Bravo Gov Newsom. n/t

[Nululu]

40. Rebukes will do this for all rights

Lawsuits for ...
not going to church
Badmouthing the KKK, or the Confederacy
teaching the truth about the holocaust or slavery
or talking about birth control
Or offering birth control
And on and on....

[cstanleytech]

42. Need to redo it so they can sue them if the weapons are also only suspected to have been used not

just used in a crime.

[Progressive Jones]

43. Similarly, can't States pass legislation making it very difficult to legal sell firearms?

A daunting mountain of regulations and paper work and insurance requirements heaped upon gun shops and gun shows?

[ancianita]

45. I hear you.

Background checks expanded, yes. Stiffer penalties for straw buying, illegal possession and trafficking outside the U.S., yes.

But crippling the Left from arming itself in self defense from current right wing crazies is, right now, pretty bad timing.

[ancianita]

44. As he should. Let's see how SCOTUS picks and chooses which constitutional laws to back up.

Let's see how pro-right SCOTUS really is.

Let's see how SCOTUS continues to find some Americans more equal than others.
If SCOTUS can politically set up autocracy by overturning the 60's Voting Rights Act; if they can religiously set up minority rule when it comes to abortion, then ...

Let's see how they hand Joe Biden and the Democratic Congress the go-ahead to expand SCOTUS to 13, in order to properly represent the 13 Federal Districts in the United States.

The case has been made, and now SCOTUS will confirm the need for action.