Tx like citizen enforcement for California

[hso]

https://apnews.com/article/business...gun-politics-b0a3cd6c9061e1ba37d6c52ae093e6c0

California Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed Friday letting private citizens in his state sue gun makers to stop them from selling assault weapons just as Texas lets its residents sue abortion providers to stop the procedures, then essentially dared the U.S. Supreme Court to treat both issues the same.

At a news conference in the coastal town of Del Mar, north of San Diego, Newsom said he thought the Texas law was wrong and the Supreme Court’s decision in December to let it stay in effect while it’s appealed was “absurd” and “outrageous.”

“But they opened up the door. They set the tone, tenor, the rules. And either we can be on the defense complaining about it or we can play by those rules. We are going to play by those rules,” Newsom said. He later added: “We’ll see how principled the U.S. Supreme Court is.”​

 

[230RN]

"
At a news conference in the coastal town of Del Mar, north of San Diego, Newsom said he thought the Texas law was wrong and the Supreme Court’s decision in December to let it stay in effect while it’s appealed was “absurd” and “outrageous."
"

Seems perfectly appropriate to me.

In general, as President of the company, I reckon I ought to let Sales and Engineering hash out their details of a disagreement before I make a final decision.

 

[sparkyv]

Many on THR and other forums saw this coming months and months ago.

 

[Speedo66]

He says the idea is “wrong” but he’s going to do it anyway.

What does that say about his ethics?

 

[Armybrat]

While I am strongly pro-life, I think our Texas law is vastly overreaching with that absurd provision.
It smacks of a Stasi/stooge/informant “1984” tyranny.

 

[jdc1244]

But they opened up the door. They set the tone, tenor, the rules.

Newsom’s correct.

This is the consequence of Texas’ reckless, irresponsible, and unwarranted hostility to abortion.

Whether it’s banning abortion or banning guns – both are wrong, un-Constitutional, and examples of poor governance.

 

[SquidBubble]

I'm mostly pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest and medical emergency. Anyways, I don't believe some Texan legislators really thought this one through. It's really aggravating to see gun rights and reproductive rights both being used as ammo by bickering political ideologies. If it continues on, we all lose in the end.

 

[GEM]

You have fanatics that want to control sexuality and the right to keep and bear arms. The country would be better off without them. You do not have to engage in the behaviors if you don't want to. Leave the rest of us to make our own choices.

We have greater problems than these ideological rat holes.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Before this turns into an abortion debate, the text of the bill.
Drill down to 22949.65 for the bounty language. It's clear it's meant to make a statement and a lot of it is geared towards 'precursor parts' and 'ghost guns'. I'd expect some revisions before it stands a chance to pass, but then again worse has been signed into law. There's bigger fish to fry and I say that as someone with skin in this game since I live here.

 

[murf]

abortion is not enumerated in the u.s. constitution. the supreme court basically said that abortion is a state matter. guns, on the other hand, are enumerated. apples and oranges here and newsome can expect the court to treat the two issues separately.

my opinion,

murf

 

[DoubleMag]

''I cannot run the affairs of my own house, therefore, I will misdirect / deflect via highlighting the affairs of others.''

Until it comes to other markers, state debt, etc. , which, in this particular, are so horrible they are evident even to a grade school level of basic accounting.

 

[Elkins45]

You have fanatics that want to control sexuality and the right to keep and bear arms. The country would be better off without them. You do not have to engage in the behaviors if you don't want to. Leave the rest of us to make our own choices.

We have greater problems than these ideological rat holes.

I came to the realization a few years ago that the only difference between the political extremes is the USA is which of your rights they want to restrict because they find them offensive. It’s hard to find a political home when the nutcases are driving the agenda of either party.

I expect this one will get locked soon, but before that happens It’s worth pointing out that there people in both parties that believe in the 2A and we need to build bridges wherever we can.

 

[mope540]

Regardless of abortion rights and wrongs...typical Nazi leftists/globalists will use any excuse possible to reach their goal of gun makers being sued out of business.

 

[danez71]

This is a bit old news.

The TX law wasn't not found to be constitutional.

There are differences between the 2 and it doesn't bold well for Newsom. It also creates virtue singling problems for the administration.


This is worth reading.

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/12/...ls-for-gun-ban-modeled-on-texas-abortion-law/

Newsom’s correct.

Newsom is practically never correct. This is not an exception.

 

[Waveski]

There may be hell to pay , but this needs to be said-
Texas law aside , you simply cannot compare 2nd Amendment rights and abortion rights.

Private gun ownership does not, in and of itself, result in the termination of life.
Abortion does just that.

Let the record show that I did not start this. And no disrespect to THR.

God help me , Doc.

 

[Demi-human]

I came to the realization a few years ago that the only difference between the political extremes is the USA is which of your rights they want to restrict because they find them offensive. It’s hard to find a political home when the nutcases are driving the agenda of either party.

I, too, am a man with no country. To be even handed, polite and logical is to be scorned in the light of this day.

 

[Basura Blanca]

This is a bit old news.

Sorta. But the first draft of the bill was just introduced the other day. The opinion piece you linked to was based on Newsom's lofty promises which predated that by a couple months. If you read the *actual* proposal, the bounty portion has all sorts of language meant to skirt any constitutional questions. It literally says that the "belief that the requirements of this chapter are unconstitutional or were unconstitutional" isn't a defense against civil action.

Section 22949.66 further attempts to reinforce this. It's posturing, but when is lawmaking like this not?

 

[rust collector]

When a prosecution is commenced by a private citizen, and the prosecution is later determined to be unlawful, the private citizen must then be subject to suit without state provided defense and without benefit of sovereign immunity, no?

 

[danez71]

If you read the *actual* proposal, the bounty portion has all sorts of language meant to skirt any constitutional questions. It literally says that the "belief that the requirements of this chapter are unconstitutional or were unconstitutional" isn't a defense against civil action.

Is a defendants 'belief' whether a law is constitutional or not ever an effective defense?

How does that 'skirt any constitutional questions'?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Texas and California are just going to promote black markets in abortion and guns, and contempt for government and laws.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Is a defendants 'belief' whether a law is constitutional or not ever an effective defense?

How does that 'skirt any constitutional questions'?

Probably ineffectively which is why I qualified it with "meant to". I don't know how you want me to answer the first question. I'm simply quoting what the proposed bill says at the moment. I didn't write it.

eta: Do people not understand this is about opening the door to allow Joe Schmoe to file civil suits against people engaged in firearms business? It seems from some comments that's not clear to everyone.

 

[rust collector]

What is needed is a law that recovers the cost of damage inflicted by laws known to be unenforceable, and the cost of defending those laws, from the individuals who passed those laws. Do you suppose we can get any sponsors for that?

 

[danez71]

eta: Do people not understand this is about opening the door to allow Joe Schmoe to file civil suits against people engaged in firearms business? It seems from some comments that's not clear to everyone.

I get that and I even concede it would happen... for a short while.

Everything they can sue for is already illegal and the State would/should be after the criminal activity if it was known.

So this actually put financial burden on the do-gooder plaintiff to file a suit.

When the legitimate business shows up in court and the plaintiff doesn't have any evidence, they'll counter sue for frivolous lawsuit.

If the plaintiff has evidence and can prove, well, a dirty business that's breaking law goes under (which probably shouldn't be considered illegal but that's another thread.)

But how many times losing a frivolous lawsuit will it take before citizens stop filing frivolous lawsuits?

Imo, this is all meant to have citizens to the job of the state, create class warfare, and put fear into gun owners to dissuade them away from even owning guns.

I see your point and don't disagree... but I don't feel this will be productive anti 2A.


From a higher level, if Joe or .fed supports it, then they support TX. They can't support TX.

If Joe or .fed are against TX, then they are against CA anti 2A and soft of anti 2A... and they don't want to be that either.

ol' Joe, he won't comprehend enough to comment and Harris, will double speak and cackle her way out of commenting anything tangible.

The courts will likely do the same as with TX, which was to not find it constitutional and put it on hold while the lawsuits work thru lower courts effectively making it DOA.

But it's good for sound bites... just like Turley said.

 

[Will Munny]

Newsom’s correct.

This is the consequence of Texas’ reckless, irresponsible, and unwarranted hostility to abortion.

Whether it’s banning abortion or banning guns – both are wrong, un-Constitutional, and examples of poor governance.

He is not correct and there is a fundamental difference in the two laws.
California is seeking to violate a fundamental human right, and Texas is seeking to protect one. Big difference.
The legal framework itself can be used for good or bad, and he wishes to use it for bad.
God Bless Texas.

 

[daverich4]

I get that and I even concede it would happen... for a short while.

Everything they can sue for is already illegal and the State would/should be after the criminal activity if it was known.

So this actually put financial burden on the do-gooder plaintiff to file a suit.

When the legitimate business shows up in court and the plaintiff doesn't have any evidence, they'll counter sue for frivolous lawsuit.
.

Why do you think the same thing doesn’t apply to abortion? At this point abortion is legal in every state of the union. A number of states are trying to change that but are waiting on the Supreme Court to rule on several cases before them. Under your theory, someone in Texas who was prevented from getting an abortion by a private citizen could counter sue as well.