Newsom Calls for Gun Legislation Modeled on the Texas Abortion Law

[Daniel]

 

Newsom Calls for Gun Legislation Modeled on the Texas Abortion Law

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California accused Texas of insulating its abortion law from the courts, and then called on lawmakers to use a similar strategy to go after the gun industry.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/12/us/politics/newsom-texas-abortion-law-guns.html

[Links2k]

12 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Newsom Calls for Gun Legislation Modeled on the Texas Abortion Law

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California accused Texas of insulating its abortion law from the courts, and then called on lawmakers to use a similar strategy to go after the gun industry.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/12/us/politics/newsom-texas-abortion-law-guns.html

Not that I agree with Newsom’s proposal, but it’s a very good strategy. Some of these governors and lawmakers have to realize that once you open that door, it may swing both ways. 

[Chucktshoes]

In a discussion elsewhere regarding this subject a friend of mine posed this question:

“So things have devolved to where politicians aren't even trying to justify their bad laws with anything more than "the other team passed a law our team didn't like, so we're gonna pass one they won't like for revenge"?”

 

Sadly the answer is “yes.”

[Daniel]

4 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

In a discussion elsewhere regarding this subject a friend of mine posed this question:

“So things have devolved to where politicians aren't even trying to justify their bad laws with anything more than "the other team passed a law our team didn't like, so we're gonna pass one they won't like for revenge"?”

 

Sadly the answer is “yes.”

I dont see it as revenge.  It's simply using the tools that have now been opened.  If one side is able to use a rule and set precedent they have to be prepared for that precedent to be used.  I'd rather not have either law.  Hopefully the texas law loses so the other will too.

Edited December 12, 2021 by Daniel

[krunchnik]

1.2nd Amendment is in the Constitution as a bill of rights-

2.Abortion is not a Constitutional right-

3.Newsom fails-

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, krunchnik said:

1.2nd Amendment is in the Constitution as a bill of rights-

2.Abortion is not a Constitutional right-

3.Newsom fails-

Did you read the story?

[krunchnik]

9 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Did you read the story?

I read the story on Brietbardt and still have the same opinion I have alway's had-

Abortion is not a right under the Constitution but firearm ownership is-

In my mind the Constitution takes the win-all arguments aside and no matter how they try to argue or verify it abortion is not a Constitutional right-

No matter how Newson tries to frame it one is right guaranteed by the Constitution and the other is not-

So trying to frame gun control is not the same-

[Grayfox54]

It ain't about constitutional rights. Its about opening the door for individuals to sue gun makers. Isn't there already a federal law against that? 

Anyway, anybody can sue anybody over anything. This just opens the door real wide. My guess is it won't pass Constitutional muster. But ya never know. 

If it passes, I'm guessing the gun makers will just quit doing business in California. That should be interesting. 

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Grayfox54 said:

It ain't about constitutional rights. Its about opening the door for individuals to sue gun makers. Isn't there already a federal law against that? 

Anyway, anybody can sue anybody over anything. This just opens the door real wide. My guess is it won't pass Constitutional muster. But ya never know. 

If it passes, I'm guessing the gun makers will just quit doing business in California. That should be interesting. 

That would work if guns didn’t still cross their borders. 

[bobsguns]

I know this is CA, I know gun grabbers use no logic what so ever. But HOW in the wide, wide world of sports is a mfgr or retailer responsible for someone using a legally purchased firearm for illegal purposes? Are car mfgrs responsible for DUI's? Are beer & liquor mfgrs responsible for DUI's? Is Little Debbie responsible for obesity? 

I have no doubt that if in front of a CA jury (or judge, for that matter) a gun mfgr doesn't stand a chance on the legal merits alone. It's all about the "feelz" of the CA libtards. Nor is the 9th District Court of Appeals going to side on the legal & logical side of things. (The 9th is also THE most overturned appeals court in the US as well.) 

I also fail to see how a CA court is going to have jurisdiction over a gun mfgr located in another state? Newsome rails against "assault weapons", which have been outlawed in CA for years now. Yes, I know this is political posturing on Newsome's part in order to deflect his handling of CA's crashing economy. 

I note no where in the news story did Newsome provide a single detail on how mfgrs & retailers are responsible once the firearm is sold. Talk about a clown world! This is simply mind boggling to me.  

[MacGyver]

I consider myself firmly pro-life.  Actually, I consider myself pro whole life - which puts me at odds with just about every mainline political group.

The hardliners are going to get what they want by what more or less amounts to a trick.

Roberts warned about this in his dissent.

Of course they knew this was going to happen in states like California. But they don’t care - this is their god. 

[Daniel]

5 hours ago, krunchnik said:

 

2.Abortion is not a Constitutional right-

 

Also Roe V Wade did decide that Abortion was a constitutional right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#:~:text=Roe v. Wade%2C 410 U.S.,abortion without excessive government restriction.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),^[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Daniel

[Hozzie]

54 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Also Roe V Wade did decide that Abortion was a constitutional right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#:~:text=Roe v. Wade%2C 410 U.S.,abortion without excessive government restriction.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),^[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. 

It’s not a right.  It an opinion that is applied, but open to change.  2A is more explicitly outlined. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Hozzie

[AuEagle]

The 2nd Amendment clearly defines firearm ownership.

Can anyone point out to me where the Constitution states it's a right or even acceptable to murder babies before they're born?

[E4 No More]

16 hours ago, bobsguns said:

 Is Little Debbie responsible for obesity?

She certainly shares responsibility for mine!

[deerslayer]

15 hours ago, Daniel said:

Also Roe V Wade did decide that Abortion was a constitutional right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#:~:text=Roe v. Wade%2C 410 U.S.,abortion without excessive government restriction.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),^[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. 

…during the first trimester.  

[bobsguns]

19 hours ago, Daniel said:

Also Roe V Wade did decide that Abortion was a constitutional right.

Actually, no it didn't.

Heard an excellent legal analysis today on Sirius POTUS channel. They explained it well enough that even I understood it. All Roe v Wade did was have the USSC rule on an interpretation of a law, NOT finding it "Constitutionally protected."

Wish I could remember the fella's name but boy, did he piss off the female panel member with his analysis. LOL!!!

[Garufa]

38 minutes ago, bobsguns said:

Actually, no it didn't.

Heard an excellent legal analysis today on Sirius POTUS channel. They explained it well enough that even I understood it. All Roe v Wade did was have the USSC rule on an interpretation of a law, NOT finding it "Constitutionally protected."

Wish I could remember the fella's name but boy, did he piss off the female panel member with his analysis. LOL!!!

Once the Supreme Court rule on something it’s pretty much “Constitutional” regardless of the minutia.  It’s what they do.

[Chucktshoes]

Hey y’all, let’s remember to keep the focus how the legal tactic of this Texas law may be used against gun owners and not get lost in the weeds debating abortion itself. 

[MacGyver]

1 minute ago, Garufa said:

Once the Supreme Court rule on something it’s pretty much “Constitutional” regardless of the minutia.  It’s what they do.

The precedent this case sets - regardless of your feelings about abortion - harms the court and the country.

Gun rights won’t be the last controversial topic in which this ruling will be used as support.

The justices know that, too.

So maybe look at it like this. Five justices knew good and well this would be applied to gun rights (because if nothing else Roberts explicitly told them so in his dissent) and willingly went ahead and offered those rights up anyway.

They were sent up there to do a job and took the first opportunity they got to do it.  But, because they swung at this case - it’ll have ramifications that spread far beyond abortion.

 

[Moped]

Honestly, I'm really not sure why and firearms manufacturer would sell any of their products in California.  I sure would not.  Especially, if this comes to fruitation. I wouldn't see to either to any Governement entity there either.

[E4 No More]

It seems that the writer of the anti-abortion law doesn't think that guns would apply since they are a constitutional right: https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/state-sen-hughes-texas-abortion-newsom/2021/12/14/id/1048630/

[bobsguns]

49 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

It seems that the writer of the anti-abortion law doesn't think that guns would apply since they are a constitutional right: https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/state-sen-hughes-texas-abortion-newsom/2021/12/14/id/1048630/

I think he meant "Constitutional Amendment" rather that a mere "right". 

I still fail to see how a dealer or mfgr is responsible for a product once it leaves their hands?????? Obviously CA courts could care less about logic & the law(s), I get that. But if I sell my car & the new owner embarks on a bank robbery spree using said car, how am *I* responsible?????