Posted on 12/12/2021 3:23:36 AM PST by Carriage Hill
In responding to the U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the Texas abortion ban to stay in place, California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday said he plans to propose a gun control law that would be modeled on the Texas one. Newsom said the Supreme Court’s decision has set a precedent that will allow states to avoid federal courts when enacting laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Where are you *right*?
I still believe that you are here to troll Free Republic.
However, you made a very broad assertion. So, lay out your case. Support it.
What a moron. So, little Gavin, which other Amendment's rights will you limit or modify based on this reasoning?
... in a just and fair country. Let me know when you find one.
The Constitution protects us from the government, not us from other people. The beauty of the Texas law is that it isn't government who is restricting abortion but the fear of civil suits from people not connected with the government. Abortion providers stop providing abortions because they are afraid of being sued, and there is nothing unconstitutional in that. The Supreme Court is having a problem finding the grounds to strike the law down for those reasons.
So if you didn't think that the Blue states weren't watching and won't use the same tactics to their own benefit then you're blind. It isn't California that will be limiting gun ownership, it will be the fear of civil suits. The Newsom law will be the first. Other states may follow. Or states like New York might pass a law, for example, saying harassment against one woman is harassment against all and open Trump up for thousands of lawsuits. The possibilities are endless.
So now the ball is back in your court. You can continue with the name calling...or you can tell me where I'm wrong.
Stunning that Gavin uses such a comparison....both can bring death.
So he succeeds in disarming his state’s citizens....what’s all those rich people in LA gonna do now? Open game for the new wave of home attackers. Utter carnage would follow.
Duh, abortion is not guaranteed in the Constitution.
Big difference!
And the Supreme Court is absolutely right.
However, Gavin Newsome (and you, by implication) attempt to conflate it to the issue of firearms rights.
The left has already attempted, numerous times and since the 1980's, to sue manufacturers of firearms and ammunition into oblivion. None of the lawsuits were successful, and it became such a nuisance that explicit laws were written to prevent such lawsuits.
As to your assertion that this tactic will be used in other leftist causes.... fine. Not seeing how it changes the playing field at all. This is the present state of affairs anyways, anyone may sue about anything. I am very much for the adoption of 'Loser Pays' legislation about civil lawsuits, which would greatly lessen the nuisance lawsuits out there.
Both Newsome and you have only restated the current state of legal affairs, providing no evidence of new vulnerabilities or legal tactics whatsoever.
In the case of Newsome, he is merely counting on the low-intelligence-level of Californians to not realize that his comments are meaningless. In your case, however, you cannot rely on the low-intelligence-level of Freepers in your attempt to troll us. :^)
It wont, which is exactly why the supreme court kicked the Texas case back to the lower courts on an 8 to 1 ruling. The Supreme Court will use the Georgia case to overturn Roe and render the Texas law moot.
Bingo...Constitutional law doesn’t seem to be Gavey’s strong point.
Also: If the Supreme Court decision over the Texas law was, indeed, as described by DoodleTroll*, then the SCOTUS had little choice but to rule as they did; further, this avenue of attack on firearms rights has been active since the 1980s with little to no effect.
So Newsome is working his jaw and flapping his vocal cords without purpose.
* I admit I have not followed the SCOTUS case about the Texas abortion law, and am assuming the case and resolution is as DoodleTroll described it.
@GavinNewsom
Gavin, Gavin, Gavin - shit-cakes vs. fresh baked brownies. Nothing in the Constitution about it being OK to murder babies for convenience - but the Constitution bars anyone from infringing on our natural rights of LIFE, Liberty, etc.
10th Amendment pertains to Texas but no State can override the Constitution and infringe on our actual rights.
And your police will be pointing a finger at criminals and yelling “BANG!“
Abortion is not an ENUMERATED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, Gavin. Keep And Bear Arms is.
Texas did not outlaw abortions. Texas created a state right to sue abortion providers after a fetus develops a heartbeat.
If Newsom makes no attempt to outlaw guns, and just grants state residents the right to sue gun and ammo makers whenever an innocent person is harmed by certain guns, that sounds very similar to the Texas law.
Like Rush Limbaugh (we are not worthy) said: Abortion is the Left’s sacrifice.
Laz,
Loser pays would be a disaster for justice. Loser pays just means deeper pockets wins.
Perhaps, but I would ask, how so? How would it be a disaster?
It certainly would lessen the quantity of nuisance lawsuits.
There's going to be a new twist.
If they parallel the TX law CA will make it illegal to sell handguns, say. But the state won't enforce the ban, they'll say any individual can sue a seller in civil court and if they win the suit they'll get $50k.
That's the new twist TX is using, and so far it's worked since it isn't the state enforcing the law.
I think the tactic will ultimately fail because in the long run SCOTUS won't let Constitutional rights be skirted like this, but for now Doodle's right. If it works against abortion legally it can work against any right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.