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 ...
“Constitutional right to bear arms”
I know that it seems pedantic, but it’s very important to remember that the constitution Grants No Rights.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The constitution rather prohibits the federal government from infringing on what is inferred as a Natural Right. Those rights are granted by the creator which only a despotic tyrant would interfere with. I understand that it’s convenient shorthand to say “Constitutional Right” But it’s important that we understand and communicate it in this manner. Because the left is the ‘Grant Rights’ party. they do not read the constitution in the same language as everyone else. They presume there are no Natural Rights. All Rights and Privilege’s are granted by the federal government at their direction and discretion. When we use the constitutional right point of view then we are fighting on their ground which is subject then to their discretion.
We should rather say that “The constitution prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to bear arms.” We simply cannot concede that ground.
Apologies again for the pedantics. I don’t mean to single anyone out for this comment.
Two holes are apparent:
1) A ban on selling handguns would certainly be overturned by the current SCOTUS court, and quickly.
2) The litigant would have to get a win on the suit, and that is certainly no lock.
You make good points but I think you're off on this one.
SCOTUS has said the right to abortion is rooted in the natural right to privacy.
In this case it's the right saying "abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution" and the left citing natural rights.
I see you have no response. Oh well, I live Bibically, and I will adhere to Proverbs 24:17-18.
“Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles, lest the LORD see it and be displeased, and turn away his anger from him.”
.... ah, crap. No I won’t. GLOAT GLOAT GLOAT GLOAT.
:^)
Re: 15 - Oh come on, Because someone offers an opinion you apparently don’t agree with?
Go downthread. Read the entire exchange.
I still think he's a troll. DoodleTroll. :^)
Not if you can't sue the state because the state's not the one enforcing the law. You won't ever get SCOTUS to consider the case.
That's exactly the state of play with the TX law right now.
I don't think it will last but the whole point of this tactic is to keep the issue away from SCOTUS.
There is, in fact, a way to get 'locus standii', or Standing. It is called the "Chilling Effect" doctrine:
The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law. This is known as the "chilling effects" doctrine.
I disagree.
You missed the most important point...
If gun defendants cannot appeal civil lawsuits to a federal court, if they can only appeal to the individual state Supreme Courts, they will have no choice but to stop selling or making guns in many states.
If it hasn't worked in TX I don't see why it would work in CA.
I will concede your point.
However, it is a concession without effect. Other states are gun-friendly, and many manufacturers are already moving there.
Let’s go full State’s Rights.
“SCOTUS has said the right to abortion is rooted in the natural right to privacy”
Well Said, I agree with you that the SCOTUS has rooted abortion as a ‘natural right’ to privacy.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”
Again this is a prohibition directed at the federal government. We’ll save the abortion argument for another thread. But it is an illustration of how the left uses ‘natural rights’ when it is to their advantage and ignores it where it’s not. And also the left forgets that the constitution is not by it’s nature ‘incorporated’. That is that the constitution is directed to restrict the authority of the federal government to those specifically that are specifically enumerated. All other authorities are directed to the states and then to the people.
The left imagines, teaches and communicates as if the constitution grants rights and privileges’ to the American people and policed by the federal government. As long as we embrace that sophistry of the plain language of the constitution we will be unable to make a proper case.
If it hasn't worked in TX I don't see why it would work in CA.It depends on exactly what the SC
It depends greatly on what the exact case is. If it was an attempt to shield abortion clinics from lawsuits, then locus standii could not be achieved. However, if it was an attempt to overturn the abortion law (which I believe it was), then locus standii is a breeze.
I suggest the legal attack would be to challenge the proposed (California) law banning the sale of handguns. Locus standii would be easy, and prior decisions would likely have the SCOTUS strike down that law.
I decided to become a computer developer, but I might have become a lawyer to good effect. :^)
Well, lets see...California...
Must be 21 years of age to buy-Check.
Handgun and rifle registration-Check.
Background checks-Check.
Ban on A-s-s-ault rifles.-Check.
Ten day Waiting Periods-Check.
Red Flag law-Check
FBI checks-check.
Only California approved hand guns allowed-Check.
Tax on ammo-Check.
Background check for ammo purchases-Check.
Age limit of 21 for all guns. Check.
Micro-stamping -Check.
Age limit for ammo-Check.
Gun free zone-Check.
Ban on large magazines-Check.
No private individual sales-Check.
No buying out of state and bringing them into California.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/what-legal-way-bring-a-firearm-california.htm
So what new scheme and dream will they come up with..
This is just cynical and empty virtue signalling to build his base and get donations to his presidential run. There is no federal law preventing anyone from suing any manufacturer of legal product if they can show they have been harmed. What is protected are corporate officers from personal liability. If Newsom changes that it would also make them liable for any social harm such as demonetizing videos rbased on their political philosophy.I don’t think he wants to go there.
As I said.
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.
True. People tried suing abortion providers and failed, too. But the purpose of this law, like the Texas law, is to open a floodgate of suits from anyone who feels they were impacted, however remotely, by the sale of the gun. Faced with hundreds, potentially thousands, of lawsuits may make sellers and manufacturers feel that the California market isn't worth the hassle. That's the whole point.
Now if Newsom's law does pass and if it does result in hundreds of lawsuits and if they all go to court then I expect that they would face the same fate as the Texas abortion lawsuits will - summarily dismissed due to lack of standing. But in the mean time the gun manufacturers will be spending thousands and thousands of dollars defending themselves.
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.
Depends on whether you're on the receiving end or not. Say, as I said, New York passes a law that says that sexual harassment against one woman is sexual harassment against all. Suddenly thousands of suits are filed against Trump and Cuomo and they're forced to spend a fortune defending themselves. What kind of damage could that due to future plans?
Both Newsome and you have only restated the current state of legal affairs, providing no evidence of new vulnerabilities or legal tactics whatsoever.
Sit back and watch then.
In your case, however, you cannot rely on the low-intelligence-level of Freepers in your attempt to troll us. :^)
Apparently worked on you.
Caulifphonya’s NASTY LITTLE NAZI is still fixated on disarming white America.
So a gun can’t be confiscated once its viable to fire a bullet?
Gee, does that mean you don't want to hit me? </sarcasm>
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.