Posted on 12/12/2021 3:23:36 AM PST by Carriage Hill
“...a right (privacy) pulled out of thin air.”
You've left out "keep". You've negated private ownership.
Nice sentiment though.
That’s not my point. My point is that the lawsuits can only proceed under a specific set of circumstances, not a general right to sue under any circumstance.
“Newsom said he directed his staff to draft a bill that would allow private citizens to seek injunctive relief “against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California.”
Newsom is not proposing a law to allow suits on any firearm purchase. That being said this law differs greatly from the one in Texas. Many rights are restricted to one degree or another. Adults of legal age may vote, but they can’t vote twice. The Texas law does not allow lawsuits based on all abortions. Newsom wants to allow lawsuits that allow lawsuits based on ANY purchase of guns he doesn’t like.
Newsom said he directed his staff to draft a bill that would allow private citizens to seek injunctive relief “against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California.”
There is no proposal to ban the purchase of handguns. If you find one I’d like to see it.
I believe Rush used the word “sacrament”, not “sacrifice.”
“Newsom said he directed his staff to draft a bill that would allow private citizens to seek injunctive relief “against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California.”
Who’s proposing to ban all handgun sales?
That should have read “age of the fetus.” Don’t know why there was a double post.
“Hence the reason for Newsom’s law.”
How is buying a gun “misuse?” BTW in the case of the Texas law there may not be direct harm to the third person, but there is harm to the fetus undergoing and abortion. In the case of simply buying a firearm there’s no harm done anywhere.
I think the issue at hand is that the TX law allows civil suit against any and all participants, excepting the pregnant female, when an abortion past the limit is performed. The court hinted that this was an end run around the premise that abortion was legal.
So, imagine, CA sues the manufacturer (against federal law) the shipper who sent it to the dealer, the dealer, the storefront guys who sold it etc.
It would be akin to suing an automaker, a whiskey distillery, an oil company etc. when a person hurts/kills due to DUI .... But unlike the abortion issue, there is no direct negligence or contributory involvement when a person illegally uses any legal thing. The linkage Newsome is trying to make is that these issues are the same. they are not and any court would see that and slap it down.
The TX abortion law makes it illegal to intentionally commit an abortion past a certain period of gestation, that is why the participants would be liable. If a booze store sells a bottle to a minor, and the minor kills someone in a DUI, the alcohol store would be liable for civil suit and even criminal charges for violating the law by knowingly selling to a minor intentionally......
Gun shop who sells/transfers illegally are liable for both criminal and civil suit. he’s just sensationalizing the issue and obfuscating it soundly. Idiot.
Privacy isn't the only natural law aspect at play here.
Isn't the right to life a natural right?
The child's right to a life should
take precedent over privacy.
In this case it's the right saying "abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution" and the left citing natural rights.
Are some natural rights more equal than others?
I sure don't see the left citing natural rights concerning life.
Abortion always does; firearms don’t always.
But yes; both can.
Let’s go!
That's pretty much the argument right there.
In other words, Newsome knows he is going against the people and has to find a way around them.
You're postulating that scenario upon the State government (Legislative branch) just sitting on its hands and doing nothing in regards to new legislation concerning civil lawsuits, correct?
My question was a direct question, not a rhetorical one.
Good lick getting money from those most likely to commit violent crimes with guns.
The 'Loser pays' part is what's missing from the Texas law. When liberals adopt this tactic, they will use it to bankrupt conservatives.
Good points.
Simple answer.....All of them depending on your political leanings
If there’s one thing about the Left that should be blatantly obvious is that they don’t believe in getting rid of anyone’s rights to do this or that. They believe in ‘selective persecution/prosecution’.
If you’re on their team then you can do and say what you want, up to and including destroying peoples property, livelihoods and causing physical harm/injury.
If you’re not on their team then any rights you think you have are taken away. You cannot say anything the disagree with and you cannot do anything, even defend yourself or a loved one, from death or serious physical injury.
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.