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.
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. :^)
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.
:^)
“The Constitution protects us from the government, not us from other people.”
But liability laws do and there is a difference between liability and rights.
As Justice Thomas pointed out, owning guns is spelled out in the Constitution; abortion is not.
The Constitution does not shield a person from the misuse of a firearm. But to transfer liability from the person to the manufacturer of a product that is not defective opens up a endless stream of litigation that would paralyze manufacturing.
Lay out the specific legal mechanisms for this, please.
Does Newsome propose to allow private individuals to sue individual gun owners? Gun sellers? Gun manufacturers? What would be the specific cause of action?
Could I sue the person living next door to me for owning a gun? How about some guy 3 towns or 3 counties away? Could I sue a gun manufacturer located in Texas? Could I sue Bubba’s Bait, Tackle, and Guns for doing lawful commerce? How would this square up against the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which specifically forbids such silliness?
I await your responses with bated breath.
L