Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lazamataz
However, Gavin Newsome (and you, by implication) attempt to conflate it to the issue of firearms rights.

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.

57 posted on 12/12/2021 6:15:56 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg
You are still brewing weak tea.

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.

So they move, or stop selling to California. That leaves many gun-friendly states to manufacture in or sell to.

I cannot spend any more time on this today; I have things to accomplish. I will relentlessy destroy your points, serially, when I have time later.

61 posted on 12/12/2021 6:26:44 AM PST by Lazamataz (I feel like it is 1937 Germany, and my last name is Feinberg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

To: DoodleDawg

How is one person harmed when a second person buys a gun from a third?


75 posted on 12/12/2021 6:56:37 AM PST by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson