Only California could make the link...

[mehavey]

>
> ...already directed his staff to work with the legislature
> and the attorney general to craft a bill that would allow
> private citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, ?]
> distributes or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit.
>
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gavin-newsom-texas-abortion-law-gun-control-supreme-court

That California would now use those individuals to subvert the very core of Constitutional limitations on gov't power by inviting anarchy -- should scare the bejeezuz out of the Gentle Reader.

 

[Tom Servo]

To clarify, the Supreme Court recently allowed a Texas law to partially stand which allows people to sue abortion providers. In response, Governor Newsom has proposed a bill that would allow people in California to sue "anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon of ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California."

It's petty and boneheaded. I don't even know how those lawsuits would work since plaintiffs really don't have standing. There isn't an actual bill yet, just Newsom yammering about it.

If anyone has anything to add, I'll leave this open. But let's all take a moment to review the rules specific to the L&CR forum. We're not doing a discussion about abortion.

 

[Erno86]

It is a sad day, indeed....when our conservative Supreme court justices subverted our constitutional rights with majority opinions; just so they can politicize an argument based on their mistaken beliefs.

Thanks for nothing --- D.J.T.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Will the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act provide protection from civil suits by private parties? I think that has forestalled multiple lawsuits in Connecticut over the Sandy Hook school shooting.

 

[heyjoe]

This is only the beginning of the can of worms Texas and the Supreme court have opened and will spread to many states over different issues.

 

[marvin02]

Not only in California: Justice Sotomayor stated in her dissenting opinion:

“By foreclosing suit against state-court officials and the state attorney general, the Court
clears the way for States to reprise and perfect Texas’ scheme in the future to target the exercise of any right recognized by this Court with which they disagree,”

and

“This is no hypothetical. New permutations of S. B. 8 are coming. In the months since this Court failed to enjoin the law, legislators in several States have discussed or introduced legislation that replicates its scheme to target locally disfavored rights.”

source:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/10/supreme-court-issues-opinion-on-texas-abortion-law-challenges.html

 

[44 AMP]

Note that nowhere is his press release does the CA governor mention any HARM in relation to the ability to sue.

simply this,

We will work to create the ability for private citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in CA.

Considering the current trend of govt's to expand on and interpret the language of laws in their enforcement of such, if this becomes law, be prepared for ALL the parts of nearly ALL firearms to become verboten items.

Just one small example of the possibilities, no more spare magazines, of any size. Magazines are "parts", you know....
(and don't think you'll be able to order them from out of state, whoever delivers them to you could be sued for being the "distributor"...)

DO note the clever "end around" being done here, under the proposed law the CA government isn't violating our rights with a law. They're just going to allow the wackjobs in the private sector to sue businesses out of existence (and it doesn't matter if they win the suits, or not).

As I see it right now, this isn't the tip of the iceberg, its the ripping open of the 4th "watertight" compartment of the Titanic......and the current captain of the CA "ship of state" doesn't seem to me to be the kind of man who will go down with the ship...

 

[ghbucky]

It is a sad day, indeed....when our conservative Supreme court justices subverted our constitutional rights with majority opinions; just so they can politicize an argument based on their mistaken beliefs.

Thanks for nothing --- D.J.T.

This complete and total lack of self-awareness absolutely pervades politics today.

For decades blue states have attempted to sue gun manufacturers any time a criminal commits a crime with a gun, and when TX decides, you know what, lets use that same standard here.

And now it is CONSERVATIVES fault for the completely out of the blue, could never have seen it coming slippery slope.

GMAFB.

 

[Tom Servo]

Justice Sotomayor stated in her dissenting opinion

I disagree with her on many things, but in the balance, she's a fierce advocate for individual liberties.

They're just going to allow the wackjobs in the private sector to sue businesses out of existence

This was how Texas was going to get around SCOTUS and Roe v. Wade. It's a weird form of legal vigilantism. But, as with the California situation, I just don't see how anyone can prove standing without being harmed.

 

[seanc]

Hmmm...CA was such an awesome place for the 2-A, this comes as such a shock and disappointment.



If you want to argue about the constitutionality of CA's definition of assault weapon or ghost gun, that's fair and I agree that CA is wrong, but as long as those laws stand, you have that obstacle to overcome 1st.

The Texas law:

plaintiffs may be able to seek up to $10,000 in damages in a civil court against abortion providers as well as anyone who "aides and abets" an illegal abortion.

The Texas law also states what it means for an abortion to be illegal, one of the rules is after a fetal heartbeat has been detected, as cited in the Fox news article.

Newsom (California) isn't saying they'll be able to sue any and all gun manufacturers/sellers, just those that violate the expansive California gun laws, specifically for what they categorize as assault weapons or ghost guns that I assume already face criminal prosecution (if CA prosecutors ever actually criminally prosecute anyone).

The 2-A solution is simple: in the state of California, don't sell what they consider an assault weapon or ghost gun. People doing that already know they're treading on thin ice in CA, it's already illegal there, so this is just another thorn in their side. This is already illegal in CA, this is just another punishment for doing business in CA. The average gun owner, gun shop and manufacturer is no more affected by this than they were 20 minutes ago.

Like ghbucky said, it's about time the Right started using lawfare like the Left has for decades. They're not going to like it when we start playing by their rules. This proposal is a weak swipe at the 2-A community. We're used to following the law and have little sympathy for those that don't, so I'm not too bothered by this petty idea of an attack from Gov. Newsom.

 

[44 AMP]

The average gun owner, gun shop and manufacturer is no more affected by this than they were 20 minutes ago.

Since its just a proposal and not yet the law, no one is affected....YET.

The problem is that under the proposal "parts" are covered. And, the potential there is huge. Remember that if this becomes law, it will not be the elected officials who determine what is, and is not a prohibited part, it will be unelected (and therefore not directly answerable to the public) state employees that make the determinations.

POTENTIALLY, the same parts that are in that gun that you bought legally under all the CA rules are in the "ghost gun parts kit" that will not be allowed to be sold, or distributed in CA under this law.

That could mean, down to every pin and spring, And the state need do nothing beyond opening the door to private lawsuits over them. Think your local gunshop is going to be unaffected when they could face hundreds of lawsuits from private, individual anti-gun zealots because they stock a spring? Think again.

This isn't the camel's nose poking under the tent, this is. potentially the camel's ass sitting on your face and taking a dump, AND you have to pay for it!
In my not so humble opinion.

 

[ballardw]

How many of the springs in the typical firearm are manufactured by the firearm maker?
I might suspect most of such are ordered from elsewhere. So lets go after the real big money companies such as McMaster-Carr or others.

Screws? Same thing. Pick a hardware company that carries any screw, nut, bolt or washer that can be used in an assault rifle. (Pistol grip screw for an Ar-15 comes to mind as well as parts for the sights).

Maybe getting a few of these general companies involved could make things entertaining.

 

[Stiofan]

Don't buy media hype on Newsom's gun ban, it won't work: Constitutional scholar

We will see.

 

[44 AMP]

Assuming it gets passed and assuming of course that the courts will strike down this obvious piece of junk, what happens in between??

How many lawsuits might be filed, before the law is rendered invalid? Hundreds? Thousands???

Each one taking up court time and resources to process...

This strikes me a "corporate welfare" for lawyers, cloaked in the rhetoric of public safety and gun control.

 

[sfwusc]

Just stop selling to California.

 

[Metal god]

Im so mad at these pro life dillweeds. They’re just like the anti gun dillweeds forcing bad laws on to the republic knowing they’re bull to start with . They all want what they want and they want it now , damn the constitution or anyone that gets in there way :-(

What is this standing you all speak of ? What standing will they have in the Texas law that was partially allowed to stand ? Furthermore this is the left coats and I’ve been here a long time . Even if standing had any teeth do we really think the left coast judges will care . Then there is what I now call the Biden doctrine. Which is pass a law even though you know it’s unconstitutional, enforce it fully while it makes it through the courts for years . IMHO this is a big deal and the SCOTUS. Needs to nit this type of law in the bud right away before there is actual precedent behind it .

 

[44 AMP]

IMHO this is a big deal and the SCOTUS. Needs to nit this type of law in the bud right away before there is actual precedent behind it .

I think you are laboring under the common misconception about the Supreme Court. There are a lot of things people feel the SCOTUS ought to do, based on its role and authority to declare laws invalid.

But that's not what the Supreme Court actually does. Nor is it the responsibility of the Court to correct these things.

The Supreme Court makes narrow rulings on the case before it. It is the rest of the govt that takes that ruling and INTERPERTS it and applies that interpretation to what it does, and doesn't do.

And the High Court is under no obligation to correct erroneous interpretations, UNTIL they appear in a case before the court.

 

[Metal god]

Yes I understand that and I’m not gonna name names but some court cases seem to get to the Supreme Court much faster than others I just feel this is one of those cases that needs to get there sooner than later .

 

[zukiphile]

Whole Womens' Health is a complex ruling on a petition to block enforcement during appeal, and it's badly fragmented. Goresuch delivers the majority opinion except as to part Part II-C. The decision ends:

Other viable avenues to contest the law’s
compliance with the Federal Constitution also may be possible and the
Cite as: 595 U. S. ____ (2021) 5
Syllabus
Court does not prejudge the possibility. Pp. 14–16.
GORSUCH, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the
opinion of the Court except as to Part II–C. ALITO, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and THOMAS, J., joined except for
Part II–C. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting
in part. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in
part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN,
JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment
in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

You know that won't be a casual read. It isn't a decision on the merits, so getting very wound up about something the CA Governor said pertaining to is premature.

 

[Spats McGee]

The issue of standing is an interesting one. In theory, a legislature can grant standing, but I don't see how they can create the injury necessary to sustain it.