 
     |
| Gavin Newsom says he'll use Texas abortion law as model for gun-control measure (Page 1/5) |
|
blackrams
|
DEC 12, 07:05 AM
|
|
Gavin Newsom says he'll use Texas abortion law as model for gun-control measure
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 law.
Newsom said the Supreme Court’s decision has set a precedent that will allow states to avoid federal courts when enacting laws.
The Texas law allows private citizens to sue anyone who helps a woman get an abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected.
"I am outraged by yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place," Newsom wrote in a statement Saturday. "But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way."
He said he has 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.
"If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that," he wrote.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/n...ARIU50?ocid=msedgntp
If I interpreted Chief Justice Roberts opinion correctly, this is precisely what he was talking about in allowing average citizens to sue in reference to the Texas abortion law. I guess we'll see where this leads us to. The difference I see is that abortion is not addressed in the Constitution and the right to bear arms is.
Rams[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 12-12-2021).]
|
|
|
|
LitebulbwithaFiero
|
DEC 12, 10:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
blackrams
|
DEC 12, 11:11 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by LitebulbwithaFiero:
Clearly Newsom is concerned with saving lives  |
|
Newsom's reasons are suspect admittedly but, the tactic is what concerns me.
Rams
|
|
|
|
Wichita
|
DEC 12, 11:50 AM
|
|
The case brought up to the Supreme Court had a whole host of frivolous stuff in it, for which the Supreme Court basically said that most of this should be dismissed. Don't get your inpretation from the media sources. They will spin it in whatever direction they want it to.
https://www.supremecourt.go...1pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
The case was looked at by the Supreme Court
The Court granted certiorari before judgment in this case
to determine whether, under our precedents, certain abortion providers can pursue a pre-enforcement challenge to a
recently enacted Texas statute. We conclude that such an
action is permissible against some of the named defendants
but not others.
Earlier this year Texas passed the Texas Heartbeat Act,
87th Leg., Reg. Sess., also known as S. B. 8. The Act prohibits physicians from “knowingly perform[ing] or induc[ing] an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician
detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child” unless a
medical emergency prevents compliance. Tex. Health &
Safety Code Ann. §§171.204(a), 171.205(a) (West Cum.
Supp. 2021). But the law generally does not allow state officials to bring criminal prosecutions or civil enforcement
actions. Instead, S. B. 8 directs enforcement “through . . .
2 WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. JACKSON
Opinion of the Court
private civil actions” culminating in injunctions and statutory damages awards against those who perform or assist
prohibited abortions.
|
|
|
|
sourmash
|
DEC 12, 11:55 AM
|
|
|
If past results repeat themselves, the recent trend has been that gun controls have lessened. He might get advised by his legal advisers to drop this stated direction.
|
|
|
|
Rickady88GT
|
DEC 12, 05:04 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
Newsom's reasons are suspect admittedly but, the tactic is what concerns me.
Rams
|
|
Well, if the SCOTUS rules as expected on RvW guns will be protected by the 2ndA and abortion won't.
Admittedly the type of gun we can own is subjective just like how mature a baby can get before it is legally killed.
|
|
|
|
Raydar
|
DEC 12, 05:35 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
...
The difference I see is that abortion is not addressed in the Constitution and the right to bear arms is.[/i]
|
|
Bingo.
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
DEC 12, 05:36 PM
|
|
Also, the Texas law hasn't been tested directly by someone suing another person. As I understand it, one must have "standing" in order to sue someone. They must have been directly affected. Of course you can sue anyone for anything, but if someone has no standing the courts will throw out the case.
I guess the question would be who has standing in either the Texas abortion case (maybe the father?) or if California does something similar with guns. Gun manufacturers are exempt from lawsuits as long as the gun didn't cause harm by malfunctioning.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
DEC 12, 05:57 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
Gavin Newsom says he'll use Texas abortion law as model for gun-control measure
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 law.
|
|
Empty political words and posturing by another Leftist throwing an angry childish tantrum about what The Supreme Court of the United States has decided.
He may as well have simply said: "I have no respect for the law and judicial process in the United States and I will push for a retaliatory law in my state that is completely unrelated to the abortion issue, has no effect in Texas or any other state and further infringes on long established Constitutional rights of the citizens of my state because.....because... Leftism!"[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-12-2021).]
|
|
|
|
randye
|
DEC 12, 06:25 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Hudini:
Also, the Texas law hasn't been tested directly by someone suing another person. As I understand it, one must have "standing" in order to sue someone. They must have been directly affected. Of course you can sue anyone for anything, but if someone has no standing the courts will throw out the case.
I guess the question would be who has standing in either the Texas abortion case (maybe the father?) or if California does something similar with guns. Gun manufacturers are exempt from lawsuits as long as the gun didn't cause harm by malfunctioning.
|
|
YUP.
To bring a lawsuit you have to have a number of things, including:
A cause of action, which means, in simplest terms, that you must have been harmed, (usually physically or financially), in some way.
There is also the issue of redressability, which means that the court will actually be capable of doing something to correct or make up for the plaintiff’s injury. This can mean ordering the defendant to undo what it has done, or if that isn’t possible, imposing penalties or fines to help make the plaintiff "whole again" or that would have a deterrent effect, and that the penalty is appropriate and equitable.
And finally, you are correct regarding gun manufacturer's "immunity" under The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) a FEDERAL LAW which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products......even in The People's Socialist Republic of California.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-12-2021).]
|
|
|
|