Gavin Newsom is going to go for guns ala Texas style

[hal2kilo]

Newsom announces Texas-style bill that would let residents sue gun makers - POLITICO

Yep. He's doing what he suggested back in December. Oh what will the SCOTUS do now?

I sold you, you sold me, under the spreading Chestnut tree.

 

[TheVrolok]

Prepare for more Calvinball from the SCOTUS.

 

[aigomorla]

does that mean we can sue alcohol + car companies soon as well, for DUI related fatalities?

 

[vi edit]

Texas opened pandora's box on vigilante laws. This is just starting.

 

[HurleyBird]

Everything else being equal, the constitution is much, much more explicit about the right to bear arms than the right to an abortion, so if SCOTUS really wants to excuse one but not the other, I imagine that's the avenue they take.

Of course, there are many other examples of how one could apply this dumb theory, like aigomorla points out. If for whatever reason SCOTUS does knock down the California law but not the Texas one, if Dems keep using the same theory to craft other laws until the absurdity is too difficult to ignore, I think they'll eventually get their way.

If you're pro-life, you still shouldn't support what Texas is doing here. It's pure "ends-justify-the-means." Even if you believe Roe also falls under that category, two wrongs don't make a right. That's the only thing that gives me pause with what California is doing, which falls under the same umbrella. Maybe they should have waited a bit longer for this Texas stupidity to wind its way through the courts before lowering themselves to the same level.

 

[K1052]

Prepare for more Calvinball from the SCOTUS.

Probably but blue states should make them deal with dozens of these kinds of laws so the conservative majority has to totally beclown itself in a manner entire courses in law school will be taught about.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Everything else being equal, the constitution is much, much more explicit about the right to bear arms than the right to an abortion, so if SCOTUS really wants to excuse one but not the other, I imagine that's the avenue they take.

Nothing in there about the right to manufacture arms! I say game on!

 

[nakedfrog]

Probably but blue states should make them deal with dozens of these kinds of laws so the conservative majority has to totally beclown itself in a manner entire courses in law school will be taught about.

"Beclown itself", I love it 🤩

 

[Fenixgoon]

Everything else being equal, the constitution is much, much more explicit about the right to bear arms than the right to an abortion, so if SCOTUS really wants to excuse one but not the other, I imagine that's the avenue they take.

Of course, there are many other examples of how one could apply this dumb theory, like aigomorla points out. If for whatever reason SCOTUS does knock down the California law but not the Texas one, if Dems keep using the same theory to craft other laws until the absurdity is too difficult to ignore, I think they'll eventually get their way.

If you're pro-life, you still shouldn't support what Texas is doing here. It's pure "ends-justify-the-means." Even if you believe Roe also falls under that category, two wrongs don't make a right. That's the only thing that gives me pause with what California is doing, which falls under the same umbrella. Maybe they should have waited a bit longer for this Texas stupidity to wind its way through the courts before lowering themselves to the same level.

"shall not be infringed" is not synonymous with "cannot be regulated"

we regulate other rights all the time. they are not unlimited.

 

[shortylickens]

Newsom announces Texas-style bill that would let residents sue gun makers - POLITICO

Yep. He's doing what he suggested back in December. Oh what will the SCOTUS do now?

I sold you, you sold me, under the spreading Chestnut tree.

which is literally what I was asking about months ago.
Sure as shit, they did it.

 

[Greenman]

Nice piece of theater, doomed to be struck down by the Supremes.

 

[shortylickens]

Nice piece of theater, doomed to be struck down by the Supremes.

Exactly like the texas abortion law.
also like the texas abortion law, it will cause loads of chaos before its struck down.

 

[Shmee]

Interesting. I am not sure how I feel about this particular bill, but perhaps in the end it can bring something good? I figure as long as it is limited to big companies, and not private citizens, that at least is something positive. Personally, I wish California wasn't so restrictive on the type of guns we can have. I don't personally own any, but my dad does, and I would possibly like to buy in the future.

Does anyone know if California allows marksman rifles? I kinda like the classic Dragunov, but now that I search for it again, they are very expensive.

 

[Jaskalas]

If you're pro-life, you still shouldn't support what Texas is doing here. It's pure "ends-justify-the-means." Even if you believe Roe also falls under that category, two wrongs don't make a right. That's the only thing that gives me pause with what California is doing, which falls under the same umbrella. Maybe they should have waited a bit longer for this Texas stupidity to wind its way through the courts before lowering themselves to the same level.

This nation will surely fracture. We are a people divided, and political institutions will reflect that division ere long. Just a matter of time to allow the pressure to build towards a climactic resolution. Breaking "laws" and traditions, and the use of force will all be a part of forming this division. Best we can do is to encourage each State to choose their own side. Least that way migration is an option, rather than wanton slaughter.

 

[pmv]

does that mean we can sue alcohol + car companies soon as well, for DUI related fatalities?

Hopefully that's next.

 

[shortylickens]

Well, car companies advertise you should always handle your vehicle safely but liquor companies generally show people partying and getting crazy and having careless fun.
You MIGHT have a case on the same basis as Remington.

 

[ch33zw1z]

does that mean we can sue alcohol + car companies soon as well, for DUI related fatalities?

Why not? This is what the TX precedent created.

 

[darkswordsman17]

"shall not be infringed" is not synonymous with "cannot be regulated"

we regulate other rights all the time. they are not unlimited.

I mean, it only literally starts with "a well regulated..." There's simply no way you can interpret the 2nd Amendment as being against regulation. They knew it was so important that they led with it. And yet a large portion of the US has chosen to do exactly that and read it as "unlimited guns", despite it not mentioning guns at all.

 

[cytg111]

Texas opened pandora's box on vigilante laws. This is just starting.

And Trumps SC approved it.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Everything else being equal, the constitution is much, much more explicit about the right to bear arms than the right to an abortion, so if SCOTUS really wants to excuse one but not the other, I imagine that's the avenue they take.

Of course, there are many other examples of how one could apply this dumb theory, like aigomorla points out. If for whatever reason SCOTUS does knock down the California law but not the Texas one, if Dems keep using the same theory to craft other laws until the absurdity is too difficult to ignore, I think they'll eventually get their way.

If you're pro-life, you still shouldn't support what Texas is doing here. It's pure "ends-justify-the-means." Even if you believe Roe also falls under that category, two wrongs don't make a right. That's the only thing that gives me pause with what California is doing, which falls under the same umbrella. Maybe they should have waited a bit longer for this Texas stupidity to wind its way through the courts before lowering themselves to the same level.

That's not true. Constitution explicitly guarantees liberty, which banning abortion denies women. And that's not even what anti-abortion movement is doing. They're looking to criminalize women's sexuality and use of women's reproductive organs for anything but that (and force them to have to use them should they be illegally violated).

But, first, tell me where the Constitution says anything about guns, by the way. Cause if you wanna get explicit, then let's do that.

 

[Iron Woode]

Nothing in there about the right to manufacture arms! I say game on!

it shifts responsibility to a third party that has no bearing on what happens after it is sold.

It is the equivalent of suing Ford because a Ford vehicle hit you.

 

[ch33zw1z]

it shifts responsibility to a third party that has no bearing on what happens after it is sold.

It is the equivalent of suing Ford because a Ford vehicle hit you.

The can of worms was foretold. U.S. conservatives don't care though, it's all culture war. Alt-facts and all.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I mean, it only literally starts with "a well regulated..." There's simply no way you can interpret the 2nd Amendment as being against regulation. They knew it was so important that they led with it. And yet a large portion of the US has chosen to do exactly that and read it as "unlimited guns", despite it not mentioning guns at all.

Even if you interpret "a well regulated militia" to mean "a well trained militia", that still doesn't exempt firearms from being regulated. By that logic, only rights that are explicitly described as being regulated could be regulated. So basically every right would be unlimited.

 

[HomerJS]

Good move. I'm waiting for Democrats to pass a vigilante law outlawing racism in schools and allow students to report other students and staff to sue civilly.

Afterall, they outlawed CRT which doesn't exist in schools let's outlaw something that's a real threat.

What's the matter conservatives, you only worried about the feelings about you precious white kids?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Good move. I'm waiting for Democrats to pass a vigilante law outlawing racism in schools and allow students to report other students and staff to sue civilly.

Afterall, they outlawed CRT which doesn't exist in schools let's outlaw something that's a real threat.

What's the matter conservatives, you only worried about the feelings about you precious white kids?

The courts would become so backed up with lawsuits from such a law, that they'd probably never get to hear the lawsuit on the law itself 😬