Newsom orders California to craft firearm ban after Texas abortion law

[TU Curmudgeon]

From United Press International

Newsom orders California to craft firearm ban after Texas abortion law​

Dec. 12 (UPI) -- California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he plans to craft a firearm ban in the model of Texas' abortion ban after the Supreme Court ruled Friday to allow the latter to stand.

In a statement Saturday night, Newsom said he directed his staff to work with the state legislature and California Attorney General Rob Bonta to draw up a bill that would allow private citizens to file lawsuits "against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California."

"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 said.

Newsom's statement came after the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to allow legal challenges to the Texas abortion law to continue but did not take action to block or reject the law, which bars abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can be as little as six weeks.

COMMENT:-

​

If you weren't expecting this sort of a response, you haven't been paying attention.​

 

[jamesrage]

California has some of the strictest anti-2nd amendment laws in the country. I am surprised "assault weapon or ghost gun" were not already illegal. So Newsom has no room to bitch about rights being infringed on. How is California threatening to do something they have already been doing for decades making a point?

 

[mrjurrs]

From United Press International

Newsom orders California to craft firearm ban after Texas abortion law​

Dec. 12 (UPI) -- California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he plans to craft a firearm ban in the model of Texas' abortion ban after the Supreme Court ruled Friday to allow the latter to stand.

In a statement Saturday night, Newsom said he directed his staff to work with the state legislature and California Attorney General Rob Bonta to draw up a bill that would allow private citizens to file lawsuits "against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California."

"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 said.

Newsom's statement came after the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to allow legal challenges to the Texas abortion law to continue but did not take action to block or reject the law, which bars abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can be as little as six weeks.

COMMENT:-

​

​

If you weren't expecting this sort of a response, you haven't been paying attention.​

I hate this, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander

 

[mrjurrs]

California has some of the strictest anti-2nd amendment laws in the country. I am surprised "assault weapon or ghost gun" were not already illegal. So Newsom has no room to bitch about rights being infringed on.

None of CA's gun laws are anti 2nd Amendment, if they were they'd be unconstitutional. There is a case in court right now that may end up being upheld. If it is that law would no longer be in force. Tell me justice jamesrage, that you understand that no right of Americans is absolute.

 

[jamesrage]

None of CA's gun laws are anti 2nd Amendment,

Nonsense. Those laws ban certain types of semiautomatic firearms as well as turn the 2nd amendment into a state granted privilege by requiring permits.

if they were they'd be unconstitutional.

Utter nonsense.The fact they have yet to be struck down by the supreme court is irrelevant.

Tell me justice jamesrage, that you understand that no right of Americans is absolute.

Then the same thing can be said about abortion.

 

[mrjurrs]

Nonsense. Those laws ban certain types of semiautomatic firearms as well as turn the 2nd amendment into a state granted privilege by requiring permits.




Utter nonsense.The fact they have yet to be struck down by the supreme court is irrelevant.


Then the same thing can be said about abortion.

Are those laws still in force? Then they are in fact Constitutional.

I get it now, you don't understand the meaning of absolute rights. There are restrictions to the right to abortions in the Roe decision.

 

[Roadvirus]

From United Press International

Newsom orders California to craft firearm ban after Texas abortion law​

Dec. 12 (UPI) -- California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he plans to craft a firearm ban in the model of Texas' abortion ban after the Supreme Court ruled Friday to allow the latter to stand.

In a statement Saturday night, Newsom said he directed his staff to work with the state legislature and California Attorney General Rob Bonta to draw up a bill that would allow private citizens to file lawsuits "against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California."

"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 said.

Newsom's statement came after the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to allow legal challenges to the Texas abortion law to continue but did not take action to block or reject the law, which bars abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can be as little as six weeks.

COMMENT:-

​

​

If you weren't expecting this sort of a response, you haven't been paying attention.​

Gruesome Newsom is eager to ruin any future political plans he has, huh?
Apparently he forgot about the anchor Beto O Dork has around his neck regarding guns.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I hate this, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander

There is always the point to be made that TX is fighting for the constitutionality of the law. On the other hand, Gavin Newsom is furious at this unconstitutional action by Texas, and decides the best course of action is... doing the exact same thing?

Seems pretty hypocritical.

 

[Lursa]

Are those laws still in force? Then they are in fact Constitutional.

I get it now, you don't understand the meaning of absolute rights. There are restrictions to the right to abortions in the Roe decision.

That's not necessarily true. Non-Constitutional laws get passed all the time (see: the multitude of unConst. abortion laws states passed banning abortion in the last 3 yrs or so...none were enacted and those adjudicated have not passed federal court scrutiny and were rescinded. The MS one is now coming under consideration) and sometimes even enacted. If they are enacted, they stand unless there's a supreme court challenge. Sometimes society finds no issue with the laws, may find them socially acceptabble, and they dont challenge them.

 

[RAMOSS]

There is always the point to be made that TX is fighting for the constitutionality of the law. On the other hand, Gavin Newsom is furious at this unconstitutional action by Texas, and decides the best course of action is... doing the exact same thing?

Seems pretty hypocritical.

No, it's making a point. It in effect is challenging the original ruling by showing the side effects of it. It's the perfect opportunity to for the Supreme Court to change it's mind, by showing them they got it wrong.

 

[Bullseye]

I wonder if they that this passed if I can sue anyone who reports me for infringing on my constitutional rights. Probably won't get that far - I can hear the lawyers lining up already to challenge the law on constitiutional grounds. Newsom is such an idiot.

 

[ElChupacabra]

No, it's making a point. It in effect is challenging the original ruling by showing the side effects of it. It's the perfect opportunity to for the Supreme Court to change it's mind, by showing them they got it wrong.

This was also noted by one of the justices as well (Kagan I believe) because its what the precedent invites, and she wisely pointed out is it could lead to other states taking this kind of action against laws they don't wish to keep.

 

[RAMOSS]

This was also noted by one of the justices as well (Kagan I believe) because its what the precedent invites, and she wisely pointed out is it could lead to other states taking this kind of action against laws they don't wish to keep.

I am hoping that it gives the opportunity to slam the door shut on that kind of legislation.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I am hoping that it gives the opportunity to slam the door shut on that kind of legislation.

I'd like to think so, but the problem is that because of this ruling, it will likely mean more since the backdoor is allowed to remain open. What I dread are the other variants of this king of legislation that target other areas. Where this country is in terms of the culture wars, I think this will only continue to fracture states along those lines.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

No, it's making a point. It in effect is challenging the original ruling by showing the side effects of it. It's the perfect opportunity to for the Supreme Court to change it's mind, by showing them they got it wrong.

It's "making a point" and being hypocritical in the process.

 

[Lursa]

It's "making a point" and being hypocritical in the process.

I'm not a lawyer obviously but I believe the TX "law" and it's 'workaround' will be found unconstitutional and I'm not being hypocritical in hoping that, as much of a 2A supporter I am, I hope that this action and more like it force SCOTUS to do their jobs and rule directly on it instead of punting it down the line.

 

[RAMOSS]

It's "making a point" and being hypocritical in the process.

It's only hypocritical if you aren't looking at the WHY. and only looking at the 'what'. Context is everything.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I'm not a lawyer obviously but I believe the TX "law" and it's 'workaround' will be found unconstitutional and I'm not being hypocritical in hoping that, as much of a 2A supporter I am, I hope that this action and more like it force SCOTUS to do their jobs and rule directly on it instead of punting it down the line.

Sure. I think the hypocrisy comes from actually trying the action and/or advocating for its implementation despite having insisted the Texas law is unconstitutional. I myself am glad Newsom didn't wait for the Supreme Court to make a decision on the merits and is doing his hypocritical thing. I also hope it will serve as warning bell to anyone who supports Texas' action. I don't think that makes me hypocritical, as I hope the action fails.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It's only hypocritical if you aren't looking at the WHY. and only looking at the 'what'. Context is everything.

"This is unconstitutional and I am furious! BTW, I'm gonna do literally the exact same thing now."

That's hypocrisy. Period.

 

[Lursa]

Sure. I think the hypocrisy comes from actually trying the action and/or advocating for its implementation despite having insisted the Texas law is unconstitutional. I myself am glad Newsom didn't wait for the Supreme Court to make a decision on the merits and is doing his hypocritical thing. I also hope it will serve as warning bell to anyone who supports Texas' action. I don't think that makes me hypocritical, as I hope the action fails.

 

[RAMOSS]

"This is unconstitutional and I am furious! BTW, I'm gonna do literally the exact same thing now."

That's hypocrisy. Period.

Nah. It's not. But, some people have to complain and make false accusations.

 

[Plasmaball]

I'll light a candle for the gun nuts.

Guns aren't in the constitution folks

 

[CaughtInThe]

it's all expected and when somebody gets to a huge $$$$ guys who want to get on board and sue like crazy (with creativity) we're probably gonna see an organized and coordinated movement of 10s of 1000s if not millions of Americans (over time).

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

From United Press International

Newsom orders California to craft firearm ban after Texas abortion law​

Dec. 12 (UPI) -- California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he plans to craft a firearm ban in the model of Texas' abortion ban after the Supreme Court ruled Friday to allow the latter to stand.

In a statement Saturday night, Newsom said he directed his staff to work with the state legislature and California Attorney General Rob Bonta to draw up a bill that would allow private citizens to file lawsuits "against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California."

"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 said.

Newsom's statement came after the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to allow legal challenges to the Texas abortion law to continue but did not take action to block or reject the law, which bars abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can be as little as six weeks.

COMMENT:-

​

​

If you weren't expecting this sort of a response, you haven't been paying attention.​

We absolutely knew an idiotic Democrat would do something stupid like this. Hardly "breaking news".

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I hate this, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander

Who are the geese and the ganders? Newsome is taking "revenge" for what and upon whom, by violating the 2nd Amendment?...lol