• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Newsom orders California to craft firearm ban after Texas abortion law

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
68,960
Reaction score
22,530
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From United Press International


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.​
 
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?
 
Last edited:
I hate this, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
mrjurrs said:
None of CA's gun laws are anti 2nd Amendment,
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Those laws ban certain types of semiautomatic firearms as well as turn the 2nd amendment into a state granted privilege by requiring permits.


mrjurrs said:
if they were they'd be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

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

mrjurrs said:
Tell me justice jamesrage, that you understand that no right of Americans is absolute.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
mrjurrs said:
I hate this, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander
Click to expand...
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.
 
mrjurrs said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
RAMOSS said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ElChupacabra said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am hoping that it gives the opportunity to slam the door shut on that kind of legislation.
 
RAMOSS said:
I am hoping that it gives the opportunity to slam the door shut on that kind of legislation.
Click to expand...
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.
 
RAMOSS said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's "making a point" and being hypocritical in the process.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
It's "making a point" and being hypocritical in the process.
Click to expand...
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 said:
"This is unconstitutional and I am furious! BTW, I'm gonna do literally the exact same thing now."

That's hypocrisy. Period.
Click to expand...
Nah. It's not. But, some people have to complain and make false accusations.
 
I'll light a candle for the gun nuts.

Guns aren't in the constitution folks
 
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).
 
We absolutely knew an idiotic Democrat would do something stupid like this. Hardly "breaking news".
 
mrjurrs said:
I hate this, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander
Click to expand...
Who are the geese and the ganders? Newsome is taking "revenge" for what and upon whom, by violating the 2nd Amendment?...lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…