Newsom orders California to craft firearm ban after Texas abortion law

[Variant]

is it kind of the same thing as Texas is doing seeing as though Roe vs Wade has been a constitutional right established by previous case law for over 50 years now. They going to use the same work around for Supreme Court precedent to skirt the constitutional issue coming to the fore via litigation that Texas is using. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Right?

It's just terrible case law. Why should legislatures have the power to take away the right of someone to have their constitutional rights upheld?

It should be a non-starter on any issue. The only reason it is being entertained is because we've got some activist judges with an ax to grind over abortion law.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

It's a punt rather than an endorsement. The case against the law by abortion providers will continue, so we'll see how that ends up. I am surprised they didn't stop this dead in its tracks because the implications of the precedent aren't good at all.

They're throwing red meat out there for the unwashed masses to keep fighting over.

 

[Torus34]

Perhaps we are beginning to see a truly fundamental question emerge. It's a dichotomy.

Does our government, including its laws, serve us or do we serve the government?

Subsumed under that is another question:. Who are 'we'?

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[rahl]

Oh buddy...Janice was overruled and roe is going

nope. different questions of law, which is why they are going before the court. Can't take same question of law before the court again. Basic constitutional law.

 

[TomFitz]

The supreme court created the "right" out of dubious precedent and bad reasoning. Why shouldn't the court revisit what it created

But that’s not what they’re doing.

The Texas law was crafted to avoid that, by removing the government as the enforcement authority and turning it over to self appointed vigilantes.

Newsome is taking the exact same approach in his proposal. I don’t expect it will actually go anywhere.

But it is fun to watch the Federalist Society squirm. After all, they worked years under the radar to concoct this legal strategy.

And now they’re having it fed back to them.

 

[TurtleDude]

But that’s not what they’re doing.

The Texas law was crafted to avoid that, by removing the government as the enforcement authority and turning it over to self appointed vigilantes.

Newsome is taking the exact same approach in his proposal. I don’t expect it will actually go anywhere.

But it is fun to watch the Federalist Society squirm. After all, they worked years under the radar to concoct this legal strategy.

And now they’re having it fed back to them.

I have never supported the Texas law that allows this idiotic private suit nonsense.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don't believe I would necessarily say this is correct. Can you provide citation, or is this a belief you hold personally, vice one that you came to as the result of presented evidence?

It's based on personal observation.

Professional military people realize that it is THEIR lives that the politicians (next to none of whom are going to be risking their butts and almost all of whom will be doing absolutely everything in their power to attempt to ensure that none of their kids are going to be risking their butts either) are going to be hazarding in order to obtain some political benefit.

Why are they in the military then?

Because they realize that SOMEONE has to act as the defending force against those who would topple the society that they come from and respect.

A soldier who LIKES war and enjoys the act of killing others is as dangerous to their own comrades as they are to "The Other Guys".

 

[mrdeltoid]

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.

The right of the people to abortion shall not be infringed. I think it’s in the BOR.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

there is no valid federal power banning such ownership. every right is inherent unless a government has the valid power to say otherwise.

So, it is your position that convicted murderers awaiting execution, children, mentally deranged people, and people to stupid to be allowed out of the house without a minder, have the inherent right to "keep and bear arms" because there is no valid federal power to prohibit them from doing so - right?

Or is it that your position is that it is only the US federal government that doesn't have that power while the several states do have that power and that all of the Supreme Court decisions striking down intra-state laws regulating the right to "keep and bear arms" are unconstitutional?

PS - If an American has the "inherent right" to "keep and bear arms" have their rights been violated if they are arrested and jailed when they are found in possession of firearms while in Canada when they do not have the requisite Canadian permits to be in possession of firearms?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

And how do you know that in advance?

I would think that it is patently obvious that living in a country where think its fine to buy their 15 year old a hand gun and then do not take the steps needed to prevent the 15 year-old from taking the gun to school and killing their classmates with it - WITHOUT doing anything to prevent that happening (AND EVEN MORE SO advocating for the 15 year-old to possess guns) is about as close on lunacy as you can get.

 

[Noodlegawd]

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.

They are. Well, at least according to one stupid definition of "assault weapon."

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Perhaps we are beginning to see a truly fundamental question emerge. It's a dichotomy.

Does our government, including its laws, serve us or do we serve the government?

Subsumed under that is another question:. Who are 'we'?

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

For all practical purposes, in the US today,

[1] the "us" is those who have the financial clout to influence the actions of the legislators;​

​

and​

​

[2] the "we" is those who do not have the financial clout to influence the actions of the legislators.​

 

[TurtleDude]

So, it is your position that convicted murderers awaiting execution, children, mentally deranged people, and people to stupid to be allowed out of the house without a minder, have the inherent right to "keep and bear arms" because there is no valid federal power to prohibit them from doing so - right?

Or is it that your position is that it is only the US federal government that doesn't have that power while the several states do have that power and that all of the Supreme Court decisions striking down intra-state laws regulating the right to "keep and bear arms" are unconstitutional?

PS - If an American has the "inherent right" to "keep and bear arms" have their rights been violated if they are arrested and jailed when they are found in possession of firearms while in Canada when they do not have the requisite Canadian permits to be in possession of firearms?

have you ever bothered to read and then try to understand what I have written? Apparently not. I have explained hundreds of times that the federal government was intended to be a government of limited powers and those powers were spelled out in the US Constitution or in some cases-amendments. rights at a federal level can only be limited that way. This only applies in the USA and other areas where US Law applies

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

have you ever bothered to read and then try to understand what I have written? Apparently not.

Wrong.

I have explained hundreds of times that the federal government was intended to be a government of limited powers and those powers were spelled out in the US Constitution or in some cases-amendments. rights at a federal level can only be limited that way. This only applies in the USA and other areas where US Law applies

Now please address the following:

[1] Is it your position that convicted murderers awaiting execution, children, mentally deranged people, and people to stupid to be allowed out of the house without a minder, have the inherent right to "keep and bear arms" because there is no valid federal power to prohibit them from doing so - and if not, what IS your position?​

​

[2] Is it that your position is that it is only the US federal government that doesn't have that power while the several states do have that power and that all of the Supreme Court decisions striking down intra-state laws regulating the right to "keep and bear arms" are unconstitutional - and if not, what IS your position?​

​

[3] If an American has the "inherent right" to "keep and bear arms" have their rights been violated if they are arrested and jailed when they are found in possession of firearms while in Canada when they do not have the requisite Canadian permits to be in possession of firearms - or are those rights only "inherent" when they are in the United States of America?​

​

[4] Since the Constitution of the United States of America applies to ALL people who are in the United States of America does that not mean that someone from a different country who is touring the United States of America has ALL of the same "inherent rights" (which includes the "right to keep and bear arms") as does someone who was born in the United States of America - and if not, why not?​

Please be specific and detailed in your answers.

 

[mrjurrs]

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.

It absolutely is, but if the law is upheld it won't be unconstitutional will it?

 

[natman]

Guns aren't in the constitution folks

Seriously?

 

[mrjurrs]

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.

I don't disagree with your point, but there is a big leap between laws that were passed an injunctions prevented them from being enforced and laws that have been on the books and enforced for years.

 

[mrjurrs]

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

TX law is interfering with Constitutional rights. How would CA's actions be any different? If SCOTUS upholds the removal of Constitutional rights for one thing, how is it revenge to take away Constitutional rights for a different thing?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

TX law is interfering with Constitutional rights. How would CA's actions be any different? If SCOTUS upholds the removal of Constitutional rights for one thing, how is it revenge to take away Constitutional rights for a different thing?

Abortion isn't a constitutional right.

 

[mrjurrs]

Abortion is NOT MENTIONED anywhere in the U.S. constitution.

The right to possess a fire arm IS.

Case closed

Thanks for clarifying your lack of understanding of our constitutional rights. Maybe read the 9th Amendment.

 

[BlueTex]

Abortion isn't a constitutional right.

Let's say California writes their law this way:

Any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action against any person who:
(1) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the manufacture, distribution or sales of a firearm used to commit a crime.

Would this violate someones constitutional rights?

 

[TurtleDude]

Wrong.

Now please address the following:

​

[1] Is it your position that convicted murderers awaiting execution, children, mentally deranged people, and people to stupid to be allowed out of the house without a minder, have the inherent right to "keep and bear arms" because there is no valid federal power to prohibit them from doing so - and if not, what IS your position?​

​

​

​

[2] Is it that your position is that it is only the US federal government that doesn't have that power while the several states do have that power and that all of the Supreme Court decisions striking down intra-state laws regulating the right to "keep and bear arms" are unconstitutional - and if not, what IS your position?​

​

​

​

[3] If an American has the "inherent right" to "keep and bear arms" have their rights been violated if they are arrested and jailed when they are found in possession of firearms while in Canada when they do not have the requisite Canadian permits to be in possession of firearms - or are those rights only "inherent" when they are in the United States of America?​

​

​

​

[4] Since the Constitution of the United States of America applies to ALL people who are in the United States of America does that not mean that someone from a different country who is touring the United States of America has ALL of the same "inherent rights" (which includes the "right to keep and bear arms") as does someone who was born in the United States of America - and if not, why not?​

Please be specific and detailed in your answers.

what does this mean to you

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[mrjurrs]

Abortion isn't a constitutional right.

It is currently, unless you are in TX (which is why the SCOTUS decision on TX SB8 is so unusual). What do you think it is?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

what does this mean to you

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Well, for one thing, it means that you didn't answer any of the four questions.

For another, it means that you do not actually understand the meaning of "due process of law".

IF a law is passed that provides for summary execution by anyone who suspects another of having committed "X",​

AND IF "A" suspects that "B" has committed "X",​

THEN has "B" been deprived of "due process of law" if "A" walks up to them and blows their head off with a shotgun?​

​

___ YES​

​

___ NO​

​

Provide detailed reasoning for your position.​

For another, it means that you believe that there are some inalienable rights which can be alienated - which is about as dumb a position that anyone who understands the meaning of the word "inalienable" can come up with.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, for one thing, it means that you didn't answer any of the four questions.

For another, it means that you do not actually understand the meaning of "due process of law".

IF a law is passed that provides for summary execution by anyone who suspects another of having committed "X",​

AND IF "A" suspects that "B" has committed "X",​

THEN has "B" been deprived of "due process of law" if "A" walks up to them and blows their head off with a shotgun?​

​

___ YES​

​

___ NO​

​

Provide detailed reasoning for your position.​

For another, it means that you believe that there are some inalienable rights which can be alienated - which is about as dumb a position that anyone who understands the meaning of the word "inalienable" can come up with.

yawn