"California bill would allow citizens to enforce weapons ban"

[ExpressLane]

"A new bill in California would allow private citizens go after gun makers in the same way Texas lets them target abortion providers, though gun advocates immediately promised a court challenge if it becomes law."

"Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday backed legislation that would let private citizens enforce the state’s ban on assault weapons. It’s modeled after a Texas law that lets private citizens enforce that state’s ban on abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected."

"Texas and other conservative-led states have tried for years to ban abortions. But the states’ attempts have been blocked by the courts."

"But Texas’ new abortion law is unique in that it bars the government from enforcing the law. The idea is if the government can’t enforce the law, it can’t be sued to block it in court. The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority has allowed the abortion law to stay in place pending a legal challenge."

"The proposal fulfills fears from some gun rights groups, who have opposed the Texas abortion law because they worried liberal states like California would use the same principle on guns."

https://apnews.com/article/business...gun-politics-b0a3cd6c9061e1ba37d6c52ae093e6c0

Pretty obvious States looking to curb gun violence are going to also pass similar legislation, which means Brett and the boys are going to have a tough decision down the road, either Texas and California's laws are Constitutional, or both are not

Kudos to Newsom for exposing the hypocrisy

The right to an abortion is not specifically guarantee d in the constitution and the right to own guns is guaranteed. Big difference. If you push things abortion will become a states issue (as it should be) and no longer a federal issue. Guns will remain a Constitutionally guaranteed right. The SOTUS stretched the Constitution to rule on Roe V Wade strict Constitutionalist do not agree with that decision. Thomas, Gorsuch, Barret and Kavanaugh are strict Constitutionalist.

 

[Althea]

I hope SCOTUS affirms the rights of the individual.

Why would they do that? Their recent rulings tend to have less to do with law, and more to do with personal beliefs.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Correct.

Wrong. It's something in which two parties are involved and a civil matter of contractual law unless you consider the man involved nothing but a mindless sperm donor.

Like those that try to claim it's solely a woman's right to choose, but if she chooses to have the child suddenly the man involved is expected to pay child support?

Thanks for admitting I'm correct and confirming you are for the Fed to dominate the will of the individual, but I continue to disagree.

Fucking RW assholes complain about the welfare state then support the Feds to ensure the Welfare State stays intact. How do you explain the contradiction?

Some facts for those who support the rights of the Individual over the power of the All powerful Feds you support:

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/04/25/the-changing-profile-of-unmarried-parents/
Among solo parents, 42% are white and 28% are black, compared with 55% of cohabiting parents who are white and 13% who are black.

These gaps are driven largely by racial differences among the large share of solo parents who are mothers. Solo moms are more than twice as likely to be black as cohabiting moms (30% vs. 12%), and roughly four times as likely as married moms (7% of whom are black). Four-in-ten solo mothers are white, compared with 58% of cohabiting moms and 61% of married moms.

There are virtually no racial and ethnic differences in the profiles of solo and cohabiting fathers. About half of each group are white, roughly 15% are black, about one-fourth are Hispanic and a small share are Asian. Married fathers, however, are more likely than unmarried fathers to be white (61% are) and less likely to be black (8%).

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Why would they do that? Their recent rulings tend to have less to do with law, and more to do with personal beliefs.

Such as?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello archives,

"A new bill in California would allow private citizens go after gun makers in the same way Texas lets them target abortion providers, though gun advocates immediately promised a court challenge if it becomes law."

"Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday backed legislation that would let private citizens enforce the state’s ban on assault weapons. It’s modeled after a Texas law that lets private citizens enforce that state’s ban on abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected."

"Texas and other conservative-led states have tried for years to ban abortions. But the states’ attempts have been blocked by the courts."

"But Texas’ new abortion law is unique in that it bars the government from enforcing the law. The idea is if the government can’t enforce the law, it can’t be sued to block it in court. The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority has allowed the abortion law to stay in place pending a legal challenge."

"The proposal fulfills fears from some gun rights groups, who have opposed the Texas abortion law because they worried liberal states like California would use the same principle on guns."

https://apnews.com/article/business...gun-politics-b0a3cd6c9061e1ba37d6c52ae093e6c0

Pretty obvious States looking to curb gun violence are going to also pass similar legislation, which means Brett and the boys are going to have a tough decision down the road, either Texas and California's laws are Constitutional, or both are not

Kudos to Newsom for exposing the hypocrisy

If the Texas law stands the SCOTUS challenge then so should the California law.

 

[danielpalos]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The legislature meaning State legislatures.

FWIW, a state can't organize a militia if the citizens aren't armed. Armed citizens, necessary to the defense and protection of the State, as you pointed out, is an obligation of all persons within the State.

In short, people who don't arm themselves and maintain a modicum of proficiency in the defensive use of firearms are failing to be good citizens.

 

[danielpalos]

The legislature meaning State legislatures.

FWIW, a state can't organize a militia if the citizens aren't armed. Armed citizens, necessary to the defense and protection of the State, as you pointed out, is an obligation of all persons within the State.

In short, people who don't arm themselves and maintain a modicum of proficiency in the defensive use of firearms are failing to be good citizens.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[PostmodernProphet]

"A new bill in California would allow private citizens go after gun makers in the same way Texas lets them target abortion providers, though gun advocates immediately promised a court challenge if it becomes law."

"Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday backed legislation that would let private citizens enforce the state’s ban on assault weapons. It’s modeled after a Texas law that lets private citizens enforce that state’s ban on abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected."

"Texas and other conservative-led states have tried for years to ban abortions. But the states’ attempts have been blocked by the courts."

"But Texas’ new abortion law is unique in that it bars the government from enforcing the law. The idea is if the government can’t enforce the law, it can’t be sued to block it in court. The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority has allowed the abortion law to stay in place pending a legal challenge."

"The proposal fulfills fears from some gun rights groups, who have opposed the Texas abortion law because they worried liberal states like California would use the same principle on guns."

https://apnews.com/article/business...gun-politics-b0a3cd6c9061e1ba37d6c52ae093e6c0



Pretty obvious States looking to curb gun violence are going to also pass similar legislation, which means Brett and the boys are going to have a tough decision down the road, either Texas and California's laws are Constitutional, or both are not

Kudos to Newsom for exposing the hypocrisy

how many gun manufacturers are located in California?.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Hello archives,



If the Texas law stands the SCOTUS challenge then so should the California law.

well no.....the Texas law is directed at abortion providers in Texas........California proposes to sue manufacturers in other states.......they can only be sued in the states that they operate in........if that happens it will be the law of that state, not the law of California, that applies.........how do you propose they get around that?.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I disagree. This is about superior intellect shoving it right up the ass of this horrid Supreme Court.

Now they're going to twist themselves into knots when they have to rule on this frivolous law.

at least we agree the California law is frivolous......as well it isn't functional.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

What a moron you are.

you are certainly right about him......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Well, ya got yahoos and religious fanatics threatening and in some cases assaulting and/or killing women seeking abortions or the medical personnel that perform them.

But hey, now you got yahoos ready to shoot it out when they ratted to the cops (if this law were to pass)....yeah, when it's defenseless women, doctors and nurses it's no problem.

actually there haven't been any attacks like that in over a decade and the people who did it (less than five) are all in jail.......

 

[Matt Dillon]

You're always funny when you're shitfaced. Is it time for you to start slapping around the old lady?

Is that what you do?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Is that what you do?

No. The only time I've ever struck a woman was in martial arts sparring. We were always padded and friendly.

You brag about arrests and fighting in addition to your threats to shoot me and others. Have you ever struck a woman because you were angry or because "she deserved it", Matt? Ever?

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

however, the freedom OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Matt Dillon]

No. The only time I've ever struck a woman was in martial arts sparring. We were always padded and friendly.

You brag about arrests and fighting in addition to your threats to shoot me and others. Have you ever struck a woman because you were angry or because "she deserved it", Matt? Ever?

Lemme think..yes. A fight was inevitable and she had some hardhead all gassed up to fight me and it was gonna pop off any second and I said "Fuck it" and slapped her and punched him all in the same motion.

This is a bad girl, the leader of the bad girls, even. She was mad at me because I stopped her and her clique from jumping an innocent girl about a week before that.

So she boosted some dude up to fight me a week later and got what she thought she wanted. I kicked his ass and she was nowhere to be found.

It was all quashed a few days after that.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Lemme think..yes. A fight was inevitable and she had some hardhead all gassed up to fight me and it was gonna pop off any second and I said "Fuck it" and slapped her and punched him all in the same motion.

This is a bad girl, the leader of the bad girls, even. She was mad at me because I stopped her and her clique from jumping an innocent girl about a week before that.

So she boosted some dude up to fight me a week later and got what she thought she wanted. I kicked his ass and she was nowhere to be found.

It was all quashed a few days after that.

Only once or the only one you clearly remember?

 

[Matt Dillon]

Only once or the only one you clearly remember?

That'd be in the not your business category.

How many dogs have you kicked?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That'd be in the not your business category.

How many dogs have you kicked?

You're not required to tell but the answer itself says more than once.

Zero. Why would I kick a dog or any animal? How many have you kicked? Cats? Are you a pet killer? Other people's pets, not having to put a sick animal down.