"California bill would allow citizens to enforce weapons ban"

[volsrock]

"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

Manufacturers should refrain from selling arms and ammo in the state including to the cops state police and body guards

 

[Into the Night]

"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 self defense is inherent. I realize the SOTC does not recognize the Constitution of the United States nor the Constitution of the State of California, but this attempt is not going to work.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Pivot fallacy. Militias are not being discussed here.

 

[Into the Night]

Wouldn't say so, but if it was, how is it any different than Texas' abortion law that allows someone to sue the Uber driver if he drives a person to an abortion clinic?

'Allowing someone to sue' is a misnomer. You can be sued because someone doesn't like the shape of your nose.

 

[Matt Dillon]

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.

There's no way you've never kicked a dog.

You're lying.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Manufacturers should refrain from selling arms and ammo in the state including to the cops state police and body guards

Soooo police in California start using Chinese AKs and Russian ammo. LOL

In reality, business is business. They'll sell to the cops and anyone else who won't sue them.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There's no way you've never kicked a dog.

You're lying.

Unlike you, I'm not a lying, violent dumbass who threatens to murder people on the Internet, Matt.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Unlike you, I'm not a lying, violent dumbass who threatens to murder people on the Internet, Matt.

Fuck you and your delusions.

 

[Into the Night]

The thing about AMerica over the last decades is that almost never are problems fixed, they fester, they get worse, and almost everyone pretends otherwise.

Call it societal suicide.

Not so, but you ARE describing something important here.

Governments do not have a profit motive. They do not have profits. Everything about them is about force, including taxes.

Instead, the success metric of government is justification, not profit. Government must appear to solve a problem, even if it's a made up one, without actually ever solving it. To solve a problem loses the justification for that part of government built to 'solve that problem'. Only by justification can a government grow and expand. It must appear to 'solve the problem', but it must not ever actually solve it.

Every government agency, and even government as a whole operates under this success metric.

 

[Into the Night]

Manufacturers should refrain from selling arms and ammo in the state including to the cops state police and body guards

Or they could just sue the government of the SOTC.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Only once or the only one you clearly remember?

lol. You're a simp cuck non-man.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Fuck you and your delusions.

QED. You're an old man now and what is done is done, but the fact remains your violent tendencies have cost you dearly.

 

[Althea]

Such as?

Refusal to hear the Texas abortion law challenge for one. Refusal to take a position with regard to glaring voting rights violations. Those are the ones I remember without even digging

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Refusal to hear the Texas abortion law challenge for one. Refusal to take a position with regard to glaring voting rights violations. Those are the ones I remember without even digging

Refusing to take cases is their perogative. Look at how many years it took to get gay rights/anti-gay rights laws reviewed by SCOTUS?

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that SCOTUS is inclined to only take cases with substantial law behind each argument. Like the gay marriage stuff, the election laws will take time to wind through the courts and end up with a case SCOTUS must address.

 

[Althea]

Refusing to take cases is their perogative. Look at how many years it took to get gay rights/anti-gay rights laws reviewed by SCOTUS?

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that SCOTUS is inclined to only take cases with substantial law behind each argument. Like the gay marriage stuff, the election laws will take time to wind through the courts and end up with a case SCOTUS must address.

Refusal to hear a case is still a ruling base on personal beliefs. It didn't take the Supreme Court any time to do away with the Voting Rights Act under Obama. They didn't have to waste too much time in the Texas abortion law case. They just refused.

Which is good news for the silly new California law based on the same principle

They also struck down the OSHA vaccination mandate in a split second.

 

[Concart]

The Supreme Court, unfortunately, now has four or five members of Trump death cult. They are no longer the safeguard needed to protect democracy. Democracy is dead. Free and fair elections are over. It is what it is. We had a nice run.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Refusal to hear a case is still a ruling base on personal beliefs. It didn't take the Supreme Court any time to do away with the Voting Rights Act under Obama. They didn't have to waste too much time in the Texas abortion law case. They just refused.

Which is good news for the silly new California law based on the same principle

They also struck down the OSHA vaccination mandate in a split second.

Disagreed. First, there's nine of them. What was the count on hearing the case?

Second, like the gay thing, just because they didn't take an earlier case doesn't mean they won't take a later one.

Third, be careful what you wish for - IF they take the case and rule against it because it was a weak argument against the State law per the Constitution then that sets precedent against the very thing you and I support; fairer voting laws and regulations.

 

[Concart]

Disagreed. First, there's nine of them. What was the count on hearing the case?

Second, like the gay thing, just because they didn't take an earlier case doesn't mean they won't take a later one.

Third, be careful what you wish for - IF they take the case and rule against it because it was a weak argument against the State law per the Constitution then that sets precedent against the very thing you and I support; fairer voting laws and regulations.

Which is exactly why a new Voting Rights Act with teeth that can't be pulled easily by the Supreme Court is needed. But I guess the filibuster is more important than our system of Government. Go figure. There is a chance approaching zero that the Supreme Court will side against these State Laws. They've set the bar at intent rather than effect. That's why this is over.

 

[Flash]

Refusal to hear a case is still a ruling base on personal beliefs. It didn't take the Supreme Court any time to do away with the Voting Rights Act under Obama. They didn't have to waste too much time in the Texas abortion law case. They just refused.

Which is good news for the silly new California law based on the same principle

They also struck down the OSHA vaccination mandate in a split second.

The Texas case was the correct legal decision based on procedural issues. That case is still in the courts because it was sent back to the Texas Supreme Court. They are usually required to exhaust all state remedies before going to the Supreme Court.

The case tried suing the state where no state action was involved. The abortion providers argued that by suing other citizens for providing abortions, the state courts were involved in its enforcement. That would be a state issue to be decided by the Texas courts. If the Texas courts rule against them then they can appeal to the federal courts. Also, there was a complex (to me) issue of whether these appeals to state and federal courts could occur at the same time.

The court issued the proper decision, just not one that made the pro-choice people happy. A good legal decision does not mean it has to satisfy our political preferences.

I don't think the TX or CA case will stand because any state can use that tactic to take away any constitutional right.

 

[Althea]

Disagreed. First, there's nine of them. What was the count on hearing the case?

Take a wild guess. I'll wait

Second, like the gay thing, just because they didn't take an earlier case doesn't mean they won't take a later one.

Of course. Meanwhile, abortions are illegal in Texas for how long?

Third, be careful what you wish for - IF they take the case and rule against it because it was a weak argument against the State law per the Constitution then that sets precedent against the very thing you and I support; fairer voting laws and regulations.

Not sure what you mean here, but the Voting Rights Act specifically protected voters who would be denied a vote based on racist regulations. As soon as the Shelby/Holder case was improperly ruled, the very states that were under scrutiny for past voting rights practices got to work and are denying votes again.

Where their new regulations would have been reviewed by the Feds before Shelby, now they are free to suppress votes with a Supreme Court that continues to allow it.