Newsom says he'll use Texas abortion law as model for gun-control measure

[Brian4Liberty]

Gavin Newsom says he'll use Texas abortion law as model for gun-control measure

In responding to the U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the Texas abortion ban to stay in place, California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday said he plans to propose a gun control law that would be modeled on the Texas one.

Newsom said the Supreme Court’s decision has set a precedent that will allow states to avoid federal courts when enacting laws.

The Texas law allows private citizens to sue anyone who helps a woman get an abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected.
...
He said he has already directed his staff to work with the legislature and the attorney general to craft a bill that would allow private citizens to sue those who manufacture, distribute or sell an assault weapon or ghost gun kit.
...
More: https://news.yahoo.com/gavin-newsom-says-apos-ll-060342432.html

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The Texas Heartbeat Act has effectively put a stop to most abortions in that state by empowering private citizens to sue, for at least $10,000, anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, usually around six weeks or so into gestation. Women who obtain abortions cannot be sued.
...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/10/supreme-court-issues-opinion-on-texas-abortion-law-challenges.html

As soon as this story came out, it was obvious that it would be turned against guns. What are the backers of this Texas law thinking?

 

[Okie RP fan]

As soon as this story came out, it was obvious that it would be turned against guns. What are the backers of this Texas law thinking?

Some people were saying that right after it passed and were suggesting other ways to go about addressing abortion.

Even so, I'll say this again: IF YOU ARE STILL IN CALIFORNIA AND ARE LIBERTY ORIENTED/NON-LEFTIST, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU STILL DOING THERE?!

Move to OK, TX, FL, TN, NH, etc. where we can bolster our local numbers.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Some people were saying that right after it passed and were suggesting other ways to go about addressing abortion.

Even so, I'll say this again: IF YOU ARE STILL IN CALIFORNIA AND ARE LIBERTY ORIENTED/NON-LEFTIST, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU STILL DOING THERE?!

Move to OK, TX, FL, TN, NH, etc. where we can bolster our local numbers.

Never surrender. The leftists can leave California. Many of them have. They are moving to your states. Retreating and fleeing is just a delay tactic.

 

[pcosmar]

As soon as this story came out, it was obvious that it would be turned against guns. What are the backers of this Texas law thinking?

How..

I have been trying,,but can not find any similarity between a child's life and a chunk of inanimate metal.

There is a Right to Life.

and a Right to be armed,,is protected in all state Constitutions.

There is NO comparison..Apples and Oranges is not sufficient.. It is comparing Monkeys to Rocks.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

How..

I have been trying,,but can not find any similarity between a child's life and a chunk of inanimate metal.

There is a Right to Life.

and a Right to be armed,,is protected in all state Constitutions.

There is NO comparison..Apples and Oranges is not sufficient.. It is comparing Monkeys to Rocks.

“empowering private citizens to sue”

The comparison is the lawsuits. For example, the anti-gun people have been using lawsuits to try to eliminate gun rights. Expanding the ability for random people to sue others tangentially related to something is a slippery slope. And that’s exactly what Newsom is going to try to do.

 

[pcosmar]

“empowering private citizens to sue”

Encouraging Frivolous lawsuits.

I suspect an overwhelmed court system would be the result.

 

[Anti Globalist]

And just like that every gun manufacturer in California moved to another state.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Encouraging Frivolous lawsuits.

I suspect an overwhelmed court system would be the result.

Lawyers are happy.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Gavin Newsom says he'll use Texas abortion law as model for gun-control measure

The intent of the law is completely different however? Targeting individuals aiding in a 'crime'(take the '' away if abortion is illegal in TX after the heartbeat can be detected, idk) vs targeting companies producing a product that is legally sold and ends up being used in a crime.

The way the California law is proposed here, the Texas law would allow you to sue GMC because the person who drove the person in question in a GMC truck. Or am I wrong ?

 

[nobody's_hero]

Never surrender. The leftists can leave California. Many of them have. They are moving to your states. Retreating and fleeing is just a delay tactic.

I think of it more as consolidation of like-minded people. A bunch of conservatives spread out all over the place as to be ineffective everywhere, does no one any good whatsoever.

California is a lost cause. The best gubernatorial candidate the GOP has run in that state since Reagan, was Larry Elder and he was only able to get about a third of the vote. So, if you are a republican voter living in California, you're f*(King useless. Absolutely. Useless. If you moved to a state where your vote might actually make the difference between a red state and a blue state, you'd be better off, and so would the people of the battleground state you move to. Not to mention California has legalized ballot harvesting, so even if you were able to ever get a majority, you'd be cheated out of a win most certainly.

“empowering private citizens to sue”

The comparison is the lawsuits. For example, the anti-gun people have been using lawsuits to try to eliminate gun rights. Expanding the ability for random people to sue others tangentially related to something is a slippery slope. And that’s exactly what Newsom is going to try to do.

If the anti-gun people were already doing this before, then Texas's abortion law did practically nothing to empower them further. Texas was making a law for Texas. California makes laws for California. I doubt the legislature in Texas ever gave one fk about what governor Newsom might do to his own state in retaliation. The question is, are the pro-gun people in California gonna do anything about it? (even if that means packing up their guns, their businesses, and their tax dollars to stop paying into a system that would likely collapse if all the productive people got up and left the room. Newsom's regime can't survive on looters alone. They don't pay taxes.)

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The intent of the law is completely different however? Targeting individuals aiding in a 'crime' vs targeting companies producing a product that is legally sold and ends up being used in a crime.

The way the California law is proposed here, the Texas law would allow you to sue GMC because the person who drove the person in question in a GMC truck. Or am I wrong ?

Yes, that is the end result. Plus, there is no requirement for damages to the person filing the lawsuit. Theoretically, a person watching the news could sue Toyota if they see looters escaping in a Toyota.

Can an Uber driver who takes a woman to an abortion clinic be sued by some random persons? My understanding is that is how the law will work. How about the medical supply company that sold supplies to the abortion clinic? Probably can sue them too. And then there is the banking. Can the bank that allows the abortion clinic to open an account be liable for a lawsuit?

This just takes cancel culture to a whole new level.

 

[ClaytonB]

As soon as this story came out, it was obvious that it would be turned against guns. What are the backers of this Texas law thinking?

Well, last I checked, the Constitution has a Bill of Rights, one of which says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Where is the amendment or Constitutional clause which reads, "The right of women to kill their unborn children shall not be infringed?" Only a Hollyweirdo commie like Newsom could treat these as equivalent...