Extraordinarily wonderful news! Gov. Newsom snubs far-right madmen

Here is a link to the great news: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/02/18/g...vance-californias-nation-leading-protections/.

Let me just say that this feat is the most danged coup de grâce! The exact details are still a bit sketchy but California's Governor Newsom has initiated a bill that is modelled precisely along the lines of that recent Texas abortion ban law yet it is on the side of good instead of on the side of evil. It facilitates ordinary citizens to sue the manufacturers and retailers of ghost guns, and by that, I presume, is meant those guns that can be mail-ordered as piecemeal kits to be assembled by the end consumer - and they do not bear serial numbers.

This is such a poignant and beautiful snub to those awful ignominious right-wingers on our Supreme Court and in Texas government. I just love it! Commentary welcome!

 

As has been posted in the multiple other threads on this topic. It will not hold up in court because the constitution doesn’t give you an explicit right to abortion. Unlike firearms. California and the left doesn’t even realize it but all they’re doing is putting another nail in the coffin of Roe v Wade.

 

I searched but found no like references in other threads. Can you be specific please?

 

Have "ghost guns" been a problem?

How many actual, real world lives have been taken by "ghost guns"?

Just another case of Democrat politicians trying to solve non-existent problems, and the usual low-information-voter barking seals applauding their non-accomplishments.

 

As far as the abortion thing- I'm all for it.

Abortions overwhelmingly prevents the birth of future Democrat voters, and that's always a good thing.

Democrat-run cities should put abortion pills in their drinking water.

 

Thank you for your stirring response.

 

Your point of course being that unlike abortion our constitution does guarantee the right to bear arms. That guarantee was spelled out back in a time when the most potent weapon was likely the proverbial single-shot musket. Does the second amendment guarantee that citizens can acquire tanks, heavy artillery and surface-to-air missiles? No, the possession of such items is expressly forbidden by pervasive modern legislation. So I conclude that the 2nd amendment ought be revisited and reworded.

 

Enjoy your Exciting news…………until reality smacks you and the other gun grabbers in the face.

 

While citizens and corporations continue to flee California for Texas?

Until California can defend that, anything else the progressives do or say is meaningless.

Progressive liberals doubling down on failed policies and ideologies as their states and cities crumble around them, pretending to themselves they are "winning". It's comical.

 

I would proffer that you misunderstand the purpose of the second amendment. Why do you think it’s there?

 

Old news, and ultimately ineffective and unconstitutional. But California is a **** hole, so by all means they can continue living in squalor.

also, follow the rules. Why post the WRONG headline?

 

Won’t happen during a time where the left ignores the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

 

You’re most welcome.

I’m always happy to bring reality and perspective to progressive pipe dreams and foolishness.

 

That's OK as long as the bill includes every single tool that is misused to kill some one. You would have to allow car manufacturers, baseball bat manufacturers and every other manufacture face the same lawsuits. Government doesn't have the right to pick and choose. It should treat everyone the same.

 

What does that have to do with ghost guns?

I'll ask the question again- In what way are ghost guns a problem? How many people have ghost guns killed?

 

'Don't know what you're objecting to.

 

One little hitch in Newsom's git-along: firearms are explicitly protected in the Constitution, abortions are not.

what is wonderful news about one far-left madman snubbing far-right madmen?

 

Careful what you wish for. The logical conclusion: You will simply not be permitted to leave the house. Fortunately, the Amazon drones can deliver everything you need to survive.

 

My post expressed no wish.

 

It certainly implied one. You asked for commentary, I complied with your request. This new tactic by our exalted leaders of using civil liability as a workaround to the legislative process is -- in my view -- a very dangerous precedent and a very slippery slope which has the potential to effectively strip the citizen of almost any right you can think of.

So, I say again: Careful what you wish for. It's a figure of speech meaning it's a really good idea to consider the unintended consequences of the temporary comfort you may experience.

And remember, the pendulum swings both ways.

 

'Couldn't agree with you more.

 

Yet you applauded it in your OP. Can you help me understand that, please?

 

Because liberal Californians are fighting fire with fire, in a brilliant mocking/taunting gesture aimed at both renegade State Texas and also the damnably recalcitrant Supreme Court. Yo yes, I love it -- as a poignant coup de grâce. 'Hope that clarifies a little.

 

Nope, but it DOES give us equal rights so nobody has the right to encroach on that. If you want to keep ALL your rights while denying another person legally defined and recognized as a citizen in our country, you simply don't have the right to take away anyone's rights.

 

OP is funny. He thinks republicans would be mad about this.
All guns should have serial numbers!
Also most people using unregistered guns are not republicans
Thanks for the laugh OP
Epic partisan fail job!