New CA gun-control law mimics TX abortion ban

California has passed a gun-control measure which copies the private-litigation enforcement mechanism of the Texas abortion ban. This should surprise absolutely no one. As soon as the Texas law was allowed to stand it was obvious that any state could use the same mechanism to make laws effectively immune to judicial oversight, at least in the short term. The CA law, it's probably worth noting, is intended less to actually implement gun control and more to force the courts to close this obvious loophole in judicial oversight.

Rather than have yet another thread on abortion or gun-rights, I'm curious about people's idea on this kind of law in general and how it manages to avoid judicial injunctions.

The basic idea, as I understand it, is that, rather than having attorneys general enforce the law via criminal cases, these laws empower private citizens to bring law suits again offenders, receiving a set "bounty" in damages if they win. This works because, while a judge might issue an injunction against the AG to prevent him/her from enforcing a regular law while its constitutionality is being determined, the court can't possibly order injunctions against every citizen of the state who could possible bring a law suit. Consequently, the courts have no way to stop these laws in the short-term, even if they are blatantly unconstitutional or in open defiance of previous rulings.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/22/california-gun-law-newsom-00043539

 

I think 10,000 is way to low. 100k per occurrence would be much more appropriate.

It will be interesting to see the outrage this will cause in same people that feel they have the right to regulate the body of others.

That said, just like the Texas law, this law is BS — the courts should have never allowed it to stand in TX but because of their religious ideology they bypassed the responsible option. I support Democrats playing by the same rule book Republicans are rewriting.

 

I totally agree when this law. I'm ready for Ford, BMW, Toyota, etc. to be sued for drunk drivers, 100k per occurrence. Think of climate change if no-one drives! Oh yeah, EV drunk drivers aren't immune.

 

This shows such a lack of understanding of the responsibility the governor has in avoiding letting his office be used for national gamesmanship.
He’s playing legal games with gun owners because he is having a sissy fit over abortion.
The California media has convinced him he matters. Just like they sold Kamela Harris and Joe Biden - all utter failures in the real world.

 

The only way someone in California can't sue a gun company in another state is to file the lawsuit in the home state of the gun company. A California court doesn't have jurisdiction outside of California.

 

yep, we all saw this coming, republicans were very short sighted

 

Interesting that California and Texas are imitating precedents each other establishes. California declared itself a "sanctuary state" for illegal immigration, simply ignoring federal immigration laws. Texas has followed suit, declaring itself a "sanctuary state" for the Second Amendment. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

This law won't do what you think it will...lol.

 

This ^^^ shows your lack of a full understanding of the situation. The Supreme Court have also been working against California's efforts-- which have yielded positive results-- at gun control. So, yeah, this law is meant as a wake up call, to the SCOTUS; but what utter hypocrisy, on your part, to condemn this as "national gamesmanship," yet not to do the same of all the state laws, which were also crafted, specifically to test the Court, on how much latitude it would allow from the (former) Roe precedent. Your reaction suggests that those who began us on this course, will not have the maturity to accept the notion that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Instead, they will want, if your post is an indication, to have their cake, and eat it, too.

I commend Newsome on having the guts, to hold the Supreme Court accountable, at least, to the reasoning behind their own decisions. When people were making the argument against the Texas abortion law, saying that if it were allowed, Blue states could do something similar, aimed at gun ownership, I had rolled my eyes, thinking what an empty argument this was, because of course no Blue state would do something so disrespectful, and abdicating, of our principle of accountable, representative governance. But Newsome has decided to call the SCOTUS's bluff (not that they have the power to rule any way they want, but that they had a reasonable basis, for their ruling).

From the OP link:

[Snip]
California has issued the U.S. Supreme Court a direct challenge at the confluence of gun and abortion rights as Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a firearms bill embracing the doctrine of private enforcement.

The new law allows Californians to sue manufacturers and citizens who distribute banned assault weapons or ghost guns. Newsom explicitly modeled the concept on a Texas law, preserved by the high court, that allows people to pursue legal claims against abortion providers.

By calling for and then signing the bill, Newsom has set up a legal test while illuminating the gulf between liberal California and a conservative Supreme Court on politically charged issues.

The governor has maintained the measure is about protecting Californians from gun violence. But it also sends a message to a Supreme Court whose rulings Newsom and fellow California Democrats have derided, essentially daring it to either uphold the gun law or reconsider its logic in backing Texas’s approach.

“The question is whether they are complete and abject hypocrites and frauds if they reject our bill that’s modeled after that abortion bill as it relates to private right of action to go after assault weapons,” Newsom said this month.
[End]

While I understand the argument, that an eye for an eye, leaves all the world blind, there comes a point, after receiving no sanctioned form of redress, at which a victim just must draw the line. This is a problem, in our federal government. I think that President Biden, with everything else he's had to deal with, may have been hoping that, over time, this Supreme Court thing would've just sorted itself out. Of course, the ability of Democrats to do anything to address the situation, is greatly limited, by their two Senate members who seem utterly unwilling to touch the filibuster.


I do have a couple of questions, the answers to which, I would appreciate, from anyone who could supply them. 1) I'd thought Congress had given gun manufacturers immunity from liability suits, but the article mentions a New York law, which has so far withstood challenges, which allows private citizens to sue gun manufacturers. How is this possible?
2) I know that to file a small claims case, a person does not first have to satisfy any standard of showing they can at least claim personal harm, that is, that they have legal "standing," to file. But isn't standing an issue, in civil lawsuits? The New York law, is only for actual victims & family, so this idea, isn't challenged; but how can courts-- in Texas, over abortion, as well as in California, over the sale of banned weapons-- allow citizens to sue others, when they can show no personal harm? It is the legislation, in both these cases, which is granting "standing," to anyone in the state? That really does seem like a B.S. way to get around our national laws, by making a state law that controverts this fundamental legal principle.

 

oh, it will crash the TX law, republicans will see the error of their ways

 

Newsom is encouraging civilians to be vigilantes in retribution against innocent parties on his behalf because of a SCOTUS decision he doesn’t like. The gun owners are innocent parties here.

As to the last part of you comment, California chooses to conjure up ghosts to chase in order to obscure the real problems the state has.

 

That's pretty wild-- the part of your quote, beginning, "as to the last part of your comment..." does not appear in your post, at least not on my screen, but is part of the "quote" of your post. I would assume this is something you had initially written, but then deleted?

Anyway, from the article, those being sued would be those actually selling the banned weapons, not simply gun owners, so your argument is completely off the mark; no totally "innocent," parties are being targeted by California-- they just need to stop selling ghost guns and assault rifles. But innocence, is often in the eye of the beholder. For example, many would see women choosing to abort their fetuses at say, 8 or 10 or 12 weeks, as innocent-- to not even mention, cases of rape. Certainly, others will paint them as murderers. But beware, because by the same token, citizens could characterize any gun owner, as harboring a potential threat to public safety. That you, personally, agree with one argument but not the other, is meaningless, unless & until you become this country's dictator, with absolute power. So Newsome cannot be, credibly, accused of doing anything more than Texas governor Abbott.

Actually, though, I think Newsome is being eminently practical. Try to look at it from his perspective: the SCOTUS is offering resistance, to his state's attempts to control guns, because of supposed federal authority. At the same time, it has withdrawn federal authority over a state's right to regulate abortion, and, has come to that decision, in supporting state's using private citizen enforcement, to flout what had, at the time, still been federal law. So Newsome is just making lemonade. He is going to use the bogus method, which the Court does support, to enable his state to regulate guns, which the SCOTUS's questionable rulings, don't support.

This is a way of saying to the Court, pick your reasoning. You can use it to screw us on gun control, or on abortion rights, but what you are letting fly, now, doesn't allow you to do both.

 

A resident of California can't file a lawsuit in California against a company in say, Texas. It's called "jurisdiction".

 

what does that have to do with anything, like suing cigarette companies

 

The cigarette companies were sued in the jurisdictions they are located in.

This law conflicts with Federal law. By that alone, it'll be tossed out on its ass. State law doesn't override Federal law.

 

The CA law allows people to sue those who break the law.
Not sure how this is noteworthy, much less earth-shattering.

 

Tyrants will tyrant. It's just their way. Can you imagine the stupid should Gavin get the nomination of his party? LMAO...

 

Gavin is delusional.

 

You don't have to touch the Texas law to do away with this, its a gun control law that would require an interest balancing test and which does not have an historical analog circa the date of the passage of the bill of rights.
It is therefore per se unconstitutional see Bruen.

 

That’s absolutely true, but it misses the point. Actually getting a final SCOTUS ruling on the Constitutionality of the law takes months at best and quite possibly years.

Usually, while all that is working it’s way through the system, a law like this would be temporarily stopped by a judge ordering the AG not to enforce it. BUT these sorts of laws don’t need the AG to enforce them because the prosecution comes from private citizens in law suits.

Thus, if it follows the TX precedent, CA will be able to effectively enforce this obviously unconstitutional law (via private suits) for months or years as they drag out the constitutional arguments in the courts.

That’s the point.

 

As a general rule, to win anything in a law suit you must prove that you specifically were somehow harmed by the other persons behavior. Both the TX and the CA change this and reward you money even if you weren’t harmed. They are unprecedented in doing this and do so for the explicit purpose of making laws temporarily immune to judicial review.

that’s why it’s noteworthy

 

Which means you're going to have a whole metric **** ton of cases against the state, costing the taxpayers an absurd amount of money so they can virtue signal and be obstructionist.
And they STILL don't have to touch the bounty system to strike the law.

 

Strange how none of you took issue with the TX law which is based on the same principle

That’s the point here.

 

Buddy: You are to put it politely "mistaken". That bounty system is bullshit and I've said so.

No, the point here is that you don't grasp that they don't have to TOUCH the bounty provision at all and the way courts work is they therefore WON'T touch it all.
This does nothing but oppress a state's citizens for the sins of another state's government with a measure that will be overturned in such a way as to not interfere with the other state's government's decision, and only waste the original's money while limiting the overall freedom in their state and making them ****ing hypocrites.

Its LITERALLY cutting your nose off to spite someone else's ****ing face. Its so stupid whoever came up with the idea needs to be beaten with a hose.

 

It's not just Gov Greaseball from CA.

SOUNDS LIKE A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION: New Jersey AG Weaponizing the State’s New Nuisance Law Skirt the PLCAA and Attack Gun Makers.

"Gun makers should refuse to sell any products to state agencies in states that do this sort of thing."

Wants to abuse gun manufacturers, but, wants them to arm their police departments, State Guard and his security details.​