12-12-2021, 05:48 PM
(12-12-2021, 05:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, yes, that's exactly what it is, but you're wrong about it meaning nothing. The reason for California doing this is because of the challenges to gun control going through the courts and the perceived gun friendly SCOTUS. The premise behind the Texas law is that it skirts the constitutional question because it is enforced by the people and not the state. California is going to do this to apply the same logic to their AWB. If the courts strike down their laws or similar laws that criminalize distribution and possession of certain firearms, then they will have a fallback in their civil code. It is grandstanding, but it does more than you realize. It sends a message about the absurdity of the Texas law and also shows the proponents of the law that it will be used against them in other arenas.
I should also point out that you don't need to be injured to sue in this case. Much like the abortion law in Texas, you just have to suspect that someone participated in the ownership, selling, or distribution of said firearms. You could live in California, and see on social media someone post something with one in the background, and you could file suit.
Well reasoned. It raises an interesting secondary consideration though. If Newsome has stated publicly that the Texas law is unconstitutional, which I have to imagine he has, then enacting the same type of law for a protection clearly stated in the Bill of Rights would be a direct violation of his oath of office by his own admission. Would that not open the state, and possibly himself, to massive civil lawsuits from anyone affected? In Texas than could at least feign ignorance, as the issue has not been ruled on. But if the governor flat out stated that what is happening is unconstitutional and then does the exact same thing in his own state he has no such ability.
