Roe vs Wade vs SCOTUS legitimacy

[Belsnickel]

(12-12-2021, 05:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If so then the proposed law means absolutely nothing.  It's already illegal to sell an "assault weapon" in CA, so if you're injured by someone who illegally purchased such a firearm then you already have the ability to sue them civilly, and the person who illegally sold them the firearm.  Looks like grandstanding and an attempt to draw a false equivalency with the Texas law.

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.