Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Endus]

An expert take on the parents:

Basically, he says "convicting the parents would have been really tough, until they ran from the cops"

The fun thing about mens rea; you don't actually need an actus reus. Hence why "attempted murder" or "conspiracy to commit" are crimes.

[Rasulis]

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 law.

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.

"I am outraged by yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place," Newsom wrote in a statement Saturday. "But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way."

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 anyone who manufactures, distributes or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit.

"If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that," he wrote.

This will be interesting.

[PhaelixWW]

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

This will be interesting.

We've gone full clown shoes.

Sigh.

[postman1782]

We've gone full clown shoes.

Sigh.

They were saying this when the Texas Abortion ban went into place, that someone could do this, and there is nothing they can do to stop it if they allow basically vigilante laws in place for Abortion.

[Deus Mortis]

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



This will be interesting.

I foresee so many problems with this. What counts as an "assault weapon" and does that mean private citizens can sue whoever supplies California's national guard with weapons, California's police officers, and all the politicians private security. Not even getting into the problems this will run into with the 2nd amendment.

[Twdft]

I foresee so many problems with this. What counts as an "assault weapon" and does that mean private citizens can sue whoever supplies California's national guard with weapons, California's police officers, and all the politicians private security. Not even getting into the problems this will run into with the 2nd amendment.

Yeah well that's a case of "told ya so" I guess.

Sane people told Republicans for years that if they shield and let Trump get away with the shitshow he ran then Democrats will do the same. That's why you have checks and balances and are screwed if you don't check and balance things.

[Rasulis]

It is still too early to know for sure. However, this is how I expect the law will be crafted.

The Texas bill allows individual to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps someone get an abortion after fetal hearbeat has been detected. The plaintiffs do not have to be connected to the person who had the abortion. The bill is broad such that family members, abortion funds, rape crisis counselors and other medical professionals are open to lawsuits. I envision that the California law would be similar in scope – allowing individuals to sue firearm manufacturers/sellers whose products are used in connection with a crime. Therefore, there will be no 2nd Amendment infringement – individuals are still allowed to own/purchase guns and manufacturers to sell guns. Except if they are used in a crime, they will be liable in a Civil Court.

The last part is important. In the Texas bill, plaintiffs would be awarded $10,000 plus attorney's cost if they win. The litigation will be a civil, not a criminal litigation. Even the amount is cleverly crafted. Texas small claim court limit is $20,000. Therefore, the litigation will proceed through small claim courts. The legal cost of defending the anticipated flood of nuisance lawsuits, both in term of money and time, will likely exceeds the penalty cost. Assuming the California law will be crafted in the same vein, I foresee dozens of small/shady law firms combing through police crime reports looking for manufacturers whose guns are used in a crime and filing hundreds of lawsuits in California small claim courts.

[Endus]

I foresee so many problems with this. What counts as an "assault weapon" and does that mean private citizens can sue whoever supplies California's national guard with weapons, California's police officers, and all the politicians private security. Not even getting into the problems this will run into with the 2nd amendment.

What counts as an "assault weapon" is VERY clearly defined under California law; it's part of the assault weapons ban Newsom just passed which is currently under appeal (but still in effect);

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/ca...on-definition/

Note that this definition includes basically all AR-15s by explicit model name, not just a generic classification.


With regards to the rest; the point of this bill isn't to go into effect and be used. It's to demonstrate to the Supreme Court what the precedent Texas is trying to set with their abortion bounties means. If the Texas bill passes muster at SCOTUS and isn't unconstitutional, so should Newsom's. What Newsom's driving at is that his bill clearly shouldn't pass muster, and that means the Texas bill shouldn't either, because States should not have the authority to deny Constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms.

[Deus Mortis]

What counts as an "assault weapon" is VERY clearly defined under California law; it's part of the assault weapons ban Newsom just passed which is currently under appeal (but still in effect);

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/ca...on-definition/

Note that this definition includes basically all AR-15s by explicit model name, not just a generic classification.


With regards to the rest; the point of this bill isn't to go into effect and be used. It's to demonstrate to the Supreme Court what the precedent Texas is trying to set with their abortion bounties means. If the Texas bill passes muster at SCOTUS and isn't unconstitutional, so should Newsom's. What Newsom's driving at is that his bill clearly shouldn't pass muster, and that means the Texas bill shouldn't either, because States should not have the authority to deny Constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms.

Thanks for the link.

[Rasulis]

Amicus brief from Firearms Policy Coalition opposing Texas law.

Interesting reading.

[Draco-Onis]

It is still too early to know for sure. However, this is how I expect the law will be crafted.

The Texas bill allows individual to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps someone get an abortion after fetal hearbeat has been detected. The plaintiffs do not have to be connected to the person who had the abortion. The bill is broad such that family members, abortion funds, rape crisis counselors and other medical professionals are open to lawsuits. I envision that the California law would be similar in scope – allowing individuals to sue firearm manufacturers/sellers whose products are used in connection with a crime. Therefore, there will be no 2nd Amendment infringement – individuals are still allowed to own/purchase guns and manufacturers to sell guns. Except if they are used in a crime, they will be liable in a Civil Court.

The last part is important. In the Texas bill, plaintiffs would be awarded $10,000 plus attorney's cost if they win. The litigation will be a civil, not a criminal litigation. Even the amount is cleverly crafted. Texas small claim court limit is $20,000. Therefore, the litigation will proceed through small claim courts. The legal cost of defending the anticipated flood of nuisance lawsuits, both in term of money and time, will likely exceeds the penalty cost. Assuming the California law will be crafted in the same vein, I foresee dozens of small/shady law firms combing through police crime reports looking for manufacturers whose guns are used in a crime and filing hundreds of lawsuits in California small claim courts.

The supreme court has opened Pandora's box by allowing the Texas law to go into effect they may as well have wiped the constitution with their ass. I am sure they can try to close the loop using some sad legal excuse but that will just damage the court even further than it already is. Now any right can be taken away using this workaround even conservatives second amendment rights. It's only a matter of time before a state uses it to ban guns period, the supreme court should just have overturned Roe. V Wade and evaded the Texas law.

[postman1782]

Mass Shooting Stopped thanks to people reporting this guy from Snapchat. Collapsible rifle with several magazines of ammunition, guy admitted to planning on shooting up his college after going to a gun range.

[Edge-]

Stopped by a good guy with a gu...wait by a couple of his fellow students who reported his ass to authorities who thankfully took them seriously. Kudos to the campus public security and the cops for all following up on the reports.

Also, I'm super down with this whole, "Let's charge intentional mass shooters with terrorism." shit. Especially since these all seem pre-planned, and pretty publicly broadcast.

[postman1782]

Stopped by a good guy with a gu...wait by a bunch of his fellow students who reported his ass to authorities who thankfully took them seriously. Kudos to the campus public security and the cops for all following up on the reports.

Also, I'm super down with this whole, "Let's charge intentional mass shooters with terrorism." shit. Especially since these all seem pre-planned, and pretty publicly broadcast.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

[Rasulis]

The supreme court has opened Pandora's box by allowing the Texas law to go into effect they may as well have wiped the constitution with their ass. I am sure they can try to close the loop using some sad legal excuse but that will just damage the court even further than it already is. Now any right can be taken away using this workaround even conservatives second amendment rights. It's only a matter of time before a state uses it to ban guns period, the supreme court should just have overturned Roe. V Wade and evaded the Texas law.

It looks like there will be multiple bills based on the Texas model.

One targeting the assault weapons and ghost gun kits which are illegal in California.

One which would allow individuals injured by firearms to file lawsuits against dealers or manufacturers when the weapons are sold or marketed irresponsibly — such as targeting gangs for customers. I assume family members would be eligible to sue also.

[Citizen T]

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



This will be interesting.

Federal law trumps state law. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)

[PhaelixWW]

Federal law trumps state law. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)

Well, except...

It could work if he got rid of the assault weapon and ghost gun bans.

The PLCAA stipulates:

The term “qualified civil liability action” means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party

...which means the PLCAA would apply if the firearm were illegally possessed, as that would be considered an unlawful misuse:

The term “unlawful misuse” means conduct that violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation as it relates to the use of a qualified product.

But that also means that it wouldn't apply if that firearm were owned legally.

That's a headtwisting thought.

[postman1782]

Federal law trumps state law. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)

If they can do this with constitutionally protected rights like Abortion, then they can do it with guns.

[Citizen T]

If they can do this with constitutionally protected rights like Abortion, then they can do it with guns.

Show me where the Constitution says anything about abortion. The so called right was made up by SCOTUS and thus can be removed by SCOTUS.

[PhaelixWW]

Show me where the Constitution says anything about abortion. The so called right was made up by SCOTUS and thus can be removed by SCOTUS.

Along with the right to privacy, I guess.

Because that's the basis for the right to abortion acknowledged by SCOTUS in Roe.

Privacy is not an enumerated right in the Constitution, either, but it's one that conservatives embrace wholeheartedly, except when it's convenient for them to ignore it.