[Discussion] California Governor Newsom Enacts Law Allowing Citizens to Sue Gunmakers Under Same Rules as Texas Abortion law

[John_Guest]

What are they calling this law? The 'False Equivalency' law?

[StanleyCupOneDay]

This is going to be the next major political battle if the top court doesn’t stop this nonsense. Both parties will use their majorities to create laws on issues they support and their opponents hate. Every state and people are just going to get even more hateful and divided toward each other. USA tearing itself apart and some of that insanity is starting to leak up here, which is very concerning.

[StanleyCupOneDay]

17 minutes ago, John_Guest said:

What are they calling this law? The 'False Equivalency' law?

You’re absolutely right! The Texas law is about the right to a woman’s own body. The California law is about the right to be able to sue people who produce weapons that can kill people. False equivalency indeed!

[Ilunga]

2 hours ago, StanleyCupOneDay said:

This is going to be the next major political battle if the top court doesn’t stop this nonsense. Both parties will use their majorities to create laws on issues they support and their opponents hate. Every state and people are just going to get even more hateful and divided toward each other. USA tearing itself apart and some of that insanity is starting to leak up here, which is very concerning.

 

 

Sometimes good things happen

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Ilunga

[Warhippy]

3 hours ago, John_Guest said:

What are they calling this law? The 'False Equivalency' law?

I don't think what you said means you understand the difference between issues but ok

[stawns]

4 hours ago, StanleyCupOneDay said:

This is going to be the next major political battle if the top court doesn’t stop this nonsense. Both parties will use their majorities to create laws on issues they support and their opponents hate. Every state and people are just going to get even more hateful and divided toward each other. USA tearing itself apart and some of that insanity is starting to leak up here, which is very concerning.

I see the Repugs doing it, what have the Dems done?

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

I see the Repugs doing it, what have the Dems done?

Repugs and Demrats.  Two sides of the same coin. 

Guns bad; babies good.

Easy button.  

[John_Guest]

5 hours ago, Warhippy said:

I don't think what you said means you understand the difference between issues but ok

I agree there's a lack of understanding but I don't think I'm the one who hasn't thought this out.

 

As Reuters describes this, the two issues are not equivalent.

 

Reuters does not describe any actual harm done by the gun. Going by the article it's existence is grounds for a lawsuit.

 

But let's say that's just sloppy writing. To create some semblance of equivalence let's say Newsom wants a law where you could sue a gun manufacturer if his product caused harm.

 

You can presently sue a gun manufacturer if the gun is defective but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about malicious harm from a gun user. So who would be the gun user in your abortion equivalency scenario? Are they guilty of malice?

 

There already is a law called the 'The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act' that protects Firearms manufacturers and Dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.

 

With abortion there's Roe versus Wade. But the opinion in Roe versus Wade is kind of hazy on when life begins.

 

Quote

the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life.^[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.^[5] 

They thought the fetus becomes a baby in the third trimester and abortions could be prohibited.

 

But the science has changed since 1972. So now Texas is saying the foetus is viable or is a baby by 6 weeks and representatives can sue for harm to the child.

 

The legality of this is still making it's way through court. Abortion providers can still sue Texas.

 

So at present Newsom's talk of tit for tit is nothing more than a troll. There would be a lot of legal wrangling before the conditions were produced where a legal equivalence could be established.

 

It would be interesting if after a number of years he was able to accomplish it though. Then I'd ask shouldn't the law protecting Vaccine manufacturers from lawsuit be struck down. This legal equivalence game is a slippery slope.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by John_Guest

[RUPERTKBD]

9 hours ago, John_Guest said:

What are they calling this law? The 'False Equivalency' law?

Well they haven't officially drafted it yet, but I'm hoping for the "FU Texas Religious Bigots" Law.....

[RUPERTKBD]

...and it's not so much that the two "rights" are equivalent....it's the method used by the two states (only proposed so far in Cali) to sidestep the attempts of interested parties to take their respective causes to the courts.

 

The Texas law was a clear attempt by the legislature to make it impossible (or extremely difficult) for abortion providers to sue to overturn a law that clearly contravenes Roe v Wade. (which, incidentally both Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett lied about respecting as settled law, during their respective confirmation hearings)

 

What Newsome is advocating here is using that same method in California to get around what gun proponents see as their rights.

[RUPERTKBD]

1 hour ago, John_Guest said:

But the science has changed since 1972. So now Texas is saying the foetus is viable or is a baby by 6 weeks and representatives can sue for harm to the child.

That's a good point.

 

Also a good point is that the science has changed since 1791, when the 2nd Amendment was ratified. Back then, it took a minute and a half to shoot more than one round. Yet, gun owners still consider that to be settled law....

[John_Guest]

36 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Well they haven't officially drafted it yet, but I'm hoping for the "FU Texas Religious Bigots" Law.....

Well Newsom couldn't actually do it at the present time without challenging and defeating the 'The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.' 

 

So basically at the present time what he's suggesting is little more than a 'woke' troll and yeah your title puts that out there pretty clear. I'd endorse it as something I'd like to mock if they were ever bold enough to actually do it.

[stawns]

27 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

That's a good point.

 

Also a good point is that the science has changed since 1791, when the 2nd Amendment was ratified. Back then, it took a minute and a half to shoot more than one round. Yet, gun owners still consider that to be settled law....

[Warhippy]

Just now, John_Guest said:

Well Newsom couldn't actually do it at the present time without challenging and defeating the 'The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.' 

 

So basically at the present time what he's suggesting is little more than a 'woke' troll and yeah your title puts that out there pretty clear. I'd endorse it as something I'd like to mock if they were ever bold enough to actually do it.

Just so we're clear.  A response to the abortion laws in Texas that threaten to strip women of the right to govern their own bodies is being met by a call to allow citizens to sue under the EXACT same lettering, any gun, weapon or arms distributor/manufacturer and you think it's woke nonsense worth mocking?

 

Just curious, do you only think SOME freedoms should be allowed or do items and purchased goods have more protected rights than people in your mind

 

Honestly just trying to source out your argument/statement here

[John_Guest]

37 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

That's a good point.

 

Also a good point is that the science has changed since 1791, when the 2nd Amendment was ratified. Back then, it took a minute and a half to shoot more than one round. Yet, gun owners still consider that to be settled law....

They had cannons in 1776. The "well regulated militias" of the American Revolution used them.

 

But no, I'm not saying people should have home cannons. I would notice however that states and municipalities do regulate arms under the guidance of the second amendment. 

 

Much like Texas is adjusting the legal requirements defined by Roe vs Wade.

Edited December 14, 2021 by John_Guest

[RUPERTKBD]

3 minutes ago, John_Guest said:

They had cannons in 1776. The "well regulated militias" of the American Revolution used them.

 

But no, I'm not saying people should have home cannons. I would notice however that states and municipalities do regulate arms under the guidance of the second amendment. 

 

Much like Texas is adjusting the legal requirements defined by Roe vs Wade.

....and much like Newsome is proposing to do in California....

[Warhippy]

11 minutes ago, John_Guest said:

They had cannons in 1776. The "well regulated militias" of the American Revolution used them.

 

But no, I'm not saying people should have home cannons. I would notice however that states and municipalities do regulate arms under the guidance of the second amendment. 

 

Much like Texas is adjusting the legal requirements defined by Roe vs Wade.

So...you're comparing roe v wade to the 2nd amendment in that uteruses and the women who govern them should be regulated by the government?  Are you suggesting a pregnant women or a uterus is as dangerous as a weapon or?

 

Really confused again because this is a very poor comparison.

 

7 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

....and much like Newsome is proposing to do in California....

Exaclty. Apparently comparing a uterus to a weapon and suggesting it needs regulating is lost upon that person.

[John_Guest]

21 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Just so we're clear.  A response to the abortion laws in Texas that threaten to strip women of the right to govern their own bodies is being met by a call to allow citizens to sue under the EXACT same lettering, any gun, weapon or arms distributor/manufacturer and you think it's woke nonsense worth mocking?

10 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

....and much like Newsome is proposing to do in California....

Possibly but first he's have to defeat 'The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act' which flat out forbids the sort of lawsuit he's suggesting. He'd need to go to the supreme court before he could break that law. He couldn't skirt around it the way Texas is doing with Roe vs Wade. The legal language is clear in one and vague in the other. 

 

You don't believe Newsom will actually be able to do what he's suggesting, do you? At present it's just a troll.

Edited December 14, 2021 by John_Guest

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, John_Guest said:

Possibly but first he's have to defeat 'The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act' which flat out forbids the sort of lawsuit he's suggesting. He'd need to go to the supreme court before he could break that law. He couldn't skirt around it the way Texas is doing with Roe vs Wade. The legal language is clear in one and vague in the other. 

 

You don't believe Newsom will actually be able to do what he's suggesting, do you? At present it's just a troll.

Once the legal precedent Texas is setting down over the abortion argument is settled, it will absolutely be easily applied to arms/items/goods without any issue due to the terms of, lettering of and ruling of said argument.

 

I might also add, it's really important to understand that Texas is skirting the government issue by deputizing private citizens to avoid any seeming conflict and lawsuits.  Which is EXACTLY what Newsom is doing which circumvents said Lawful Commerce in Arms act as it is NOT the government interfering but private citizens who will have been deputized.

 

Again, pick your poison.  Do you want to control womens right to choose, or do you want to go pew pew at innocent animals on the weekends to feel like a big man

[John_Guest]

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

So...you're comparing roe v wade to the 2nd amendment

Actually, no. I was responding to RUPERTKBD who did. You're right it is a poor comparison. But that's what happens when you start out with a false equivalence. Reason degrades.