Here it comes ...

[Aguila Blanca]

In the wake of the Supreme Court's dodging the constitutional issues attaching to the Texas law allowing private citizens to sue abortion clinics, California now wants to do the same thing -- except California proposes to allow citizens to sue gun makers.

https://apnews.com/article/business-...d6c52ae093e6c0

Governor Newsome -- who, by the way, opposed the Texas law -- doesn't mind employing the same strategy when it comes to going after his favorite bête noire. Typical, hypocritical politician. It appears he is virtually daring the Supreme Court to take action.

[Metal god]

Originally Posted by CA AB-1594

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 3450) is added to Division 4 of the Civil Code, to read:
PART 2.5. Civil Suits Relating to Firearms
3450. A gun industry member shall have created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined in Section 3480, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices.

Now CA and the Feds can write some new laws to trap the gun industry . This is far from over .

FWIW this is just a start for this bill . In CA they only need minimal wording to hold the place ( AB-1594 ) of a bill . They then can add and subtract to it at will . In fact the legislature can literally erase everything in the bill and write a completely new bill that does not have ANYTHING to do with the original bill . This can be about guns now and they can erase everything and rewrite it to be about puppy mills or what ever they want . This is literally a place holder for basically - JUST ADD TEXT HERE ____________

[Metal god]

A gun industry member shall have created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined in Section 3480, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices.

Isn't this significantly different then the Texas law . CA law seems to be saying "IF" the gun industry breaks a law an individual with out standing can sue ????

Abortion is legal in Texas so what part of the Texas law is the same , does the Texas law state "IF" the abortion provider or others involved brakes Fed , State or local laws ? I'm going to need to go look up the Texas law to compare .

EDIT
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87...f/SB00008F.pdf

AN ACT relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child ’s heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTIONA1.AAThis Act shall be known as the Texas Heartbeat

Ok so there is a secondary law to this which is the heart beat aspect . This will or will not be moot depending on the SCOTUS decision expected in June . My guess is that the SCOTUS will affirm abortion rights and allow a time limit to have it done . My guess is it will in fact be time related ( 3 months or so first trimester ) rather then a physical test like heart beat . Point being the Texas law will have less impact then it does right now after June .

I'll also add this might be the first time I think I like the idea of standing haha . Point being just because someone other then you does something that does not effect you and it's a "crime" doesn't mean you have standing to sue .

[seanc]

FTA:

The U.S. Constitution specifically says people have a right to bear arms, and the Supreme Court has interpreted that broadly. The right to an abortion is not specifically protected in the Constitution.

assault weapons as semiautomatic rifles or pistols that have a variety of functions. The bill would let people seek a court order to stop the spread of these weapons and recover a minimum of $10,000 in damages for each weapon, plus attorney’s fees....The other bills would make it illegal to market assault weapons to children, crack down on ghost guns and make it easier for people to sue gun manufacturers for liability in shootings

I see a future of a lot of lawsuits in CA, 1 of which may eventually reach the SCOTUS in 10-20 years...

A) the prevention of the ending of a life (heartbeat rule) vs the "right" to an abortion.
B) The nebulous California definition of an "assault weapon" vs. the 2nd Amendment.

Not only legally, but morally, I don't see an equivalence in these issues. CA has real issues, they should solve those 1st.

[44 AMP]

The other bills would make it illegal to market assault weapons to children, crack down on ghost guns ...

CHILDREN have been prohibited from buying firearms from an FFL dealer by Federal law since 1968.

Firearms in commercial traffic have been required to have serial numbers AND the maker's name and address by the same Federal law.

"Ghost guns" (homemade firearms) are under the same rules when they enter the commercial market. Anyone not posessing a valid manufacturer's license who makes and sell "ghost guns" is already committing a crime, and more than one if those guns are sold to criminals.

Once again legislators are "doing something" by making up laws that to make things that are already illegal, illegal. Seems to me the effort and money would be better spent somewhere else.

[Metal god]

Not only legally, but morally, I don't see an equivalence in these issues.

Well then you don't understand how much some people HATE firearms and truly believe they are the root of all evil . For many of these people I would guess there is no comparison but they may have a different take on that comparison then you .

Up until just recently I really thought many anti gun people and groups were just playing politics with there arguments and didn't actually believe what they were saying . They are just trying to sway general thought to gain influence . After watching the truckers thing and watch there politicians flat out lie . I've now come to the conclusion that these people actually believe what they are saying . Not kinda believe but deep down believe that guns are the most amoral object ever invented and there is no comparison . Failure to understand that and what drives them is a failure to understand what we are actually up against .

[Pathfinder45]

One of the main things these two completely different issues have in common is they have a tendency to become the single deciding factor in many individuals' votes. It's usually called, "single-issue-voters". Well-meaning people who would ignorantly impose their values upon you, for the good of society, or so they believe.

[gaseousclay]

Well then you don't understand how much some people HATE firearms and truly believe they are the root of all evil . For many of these people I would guess there is no comparison but they may have a different take on that comparison then you .

Up until just recently I really thought many anti gun people and groups were just playing politics with there arguments and didn't actually believe what they were saying . They are just trying to sway general thought to gain influence . After watching the truckers thing and watch there politicians flat out lie . I've now come to the conclusion that these people actually believe what they are saying . Not kinda believe but deep down believe that guns are the most amoral object ever invented and there is no comparison . Failure to understand that and what drives them is a failure to understand what we are actually up against .

I think that engagement is the only way to get people to understand the need for firearms. The problem is that when the gun debate comes up, people dig in their heels and the conversation becomes emotional rather than based on facts/data. I know a woman who leans Left who kinda surprised me. I assumed that she hated guns 100% but was actually ok with some of them. Although, she said that AK47's should be banned. She probably meant AR15's. All of her siblings either have guns or have shot guns. I think her aversion to guns stems from having no personal experience with them, or reading statistics and reviewing data. She once said to me, "there's just too many guns out there," in response to the jump in crime around the country. I told here that the majority of those gun crimes were committed by felons who obtained their guns illegally, so how is reducing the number of guns going to reduce crime, especially if laws that are already on the books aren't being enforced? She just gave me a blank stare. I wasn't trying to belittle her in any way. My point was that, she was having an emotional reaction to crime rather than a rational one. I think she'll eventually come around.

[mehavey]

Didn't we just have this conversation ?
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=614074

[Metal god]

She once said to me, "there's just too many guns out there," in response to the jump in crime around the country. I told here that the majority of those gun crimes were committed by felons who obtained their guns illegally, so how is reducing the number of guns going to reduce crime, especially if laws that are already on the books aren't being enforced? She just gave me a blank stare.

This is a bit off topic but I believe many if not most don't understand what laws are for or what they allow . I truly believe many think laws are to stop something from happening or prevent people from doing something and that is simply not what laws are for . They are there to allow the government to punish you for doing something either society as a whole or the government them selves believe is not acceptable to do . A law can do ZERO to prevent anything from happening .

I came to the conclusion that many don't understand how laws work based on so many people saying to me over the years . Hey "they can't" do that it's against the law . When I here that now I always ask/say really what's stopping them ?

My point is that I think we should start with the basics of law when we discuss any gun laws with anti's and make sure those that are for more gun laws understand what laws are actually for . Rather then the logic of criminals don't follow the laws , because nobody actually has to follow any law if they are willing to pay the consequences for breaking said law .

[CharlesBronson]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

In the wake of the Supreme Court's dodging the constitutional issues attaching to the Texas law allowing private citizens to sue abortion clinics, California now wants to do the same thing -- except California proposes to allow citizens to sue gun makers.

https://apnews.com/article/business-...d6c52ae093e6c0

Governor Newsome -- who, by the way, opposed the Texas law -- doesn't mind employing the same strategy when it comes to going after his favorite bête noire. Typical, hypocritical politician. It appears he is virtually daring the Supreme Court to take action.

About Right...

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

This is a bit off topic but I believe many if not most don't understand what laws are for or what they allow . I truly believe many think laws are to stop something from happening or prevent people from doing something and that is simply not what laws are for . They are there to allow the government to punish you for doing something either society as a whole or the government them selves believe is not acceptable to do . A law can do ZERO to prevent anything from happening .

Yes ... and no.

The original purpose of criminal laws was, indeed, to prevent people from committing criminal acts. The concept was "let the punishment suit the crime," and that meant that the prospective punishment was supposed to be sufficiently severe that most people would be deterred from committing [___] because they wouldn't want to risk incurring the punishment.

And then along came the bleeding heart, social justice warrior liberal types, and now punishment is viewed as cruel, discriminatory, and (as of recently) racist. What this means is that the entire social contract between the government and the people has been abrogated by the government. The government is no longer willing to punish criminals for committing criminal acts. The result (surprise!) is that criminals are no longer deterred from committing criminal acts.

[Metal god]

Yes ... and no.

Yes full stop . I'll concede there is an element of deterrence but there is nothing preventing anyone from breaking a law . We need not look any farther then our over crowded jails and prisons . If they prevented crime we wouldn't have crime ??

I even alluded to your general point when I said

nobody actually has to follow any law if they are willing to pay the consequences for breaking said law .

I stand by my assertion that laws are not designed to stop or prevent crime and many people believe they are/do . IMHO it's why "they" think adding another law on top of the 10 others that say pretty much the same thing is finally going to make the difference . I believe they have a misunderstanding of why laws are written and that's where we need to start to get our point across .

[44 AMP]

the problem here is that there is no way to prove a negative. There is, and can be NO data about people who did NOT commit a crime because they were afraid of being caught and punished.

I'm certain some people were and are deterred but other are not. We can only count the ones who commit the crimes not the ones who never do.

Tough to make an argument about the effectiveness of laws if there is no data, ....unless you're a gun control advocate, and don't care....

[Metal god]

44 yes but there is an over arching moral component no ? if it wasn't against the law to rob a bank would you ? How about shooting up a school ? Although I do see your point I don't believe the numbers would be to dramatically different . Yes for sure there would be more stealing lets say or other things if there was no crime in doing so but not sure the people with some morals and respect for others would be doing so .

That then opens up a whole other can of worms really . What would society/s look like today if for the last thousand/s years there were no laws and we all just went off of trust and respect ? We can't just say poof no more laws there would need to be a history of that type of society to really be able to judge .

I'm a big believer in that we need rules in order to respectively play the game of life . The question may be are rules the same as laws ? You can't play chess and in the middle of the game smack the board with a 5 iron and expect the person sitting across from you to be happy with the way you play the game . There must be rules for all to follow so we all can play nice together , I understand that . laws are not rules they are a way to allow others to punish you/us for breaking the rules not to force us to play by the rules . There is still nothing stopping me from wrecking the board with my golf club . I'll just have to except the guy sitting across from me may hit me over the head with a bat for doing so . It's purely my choice if I want to take that chance and no long get to play with anyone because they don't like how I play . Not to mention the headache lol .

Are rules laws ? I'd say no , rules are guidelines to follow and laws are there to allow punishment for breaking those rules .

[44 AMP]

Discussions of morality and legality the similarities and differences can get on thin ice pretty quickly and are more than a bit away from the topic of this thread, I think.

What I see as the underlying issue here is the idea that people who are not directly, personally harmed being allowed to sue a legal business for the harm done to others by criminals who happen to illegally use that business's product.

A someone chatting/texting on their cell phone runs over your dog, do you get to sue Toyota? (or whatever brand the vehicle was?). Do you sue the maker of the phone?? The wireless carrier?? How about the state for issuing them their driver's license??? (because it seems that today, holding the actual driver responsible for their actions doesn't make enough money or advance a political agenda..)

No. Or, at least, not until now, because if the legal ability to sue gunmakers for third party criminal acts is held to, then under the idea of "equal treatment under the law" EVERY maker of ANYTHING is liable to be sued by ANYONE if someone abuses the product and breaks the law with it.

This isn't just a slippery slope, its a zero friction slope with a sharp drop at the end and a black hole at the bottom sucking us down.

[Metal god]

A someone chatting/texting on their cell phone runs over your dog, do you get to sue Toyota? (or whatever brand the vehicle was?). Do you sue the maker of the phone?? The wireless carrier?? How about the state for issuing them their driver's license??? (because it seems that today, holding the actual driver responsible for their actions doesn't make enough money or advance a political agenda..)

Of course not but none of those companies advertise there products as being used to kill people . This/these cases are about advertising so that would be there argument anyways .

[Tom Servo]

it would let people sue gun-makers and others who sell, make or distribute assault-style guns in the state.

On what grounds? In both cases, it's hard to sue someone if I can't show standing or prove damages.

Both these laws are stupid grandstanding. Both these laws are a waste of the money we pay legislators, and they're an abuse of the process. Both these laws are a waste of the courts' time and energy.

[Metal god]

On what grounds? In both cases, it's hard to sue someone if I can't show standing or prove damages.

It's my understanding that "standing" is not in the constitution or the bill of rights and the courts pretty much just made it up . If a law is unconstitutional doesn't everyone have standing ? The idea one needs to be harmed by such a thing first is absurd IMHO .

That aside doesn't the law it self give the standing you believe is not there . That's the whole point of these types of laws - yes/no?

[44 AMP]

It's my understanding that "standing" is not in the constitution or the bill of rights and the courts pretty much just made it up

while it is the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is not (and was not written to be) an all encompassing document specifically listing every aspect of our lives.

And, the Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution. AND, if you read the Bill of Rights, you'll find where it specifically states that not all our rights are listed.

As to standing being something the courts made up, sure, the entire judicial process is something the courts "made up" under the authority granted the Judicial branch by the Constitution.

The idea one needs to be harmed by such a thing first is absurd IMHO .

You are free to hold any opinion you want, but that doesn't change anything but your own mind. The concept of "standing" is important, and valid, and is there to allow the courts to operate reasonably efficiently.

Standing matters, so that the courts are not hopelessly clogged. The general idea is, that if something "neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket" then the courts are not the olace to seek redress of your grievances.

Sometimes it seems to delay what we feel is justice, but one has to have rules and limitations or the process dissolves into complete chaos, which helps no one and harms us all.

If no one is harmed, or potentially harmed, the court is wasting its time listening to their arguments.

If something injures you, to go to court. If it offends you, court is not the place to go. The Lesiglature might be, but court is not.

And if you, personally, suffer no injury (or potential injury) the court cannot "make you whole" because you were not harmed. SO, you, personally don't have standing to sue.

Look at the DC handgun ban law for one specific example. DC passed a law saying you could not have a working handgun (even going so far as to state the gun could not be fully assembled) in the District.

We were horrified, outraged and upset, firmly believing this law to be unConstitutional.

BUT, could not challenge the law in DC without someome who had standing to do so. That meant someone who lived within the jurisdiction of the law, and was harmed, or potentially harmed by it.

Took some time to find someone who both fit that category and was willing/able to seek legal redress of their condition. That was Heller, and when that case finally went before the Supreme Court, they did rule against the DC law. The system works. Even if SCOTUS had upheld the DC law, the system still works. It doesn't work as fast as we might wish, but it does work.

I believe that the CA law will, eventually, be ruled as the BS that it is, and tossed out, along with every decision based on it, but until our system gets there. we'll just have to do the best we can.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Metal god

It's my understanding that "standing" is not in the constitution or the bill of rights and the courts pretty much just made it up . If a law is unconstitutional doesn't everyone have standing ? The idea one needs to be harmed by such a thing first is absurd IMHO .

That aside doesn't the law it self give the standing you believe is not there . That's the whole point of these types of laws - yes/no?

I don't think the Constitution specifically mentions "standing," but that does not mean that the courts "pretty much just made it up." From the Legal Information Institute:

Originally Posted by LII

Standing in State Court
A state's statutes will determine what constitutes standing in that particular state's courts. These typically revolve around the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable.

Standing in Federal Court
At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue:

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing

On the federal level, it's rooted in part in the language of Article III of the Constitution. Specifically, Section 2. I'll underline the relevant parts:

Originally Posted by US Constitution, Article III, Section 2

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of all of the State constitutions. The federal constitution, though, limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to "cases or controversies." If there's no case or controversy, then the court does not have jurisdiction. If the court were to rule on the constitutionality of a law in the absence of an actual case or controversy, that would be an advisory opinion, and would infringe on the legislative power, which is delegated to Congress. If there is a case or controversy, then at least one party alleges some kind of injury. That injury is part of what gives that party standing to bring suit.

[cdoc42]

I'm a bit late in following this thread but I will offer the following in response to Metal god's statement above:

"I'll concede there is an element of deterrence but there is nothing preventing anyone from breaking a law . We need not look any farther then our over crowded jails and prisons . If they prevented crime we wouldn't have crime ??"

Prevention is a 100% expectation; deterrence is hopefully less than that, taking advantage of whatever you can to interfere with negativity in human nature. As stated by, I believe, 44AMP, one cannot accurately determine how many potential crimes are not committed due to the deterrent factor.

But I think we have some sense of that since the police were defunded. With the threat of arrest and subsequent prosecution eliminated by the reduction in police presence, we saw an increase in crime. From that, we can retroactively extrapolate the deterrence factor.

[44 AMP]

From that, we can retroactively extrapolate the deterrence factor.

In general terms I agree but I think its not quite something as simple as to be reduced to a calculated percentage.

What prevents a would be criminal is their belief that they will be caught and that there will be punishment they do not wish to endure. When either of those is less than 100% they will act on their baser desires.

For example, there are people who don't really care if they do get caught, because doing jail time is not a tremendous hardship for them, and in certain circles actually increases their prestige as criminals.

The reduction of police simply provides them with a safer "work environment".

How do you separate the deterrence factor out of the increase in crimes due to defunding the police? Can you count the people who were NOT commiting criminal acts, but now are from the people who already were committing such acts and now, thanks to the decrease in police have now increased their criminal activity?

THose people were not deterred before, and the reduction of police has emboldened them.

There's a lot more at work here than any one single factor and looking at only one factor and deciding that is the cause of the entire situation is, I believe, a fallacy.

[cdoc42]

44 AMP, I don't know how else to quantify the success of a proposed solution. If we increase the police force, it never deters crime 100% but hopefully causes a reduction that can be measured. It's impossible to assess how many were deterred.

What we've seen is an increase in crime, especially in Blue cities where the police were defunded. As the previously deterred offenders observe the success of the miscreants, they join the fracas.

That we can't measure the degree of deterrence is why I believe it is untrue that the death penalty is not a deterrent and should be utilized as a solution to the gun crime problem.

[Metal god]

What does LEO stand for ? I know it doesn’t stand for crime deterrent force . I stand by my belief that laws are designed to allow the government to punish the citizens not to deter criminals from breaking them . I also believe my original point is valid which is explaining that fact to pro gun control people is where the argument should start .