Front Page  »  

Gov. Newsom wants to model gun bill after Texas abortion law

December 12, 2021

Gov. Gavin Newsom

By KAREN VELIE

California Governor Gavin Newsom on Saturday announced plans to use a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a controversial law that limits abortions in Texas to develop legislation to provide members of the public an avenue for filing lawsuits against gun manufacturers and sellers of assault weapons and ghost guns.

“If states can shield their laws from review by federal courts, then California will use that authority to help protect lives,” Newsom tweeted. “We will work to create the ability for private citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in California.”

In response to last week’s ruling on the Texas law, Newson directed the California Legislature and Attorney General Rob Bonta to work on a bill that will allow private citizens to seek up to $10,000 in damages per violation. If emulating Texas keeps “devastating weapons off the street,” Newsom wants do move forward.

“I am outraged by yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place,” Newsom said in a statement. “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.”


Loading...
Related:


35 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It doesn’t take guts to go after the 2nd amendment in this state…that’s easy….if he had guts and really wanted to reduce gun crime in this state he would impose stop and frisk in the cities…but see he is not serious about lowering the instances of gun assaults…he is raising his chances for advancement inside the progressive left wing of the democrat party….law and order be damned….


31

Newsome is highlighting the real problem, judicial activism!

Roe vs Wade was a bad decision, the justices at the time made a legislative decision that has torn at the fabric of Supreme Court ever since:(

Ever since Roe vs Wade, the litmus test for every Supreme Court nominee is where they stand on the abortion issue:(

So ever since that decision was made, it has been a activist court instead of a judicial court, so sad that stalwart legal scholars need not apply!!!

Roe vs Wade needs to be extinguished and a women’s right to abortion needs to be legislated, so we can get this silly nonsense behind us!!!

What Newsome is highlighting is, that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and it started with Roe vs Wade!!!


11

Yes, and have it be a state issue. Legislatively.

Some states will be very liberal, aloeing even late term abortions. A few states, especially on the “Bible Belt “ will come close to a downright law against it except in rare cases. However, the vast majority of the states will take a more reasoned approach, using 12-15 weeks as a fetal viability benchmark. Point in fact, France, that bastion of right wing, bible thumping rednecks uses something like 12 weeks. Yet here, under Roe v. Wade, some states allow abortion a day or two before expected delivery. Although rare, theoretically legal.


0

Governor Newsom is showing Our nation and the world that he’s got the guts and the political support to stand up against the wild-eyed conspiracy spewing anti-democracy movement that threatens to create Civil War in our beloved United States. The absolutely foolish and wasteful recall effort against him that failed miserably helped elevate Mr. Newsom in the eyes of the world. We need more courageous leaders like Mr. Newsom if we are going to save our nation from those who wish to destroy it and democracy in our lifetime.


-89

Smart move by the governor. He’s gutsy. He’s also trying to save lives of the innocent. More than 100 people are shot every single day in the United States. That’s a problem. Governor Newsom‘s political courage is remarkable. No wonder the majority of voters totally rejected the foolish and mean-spirited effort to recall him.


-101

Four times as many people were killed with a knife than with any kind of rifle in 2019, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report.


According to the UCR, 1,476 victims were murdered with “knives or cutting instruments,” whereas 364 people were killed with rifles, including the vague category of “assault rifles.”


From these figures I expect that the vast majority of that “100 people shot every single day” are the victims of handguns rather than “assault rifles”.


Either that or the “assault rifle” is nowhere near as lethal as we have been told.


Newsom is using this issue to prove a point about the Texas strategy more than trying to actually effect any change that would have a meaningful change.


Get the gun owners fired up and watch the sparks fly in court is probably his thinking.


25

Nice cherry-picking of the stats, “Gordo”. There were also 3,326 murders by “unclassified” firearms, which could also include “rifles”.


But let me ask you this. If there was a mentally unstable homeless person living near your house, would you rather they be armed with a “knife” or a “rifle”? I know what I’d pick.


0

Far fetched example Paragon. Not impossible in theory but highly unlikely that a homeless person acquired a firearm, LEGALLY, especially if he had a record of being mentally unstable. Guns are expensive, overpriced in California and so is ammunition these days. You obviously haven’t purchased a firearm in California recently. There is a bunch of paperwork, background check and waiting period, etc. For a handgun purchase and maybe long guns now, a buyer must possess a valid firearms safety card as well. You see, criminals don’t follow laws and only law-abiding gun owners, by definition, purchase firearms legally, nor do they commit gun crimes.


I can tell you however, and I speak for a lot of responsible gun owners that I know, if that mentally ill homeless person broke into my house while I was home it might not go so well.


0

If a mentally unstable homeless person is living near my house, I’d rather they be taken to a mental health treatment facility. It’s already illegal for that person, due to their mental health instability, to possess a firearm, so your question makes no sense. How can you make it “more illegal” with a new law, if it’s already prohibited?


I expect you’ll come back with “Reagan closed the mental hospitals”, but Reagan hasn’t been Governor in 50 years. If there are deficiencies in mental health care in California today, those are on Jerry Brown and Newsom.


0

Just look to San Francisco to see what Newsom’s policies leave you with. By look I mean actually walk around there and then tell me that is what you want your hometown to look like. No thanks.


39

Yeah, go ahead and look but watch where you step…yikes!


7

“The legal fight over the Texas abortion law has focused on its unusual structure and whether it improperly limits how the law can be challenged in court. Texas lawmakers handed responsibility for enforcing the law to private citizens, rather than state officials.”


This goes far beyond 2A and forceing raped 13 year old girls to give birth. If the texas law is allowed to stand it will bypass the supreme court, texas is saying, you can’t sue us we don’t enforce it.


So California could pass a visible emissions law and let everyone sue that smokey pickup truck or fire pit. Kicked up some air pollution at the dunes (lol sand)? Anyone can sue you.


Any state could use this framework for any law they wanted.


“”The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the “fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” and “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Indeed, “[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.” United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809). The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.”” – John Roberts


-3

I believe the issue is abortion after a heartbeat is detected is illegal. Whenever an individual faces a medical emergency the first thing that is checked is a heart beat. Heartbeat means you are alive, no heartbeat not so much. Therefore, once s heartbeat is detected in a fetus there is life. To terminate that life is murder.


31

I was not discussing the “abortion law” per se but the technique the texas legislature used to attempt a bypass of the supreme court that is normally one of the checks and balances.


But you didn’t read any of that before lecturing from your high horse.


-28

By your logic then; stand your ground laws should apply to pregnancy. That life you mention threatens the mother’s life by taking it to term. One could argue, legally and logically, the right of self defense.


-17

I like Governor Newsom. I think he’s doing a good job. And obviously the majority of voters in California support him. Remember when all those enemies of democracy who spent all that taxpayer money and wasted so much of everybody’s time trying to recall him?


-94

LOL!


Good one


18

“enemies of democracy”


This phrase illustrates just how fractured our political system has become. If someone disagrees or has a contrary opinion they are labeled as an “enemy”.


That unhealthy practice allows some guy with a gun to make the same characterization of the Governor or anyone in favor of stricter gun laws. “They’re enemies of the Constitution”.


Because we are so well armed in this country and we have a history of shooting our enemies it would be best to tone down the “enemies” rhetoric being used by all sides in political debates.


6

Guess who’s running for Prez?


16

The Gov must be looking at Beijing Joe’s poll numbers this week, in the high 30’s and VP Harris considerably lower. Newsom just might be on to something, And with Cuomo looking at a felony conviction, well things just might pan out.


Should be interesting


-4

Guns do not kill, PEOPLE using guns kill. Gruesome again takes the wrong approach suing a gun manufacturer for the wanton or mistaken use of a firearm is like suing a car manufacturer for an incident involving something they manufactured. Again, Gruesome looks for a target rather than a solution.


88

I think you are wrong. The car people get sued all the time for imposing on us unsafe products no matter how we use them.


-72

When the car maker installs a poorly designed airbag, that causes more harm than safety, the fault does indeed lie with the car maker. The various types of firearms, all work on the same principal as others of their type. So far, no gun maker has been found liable for an actual fault installed, will full knowledge of it, in any firearm brought to market.


As a matter of fact, some gun makers have found that certain firearms could be made more safe, by installing additional parts that hinder the energy transfer of the hammer or striker from impacting the primer of the cartridge. Ruger, in the early 70’s, found that by adding a transfer bar, that only deployed when the trigger was pulled, greatly enhanced the safety of their single action pistols by eliminating the firing pin from the hammer itself. Granted, they had to redesign the internal workings. This method worked for them, but the historical design of existing single action revolvers of the P73 model, denies that design to work retroactively. 99.9% of shooters know this, and operate their unaltered pistols accordingly and safely anyway. The Single Action Shooters Society are a testament to safe gun handling of unaltered pistols.


So-called “ghost guns” also are made with very same safety features of their normally manufactured look-alikes. Making them just as safe as any AR15 on the market. Being just as safe, with no current parts or additional parts that are known to be faulty, makes this ‘law” incongruent with existing federal rules and regulations for firearm manufacturing, and Constitutionally corrupt.


This law will not stand up in court. Once again, making California the firearms laughingstock of the country.


2

You don’t have a constitutional right to drive or own a car….so many people would do well for themselves if they would take the time to read the constitution….


2

Does this guy (Newsom) really have a law degree? Abortion (and any other medical decision) is not a power of the federal government under the Constitution. Per the tenth amendment, it thus is a power reserved to the States (or the people). Guns (arms), however, are clearly a federal matter under the second amendment.


78

Thanks for making that defining statement and the reason Newsoms’ ignorantly proposed political stunt of stupidity will not hold up in court.


I find it interesting the hypocrisy of Newson stating he wants this to protect and saves lives out one side of his mouth, but out of the other side claiming he will make California a sanctuary state for pregnant women who want take the life of a precious innocent child’s right to life. It gives off a sense of self-righteous evilness in him.


52

If the texas law is allowed to stand it will be used (the framework) for everything, guns, voting, anything goes in any state.


“The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the “fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” and “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”” John Roberts


“But Newsom’s Saturday night declaration is a fulfilled prophecy for some gun rights groups who had predicted progressive states would attempt to use Texas’ abortion law to restrict access to guns. That’s why the Firearms Policy Coalition, a nonprofit group that advocates for gun rights, filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing the Texas law.


“If Texas succeeds in its gambit here, New York, California, New Jersey, and others will not be far behind in adopting equally aggressive gambits to not merely chill but to freeze the right to keep and bear arms,” attorney Erik Jaffe wrote on behalf of the Firearms Policy Coalition. -NPR”


6

I always find it interesting how those on the left love to quote and call on the Constitution when it is convenient, but look the other way and denounce want to ignore it as old thought and not accepted in their views for the agenda and narratives dear to their hearts. Once again, the complete hypocrisy and deceitfulness of the left and those that support them.


5
1 2