Gov. Newsom announces gun bill modeled after Texas abortion law

February 21, 2022

Gov. Gavin Newsom


California Gov. Gavin Newsom has announced new legislation modeled after a Texas abortion law that would allow Californians to sue gun manufacturers.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas’s ban on most abortion services, Newsom directed his administration to work with the California Legislature to draft a bill that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, distributes, transports, imports into the state or sells assault weapons, .50 BMG rifles, ghost guns or ghost gun kits. Sen. Robert Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) is introducing the bill in the state Senate, the governor and senator jointly announced on Friday.

“In a just world, a woman’s right to choose would be sacrosanct, and California’s people would be protected from ghost guns and assault weapons,” Hertzberg said in a statement. “Sadly, a misguided Supreme Court decision has turned common sense on its head. With this bill, we take advantage of the court’s flawed logic to protect all Californians and save lives.”

The bill, also known as AB 1594, was co-authored by Assemblymen Philip Ting (D-San Francisco), Mike Gipson (D-Carson) and Christopher Ward (D-San Diego). AB 1594 would allow individuals and the California attorney general to sue manufacturers and sellers of firearms for harm caused by their products.

In 2005, Congress passed a law that protects gun manufacturers and dealers from civil suits when crimes are committed using the guns they produce. AB 1594 makes use of an exemption to the federal law that allows gunmakers or sellers to be sued for violations of state laws relating to the sale or marketing of firearms, according to Newsom’s office.

The bill modeled after the Texas abortion law is being introduced as part of a package of new gun legislation in California. Also part of the legislative package, AB 2571 would ban the marketing of certain categories of weapons to children, and AB 1621 would tighten ghost gun restrictions in California.

“California will continue to lead the fight to end gun violence with bold action to tackle the national crisis putting millions of Californians at risk,” Newsom said in a statement. “It’s time to go on the offensive with new measures that empower individuals to hold irresponsible and negligent gun industry actors to account, crack down on shameful advertising that targets our kids and more. This is not about attack law-abiding gun owners — it’s about stopping the tragic violence ravaging communities across the country.”

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Why stop here, lets sue McDonald’s and fast food joints for your diabetes or being over weight. Sue car manufactures and dealers for auto accidents from say DUI drivers, texting drivers and such. The list can go on and on.

Guess the judge in the Sandy Hook/Remington case didn’t buy these arguments.

McDonald’s markets its food for nutrition, not diabetes. Car manufacturers market their cars for transportation, not DUI’s.

Guns, on the other hand, have basically been marketed for death over the last several years—hence the “assault” rifle. I don’t think they mean assaulting a target or an animal. The vast majority of guns purchased in the U.S. are meant to shoot other people, either criminally or in some form of defense.

Therefore, when a manufacturer’s gun is used for slaughter, they have to be held responsible.

Maybe they market them for self defense…I know that doesn’t fit your narrative, but it is a possibility.

I have not seen a legitimate production gun manufacturer refer to any of their firearms as “assault weapons.” Some do make claims regarding adequacy for protection…so what’s wrong with that?

You forgot we have a constitutional right to own a gun but not one to own a Big Mac.

As they say, “it’s difficult to be around a drunk unless you are drunk too.” Yes guns can be for killing, nuclear bombs can be for devastation and today’s mission to disarm the public is for control. Maybe it’s time to move to the Ukraine and greet the neighbors to the East with flowers?

Remington was sued for the way they advertised the rifle, not for the rifle itself.

Yup, you don’t “need” to eat bacon or “ need” to consume Big Macs and fries. Further, where do auto makers get off making cars that can easily do 1.5 times the speed limit? You don’t need that kind of car, especially considering the fact that driving on the public right-of-way is a PRIVILEGE not a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Boy , I bet the California Bar Association loves the idea of this law.

How about Newsom do some work for the law abiding in the state for a change instead of against them?

Because there is no money in the law abiding citizen, laws are created to be broken so monies can be collected in fines.

Manufacturers probably should be a bit worried about such a law, in light of the recent settlement between the Sandy Hook parents and Remington.

Actually, “Remington” doesn’t really exist after its bankruptcy (the name was sold, once or twice, IIRC). Its (former) insurance company was on the hook and made the settlement. Insurance companies only care about the bottom line, not principle, and probably didn’t want to take a chance on a sympathetic jury in a mostly anti-firearm state coming in with an even more ginormous claim against them.

Actually, if you look at the facts…the settlement was between the Sandy Hook parents and the insurers of the now defunct Remington Arms. A very significant distinction, since RA went bankrupt and dissolved in 2020.

What “settlement” did Remington make? Remington is now defunct. This was simply a decision made by a woke insurance company to pay a baseless claim.

The problem with Newsom and Liberals in general is they pacify and coddle the criminals and attack and target hardworking honest citizens.

Here is something Governor Newsome hasnt considered, let’s hold those that use guns to commit crimes responsible for their actions.

Gavin, loose DA’s, state legislators should be sued if a career criminal hurts an innocent person while they are out on parole or probation, or are out on warrants in lieu of appearing in court.

By Gavin’s logic, and I use that word very generously here, a car manufacturer can be sued if someone purposefully plows over innocent individuals with a vehicle that they made. Just think about that for a minute and then think about manufacturers of knives, bats, etc. To take things to an even more absurd level, Gavin would have had airplane manufacturers sued for the homicidal acts of the 9/11 terrorists. In any case this does not actually prevent crime. To actually prevent crime we must prosecute wrongdoers, keep career criminals behind bars, hire and train more LEO’s, encourage the creation of more nuclear families, provide all children with good education, be good role models to our own kids, and bring God back into our daily lives.

What a joke, you can sue anybody, at anytime, for any reason. Just know that it may go nowhere but your money will and with this new law, the bad guys will have another to excuse for their bad behavior. I once respected all people on top but as I grow older, it is obvious that they sit in the stall, one over, and stink just like everyone else. Maybe firearm training should be required in High School to help ready our children for military service? I am not leaving California, even if we give it back to Mexico because so may of us speak Spanish.

Like the idea of mandatory firearm safety training as part of public school curriculum.

Unless the bill is amended to remove AG’s right to sue, it’s likely to be challenged successfully. Also 2A is an actual constitutional right, not one conjured up out of thin air.