This is similar to Texas allowing residents to sue abortion providers to stop these procedures.
Newsom stated that he believed the Texas law was incorrect and that the Supreme Court’s December decision to allow it to remain in effect while it appeals was “absurd and outrageous” at a Del Mar news conference.
“But they opened the door. They set the tone and tenor. We can either complain about it on the defensive or follow those rules. Newsom stated that we would adhere to those rules. Later, he added that “We’ll be able to see how principled is the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Texas’ unique law bans abortions after a fetal beat is detected. This usually occurs around the sixth week. It does not allow the government to enforce it. Private citizens can sue those who perform abortions or “aid and abet” them.
This theory states that abortion advocates cannot sue the state to stop it from being enforced because the government is unable to enforce the law. This makes it more difficult to challenge in court.
The California Legislature has unveiled Friday a bill that would accomplish the same thing. It would allow people to sue gun-makers, as well as others, who make, distribute, or sell assault-style weapons in the state, instead of abortion providers.
For decades, California has prohibited the sale and manufacturing of assault-style weapons. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that the law was unconstitutional. He compared an AR-15 rifle with a Swiss Army knife and said it was “good for both home AND battle.” Newsom was furious and pledged to fight back.
California’s proposed legislation mirrors what gun rights groups fear would happen if Texas’ law is allowed to remain in force. The Firearms Policy Coalition voted against that law at the highest court. Friday’s statement by the group stated that it will go to court to block the California proposal.
According to the group, these restrictions are just modern-day Jim Crow laws that suppress the exercise of human right the California tyrants don’t like.
Newsom and his Democratic allies within the state Legislature believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will have to support their gun proposal if Texas’ abortion law is allowed to stand. It might not be so simple.
The U.S. Constitution clearly states that people have the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court has broadened this interpretation. The Constitution does not explicitly protect the right to abortion. However, the court recognized many other protections that were not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Melissa Murray, a New York University law professor, stated that she believes that if the conservative court majority can find a way for them to differentiate between the Texas law, and the California proposal they will.
She said, “I believe it will be an actual test of this court’s principles about how they view a law like the Texas law that basically does exactly that (the Texas law only in relation to assault weapons)”.
California law defines assault weapons to be semiautomatic rifles and pistols with multiple functions. This bill would allow people to seek a court order for a stop to the spread of these weapons, and also recover at least $10,000 in damages per weapon plus attorney’s fees.
The California bill, which was authored by Democratic state Senator Bob Hertzberg is not yet on the state’s web site. However, Hertzberg’s office provided a fact sheet that said the bill would be applicable to anyone who makes, distributes, transports, imports into California, or otherwise deals in assault weapons. Hertzberg also stated that it will apply to “ghost guns” and.50 BMG rifles. These weapons are untraceable and can be purchased online.
Gun Owners of California executive director Sam Paredes stated that he believes the bill’s true purpose was to ban all guns in California.
“There is no doubt that it would make some smaller, mom-and-pop gun shops out of business if it was challenged in court. He said that they don’t have enough resources to defend themselves even if they are innocent. “This will have an enormous chilling effect, and this is their intention.”
This bill is just one of four bills that target the California gun industry. Other bills would make it illegal for children to sell assault weapons, ban ghost guns, and make it easier to sue gun makers for negligence in shootings.
The families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut announced that they had reached a $73million settlement with Remington . Remington was the manufacturer of the rifle that killed 20 first-graders in 2012 and six educators. This case was closely watched as it could provide a guideline for victims of other shootings who wish to sue firearm-makers.
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (California Democratic Assemblymember) introduced AB 2571. This would restrict the types of firearms marketing and advertising that can be targeted at children. Newsom and she said that the gun industry uses social media, children’s books, mascots and apparel to appeal to children.
They specifically criticised Wee1 Tactical which sells the JR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle based on the popular AR-15 adult AR-15 assault rifle.
According to the company’s website, its goal is “safely help adults introduce kids to shooting sports.” Its logo can be found on hats and patches as well as stickers.
Newsom asked, “How in the hell did they think that was OK?”
The company did not respond immediately to both a phone message and an email requesting comment.
