For now, but the current Supreme Court is such that at this point, who knows what laws they'll say are fine or not fine?
The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control
- Thread starter Lemon Merchant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- all guns suck
For now, but the current Supreme Court is such that at this point, who knows what laws they'll say are fine or not fine?
Alito and Kavanaugh/Roberts provided concurring opinions in this ruling that do seem to lay out how far they at least are prepared to go.
And here's a blog article by Eugene Volokh going into detail on the question of impact to current laws. Volokh is ideologically libertarian (I mean yeah, this is in Reason Magazine), but I've found him to be very clear about differentiating between what he thinks will happen and what he wants to happen, and he is extremely familiar with 2A legal issues.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/23/how-should-courts-evaluate-gun-regulations-after-bruen/
I don't think there were any of those. At least I don't remember any.
What I remember was more that some moderate Republicans were saying that they were confident that Roe v. Wade would not be overturned by them. We always knew that the new Justices were going to expand gun rights and roll back gun control.
The contrast between the gun-control ruling and the abortion-ban ruling is why the proposed retaliatory gun-control laws that Gavin Newsom and others were suggesting won't work.
Could you elaborate on this? I'm not clear at all what you're talking about here.
Sure. So remember when Texas (and IIRC some other state(s)) passed the laws allowing private citizens to sue and collect money damages from people who they accused of having/performing/assisting an abortion? I'm paraphrasing so maybe my details aren't perfect but that was basically the gist. They basically established what would function as a bounty system to shadowban abortion, without technically banning it, because that would have been, at least back then, Unconstitutional.
So immediately in response, Democrats, with Gavin Newsom being a prominent example, started stating that if Republicans could do that, they would shadowban guns in the same way. Providing private citizens with the right to sue gun purchasers/sellers/manufacturers for a bounty, rather than an outright ban of guns, which would be Unconstitutional.
Here is an article about it:
Governor Newsom Takes Action to Hold the Gun Industry Accountable and Advance California’s Nation-Leading Protections
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/02/18/g...vance-californias-nation-leading-protections/
My point, is that the reason measures like this won't work, is that the Conservatives on the SCOTUS will simply ignore the logic, and concoct some tortured reasoning to achieve the result they want, which is abortion restricted, guns unrestricted. They aren't going to allow Blue states to "gotcha" them with the logic of their bad decisions.
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
Ah, I recall now, thank you. Yeah, I was horrified that SCOTUS didn't come down on that like a pallet of bricks at the time.
OK, thanks. The links don't show much of anything, but based on the titles I'll accept them as supporting your point that some liberals joined the moderate Conservative chorus of accepting/tolerating Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. I still don't think it was a very significant/prominent contingent of folks.
California state's gun control websites expose 10 years of personal data
A California state website exposed the personal details of anyone who applied for a concealed-and-carry weapons (CCW) permit between 2011 and 2021.
According to the California Department of Justice, the blunder happened earlier this week when the US state's Firearms Dashboard Portal was overhauled.
In addition to that portal, data was exposed on several other online dashboards provided the state, including: Assault Weapon Registry, Handguns Certified for Sale, Dealer Record of Sale, Firearm Safety Certificate, and Gun Violence Restraining Order dashboards.
The Cali DOJ noted that the dashboards and data were available to the public "for less than 24 hours," and the information exposed included names, dates of birth, gender, race, driver license numbers, addresses, and criminal histories. It did not, however, expose Social Security numbers and financial information, according to the West Coast state.
Still, some private information may have been posted on social media websites, according to the Fresno County Sheriff's Office, which initially disclosed the data leak.
Bonta's office did not immediately respond to The Register's questions about how many people were affected, and how many California residents apply for and/or are denied a concealed weapons permit each year.
According to the California Department of Justice, the blunder happened earlier this week when the US state's Firearms Dashboard Portal was overhauled.
In addition to that portal, data was exposed on several other online dashboards provided the state, including: Assault Weapon Registry, Handguns Certified for Sale, Dealer Record of Sale, Firearm Safety Certificate, and Gun Violence Restraining Order dashboards.
The Cali DOJ noted that the dashboards and data were available to the public "for less than 24 hours," and the information exposed included names, dates of birth, gender, race, driver license numbers, addresses, and criminal histories. It did not, however, expose Social Security numbers and financial information, according to the West Coast state.
Still, some private information may have been posted on social media websites, according to the Fresno County Sheriff's Office, which initially disclosed the data leak.
Bonta's office did not immediately respond to The Register's questions about how many people were affected, and how many California residents apply for and/or are denied a concealed weapons permit each year.
California Law Lets Citizens Sue Gun Makers
BY CHRISTINE MAI-DUC
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law allowing private citizens to sue the gun industry to enforce the state’s ban on certain weapons.
The legislation is modeled after a recent law in Texas that allows individuals to sue abortion clinics or anyone who “aids and abets” another person in obtaining an abortion.
Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, signed the bill at Santa Monica College, where a 2013 shooting rampage left five people dead in addition to the 23-year-old gunman. The assailant in that shooting used a homemade, unserialized assault rifle he assembled using parts.
“You cannot sell, you cannot manufacture, you cannot transfer these illegal weapons of war and mass destruction in the state of California. And if you do, there are 40 million people that can collect $10,000 from you and attorney fees for engaging in that illegal activity,” Mr. Newsom told reporters shortly before signing the bill.
The measure he signed Friday is the second of two new laws Mr. Newsom has backed that will allow individuals to sue those who make, distribute, sell or transport assault-style rifles, unserialized, homemade ghost guns and some .50-caliber rifles that are banned in California. The new law also allows suits against manufacturers and distributors of guns that are sold to anyone under the age of 21, the minimum legal age to purchase a firearm in the state.
Under the new California law, which will take effect Jan. 1, plaintiffs who sue gun makers and sellers to enforce state gun laws can recover a minimum of $10,000 per weapon found in violation plus attorney’s fees.
Gun-rights activists have vowed to challenge this and other gun laws Mr. Newsom recently signed, including a measure that restricts firearms marketing to minors and another that allows local prosecutors and the state attorney general to sue gun companies when they violate state laws and their products cause harm.
“He is trying to essentially put a system together where it’s death by a thousand cuts…to bleed the gun industry and gun owners to death financially,” said Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Mr. Michel said a legal challenge to the newest law could come within weeks.
BY CHRISTINE MAI-DUC
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law allowing private citizens to sue the gun industry to enforce the state’s ban on certain weapons.
The legislation is modeled after a recent law in Texas that allows individuals to sue abortion clinics or anyone who “aids and abets” another person in obtaining an abortion.
Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, signed the bill at Santa Monica College, where a 2013 shooting rampage left five people dead in addition to the 23-year-old gunman. The assailant in that shooting used a homemade, unserialized assault rifle he assembled using parts.
“You cannot sell, you cannot manufacture, you cannot transfer these illegal weapons of war and mass destruction in the state of California. And if you do, there are 40 million people that can collect $10,000 from you and attorney fees for engaging in that illegal activity,” Mr. Newsom told reporters shortly before signing the bill.
The measure he signed Friday is the second of two new laws Mr. Newsom has backed that will allow individuals to sue those who make, distribute, sell or transport assault-style rifles, unserialized, homemade ghost guns and some .50-caliber rifles that are banned in California. The new law also allows suits against manufacturers and distributors of guns that are sold to anyone under the age of 21, the minimum legal age to purchase a firearm in the state.
Under the new California law, which will take effect Jan. 1, plaintiffs who sue gun makers and sellers to enforce state gun laws can recover a minimum of $10,000 per weapon found in violation plus attorney’s fees.
Gun-rights activists have vowed to challenge this and other gun laws Mr. Newsom recently signed, including a measure that restricts firearms marketing to minors and another that allows local prosecutors and the state attorney general to sue gun companies when they violate state laws and their products cause harm.
“He is trying to essentially put a system together where it’s death by a thousand cuts…to bleed the gun industry and gun owners to death financially,” said Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Mr. Michel said a legal challenge to the newest law could come within weeks.
EnglishEdward
Deity
The concept of allowing private citizens to sue for damages when they have not actually incurred any damage is absurd.
In a sensible world SCOTUS would rule that in such circumstances private citizens have no standing to sue
and that any state or federal laws purporting to provide them with such rights are invalid.
In a sensible world SCOTUS would rule that in such circumstances private citizens have no standing to sue
and that any state or federal laws purporting to provide them with such rights are invalid.
It is just a CA gun version of the TX abortion bounty law.
Spidernova
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 258
I don’t think “accidentally” doxing every cc holder in the state isn’t cool, regardless of politics.
And we knew this law was coming. Perhaps if it goes to the Supreme Court and gets eviscerated, the Texas bounty will go as well.
And we knew this law was coming. Perhaps if it goes to the Supreme Court and gets eviscerated, the Texas bounty will go as well.
You shouldn't be so doubly negative ^_^
EnglishEdward
Deity
Quite so.
Quite so.
Well the way I see it, both laws are doubly negative, SCOTUS ruling them both invalid would be a double positive.
Lexicus
Deity
Good thing we have so many good guys with guns around
The Uvalde shooting put that "good guy with a gun" canard to bed permanently.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
How often does reality overcome mythology in people's minds? Not "never", I suppose...
US judge dismisses Mexico’s $10bn lawsuit against gun makers
As predicted here IIRC.
As predicted here IIRC.
A US judge has dismissed Mexico’s $10bn lawsuit that sought to hold US gun manufacturers responsible for facilitating the flood of weapons that are smuggled across the United States-Mexico border to drug cartels.
“While the court has considerable sympathy for the people of Mexico, and none whatsoever for those who traffic guns to Mexican criminal organizations, it is duty-bound to follow the law,” Chief Judge F Dennis Saylor said in a 44-page decision announced in federal court in Boston on Friday.
Saylor said federal law “unequivocally” bars lawsuits seeking to hold gun manufacturers responsible when people use guns for their intended purpose. He said the law contained several narrow exceptions, but none applied.
The Mexican government had argued that the companies know their practices contribute to the trafficking of guns into Mexico and facilitate it. Mexico wanted compensation for the havoc the guns have wrought on its people.
But the judge said Mexico could not overcome a provision in a US law – the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act – that shields gun makers from lawsuits over “the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products … by others when the product functioned as designed and intended”.
Mexico argued the US protection act did not apply when an injury occurred outside the United States.
Saylor did not agree.
“Mexico is seeking to hold defendants liable for practices that occurred within the United States and only resulted in harm in Mexico,” he wrote. “This case thus represents a valid domestic application of the PLCAA, and the presumption against extraterritoriality does not apply.”
Similar threads
