Gavin Newsom to sign gun bill modeled after Texas abortion law

Kenneth Griffin

HR Legend
Jan 13, 2012
11,632
17,030
113
Months after first floating the idea, the Democratic governor of California is set on Friday to sign the bill that allows private citizens to sue people who make or sell guns that the state prohibits, including unserialized ghost guns, with a minimum $10,000 award for people who successfully sue. The so-called bounty law is directly mirrored after a Texas abortion law instituted last fall that bans the procedure once a fetal heartbeat is detected and allows private citizens to sue anyone who violates the statute. The California measure would take effect next year and contains a provision that would automatically withdraw the law if courts strike down the Texas statute before then. Ahead of signing the bill, Newsom took out full-page ads in Texas newspapers that read: “If Texas can ban abortion and endanger lives, California can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives. If [Texas] Governor [Greg] Abbott truly wants to protect the right to life, we urge him to follow California’s lead.” From The Trace: In January, Jennifer Mascia spoke with legal experts to help make sense of the gun bounty law — and the potential broader consequences of states emulating Texas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole

TJ8869

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2006
48,055
46,492
113
Maybe I misunderstood the article, but as I was reading it I thought that seems like a reasonable law. There should be serious criminal and civil consequences for making or selling ghost guns and other illegal firearms. I fully support that.

Then I read the part where the law automatically withdraws if courts strike down the Texas abortion law and I thought “wtf?!”.

Either it’s a good idea and they should do it or it’s not a good idea and they shouldn’t do it. I don’t quite understand this concept of tit-for-tat legislation.
 

hawkifann

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 5, 2001
38,170
16,162
113
Maybe I misunderstood the article, but as I was reading it I thought that seems like a reasonable law. There should be serious criminal and civil consequences for making or selling ghost guns and other illegal firearms. I fully support that.

Then I read the part where the law automatically withdraws if courts strike down the Texas abortion law and I thought “wtf?!”.

Either it’s a good idea and they should do it or it’s not a good idea and they shouldn’t do it. I don’t quite understand this concept of tit-for-tat legislation.
I think it logically follows. Basically, the premise is that if the courts strike down the Texas law because you can’t write laws like that (people suing should have no standing, IMHO, as they have suffered no damages), then California is recognizing that their law would also be struck down by the same argument.

It really is a stupid angle for laws to be written, but I guess if one side is gonna do it, then so is the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL

Latest posts