Texas abortion SCotUS ruling paves way for gun control

[HoughMade]

Follow me now:

Abortion- not in the Constitution. States can regulate, or not.

Right to arms- actually in the Constitution. Any state law must comply with the Constitution.

Simple as that.

 

[Leadeye]

I don't see how what Newsom is talking about isn't already covered by Prop 65 in California. It's not really a new idea.

 

[xwing]

This is what happens when leftists are elected and feel no risk of being voted out of office. They ignore all laws and the wider constituency in order to pander exclusively to their left-wing base.

 

[Amishman44]

Maybe they should stop selling firearms to California period. Not even law enforcement agencies. Let them use Phoenix arms hp22a since it is California legal and manufactured in California.

Well...I'm guessing the Liberals would still find something to complain / cry about...!!!

 

[DadSmith]

Well...I'm guessing the Liberals would still find something to complain / cry about...!!!

It's their job.

 

[Trapper Jim]

No matter what we think, this leftist machine gains ground by the dark images of black guns feeding into the perception of the grabbers. Until the misuse of said weapons stops and we fix the judicial system (takes money instead of spending it on Starbucks and Roundabouts) I’m afraid that it’s even a bigger hill to climb than one party over the other. Sad indeed.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

No matter what we think, this leftist machine gains ground by the dark images of black guns feeding into the perception of the grabbers. Until the misuse of said weapons stops and we fix the judicial system (takes money instead of spending it on Starbucks and Roundabouts) I’m afraid that it’s even a bigger hill to climb than one party over the other. Sad indeed.

What "misuse"? The percentage of crimes committed with "black guns" is miniscule enough to be statistically insignificant. It's just their unfounded complaint du jour. In the 70's it was handguns. The problem is not the tool, and it never has been. It's the individuals wielding the tools. And those are the people that the left has deified. They actually admire criminals (see the monuments to drug addicts and thugs like George Floyd). Liberalism is a mental illness. Change my mind.

 

[Trapper Jim]

What "misuse"? The percentage of crimes committed with "black guns" is miniscule enough to be statistically insignificant. It's just their unfounded complaint du jour. In the 70's it was handguns. The problem is not the tool, and it never has been. It's the individuals wielding the tools. And those are the people that the left has deified. They actually admire criminals (see the monuments to drug addicts and thugs like George Floyd). Liberalism is a mental illness. Change my mind.

Try not to miss the narrative here… most of us on here know it is a people problem. Not just guns either. And again you are right as I was around when GCA of 68 and the infamous Saturday night special fiasco. Nothing different to see here folks, as “the misuse” comes from anything the press and grabbers want it to be.

 

[Twangbanger]

Let Newsome do it. Might be the best chance ever for us to get that state back.

Outside of the urban areas, illegals and homeless, there are a LOT of gun owners in the state.

Like you are ever going to get California Asian voters to _not_ vote for the party of "more education spending." Yeah right.

Cali is how it is, because the residents _want_ it that way.

 

[bwframe]

Like you are ever going to get California Asian voters to _not_ vote for the party of "more education spending." Yeah right.

Cali is how it is, because the residents _want_ it that way.

Wasn't it Koreans who used their rifles to fend off rioters from destroying their property during the Rodney King riots?

 

[ancjr]

"...And this war won’t be only about the subjugation of Black people but also about the subjugation of all who challenge the white racist patriarchy."

Opinion | We’re Edging Closer to Civil War (Published 2021)

I see too many uneasy parallels between what was happening nearly 200 years ago and what is happening now over abortion.

www.nytimes.com

 

[04FXSTS]

Wasn't it Koreans who used their rifles to fend off rioters from destroying their property during the Rodney King riots?

You are correct. Jim.

 

[bwframe]

 

[Mikey1911]

"...And this war won’t be only about the subjugation of Black people but also about the subjugation of all who challenge the white racist patriarchy."

Opinion | We’re Edging Closer to Civil War (Published 2021)

I see too many uneasy parallels between what was happening nearly 200 years ago and what is happening now over abortion.

www.nytimes.com

I think Charles M. has been doing far too much Blow, for far too long of a time.

 

[tbhausen]

The State of California has problems that are usually only seen in third-world countries such as rampant disease outbreak due to human waste on the streets.

A significant percentage of this Nation's homeless population is in California.

People are leaving this State in droves, lost a seat in the US House of Representatives for the first time ever.

Crime is not only rampant, but unchecked by policies of Soros-funded prosecutors.

The Police have been vilified and de-funded.

This (words without profanity... hard to find) Governor of this state views surviving a recall as a mandate to be a dictator.

The statement below shows he is either obtuse or lying on putting women in harm's way (Texas Law does not consider a procedure to save the mother's life the same as the abortion procedures in their bill.)

This buffoon is also intentionally taking the term Swiss Army Knife out of context. The AR platform is highly versatile and gives you many options, like a Swiss Army Knife. Leftist anti-2A types don't care and push the lie. Kenosha, Duke Lacrosse, list is too long.

(Edit: US District Judge Roger Benitez used the Swiss Army Knife comparison to the AR, "Home defense and homeland defense" were also words he used in describing the AR platform.)

"But 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."

He said he has already directed his staff to work with the legislature and the attorney general to craft a bill that would allow private citizens to sue those who manufacture, distribute or sell an assault weapon or ghost gun kit.

Laws be-damned! Plus, it really looks like Ice Cream is being compared to Tuesday here. Nobody is suing anybody in the Texas bill. Oh well, who needs logic when you're a leftist-anti 2A dictator in a state that resembles a third-world country.

Gavin Newsom says he'll use Texas abortion law as model for gun-control measure

In responding to the U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the Texas abortion ban to stay in place, California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday said he plans to propose a gun control law that would be modeled on the Texas one.

www.foxnews.com

I called Gavin Newsom an ******* on Facebook, I can probably call him when here, too. Oh, wait, I just did.

 

[Libertarian01]

Follow me now:

Abortion- not in the Constitution. States can regulate, or not.

Right to arms- actually in the Constitution. Any state law must comply with the Constitution.

Simple as that.

I agree with what you are saying, but...

The Supreme Court has ruled, as I understand it, that the 2A is NOT unlimited. States can impose "reasonable" restrictions. Ergo, California can push the "reasonable" limit as far as they can. Gov Newsom isn't saying "no guns," just allowing citizens to sue otehrs over firearms limitations. No violation of 2A here as SCOTUS has allowed for "reasonable" restrictions.

The Texas law has opened the door for every fringe element to find a backdoor around limitations.

I should also remind the good readers that the 9th Amendment does allow for the existence of rights not specified to exist, upon which privacy and abortion may(?) build. Under the 9th just because it isn't specifically named doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Our founders were wise that way.

This Texas law has got to go. It undermines the idea of standing to a level that is horrific. If allowed to remain, it will set a precedent for all sorts of stupid!

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Doug

 

[breakingcontact]

"Texas abortion SCotUS ruling paves way for gun control"

No...it doesn't.

 

[ancjr]

It's angering all the right people.

 

[Bugzilla]

But can I still eat ice cream on Tuesday’s?

 

[HoughMade]

I agree with what you are saying, but...

The Supreme Court has ruled, as I understand it, that the 2A is NOT unlimited. States can impose "reasonable" restrictions. Ergo, California can push the "reasonable" limit as far as they can. Gov Newsom isn't saying "no guns," just allowing citizens to sue otehrs over firearms limitations. No violation of 2A here as SCOTUS has allowed for "reasonable" restrictions.

The Texas law has opened the door for every fringe element to find a backdoor around limitations.

I should also remind the good readers that the 9th Amendment does allow for the existence of rights not specified to exist, upon which privacy and abortion may(?) build. Under the 9th just because it isn't specifically named doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Our founders were wise that way.

This Texas law has got to go. It undermines the idea of standing to a level that is horrific. If allowed to remain, it will set a precedent for all sorts of stupid!

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Doug

OK- there's a little to unpack here. Once again, the key is understanding federalism.

I am sensitive to "playing the hand we're dealt", that is, Supreme Court rulings are reality, so we have to deal with them. However, Supreme Court ruling do not always stand forever, so discussion of what the law should be based upon the Constitution is not irrelevant. The only way to get to the way it should be from where it is to push back against current rulings. That is the entire context of the current abortion situation.

So, since the RKBA is explicitly in the Constitution (and has been incorporated to the states) the states cannot regulate it in any way that puts an undue burden on that right. We can fight about what federal law allows and whether the current precedent reflects the founders' intent, but the RKBA is actually in the Constitution so whatever California does must comply with the Constitution.

Abortion is found no where explicitly in the Constitution and has only been "read into" the Constitution with linguistic gymnastics. If it is found that abortion is not protected by the federal Constitution (I mean, it's not in there), then states can regulate it (or outlaw it) in compliance with its own law.

Once again, there is a way to add rights to the Constitution that is already defined by the Constitution. People seem not interested in that.

Next, states have different standing laws than the federal government all the time. Further, nothing a state can do will change federal standing law. Texas can and has defined "standing" in its state courts ever since there have been state courts. They can do so now. That changes nothing about other states and changes nothing about federal law. In other words, Texas hasn't opened the door to anything except in Texas. This sort of private cause of action isn't new. It's just new in the abortion arena.

As to the 9th Amendment means that there may be additional rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. So- how do we know what those rights are? State law, state constitutions, state common law. The federal government, in ALL federal rights has to find the genesis in the explicit Constitution. This is why the Supreme Court went through the mental gymnastics to find "penumbras formed by emanations" pf the right to privacy in such things as the 4th Amendment in Griswold v. Connecticut. States have "general police powers", that is, states can regulate anything that it is not limited by the U.S. Constitution, its own constitution, it's statutes or common law. That includes abortion if the state law does not protect it. The federal government can only regulate those things the Constitution says it can regulate. Further, the federal government cannot prevent the states from regulating unless the Constitution (and the laws made in compliance therewith) say that the federal law predominates (Supremacy Clause). The federal government cannot just decide that states are not allowed to make certain laws unless the Constitution says so.

Now, is the Texas law a good law? I don't know. To me it looks like grandstanding more than doing anything really positive, but that's up to Texas.