California thought that they’d found a loophole. If Texas could create a law that wasn’t challenged regarding abortion, they could do the same for gun control.
Here’s the problem – there’s a difference between abortion, which isn’t guaranteed in the constitution – and the right to bear arms, which is guaranteed in the constitution.
Further, California liberals are still under the belief that gun laws work. The Golden State has more gun laws than virtually any other state – and yet, people are still killed by guns every day. Clearly, the gun laws don’t actually work.
Criminals don’t follow laws.
Firearms groups have started to legally challenge California’s gun law.
When Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 1327, he mentioned Texas’ law specifically. The new law in California allows private citizens to sue the manufacturers and distributors of firearms that are banned within the state.
Of course, this is ridiculous. If a person loses their mind and chooses to shoot up a school, private citizens shouldn’t be able to sue the gun manufacturer. The manufacturer had nothing to do with the shooting – nor did the distributor who sold the gun to the person.
California’s law seems to blatantly ignore personal accountability. The only person that should be held responsible for pulling the trigger of the gun is the person who had their finger on the trigger.
SB 1327 makes it so that plaintiffs seeking to challenge the law or the restrictions are jointly liable to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the party that prevails – and this is where the first issue has been identified.
San Diego firearms dealer Gunfighter Tactical has teamed up with the San Diego Gun Owners PAC and the Second Amendment Foundation as plaintiffs who are alleging that the statute focused on legal fees is unconstitutional. Their lawsuit identifies that it “seeks to suppress firearms-related litigation.”
Newsom has a lot of convoluted thinking about what the bill is capable of doing. When the governor signed the bill, he compared it to the abortion law in Texas and said, “If they are going to use this framework to put women’s lives at risk, we are going to use it to save people’s lives here in the state of California.”
Plaintiffs are challenging the ban on assault weapons, too. According to the plaintiffs, “Section 1021.11, however, forces Plaintiffs to litigate their assault-weapons challenge under the threat of a potentially ruinous fee award.”
The provision regarding the legal fees allegedly violates the 1st Amendment because it singles out firearms advocates.
Who is to say why a person wants an assault weapon? It is used in a number of sports, including clay shooting. Not everything is about committing crimes.
As the plaintiffs have said, California created a “fee-shifting scheme” and try to compare it to what Texas has enacted. But it’s not possible to take the same approach because of what is and is not protected by the constitution.
The statute that was passed in California does not take effect until January 1. And these plaintiffs won’t be the last.
The Supreme Court failed to block the Texas law, which is why Newsom thinks that he can get away with what he has done.
The reality is that gun rights advocates will continue to challenge California’s law until the Supreme Court has no choice but to rule on it.
