HomeNewsA California measure would require residents to enforce the state's weapons ban.

A California measure would require residents to enforce the state’s weapons ban.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed Friday that private citizens in his state sue gun manufacturers to prevent them from selling assault weapons in the same way that Texas allows residents to sue abortion providers to prevent the procedures from taking place. He then essentially challenged the Supreme Court to treat the two issues on an equal footing.

The governor of California, Gavin Newsom, spoke at a news conference in the coastal town of Del Mar, north of San Diego, where he said he believed the Texas law was wrong and that the Supreme Court’s decision in December to allow it to remain in effect while the case is being appealed was “absurd” and “outrageous.”

 

 

“However, they opened the way for us. They establish the tone, the tenor, and the regulations. And we have a choice: we can either be on the defensive, whining about it, or we may follow the rules. “We’re going to follow those regulations,” Newsom stated emphatically. “We’ll see how principled the Supreme Court of the United States is,” he continued later.

 

The state’s one-of-a-kind abortion law, passed last year, prohibits all abortions once a fetal heartbeat is found, which normally occurs during the sixth week of pregnancy. The government is not permitted to enforce the law under the terms of the statute.

As an alternative, individual citizens can file lawsuits against abortion providers or anybody else who “aids and abets” the surgery.

The argument goes that because the government is unable to enforce the law, abortion advocates will be unable to file a lawsuit against the state to prevent it from being implemented. It becomes far more difficult to dispute in court as a result.

A bill introduced by the California Legislature on Friday would accomplish the same goal. In place of abortion providers, however, it would allow anyone to sue gun manufacturers and those who sell, manufacture, or distribute assault-style firearms in the state of New York.

 

For decades, the state of California has prohibited the sale and production of many assault-style firearms. The ordinance was invalidated last year by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who ruled that it was unconstitutional while comparing an AR-15 weapon to a Swiss Army knife, stating that both are “useful for both home and fight.”

Newsom was enraged by the decision and pledged to fight it in court.

 

The proposed legislation in California is exactly what gun rights advocates anticipated would happen if the Supreme Court upheld the Texas law and allowed it to remain in place. That is why the Firearms Policy Coalition filed a lawsuit against the law in the Supreme Court.

The group announced Friday that it would move to court if necessary to prevent the California measure from becoming law.

 

They are “essentially just modern-day Jim Crow laws designed to impede the exercise of human rights by anyone who disagrees with what the dictators who control California think is right,” according to the group.

 

Newsom and his Democratic friends in the state Legislature are sure that if the Supreme Court upholds the Texas abortion legislation, the state’s gun-control proposal will be upheld as well. However, it is possible that it is not so straightforward.

 

The right to keep and bear weapons is explicitly stated in the United States Constitution, and the Supreme Court has construed this right extensively. The right to an abortion is not explicitly protected by the United States Constitution. In addition to these guarantees, the court has recognized a slew of others that aren’t expressly listed in the Constitution.

The conservative court majority, according to Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University, will succeed if they can distinguish between the Texas statute and the California one, which she believes they will be able to do.

 

According to her, “I believe it will be a true test of this court’s principles as to how they see a law like that, which essentially does exactly what (the Texas law) did, but only in the context of assault rifles.”

 

Assault weapons are defined by California law as semiautomatic rifles or pistols that can be used for a variety of purposes. People would be able to seek a court order to prevent the proliferation of these weapons and obtain a minimum of $10,000 in damages for each weapon, as well as attorney’s costs, under the provisions of the bill.

 

There is currently no information available about California’s legislation, which was proposed by Democratic state Sen. Bob Hertzberg.

However, according to a fact sheet provided by Hertzberg’s office, the bill would apply to those who manufacture, distribute, transport or import into California, or sell assault weapons,50 BMG rifles, or “ghost guns,” are untraceable weapons that can be purchased online and assembled at the purchaser’s discretion.

 

California Gun Owners executive director Sam Paredes believes the bill’s actual goal is to outlaw firearms in the state entirely, and he believes the bill is attempting to accomplish this.

 

In the event that some of the smaller mom-and-pop gun shops were sued, there is no doubt that their businesses would be destroyed.” “Even if they are not guilty, they do not have the resources to defend themselves,” he explained. “This will have a significant chilling effect, and that is exactly what they intend.”

 

The bill is one of four pieces of legislation in California that are aimed squarely at the firearms business. It would be unlawful to promote assault weapons to youngsters under the age of 18, and it would be more difficult to sue gun makers for liability in shootings if they were passed as part of the package of laws.

 

The families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut announced earlier this week that they had reached an agreement with Remington, the manufacturer of the rifle that was used to kill 20 first-graders and six educators at the school in 2012.

The settlement amounts to $73 million. The case was closely followed because it had the potential to serve as a model for other shooting victims who wish to file lawsuits against guns manufacturers.

 

Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan of the Democratic Party of California filed Assembly Bill 2571, which would restrict the types of weapons advertising and marketing that can be directed at children.

The gun industry, according to Newsom and her colleagues, is utilizing social media, children’s books, mascots, gear, and weaponry that are decorated to appeal to youngsters.

 

A firm named Wee1 Tactical, which markets the JR-15, which is based on the popular adult AR-15 assault-style semi-automatic weapon, was singled out for particular criticism by the group.

 

“Our mission is to securely assist adults in introducing youngsters to the shooting sports,” according to the company’s website. The company’s logo is a skull sucking on a baby pacifier, and it can be found on caps, t-shirts, patches, and sticker products.

 

“How in the world could they believe that was acceptable?” Newsom was the one who inquired.

 

A telephone message and an email seeking comment from the corporation were not immediately returned.

Read More

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisment -

Latest Article