testtest

Cali at it again

OkiePewPew

OkiePewPew

Moderator
Staff member
So many problems with this but they made sure that, absent a scotus visit, it’ll take a hundred different lawsuits to take the whole bill down. They may get what they want, have the entire industry leave, and then start suing other states since the guns will still make their way west.
I’ve always hoped that the Northern Cali secession would happen but it’s just too complex to happen.

gatdaily.com

CA Gov. Gavin Newsom Introduces Sweeping New Gun Regulation To Circumvent SCOTUS

Governor Newsom has pushed a law that will allow him, the CA AG, or a California resident who has 'suffered harm' to sue gun companies. FOPA or no.
gatdaily.com gatdaily.com
 
OkiePewPew said:
So many problems with this but they made sure that, absent a scotus visit, it’ll take a hundred different lawsuits to take the whole bill down. They may get what they want, have the entire industry leave, and then start suing other states since the guns will still make their way west.
I’ve always hoped that the Northern Cali secession would happen but it’s just too complex to happen.

gatdaily.com

CA Gov. Gavin Newsom Introduces Sweeping New Gun Regulation To Circumvent SCOTUS

Governor Newsom has pushed a law that will allow him, the CA AG, or a California resident who has 'suffered harm' to sue gun companies. FOPA or no.
gatdaily.com gatdaily.com
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I see this as a sign of the times and it’s only going to get worse.
 
All the manufacturers just need to stop selling ANY firearms in California, no Law enforcement no public no nothing. Make them all travel to another state, even Law enforcement. Also make sure Law enforcement can only buy the same magazine count the public has.
Two can play this game, Law enforcement will not like the fact they will not get special treatment to be able to have larger capacity magazines. They'll have to carry more magazines on their person.
 
Keystone19250 said:
Unfortunately I see this as a sign of the times and it’s only going to get worse.
Click to expand...
yes, many states "adopt" what CA does, such as the EPA requirements for vehicle emissions. my states does, way over here on the east coast....

so like @Pitdogg2 states, maybe too, that LEO's MUST go out of state to buy, and also be limited to mag capacities as well....

what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

until these anti 2a politicians are voted out, this will continue.

i can "see" an apocalyptic future, worse than the movies can ever imagine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nmedge said:
The only people he is hurting is his own people. Maybe they need to stop smoking the dope wake up and get rid of most of their lawmakers. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
the movie.."Idiocracy" comes to mind whenever i hear anything going on in Cali......

"Private Joe Bauers, a decisively average American, is selected as a guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program but is forgotten, awakening to a future so incredibly moronic he's easily the most intelligent person alive."
Click to expand...

www.imdb.com

Idiocracy (2006) - IMDb

Idiocracy: Directed by Mike Judge. With Luke Wilson, Maya Rudolph, Dax Shepard, Terry Crews. Private Joe Bauers, a decisively average American, is selected as a guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program but is forgotten, awakening to a future so incredibly moronic he's easily the most...
www.imdb.com www.imdb.com
 
Pitdogg2 said:
All the manufacturers just need to stop selling ANY firearms in California, no Law enforcement no public no nothing. Make them all travel to another state, even Law enforcement. Also make sure Law enforcement can only buy the same magazine count the public has.
Two can play this game, Law enforcement will not like the fact they will not get special treatment to be able to have larger capacity magazines. They'll have to carry more magazines on their person.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Bassbob said:
So Newsom thinks he can sue a gun manufacturer that doesn't adhere to his rules for proper conduct, that he just made up ? Good luck with that. I see just one lawsuit shutting this entire bill down.
Click to expand...
Well, Texas came up with it as a workaround for abortion, and the Supremes said it was kosher…

A lot of people said if that happened, it would be used to target 2A interests.

And so it has…
 
HansGruber said:
Well, Texas came up with it as a workaround for abortion, and the Supremes said it was kosher…

A lot of people said if that happened, it would be used to target 2A interests.

And so it has…
Click to expand...
I don't have a horse in the race on the abortion argument, but one thing I'll note is that abortion was never a constitutional right though 2A has been a right since the founding of the country.

To automatically tie abortion to 2A rights & supporters and then penalize one side over a court ruling on a non constitutional right is ridiculous.

If one side feels a perceived right that was never granted to them should be law, than the party that controls all three branches of the government can push for it and most likely get it through. Instead the current ruling elites would rather us everyday citizens fight amongst ourselves and further divide the country.

With the immediate rapid push for anti 2A laws following any tragedy you'd think the powers that be would be so quick to push for a federal law on abortion but they haven't yet.
 
Pitdogg2 said:
All the manufacturers just need to stop selling ANY firearms in California, no Law enforcement no public no nothing. Make them all travel to another state, even Law enforcement. Also make sure Law enforcement can only buy the same magazine count the public has.
Two can play this game, Law enforcement will not like the fact they will not get special treatment to be able to have larger capacity magazines. They'll have to carry more magazines on their person.
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t believe limiting law enforcement is a very good idea, I would also like to believe the vast majority of LEO’s are not happy about decisions being made in regards to law abiding citizens and gun control.
My opinion.
 
Effectually this new law still requires the plaintiff to show the neglect on part of the manufacturers use of marketing that caused “harm” whether intentional or accidental.

Fluff law with no substance, just enough to fool the fools that didn’t throw him out when they had the chance last year. This shows how Grab’m Loose’m is posturing for a higher office.
Think about the infamous past of the former SF-DA/CA-AG/CA Senator and current Senate +1 Vote and her word salads, ol Grab’m is hitching his wagon to that rising star with a frivolous public safety pacifier.

So any verbiage within the advertising media, anything that relates to capacity, concealability, quickness, ease of function, etc, etc, etc. will be eliminated by manufacturers. If there’s a liability to be had, expect printed disclaimers on packaging and perhaps fueling another exodus of industry and retailers. Of course revenue loss, as CA has seen a tremendous amount of handgun and ammo sales continually skyrocket since 2020.
 
10mmLife said:
I don't have a horse in the race on the abortion argument, but one thing I'll note is that abortion was never a constitutional right though 2A has been a right since the founding of the country.

To automatically tie abortion to 2A rights & supporters and then penalize one side over a court ruling on a non constitutional right is ridiculous.

If one side feels a perceived right that was never granted to them should be law, than the party that controls all three branches of the government can push for it and most likely get it through. Instead the current ruling elites would rather us everyday citizens fights amongst ourselves and further divide the country.

With the immediate rapid push for anti 2A laws following any tragedy you'd think the powers that be would be so quick to push for a federal law on abortion but they haven't yet.
Click to expand...
At the time the Supremes ruled on the Texas law, Roe was the law of the land.

Texas found a workaround; everything else is the law of unintentional consequences.
 
HansGruber said:
At the time the Supremes ruled on the Texas law, Roe was the law of the land.

Texas found a workaround; everything else is the law of unintentional consequences.
Click to expand...
Constitutional rights vs court rulings are two different things. ”Shall not be infringed" comes to mind when speaking of 2A law.

Roe vs Wade was never a law in the first place. The Supreme Court is not a legislative body — while it can make judicial rulings, it cannot make law.

Again I don't have a horse in the race on Roe vs Wade and i'd rather not go down that rabbit hole and bring the OP's thread off of 2A politics. Lets all please stay on topic when discussing the OP's thread topic.
 
Last edited:
10mmLife said:
Constitutional rights vs court rulings are two different things. ”Shall not be infringed" comes to mind when speaking of 2A law.

Roe vs Wade was never a law in the first place. The Supreme Court is not a legislative body — while it can make judicial rulings, it cannot make law.

Again I don't have a horse in the race on Roe vs Wade and i'd rather not go down that rabbit hole and bring the OP's thread off of 2A politics. Lets all please stay on topic when discussing the OP's thread topic.
Click to expand...
Except, of course, the two are intertwined now, aren’t they.

I am amused that things only get “political” when someone goes against the groupthink, though.
 
Keystone19250 said:
I honestly don’t believe limiting law enforcement is a very good idea, I would also like to believe the vast majority of LEO’s are not happy about decisions being made in regards to law abiding citizens and gun control.
My opinion.
Click to expand...
I agree with you but unless you do something drastic that affects the government profoundly, they will continue moving toward an authoritarian state at a great rate of knots. As someone once stated "Nothing will change unless someone of importance is inconvenienced".
 
HansGruber said:
Except, of course, the two are intertwined now, aren’t they.

I am amused that things only get “political” when someone goes against the groupthink, though.
Click to expand...
No, things get political when politics other than 2A are brought into the forum chat therefore violating the forum rules.

If there was evidence of another political topic affecting 2A politics it is usually allowed to be discussed. As most of us here know the minute something political other than the thread topic gets posted the thread gets hijacked with inflammatory arguments across the board.

I did not delete any of your above posts on this thread, nor have I edited any them so you can take from my statement here what you will if you think I'm trying to censor you.
 
BobT said:
I agree with you but unless you do something drastic that affects the government profoundly, they will continue moving toward an authoritarian state at a great rate of knots. As someone once stated "Nothing will change unless someone of importance is inconvenienced".
Click to expand...
And if you believe inconveniencing law enforcement is the way to go about that then that is sad commentary.
 
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. I've never understood why these huge issues haven't been through the amendment process. Just about anything the SC rules on can be over-turned at some point down the road. Without an amendment these issues will continue to divide and may never become settled law. Here's the process:

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The amendment is sent to the Governors of each state who then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top