TriJets wrote:

Yeah I don't see this working out very well....for starters even Democrats have backed away from gun control as it is not a winning issue for them. Also, the SCOTUS is more likely to strike down attempts to circumvent the 2nd Amendment than they are to strike down attempts to circumvent abortion, which is not addressed directly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights like firearm ownership is.

ltbewr wrote:

This will never become law as enough Democrats won't go for it to prevent them from it being used against them in their next campaign. Better would be to go after much more strongly the street gangs that do a lot of the criminal gun deaths, including funding police more in high crime areas.

NIKV69 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

This will never become law as enough Democrats won't go for it to prevent them from it being used against them in their next campaign. Better would be to go after much more strongly the street gangs that do a lot of the criminal gun deaths, including funding police more in high crime areas.

Exactly, not to mention the recent smash and grab crimes have brought out the fact no bail is a no good IMO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angele ... b-arrests/



I think Newsom would be better served to address this instead of this latest endeavor.

CometII wrote:

But these are state politics, they don't need to be concerned about what people in the Midwest or the Gulf Coast think of this. Unless Newsom has national aspirations, but even then, I don't think he would lose many voters as he already would be hardly a candidate that would woo in independents.

CometII wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Yeah I don't see this working out very well....for starters even Democrats have backed away from gun control as it is not a winning issue for them. Also, the SCOTUS is more likely to strike down attempts to circumvent the 2nd Amendment than they are to strike down attempts to circumvent abortion, which is not addressed directly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights like firearm ownership is.

But if what I heard is correct, there is no attempt to circumvent the 2nd Amendment. People will still be able to bear arms in California. Heck, they will still technically be able to purchase war-grade offensive weaponry. This proposed law would simply allow private citizens to sue the manufacturers and retailers of such deadly weaponry.

Again, I would love to see a serious study one day clearly showing a positive relationship between Assault Weapons and crimes or deaths deterred or avoided by them, vs regular firearms.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The Texas law on abortion was deliberately written to take away the ability of women in Texas to get an abortion, by turning the process over to private individuals. It is a big step toward a weird kind of vigilantism. and anarchy. I do not personally like what Newsom is proposing but it may serve the purpose of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider what it did with the Texas law.

NIKV69 wrote:

Exactly, not to mention the recent smash and grab crimes have brought out the fact no bail is a no good IMO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angele ... b-arrests/



I think Newsom would be better served to address this instead of this latest endeavor.

NIKV69 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

This will never become law as enough Democrats won't go for it to prevent them from it being used against them in their next campaign. Better would be to go after much more strongly the street gangs that do a lot of the criminal gun deaths, including funding police more in high crime areas.

Exactly, not to mention the recent smash and grab crimes have brought out the fact no bail is a no good IMO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angele ... b-arrests/



I think Newsom would be better served to address this instead of this latest endeavor.

Aaron747 wrote:

Just pointing out that even the NY Post acknowledges the retail crime spree has been orchestrated via organized crime, not random bands of teenagers.

https://www.kcra.com/amp/article/califo ... o/38489876

FGITD wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Just pointing out that even the NY Post acknowledges the retail crime spree has been orchestrated via organized crime, not random bands of teenagers.

https://www.kcra.com/amp/article/califo ... o/38489876

Not to mention smash and grabs have pretty much always existed. And the US isn’t the old west where the punishment for stealing designer shoes is to get shot down in the street.

Same people defending “the sanctity of life” in Texas are advocating that Californians need more guns to protect their high end shops.

Either way, I think this is a pretty funny move. The whole point isn’t to pass the law. It’s to make abundantly clear that either the court needs to review the nonsense in Texas…or lose all validity in the grand scheme of government

FGITD wrote:

Not to mention smash and grabs have pretty much always existed. And the US isn’t the old west where the punishment for stealing designer shoes is to get shot down in the street.

NIKV69 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Not to mention smash and grabs have pretty much always existed. And the US isn’t the old west where the punishment for stealing designer shoes is to get shot down in the street.

It's not just designer shoes. It's laundry detergent and other normal daily life items. If you don't get a handle on this it will get out of hand. To make light of it because it's "designer shoes" isn't really the answer and will only make this degenerate into anarchy.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticu ... story.html

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2021/11 ... and-grabs/

NIKV69 wrote:

It's not just designer shoes. It's laundry detergent and other normal daily life items. If you don't get a handle on this it will get out of hand.

NIKV69 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Not to mention smash and grabs have pretty much always existed. And the US isn’t the old west where the punishment for stealing designer shoes is to get shot down in the street.

It's not just designer shoes. It's laundry detergent and other normal daily life items. If you don't get a handle on this it will get out of hand. To make light of it because it's "designer shoes" isn't really the answer and will only make this degenerate into anarchy.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticu ... story.html

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2021/11 ... and-grabs/

Newark727 wrote:

While I loathe both Texas' abortion law and our current Supreme Court of partisan hacks, it's difficult to believe that the best response to badly written, mean-spirited legislation is additional, equally badly-written, mean-spirited legislation.

casinterest wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

While I loathe both Texas' abortion law and our current Supreme Court of partisan hacks, it's difficult to believe that the best response to badly written, mean-spirited legislation is additional, equally badly-written, mean-spirited legislation.

It is the best response in order to make the cult think a bit about this.
California won't make guns illegal. They will make it illegal to sell a gun or ammo to a person that commits a crime with that weapon, and anyone that sold that weapon or ammo, or somehow facilitated the crime can be sued by private parties. Think of all the lawsuits for deaths, suicides, illegal hunting, and other felonies that will be made possible.


At the end of it, who cares if innocent people get wrapped up in lawsuits, (which is the GOP's point in the abortion case), less people will die with less weapons, right?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

While I loathe both Texas' abortion law and our current Supreme Court of partisan hacks, it's difficult to believe that the best response to badly written, mean-spirited legislation is additional, equally badly-written, mean-spirited legislation.

It is the best response in order to make the cult think a bit about this.
California won't make guns illegal. They will make it illegal to sell a gun or ammo to a person that commits a crime with that weapon, and anyone that sold that weapon or ammo, or somehow facilitated the crime can be sued by private parties. Think of all the lawsuits for deaths, suicides, illegal hunting, and other felonies that will be made possible.


At the end of it, who cares if innocent people get wrapped up in lawsuits, (which is the GOP's point in the abortion case), less people will die with less weapons, right?

Except, the law would apply to,

"against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California." From the CNN link.

You do realize these guns are used in a distinct minority of murders and ghost guns are, by definition, hard to track and prove connection from builder to criminal?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

While I loathe both Texas' abortion law and our current Supreme Court of partisan hacks, it's difficult to believe that the best response to badly written, mean-spirited legislation is additional, equally badly-written, mean-spirited legislation.

It is the best response in order to make the cult think a bit about this.
California won't make guns illegal. They will make it illegal to sell a gun or ammo to a person that commits a crime with that weapon, and anyone that sold that weapon or ammo, or somehow facilitated the crime can be sued by private parties. Think of all the lawsuits for deaths, suicides, illegal hunting, and other felonies that will be made possible.


At the end of it, who cares if innocent people get wrapped up in lawsuits, (which is the GOP's point in the abortion case), less people will die with less weapons, right?

Except, the law would apply to,

"against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California." From the CNN link.

You do realize these guns are used in a distinct minority of murders and ghost guns are, by definition, hard to track and prove connection from builder to criminal?

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It is the best response in order to make the cult think a bit about this.
California won't make guns illegal. They will make it illegal to sell a gun or ammo to a person that commits a crime with that weapon, and anyone that sold that weapon or ammo, or somehow facilitated the crime can be sued by private parties. Think of all the lawsuits for deaths, suicides, illegal hunting, and other felonies that will be made possible.


At the end of it, who cares if innocent people get wrapped up in lawsuits, (which is the GOP's point in the abortion case), less people will die with less weapons, right?

Except, the law would apply to,

"against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California." From the CNN link.

You do realize these guns are used in a distinct minority of murders and ghost guns are, by definition, hard to track and prove connection from builder to criminal?

Or, like the Texas law, hold those who aid and abet murder accountable. Smith & Wesson, private sellers, or even legitimate gun owners who claim they didn't know it was a third party sale.

And, as with guns, abortion is settled law. It was settled in 1973. I don't know why righties are trying to overturn settled law. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are not covered in 2A when the Founding Fathers passed the Constitution, either, so there is that argument against many of today's weapons.

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It is the best response in order to make the cult think a bit about this.
California won't make guns illegal. They will make it illegal to sell a gun or ammo to a person that commits a crime with that weapon, and anyone that sold that weapon or ammo, or somehow facilitated the crime can be sued by private parties. Think of all the lawsuits for deaths, suicides, illegal hunting, and other felonies that will be made possible.


At the end of it, who cares if innocent people get wrapped up in lawsuits, (which is the GOP's point in the abortion case), less people will die with less weapons, right?

Except, the law would apply to,

"against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California." From the CNN link.

You do realize these guns are used in a distinct minority of murders and ghost guns are, by definition, hard to track and prove connection from builder to criminal?

You are dealing with semantics. Much of the same that the Texas abortion law does. It doesn't care about how it was done or why. associated parties can be sued.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It is the best response in order to make the cult think a bit about this.
California won't make guns illegal. They will make it illegal to sell a gun or ammo to a person that commits a crime with that weapon, and anyone that sold that weapon or ammo, or somehow facilitated the crime can be sued by private parties. Think of all the lawsuits for deaths, suicides, illegal hunting, and other felonies that will be made possible.


At the end of it, who cares if innocent people get wrapped up in lawsuits, (which is the GOP's point in the abortion case), less people will die with less weapons, right?

Except, the law would apply to,

"against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California." From the CNN link.

You do realize these guns are used in a distinct minority of murders and ghost guns are, by definition, hard to track and prove connection from builder to criminal?

Or, like the Texas law, hold those who aid and abet murder accountable. Smith & Wesson, private sellers, or even legitimate gun owners who claim they didn't know it was a third party sale.

And, as with guns, abortion is settled law. It was settled in 1973. I don't know why righties are trying to overturn settled law. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are not covered in 2A when the Founding Fathers passed the Constitution, either, so there is that argument against many of today's weapons.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Except, the law would apply to,

"against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California." From the CNN link.

You do realize these guns are used in a distinct minority of murders and ghost guns are, by definition, hard to track and prove connection from builder to criminal?

You are dealing with semantics. Much of the same that the Texas abortion law does. It doesn't care about how it was done or why. associated parties can be sued.

It’s not semantics, it’s exactly what Newsom proposed—assault weapons used in murders. If he wants all firearms, he should have said that.

Here’s the Governor’s announcement,

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/12/11/gover ... -decision/

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Except, the law would apply to,

"against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California." From the CNN link.

You do realize these guns are used in a distinct minority of murders and ghost guns are, by definition, hard to track and prove connection from builder to criminal?

Or, like the Texas law, hold those who aid and abet murder accountable. Smith & Wesson, private sellers, or even legitimate gun owners who claim they didn't know it was a third party sale.

And, as with guns, abortion is settled law. It was settled in 1973. I don't know why righties are trying to overturn settled law. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are not covered in 2A when the Founding Fathers passed the Constitution, either, so there is that argument against many of today's weapons.

Lots of settled law has been overturned, there was no right to abortion prior to Roe, pretty much made up. Dried Scott was overturned by Board of Education. 2A doesn’t pose any limits on types of arms unless you want the 1A to be overturned because we now have the Internet that wasn’t covered by the 1A.

Would you approve of a law allowing suits against auto manufacturers when there’s a fatal accident and the car wasn’t unsafely designed?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

How do you propose the end private sales? Person A has a gun that isn’t recorded anywhere and sells it to Person B, how can force A to go thru an FFL, if his intention is to avoid the law. Many states already require background checks for private sales and can’t enforce it. I don’t have an issue requiring checks on private sales, I do it myself, just trying to be realistic.

As to straw purchases, also hard to enforce when prosecutors won’t indict because the criminal is a sympathetic girlfriend, grandmother, etc. Chicago AUSA won’t indict often times. The Chicago DA won’t indict shooters as she termed it “mutual combat”.

Lots of settled law has been overturned or repealed, so that’s a thin reed to hang ono. Heck, Prohibition and Marijuana was settled law.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Yes, Chicago, where Federal judges let straw purchasers go with a slap on the wrist.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021 ... d-released

BTW, I’ll go on record opposing both stupid laws, if Abbott wants to outlaw abortion put up a bill to do that, same for Newsom. Getting citizens to go around suing people is silly and probably unconstitutional.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Disagreeing with your position does not a misinformed Justice make. Millions disagree with the Roe decision doesn’t make the Burger court misinformed.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

But, but settled law. The Court shouldn’t be a legislative body, but it has become one, unfortunately. Misinformed, I’d submit isn’t the correct term, maybe politically opposed.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Yes, Chicago, where Federal judges let straw purchasers go with a slap on the wrist.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021 ... d-released

BTW, I’ll go on record opposing both stupid laws, if Abbott wants to outlaw abortion put up a bill to do that, same for Newsom. Getting citizens to go around suing people is silly and probably unconstitutional.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Yes, Chicago, where Federal judges let straw purchasers go with a slap on the wrist.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021 ... d-released

BTW, I’ll go on record opposing both stupid laws, if Abbott wants to outlaw abortion put up a bill to do that, same for Newsom. Getting citizens to go around suing people is silly and probably unconstitutional.

So one shooting in once city justifies..... what, exactly? This us why "BUT CHICAGO!!!" falls flat and is a completely invalid argument. Private sales and straw purchases happen all over the country. As do abortions. Roe v. Wade covers ALL Americans. Straw purchases and private sales cover ALL Americans. As we saw at Sandy Hook. And UVA. And Las Vegas. And Columbine. And Aurora. And January 6. And Louisville. And San Bernardino. And......

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

My point is, nation wide, straw purchases are rarely charged, Chicago is the poster child because A, it has a high rate of murders and 2, prosecutors there have a record of not charging criminals, see Kim Fox. As the law is now, prosecutors have to prove the purchaser knew the straw purchaser knew they were buying for an ineligible person and intended to give the firearm to that person. I’d like the law to just require a nexus between the straw purchaser and the felon holding the firearm. Crumbley’s parents should be in the dock for murder, based on what we know today. But, MI law might not support that outcome.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

My point is, nation wide, straw purchases are rarely charged, Chicago is the poster child because A, it has a high rate of murders and 2, prosecutors there have a record of not charging criminals, see Kim Fox. As the law is now, prosecutors have to prove the purchaser knew the straw purchaser knew they were buying for an ineligible person and intended to give the firearm to that person. I’d like the law to just require a nexus between the straw purchaser and the felon holding the firearm. Crumbley’s parents should be in the dock for murder, based on what we know today. But, MI law might not support that outcome.

Maybe we need to change straw purchases not being charged. That AND make private sales illegal.

Americans care about the shootings in Chicago, but, what we care about more, is the fact that people can get ahold of WMDs and take out as many lives as they want. See: Las Vegas. It is also ironic the same cast of characters saying how much they believe every life is sacred defend the shooters. "Thoughts and prayers" and "we can't do anything" and "BUT CHICAGO!!!" and so forth.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

My point is, nation wide, straw purchases are rarely charged, Chicago is the poster child because A, it has a high rate of murders and 2, prosecutors there have a record of not charging criminals, see Kim Fox. As the law is now, prosecutors have to prove the purchaser knew the straw purchaser knew they were buying for an ineligible person and intended to give the firearm to that person. I’d like the law to just require a nexus between the straw purchaser and the felon holding the firearm. Crumbley’s parents should be in the dock for murder, based on what we know today. But, MI law might not support that outcome.

Maybe we need to change straw purchases not being charged. That AND make private sales illegal.

Americans care about the shootings in Chicago, but, what we care about more, is the fact that people can get ahold of WMDs and take out as many lives as they want. See: Las Vegas. It is also ironic the same cast of characters saying how much they believe every life is sacred defend the shooters. "Thoughts and prayers" and "we can't do anything" and "BUT CHICAGO!!!" and so forth.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

My point is, nation wide, straw purchases are rarely charged, Chicago is the poster child because A, it has a high rate of murders and 2, prosecutors there have a record of not charging criminals, see Kim Fox. As the law is now, prosecutors have to prove the purchaser knew the straw purchaser knew they were buying for an ineligible person and intended to give the firearm to that person. I’d like the law to just require a nexus between the straw purchaser and the felon holding the firearm. Crumbley’s parents should be in the dock for murder, based on what we know today. But, MI law might not support that outcome.

Maybe we need to change straw purchases not being charged. That AND make private sales illegal.

Americans care about the shootings in Chicago, but, what we care about more, is the fact that people can get ahold of WMDs and take out as many lives as they want. See: Las Vegas. It is also ironic the same cast of characters saying how much they believe every life is sacred defend the shooters. "Thoughts and prayers" and "we can't do anything" and "BUT CHICAGO!!!" and so forth.

No legal, law-abiding firearms owner are “defending” these mass killers or mass shooters. They are, plain and simple, criminals who should face swift, sure punishment, including executions. They are the scourge of the human race. You focus on the relatively few mass murders and never focus on the real big numbers of killers, where the majority of gun deaths occur—inner cities and suburban suicides. Those likely aren’t amenable to simple solutions, either.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s plenty of mass shootings with usually many more wounded than killed in Chicago. Shooter enters a social event, starts shooting at a rival and winds up wounding multiples of the one or two dead. Big difference between “mass murders with guns” and mass shootings. Chicago tops the list for mass shootings.

http://mass-shootings.info/statistics.php?year=2020

Semi-auto rifles for civilians have been available since the Remington Model 8 in 1905 in more powerful chamberings than .223.