SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday pledged to empower private citizens to enforce a ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons in the state, citing the same authority claimed by conservative lawmakers in Texas to outlaw most abortions once a heartbeat is detected.
California has banned the manufacture and sale of many assault-style weapons for decades. A federal judge overturned that ban in June, ruling it was unconstitutional and drawing the ire of the state’s Democratic leaders by comparing the popular AR-15 rifle to a Swiss Army Knife as “good for both home and battle.” California’s ban remained in place while the state appealed.
GOPUSA Editor’s Note: Please keep in mind that this is a mainstream media story. The source of the story is in the dateline. We publish it for the purpose of informing our readers and providing an opportunity to discuss it. What is GOPUSA? Read our About Us page to find out.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in Texas this year passed a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which normally occurs at about six weeks into pregnancy. The Texas law allows private citizens to enforce the ban, empowering them to sue abortion clinics and anyone else who “aids and abets” with the procedure.
Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Texas law to remain in effect while abortion clinics sue to block it. That decision incensed Newsom, a Democrat who supports abortion rights.
“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,” Newsom said in a statement released by his office at 7 p.m. on Saturday.
Newsom said he has directed his staff to work with the state’s Legislature and its Democratic attorney general to pass a law that would let private citizens sue to enforce California’s ban on assault weapons. Newsom said people who sue could win up to $10,000 per violation plus other costs and attorneys fees against “anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon” in California.
“It the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should to just that,” Newsom said.
The legal fight over the Texas abortion law has focused on its unusual structure and whether it improperly limits how the law can be challenged in court. Texas lawmakers handed responsibility for enforcing the law to private citizens, rather than state officials.
The case raised a complex set of issues about who, if anyone, can sue over the law in federal court, the typical route for challenges to abortion restrictions.
Newsom’s gun proposal would first have to pass California’s state Legislature before it could become law. The Legislature is not in session now and is scheduled to reconvene in January. It usually takes about eight months for new bills to pass the Legislature, barring special circumstances.
State Sen. Brian Dahle, a Republican from Bieber, would oppose the plan but predicted it could probably pass California’s Democratic-dominated state Legislature. He said the proposal was most likely a stunt for Newsom to win favor with his progressive base of voters ahead of a possible run for president in the future.
“The right to bear arms is different than the right to have an abortion. The right to have an abortion is not a Constitutional amendment. So I think he’s way off base,” Dahle said. “I think he’s just using it as an opportunity to grandstand.”
But Newsom’s Saturday night declaration is a fulfilled prophecy for some gun rights groups who had predicted progressive states would attempt to use Texas’ abortion law to restrict access to guns. That’s why the Firearms Policy Coalition, a nonprofit group that advocates for gun rights, filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing the Texas law.
“If Texas succeeds in its gambit here, New York, California, New Jersey, and others will not be far behind in adopting equally aggressive gambits to not merely chill but to freeze the right to keep and bear arms,” attorney Erik Jaffe wrote on behalf of the Firearms Policy Coalition.
Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
Like Beto O’Rourke in Texas who said if elected he would send people to come take our guns, putting only other people in Harm’s way,,,then got shot out of the saddle himself when the election happened. Brave new world, but cowardly of earth Newsom also wants to send other citizens into the jaws of the beast, too timid to knock on the gun owner’s door himself. Just goes to prove, that he is not only a non-compos mentis, but a coward to boot. His proposed actions claim will save California lives, but like a true Socialist will only do just the opposite, and put them into further jeopardy. Strange how even Newsom himself can so easily tie the concept of death by gun to death by abortion, knowing full well in his own self-beguiled conscience BOTH are vehicles for murder of innocent human American life.
AND how is it that he thinks in anyway, THIS IS THE SAME thing as Texas.
WHAT texas did was to PROTECT the least in society..
WHAT HE WANTS TO do,is punish the MOST LAW abiding…
Not to mention that there is a 2nd Amendment protecting gun ownership. There is NOTHING in the Constitution about Abortion. And RBG even thought it was ridiculous that Abortion rested on the right to privacy. So, as long as I kill people privately, there is no crime????? But of course, Ruth still allowed her mind to torture the rest of the facts to allow “Life” as in “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness” to be deprived from the innocent. 62 million….I can’t even get my head around a number like that.
IMO she used her HEART, not her mind, when she made that call.. That rotten, satan infused piece of flesh……
califonication had there chance to end this fool and they failed.
not so sure that they voted him in… they used the same voting model as the 2020 presidential election.. chock full of fraud, lies, illegal and morally bankrupt integrity.
IF they voted enough in MASS quantites, NO amount of leftist fraud could IMO, have cancelled that out.
I think you under estimate how stupid Californians are. Californians are children and they just want their “free stuff.”
Gavin, Ol’ Boy—it is murder by two different means, so if your concern is the loss of life, then you would see that. As for weapons, any weapon can be considered an “assault” weapon if the intent of the user is to injure and/or kill. Slapping a political label on a weapon that evokes unjustified fear and emotion doesn’t make the weapon a bigger threat than anything else. Your support of abortion does not diminish its outcome despite your glorification of it.
THAT IS WHAT the left’s end goal has been IMO.. TO LABEL EVERY FIREARM as an ‘assault weapon’, so they can BAN THEM ALL..
The Texas enforcement provision was copied from the California Unruh Handicapped rights law that allows private citizens to collect thousands in fines and legal fees if a mirror is 1/8 inch too low or if the blue lines aren’t blue enough. Newsome knows that. No big deal, Just gaslighting. It would be interesting if the abortion law enforcement provisions are found unconstitutional though because that means the handicapped laws in New York or California are at great risk. Another circle jerk by the DNC. Their pretzel logic is profound.
THE COURTS out there alerady RULED the assault weapon law was unconstitutional, NOW THEY ARE doubling down on making MORE..
so… this “foo” thinks the Crypts, the Bloods, MS 13, 14K Triad are just going to give up their weapons because he pass’s somekinda useless law? He can’t even stop people from releasing excrement on the sidewalks. And… who’s going to make the decision on whats a “assault” style gun or rifle? I can assault / kill this jackass with a pencil. These libtards really have major mental issues that just short circuit any common sense or deductive reasoning.
AND you know, ONLY law abding citizens, will be affected by this, IF IT EVER GOT passed.. GANGS and crooks couldn’t care less!
I think it’s time for us (in California) to use OUR “imitative” process, to place our own LAW in place, that will allow the victims of crime to SUE Elected (or appointed) public Officials whose actions (or lack thereof) led (or contributed) to the victim’s pain and suffering.
For example: Those involved in disallowing Police in Schools, where someone is shot (or otherwise injured) should be held liable for the death/injury due to the lack of Law Enforcement’s presence on School Property.
Likewise, those involved in the decision to disallow Trained school faculty to be ARMED, should be equally liable as the above example.
How about those who MANDATE vaccines, which result in death or injury to someone who received the vaccine (or is infected with COVID AFTER being “fully vaccinated”)? THEY should be legally (and financially) responsible for those killed or injured as a result of THEIR mandates!
The list is ENDLESS of all of the “unintended consequences” by our public officials!
You want to hold BUSINESS responsible? Then YOU should be held responsible!
SINCE the left, started their coddling of crooks, i’ve been SAYING victims should SUE those politicians, DA’s, AG’s and judges, AS ACCESSORIES to every crime committed, by the felons THEY KEEP RELEASING!
So if I beat the snot out of Newsome with a squirt gun, does that mean squirt guns will be illegal in California since I used it as an assault weapon?