# Gun Manufacturers Livid After Newsome Signs Bounty Bill Curbing Illegal Firearms Sales



## skews13 (Jul 24, 2022)

> California Senate Bill 1327 is modeled after a Texas law that allows private citizens to bring civil litigation against abortion providers or anyone who assists a pregnant person in obtaining an abortion after as early as six weeks of pregnancy. The US Supreme Court in December allowed Texas’ six-week abortion ban to remain in effect, which prompted Newsom, who has been supportive of abortion rights and pro-gun control, to say he was “outraged” by the court’s decision and direct his staff to draft a similar bill to regulate guns.
> Under the California law, a person would also be able to sue a licensed firearms dealer who “sells, supplies, delivers, or gives possession or control of a firearm” to anyone under 21 years old. It allows citizens to sue for a minimum of $10,000 on each weapon involved, as well as attorney fees.


As explained in_ Los Angeles Magazine, _the gun industry is not at all happy.

But a strong reaction is exactly what Newsom is counting on. Since the Supreme Court has thus far allowed Texas’ noxious “abortion bounty” law to stand, he believes the California legislation, which is closely modeled on the Texas legislation, will have to stand as well. As Stracqualursi’s report notes, SB 1327 contains a provision that will render itself invalid if and when the Supreme Court invalidates the Texas “bounty” law. 









						Gun manufacturers livid after California governor signs 'bounty' bill curbing illegal firearms' sale
					

In almost any mass shooting involving an assault-style weapon in this country, there are varying levels of moral culpability. The first and most obvious is the culpability of the shooter himself (they are almost always men), who consciously chooses to...




					www.dailykos.com
				




LOL. Fucking love it. Now the court has to either uphold both, or disregard both. Brilliant move by Newsome. The court would only further erode what little credibility it has left, if it tries to rationalize it's decision of one against the other.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jul 24, 2022)

Well, if we're going full federalist, it cuts both ways.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 24, 2022)

skews13 said:


> As explained in_ Los Angeles Magazine, _the gun industry is not at all happy.
> 
> But a strong reaction is exactly what Newsom is counting on. Since the Supreme Court has thus far allowed Texas’ noxious “abortion bounty” law to stand, he believes the California legislation, which is closely modeled on the Texas legislation, will have to stand as well. As Stracqualursi’s report notes, SB 1327 contains a provision that will render itself invalid if and when the Supreme Court invalidates the Texas “bounty” law.
> 
> ...


why is it a "brilliant" move by newsome?....he didnt write the dam thing.....


----------



## Peace (Jul 24, 2022)

skews13 said:


> As explained in_ Los Angeles Magazine, _the gun industry is not at all happy.
> 
> But a strong reaction is exactly what Newsom is counting on. Since the Supreme Court has thus far allowed Texas’ noxious “abortion bounty” law to stand, he believes the California legislation, which is closely modeled on the Texas legislation, will have to stand as well. As Stracqualursi’s report notes, SB 1327 contains a provision that will render itself invalid if and when the Supreme Court invalidates the Texas “bounty” law.
> 
> ...


Second Amendment will be invoked and you and Gavin will lose this fight…

Abortion is not protected under the constitution and like some have stated on here your side has had decades to put it in stone and even failed on the ERA Amendment that had a sunset provision in it…

So let be clear your side has failed many times to protect the Right to Abortion and knew one day the court would swing the other way, so let be clear Skew you and Gavin are going to lose…

Instead of setting yourself up for failure maybe just once someone on the left grows a pair of balls and start a true movement of change but until then keep on learning what happens when you do not set things into stone!


----------



## Manonthestreet (Jul 24, 2022)

Expect pallets of ghost guns to be dropped on the street ala Obama and Holder


----------



## Anathema (Jul 24, 2022)

skews13 said:


> Now the court has to either uphold both, or disregard both


Nope. Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right. Abortion is not, as just reinforced by the SCOTUS.


----------



## skews13 (Jul 24, 2022)

Manonthestreet said:


> Expect pallets of ghost guns to be dropped on the street ala Obama and Holder



And expect public sentiment to continue to move away from gun rights. 

It's the perfect storm against gun nut America. Don't think this is going to hurt gun rights in the future?

Keep on living son.


----------



## DukeU (Jul 24, 2022)

skews13 said:


> And expect public sentiment to continue to move away from gun rights.



Not as long and democrats are running the streets spreading peace and love.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 24, 2022)

There is no Federal law on abortion there IS a federal law that says you can not sue a firearms manufacturer just because some one used a firearm to commit a crime.


----------



## Peace (Jul 24, 2022)

skews13 said:


> And expect public sentiment to continue to move away from gun rights.
> 
> It's the perfect storm against gun nut America. Don't think this is going to hurt gun rights in the future?
> 
> Keep on living son.


No, it isn’t going to change Skew and you know this.

Gavin and you are playing a political game that might win votes in California and New York but in other States like Texas, Florida and so on you will lose as usual.

Again, the Gun rights are protected by the Constitution and unless you can get the votes in the Senate and get the States to support an Amendment to revoke the Second Amendment the Bill that Gavin signed into law will be struck down.

I do not agree with the abortion laws that Texas has but it is up to the people of Texas to do something and Gavin thinking California can craft a gun bill like the Texas Abortion Law is just political theater he will lose…


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 24, 2022)

skews13 said:


> As explained in_ Los Angeles Magazine, _the gun industry is not at all happy.
> 
> But a strong reaction is exactly what Newsom is counting on. Since the Supreme Court has thus far allowed Texas’ noxious “abortion bounty” law to stand, he believes the California legislation, which is closely modeled on the Texas legislation, will have to stand as well. As Stracqualursi’s report notes, SB 1327 contains a provision that will render itself invalid if and when the Supreme Court invalidates the Texas “bounty” law.
> 
> ...


Conservatives have only themselves to blame with their bad-faith efforts to circumvent the right to privacy.


----------



## Failzero (Jul 24, 2022)

skews13 said:


> And expect public sentiment to continue to move away from gun rights.
> 
> It's the perfect storm against gun nut America. Don't think this is going to hurt gun rights in the future?
> 
> Keep on living son.


With Crime Skyrocketing and Police Defunded / Undermanned and leaning more towards “ Tactical Retreat “ and Stand back & wait for Swat or ballistic Shields  ... and infusion of 5 million +Brown Dwarfs and Visa Overstayers and America hating Islamic inspired refugees ? Guns are fallin outta Vogue ?


----------



## Peace (Jul 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives have only themselves to blame with their bad-faith efforts to circumvent the right to privacy.


No, the left have themselves to blame seeing you have had nearly fifty years to fix this issue, so blame yourself!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 24, 2022)

Peace said:


> Second Amendment will be invoked and you and Gavin will lose this fight…
> 
> Abortion is not protected under the constitution and like some have stated on here your side has had decades to put it in stone and even failed on the ERA Amendment that had a sunset provision in it…
> 
> ...


But aren’t you and other conservatives ‘advocates’ of “states’ rights” – isn’t this a matter for the people of California to address, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench in violation of the will of the people.


----------



## Failzero (Jul 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But aren’t you and other conservatives ‘advocates’ of “states’ rights” – isn’t this a matter for the people of California to address, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench in violation of the will of the people.


Constitution comes into Direct Play ( With State’s Rights )


----------



## Zincwarrior (Jul 24, 2022)

skews13 said:


> As explained in_ Los Angeles Magazine, _the gun industry is not at all happy.
> 
> But a strong reaction is exactly what Newsom is counting on. Since the Supreme Court has thus far allowed Texas’ noxious “abortion bounty” law to stand, he believes the California legislation, which is closely modeled on the Texas legislation, will have to stand as well. As Stracqualursi’s report notes, SB 1327 contains a provision that will render itself invalid if and when the Supreme Court invalidates the Texas “bounty” law.
> 
> ...


Thanks Texas and other states for showing them the way with their bounty hunter abortion legislation.


----------



## Peace (Jul 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But aren’t you and other conservatives ‘advocates’ of “states’ rights” – isn’t this a matter for the people of California to address, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench in violation of the will of the people.


Holy fucking shit!

You do understand that the the bill passed in California will be brought to the USSC because it might infringe on someone Second Amendment Right, so tell me how you believe the fucking Constitution shouldn’t be judged by the USSC and if laws violate it seeing it is their fucking job?

I swear you are a hack and if you are in the Law Profession then no one should hire you!

Now show me which Amendment give a woman the right to abortion?

The ERA Amendment failed because of the Sunset Clause in it, so can’t use that one and it failed because of those like you!

Also asshole I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal which mean do almost anything you want but do not go into my pocket to pay for it but ignorant people like you think all Conservatives are the same while never understanding there is a major difference between me and most of the Trump base on here but don’t let your retardation stop you from being the moronic piece of trash you have been since the Slate Days TC!


----------



## Zincwarrior (Jul 24, 2022)

Anathema said:


> Nope. Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right. Abortion is not, as just reinforced by the SCOTUS.


Illegal gun ownership isn't though.


----------



## Failzero (Jul 24, 2022)

Bounty has existed in US since it was the Colonies


----------



## Peace (Jul 24, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> Thanks Texas and other states for showing them the way with their bounty hunter abortion legislation.


The law passed in California will be tossed because it oversteps a States rights vs the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

You know this and it is just political theater for Gavin possible run in 2024 for President.

Hell, Gavin even knows this law will not stand!


----------



## Failzero (Jul 24, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> Illegal gun ownership isn't though.


Exactly , that is why 2A/ RTKBA purists make me wanna puke


----------



## Zincwarrior (Jul 24, 2022)

Peace said:


> The law passed in California will be tossed because it oversteps a States rights vs the Constitution and the Second Amendment.
> 
> You know this and it is just political theater for Gavin possible run in 2024 for President.
> 
> Hell, Gavin even knows this law will not stand!


It will maybe be tossed in a few years. Maybe.


----------



## Peace (Jul 24, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> It will maybe be tossed in a few years. Maybe.


It will be and you know it.

Even Gavin Knows it!

So stop applauding this political theater when it was set up to fail in the first place.

The point of the law was to show the Court being to Conservative and not align in the best interest of the Nation but what will happen is it will fail…


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But aren’t you and other conservatives ‘advocates’ of “states’ rights” – isn’t this a matter for the people of California to address, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench in violation of the will of the people.


tyrants in black robes?....when they dont go your way they are tyrants in black robes.....when they judge your way then they are judges again....you are a dipshit jones....


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives have only themselves to blame with their bad-faith efforts to circumvent the right to privacy.


There is no right to privacy.  The Burger court invented it out of whole cloth as cover for a political decision.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 24, 2022)

Peace said:


> The law passed in California will be tossed because it oversteps a States rights vs the Constitution and the Second Amendment.
> 
> You know this and it is just political theater for Gavin possible run in 2024 for President.
> 
> Hell, Gavin even knows this law will not stand!


I don’t know, he’s pretty stupid given his personal conduct during the COVID shutdown.


----------



## Zincwarrior (Jul 24, 2022)

Peace said:


> It will be and you know it.
> 
> Even Gavin Knows it!
> 
> ...


From WAPO:

_Newsom stitched the two hot-button topics together in approving a law allowing people to sue anyone who distributes illegal assault weapons, parts that can be used to build weapons, guns without serial numbers, or .50-caliber rifles.

Where does the Second Amendment protect against illegal weapons and parts?_


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 24, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> Illegal gun ownership isn't though.


LOL name one time a manufacturer was caught selling firearms illegally?


----------



## Failzero (Jul 24, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL name one time a manufacturer was caught selling firearms illegally?


Lol
How bout I describe “ Prohibited Persons “ that not only make sense but that pass constitutional muster too ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 24, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Lol
> How bout I describe “ Prohibited Persons “ that not only make sense but that pass constitutional muster too ...


No manufacturer sells to illegals or criminals.


----------



## Failzero (Jul 24, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No manufacturer sells to illegals or criminals.


No Illegals or Criminals or Enemy combatants who enter our Country illegally have 2A/RTKBA


----------



## Zincwarrior (Jul 24, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL name one time a manufacturer was caught selling firearms illegally?


Private individuals are authorized to sue and find out, just like in Texas.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 24, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL name one time a manufacturer was caught selling firearms illegally?


NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THAT

Good god man


----------



## iceberg (Jul 24, 2022)

skews13 said:


> As explained in_ Los Angeles Magazine, _the gun industry is not at all happy.
> 
> But a strong reaction is exactly what Newsom is counting on. Since the Supreme Court has thus far allowed Texas’ noxious “abortion bounty” law to stand, he believes the California legislation, which is closely modeled on the Texas legislation, will have to stand as well. As Stracqualursi’s report notes, SB 1327 contains a provision that will render itself invalid if and when the Supreme Court invalidates the Texas “bounty” law.
> 
> ...


you and your dailykos hard on bullshit need to get a room and stop this shit.

need a dailykosbullshit forum for you to play in.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 24, 2022)

iceberg said:


> you and your dailykos hard on bullshit need to get a room and stop this shit.
> 
> need a dailykosbullshit forum for you to play in.


Off topic outburst, mind numbing

here, let me help you... from the article...

*As explained in Los Angeles Magazine, the gun industry is not at all happy.*



> *Sam Paredes, the executive director of Gun Owners of California, told the Los Angeles Times that the legislation is a “retaliation against lawful gun owners and the court because of the Texas decision,” and that the bill’s authors are being “vindictive.” Paredes said that the firearms industry will have a “strong reaction” to the bill going into law, according to the Times.*


----------



## candycorn (Jul 24, 2022)

skews13 said:


> As explained in_ Los Angeles Magazine, _the gun industry is not at all happy.
> 
> But a strong reaction is exactly what Newsom is counting on. Since the Supreme Court has thus far allowed Texas’ noxious “abortion bounty” law to stand, he believes the California legislation, which is closely modeled on the Texas legislation, will have to stand as well. As Stracqualursi’s report notes, SB 1327 contains a provision that will render itself invalid if and when the Supreme Court invalidates the Texas “bounty” law.
> 
> ...


The court will simply break out their scalpel and cut the law to fit their agenda.


----------



## iceberg (Jul 24, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Off topic outburst, mind numbing
> 
> here, let me help you... from the article...
> 
> *As explained in Los Angeles Magazine, the gun industry is not at all happy.*


Dailykos

Fuck off.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 24, 2022)

“The Supreme Court opened the door,: Newsom said. “The Supreme Court said this was OK. It was a terrible decision. But these are the rules that they have established.” _ibid_

True.


----------



## bravoactual (Jul 24, 2022)

skews13 said:


> As explained in_ Los Angeles Magazine, _the gun industry is not at all happy.
> 
> But a strong reaction is exactly what Newsom is counting on. Since the Supreme Court has thus far allowed Texas’ noxious “abortion bounty” law to stand, he believes the California legislation, which is closely modeled on the Texas legislation, will have to stand as well. As Stracqualursi’s report notes, SB 1327 contains a provision that will render itself invalid if and when the Supreme Court invalidates the Texas “bounty” law.
> 
> ...



The bill fashioned on the Mississppi Abortion Bill.  I'm loving it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 24, 2022)

iceberg said:


> Dailykos
> 
> Fuck off.


No, stupid.

*The executive director of Gun Owners of California, as quoted in the LA Times.*


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 24, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> Illegal gun ownership isn't though.



illegal?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 24, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> Where does the Second Amendment protect against illegal weapons and parts?


It doesn’t.

In fact, state AWBs are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the measure is in anticipation of the Court invalidating AWBs.

Once invalidated, the state will no longer be able to enforce the ban – but private citizens will be able to do so via civil suits; Supreme Court rulings don’t apply to private citizens.

Again, conservatives have only themselves to blame.


----------



## Anathema (Jul 24, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> Illegal gun ownership isn't though


True. Though I get the feeling we wouldn’t necestagree on what should be considered illegal gun ownership.


----------



## iceberg (Jul 24, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Off topic outburst, mind numbing
> 
> here, let me help you... from the article...
> 
> *As explained in Los Angeles Magazine, the gun industry is not at all happy.*


you're like 8 turds shoved in a 2 turd balloon.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 24, 2022)

iceberg said:


> you're like 8 turds shoved in a 2 turd balloon.


Haha, we can always count on your marble sharp with to make us all pause to wonder if you are 8 or 10 years old.


----------



## iceberg (Jul 24, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha, we can always count on your marble sharp with to make us all pause to wonder if you are 8 or 10 years old.


let me know when you figure it out.

just keep a 10 turd distance.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 24, 2022)

iceberg said:


> let me know when you figure it out.
> 
> just keep a 10 turd distance.


Kinda hard to do, with you firmly attached to my ankles, my little attack poodle.

But I have seen you complaining about the economy a lot, so I assume you are poor as shit (your education level would seem to align with that).

Have you considered moving to California to cash in on this law?


----------



## iceberg (Jul 24, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Kinda hard to do, with you firmly attached to my ankles, my little attack poodle.
> 
> But I have seen you complaining about the economy a lot, so I assume you are poor as shit (your education level would seem to align with that).
> 
> Have you considered moving to California to cash in on this law?



just so you know, i don't bother reading your bullshit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 24, 2022)

iceberg said:


> just so you know, i don't bother reading your bullshit.


Probably why you're still so ignorant.

Winning one of these sweet CA lawsuits could by you some secondary education courses.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 7, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives have only themselves to blame with their bad-faith efforts to circumvent the right to privacy.


What “right to privacy”?  Show me where it’s mentioned in the constitution.  It’s a “right” invented by the Berger court out of thin air.  Even RBG admitted Roe was a bad decision.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 8, 2022)

skews13 said:


> LOL. Fucking love it. Now the court has to either uphold both, or disregard both.


Incorrect.
The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the constitution
The right to an abortion is not.  No federal issue.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 8, 2022)

skews13 said:


> And expect public sentiment to continue to move away from gun rights.


....he says, as more and more and more states enact constitutional carry.
We're currently at 25.


----------



## Borillar (Oct 3, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> There is no right to privacy.  The Burger court invented it out of whole cloth as cover for a political decision.


Ok then. I suppose that it’s just fine to dox cops, judges, and politicians. It’s ok for men to use the ladies restroom. It’s ok for cops to search your belongings. No right to privacy.


----------



## Borillar (Oct 3, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Incorrect.
> The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the constitution
> The right to an abortion is not.  No federal issue.


There wasn’t a federal issue about abortion until suddenly there was. A future Supreme Court might review 2nd amendment issues and decide that it only applies to a well regulated militia, decide that the Army and National Guard is said well regulated militia and personal ownership of arms isn’t protected. Then precedent protecting your sacred cows might suddenly be gone too.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2022)

Borillar said:


> A future Supreme Court might review 2nd amendment issues and decide that it only applies to a well regulated militia, decide that the Army and National Guard is said well regulated militia and personal ownership of arms isn’t protected.


You don't understand why the argument in _Dobbs _does not apply to the jurisprudence surrounding the 2nd -- and it shows.


----------



## PeanutGallery (Oct 3, 2022)

Borillar said:


> Ok then. I suppose that it’s just fine to dox cops, judges, and politicians. It’s ok for men to use the ladies restroom. It’s ok for cops to search your belongings. No right to privacy.



It's ok for cops to search your belongings because of no right to privacy!?!  Maybe you should be read the 4th Amendment and get back with us.


----------



## PeanutGallery (Oct 3, 2022)

Borillar said:


> There wasn’t a federal issue about abortion until suddenly there was. A future Supreme Court might review 2nd amendment issues and decide that it only applies to a well regulated militia, decide that the Army and National Guard is said well regulated militia and personal ownership of arms isn’t protected. Then precedent protecting your sacred cows might suddenly be gone too.



That court would have to totally overlook where it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## Borillar (Oct 3, 2022)

PeanutGallery said:


> It's ok for cops to search your belongings because of no right to privacy!?!  Maybe you should be read the 4th Amendment and get back with us.


So, does a pregnant woman have any rights to privacy then?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2022)

PeanutGallery said:


> That court would have to totally overlook where it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


Liberals do this every day...


----------



## Borillar (Oct 3, 2022)

PeanutGallery said:


> That court would have to totally overlook where it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


They and you already ignore the well regulated militia part. What if they decided to take that into account?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2022)

Borillar said:


> They and you already ignore the well regulated militia part. What if they decided to take that into account?


"Well regulated" modifies "militia".
The right to keep and bear arms as portected by t the 2nd is held by "the people".
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
The people.

So....What if they decided to take "well regulated militia" into account?


----------



## Borillar (Oct 3, 2022)

I ask again. Does a pregnant woman have any rights to privacy? Do they have any rights to self determination, personal autonomy, choice?


----------



## Batcat (Oct 3, 2022)

skews13 said:


> And expect public sentiment to continue to move away from gun rights.
> 
> It's the perfect storm against gun nut America. Don't think this is going to hurt gun rights in the future?
> 
> Keep on living son.



Public sentiment will NOT move away form gun rights when we are stuck with a rising crime rate. More people will legally carry concealed  and more people will buy firearms for home defense. More shop owners will arm themselves. 

People realize that calling 911 is not what it used to be. You are basically on your own for a long time. 

Even black women are buying guns for self defense. 









						More Black women are buying guns for safety; data show gun ownership increases risk of violent death
					

The COVID-19 outbreak, the protests that followed the police killing of George Floyd and the Jan. 6 attack on the […] The post More Black women are buying guns for safety; data show gun ownership increases risk of violent death appeared first on TheGrio.




					news.yahoo.com
				




Plus gun sales are increasing and setting records.









						August Gun Sales Up From July's, NICS tops 1.2 million :: Guns.com
					

Americans continue to go heavy on the side of Freedom, with data suggesting over-the-counter gun sales passing the 1 million mark for the 37th month in a row.




					www.guns.com
				












						Rising violence, staff shortages causing slower 911 response times in Philly: Officials
					

The head of the 911 dispatchers union says a shortage of police officers and dispatchers has resulted in them prioritizing calls, sometimes leaving operators with as many as 30 calls on hold.




					6abc.com


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2022)

Borillar said:


> I ask again. Does a pregnant woman have any rights to privacy? Do they have any rights to self determination, personal autonomy, choice?


Ask your state.


----------



## Borillar (Oct 3, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Well regulated" modifies "militia".
> The right to keep and bear arms as portected by t the 2nd is held by "the people".
> Not the militia.
> Not the people in the militia
> ...


That may be your definition and that of the majority of the current Supreme Court. As we have just seen, opinions can change and precedents can be overturned.


----------



## PeanutGallery (Oct 3, 2022)

Borillar said:


> They and you already ignore the well regulated militia part. What if they decided to take that into





Borillar said:


> I ask again. Does a pregnant woman have any rights to privacy? Do they have any rights to self determination, personal autonomy, choice?



She has as much rights as any other time she sees a doctor.  The issue is that some states think that what's inside of her is a person.  Different DNA than mother.  Separate heartbeat.  Sometimes a different blood type.  That's why the USSC decided that the people should decide.

I have a question since you're asking about rights.  Since a man is 50% responsible for a woman getting pregnant, why don't men have any reproduction rights?


----------



## PeanutGallery (Oct 3, 2022)

Borillar said:


> That may be your definition and that of the majority of the current Supreme Court. As we have just seen, opinions can change and precedents can be overturned.


You're reaching.  It COULD happen, but it's written in plain English that it's the right of the people.  Even the Notorious RBG said that it was a bad ruling because it could lead up to what wound up happening.


----------



## Failzero (Oct 3, 2022)

The Far Left & Left will use State’s Rights ( just as they will use the Constitution ) to get what they want


----------



## Canon Shooter (Oct 3, 2022)

skews13 said:


> Don't think this is going to hurt gun rights in the future?



Only in California, and that place has turned into an absolute shithole, so who cares?

Decent people are fleeing the state...


----------



## Seymour Flops (Oct 3, 2022)

skews13 said:


> As explained in_ Los Angeles Magazine, _the gun industry is not at all happy.
> 
> But a strong reaction is exactly what Newsom is counting on. Since the Supreme Court has thus far allowed Texas’ noxious “abortion bounty” law to stand, he believes the California legislation, which is closely modeled on the Texas legislation, will have to stand as well. As Stracqualursi’s report notes, SB 1327 contains a provision that will render itself invalid if and when the Supreme Court invalidates the Texas “bounty” law.
> 
> ...


I don't really mind this, and I'll explain why.

As pro-second amendment as I am, liberty is for adults and if Californ-eye-aye wants to set the age of adult enough to purchase a firearm at twenty-one, while in Texas it is eighteen, that is federalism in action.  Plenty of people from the Golden State are voting with their feet to live like Texans, I just hope they don't bring their socialist ways with them.  I hope they don't just randomly by a gun and a ten-gallon hat since neither of their two mommies likely took them to the gun range or into the woods to shoot.

I'd love to see a law allowing a taxpayer to sue any welfare worker who gives welfare benefits to an illegal alien.  I'm sure no libs can possibly oppose that, since they endlessly tell us to disregard our own eyes, because illegal aliens can't get welfare benefits.

I never liked the idea of empowering private citizens to sue over the issue of abortion.  Abortion is either a violent crime or it is not.  Praise Allah, the court has returned the power to regulate this crime to states  It is plainly violent, plainly a killing of a human being, and I'm proud to be in a state that bans it, thus making it a crime. 

But "bounty" is not the correct term for that you-can-sue-an-abortionist law, encouraging no-standing lawsuits is.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 3, 2022)

Borillar said:


> That may be your definition...


That's the TEXT.
There's no sound argument against what I said.
So, while a court -could- overturn it, it could only do so for no other reason than it wants to and it has the numbers to do so.


----------



## Borillar (Oct 3, 2022)

PeanutGallery said:


> She has as much rights as any other time she sees a doctor.  The issue is that some states think that what's inside of her is a person.  Different DNA than mother.  Separate heartbeat.  Sometimes a different blood type.  That's why the USSC decided that the people should decide.
> 
> I have a question since you're asking about rights.  Since a man is 50% responsible for a woman getting pregnant, why don't men have any reproduction rights?


Because the man doesn't have the burden of carrying the fetus to term, I suppose. I do believe a man should have more of a role than just sperm donor / wallet. If the woman has to give birth, then the man should have to support and care for the kid too.


----------



## Failzero (Oct 3, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Only in California, and that place has turned into an absolute shithole, so who cares?
> 
> Decent people are fleeing the state...


What about New Jersey &
Hawaii & Colorado & Maryland & Oregon & New York & Illinois & Connecticut & Massachusetts & Washington State ...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Oct 3, 2022)

Failzero said:


> What about New Jersey &
> Hawaii & Colorado & Maryland & Oregon & New York & Illinois & Connecticut & Massachusetts & Washington State ...



Have they passed gun laws like the one Newsom signed into law?


----------



## Failzero (Oct 3, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Have they passed gun laws like the one Newsom signed into law?


Yes , worse in some cases ... where you been


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 3, 2022)

Borillar said:


> There wasn’t a federal issue about abortion until suddenly there was. A future Supreme Court might review 2nd amendment issues and decide that it only applies to a well regulated militia, decide that the Army and National Guard is said well regulated militia and personal ownership of arms isn’t protected. Then precedent protecting your sacred cows might suddenly be gone too.


True.

Conservatives fired the first shot in the war on citizens’ rights.

And yet again, conservatives have only themselves to blame.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 3, 2022)

Borillar said:


> That may be your definition and that of the majority of the current Supreme Court. As we have just seen, opinions can change and precedents can be overturned.


Settled, accepted, long-standing precedent used to mean something – but no longer.

This conservative Supreme Court saw to that.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Oct 3, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Yes , worse in some cases ... where you been



So people in those states can sue someone, who gives another person who's under 21 a gun, in civil court?

I'd not heard that...


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Settled, accepted, long-standing precedent used to mean something – but no longer.
> 
> This conservative Supreme Court saw to that.


So, you are in favor of leaving slavery, Jim Crow and segregation in place?  All three were accepted, long-standing precedents.  In my view, like Roe, all were wrong and should have been overturned?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 4, 2022)

skews13 said:


> And expect public sentiment to continue to move away from gun rights.
> 
> It's the perfect storm against gun nut America. Don't think this is going to hurt gun rights in the future?
> 
> Keep on living son.



Moron…..more and more people are buying guns as the democrat party attacks local police and releases the most violent and dangerous criminals over and over again….,the biggest growth sectors for gun buying is among women and minorities, groups that have been least represented in gun ownership in the past.

The Supreme Court just this Monday,  vacated a Massachusetts law banning guns for people convicted of non violent gun offenses……telling the left wing fascists on the circuit court to go back and apply the Bruen decision..…

Keep dreaming…..


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Settled, accepted, long-standing precedent used to mean something – but no longer.
> 
> This conservative Supreme Court saw to that.



So…Separate but equal had a longer standing Precedent than Roe…..,,,,you must therefore, with your worship of bad precedents, believe that Separate but equal should have been kept Constitutional……right, you doofus?


----------



## Whodatsaywhodat. (Oct 4, 2022)

skews13 said:


> And expect public sentiment to continue to move away from gun rights.
> 
> It's the perfect storm against gun nut America. Don't think this is going to hurt gun rights in the future?
> 
> Keep on living son.


But democrats ain't coming for our guns .


----------

