In response to Texas abortion ban, Newsom calls for similar restrictions on assault weapons

[SavannahMann]

You whacks keep parroting the same sorry bullshit…
Look, anyone can ‘sue’ anyone for any reason NOW….so fucking what.
Sue all you want, you can’t win a case against someone for practicing their constitutional right to bare arms.
It is not a constitutional right to murder the unborn. There is no correlation no matter how much you want there to be.

Wrong. And your Conservative Trump Appointed Justices saw it.

Key U.S. Supreme Court justices express concern about Texas abortion law’s enforcement

Six justices — including two who voted against blocking Senate Bill 8 when it first went into effect — voiced concern that other states could replicate the controversial law’s enforcement mechanism.

www.texastribune.org

Notably, conservative Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, who were among the five conservative judges that voted against temporarily blocking SB 8 on Sept. 1 when the law took effect, seemed unconvinced by the defendability of Texas’ unique enforcement mechanism.

“There's a loophole that's been exploited here or used here,” Kavanaugh said, noting that the same mechanism could be applied to limit other constitutional rights if allowed to stand. “It could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights, if this position is accepted here.”

As I said, you guys are ignorant as to how the law works. Texas has not banned Abortions after six weeks. What they did is make it perfectly legal for anyone to sue someone if they suggest, discuss, perform, assist, or facilitate an abortion after six weeks.

Abortions are still legal, even after six weeks, in Texas. What it does is bankrupt the individual who drives the woman to the clinic, by making them liable in a lawsuit.

You all have no idea what this law, if it was to stand, would result in. Some of us who read about it on sites other than extreme RW sites, did see the writing on the wall. It’s a shame you don’t read the news or at least read enough to discuss the issue with any grasp of reality.

So tell me again, since the Trump appointed Justices saw the future, why it can’t work? Because again, they would not be prohibiting the ownership of weapons. They would be sued over it. Show me in the Second Amendment where it says that people who own guns can’t be sued. Nobody will tell those folks that they can’t own guns, they’ll just be bankrupted by the lawsuits. Dozens or hundreds of lawsuits are entirely possible for every gun owner in California. Even fighting the lawsuits would millions of dollars.

And that is the point of the Texas Law. Nothing is banned, but even talking about it can result in lawsuits where you can be ordered by the court to pay up to $10,000.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Wrong. And your Conservative Trump Appointed Justices saw it.

Key U.S. Supreme Court justices express concern about Texas abortion law’s enforcement

Six justices — including two who voted against blocking Senate Bill 8 when it first went into effect — voiced concern that other states could replicate the controversial law’s enforcement mechanism.

www.texastribune.org

Notably, conservative Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, who were among the five conservative judges that voted against temporarily blocking SB 8 on Sept. 1 when the law took effect, seemed unconvinced by the defendability of Texas’ unique enforcement mechanism.

“There's a loophole that's been exploited here or used here,” Kavanaugh said, noting that the same mechanism could be applied to limit other constitutional rights if allowed to stand. “It could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights, if this position is accepted here.”

As I said, you guys are ignorant as to how the law works. Texas has not banned Abortions after six weeks. What they did is make it perfectly legal for anyone to sue someone if they suggest, discuss, perform, assist, or facilitate an abortion after six weeks.

Abortions are still legal, even after six weeks, in Texas. What it does is bankrupt the individual who drives the woman to the clinic, by making them liable in a lawsuit.

You all have no idea what this law, if it was to stand, would result in. Some of us who read about it on sites other than extreme RW sites, did see the writing on the wall. It’s a shame you don’t read the news or at least read enough to discuss the issue with any grasp of reality.

So tell me again, since the Trump appointed Justices saw the future, why it can’t work? Because again, they would not be prohibiting the ownership of weapons. They would be sued over it. Show me in the Second Amendment where it says that people who own guns can’t be sued. Nobody will tell those folks that they can’t own guns, they’ll just be bankrupted by the lawsuits. Dozens or hundreds of lawsuits are entirely possible for every gun owner in California. Even fighting the lawsuits would millions of dollars.

And that is the point of the Texas Law. Nothing is banned, but even talking about it can result in lawsuits where you can be ordered by the court to pay up to $10,000.

Court leaves Texas’ six-week abortion ban in effect and narrows abortion providers’ challenge​

So “ban” doesn’t really mean ban?

”S.B. 8, which took effect on Sept. 1, bars doctors from performing abortions starting around the sixth week of pregnancy, except in cases of medical emergencies”

Court leaves Texas’ six-week abortion ban in effect and narrows abortion providers’ challenge - SCOTUSblog

Nearly six weeks after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases challenging a Texas law that bans almost all abortions in the state, the justices on Friday limited – but did not fully eliminate – the ability of abortion providers to continue their challenge in the lower courts. The court

www.scotusblog.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

ATTENTION BED WETTING LEFTS SYNDROME RETARDS!!!!

ATTENTION BED WETTING LEFTS SYNDROME RETARDS!!!!

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO MURDER BABIES IN THE WOMB.

The WORD "ABORTION" appears NOWHERE in the COTUS, there is no reference to any medical procedure, healthcare issue, child care issue, nor is there any mention of anything that can be construed to assert a leftist whore can murder a baby in the entire Constitution, the federalist papers or any legal document that has any influence anywhere in laws written in english.

No society, culture, tribe, ethnicity or nation treats abortion as the sacrament Anti-American leftist sociopaths do.

Do not construe this post as encouragement to reproduce. ALL LIBERAL ACCIDENTAL DNA DISCHARGES SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I support RETROACTIVE ABORTIONS of left wing parasites into the 297th Trimester. Leftist DNA is a biohazard.

There is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT, written in plain english, which has a long standing not just in english law and all of western culture, but in biblical history that codifies and individual right to bear weapons in their own individual defence. THAT IS EXPRESSED BEYOND LOGICAL ARGUMENT IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT TO THE COTUS.

THAT IS ALL BED WETTERS....

You may now cry into your soy milk latte and scream at the sky while throwing darts at a picture of Trump in your single wide tenement on wheels.

Or get that retroactive self abortion, that will work well also. Here are the instructions....



View attachment 574965

.

I get a kick out of your posts.

 

[SavannahMann]

Court leaves Texas’ six-week abortion ban in effect and narrows abortion providers’ challenge​

So “ban” doesn’t really mean ban?

”S.B. 8, which took effect on Sept. 1, bars doctors from performing abortions starting around the sixth week of pregnancy, except in cases of medical emergencies”

Court leaves Texas’ six-week abortion ban in effect and narrows abortion providers’ challenge - SCOTUSblog

Nearly six weeks after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases challenging a Texas law that bans almost all abortions in the state, the justices on Friday limited – but did not fully eliminate – the ability of abortion providers to continue their challenge in the lower courts. The court

www.scotusblog.com

I see you failed to address my argument and thus now admit that the law can be used as a way to go after gun owners. A win for me and a defeat for the Constitution. Thanks Texas.

Now from your own link.

The Texas law, known as S.B. 8, remains in effect. The ruling in the providers’ case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, allows the providers to return to the lower courts and seek an injunction against the licensing officials, but it’s not clear how much relief that could provide from a law that intentionally relies on private citizens for enforcement.

There is no ban is what Texas argued. They haven’t banned anything. But if anyone discusses an abortion after six weeks they can be sued by the people.

Texas carefully crafted this law. A very clever lawyer came up with it. To use several loopholes to create a way to stop abortions.

Once the law is passed. Texas has nothing to do with it. Let me explain.

Let’s say I am a doctor. I perform an abortion on a woman who is eight weeks pregnant. I can be sued by hundreds of people. I don’t go to jail. I don’t face the loss of my license. I don’t face any criminal penalty what do ever. I can just get sued. Worse. My nurse can be sued. The girl answering phones and making appointments. The person who drove her to the clinic can all be sued.

The State has done nothing to me. I won’t go to jail. Nothing.

That is what California is talking about doing. The exact same thing with guns. No violation of your Constitutional right. Just the simple situation where you can be sued.

Texas admitted this was possible. And said if they won that Congress would have to act to stop it.

 

[Nostra]

I see you failed to address my argument and thus now admit that the law can be used as a way to go after gun owners. A win for me and a defeat for the Constitution. Thanks Texas.

Now from your own link.

The Texas law, known as S.B. 8, remains in effect. The ruling in the providers’ case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, allows the providers to return to the lower courts and seek an injunction against the licensing officials, but it’s not clear how much relief that could provide from a law that intentionally relies on private citizens for enforcement.

There is no ban is what Texas argued. They haven’t banned anything. But if anyone discusses an abortion after six weeks they can be sued by the people.

Texas carefully crafted this law. A very clever lawyer came up with it. To use several loopholes to create a way to stop abortions.

Once the law is passed. Texas has nothing to do with it. Let me explain.

Let’s say I am a doctor. I perform an abortion on a woman who is eight weeks pregnant. I can be sued by hundreds of people. I don’t go to jail. I don’t face the loss of my license. I don’t face any criminal penalty what do ever. I can just get sued. Worse. My nurse can be sued. The girl answering phones and making appointments. The person who drove her to the clinic can all be sued.

The State has done nothing to me. I won’t go to jail. Nothing.

That is what California is talking about doing. The exact same thing with guns. No violation of your Constitutional right. Just the simple situation where you can be sued.

Texas admitted this was possible. And said if they won that Congress would have to act to stop it.

So you consider a defeat of the Constitution to be a win for you.

Folks, this is the typical anti-America Dimwinger right here.

 

[jc456]

I see you failed to address my argument and thus now admit that the law can be used as a way to go after gun owners. A win for me and a defeat for the Constitution. Thanks Texas.

Now from your own link.

The Texas law, known as S.B. 8, remains in effect. The ruling in the providers’ case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, allows the providers to return to the lower courts and seek an injunction against the licensing officials, but it’s not clear how much relief that could provide from a law that intentionally relies on private citizens for enforcement.

There is no ban is what Texas argued. They haven’t banned anything. But if anyone discusses an abortion after six weeks they can be sued by the people.

Texas carefully crafted this law. A very clever lawyer came up with it. To use several loopholes to create a way to stop abortions.

Once the law is passed. Texas has nothing to do with it. Let me explain.

Let’s say I am a doctor. I perform an abortion on a woman who is eight weeks pregnant. I can be sued by hundreds of people. I don’t go to jail. I don’t face the loss of my license. I don’t face any criminal penalty what do ever. I can just get sued. Worse. My nurse can be sued. The girl answering phones and making appointments. The person who drove her to the clinic can all be sued.

The State has done nothing to me. I won’t go to jail. Nothing.

That is what California is talking about doing. The exact same thing with guns. No violation of your Constitutional right. Just the simple situation where you can be sued.

Texas admitted this was possible. And said if they won that Congress would have to act to stop it.

mcdonald vs City of Chicago ruins your pipe dream.

McDonald v. City of Chicago | Summary, Decision, History, & Facts

McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,’ applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

www.britannica.com

McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

 

[SavannahMann]

So you consider a defeat of the Constitution to be a win for you.

Folks, this is the typical anti-America Dimwinger right here.

Texas passed the law. Not me. I am not in Texas. I live in Georgia. Texas knew when they did this that other states could and would use it if it was successful to set up mirror laws to harass others.

Texas admitted that in the Supreme Court during the arguments.

You claim that I support the effort. No. I think Texas should have never passed this law. Like the Atomic Bomb. Once the genie is out of the bottle. You are fucked. Texas handed the other states a bomb.

I did not do this. I predicted it. But it isn’t my fault.

I think fair is fair. Sauce for the goose. If Texas wants to allow Abortion related lawsuits to stop them. Fine. It’s Texas. I think they’re wrong. But I have no power to stop them.

If California wants to use this perfectly legal law written to weave through loopholes. They can. As Texas argued. There isn’t anything the courts can do about it.

I specifically mentioned Michigan. I said that Michigan could make a similar law with the numerous Muslims there to make it so anyone who attended a Christian Church could be sued.

I mentioned Guns in my predictions and I was told that was preposterous.

It’s happening. And I am being proven right. And I don’t care all that much. I don’t live in California either.

I think it is wrong what Texas is doing. I think it is wrong in California. And I think the next state that does it will be wrong too. But you all cheered like maniacs when Texas passed the law. You didn’t care what else happened. You refused to even consider what comes next. All you wanted was to end Abortion. You got your wish.

Now you get to watch as every other state passes similar laws. And there is no limit to what those laws may do.

How about a situation where you can be sued for having a Trump Flag or bumper sticker? Protected speech? Nope. Not when the State isn’t enforcing anything. It is just lawsuits. Nobody is telling you that you can’t do it.

This is the Pandoras Box that Texas opened. This is the reality that the Supreme Court refused to put a stop to.

 

[SavannahMann]

mcdonald vs City of Chicago ruins your pipe dream.

McDonald v. City of Chicago | Summary, Decision, History, & Facts

McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,’ applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

www.britannica.com

McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

You are again failing to understand the brilliance of the Texas Law. No State or city is banning guns. Just as Texas didn’t ban Abortions. Abortions are still legal.

John Q. Public can sue you. That is all. If California mirrors the Texas Law. Nobody is banning guns. No State official will come and take them. No cops will arrest you for having one.

You will get sued. A lot. Over and over again. By dozens or hundreds of people.

Nobody passed a law saying Abortions were illegal in Texas. California isn’t saying you can’t own guns. All either State did was say you can be sued if you do.

 

[Nostra]

Texas passed the law. Not me. I am not in Texas. I live in Georgia. Texas knew when they did this that other states could and would use it if it was successful to set up mirror laws to harass others.

Texas admitted that in the Supreme Court during the arguments.

You claim that I support the effort. No. I think Texas should have never passed this law. Like the Atomic Bomb. Once the genie is out of the bottle. You are fucked. Texas handed the other states a bomb.

I did not do this. I predicted it. But it isn’t my fault.

I think fair is fair. Sauce for the goose. If Texas wants to allow Abortion related lawsuits to stop them. Fine. It’s Texas. I think they’re wrong. But I have no power to stop them.

If California wants to use this perfectly legal law written to weave through loopholes. They can. As Texas argued. There isn’t anything the courts can do about it.

I specifically mentioned Michigan. I said that Michigan could make a similar law with the numerous Muslims there to make it so anyone who attended a Christian Church could be sued.

I mentioned Guns in my predictions and I was told that was preposterous.

It’s happening. And I am being proven right. And I don’t care all that much. I don’t live in California either.

I think it is wrong what Texas is doing. I think it is wrong in California. And I think the next state that does it will be wrong too. But you all cheered like maniacs when Texas passed the law. You didn’t care what else happened. You refused to even consider what comes next. All you wanted was to end Abortion. You got your wish.

Now you get to watch as every other state passes similar laws. And there is no limit to what those laws may do.

How about a situation where you can be sued for having a Trump Flag or bumper sticker? Protected speech? Nope. Not when the State isn’t enforcing anything. It is just lawsuits. Nobody is telling you that you can’t do it.

This is the Pandoras Box that Texas opened. This is the reality that the Supreme Court refused to put a stop to.

Nice unhinged diatribe.

Here is what you actually said:

A win for me and a defeat for the Constitution.

 

[Nostra]

You are again failing to understand the brilliance of the Texas Law. No State or city is banning guns. Just as Texas didn’t ban Abortions. Abortions are still legal.

John Q. Public can sue you. That is all. If California mirrors the Texas Law. Nobody is banning guns. No State official will come and take them. No cops will arrest you for having one.

You will get sued. A lot. Over and over again. By dozens or hundreds of people.

Nobody passed a law saying Abortions were illegal in Texas. California isn’t saying you can’t own guns. All either State did was say you can be sued if you do.

I already posted the analysis of a Constitutional scholar who says you and Gavin are batshit crazy.

 

[Zincwarrior]

You are again failing to understand the brilliance of the Texas Law. No State or city is banning guns. Just as Texas didn’t ban Abortions. Abortions are still legal.

John Q. Public can sue you. That is all. If California mirrors the Texas Law. Nobody is banning guns. No State official will come and take them. No cops will arrest you for having one.

You will get sued. A lot. Over and over again. By dozens or hundreds of people.

Nobody passed a law saying Abortions were illegal in Texas. California isn’t saying you can’t own guns. All either State did was say you can be sued if you do.

Even worse they can do the same for cartridge manufacturers.

 

[SavannahMann]

Nice unhinged diatribe.

Here is what you actually said:

A win for me and a defeat for the Constitution.

No, If you want a summary. Here you go.

Texas created a bomb. And once everyone saw it could be done, they’re bound to do it.

 

[SavannahMann]

I already posted the analysis of a Constitutional scholar who says you and Gavin are batshit crazy.

Your scholar was operating on the assumption that the guns would be banned. They aren’t being banned.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supreme Court has already acknowledged that upholding the Texas law would lead us here which is why they will not be upholding it in the end.

The USSC did no such thing.

 

[SavannahMann]

Even worse they can do the same for cartridge manufacturers.

They’ll say that people who own ammunition can be sued. They don’t want to try their luck against the PLCA. Easier and simpler to sue the gun owner who is buying and possessing the ammunition.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your scholar was operating on the assumption that the guns would be banned. They aren’t being banned.

As such, CA cannot do with guns what TX did with abortions.

 

[SavannahMann]

The USSC did no such thing.

Yes, they did.

Key U.S. Supreme Court justices express concern about Texas abortion law’s enforcement

Six justices — including two who voted against blocking Senate Bill 8 when it first went into effect — voiced concern that other states could replicate the controversial law’s enforcement mechanism.

www.texastribune.org

Notably, conservative Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, who were among the five conservative judges that voted against temporarily blocking SB 8 on Sept. 1 when the law took effect, seemed unconvinced by the defendability of Texas’ unique enforcement mechanism.

“There's a loophole that's been exploited here or used here,” Kavanaugh said, noting that the same mechanism could be applied to limit other constitutional rights if allowed to stand. “It could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights, if this position is accepted here.”

These are the Uber Conservative Justices appointed by Trump. They said it would happen, and it is happening.

 

[SavannahMann]

As such, CA cannot do with guns what TX did with abortions.

Abortions aren’t banned. Just if you perform one after six weeks, or you are involved even tangentially, including discussing it with someone. You can be sued for $10,000 and if you win, as the defendant, you can’t recoup your legal fees. So under the law, you can only lose money if you are a defendant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are again failing to understand the brilliance of the Texas Law. No State or city is banning guns. Just as Texas didn’t ban Abortions. Abortions are still legal.

Until 6 weeks.
After that 6 weeks, they are not.
At - that- point citizens can sue, based on the idea the abortion providers are breaking the law.
Unless guns are illegal, the analogy does not hold.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, they did.

An "expression of concern" by one justice is not an acknowledgement by the court of... anything.
So, no, they did not.