Kavanaugh Asks if Texas Abortion Law Could Be Model for Bans on Gun Rights

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.

The Texas solicitor general acknowledged the possibility but said Congress could pass laws to protect such rights. Kavanaugh seemed wary of such intervention.

"Some of those examples, I think, would be quite difficult to get legislation through Congress," Kavanaugh said.

Kavanaugh Poses Possibility That Texas Abortion Law Can Apply to Gun Rights

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court Monday that "no constitutional right is safe" if the Texas law is allowed to stand.

www.newsweek.com

So you could use a Texas abortion style law to restrict guns in California? It gets around the Constitution.

I did not see this coming. Did you?

I am glad we have justices who think like Kavanaugh.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

In some instances, they already have.

But, not in instances of homicide.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Perhaps. If guns are not banned then over 20,000 lives per year will still be lost to suicide and over 10,000 lives per year to homicide.

Banning guns won't affect those numbers.

 

[Crepitus]

I doubt you could help anyone.

That's nice, kid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you could use a Texas abortion style law to restrict guns in California? It gets around the Constitution.

First, California would have to make gun ownership illegal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Guns enable over 20,000 suicides and over 10,000 murders in USA each year.

And 100,000 or more instances of self-defense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oooooo. It looks like by your boy doesn't like guns either.

^^^
Quite possibly the most ignorant statement ever made on USMB.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Guns, like hard drugs enable harm. Neither guns nor opioids cause harm on their own. Opioids are banned.

M'kay. So?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That seems very dubious. Justifiable homicides are very few.

You are fully aware that this is an utterly meaningless fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

2) Justifiable homicides make up under 4% of all homicides. Thus real self-defense with guns is probably rare.

And yet, your source says it happens >100k times per year.
Did they lie?

 

[M14 Shooter]

In some instances, they already have.

For design or manufacturing defects - not negligent or intentional misuse.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For all intensive purposes, abortion is, just like the 2nd amendment.

Except that if someone tried to lay the same restriction on abortion that, say, CA and NY have on the right to keep and bear arms, liberal heads would explode.

 

[justoffal]

Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.

The Texas solicitor general acknowledged the possibility but said Congress could pass laws to protect such rights. Kavanaugh seemed wary of such intervention.

"Some of those examples, I think, would be quite difficult to get legislation through Congress," Kavanaugh said.

Kavanaugh Poses Possibility That Texas Abortion Law Can Apply to Gun Rights

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court Monday that "no constitutional right is safe" if the Texas law is allowed to stand.

www.newsweek.com

So you could use a Texas abortion style law to restrict guns in California? It gets around the Constitution.

I did not see this coming. Did you?

I am pro life....but even I see the danger in this whole thing. Kavanaugh is right....the slope isn't just slippery....it's steep and it's slicked up with Wet Teflon.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

For all intensive purposes, abortion is, just like the 2nd amendment.
Abortion was decided by the SC to be constitutional.

The Second Amendment is explicitly written into the Constitution.

You can read, any complete copy of the Constitution and find these exact words therein: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

You cannot find any such language anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at any “right” to kill an innocent human being in cold blood. The closest that anything in the Constitution comes to this is in the Fifth Amendment, where it says that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. How much due process is given to an innocent victim of abortion before his life is savagely snuffed out?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Guns also enable one to defend one's self against criminal attack; and for some, they allow hunting as a means of providing food.

No one needs to hunt to feed themselves at this point, guy. We have supermarkets.

True, but that does not, in any way, invalidate hunting as a legitimate means of obtaining food. It's not my thing, but my wife came from a family that was very much into hunting as a means of obtaining food. She took and passed a hunter safety course at the age of seven or eight, getting the highest score therein in spite of being the only minor in the class.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Here's the number we are sure about. The FBI states only 200 Americans kill an attacker in legitimate self-defense a year. Now, no matter what number you use for non-lethal DGU's, you'd have to accept that 99.9% of the time, a gun nut has an opportunity to kill a darkie... I mean a bad guy... yeah, bad guy, that's the ticket, and doesn't. Given how much you gun nuts fantasize about it, that's just not credible.

Again, works on the assumption someone who is desperate enough to commit a crime will be deterred by the mere sight of a gun 99.9% of the time. Just doesn't pass the laugh test.

I find it funny, how you, who are always so eager to falsely accuse others of being racist, cannot help waving your own filthy racism around like a proud banner.

I do not think there is anyone else on this forum who, as staunchly as you do, conflates “darkies” with criminals; assuming that the former have a valid excuse for being criminals, and cannot help themselves; and that any actual Human beings seeking to defend themselves from criminals only do so for racist reasons, and deep down, would not pass up an opportunity to kill a “darkie” and get away with it.

The most extreme false accusations of racism that you so freely throw around at others do not come close to the reality of the racism which you routinely demonstrate on your own part.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Suicides would happen with out firearms retard.

I have normal IQ and low EQ.

About 70% of suicides would fail without guns. Gun lobby is complicit in over a million deaths over decades.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Naw, man, I stand on the side that women are more than breeding machines, a concept kind of lost on your sick-ass cult.

We've seen enough of what you think of women, to know who the real misogynist is, here.

It's no wonder that at your age, you're an incel loser who has never been married and never will.

I hadn't really noticed before but the contrast between your view of women, and that of those of us who you like to falsely paint as misogynists; is not much unlike that between your view of black people, and that of those of us that you are so fond of falsely painting as racists.

I guess there's a lot of sour grapes painting your view, along with a huge dose of psychological projection.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Banning guns won't affect those numbers.

Banning guns would reduce Murder and Suicide by about 70%.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

…since Kellerman found that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

Ahh that LIE again you keep repeating it when it has been debunked almost since the day it was uttered.

Starting with the fact that Kellerman counted as “a gun in the home”, a gun brought into the home at the time of the incident, by a criminal, to use against the rightful inhabitants of the home—an act of willful fraud right there, on his part, that pretty much refutes any claim he might try to make after that.