Alan Dershowitz
Alan Dershowitz (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II, File)
Previous Post
Next Post

Maybe the professor isn’t familiar with the Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act . . .

Consider this out-of-the-box proposal: Liberal, pro-gun-control states could apply the Texas bounty approach to gun control. New York or Illinois, for example, could declare that gun crime has gotten so serious that the private ownership of most handguns should be deterred. It would be unconstitutional for the state to authorize the criminal prosecution of those who facilitate constitutionally protected gun ownership. But the state could, instead, enact a gun-bounty civil law modeled on the Texas abortion law. It would empower any citizen to sue for $10,000 anyone who facilitates the sale or ownership of handguns.

Gun-ownership advocates would rail against such a law as circumventing Heller, just as abortion advocates are railing against the Texas law as circumventing Roe. But it would be hard for the courts to uphold the civil mechanism of the anti-abortion law without also upholding the identical mechanism in the anti-gun law.

Creating this “shoe on the other foot” challenge would bring home the dangerous implications of the Texas bounty approach which, if not stopped, could undercut the authority of the Supreme Court to enforce other constitutional rights.

Texas could, for example, next apply it to gay marriage — any private citizen could sue anyone who performed or facilitated same-sex marriages — thus circumventing Obergefell v. Hodges. New York could then apply it to Citizens United v. FCC and offer a civil bounty to sue any media outlet that ran corporate political ads. Any state could simply target any Supreme Court precedent it doesn’t like and deter its enforcement by authorizing citizens who oppose it to sue. This would empower every state to effectively overrule Supreme Court decisions, as some southern states unsuccessfully tried to do following Brown v Board of Education in 1954.

— Alan Dershowitz in How to mess with Texas’ anti-abortion bounty? Apply it to gun sales

Previous Post
Next Post

92 COMMENTS

  1. “Maybe the professor isn’t familiar with the Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act . . .” – Not relevant, if the proposed laws in question are designed to avoid Supreme Court overview before being implemented, in the same manner the TX laws was crafted to.

    And, so far, the Supreme Court hasn’t shown much appetite for reviewing conventional lawsuits that have been allowed to continue by lower courts, in flagrant violation of the PLCAA.

    • Nope. Dershowitz whiffed badly here — the fact that he does not even mention the PLCAA indicates he didn’t consider its probable impact.

      The PLCAA applies to and preempts state law, whether common law or a special state statute, and specifically was designed to halt exactly this kind of lawfare by private litigants.

      Have there been a few cases where some state courts have tortured the law and bent over backwards to expand exceptions to the PLCAA? Sure. But those pale in comparison to the number of cases that the PLCAA has nuked. By and large, the PLCAA has worked and neutered the efforts to kill the gun industry through lawfare.

      • Dersh failed to factor in Gun Control is rooted in racism and genocide. Abortion has roots in racism, Eugenics, etc.
        He failed to look beyond the end of his nose and put the cart in front of the horse. Try again dershbag.

      • Except it isn’t states doing it. Just like Texas, they can outsource the litigation to private entities. Lots of them. With no issues of standing.

        Process is punishment. The judicial finding at the end doesn’t matter if the defendants have to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to get to it and can’t recover the money because the plaintiffs are judgement-proof.

        Texas’s law is the kind of “bright idea” that ends up making everything worse. It’s the kind of thing only a 2nd LT with a compass or a politician with full civil immunity could think up. In democratizing legal warfare it elevates it to a level no one will be able to contain.

        There was 100% certainty that this utter idiocy, passed in ideological fervor, would be used for the opposite ideology as well. It’s only a matter of time. It’s like when the dems decided to get rid of the filibuster where federal judge appointments were concerned. How could they not see how that would bite them? Well, now it’s conservatives who must be utterly blind. But abortion (and “pro life” inconsistencies) is the albatross around politics in the modern US and has been for decades.

        • Hannibal:

          Again, like Dersch you overlook the fact that the private-lawfare-to-obtain-a-policy-result was the reason the PLCAA was passed in the first place.

          Go back and read what Bloomberg and his minions were saying back in the day — in essence, “if we bring enough lawsuits, we’ll bankrupt the gun makers and sellers even if we don’t win in court.” The PLCAA recognized and largely squashed that practice.

          What Texas has done is to take a page out of the other side’s playbook and run it against them. Frankly, I’d like to see Texas now do the same thing for racial / sex / viewpoint discrimination by public universities in the state — create a private right of action for any interested citizen (with “loser pays” and bonding requirements to discourage frivolous suits), and in short order the state universities will be either be shutting down their CRT/DEI programs (which violate all kinds of state and federal laws — but nobody who doesn’t want to get blacklisted in academia has standing under current law to challenge them), or spending a significant portion of their revenues paying judgments.

      • You completely missed the point. Dershowitz is predicting what is going to come, almost exactly what the gun control zealots will try to do.

        • We already have that when people in business can be sued for not providing a service they find offensive. I did that in my printing business. I didn’t print porn. I didn’t print flyers advertising sex tours to various countries in Southeast Asia. I didn’t print flyers that denigrated in vile language any particular group. Luckily for me, it was before it got popular for homosexual groups to set up businesses so they could be sued. Had I been sued for refusing to print those pieces I would have fired my employee and closed my plant and gotten a job in some other state. I also didn’t suffer “customers” who abused my employees. They were shown the door. To paraphrase James Mattis, “be calm, be polite but have a plan to kill everyone.”

        • Not actual Satan-worhippers, and statement against the TX law doesn’t state “ritual” anywhere.

          Even so, no different than any other group demanding a legal exemption in the name of religious liberty.

        • Don’t worry. The people who worship the flying spaghetti monster will be applying for a religious exemption as well.

  2. The Texas law doesn’t suggest that anybody can sue anybody who sells forceps to anybody. It stipulates that if you take the life of another human after that human’s heartbeat can be detected you can be sued by anybody. I think Dershowitz is trying to illustrate the flaws in the abortion law rather than suggest that we create an ultra-litigious society, he usually seems more reasonable than the average lefty. And he would have a point, the law is specifically written to get around the courts, but he’s stretching the logic behind the law to an absurd extent. But then he probably doesn’t consider a human fetus with a beating heart any different than a wart.

    • “…any different than a wart.”

      That’s how it’s portrayed, so that’s what young girls are led to believe. They never tell young girls about how traumatic it is. I personally know three girls that got abortions. I’m sure I know more, but it isn’t something people talk about. I was good friends with these girls. Every one of them cried about it when describing it. Does anyone cry about a wart they no longer have? What we fail to teach young girls is that abortion doesn’t prevent you from becoming a mother. If you’re pregnant, then you’re a mother with a child. You will always be a mother, and that will always be your child. You’re only preventing your child from being born.

      • ‘…it isn’t something people talk about.’

        In mixed company, no. But according to my wife, among non-dudes it something that many women speak of freely and almost proudly. This is why it’s such an emotional topic for them – if you can either face the fact that you’re basically Hitler or just deny reality and push it back with hysterics you’re likely to choose the latter.

    • Furthermore Governor Le Petomane (and expanding on Dude’s comment), Progressives employed deceptive measures to conceal the murder of a human being with sanitized language. They defined a human (still in the womb) as merely a “fetus” which is nothing more than a lump of tissue–a tumor in essence. They also defined the procedure–intentionally killing a human being without cause which is murder–as merely an “abortion”.

      Thus, when you view an intentional murder of a human being alternatively as nothing more than removing a tumor from a woman, of course you can equate that with removing a firearm from a citizen.

      In other words Dershowitz committed the mother of all false-equivalencies, thanks in no small part to Progressive deployment of the nonsensical alternate terms “fetus” and “abortion”.

      And before anyone screams about those nonsensical terms as being specific terms of science, they are just as nonsensical as calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”.

      • Calling it an ‘abortion’ would be a huge improvement over euphemisms like ‘choice’ and ‘women’s health’.

  3. Well, somone had better get themselves screwed on straight before lawsuits to the Nth degree for the same action renders SCOTUS, the Constitution, and any rule of law completely meaningless. What do you have when law makes law so worthless that it gets canceled out? It sounds like chaos to me; anarchy at the very least. But certainly a description of eating itself. Democrats winning has translated to loss of life and an amplified level of madness.

    Lol. What else could be expected when lunatics are in charge?

    There are so few adults even willing to touch any of this.

    • I thought the last 5 or 6 years had rendered the rule of law completely meaningless. Anarchy would be a welcome relief instead of “law enforcement” that enforces laws against those defending themselves and their property but not against those burning, looting, and murdering. At least with anarchy there would be no cops to arrest us for self defense.

      • What you have described is Progressive Law Enforcement where the perpetrators are the “true victims of an unjust society” and the victims are getting what they deserved.

  4. I have long believed dershowitz has his constitutional facts out of whack. The right to life and to keep and beat arms are enshrined in our founding documents.

    The counter would be to file multi-bilkiin dollars lawsuits for anyone interfering in your personal right to arms.

    Once again a hand wringing weenie is concerned about gun violence and gives no damn whatsoever about victims of any other type of violence.

    The aiders and abettors of gun violence are the corrupt liberals and their corrupt policies that let crime rule their cities. It’s almost like making it possible to blame guns so they can violate your rights.

    We should air drop recidivist violent criminals, gangs and liberal politicians into Noeth Korea and let them sort things out there instead of destroy things over here.

  5. It was obvious from the get-go that Texas interfering with a constitutionally guaranteed right (and abortion is that, under current jurisprudence), and evading judicial review with procedural trickery had some Really Bad Implications for other civil liberties. It’s not as if using lawfare to suppress 2nd Amendment rights is anything new to the civilian disarmament lobby, but now you can expect them to dial it up to 11 and beyond.

    But suppressing another constitutional right through lawfare isn’t going to solve the problem. The people pulling the strings aren’t terribly concerned about individual rights, period. They have no scruples that would prevent the destruction of BOTH abortion and gun rights, not to mention any other rights they can sink their claws into

    • Please explain how ending the life of the most innocent among humanity is guaranteed by the Constitution, especially considering one of Government’s core duties is to protect the innocent. The Court consists of nine imperfect people who themselves will sometimes contradict their previous opinions and rulings. Take, for a recent example, the issue of gay marriage. The Court ruled in support of traditional marriage in June 2012. Two years later, those same nine Justices ruled on the same matter via another case, and only a single Justice changed his opinion, resulting in the “finding” of an unspoken constitutional right and the entire nation being subjected to the fundamental change in society. Was that Justice wrong to say that, because he said the opposite two years earlier? Or was he wrong earlier, and was correct later?

      * Slavery was once supported by the courts, until it was corrected.

      * Jim Crow was once supported by the courts, until it was corrected.

      * Abortion was supported by the Court five decades ago, and may soon be reversed.

      But my question to you remains…please provide evidence.

      • Right to privacy. To be left alone. To keep the Government out of the private relationship between a doctor and patient. Government has no business regulating what two consenting adults do.

        • “Right to privacy. To be left alone. To keep the Government out of the private relationship between a doctor and patient.”

          The pro-abortion crowd destroyed that argument when most of them got on board with vaccine mandates and passports.

          “Government has no business regulating what two consenting adults do.”

          For sure. As long as the child consents to be sacrificed so the mother can make more money. Priorities.

        • All that went away with Obama care and everything Covid. People don’t seem to care much about privacy anymore. One person uses their full and complete Gmail email address AS their wifi name as another person uses their full physical address. Someone else uses their full legal name. If anyone were concerned about privacy, Facebook wouldn’t have so many users. Neither would Google or Twitter. Too many people have the mistaken idea that email is private. As a society, we tolerate all kinds of intrusions. Particularly from government.

          Keep government out of the bedroom….
          Absolutely. I couldn’t care any less if my neighbors are engaged in homosexual activity. It shouldn’t matter to them if I’m not. But people think condoms are under threat. But by the very same thought, it shouldn’t matter to anyone else if I have guns in my home. Yet children are being used to get parents in legal trouble if a BB gun is seen on camera during online schooling. Its all the same thing. As far as I’m concerned, creating legal issues for people based on any of this is an invasion of privacy and should be equally illegal.

          Who the hell is Facebook to tell me I can’t talk to people about COVID?

          Who the hell is Biden, Chipman, or O’Rourke to tell me I’m not aloud to have an AR15?

        • fppf. It does when the third person conceived in the woman is to be murdered by a hired hitman. 😉 Abortion doctors are hitmen. Molech is pleased…

        • “Right to privacy. To be left alone. To keep the Government out of the private relationship between a doctor and patient. Government has no business regulating what two consenting adults do.”

          The logical extension is that adults can consent to murder a child, and that is somehow a constitutional right.

          The whole R v. W ruling rotates on a concept that somehow a living being is not living until it successfully survives for some indeterminate period of time after exiting the birth canal. If we follow the science, and science determines that science has evolved since R v. W, and that a new life forms at conception (or some period near in relation to conception), then the “right to be left alone” applies to the now human person growing in the birth sack. Then we have rights in conflict, where the losing party is rendered dead. Our right to be left alone stops at the heartbeat of another human.

      • I Haz A Question: Please explain how ending the life of the most innocent among humanity is guaranteed by the Constitution…

        HazAQ, Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermeule answered all your questions in a tweet last year. Paraphrased: Constitutional law is now purely a matter of which team can cobble together a majority of Supreme Court justices to win a case. It’s been that way longer than any of us have been alive.

        I had a very bright, progressive friend in law school who said the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Roe v Wade was ridiculous, but the outcome was still necessary because it would be unthinkable to let voters decide an issue like that.

        That’s what all our intelligent, well-meaning liberal friends believe. They think judges have a moral obligation to decide important cases according to policy outcomes. The jurisprudential reasoning they type out is just a rationalization. It’s just theater.

        • The problem law students, and especially Progressive ones, is they think they can use the law to change the world to one of their liking. Reality bites them hard at some point.

  6. Local laws, technically, lack the authority to overrule the Bill of Rights. This would fail in courts that follow the Constitution.

    • “Local laws, technically, lack the authority to overrule the Bill of Rights. This would fail in courts that follow the Constitution.”

      The problem with R v. W is that the “right” of the federal government to adjudicate/intervene violates the BOR (9th and 10th Amendments). The then-States did not delegate power to regulate abortion to the central committee. “Delegate” never means, “find a way to make a way”. “Delegate” requires a specific, as in constitutional amendment. It took an amendment to end the “evil” of demon rum; the SC did not invent a prohibition (nor its repeal) “right” for government.

      If Texas lawfare is impermissible IAW the constitution, so is lawfare in violation of PLACA. I quite imagine Texas set this up to establish an inconsistency that the SC cannot let stand.

      • Abortion is only murder in in pro lifers’ limited opinion. Very likely most of them are not old enough to remember the fetus and ruined womb horrors people would stumble upon and/or suffer from during or after an abortion that officially didn’t happen. These folks think outlawing abortion will stop it from happening. Actually it will only make things far worse and those advocating it are the pathetic people that will scream and complain the loudest when such horrors are realized AGAIN, and mostly just to satisfy their out-of-touch-with-reality ignorance.

        Same can be said for disarming Americans by any means.

        • “Abortion is only murder in in pro lifers’ limited opinion.”
          – of course; pro-lifers are anti-murder
          – of course; prohibition of murder limits the freedom of those who would commit murder
          – what pro-death people truly fear is “following the science” that may one day determine that, “At this point in time and physical development, a separate and unique person exists”
          – when the science about the beginning of life changes, every death of convenience after such scientifically established criteria is de facto murder

          “These folks think outlawing abortion will stop it from happening.”

          Not anyone with human sentience. Anyone not needing commitment to a mental hospital/facility, knows and understands that laws actually stop (eliminate) nothing. Laws can only be aspirational, with intent to drastically limit the amount of disapproved behavior. Back in the bloody good old days, the lack of abortion on an industrial scale limited the number of horror stories you allude to; something orders of magnitude less than what R v. W. encourages and incentivizes.

          Indeed the reliance on boogeyman stories to justify mass killings is simply weak support for the idea that someone with little self control should be able to destroy a separate life in order to escape a personal inconvenience that was avoidable.

          And….all law, legislation, regulation and judicial ruling is an opinion, able to survive only because such law, legislation, regulation retains the opinion of the majority of those who shape law, regulation, and political power.

          Interesting that all the moral high ground is merely opinion, backed by government action.

          And yes, the worst among us, as always, will find ways to put themselves in harm’s way by going into the back alleys. An individual determined to be irresponsible should suffer the consequences.

  7. Just as gun control was started to stop slaves and later the newly freed slaves from getting guns. Abortion was promoted by sexually liberated white people, specificly for controlling the black population.

    And these same sexually liberated white people also promoted removing the father from the home. By using the welfare industrial complex. They don’t believe a fathers love and discipline are necessary in the home. They don’t want his guns in the home. In fact they replaced his guns, with the guns of a big city police department.

    Sexually liberated white of all sexual orientations have support the governments $$$ in everyone’s bedroom. They have always supported enabling a woman to have 5 kids from 5 different men. And the mother never getting married.

    These sexually liberated white people all disagreed with the white Christians who said a father is necessary in the home.

    Yes I said it. And that is just part 1.

      • fyi
        Part 2

        I don’t care if the family suffered from the Holocaust. I don’t care if the family was picked on because of their religion. It means nothing to me how these people claim that they helped during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s.

        These “white civil-rights workers” who came down to the south, we’re telling black residents they had to disarm. White Jews like that are not the friends of black people. And as a member of the JPFO since 1994 I feel very comfortable saying that.

        • FYI … your comical racism will never smooth your ignorance over and in to something credible. Such is life for stupidity and losers.

      • Yes, I understand that if you don’t submit to the anti-civil rights Jews, or you don’t submit to the anti-civil rights people of a different sexual orientation? You will be called a racist or a homophobe.

        Such is life in the year 2021.

  8. The lawfare is happening to potg anyways. This was litterally their plan when Hill was gonna win 2016. Why not open a new front? It should also be a front for other things like crt and other leftist actions. The same sort of municupal nuisance lawsuits should be used against groups like Antifa and their lawyer network.

  9. Please come and do this in Texas. I will be happy to introduce you to the Texas frivolous lawsuit statute. I look forward to the incredible wealth I will quickly amass.

      • Patent cases get filed in federal court under federal law. The law JWT references applies to cases filed in Texas state courts, which are what we talking about here.

  10. I guess he wants to sue so the babies can be born and he can have a fresh line of underage girls lined up to abuse?

    I mean this is one of the pedo king’s lawyers…..which also begs the question as to why anyone listens to whatever slime is seeping out of this windbags mouth.

  11. Interesting if before it’s all over the ability to file most civil suits is ruled unconstitutional somehow and upheld by the SCOTUS which ultimately causes all these lawyers to have to give up practicing organized crime and go find a real job for a change.

  12. Not an accurate comparison. The Texas “bounty” is for people who break the law (abortions at >6 weeks). The gun analogy would only apply if the gun was sold illegally, and that is already grounds for a civil law suit if it was later used in a crime.

    Leave hysteria and hyperbole to the left. That’s their thing. Stick with facts and logic.

      • Actually not, as TomT missed the part where Dershowitz proposes that NY, NJ or wherever makes handgun sales/ownership illegal and invites snitches to sue, rather than the state enforcing the law. Last 2 sentences in the 1st paragraph quoted.

  13. Well, Dershowitz is a legal idiot if he doesn’t even know what “well regulated” means, or meant, in 1780’s terminology. Remind me not to hire him if I need a constitutional “scholar”.

    “But how can a right be “well regulated” and “not be infringed?” Does regulation not constitute infringement? The answer to that question is clearly no. ”

    https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-second-amendment-20210330-vg4ki3bnwzgvrmws5zvz5hfkwu-story.html

  14. That’s an incorrect comparison. The act of abortion is a proven action that affects the lives of at minimum 3 people and as such could be a tort.

    Whereas someone owning a gun without using it has not done anything harmful to anyone. And we already have plenty of laws on the books for people to sue anyone who uses their firearm.

    By tying the action of the abortion with the fetal heartbeat they are establishing that here is/was a potential life and the action of stopping that process is a tort against the Father and other people who have standing to make a claim of harm by that action.

    Got to have a tort before you can sue otherwise the court cannot provide relief without there being some sort of harm occuring.

    • That’s why the gun grabbers will go after firearms retail. The Texas abortion law says the women obtaining the abortion cannot be sued, but those aiding and abetting can. I predict this will cause yet more of a run on firearms and ammunition in the states that try this tactic. Plus, it will not affect those who own guns illegally, like felons. Only firearms retailers.

    • quote————–Whereas someone owning a gun without using it has not done anything harmful to anyone.————-quote

      Nice try Jackie. You tripped right into that one! What the FAR-RIGHT fails to ADMIT is that guns TURN PEOPLE INTO CRIMINALS. After they get guns they do things like kill their old lady for the insurance money. I’m sure there are plenty of examples if you bothered to check. 😂

  15. There is a scene in one of the Death Wish movies where the police show up to confiscate a firearm from an elderly couple, reported by a gang that had been terrorizing them.
    Of course the gang now returns, knowing the couple is now helpless.

    • Substitute “gang” with “federal government” and the reason for the 2nd Amendment becomes crystal clear. This is the history of gun control for the last 120 years: registration-confiscation-democide.

      And the Left has in the past year publicly voiced two goals… Disarm America and exterminate all whites/conservatives/Christians.

  16. Dersh proves once again that a lefty is a lefty is a lefty. All real leftists are statists and they ALWAYS support gun control (i.e., citizen disarmament). Such people should be kept away from the levers of power at all costs.

    Once again, physical removal is the only workable answer. Hoppe is still right.

  17. Called it.

    I got it a little backwards (though talk of it might have been an influence), but years ago I was telling gun-control proponents that they need to stop weaponizing the courts, and instead spread things like the “Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act” to even more groups (I know similar protections already apply to many groups, but that was the topic). If they don’t, at some point someone is going to come up with a way to attack abortion (and similar) by weaponizing the courts.

    Once we set the precedent of something like this, there will inevitably be backlash. The order might have been mixed up, but it is important that everyone understand what is happening. We Texans have just unleashed a powerful weapon into the world, and we have no idea what will be done with it. The best case scenario IMO is that is gets thrown in the trash, and we get some proper legal reform before things get out of hand. Further undermining trust in the courts is dangerous in this climate.

    To borrow a quote; People often think that people or groups who take an “anything goes” attitude toward fighting are strong. Some even claim that if nothing is off-limits to you when you fight, you can beat virtually anyone. In one aspect, that’s correct, and in another, it’s wrong. An “anything goes” approach to fighting is very strong in the short term, but in the long term, it’s weak. Once you use a banned move, the ban on that move is also lifted for your opponent, and their response will be ferocious. And once others perceive you as someone who will ignore both morality and good faith for the sake of your objective, you won’t even be able to form alliances with them. In fact, it can even provide them with a good excuse to join forces against you. Used improperly, “anything goes” is weak, resulting in victory and glory that is short-lived and downfall that is inevitable.

    • I hope the DOJ absolutely wins the lawsuit on the Texas “heartbeat” bill. 👍

      I’m a Republican and Texan and I’ll be eager to say the heartbeat law is the most liberal and ridiculous thing in law since Soetoro ran for office. All this does is empower more liberals and create savagery in birth control. This will NEVER stop abortions in any phase but will absolutely make things worse. The joke is on those fools supporting it as this has brought more liberals and RINO tyrants out of their closets than voter fraud ever could’ve hoped to do.

    • “Once you use a banned move, the ban on that move is also lifted for your opponent, and their response will be ferocious.”

      You couldn’t be more wrong. The Left doesn’t care about precedent or law unless it’s something that benefits them. They’re shameless in their hypocrisy. The puppet occupying the White House even admits that he’s willing to do things that aren’t within his power, and the media cheers it.

      • You know, that’s almost exactly what the left winger I was talking to commented, even down to the comment about the president (though I did talk about this even before Trump).

        We’re all human beings. We may have differences of opinions, but we all think in a similar manner.

  18. Republicans invent a government tool to solve a real problem. Democrats weaponize it for use against their enemies (i.e., most of America).

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    The ratchet tightens, notch by notch. How tightly can it squeeze before something breaks? I pray that the ratchet and/or the people cranking on it will break before we do.

  19. It would be unconstitutional for the state to authorize the criminal prosecution of those who facilitate constitutionally protected gun ownership. But the state could, instead, enact a gun-bounty civil law modeled on the Texas abortion law. It would empower any citizen to sue for $10,000 anyone who facilitates the sale or ownership of handguns.

    =====

    This makes no sense. Does he not know that handgun ownership is Constitutionally protected?

    • Actually not, as TomT missed the part where Dershowitz proposes that NY, NJ or wherever makes handgun sales/ownership illegal and invites snitches to sue, rather than the state enforcing the law. Last 2 sentences in the 1st paragraph quoted.

      • [Weird – comment from above in the thread posted here.]
        His point is that constitutionality doesn’t matter if the court can’t review the constitutionality for lack of standing, as the TX law was crafted to avoid review.

        It’s a bit like the Bush-era indefinite detention under the “Patriot Act” that supposedly only applied to “enemy combatants” so us citizens needn’t be concerned; but, if a court doesn’t review the case, how does a citizen ever prove their status?

    • How about a law that says:

      “It would empower any citizen to sue for $10,000 anyone who facilitates the sale or ownership of handguns.” if that handgun is later used in a crime.

      If you don’t like universal background checks on private sales, then you will be legally responsible for the outcome of the sale.

      True ‘personal responsibility’ that all the conservatives claim to support.

      Sounds fair to me, right?

  20. Of course Globalist Dershowitz, the lawyer for Epstein, wants to take away our guns.

    BTW, Dershowitz claimed that two of Epstein’s VICTIMS were “anti-Semitic” for their criticism of him and Epstein.

    Disgusting Dershowitz is truly evil.

  21. “The pro-abortion crowd destroyed that argument when most of them got on board with vaccine mandates and passports.“

    Are you under the mistaken impression that pregnancy, like Covid, is contagious?

    The constitution is clear, a person cannot be forced to harbor another person, against their will. If a woman does not want to gestate another individual, it is her right to prevent the forced pregnancy.

    And the fact that conservative Republican Texas is enlisting citizens to spy on their neighbors and bring legal action against them is a basic tactic of every fascist government in history.

    I think it will be quite entertaining to watch the Texas Stasi informing on their neighbors and calling it freedom.

    • “Are you under the mistaken impression that pregnancy, like Covid, is contagious?”

      So it isn’t really “my body, my choice” is it? Once again, shameless hypocrisy.

      “The constitution is clear, a person cannot be forced to harbor another person, against their will. If a woman does not want to gestate another individual, it is her right to prevent the forced pregnancy.”

      Forced pregnancy? Are you talking about some sort of sex slave? That would be illegal in this country. Once you’re pregnant, it’s no longer just about you, which is why so many young girls go the abortion route. How is the baby either alive or a clump of cells depending on only moving a few inches in space? What magic happens after passing through the birth canal that gives life?

  22. A few days ago Larry David blew up and yelled like a mental patient at Alan D. Happened at a Martha’s Vineyard coffee shop. This is how the left keeps those straying off “The Plantation” in line.

    Alan D was deleted from all the Hampton ‘A List’ parties over a decade ago.

    He’s just throwing a few bones to the left. I would imagine his home life is hell, the wife must complain to no end about how his values are getting them attacked and shunned by the “elite class”.

    Alan has more backbone then all the elites combined.

  23. The question is will people who are pro abortion say they are killing a human or are they murdering a human?
    Camille Paglia, an atheist libertarian, she says “abortion is the extinction of a human life”. She and the christian conservative Bay Buchanan agree on a great deal!!!
    There is still hope out there.

    from C SPAN, MARCH 21, 1997
    Washington Journal: Friday
    Bay Buchanan, BNBC’s Equal Time Co-Host talked about the House backing the ban on partial birth abortions. Camille Paglia, Author and Professor, Pro-Choice, understands that abortion is killing. The US Government still has no right to tell a woman what to so with her body. Video 3 hr long

    Their talk begins at 1.02 hr

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?79731-1/washington-journal-friday#!

  24. He is in his 80’s and did defend Presidential rights at the first Trump impeachment. Yes his idea is whacked, so is the texas bounty thing.

  25. Well the courts could uphold the Texas law against infanticide while striking down hoplophobic anti-gun laws, real simple and without any mental/legalese word gymnastics…

    All Arms, includes all firearms are specifically protected from infringements from any and all governments (feds via the 2nd Amendment, and the states/county/municipalities via the 2nd incorporated via the 10th Amendment), so a Texas like law if SCOTUS Justices were to actually adhere to their oaths of office, would have no constitutional reason to rule against gun ownership.

    However, murder is murder (even justifiable murder colloquially self-defense) and not protected by the US Constitution or any state constitutions. Thusly why states enacted “justifiable murder” laws, stand your ground laws and castle doctrine laws, to allow for self defense options. Many states have passed similar laws authorizing infanticide colloquially abortion or “pro-choice” as being justifiable in proscribed specific circumstances – Texas’ most recent one is more restrictive than many other states (at this time), but a citizen of Texas that didn’t like the restrictions is free to travel for medical assisted murder in another state if legalized there without criminal penalty; many citizens already travel for medical treatment shopping (better doctors or hospitals in another state, municipality).

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here