Gavin Newsom
(AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
Previous Post
Next Post

So this happened last night. California Governor Gavin Newsom, having nothing else to do on a Saturday evening, issued the following proclamation . . .

On Friday, the Supreme Court let a Texas law stand which allows individuals to sue abortion providers who perform the procedures after 15 weeks. The Court hasn’t upheld the law. Instead, they let it remain in effect while lower courts consider its constitutionality.

Newsom, in a fit of hoplophobic pique, has decided to use the same tool to go after manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of “assault weapons” or “ghost gun” kits in the formerly Golden State. In other words, he’ll work with the legislature to draft, pass, and sign a law that will allow any Californian to sue those who make and sell the kinds of guns Newsom doesn’t like, unleashing a torrent of nuisance suits intended to put such companies and individuals out of business.

There are a couple of problems with Newsom’s brainstorm. First, California already has laws in place outlawing both “assault weapons” and “ghost guns.” Earlier this year a lower court ruled that the ban on “assault weapons” is unconstitutional, but the Ninth Circuit has kept the ban in place until it can overturn review the decision. And it’s also verboten for an individual to make a gun in California without serializing it and passing a background check.

There’s also something called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which the governor seems blissfully unaware of.

As the AP notes, despite last night’s statement, nothing is going to happen any time soon.

Newsom’s gun proposal would first have to pass California’s state Legislature before it could become law. The Legislature is not in session now and is scheduled to reconvene in January. It usually takes about eight months for new bills to pass the Legislature, barring special circumstances.

It’s also pretty clear what the oleaginous chief executive is really doing here.

State Sen. Brian Dahle, a Republican from Bieber, would oppose the plan but predicted it could probably pass California’s Democratic-dominated state Legislature. He said the proposal was most likely a stunt for Newsom to win favor with his progressive base of voters ahead of a possible run for president in the future.

“The right to bear arms is different than the right to have an abortion. The right to have an abortion is not a constitutional amendment. So I think he’s way off base,” Dahle said. “I think he’s just using it as an opportunity to grandstand.”

The Governor’s anti-gun weekend gambit shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s been paying any attention at all. It certainly didn’t surprise the Firearms Policy Coalition.

That’s why, earlier this year, FPC filed an amicus brief in the Texas abortion case supporting the abortion rights activists’ lawsuit opposing the law. As FPC wrote . . .

From Amicus’s perspective, if pre-enforcement review can be evaded in the context of abortion it can and will be evaded in the context of the right to keep and bear arms. While the political valences of those issues seem to be opposites, the structural circumstances are too similar to ignore. As with Roe and Casey, many States view Heller as wrongly decided.

Many in our active comments section came down hard on FPC for “supporting abortion” when the abortion issue wasn’t what motivated FPC’s brief at all. Rather, they had the foresight to see that the unique design of the Texas law provides a blueprint that, if upheld, could be used against Second (or First) Amendment rights by unscrupulous grandstanders like Gavin Newsom. Now, here we are.

Our friends at the FPC wasted no time in responding to Newsom’s Saturday night proclamation. They issued this statement . . .

FPC released the following statement responding to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s latest threats against human rights and the people he works for:

​Our brief in Jackson v. Whole Woman’s Health predicted that tyrants like Gavin Newsom would use the Texas model against fundamental human rights including the freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms. We built FPC Law (, the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the right to keep and bear arms, to be the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space, capable of quickly responding to policy changes like those Newsom proposed. Just as FPC secured a trial judgment against the State of California’s unconstitutional ban on so-called “assault weapons” in our Miller v. Bonta case before Judge Roger T. Benitez, we are prepared to litigate these important issues in state courts and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

FPC’s work to address Newsom’s policy preferences won’t end at litigation. For example, we will continue to robustly promote the right and ability to personally manufacture firearms at home, including by 3D​ printing and the sharing of knowledge. We recently ​announced a timely new scholarly article on the Second Amendment right to self-manufacture arms, including firearms. The article, “The American Tradition of Self-Made Arms,” is based on original research by our director of constitutional studies, attorney Joseph Greenlee, and traces the right from Colonial America through modern times. The “article finds that the tradition of building arms for personal use is deeply rooted in American history, and that there is no tradition of regulating self-built arms. Moreover, under Supreme Court precedent, common arms are constitutionally protected regardless of how they are acquired. Thus, the Second Amendment protects an arm that is self-built if that type of arm (i.e., a handgun) is commonly possessed.”

​FPC will not only fight Newsom’s war on human rights head-on, we will also actively undermine it through cultural change and empowerment until his authoritarian policies are as irrelevant and impotent as Newsom himself. And Newsom’s unconstitutional ‘wish list’ may be entirely irrelevant soon anyway. Days from now we will be petitioning for Supreme Court review in our Bianchi v. Frosh lawsuit challenging Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” a legal scheme much like California’s. Bianchi is an ideal case for the Supreme Court to address these issues once and for all, and we look forward to continuing to execute our mission in the coming months and years.

If Gavin Newsom wants to play a game of constitutional chicken, we will prevail.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • And our California State Constitution’s Article 3, Section 1 literally declares in a single sentence that California recognizes the Federal USC as the Supreme Law of the land. The Dems here are literally flaunting their disregard in our faces, yet they incur no consequences.

      They’re the political equivalent of the smash-and-grab strategy.

      • The sneaky lowlife democRat newsom’s crooked path to protecting the lives of women is to throw the unborn and the Second Amendment in with the criminal misuse of firearms. That level of reasoning is called insanity.

        It is despicable how democRat Gun Control nazis like newsom who enjoy 24/7 armed security always stoop to fight criminals by going after the rights of the law abiding. So once again…

        1) The Second Amendment is one thing.

        2) The criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles, etc. is another thing.

        3) History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.

        • That’s because thing have become so bad in this country, our current problems can’t be solved at the ballot box.hes a knock off the ol’ Pelosi block… like auntie, like nephew.

      • You have to blame the voters of California who voted this Socialist anti-gun radical into office.

        • Actually I’m glad there is a contrast now in government. I’m glad that California is now showcasing the fascist socialism that they love so much. Now the rest of the country can see what the Soviet Eastern Bloc had to go through in the 1970s.

          President Reagan used to call them the Evil Empire. And that is exactly what California has become. And perhaps the entire west coast of the United States.

      • That’s because thing have become so bad in this country, our current problems can’t be solved at the ballot box.

  1. FPC lays out the case for how the new law could be used against gun rights, then comes to the rescue when someone follows the path they’ve laid out. I’m supposed to say thank you?

    • Whether you want to thank em or not is up to you but what they said could happen wasn’t out of the realm of possibilities.

    • The left invented lawfare so I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that if the right comes up with a new way to use it that the left won’t realize that they can use the same tactic. Even Gavin Newsom is clever enough to think of that all on his own.

      • The idea, which I actually agree with, that this argument would have been inevitable and was obvious anyway does not help the fpc. If it was obvious and inevitable, then they did not need to file the amicus brief.
        And if it wasn’t obvious and inevitable, then they indeed did provide the road map.
        Either way, they should have stayed in their Lane.

        • I do not understand why some people in the “gun community” feel the need to try to save the anti-gunners from ‘drowning”. I would not help my enemy to survive, only to return and attack me at a later date.

      • Yeah but, principles and rational thinking guiding your actions is hard, man.

        It’s way easier to just not think, do whatever the fuck you like and then complain when people point out your mistakes.

    • All they did was state the inevitable. Anti gunners are going to try anything and everything to get control – they are afraid, very afraid of what will happen when they get too overbearing. These issues are much different. As Americans, we have a right to protect ourselves, it is God given and is stated in the BORs. The right to an abortion is not there.
      I think that Texas’ law allowing anyone to file a civil claim will get whittled down to only allow someone who was personally hurt(the father or maybe grandparents), that might pass muster. A law allowing an end run around the 2nd like that should never pass.

    • Hence why FPC is persona non Grata with moi. No ” 2nd Amendment for baby murder”. They sided with satan…

      • If I point out that a wide open southern border will be used to smuggle drugs into the country, have I sided with drug dealers? This is the same thing. They didn’t side with abortion, they just pointed out how that structure of law would be used against us. If you can’t see the difference that’s a you problem.

    • The FPC was stating things everyone in those circles already knew.

      One of these things is listed as a right explicitly in the constitution the other is not. It makes a big difference or rather should.

      • yes, one of them is clearly named and commanded to be “hands off” in the Bill of Rights.

        The other SHOULD be banned/prohibited/illegal on the clear basis of another right plainly named and reserved for all in the Declaration of Independenc,e as well as the US Constitution.
        That right is the right to LIFE. That baby not yet born now has that life, and his right to it, but the way the “law” of the land is allows others to, with no cause whatever, to remove that right from him before he is even born.

        They play games about “well “it” is not a person”. Oh yeah? WHen byour dog is carrying a littler of pupies inside her, you have no doubt it will be DOGS that come out, not tarantulas or egtets. The fact that that unborn child canbe called “fetus” and thus dehimanised and destroyed is one of the greatest travestis ever. Worse than covid vaccines killing and maiming so many. At least with the shots anyone can (and I believe should”just say NOPE.You’re not gonna squirt that stuff into MY arm,. They haven’t yet gone to the extreme of grounding and hog-tying us to poke that needle into our arms. As they are doing in some places. That mother carrying the baby she does not want DOES have options other than killing the child. She simply is too selfish to consider them.
        NONE of that changes the bare FACT that that child, tiny and undeveloped as he is, DOES indeed have the right to keep that life.

      • On January 22, 1973, SCOTUS ruled that abortion IS a Constitutional right under the 5th Amendment. You can read about the court process here: Whether you agree with the SCOTUS decision or not (I definitely do NOT), the learned Justices managed to exhume a new individual right which they found buried in the Constitution — and thus it stands. Over the course of five decades, that controversial SCOTUS decision generated a host of unintended consequences. Jeopardizing actual enumerated Constitutional rights is just another one.

      • It isn’t about a constitutionally enshrined right or not. It is the fact that Texas legal structure to allow someone to sue for something they are not directly impacted by is abhorrent. Should I be legally allowed to sue someone 100 miles from me for setting off fireworks, because I think fireworks are a sin against god? Of course not! I am in no way directly harmed by the actions of someone setting off fireworks 100 miles away. A person without direct familial ties to the person receiving the abortion has no stake other than their own feels or religious beliefs and neither of those are good reasons to be able to sue someone. Period.

        If the government has its hands tied on what it can legislate, that is what it is. But civil suits should not be an end run around about a government can or cannot legislate. Whether it is a constitutional right or not.

    • Using the Texas framework against gun rights is as obvious as using a hammer to drive nails. Even if opposing abortion is your highest priority, if you care about any Constitutional rights, the Texas framework is not an innovation you should welcome. It provides a mechanism for bypassing the Constitution, and that’s the road to dystopia.

      The very first thought I had when I heard about the Texas law was “how long before some anti-gun law uses this?” I’m only surprised it’s taken this long.

    • Zealots pushed a law that will break the court system and lead to INEVITABLE blowback in this form and you’re acting like the people who were trying to warn off it should carry blame? Amazing cognitive dissonance.

    • The Texas law is too cute by half, and it is in fact the Texas legislature that provided the road map for Newsome. If they want to protect unborn children then they should have taken a stand instead of coming up with some technicality to say that their restrictions are above review. This strategy will not only be used by the anti-2A crowd, it will become a favorite of state and local officials who want to overstep their authority on all manner of issues.
      Mississippi took the better path.

  2. Newsome can suck my balls.. California is a commie shit hole and anyone with any God given sense would leave.. let them fkn’ multiple gender, split personality freaks have it.. Trump should of built a wall around it or trade traded California to Mexico for unlimited taco Tuesday.

    • Been here my entire life. My wife’s been here her entire life. We grew up here in a time when CA was still a red state and a great place to live.

      This past week, for the very first time ever, she agreed to start considering a move in the near future. We’ll be taking the travel trailer and visiting some places next year.

      • Moving will “fix” the problem for awhile. Until your state turns into another of the plethora that have gone leftard in the last 20-30 years.

        I used to think that people who stayed in leftist states were stupid. Until it happened in mine. Fight.

        • I generally agree with that, and have told others often over recent years that I’m still here in CA because there was always hope for the pendulum to start swinging back the other way. But the Dems have had a supermajority stranglehold here at all levels for two full decades now, and have changed the laws to bake their cheating into the cake, as it were. Each election cycle, whether local or national, results in the same Democrat “wins”. Cheating is abundant here, but many judges are appointed, not elected, so the political fabric has been constructed to support their cheating schemes. There is no more hope, unfortunately.

          My wife and I might continue to stay, but with the increasing scrutiny and pressure against us as God-fearing conservatives living in a land controlled by Leftoid tyrants, it’s getting worse and worse for us.

          I want to carry (bear) my guns, but am not allowed to openly thanks to the previous Governor. I want to therefore carry concealed, but cannot without permission. I applied for that permission and the Sheriff took my money with the application, then violated his own policy and it’s now been five months without any contact one way or the other. I was told I need to have a gun on record with the State in order to carry, so I finally bought one that “exists” in the database – one that is specifically allowed for sale by our overlords – but without that permission slip it must always be unloaded and locked whether in my car or (due to the mix of younger people living with us) even in my home. So there’s really almost no way I can legally carry here within this State, and I now read in this page’s article that our Governor wants to pass more gun control??

          This will not get better anytime soon.

        • Haz, that’s an excellent assessment of the problem. I think your state, and a few others, are lost for the foreseeable future. A tactical retreat and containment strategy would do wonders for the trajectory of our country. People forget that there are more right wing voters in California than in any other state. Their large amount of votes are basically wasted. If the reasonable people left those states and populated the current “purple” states, we would never lose another statewide or nationwide election. Imagine what we could do with that level of influence. Remember, the Puppet didn’t win by millions. He won by a little over 40,000 votes in a few key cities. He won the LOWEST PROPORTION of counties in history for a winning candidate. Let them have the s-hole cities that control a few states.

        • The People’s Republik of Kalifornia will soon build a wall to keep people in, although they will say it is to keep negative influences out.

          Much like a few other fortified borders.

        • Actually, Haz, trial court judicial vacancies are filled by appointment by the Governor, but judges must run for reelection every six years in a nonpartisan election. Court of Appeal and Supreme Court justices have 12 year terms, but must stand for election by the electorate after nomination.

    • LOL .
      That’s no good, all them people would have to move somewhere, I’d rather not have midgets in a yellow thongs riding leather harness wearing weirdo’s in my town.

  3. Keep in mind that these aren’t sincere people. Gavin and the California elite don’t give a rats as$ about gun homicide victims. If they did, they would take an honest assessment of the situation and come up with an honest solution. We already have the data for this. When anyone brings it up, they’re shouted down as racist. If the Dems really want to help, then why would they want to shut down the truth? See for yourself. One can’t come up with a proper solution without first identifying the problem. The below study also gives some insight into suicide. They ignore that as well since it doesn’t fit the “privilege” narrative they push.

    This is nothing more than petty revenge (and fundraising) for daring to end abortion. California usually has around 2,000 or less homicides per year and over 130,000 abortions per year. They’re both tragic, but which number is bigger? It isn’t even close. The difference between abortion rights and gun rights is that one right is specifically protected by the Constitution and one right was made up out of thin air. I’ll take my chances with the conservative majority Supreme Court thanks to Donald Trump winning and filling those vacancies. Roe v. Wade being dismantled would be the greatest legacy left by any president in my lifetime.

    • True, and while I’d be grateful for the abortion issue to be pulled from Federal oversight and sent back to the States, what would happen is half the States would ban it in varying degrees if not outright (Thank God), while others would declare themselves open for business. Our Governor Newsom responded by saying California would become a “safe haven” for abortion providers, with taxpayer funds supporting them.


  4. Ummmm…. isn’t there already a federal law against frivolous lawsuits against firearms companies?

    • Don’t worry, someone will come along to point that out soon enough. However, the law does not apply to home built firearms, AFAIK or manufacturers of kits and maybe some other parts.

  5. I support FPC in opposing this flawed legal strategy. I also expect suits against the Texas law to be moot when it is replaced by an outright ban after the SC rules in Dobbs to overturn Roe/Casey.
    However, as I read it, Newsom’s proposal doesn’t apply the Texas method correctly. He wants to authorize lawsuits against the manufacturers and dealers of “assault weapons” and “ghost gun kits.” No dealer will sell either since California has already outlawed them, so there’s nobody to sue. If those laws get overturned, there would be companies to sue, but PLCAA explicitly prevents those suits. Newsom need PLCAA to also repealed before his proposal is useful.

  6. He swore to uphold and defend the laws of California, Liar. Democrats will do anything to fuck with the legal ownership of guns to it’s citizens, by manipulating the law or creating new ones to fuck people over with. The People of California have dealt with the increasing crime rate, thefts up the ass, more brazen attacks, but the Sate still refuses to man up and enfore it’s already lax laws and won’t pass new ones to prevent crime, but will Punish Law abiding citizens of their rights and let them be Victims. The Citizens Failed to Recall them because of the Huge Donations and Political Influnces. CHANGE THAT Next Election! Wake Up!

  7. “…but PLCAA explicitly prevents those suits…”

    gun manufacturers are not 100% immune from lawsuit under the PLCCA like democrats have stated.

    The PLCAA spells out six exceptions to the law under which a gun manufacturer could be held liable from crimes committed with their products in a civil proceeding >

  8. Yeah, there’s no difference between an enumerated Constitutional right and one made up by a power-drunk SCOTUS.

    Gavin Gruesome is one of the reasons I support abortion. Sadly, his mother did not get with the program.

  9. Here is the problem with any direct comparison of firearms manufacturing and terminating the life of a baby in the womb (a.k.a. “abortion”):

    Firearms manufacturing produces millions of firearms that never harm anyone either offensively or defensively. Furthermore, any harm that occurs is a direct result of a person using a firearm in a negligent or criminal fashion–or in righteous self-defense. Thus the firearm manufacturing industry has no honest-to-goodness civil nor criminal liability.

    Abortion procedures end a human life 99.99999% of the time. Abortion procedures are an intentional–not negligent–act to end a human life. Being a human life is NOT a crime. A human baby in the womb is not attacking the mother. Intentionally ending a human life which is not attacking you is murder. Thus, the abortion industry has honest-to-goodness civil and criminal liability. And if you have civil or criminal liability, you are subject to legal action.

    The only reason that people claim ending a human life in the womb should be legal is because those people refuse to recognize the baby in the womb as a human life, instead calling it a “fetus”.

  10. All its going to do is result in every single company that anything at all to do with guns deciding to no longer have anything to do with California. THAT might result in more people leaving the state either by way of moving or by death. California is setup for failure and it is failing. We are watching it destroy itself. Those that lead it are directly responsible for that.

  11. “After his ignoble disgrace, Satan was being expelled from Heaven. As he passed through the Gates, he paused a moment in thought, and turned to God and said,

    ‘A new creature called Man, I hear, is soon to be created.’

    ‘This is true,’ He replied.

    ‘He will need laws,’ said the Demon slyly.

    ‘What! You, his appointed Enemy for all Time! You ask for the right to make his laws?’

    ‘Oh, no!’ Satan replied. ‘I ask only that he be allowed to make his own.’

    It was so granted.

    —- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary.”

  12. This was always going to happen. “Sanctuary cities” were a Democrat concept that began in California, and California has already been systematically oppressing it’s populace and denying the rights granted by the Constitution for decades now. Given the idea by TX, California was always going to follow suit. FPC still should have kept their mouths shut and stayed out of it. Personally it is my hope that California secedes from the union it so despises. If enough of the remaining normal people leave it, perhaps they finally will. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Further, anything that forces Americans to separate based on ideological convictions is good. Enough of pretending we have enough in common to tie us together. Let red states outlaw abortion and let blue states ban guns, move accordingly.

  13. This, I believe, was the intent of the Texas law all along. Was the Texas law a prudent gamble? Yet to be determined.

    The anti-Constitution mob keeps trying to punish gun manufacturers for the criminal use of guns by people who manufacture guns (despite federal law that prohibits such law suits), sorta like Ford being sued because one of their cars was used to run down a bunch of people at a parade. so….

    Before the anti-Constitution crowd could figure out the scheme Texas came up with as a means to end the firearms industry, Texas decided to put the methodology to the test. If the courts side with the law enforcement mechanism, then the gamble fails (and a true Pandora’s box ensues). If the SC rules against Texas, then no other state can use the “public option” to damage the firearms industry….or anything else.

    Texas rolled the really big dice in an attempt to use the Dems against themselves.

  14. Lest ye forget:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  15. Looks like a whole lot of people following Newsomes advice will be suffering from civil rights lawsuits. Godspeed ahead…and bring cash.

  16. There’s a big difference between the anti-abortion (murder) law in Texas and the 2nd Amendment. There is no amendment in the Constitution that speaks in favor of murder of our pre born children. There IS a Constitutional Amendment that deals specifically with the rights of American citizens with regard to firearm ownership and possession.

      • No. Apples and oranges. Non-enumerated rights may not be under the purview of the Federal Government, but murdering an unborn child is not a right. The left used SCOTUS to force abortion on demand nationwide in a gross overreach of Federal power because they knew they would never get it passed via legislation. On revisiting Roe it has become painfully obvious to everyone who listened to the arguments how much of a raging dumpster fire of a decision Roe was. Hence why the Justices in favor Roe resort to arguments like “We can’t overturn precedent even if it was a bad decision, because that would mean chaos!” Ignoring entirely decisions like the Dredd Scott case. Abortion should never even have been considered on a Federal level.

        • Yep:

          “For centuries the quickening also had important legal ramifications. British common law, eventually imported to Colonial America, outlawed abortion only if it took place after the quickening. Likewise, a pregnant woman could not be executed post-quickening. The English jurist William Blackstone wrote in 1770, “To be saved from the gallows a woman must be quick with child—for barely with child, unless he be alive in the womb, is not sufficient.” In other words, a fetus whose movements could not yet be detected was not yet fully alive. An 1812 Massachusetts court case, Commonwealth v. Bangs, confirmed that pre-quickening abortions “would remain beyond the scope of the law.” Even though states began to pass criminal abortion statutes in the 1820s, courts before 1850 rarely heard cases involving pre-quickening abortion.“

          Laws banning abortion are just another Big Gov intrusion into private lives.

        • “Adonai said to Moshe in the Sinai Desert, “Take a census of the tribe of Levi by clans and families. Count every male a month old or over.”-Numbers 3:14-15

        • So you’re telling me the current Lib position is that abortion is wrong post “quickening,” which would be when movement is detected. Interesting. I think that’s around 20 weeks. Also, the PaRty oF sCieNce is clinging to the scientific understanding from 200 years ago because…reasons. You guys are so sincere.

        • “So you’re telling me the current Lib position… “

          No, I’m pointing out that British common law, as well as the American founding fathers position on abortion, was clearly informed by the biblical guidelines.

          “clinging to the scientific understanding from 200 years ago… “

          No, that would seem to be the conservative position…
          MMy position is based upon the idea that less government intrusion into private life is good.

          It seems the conservatives are always wanting to tell me who I can marry, what sexual positions I should be using, what books I can read, which plants I can ingest, etc.

        • For both counting in the census and service to God, the Bible indicates that they are not worthy of valuation until they are four weeks old, thus showing viability.

          Leviticus 27:6
          King James Bible
          “And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver“

          I can tell you that most liberals do not agree with Jehovah’s instruction to dash unwanted babies brains out against the walls, we are much more civilized than the savage taboos of an ancient group of tribes in Palestine.

        • Numbers 31:17 KJV
          “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately.”

          And you might check out verse 18, everyone is upset that the Muslims think they will get 72 virgins in paradise, while Jehovah just says go ahead and take the young girl virgins now.

          No better way to get young men to slaughter their neighbors then to offer them some young, fresh Poontang…

        • “No, I’m pointing out that British common law, as well as the American founding fathers position on abortion, was clearly informed by the biblical guidelines.”

          It was also informed by their understanding of science. The quickening referred to noticeable movement by the baby in the womb. Their understanding was that the baby was alive if it was moving, and therefore, aborting the baby beyond the quickening was wrong because it was taking a life. If you’re taking their position, then that means you should outlaw abortion beyond that time. Some mothers can feel the “quickening” as early as 16 weeks. Are you looking to ban abortion beyond that time?

          Why are you quoting bible verses? You’re an atheist. This is why I sarcastically said you guys are sincere.

          “It seems the conservatives are always wanting to tell me who I can marry, what sexual positions I should be using, what books I can read, which plants I can ingest, etc.”

          Please list the ways that conservatives are oppressing you:
          -Who do you want to marry?
          -Which sexual positions do you want to engage in that aren’t allowed?
          -Which books do you want to read?
          -What plants do you want to ingest?

          I’m guessing that you could trade places with someone in California. You can engage in the above activities that I’m guessing are forbidden in WV, and some poor soul stuck in Cali can actually exercise their Constitutionally protected rights in WV. I’ll chip in to help pay for your moving expenses. Consider that bet you lost with me a down payment.

  17. “”There are a couple of problems with Newsom’s brainstorm. First, California already has laws in place outlawing both “assault weapons” and “ghost guns… There’s also something called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which the governor seems blissfully unaware of…”

    Doesn’t matter. That’s the whole point of this moronic new breed of law- or perhaps it’s just highly cynical.

    By giving standing to anyone, any zealot can get further in a lawsuit (i.e. past the easiest hurdle of standing) regardless if he’s got a case. This is particularly true of judgement-proof plaintiffs from which no one can recover fees. Even if the suit is meritless, the sum of them aren’t worth fighting because the end result is the same- you lose all your money.

    California will be followed by NY, MD, NJ, and all the other players. Any technical legal gains made over the past couple decades will be lost in practicality if this trend continues. And, I don’t know, maybe that’s inevitable- just a further Balkanization where your choice in what state you live in determines everything about your rights.

    The real question is: will the states be able to somehow use this across borders? Again, it doesn’t matter who is technically right, only what is practically prohibitive via costs. If companies are all afraid of getting dragged into Texas or California costs, what will they stop doing to avoid it?

  18. “California will be followed by NY, MD, NJ, and all the other players. ”

    Good news, and bad news:
    – The Texas law will fail in court; ending that path for the anti-gun mafia
    – The threat of copying Texas will endure until the SC rules the Texas law unconstitutional

  19. Utterly predictable tomfuckery is utterly predictable tomfuckery. Heck, Zac Brown Band even had a song about this on The Foundation.

    Kneejerk reactions and a lack of principles sure are going well for the Republicans and the part of their base that eats up that bumper-sticker sloganeering and idiotic pandering. The internecine war that’s approaching within the GOP is gonna be a hoot-n’-a-holler.

    “Cynics – and I sympathize – will say that the courts could have ruled either way so don’t get too excited.

    That’s the lesson of the past two years: There is nothing below us as we look down. It takes our breath away. We now understand that our civilization has been built on a pile of sand and any determined entity could tunnel under us as we are distracted by the human necessities of providing for our families and living our finite lives as best as possible.”

    – Daniel McAdams

    And this guy passes for “smart” over there with my “Libertarian” brethren? Talking like a goddamn AnCap? LOL, wrong lessons there buddy. This is why I gave up on team sportsball. Y’all need to spent more time reading and less time running your fingers.

    Now, for supposedly lettered and erudite, maybe it’s time to start asking serious questions about serious topics and stop acting like a bunch of toddlers in adult bodies. Or not, I guess?

    I dunno, maybe I’m, like, kinda sorta the same as a 16 year old cheerleader in algebra and totally over-like-thinking this ’cause, like, it’s, like, totes not that hard but, like, No oNe sEeMz to gEt iT *twirls hair* but it seems like everything you need to know about a lot of this is right there in that word “republic” if you bother to look up the etymology of the word describing our ostensible form of government.

    Meh. *presses Skip Forward*

    ♩ ♬ Cocaine flame in my bloodstream
    Sold my coat when I hit Spokane
    Bought myself a hard pack of cigarettes
    In the early morning rain…
    ♪ ♫

    La la la la la la la, la la la…

  20. I’ll stop laughing about this eventually, but it won’t be anytime soon. Texas Repugnicans used a legal end run to to take away women’s rights. And the Supreme Court let them get away with it, for now at lease. Now the same boys who supported it are bawww-ing into their beer when someone else uses the same tactic against something they care about. “I never thought leopards would eat MY face,” they bemoan.

  21. Since the Left wants to force people to take “the needle” anytime the government tells them to take “the needle”. And it has long been established that the Left likes being in your bedroom through the Welfare Industrial Complex. The Left has no credibility when it comes to complaining about the Texas abortion law. This is a state’s rights issue. Many people have said, we should go back to following the 10th Amendment. And I agree.

    California can abort all its children. Some societies are just not salvageable. Especially when it would require outsiders to do all the work.

    And the rest of us can is have as many children, machine guns, rocket launchers, and anything else we can afford. Our national divorce does not have to be a violent one. Not at all. The states can go their separate ways in peace. And that is how our government was originally constructed.

  22. 58 years ago, my parents chose to return to my Mom’s home State Colorado from Commiefornia. It was a wise move and I still bless them for the foresight to get the hell out of there.
    Having been a Coloradoan for most of my life, I’ve watched in impotent rage as my State becomes Commierado, a branch office of Commiefornia. Rural Coloradoans have no voice at all anymore. Mail In Ballots insure the DemoCommiecrats maintain their death grip on the State’s Legislature.
    An Obese Arse Spelunker and his husband buy the governorship. My God we have sunk to the lowest of lows.
    The worst of it it is, being disabled and on a pension, moving to a Red State is buy a pipe dream.
    How I envy all of you that live in States that still follow the US Constitution. How lucky you are.

Comments are closed.