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

[A] federal law — rightly or wrongly — protects firearms manufacturers from liability suits.

The bill is so obviously drafted as a political gesture that the American Civil Liberties Union opposed it for using the “flawed logic” of the Texas statute.

“We believe it is a serious misstep to further entrench that flawed logic,” the organization said when the bill was going through the legislative process. “In doing so, California will be promoting a legal end-run that can be used by any state to deny people an effective means to have their constitutional rights protected by the courts. This will continue to be replicated in states across the country — and with California’s endorsement.”

Gun control is a serious subject involving a specific right to bear arms in the Constitution, one that the Supreme Court has recently bolstered in a way that Newsom dislikes. It deserves thoughtful political discourse, not interstate political oneupsmanship.

— Dan Walters in Newsom’s new gun control bill just a stunt

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Time to begin exporting our Marxists to one of the Utopia’s already set up like Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, Canada, Mexico etc. Would go a long wat to improving our “climate” in this country.

      • newsom is pandering to useful idiots who would never ever think to ask him if he had armed security? With self serving SOBs like the hypocrite newsom it’s do as I say and not do as I do…Typical white trash Jim Crow Gun Control democRat.

  2. Newsom needs to be federally charged with sedition of US, arrested, and sentenced to either life or death penalty. Public hanging would be my suggestion.

    • Sounds like a plan!😃😎🙄 Then again Commiefornia had the chance to get rid of him…

      • Remember…the Dems literally codified their cheating ways into our state law beginning in 2017. They legalized ballot harvesting up to three weeks after an election day, and mandated mail-in ballots to all registered voters. Everyone knows the voter rolls contain mountains of errors.

        All the Democrat election supervisors laugh at the 2000 Mules documentary because that crap is legal here.

        • My CA mail-in ballot from 2020 just caught up with me in FL and I moved out of there in 1987. Think they’ll still accept it?

        • You know just the other day I heard a radio newscast mention that –Wisconsin–second only to Shitcago in voting Fraud–recently had somebody demonstrate in real time just how easy almost anybody can get all the ballots they want to fill out for illegal voting? The report mentioned that he was ‘told’ not to do the demonstration, but he did it anyway to prove the point so apparently it must not be illegal to have them until you actually use them? I did a quick search and didn’t find a pick-up story on it yet, for obvious reasons, of course.

          Stealing elections was SOP in the old school Democrap party. I remember when my old man was a precinct captain under the Daley Machine Dynasty in Chicago and helped steal the Election for JFK. It wasn’t as subtle and sophisticated as today, but it worked even better. Just tell your people how much of a margin you want and they’ll deliver. No questions ever asked.

          And they didn’t even have to plug in anything electronic!

          That’s why you hear the old sarcasm about Chicago elections like in their elections they “Vote Early and Often” and the best precincts were the Cemetaries.

          Some things in corrupted politics just never change. These people are going to steal votes one way or another. Even if they have to starts another pandemic to do it.

        • Well, Dems have a long standing history of ballot manipulation. That’s how Lyndon Banes Johnson won his Senate seat in 1948……went back to the same West Texas precinct three times to get enough votes. And, as they say, “The rest is history.” and, as Paul Harvey said, “Now, you know the rest of the story.”

          Just ordered T-shirt….”When I die, PLEASE do not let me vote DEMOCRAT.”

    • Well, they just violated Deprivation of Rights Law 18-241-242. A serious felony and the punishment actually can be a life sentence in certain circumstances.

      But I don’t see the AG or his fed prosecutors doing their jobs with any indictments any time soon. Hell, they haven’t even charged Hunter or the criminals who tried to illegally set up Trump?

      We simply have to get new Congressional Reps and Senators in there with a new administration and then fire all the political criminals in the Criminal Justice System. Then we can start cleaning up this scum-sucking mess.

      November is coming soon…

  3. It may very well be a ‘stunt’, but it will be a very expensive pain to deal with for a company unfortunate enough to be a test target.

    They have some very, very, *very* wealthy Leftist Scum ™ (like Bloomie) all too willing to finance the harassment for a company just wanting to do 2A business… 🙁

    • Seems the ‘State’ will be attacking these private companies, so it will be taxpayers footing the bill. I’m awaiting Maryland to follow ‘suit’ (pun intended) during the next session. The evil of leftists never surprises anymore, too much repetitive history.

  4. But it is not just a stunt for those folk whose civil rights are denied by the new law. It is not just a stunt when it takes hundreds of thousands of dollars and months or even years of litigation to reverse it. And it is not just a stunt when additional unconstitutional laws are layered over it with the expressed intent of denying civil liberties.

    It is not just a stunt. It is criminal and should be prosecuted as such. And civil lawsuits should abound.

    But until law enforcement decides it wants to enforce the law, citizens remain victims and governments remain as perfidious tyrants.

  5. On a side note: should we retaliate if they shoot down her aircraft, or send a ‘Thank You’ note?

    • I Say send the Thank you note. And then blow them all to Hell. Dont like her and dont like the Chinese government. Lol.

      • If she wasn’t such a publicity whore, she could quietly fly under their radar unescorted on her broom.

        • Oh jeez, skinny rhinoceros, get ready for a oldfart diatribe ” Pb is the atomic symbol of LEAD… I memorized the whole atomic table and multiplication tables to fifty gazillion… don’t they effin ‘ TEACH anything in schools anymore? … When I was a kid, I blah blah blah blah”….

    • I’m all for the “thank you” note but send it air mail on a Minuteman III with a multiple deployment warhead followed by 30 or 40 more of its closest friends

    • “…should we retaliate if they shoot down her aircraft,…”

      I find that *extremely* improbable that they will.

      Partially because they know Biden is cognitively-impaired and they won’t risk missiles flying.

      We were probably the safest from Chinese attack while Trump was prez. He had zero political experience, and were likely not interested in the slightest chance he could push ‘The Button’.

      When it comes to dealing with other international countries, the Chinese likely invest considerable effort investigating them. The Chinese value predictability very highly in international issues, and want to know the answer before they need to ask it…

  6. As I recall this is exactly why pro-2A organizations opposed the Texas pseudo abortion ban. They knew the same mechanism, if upheld by the courts and adopted by other states, could easily use it do and end run around just about any constitutional right they liked. And now that’s exactly what’s happening.

    • Except the Texas law was aimed at preventing aiding and abetting the death of a child through abortion, which the SCOTUS has ruled is not and never was a Constitutional right.

      This law is aimed at preventing the lawful transport and/or transfer of a legal product possession of which is in fact a Constitutionally protected right and also defies a the federal lawful commerce law.

      I’d sat that’s a two-fer that should get this ridiculous unconstitutional law struck down.

      Every single person affected by this legislation should immediately file a counter-suit against California for violation of their civil rights.

      • Except the Texas law was aimed at preventing aiding and abetting the death of a child through abortion,

        And Noosems law is PRESUMABLY aimed at preventing the death of a child from an “ASSAULT WEAPON” at least that’s what they’ll argue.

      • So I am going to say two things here. One, the Ninth Amendment “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In lay mans terms means that just because the constitution doesn’t explicitly say you have a right, or say that a specific thing is protected as a right, doesn’t mean it isn’t. This was included by James Madison in part specifically because he was afraid of people making (at least in part) the very argument you are making. That people would assume that the only constitutionally protected rights were the ones explicitly stated in the bill of rights, and that would thus allow future tyrants to argue that “the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say you have a right X, so that means you don’t have right X.” Remember, the purpose of the Constitution was to limit what the government could do, not what the people could do.

        So that’s the first thing. Just because the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say you have the right to an abortion does not automatically mean you don’t have the right to an abortion

        Secondly, your position, that of these two laws, despite being from a legal mechanism standpoint are identical, one is acceptable and the other is not because one is intended to prevent murder only works if 1)abortion is murder and 2) the gun control law is not being enacted from the same belief. I’ll not really touch on the second point, mostly because I’m not actually trying to defend the gun control law in question, but let us examine the known positions of the Founders on the issue of abortion, as this is fundamentally a constitutional issue as currently constructed, and when dealing with an unenumerated right examining the thoughts and intentions of the founds is a classic first road to go down.

        Ok, so what did the Founders think of abortion? The short version? Not very much. Several Founders explicitly wrote about abortion during their lives. Benjamin Franklin published an abortion recipe in one of his most popular books. Benjamin Rush wrote “what is an abortion but a haemoptysis (if I may be allowed the expression) from the uterus?” Haemoptysis is a medical term basically meaning bloody mucus from the lungs. So obviously he didn’t think of a fetus as a whole person, at least not for the full duration of the pregnancy. Thomas Jefferson commented on abortion practices amongst American Indians without judgement in “Notes on the State of Virginia”. In fact as I understand it, he was trying to explain to Europeans why American Indians seemed to have much lower birthrates, often used as a supposed sign of their racial inferiority. Jefferson was basically saying, they are every bit as fertile as a European woman, but their way of life makes forms of birth control and abortion necessary. He never explicitly says these are bad things, just different.

        Now there were Founders opposed to abortion. In fact functionally all of the them were post “quickening.” Quickening was the moment that the mother first felt fetal movement. For seemingly all of the Founders this seems to have been the cut off point at which abortion was acceptable. Quickening could happen anytime between 16 and 20 weeks. Which isn’t that far off from the 23-24ish weeks that was applied by the viability standard for abortions under Casey vs Planned Parenthood.

        Others seem to have been against it wholesale, James Wilson and John Witherspoon being the ones usually cited. But they seemed to have stopped short of trying to ban abortion before quickening, which as far as I can tell was the standard for those places in the US that any law regarding abortion at all.

        All this to say it seems to me like Roe and Casey got it more or less right the first time. Abortion was practiced and legal in every colony, then state, at the time of the Founding. The Founders made no attempt to render it illegal in whole, and those laws that were passed only banned abortion after quickening, the 18th century equivalent of a viability standard, and even then only as a misdemeanor. It only became murder after a successful birth.

        Under that context alone it seems that abortion up to 16 weeks at an absolute minimum should thus fall under the rights “retained by the people” under the standard of the 9th Amendment.

        • the texas law is very different from california because the texas law explicitly prohibits government action to enforce the abortion ban–it only allows private lawsuits. this is the unique feature of the texas law that allows it to side step constitutional challenge because there is no government action. government action is the threshold requirement for challenging the constitutionality of a law. in contrast to texas, californina’s law does not repeal government enforcement of its antigun laws. in fact california’s gun control criminal statutes are still very much on the books and the government enforces them. if california was really following texas then all the gun control laws would have to be eliminated and switched only to private civil lawsuits as it is in texas now for abortion.

        • Well considering the Texas law also doesn’t repeal any previous restrictions on abortion and goes so far as to say

          Sec. 171.206. CONSTRUCTION OF SUBCHAPTER. (a) This
          subchapter does not create or recognize a right to abortion before a fetal heartbeat is detected.
          (b) This subchapter may not be construed to:
          (1) authorize the initiation of a cause of action
          against or the prosecution of a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter;
          (2) wholly or partly repeal, either expressly or by implication, any other statute that regulates or prohibits abortion, including Chapter 6-1/2, Title 71, Revised Statutes; or
          (3) restrict a political subdivision from regulating or prohibiting abortion in a manner that is at least as stringent as
          the laws of this state.

          I continue to see no specific difference from a standpoint the specific laws and how they are designed to work. Nothing in the Texas law says that they can’t turn around and pass a law more directly banning abortion through direct government enforcement. And while I can’t know for sure of course, I would not be surprised if a direct ban wasn’t in the works, putting both laws in basically the same legal context. Where the thing in question is both illegal from a criminal law standpoint, and liable for state backed civil litigation.

          Now that of course doesn’t mean what Newsom is doing isn’t a stunt. I don’t think anyone thinks it isn’t. It just a stunt that Texas opened the door for, and anyone paying attention at the time knew it.

        • Very well said and documented Sir, your interpretation follows my own in what I’ve read in many of the writings you referenced so well, and accurately. At best, we can deduce they were roughly neutral on the topic, at worst, found it distasteful enough not to address it directly as an enumerated right, thus its absence from the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

          Our Founding Documents are all about the preservation of Life, Liberty and Happiness in choosing one’s course as long as one doesn’t infringe upon another’s right to those same three goals. The only mention of taking a life is in self defense of self and others. It would have been contrary to those goals and hypocritical to enumerate that it included all save the unborn, thus by not addressing said ” action or right to, the Founders wisely left that decision to the States themselves.
          In overturning Roe, SCOTUS wisely, and rightly returned the decision to the States just as the Founders had.

    • Well besides the one major flaw in your thought process where you imply that abortion is a right in the constitution.

      OTOH, most conservatives should acknowledge that possibly quite a few red states passed draconian anti-abortion laws during the ROE era for Republican political posturing of who could be more anti-abortion than another republican competitor (i.e no abortion even if incest or rape). Many of those laws were passed decades ago when they thought ROE would never get overturned. Political posturing.

      If the Republican party was smart (and they are definately NOT) they would encourage red states to have public referndeums on revised abortion laws in the new age of the SCOTUS ruling. Especially states with red legislatures could come up with an option list (i.e. rape/incest only, fetal heartbeat, 10weeks, 15 weeks,etc) to get a true gauge of their states citizens.

      • Such exceptions are a bill of attainder against the unborn. A child should not suffer for the sins of the father.

      • I agree, that the so named “Trigger Laws” are highly problematic, and for the most part, reflect values and cultural mores of those long since dead. For that reason alone, those laws should be opposed. The matter should be put to vote by the current citizens of the State, especially considering an election is just a few months away. A simple referendum allowing the people’s voice to be heard, before any final decision is made.
        Re-enacting 100+ year old Laws that don’t reflect current views and beliefs isn’t helping this SCOTUS decision at all.

  7. Your sexual fantasies reveal a very dark and twisted mind. None of what you claim is happening except in your twisted imagination.

    You are a mentally ill fascist. But is there any other kind?


  9. So you’re admitting the Texas law is BS. Good, that’s the first step.

    • He has already visited one week ago, and probably measured the ‘drapes’ per se. As the nephew of Nancy the speaker, Gavin may have already been ordained and to top it off will garner at least 95 million votes for 24.

  10. Newsom is somebody I disagree with on almost all issues including the second amendment. On the other hand one could argue “Texas started it” with the stupid law allowing every wacko to sue an abortion doctor.

  11. I agree, that the so named “Trigger Laws” are highly problematic, and for the most part, reflect values and cultural mores of those long since dead. For that reason alone, those laws should be opposed. The matter should be put to vote by the current citizens of the State, especially considering an election is just a few months away. A simple referendum allowing the people’s voice to be heard, before any final decision is made.
    Re-enacting 100+ year old Laws that don’t reflect current views and beliefs isn’t helping this SCOTUS decision at all.

  12. It really comes down to this. Gruesome’s Law, is in direct contradiction of the PLCAA. The PLCAA has been Law far longer than Gruesome’s, and though some lower courts might attempt to overlook the precedence, which way SCOTUS will rule is as predictable as the sun rising in the East..

    • Sorry, but Gabby Nuisance is all in favor of drugs for the peons. Keeps them in a reduced state of consciousness and unable to think clearly.

Comments are closed.