Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

California Gov. Newsom to Push Gun Legislation Modeled on Texas Abortion Law

California Gov. Newsom to Push Gun Legislation Modeled on Texas Abortion Law

“…we’ll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qlQs2gyYpM

Responding to the US Supreme Court decision that keeps the Texas Fetal Heartbeat law in place, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California is accusing Texas of insulating its abortion law from the courts.

He is also calling on Golden State lawmakers to use a similar strategy to go after the gun industry.

Angered by the U.S. Supreme Court decision to continue allowing private citizens to sue Texas abortion providers, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California on Saturday called for a similar law giving ordinary residents legal standing to file lawsuits against purveyors of restricted firearms.

“SCOTUS is letting private citizens in Texas sue to stop abortion?!” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, tweeted. “If that’s the precedent, then we’ll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets. If TX can ban abortion and endanger lives, CA can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives.”

The governor’s response seemed to contradict his earlier criticism of the Texas law, which Mr. Newsom had previously described as a cynical attempt to undercut federal rights.

Newsom reasons that by not striking down the Texas anti-abortion law,SCOTUS has endorsed states’ ability to create similar legal mechanisms to safeguard laws from federal court review.

In his statement Saturday, Newsom referred to a recent federal court decision that overturned the state’s ban on assault rifles in which the judge compared the weapons to a Swiss Army knife.

“If states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way,” Newsom said.

The Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8, declares that it is illegal to perform an abortion after about six weeks of a pregnancy but gives the state no direct role in enforcing that ban. Instead, it authorizes private lawsuits in state courts against doctors or clinic owners who violate its provisions.

The new California anti-gun effort, Newsom said, would function the same way. Newsom said he was directing his staff to work with the state Legislature and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta on a new law that would allow private citizens to sue manufacturers or distributors of assault weapons as well as ghost gun kits or parts.

“If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that,” Newsom said in the statement.

Some gun rights groups predicted progressive states would attempt to use Texas’ abortion law to restrict access to guns.

The Firearms Policy Coalition, a nonprofit group that advocates for gun rights, filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing the Texas abortion law.

‘If Texas succeeds in its gambit here, New York, California, New Jersey, and others will not be far behind in adopting equally aggressive gambits to not merely chill but to freeze the right to keep and bear arms,’ attorney Erik Jaffe wrote on behalf of the Firearms Policy Coalition.

Personally, I foresee problems with Newsom’s madcap scheme. To begin with, the Second Amendment is clearly in the US Constitution.

And, given the flash mob robberies and surge in crime courtesy of George Soros-backed District Attorneys, more and more Californians are embracing the right to bear arms.

Amid a surge in shootings this year, a majority of California voters say that they believe gun control laws are effective in reducing violent crime, but confidence in them has slipped, according to a new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.

The poll released Thursday found that 56% of the state’s voters surveyed believe stronger laws restricting the sale and possession of guns help make their communities safer, but the number is down from 60% who felt that way three years ago.

The poll also found that 57% of California voters say it is more important to place greater controls on gun ownership than it is to protect Americans’ rights to own guns under the 2nd Amendment, but that number is down from 64% who felt that way in 2018.

Perhaps Newsom might want to consider adopting other Texas policies that would be more successful and lead to more safety for its citizens!

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“SCOTUS is letting private citizens in Texas sue to stop abortion?!” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, tweeted. “If that’s the precedent, then we’ll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets. “

But the Tejas suits are within Tejas. Leftist Californians may sue individual gun shops, but they won’t be able to sue companies in GA or TN.

    jhkrischel in reply to EdSeventen. | December 13, 2021 at 7:36 am

    Aren’t the Californians who are putting ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets gangbangers, their straw purchaser girlfriends, and cartels?

    Will the law let private citizens sue the D.A. for not prosecuting criminals?

Sounds like Newsom is endorsing the Texas abortion law to me.

    Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | December 13, 2021 at 1:56 am

    No, it doesn’t. He’s just saying if the courts allow it to stand then two can play at that game. It’s exactly what we would say if the circumstances were reversed.

      RickP in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2021 at 9:50 am

      Typical Milhouse.

      Don’t lump us all together. I realize that there are a lot of folks who are focused only on the outcomes, and care little about the legal process, procedures, and principles.

      If we’re talking about a democratic process where people get to vote, it’s clear that they vote outcomes more than principles, and, in any case, people are free to vote any way they want for any reason they want. But as to the judiciary, the procedural issues and reasoning really matter. A lot.

      I will admit my biases. Abortion jurisprudence doesn’t even really interest me. 2nd amendment jurisprudence matters to me a great deal. But I’m not comfortable with the judiciary playing favorites and indulging in politics, even if I get an outcome that I favor politically. It feels like some sort of ill-gotten gains. I would rather have a fair and impartial judiciary, using sound legal and evidence-based reasoning to arrive at rulings, and let the chips fall where they may.

      thetaqjr in reply to Milhouse. | December 14, 2021 at 1:31 am

      To healthguy, it does. “It sounds like to me.”

      Why irritate folks.?

      You’ve mastered Roe v Wade and I’m still trying to understand declaratory vs something that’s a judgement that is not a judgement.

      Is it possible that you are even smarter than your texts display?

      If so, don’t flaunt, don’t stiff neck. If not, scotus, be humble, bend, occasionally. I’ve read you, you’ve done that.

Choose to drive a car. Choose to keep and bear arms. Choose to have sex.

Ban vehicular homicides. Ban unjustified and criminal shootings. Ban elective abortions.

Will Newsom ban cars and sex, too?

    thetaqjr in reply to n.n. | December 13, 2021 at 3:59 pm

    Clearly Mr. Newsom and others see more deeply, more clearly than Laurence Sterne.

    Someplace in “Tristram Shandy”, 1700’s:

    “The [human foetus] is created by the same hand,—engender’d in the same course of nature,—endow’d with the same loco-motive powers and faculties with us:— …he consists as we do, of skin, hair, fat, flesh, veins, arteries, ligaments, nerves, cartilages, bones, marrow, brains, glands, genitals, humours, and articulations; [he] is a Being of as much activity,—and in all senses of the word, as [such is] truly our fellow-creature.”

    How can folks believe that some high-speed blending mechanism can alter such truths?
    UNLIMITED ABORTION RIGHTS: high speed blending of souls.

Sue the auto manufacturers when cars are used to kill
Sue the sporting goods manufacturers when baseball bats are used to kill
Sue the tool manufactures when hammers or pipe wrenches are used to kill
Sue cutlery makers when knives are used to kill
Sue pressure cooker manufacturers when they are used to make bombs to kill
Sue the drug makers…..
Sue chainsaw manufacturers……..

The only one who wins in Newsom’s California are the trial attorneys.

    Nope. Sue gavin for ignoring his oath of office to defend the Constitution’s Second Amendment. Make him personally responsible for lying under oath.

      Milhouse in reply to 4fun. | December 13, 2021 at 1:55 am

      Sorry, but you can’t sue him for that.

        WoadKnode in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2021 at 2:52 pm

        He can be impeached for dereliction of duty by Californians. But that is not going to happen.

          Milhouse in reply to WoadKnode. | December 13, 2021 at 5:58 pm

          He can’t be impeached by Californians; only by the state legislature, which is solidly Dem, so that’s not happening.

          And we just saw the majority of Californians vote against recalling him.

          But either way, you simply cannot sue a governor for allegedly “ignoring his oath of office”. There is no such cause of action, and pretending there is is just stupid.

There’s not one mention of ‘abortion’. in. the. constitution yet dems demand this ‘right’ across the board declaring it ‘a woman’s right’. And they do this while blithely ignoring the fact that RKBA is a constitutional. right.

Let them throw their little hissy fits and cut off their nose to spite their face. We will prevail.

    Milhouse in reply to LTCSig. | December 13, 2021 at 1:58 am

    It doesn’t matter that it’s not mentioned. Many rights are not mentioned, but are constitutional rights for all that. I agree with you that the supreme court was wrong to recognize baby-killing as one such right, but it has done so, so every court in the land is required to act as if it were so. The fact that it’s not mentioned doesn’t make it any weaker.

Gavin Newsome meet the supremacy clause.

Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

15 U.S. Code § 7902. (Prohibition on bringing of qualified civil liability actions in Federal or State court)

(a)In general
A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

    Milhouse in reply to Juris Doctor. | December 13, 2021 at 2:05 am

    Nope. The suits under this proposed law would not be “qualified civil liability actions”, because they would not be actions f0r damages “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party”. They would be straight-out actions for selling, or perhaps even for owning. Unenforceable, of course, but not enjoinable in advance, just like the Texas law.

Newsome earns style points for grandstanding but zero points for substance. Many obstacles for CA to overcome in this attempt. Abortion and 2nd amendment rights are simply not comparable and wishing and wanting won’t make it so.

    Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | December 13, 2021 at 2:07 am

    So long as Roe is the supreme court’s binding precedent, they are completely comparable. But Roe‘s days are thankfully numbered.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2021 at 9:33 am

      Milhouse,

      I understand your position and to a point it’s accurate. However, the rights contained and enumerated in the bill of rights were a precondition required for passage of our Constitution. Without the 2nd amendment and the other 9 amendments contained in the bill or rights there would be no Constitution as we know it.

      By contrast abortion is properly regulated at the State not National level via the the 10th amendment and the inherent police powers of the sovereign States. As you point out modern abortion policy for the past 50 years is based upon a judicial, not legislative construction. A construction that not one citizen nor legislative member voted for. One that has never held majority public support and is an example of judicial overreach based on convoluted logic and tortured reasoning. Furthermore rescinding Roe simply returns abortion debate to the State legislatures where it belongs, it doesn’t end abortions.

      As I stated I agree with your statement that the two are comparable to a point but listing some of the differences provides a great deal of contrast that must not be ignored or minimized.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | December 13, 2021 at 10:09 am

        It’s a distinction without a difference. Enumerated rights are not stronger than unenumerated rights, and so long as the supreme court says a dead baby is an unenumerated right it has the exact same status as publishing a newspaper.

The comments are useful. They remind me that wingnuts are no more principled than “progressive” nutcases. It’s a relay race, exchanging the stupid stick. Good to remember that.

Okay Mr. Newsom. Let’s do it. Pass the law, get some lawsuits going. But gun owners are not going to react like the Texas abortion providers shuddering in their boots from the mere threat of lawsuits. The criminals will just ignore your sorry ass as they always have, and from honest gun owners, there will be some fierce and principled legal resistance. Before long, test cases will get on the Supreme Court rocket docket, and you can send your legal quislings to the Supreme Court to plead their worthless nonsense and get their heads handed to them. Bring it on. Let’s get some more pro-2nd amendment case law established. I would say you are doomed to failure, but we all know you couldn’t care less about winning such a case. You just want an excuse to posture, bloviate, and virtue-signal for cheap votes from the anti-gun nuts and other woke supporters, none of whom seem to have any problem with your craven hypocrisy.

Sorry for ranting, If I sound pissed, it’s because I live in Los Angeles. This city and most of California are becoming a complete mad house. More and more I debate with myself about getting out of here to a more rational and civil place, but it’s not so easy, and I resent the idea of getting chased out of the place where I was born and raised. In the meantime, I stay here and just do what I can.

the one thing he needs to remember, babies can’t counter sue, but gun owners can

Personally, I foresee problems with Newsom’s madcap scheme. To begin with, the Second Amendment is clearly in the US Constitution. […]

The 2nd Amendment grants us the RIGHT to bear arms but NOTHING in the constitution grants the right to kill babies.

That’s irrelevant. The rights explicitly mentioned in the constitution are not stronger than the ones not mentioned. So long as Roe is still the supreme court’s statement of the law of the land, and thus binding on all courts, there is constitutional right to kill babies, which is not one whit weaker than the right to publish a newspaper or to own an AR-15.

Still, I agree that this scheme is unlikely to work, so long as it doesn’t target individual owners. Consider what’s happening in Texas. Everyone expects that if a suit is ever filed under this law it will be struck down almost immediately. As soon as there’s someone to enjoin, the federal courts will enjoin them. The point of the law is the chilling effect it’s having on providers who are wary of the risk that suits against them might not be struck down, because in the meantime Roe might go bye-bye.

A CA law that targeted individual gun owners might have a similar chilling effect, and the same for small dealers, but I think large dealers would not be chilled by the prospect of being sued; I think they’d be more likely to say “Bring it on”, confident that the courts will strike down all suits, one by one.

    RickP in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2021 at 9:54 am

    You mean the same laws of the land that your boy Obama and now Xi Biden ignore?

    henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | December 14, 2021 at 6:54 am

    “The rights explicitly mentioned in the constitution are not stronger than the ones not mentioned.”

    And what do you do when the rights not mentioned in the constitution are consistently challenged LESS by the organized state than the ones that explicitly are?

      Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | December 14, 2021 at 3:09 pm

      Not only is that irrelevant, it’s also completely to be expected. That’s why certain rights are explicitly mentioned. Those are the ones that governments in the 18th century were notorious for violating, so the framers specifically wrote that the new USA government could not. The unenumerated rights are the ones that governments had not recently been violating, so they weren’t on the framers’ minds.

      For instance it never occurred to anyone in the 18th century that if an employer and employee agree on a schedule that works well for both, the government might stick its nose in and order the employee to work fewer hours. Had it occurred to the framers that a government might one day try to do so, they’d probably have written an explicit amendment to prevent it.

Leslie Eastman quoting the LA Times:

In his statement Saturday, Newsom referred to a recent federal court decision that overturned the state’s ban on assault rifles in which the judge compared the weapons to a Swiss Army knife.

Typical LAT lies. No judge compared assault rifles to Swiss army knives. Nor was the relevant law about assault rifles in the first place. But I can very easily believe a federal judge referred to an AR-15 in that way, because that’s exactly what it is. The AR-15 is the Swiss army knife of rifles, and that is why it’s so wildly popular. But the LAT writer is probably one of those morons who thinks “AR” stands for “assault rifle”.

    DPtarmigan in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2021 at 5:18 am

    What is an “assault rifle?”

    We need gun clubs back in schools. The stupidity on what a firearm is has past the point of ridiculous. We need to stop Hollywood of “teaching” what a firearm is and what it does.

      thalesofmiletus in reply to DPtarmigan. | December 13, 2021 at 9:20 am

      My guess is that schools with active gun clubs would never see an active shooter incident.

        henrybowman in reply to thalesofmiletus. | December 14, 2021 at 7:07 am

        Well, I actually have one genuine data point on that. It’s not true… at least twice. (Both kids at this school were stopped before any gunplay occurred.)

        The sort of kid who presents risks as a school shooter isn’t the sort of kid that tends to enroll in a discipline-enhancing activity. It’s like expecting a college that offers ROTC to have a salutary effect on the goths and stoners.

        Now, if the school offered gun safety training to the students in general, that’s quite another thing. Back in 2005, Alan Korwin spearheaded an Arizona bill to offer true gun safety education in public schools. It overwhelmingly passed… because it was a toothless bill that didn’t require a single person anywhere in the state to actually do anything. It’s been 17 years, and the “optional” course has never been offered in a single Arizona school to the best of my knowledge.

      Milhouse in reply to DPtarmigan. | December 13, 2021 at 10:13 am

      An assault rifle is one that can be switched between semiautomatic and automatic modes, usually plus a small burst mode. The AR-15 cannot do that; it’s strictly semiautomatic, so it’s not an assault rifle.

        alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2021 at 12:08 pm

        Correct. Buried in the Hollywood shootout was a little news release in the LA Times that the BATF was really concerned with who had masterfully converted the two rifles to full auto…something not easily done. That is moot anyway since smuggling now is so easy.

        Authoritarian types fear the semi-auto. To preserve ammo, Rhodesian troops usually kept their FN-FAL (R1) in semi mode and still more than matched the commie rebels with AKs. The semi is the line in the sand for 2A.

      DPtarmigan in reply to DPtarmigan. | December 13, 2021 at 11:03 am

      No that is an automatic vs a semi-auto. “Assault Rifle” is concocted to create a pejorative.

      I think every time any politician runs for office — someone should ask them the question, “What does the AR in AR-15 mean?” This serves 2 purposes — it puts them on the spot and it puts the truth out there or in the least, they have to concede some truth.

        divemedic in reply to DPtarmigan. | December 13, 2021 at 11:43 am

        Nope. Millhouse is correct on this one. An assault rifle is a select fire rifle, usually of a smaller caliber. They were invented by the Germans during WW2, and have been illegal to sell to private citizens since May of 1986.

        An “assault weapon” is a term invented by gun control groups with the express purpose of confusing the public into thinking that they were machine guns. The term originated in 1988 with gun control activist Josh Sugarman, who famously said, “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

          alaskabob in reply to divemedic. | December 13, 2021 at 12:17 pm

          All correct, except Hitler coined the term “assault rifke” in 1944 with the introduction of the Stg 44….or Storm (assault) Rifle.

          Sugarman did say that and now the AR which stands for Armalite was corrupted to Assault Rifle. Deception and lies are the foundation of gun control.

          One small clarification. Buying a machine gun manufactured after 1986 is illegal to own, but anything prior can be owned after licensing except in certain (blue) states.

      I don’t expect that quibbling about terminology will change anything. Politicians love to adopt slogans and jargon that sound great to folks who don’t know any better. I live in Los Angeles, and I am not shy about debating gun control issues with leftist friends and even leftist acquaintances under the right circumstances, but pointing out that an AR-15 isn’t really an assault rifle is treated as unconvincing “gun-splaining” by most folks favorable to gun-control.

        daniel_ream in reply to Rand. | December 14, 2021 at 2:39 am

        That’s because you can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into to begin with. Most folks favorable to gun-control are merely favorable to control; the guns are irrelevant.

The last I heard, a couple decades ago, California already had private suits authorized for violations of disability acts, producing a huge blackmail industry in taking measurements and suing businesses that are out of compliance.

    thalesofmiletus in reply to rhhardin. | December 13, 2021 at 9:19 am

    Yes, that it was the Texas law was based on, so it’s somewhat ironic that Newsom is striking a “two can play at this game” pose. He’s either dishonest or ignorant.

    Milhouse in reply to rhhardin. | December 13, 2021 at 10:16 am

    Yes, but those laws are not unconstitutional. There’s no constitutional right to operate a business without a ramp or elevator. So this didn’t open the door to the Texas law; it merely gave Texas the idea. What makes the Texas law, and the one Newsom is now proposing, different is that they use private enforcement to evade judicial review until an actual suit is filed, and then only that suit can be enjoined, which means the next person can file another one.

      rhhardin in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2021 at 11:05 am

      The original California law was private enforcement. There’s no DA deciding that it’s a meaningful violation that ought to produce a fine, but a private citizen suing for the violation on the basis of monetary windfall to himself. It’s missing a step in due process in addition to motivating blackmail businesses without limit to damages.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | December 14, 2021 at 7:19 am

      “There’s no constitutional right to operate a business without a ramp or elevator.”

      What? It’s one of those “unenumerated rights” that are equally protected with the enumerated ones. Take a right at the third penumbra, and look under the second gaseous emanation.

      Or alternatively, bring a cage to corral the escaped Commerce Claws, and once you’ve penned it, you’re clear to find it handily enumerated under the Tenth Amendment.

    henrybowman in reply to rhhardin. | December 14, 2021 at 7:14 am

    Not just California. If you want to know how badly a law like this can damage the economy, look up ADA Trolls. One ADA troll can gangbang dozens of small hotels, retail outlets, churches, convenience stores, etc., every month with bogus and/or nitpicking claims about “disability access.” There are even tech versions of ADA trolls who sue companies over their websites!

Fat_Freddys_Cat | December 13, 2021 at 8:40 am

If Newsom succeeds at getting this established, it may well drive gun manufacturers out of business (which I suspect is the intended goal). It can’t have any practical effect on the problem he claims he is solving.

Firstly, even if for example Colt is driven out of business that won’t make the millions of Colt firearms already in existence magically go away. And what is the point of suing a company that is already out of business?

Second, with the southern border so wide open you could march a train of circus elephants through it every day there will naturally be a large influx of arms and ammunition from that direction.

If this scheme succeeds where will the California state government get guns? Or the bodyguards of the “elite”? Ha, maybe they’ll tap the black market too?

    “on a new law that would allow private citizens to sue manufacturers or distributors of assault weapons as well as ghost gun kits or parts.”

    I don’t think so. None of the manufacturers produce guns commercially w/o #s, and gun parts is way too vague.

    I think this has serious constitutional implications as anyone can make their own gun — as much as they can make their own wine or beer etc. Just — think Captain Kirk shooting that Gorn would be unlawful if they had their way. 😀

      Fat_Freddys_Cat in reply to DPtarmigan. | December 13, 2021 at 1:40 pm

      I didn’t mean to imply that it wouldn’t have serious consequences for our civil liberty. Rather I’m saying that it will do nothing to solve or even limit violent crime. There are those who argue that limiting liberty is “worth it” if it “makes us safer”. Aside from the moral wrongness of such a position, it doesn’t pass the laugh test on a utilitarian level.

      Fat_Freddys_Cat in reply to DPtarmigan. | December 13, 2021 at 1:41 pm

      +1 for the Gorn reference!

    Just imagine what HAS come in across the Southern Border! Any and everything. And I mean every thing. I guess Newsom or any pol would like to avoid having to spill the beans on manpads and suitcase nukes.

    henrybowman in reply to Fat_Freddys_Cat. | December 14, 2021 at 7:21 am

    “Firstly, even if for example Colt is driven out of business that won’t make the millions of Colt firearms already in existence magically go away.”

    Tried to buy ammo recently?
    And those companies haven’t even been put out of business.

The Texas law effects Texans in Texas in Texas state court. How would a law in California effect a corporate entity in Georgia?

I wish people wouldn’t use the terminology “…the 2nd amdt GRANTS…”

The language of the Court in Cruickshank captures it best: …the right of the people to keep and bear arms] “is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…:”

(It goes on to say that the amendment is binding on only Congress, but that changed with incorporation through the recent McDonald decision, which also binds the States.)

This S.B. 8 enforcement mechanism is a travesty that needs to be stamped out somehow. In a sense, it’s a good thing that it was invoked over abortion rights, putting the pro-abortion folks at the receiving end of the problem first. Knowing the typical leftist, they aren’t much likely to recognize their own hypocrisy if they use the same technique for attacking 1st or 2nd amendment rights, but maybe some pro-abortion folks will have learned the lesson. We can always hope.

Um … told ya so. LOL

    henrybowman in reply to RandomCrank. | December 14, 2021 at 7:24 am

    In practical terms, nobody who doesn’t already live in California is particularly scared that the California gun gulag is threatening to be an even less-pleasant gun gulag. That horse has flown.

It certainly is a creative plan. However, it seems to me that there are some fatal differences. The first is factual. Guns w/ no SN are illegal to sell, but not to make for one’s self (according to the ATF – California probably has more noisome laws). So who is this purveyor of the ghost gun? If the gun had been transfered, the threat of a private lawsuit is minor compared to the criminal and regulatory consequences for the same. If the gun was homemade, how would the interloper know? With an abortion, the state of sudden non-pregnancy without a newborn is a pretty observable event. The mere existence of a ghost gun is not, and if an event were to occur that brought its existence to light, the possessor of said ghost gun has far more serious problems.

The legal difference, of course, is that the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated in the 2nd Amendment, whereas the “right” to an abortion emanates from a penumbra cast by a different case (Griswald).

Accessibility by WAH
Send this to a friend