Texas-style Gun Law

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Any private US citizen, having determined with sufficient evidence that a person or private entity has violated state firearm laws pertaining to use, storage, transportation or firearm capability and characteristics, is authorized to file civil suit against that person or entity in the amount of $1,000.

Online forms shall be made available subject to a modest filing fee, and are lodged as valid and enforceable if the individual or entity has been found guilty in state or Federal District courts of such an offense, have pled guilty to such an offense, or have been fined for such an offense.

Defendants are required to deal with each suit individually; “bundling” the defense against these claims is not permitted.
This tactic can be turned against the first amendment too, though it might not go so well in some cases.

I continue to agree with the gun nutz who were first to say that this is a bad idea and should be squashed, not copied.

But if you're going to copy bad ideas that are dangerous to multiple rights, why stop with Texas? Go full Massachusetts!

The State Supreme Court there ruled that the second amendment only applies to weapons from the 18th century. They were overruled by SCOTUS, but SCOTUS rulings can be reversed if there's political support. There seems to be, based on posts on this forum.

So go ahead and amend your idea accordingly. I'm sure there will be the kind of "unanimous" support you described when anti-abortion nutz say that the fourth amendment was written in the 18th century so only medical tech from that time can be used to perform abortions.

 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,194
3,019
Tom, why are you opposed to lawsuits against people who are convicted of breaking the law, thereby posing a grave threat to society?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Tom, why are you opposed to lawsuits against people who are convicted of breaking the law, thereby posing a grave threat to society?
Why are you opposed to simply locking people up who break the law?

Also, why are you opposed to adopting the Massachusetts model and applying the Bill of Rights only to 18th century tech?

 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,194
3,019
Why are you opposed to simply locking people up who break the law?

Also, why are you opposed to adopting the Massachusetts model and applying the Bill of Rights only to 18th century tech?
Why are you opposed to allowing people to sue those people who endanger lives and cost society approximately $280 Billion every year?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Why are you opposed to allowing people to sue those people who endanger lives and cost society approximately $280 Billion every year?
Why are you opposed to simply locking people up who break the law?

Also, why are you opposed to adopting the Massachusetts model and applying the Bill of Rights only to 18th century tech?

 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,194
3,019
I do a great job answering questions when I think you will do the same.

Ive laid out a proposal, based on an existing state law, that is neither draconian nor does it affect gun owners who don’t break the law.

Why don’t you comment on the proposal _before_ changing the subject, more than an off hand “oh, the Texas law shouldn’t have been passed.”

The anti-abortion bill HAS been passed, and this law is most def to be considered in that context.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
I do a great job answering questions when I think you will do the same.

Ive laid out a proposal, based on an existing state law, that is neither draconian nor does it affect gun owners who don’t break the law.

Why don’t you comment on the proposal _before_ changing the subject, more than an off hand “oh, the Texas law shouldn’t have been passed.”

The anti-abortion bill HAS been passed, and this law is most def to be considered in that context.
I have answered in several threads, notably the one about the law you're supporting in Texas on abortion.

Democrats should apply Supreme Court’s abortion decision to firearms

More authoritarian chicken, this time from Lawrence Tribe, who actually admits he knows better.

...

There is no doubt that Texas’ controversial abortion ban and its injunction-skirting mechanisms represent an alarming affront to federal protection of constitutional rights and to the rule of law. As advocates of such protection, we do not come easily to our endorsement of these efforts. We would much rather follow Michelle Obama’s once timely mantra, “When they go low, we go high.” But doing so here would dramatically misread the moment.

...
They're pretending that the TX law is now "established" in law but that fight is far from over and TX is still likely to lose, IMO. Still grabbers who want to entrench the precedent before it's even established are not helping.

If you think a situation forces you to accept an "alarming affront to federal protection of constitutional rights" then maybe it's time to think a bit harder about the situation and ways out of it.
The bolded bit is the main point.

As for this,

violated state firearm laws pertaining to use, storage, transportation or firearm capability and characteristics
I continue to fail to see the harm of my wife continuing to possess her battlefield .22, so don't agree with the FL proposal to ban and confiscate it, nor with your proposal to attach crippling liability to it. Either will only lead to a boating accident and I'm big on boating safety.

I already mentioned how lawsuits were used to attack first amendment rights upthread. Now there's a stupid drug war example from California in the relevant thread. It never ends.  Americans are endlessly creative in suing people to attack rights they don't like.

Texas' 6-Week Abortion Ban Threatens Every Constitutional Right

And so does your idea and the others I've mentioned, for the same reasons.

Now, about the Massachusetts example, do you think the Bill of Rights applies to 18th century technology only, or does it apply to newer stuff?

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,236
287
near Seattle, Wa
I do a great job answering questions when I think you will do the same.

Ive laid out a proposal, based on an existing state law, that is neither draconian nor does it affect gun owners who don’t break the law.

Why don’t you comment on the proposal _before_ changing the subject, more than an off hand “oh, the Texas law shouldn’t have been passed.”

The anti-abortion bill HAS been passed, and this law is most def to be considered in that context.
congratulations, philly, you got yourself a date with runaround sue

 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,194
3,019
Tom, Republicans are fine with gun owners jeopardizing their lives of other citizens and having society subsidize resultant costs if they are white and NRA members. These folks should get all the guns they need, even if work arounds like gun “gifts” or swaps or such are the transactions required to do so.

Restrictive laws cannot be imposed on these fundamental rights. For whites.

They are also ok with abortions as long as it’s white women who are in relationships with well off white guys.

But blacks marching with guns or poor women trying to get the same access to health care options as the baby mommy of a southern politician upsets them.

The problem you, and your ilk, have with this proposal is that it levels the playing field between you and the poor inner city black kid found in possession of a gun.

Hes not only gonna have the book thrown at him, resulting in jail and prison time, his financial future will be irreparably harmed by the court costs and the impact of a criminal record on employment and educational prospects for the rest of his life.

White folks, statistically, receive different prosecutional choices and outcomes, including with dogballs violations.

Financial devastation from breaking gun laws just make your justice equal to his.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Meat Wad

Super Anarchist
I disagree for two reasons.

First, Gunmakers are specifically excluded from civil liability suits by certain federal laws, and one would have to prove violation of federal or state laws before levying a $1,000 suit against them.

Second, this proposal is designed to change the behavior and mindset of gun owners such that safety and following regulations is their first and foremost principle.

Its about promoting personal responsibility.

Edit to add: the law would apply to illegal gun sales and trades
Behavior is tough to change. It should start in elementary school where kids should read about gun safety at home. Then they can ask their parents.
Of course parents should know about the classes and reading. No ideology, just safety.

If anyone thinks for a moment that this Republican led Supreme Court has any morality at all, and won't craft a decision knocking down any attempt at gun righteousness, by Gavin Newsom, is simply not paying attention. Trump's Supreme Court will decide law as it wishes, without fear of retribution, they are the majority and they decide law as only they see fit.

Democrats disappoint repeatedly when they fail to grasp the rules as dictated by Republicans, it is never about morality, just winning. Until Democrats level the playing field they will remain losers.
There is a big hurdle that Newsome has to jump over. The text of the Second Amendment reads in full:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The words that strike me the most is the security of a free state. Of course a well regulated Militia is made up of private citizens who want security in a free state. And after watching what these radical DA's have been doing to let criminals out of a revolving door. I'd say everyone should have a fireare at home for the Protection of your free state. California is a fascist run state and the Dems in this case are the fascists'. The definition is Calif Dems to the tee. the Dems fund Planned Parenthood clinics which overwhelmingly abort more black babies than help the mothers. Dems want to kill of the black babies.

Gun ownership is a right guaranteed, abortion is not. in many cases an Abortion is only a medical procedure if the mother's life is in danger or the baby is so screwed up it will have a horrific life.

I've noticed that over the last 2 years there has been an ever increasing need for the purple font or laugher emoticons.

Senses of humour appear to have been another casualty of Covid.
It's about ideology now days. Even I have gotten sucked into arguments with idiots and must apologize.

Where have all the moderates gone?

well, I got to go make G10 backing plates for my new stanchion bases.

 

badlatitude

Super Anarchist
29,170
4,878
Gun ownership is a right guaranteed, abortion is not. in many cases an Abortion is only a medical procedure if the mother's life is in danger or the baby is so screwed up it will have a horrific life.
You couldn't be more wrong about that.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether to have an abortion.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
61,190
5,020
De Nile
Why are you opposed to simply locking people up who break the law?

Also, why are you opposed to adopting the Massachusetts model and applying the Bill of Rights only to 18th century tech?
Are you saying govt can’t regulate arms? That’s a new theory.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
The problem you, and your ilk, have with this proposal is that it levels the playing field between you and the poor inner city black kid found in possession of a gun.

Hes not only gonna have the book thrown at him, resulting in jail and prison time, his financial future will be irreparably harmed by the court costs and the impact of a criminal record on employment and educational prospects for the rest of his life.
Well, no, I've been supportive of the public defenders who have been saying exactly what you are: that gun control is and always has been racist.

I already said the problem I have with your idea: endorsing a dangerous attack on one right endangers others and you should stop it IMO.

And, since I did answer, even though the answer was ignored and a strawman substituted, let's see if this was bullshit:

I do a great job answering questions when I think you will do the same.
So, about the Massachusetts example, do you think the Bill of Rights applies to 18th century technology only, or does it apply to newer stuff?

Are you saying govt can’t regulate arms? That’s a new theory.
Nope, that's just another stupid strawman. I've endorsed lots of gun regulations.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
I admit I haven’t read this entire thread. Has anyone posted this? Excellent argument.

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

Pastor Dave Barnhart
It's a pretty excellent argument, but in the end he's defending womens' right to an abortion against the TeamD desire to grab guns. Nothing can match that desire, so the women are tossed under the bus.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
The addendum turns the proposed law more into a behavior modification tool rather than a vindictive method to bankrupt inept, careless or criminal gun owners.
Looks to me like a vindictive method to bankrupt people who insist on owning battlefield .22's and other all other guns, since possessing them is the "criminal" behavior you want to punish.

It also sounds like a dangerously stupid endorsement of Texas' power grab at a time when the right response would be to swat it down.

 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,194
3,019
Say what you want, Tom. But it's still a law that punishes lawbreakers.

Texas wants to punish women who arrive at a very personal medical decision with a doctor.

This is a classic case of whataboutism that rings false; you want everything to be comparable to the other side, but it just ain't the same.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Say what you want, Tom. But it's still a law that punishes lawbreakers.
Yes, I just disagree about whether possession of battlefield .22's should be against the law at all.

This is a classic case of whataboutism that rings false; you want everything to be comparable to the other side, but it just ain't the same.
It is the same to Gavin Newsom and Letitia James and Lawrence Tribe, to name a few notables who join in your desire to emulate Texas' bad idea.

If Texas is willing to make a legal medical procedure subject to lawsuits, then surely there will be unanimous support for holding criminals and law breakers financially responsible for their actions.
You opened the thread with a "they're the same" and now want to back off. But both power grabs really are the same, as you originally said and as those others I mentioned realize. They see a way to grab power over guns and just don't give a shit if it makes things worse for women who want abortions because gungrabbiness is the highest TeamD goal.

Anyway, about the Massachusetts example, do you think the Bill of Rights applies to 18th century technology only, or does it apply to newer stuff?

 
Top