Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jarhyn]

So now we can nullify rights by suing individuals, what other rights can we nullify?

Gun rights?

I'd start with this one.

Rittenhouse got a gun from somewhere. The McMichaels got a gun from somewhere.
If it's Constitutional to sue someone for participating in a legal act, without threat of a countersuit, let's start with gun manufacturers and dealers.
Tom

They did get these guns from places, and then had no oversight nor insurance, nor liability upon their possession, not education in serious gun ownership expected, nor serious attention paid to their transfer.

I start with the first bad actor, and the focus on how to stop THAT.

Ostensibly nobody is liable until they leave a gun in the easy access of a minor.

So let's focus on the things in society that would prevent that: liability for misuse and transfer through the first irresponsible act. Not just that act but every irresponsible act from there through the tragic results of this series of unfortunate events.

 

[blastula]

 

[lpetrich]

Newsom to use Texas abortion law tactics to go after assault rifle, ghost gun makers

State officials will aim to craft a measure that would allow residents to seek damages of at least $10,000, plus legal fees, against anyone who manufactures, distributes or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit in California.

Ghost guns?

Ghost Guns: What They Are, and Why They Are an Issue Now - The New York Times - "One of the actions taken by President Biden to curb gun violence was to crack down on the proliferation of firearms that are assembled from kits and do not have serial numbers."

The key selling point for many buyers is that ghost guns do not have serial numbers, the critical piece of information that law enforcement agencies use to trace the gun from the manufacturer to the gun dealer to the original buyer. Ghost guns are untraceable and because of how they are sold — as parts that need to be assembled — under current rules, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives does not treat them as it would traditional firearms.
How hard are they to assemble?

It’s easy and relatively inexpensive.

According to a report by Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun violence prevention organization, an AR-15 build kit costs as low as $345.

The sales pitches usually promise little work for the buyer. One online purveyor assured that “building time doesn’t take too long,” adding, “Within an hour or two, you should be breaking it in at the range.”

The kits usually come with directions on how to finish the gun or link to YouTube tutorials. Typically, the only tool needed is a drill and the kits are often sold with the drill bits necessary to complete the frame.

Many ghost guns are also sold with a “jig,” which fits around the frame or receiver and helps turn the project into something like “gun assembly for dummies.” One site said the jig could be used to complete a gun “in under 15 minutes with excellent results.”

 

[ZiprHead]

The court has stupidly opened the floodgates on this sort of thing. What did they expect to happen?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The court has stupidly opened the floodgates on this sort of thing. What did they expect to happen?

Well, if they're legal ninjas or history buffs....this.
If they're there to fix one item, for Gawd, then the consequences to law and precedent never came up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And how do they define "ghost gun parts"?

Most parts in a ghost gun are perfectly ordinary gun parts. Legally, there is one part that constitutes a "gun" and selling that part, whether in combination with others or not, is subject to the laws regarding firearm sales.

Ghost guns are based on making that key part rather than buying it. This is normally done by buying an "80%" blank--a piece of metal with 80% (I don't know how it's measured) feature correspondence with the desired part. The individual then mills that into the desired shape. However "80%" is an arbitrary threshold, the lower you set that threshold the more things which aren't intended to be guns get caught up in it. Ban 80% blanks and you'll get 79% blanks. Ban 79% blanks and the cycle repeats until you've banned the sale of metal, period.

Ban the manufacture of ghost guns, fine--I can see no reason they need to be legal. Ban ghost gun "parts" and you've got a big mess.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And how do they define "ghost gun parts"?

Based on Texas' precedent? However the fuck they want. Texas, with SCOTUS's approval, just broke the 14th Amendment and Federal oversight for Civil Rights. They managed to create a glitch in jurisprudence and the impact will be pretty far reaching.

 

[SLD]

And how do they define "ghost gun parts"?

Based on Texas' precedent? However the fuck they want. Texas, with SCOTUS's approval, just broke the 14th Amendment and Federal oversight for Civil Rights. They managed to create a glitch in jurisprudence and the impact will be pretty far reaching.

Sure did. What’s next? Jim Crow laws in the south? Criticism of Trump effectively outlawed by the Georgia legislature? You know Drumpf is going to support those laws, and by support, I mean mandate them.

 

[TomC]

And how do they define "ghost gun parts"?

Based on Texas' precedent? However the fuck they want. Texas, with SCOTUS's approval, just broke the 14th Amendment and Federal oversight for Civil Rights. They managed to create a glitch in jurisprudence and the impact will be pretty far reaching.

Pretty much this.
As opposed as I am to elective abortions used as a birth control method, what Texas passed into law sets a precedent that's atrocious. SCOTUS refusing to rule makes it worse.
It's a mess.

It looks to me like SCOTUS has been weaponized as an arm of the TeaParty. They're incapable of even considering a suit that would upset Trump's base. Just one more example of the Republicans destroying basic U.S. institutions.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

As opposed as I am to elective abortions used as a birth control method, what Texas passed into law sets a precedent that's atrocious. SCOTUS refusing to rule makes it worse.

That’s not quite right. The Whole Women’s Health opinion concerned a pre-enforcement injunction and against whom it may be asserted. The Court did not validate the Texas scheme, because that issue was not before it. The question was whether the lower court properly denied the various public defendants’ motions to dismiss based on sovereignty immunity (and there was also a private defendant). The Court said yes and no as to certain defendants. The Court then sent it back to the trial court to proceed with the case.

 

[TomC]

As opposed as I am to elective abortions used as a birth control method, what Texas passed into law sets a precedent that's atrocious. SCOTUS refusing to rule makes it worse.

That’s not quite right. The Whole Women’s Health opinion concerned a pre-enforcement injunction and against whom it may be asserted. The Court did not validate the Texas scheme, because that issue was not before it. The question was whether the lower court properly denied the various public defendants’ motions to dismiss based on sovereignty immunity (and there was also a private defendant). The Court said yes and no as to certain defendants. The Court then sent it back to the trial court to proceed with the case.

Because the court is a bunch of weinies, appointed by the GOP, with the clear mission of supporting whatever nonsense the TeaParty finds politically expedient.

I don't find this difficult to understand.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

As opposed as I am to elective abortions used as a birth control method, what Texas passed into law sets a precedent that's atrocious. SCOTUS refusing to rule makes it worse.

That’s not quite right. The Whole Women’s Health opinion concerned a pre-enforcement injunction and against whom it may be asserted. The Court did not validate the Texas scheme, because that issue was not before it. The question was whether the lower court properly denied the various public defendants’ motions to dismiss based on sovereignty immunity (and there was also a private defendant). The Court said yes and no as to certain defendants. The Court then sent it back to the trial court to proceed with the case.

Because the court is a bunch of weinies, appointed by the GOP, with the clear mission of supporting whatever nonsense the TeaParty finds politically expedient.

I don't find this difficult to understand.
Tom

What? The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Texas scheme. Whoever told you that is lying. This is just how it works. There needs to be a lower court decision to review. As I learned in law school: the Supreme Court does not do advisory opinions.

 

[TomC]

As opposed as I am to elective abortions used as a birth control method, what Texas passed into law sets a precedent that's atrocious. SCOTUS refusing to rule makes it worse.

That’s not quite right. The Whole Women’s Health opinion concerned a pre-enforcement injunction and against whom it may be asserted. The Court did not validate the Texas scheme, because that issue was not before it. The question was whether the lower court properly denied the various public defendants’ motions to dismiss based on sovereignty immunity (and there was also a private defendant). The Court said yes and no as to certain defendants. The Court then sent it back to the trial court to proceed with the case.

Because the court is a bunch of weinies, appointed by the GOP, with the clear mission of supporting whatever nonsense the TeaParty finds politically expedient.

I don't find this difficult to understand.
Tom

What? The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Texas scheme. Whoever told you that is lying. This is just how it works. There needs to be a lower court decision to review. As I learned in law school: the Supreme Court does not do advisory opinions.

Perhaps you missed the part of my post referring to the fact that SCOTUS chose not to rule.

The fact remains. SCOTUS has been weaponized by the TeaParty. Another example of the GOP undermining basic USA institutions.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

Perhaps you missed the part of my post referring to the fact that SCOTUS chose not to rule.

It did rule. The Supreme Court got the case on defendants’ appeal challenging the District Court’s denial of their motions to dismiss. That’s all. The disagreement among the justices was on who could be sued in a pre-enforcement action. The District Court has not issued an order on the constitutionality of the law. Once that occurs, no doubt one of the parties will appeal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And how do they define "ghost gun parts"?

Based on Texas' precedent? However the fuck they want. Texas, with SCOTUS's approval, just broke the 14th Amendment and Federal oversight for Civil Rights. They managed to create a glitch in jurisprudence and the impact will be pretty far reaching.

It leaves open the possibility of rejecting it because of the undefined term. It should be made so that it can't be zapped without also zapping SB8.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As opposed as I am to elective abortions used as a birth control method, what Texas passed into law sets a precedent that's atrocious. SCOTUS refusing to rule makes it worse.

That’s not quite right. The Whole Women’s Health opinion concerned a pre-enforcement injunction and against whom it may be asserted. The Court did not validate the Texas scheme, because that issue was not before it. The question was whether the lower court properly denied the various public defendants’ motions to dismiss based on sovereignty immunity (and there was also a private defendant). The Court said yes and no as to certain defendants. The Court then sent it back to the trial court to proceed with the case.

It's a law that is clearly atrocious. SCOTUS should have zapped it in a 9-0 decision even if that wasn't the exact issue before it.

 

[Trausti]

As opposed as I am to elective abortions used as a birth control method, what Texas passed into law sets a precedent that's atrocious. SCOTUS refusing to rule makes it worse.

That’s not quite right. The Whole Women’s Health opinion concerned a pre-enforcement injunction and against whom it may be asserted. The Court did not validate the Texas scheme, because that issue was not before it. The question was whether the lower court properly denied the various public defendants’ motions to dismiss based on sovereignty immunity (and there was also a private defendant). The Court said yes and no as to certain defendants. The Court then sent it back to the trial court to proceed with the case.

It's a law that is clearly atrocious. SCOTUS should have zapped it in a 9-0 decision even if that wasn't the exact issue before it.

That’s not how it works. It never works like that.

 

[TomC]

As opposed as I am to elective abortions used as a birth control method, what Texas passed into law sets a precedent that's atrocious. SCOTUS refusing to rule makes it worse.

That’s not quite right. The Whole Women’s Health opinion concerned a pre-enforcement injunction and against whom it may be asserted. The Court did not validate the Texas scheme, because that issue was not before it. The question was whether the lower court properly denied the various public defendants’ motions to dismiss based on sovereignty immunity (and there was also a private defendant). The Court said yes and no as to certain defendants. The Court then sent it back to the trial court to proceed with the case.

It's a law that is clearly atrocious. SCOTUS should have zapped it in a 9-0 decision even if that wasn't the exact issue before it.

That’s not how it works. It never works like that.

Nevertheless, the precedent of overturning constitutional law with frivolous lawsuits could be used against 2nd amendment rights by states like California, or even municipalities like Chicago. Gun manufacturers and dealers have plenty deep enough pockets to attract lawyers.
Tom

 

[lpetrich]

California plans to be abortion sanctuary if Roe overturned | AP News

With more than two dozen states poised to ban abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court gives them the OK next year, California clinics and their allies in the state Legislature on Wednesday revealed a plan to make the state a “sanctuary” for those seeking reproductive care, including possibly paying for travel, lodging and procedures for people from other states.

The California Future of Abortion Council, made up of more than 40 abortion providers and advocacy groups, released a list of 45 recommendations for the state to consider if the high court overturns Roe v. Wade — the 48-year-old decision that forbids states from outlawing abortion.

ca_fab_council_report_.pdf

• I. The State Must Increase Investments in Abortion Funds, Direct Practical Support, and Infrastructure to Support Patients Seeking Abortion Care
• II. The State Must Ensure Cost Is Not a Barrier to Care Reimbursement for Abortion and Abortion-Related Services Is Adequate and Timely
• III. The State Must Invest in a Diverse California Abortion Provider Workforce and Increase Training Opportunities for BIPOC and Others Historically Excluded from Health Care Professions
• IV. Abortion Must Reduce Administrative and Institutional Barriers to Abortion Care
• V. California Must Strengthen Legal Protections for Abortion Patients, Providers, and Supporting Organizations and Individuals
• VI. California Must Meaningfully Address Misinformation and Disinformation and Ensure the Access to Medically Accurate, Culturally Relevant and Inclusive Education About Abortion and Access to Care is Widely and Equitably Available
• VII. The State Must support Efforts to Collect Data, Conduct Research, and Distribute Reports to Assess and Inform Abortion Care and Education Needs in California

Subsidizing non-Californians' abortions may be a hard sell, but some of those recommendations are very practical, like reducing administrative and institutional barriers, and strengthening legal protections, like:

• Enact legal protections from civil and criminal liability as well as disciplinary action to the extent possible
  for clinicians that provide abortions to patients, including to patients who reside in other states with hostile
  abortion laws.
• Protect people from prosecutions and criminalization of abortion or pregnancy loss.
• Protect patients that self-manage their abortion.
• Protect Californians from third-party enforcement of abortion restrictions.
• Repeal invalidated law requiring parental consent for abortion services.
• Enhance privacy protections for medical records related to abortion and pregnancy loss to ensure that such records are not disclosed to law enforcement without a valid subpoena or warrant.
• Ensure implementation and compliance with laws protecting patient confidentiality when they seek sensitive
  services.

Here is the full text of the protection recommendation:

Protect Californians from third-party enforcement of abortion restrictions. The recent legislation enacted in Texas (S.B. 8) banning abortion at six weeks tasks enforcement of the ban to private citizens by filing lawsuits against abortion providers and anyone who assists a pregnant person in obtaining abortion care. Other states and several local municipalities have advanced similar legislation. California must protect abortion providers and others who assist in providing abortion care from frivolous civil lawsuits and accompanying costs aimed at harassing providers, diverting resources, and shutting down clinics.

In effect, fighting back against laws like Texas SB 8. Since this crosses state boundaries, it looks like Federal courts may end up getting involved, up to the Supreme Court itself.

 

[Shadowy Man]

As opposed as I am to elective abortions used as a birth control method, what Texas passed into law sets a precedent that's atrocious. SCOTUS refusing to rule makes it worse.

That’s not quite right. The Whole Women’s Health opinion concerned a pre-enforcement injunction and against whom it may be asserted. The Court did not validate the Texas scheme, because that issue was not before it. The question was whether the lower court properly denied the various public defendants’ motions to dismiss based on sovereignty immunity (and there was also a private defendant). The Court said yes and no as to certain defendants. The Court then sent it back to the trial court to proceed with the case.

It's a law that is clearly atrocious. SCOTUS should have zapped it in a 9-0 decision even if that wasn't the exact issue before it.

That’s not how it works. It never works like that.

But couldn't they have prevented it from going into effect until such time as they had ruled on the merits? Isn't that what most people are upset about?