(New York) The citizens of California may soon have the power to sue the manufacturers and distributors of assault rifles or phantom weapons and pocket at least $ 10,000 per offense, plus the costs of proceedings and d ‘attorney.
If this ploy sounds familiar, it is. In a tweet and statement released Saturday night, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced plans to use Texas’ controversial abortion law to impose new restrictions on sales of certain firearms in its state.
” The [Cour suprême des États-Unis] allows Texas citizens to sue to prevent abortion ?! If this is the precedent, then we will let Californians pursue those who circulate phantom weapons and assault rifles in our streets, ”the elected Democrat tweeted.
PHOTO ANDREW KUHN, ARCHIVES ASSOCIATED PRESS
Gavin Newsom, Governor of California
The day before the announcement, the Supreme Court had allowed Texas abortion clinics to challenge in federal courts on Texas Heartbeat Act (the Texas law known as the “heartbeat”), without however stopping its application.
Since the 1er Last September, the measure banned most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy and delegated the power to enforce it to Texans, a ploy that considerably complicated its challenge in federal courts.
Other states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, and Ohio, have in turn proposed anti-abortion laws similar to Texas.
But it was only a matter of time before a state used the Texan scheme for purposes other than abortion.
“As soon as the idea of Texas law became known, people immediately began to speculate that the legal theory they were using would be applied to other matters. This is precisely what seems to be happening, ”told Press Robert Spitzer, political scientist at the State University of New York at Cortland and author of several books on guns, abortion and the Constitution.
Two weights, two measures
Supporters of the second amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms, were among the first to recognize this possibility.
“To the extent that this tactic avoids or outright blocks the pre-law enforcement review, while deterring protected behavior, it will easily become a model for the removal of other constitutional rights, rights. conferred by the Second Amendment being the most likely targets, ”wrote Erik Jaffe, lawyer for the Firearms Policy Coalition, in a brief submitted last October in the context of the Texas law challenge.
California passed a law over 30 years ago banning the sale of semi-automatic rifles in its territory. Last June, Federal Judge Roger Benitez declared this law unconstitutional. In the very first sentence of his ruling, he compared the AR-15, the preferred firearm of mass killers in the United States, to the Swiss Army Knife, seeing in the two “a perfect combination of ‘domestic defense weapon and territorial defense equipment’.
California Attorney General Ron Bonda has appealed his decision.
The new law being considered by Governor Newsom would not only ban the manufacture, distribution and sale of semi-automatic rifles. It would also target parts ordered on the Internet and which are used to assemble so-called ghost weapons because they do not have a serial number.
The question now is whether the five most conservative Supreme Court justices would be as tolerant of such a move as they have been of Texas law so far.
Robert Spitzer is among the experts who doubt it.
“Could they pass up the abortion measure in Texas, but prevent a gun law like California’s?” He asked rhetorically. “I think the answer is if that is their goal, they can find a way to distinguish between the Texas abortion law and the possible California gun law, if it were to be enacted. ”
A winning cause
And what would this distinction be?
” I’ve no idea ! Exclaimed Professor Spitzer.
However, if any of this illustrates anything, it is how conservative lawyers can use their imagination to achieve the goals they want to achieve and find receptive judges in federal courts to endorse those efforts.
Robert Spitzer, political scientist at the State University of New York at Cortland
With his party enjoying supermajorities in both California parliamentary assemblies, Gov. Newsom should have no trouble getting his law passed early next year. After easily defeating a recall procedure against him last September, he could thus become the champion of a cause likely not only to promote his re-election in November 2022, but also to provide him with a national forum.
In other words, he cannot lose politically. From a legal standpoint, that’s another story.
In the meantime, the National Rifle Association, an influential gun lobby, is working hard.
“Governor Newsom does not understand the actions of the Supreme Court – and the limits of its war on legal possession of firearms. His promise to trample on the Second Amendment is nothing more than political theater, ”reads a press release from the organization.