AB-1594 Firearms: Civil Suits... Updated - Partially Blocked 2/22/24

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Judge blocks California law targeting suppliers of ?abnormally dangerous? firearms

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of a California law allowing government officials and individuals to sue manufacturers and sellers of "abnormally dangerous" firearms...

U.S. District Judge Andrew G. Schopler found the "abnormally dangerous" provisions of the state?s Firearm Industry Responsibility Act, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in July 2022, likely violated constitutional law around interstate commerce. He granted a preliminary injunction barring the state from enforcing those provisions while litigation proceeds, as requested by the industry group suing the state.

The law had defined "abnormally dangerous" weapons as having special features making them more suitable for "assaultive purposes" rather than recreation or self-defense. The law also targeted guns designed or marketed in ways that "foreseeably" promote illegal conversion into a fully-automatic weapon, along with other products marketed to minors or other people prohibited from legally possessing firearms.

Schopler, a President Biden appointee, denied the National Shooting Sports Foundation?s request to block other provisions of the law that require manufacturers and sellers to implement "reasonable controls" around gun safety and to avoid unfair business practices. Those portions of the law were left intact and remain enforceable...

Schopler, however, did not rely on the Bruen decision in his ruling Wednesday but rather the so-called dormant Commerce Clause, which is not part of the 2nd Amendment...

Keane noted that Schopler dismissed the NSSF's request for an injunction against the other provisions of the law, but allowed the group to refile its request if it found more evidence those provisions are causing its members harm...

[AlmostHeaven]

Dormant commerce clause jurisprudence is always interesting.

I wonder whether Judge Benitez could have used this approach in Rhode v. Bonta rather than solely relying on NYSRPA v. Bruen. I reckon the Ninth Circuit would have stayed the injunction anyway, but the possibility remains interesting from an academic perspective.

[Dan_Eastvale]

A liberal judge can determine that survivors of someone killed by a S&W can sue S&W and win?

Our legal system is severely flawed. Hopefully a Trump victory can make the liberals' worst fears come true.

[Batman]

A liberal judge can determine that survivors of someone killed by a S&W can sue S&W and win?

It's like saying that if someone got drunk and caused a fatality, the survivors could sue Jack Daniels!

[AlmostHeaven]

It's like saying that if someone got drunk and caused a fatality, the survivors could sue Jack Daniels!

Progressive organizations have already begun suing fossil fuel companies for alleged pollution. We live in an increasingly nonsensical world.

[Rickybillegas]

[QUOTE=AlmostHeaven;28396937]Progressive organizations have already begun suing fossil fuel companies for alleged pollution. We live in an increasingly nonsensical world.TE]

We live in a world run by Lawyers. When a cabinet member such as Tom Vilsack is head of dept. of Agriculture is a Lawyer, and not an agriculture expert.
And this is very typical. Lawyers running departments instead of experts in a particular field. What else would we expect but litigation everywhere?

[AlmostHeaven]

Progressive organizations have already begun suing fossil fuel companies for alleged pollution. We live in an increasingly nonsensical world.

We live in a world run by Lawyers. When a cabinet member such as Tom Vilsack is head of dept. of Agriculture is a Lawyer, and not an agriculture expert.
And this is very typical. Lawyers running departments instead of experts in a particular field. What else would we expect but litigation everywhere?

Indeed, most of our politicians themselves come from law backgrounds or actively practice.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

...What else would we expect but litigation everywhere?

Such is why it is grating when they refer to themselves as "lawmakers." That's one of the duties, when necessary. But, they wield it as if it is the sum total of their jobs.

Most laws are passed with the expectation of 'something' being missed. It's called job security. It turns the Congress into a perpetual law/regulation issuing branch. If they don't, they panic because they aren't 'showing' as 'doing something.' Yet, in reality, often, it is better for them to have done nothing. Not surprisingly, you end up with a lot of 'noise' and not much actually getting accomplished.

Back in the 1980's, a popular author of 'grocery store novels' wrote a series. In the first book, he noted that once laws were passed where a majority agreed to them, there wasn't much to do as an 'elected representative.' It's part of why laws are rarely found to have 'mass appeal.' In other words, if they actually did their jobs, they wouldn't have 'active' jobs to use for... other things.

It's why so many of them now are in 'permanent' campaign cycle. Very little actually needs to be done by way of passing laws. Yet, even with that, very little of what needs doing actually gets done or, at least, gets done in a timely and professional manner. Why? Because, for the vast majority, it's more about 'looking good' than 'doing the job that needs doing.'

[Rickybillegas]

That's why a lot of times, when I hear phrases in the media, such as 'legislative log jam' or "why can't the two sides get something done!"; I think to myself "thank goodness that we can't get 'things' done!"

Like, we don't have enough laws already?????

[AlmostHeaven]

Celebrating gridlock depends on the specific issue, of course. The current Congress is experiencing an epic hassle of a time trying to pass appropriation bills, which are a constitutional duty. Furthermore, practically speaking, the electorate tends to respond badly when the federal government simply shuts down.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Celebrating gridlock depends on the specific issue, of course. The current Congress is experiencing an epic hassle of a time trying to pass appropriation bills, which are a constitutional duty. Furthermore, practically speaking, the electorate tends to respond badly when the federal government simply shuts down.

You're not following.

We're not talking about "gridlock." At least I'm not and I didn't take his post that way.

What we're talking about is doing the necessary as opposed to doing 'something' for the sake of and being seen as doing something.

[AlmostHeaven]

You're not following.

We're not talking about "gridlock." At least I'm not and I didn't take his post that way.

What we're talking about is doing the necessary as opposed to doing 'something' for the sake of and being seen as doing something.

Rickybillegas mentioned "legislative logjam", which I interpreted, possibly incorrectly, to include the ongoing gridlock where the fiscal year 2024 federal budget has still not passed, and Congress has managed to reach round 4 of nonstop continuing resolutions.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Rickybillegas mentioned "legislative logjam", which I interpreted, possibly incorrectly, to include the ongoing gridlock where the fiscal year 2024 federal budget has still not passed, and Congress has managed to reach round 4 of nonstop continuing resolutions.

But, you used the term 'gridlock,' which is applied to something different than a 'logjam.' In fact, if you look at the entire content of his post...

That's why a lot of times, when I hear phrases in the media, such as 'legislative log jam' or "why can't the two sides get something done!"; I think to myself "thank goodness that we can't get 'things' done!"

Like, we don't have enough laws already?????

The term 'gridlock' doesn't seem to apply. It reads more as I suggested, doing the necessary as opposed to doing 'something' for the sake of and being seen as doing something; i.e., he appears to be referencing how the media interprets and/or describes Congress not passing things those in the media would like to see.

Of course, he's free to clarify if he'd like.