Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

2022 SB 1327 Hertzberg - Firearms: private rights of action (SB8-like Private Suits)

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • BeAuMaN
    Senior Member
    • Dec 2015
    • 1193

    2022 SB 1327 Hertzberg - Firearms: private rights of action (SB8-like Private Suits)



    This is the bill attempts to replicate Texas's SB8 anti-abortion bill, known as the Texas Heartbeat Act. You've likely heard about it in the news, but if you haven't: It uses various mechanisms that criminalizes abortions (as defined) in Texas. These kind of state bans are normally prohibited as unconstitutional under the decision Roe v. Wade, however to get around that, the law uses a series of legal mechanisms to essentially have private individuals, who are not state/local officials, enforce the ban by allowing said private individuals to pursue civil suits against those violating the law. If successful, they're awarded a minimum of $10,000 in damages plus attorney fees and costs. Kind of like a bounty. From a legal standpoint (far outside my wheelhouse) it's cleverly designed so as to evade judicial review, such that those trying to get preliminary injunction against the law was dismissed by SCOTUS, since due to various laws and legal precedent, SCOTUS can't take immediate action (pre-enforcement judicial review). Challenges are working their way through the courts slowly.

    I'll point out that Firearms Policy Coalition did write an amicus curiae brief warning that the Texas Heartbeat Act would be weaponized against guns. That leads us to this bill.

    This bill, SB-1327, at the behest of Newsom and his call to action on 12/11/2021, does basically the same thing, except with firearms instead of abortions. Specifically, it targets the following as quoted below. Highlighting the main parts but there's also exclusions:
    22949.62. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, no person within this state may manufacture or cause to be manufactured, distribute, transport, or import into the state, or cause to be distributed, transported, or imported into the state, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend, any assault weapon, .50 BMG rifle, or unserialized firearm, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e) and in Section 22949.63.

    (b) No person within this state may manufacture or cause to be manufactured, distribute, transport, or import into the state, or cause to be distributed or transported or imported into the state, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend, any firearm precursor part. This subdivision shall not apply to a manufacturer or importer of firearms licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, except that the manufacturer or importer shall not perform any of the acts prohibited by this subdivision with respect to a kit of firearm precursor parts containing all parts necessary to construct a functioning firearm.
    The rest of the details can be read in the bill.

    Media:







    I'm of the personal opinion this bill is political grandstanding and it will become moot once the Texas Heartbeat Act eventually makes it way through the courts and gets struck down for the most part, at which point Newsom will proclaim the bill victorious because he "forced" SCOTUS to defend abortion or something by writing this bill, and thus you should vote for him as president in 2028. We'll see what happens though.
    Last edited by BeAuMaN; 02-20-2022, 11:17 AM.
  • #2
    Mulamu
    Member
    • Jul 2011
    • 110

    I understand the Texas law expressly prohibits government enforcement of the abortion ban, instead relying 100 percent on civil private party lawsuits. Thus no government action and no constitutional
    issue. Is Newsom proposing the same thing? Wouldn't that mean the government enforcement of gun bans would have to be rolled back and switched to 100 percent private endorsement through civil law, like the Texas abortion law?
    "This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice." State v. Sieyes, 225 P. 3d 995 (Wash. Sup. Ct. 2010) (Sanders, J.)

    Comment

    • #3
      Mulamu
      Member
      • Jul 2011
      • 110

      here is the Texas law: No enforcement of this subchapter, and no enforcement of Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in response to violations of this subchapter, may be taken or threatened by this state, a political subdivision, a district or county attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision against any person, except as provided in Section 171.208.

      Is California really going to do that with gun laws?
      "This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice." State v. Sieyes, 225 P. 3d 995 (Wash. Sup. Ct. 2010) (Sanders, J.)

      Comment

      • #4
        BeAuMaN
        Senior Member
        • Dec 2015
        • 1193

        Originally posted by Mulamu
        I understand the Texas law expressly prohibits government enforcement of the abortion ban, instead relying 100 percent on civil private party lawsuits. Thus no government action and no constitutional
        issue. Is Newsom proposing the same thing? Wouldn't that mean the government enforcement of gun bans would have to be rolled back and switched to 100 percent private endorsement through civil law, like the Texas abortion law?
        Originally posted by Mulamu
        here is the Texas law: No enforcement of this subchapter, and no enforcement of Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in response to violations of this subchapter, may be taken or threatened by this state, a political subdivision, a district or county attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision against any person, except as provided in Section 171.208.

        Is California really going to do that with gun laws?
        Yes, hence "empowering private persons to take violators to court and seek damages".

        To quote from SB-1327:
        22949.64. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the requirements of this chapter shall be enforced exclusively through the private civil actions described in Section 22949.65. No enforcement of this chapter may be taken or threatened by this state, a political subdivision, a district or county or city attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision against any person, except as provided in Section 22949.65.
        (b) The fact that conduct violates this chapter shall not be an independent basis for enforcement of any other law of this state, or the denial, revocation, suspension, or withholding of any right or privilege conferred by the law of this state or a political subdivision, or a threat to do the same, by this state, a political subdivision, a district or county or city attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision, or a board, commission, or similar body assigned authority to do so under law, against any person, except as provided in Section 22949.65. Nor shall any civil action predicated upon a violation of this chapter be brought by this state, a political subdivision, a district or county or city attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision. For avoidance of doubt, the rights and privileges described by this subdivision include, but are not limited to, any business licenses and permits issued pursuant to this code or any firearms, ammunition, or precursor parts dealer or vendor licenses issued pursuant to Title 4 (commencing with Section 23500) of Part 6 of the Penal Code. This subdivision shall not be construed to prevent or limit enforcement of any other law regulating conduct that also violates this chapter, including, but not limited to, Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 30400) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 30500) of Division 10 of Title 4 of Part 6 of the Penal Code.

        ...

        22949.65. (a) Any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action against any person who does any of the following:
        I'll re-write the summary in OP to be more clear. It was fairly early when I wrote it. Just like the Texas law there's a lot going on in this bill.

        Comment

        • #5
          The Gleam
          I need a LIFE!!
          • Feb 2011
          • 11648

          They'll be burning books next.

          ----
          -----------------------------------------------
          Originally posted by Librarian
          What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

          If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?

          Comment

          • #6
            Mulamu
            Member
            • Jul 2011
            • 110

            Re:

            Yes, hence "empowering private persons to take violators to court and seek damages".

            To quote from SB-1327:
            Originally Posted by
            22949.64. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the requirements of this chapter shall be enforced exclusively through the private civil actions described in Section 22949.65. No enforcement of this chapter may be taken or threatened by this state, a political subdivision, a district or county or city attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision against any person, except as provided in Section 22949.65.

            That's super interesting. I'm not sure this would be worse for gun owners. If I'm reading this right people could add all features back to their rifles, shoot them at private ranges and state government can do nothing about it. Similarly about manufacturing and importing.
            "This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice." State v. Sieyes, 225 P. 3d 995 (Wash. Sup. Ct. 2010) (Sanders, J.)

            Comment

            • #7
              BeAuMaN
              Senior Member
              • Dec 2015
              • 1193

              So, reading this... with regards to AWs/.50 BMG rifles/unserialized firearms, this only targets people doing illegal actions, right?

              (a) Notwithstanding any other law, no person within this state may manufacture or cause to be manufactured, distribute, transport, or import into the state, or cause to be distributed, transported, or imported into the state, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend, any assault weapon, .50 BMG rifle, or unserialized firearm, except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e) and in Section 22949.63.
              Persons are generally prohibited from doing the bolded actions anyway, and subdivisions (d) and (e), as well as Section 22949.63 referenced as exemptions to this bill are basically licensed persons who already have the ability to transfer/manufacture/etc. all of the above.

              In other words this does nothing except provide a $10,000 bounty to go after those who break the law, while in contrast the texas law goes after people that are performing what would otherwise be legal abortions, correct?

              As it relates to firearm precursor parts....
              (b) No person within this state may manufacture or cause to be manufactured, distribute, transport, or import into the state, or cause to be distributed or transported or imported into the state, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend, any firearm precursor part. This subdivision shall not apply to a manufacturer or importer of firearms licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, except that the manufacturer or importer shall not perform any of the acts prohibited by this subdivision with respect to a kit of firearm precursor parts containing all parts necessary to construct a functioning firearm.
              Technically speaking, one can currently manufacture firearm precursor parts, yet this bill would allow civil action against that otherwise legal activity if I'm not mistaken. So that one currently legal action that would be prohibited by this bill, but I'd have to cross reference some more.

              I have to get ready for work, but I'll consider later. At the very least this bill is looking to be more like a "paper tiger" than as initially promoted. I encourage others familiar with the code to comment on if this is a correct assessment or not.
              Originally posted by Mulamu
              Re:

              Yes, hence "empowering private persons to take violators to court and seek damages".

              To quote from SB-1327:
              Originally Posted by
              22949.64. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the requirements of this chapter shall be enforced exclusively through the private civil actions described in Section 22949.65. No enforcement of this chapter may be taken or threatened by this state, a political subdivision, a district or county or city attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision against any person, except as provided in Section 22949.65.

              That's super interesting. I'm not sure this would be worse for gun owners. If I'm reading this right people could add all features back to their rifles, shoot them at private ranges and state government can do nothing about it. Similarly about manufacturing and importing.
              afaik if you read further to 22949.64.(c) it says:
              (c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not be construed to do any of the following:
              (1) Legalize the conduct prohibited by this chapter or by Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 30400) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 30500) of Division 10 of Title 4 of Part 6 of the Penal Code.
              (2) Waive any requirements prescribed in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 29180) of Division 7 of Title 4 of Part 6 of the Penal Code.
              (3) Limit or affect the availability of a remedy established by Section 22949.65.
              (4) Limit the enforceability of any other laws that regulate or prohibit any conduct relating to assault weapons, .50 BMG rifles, or firearm precursor parts.

              Comment

              • #8
                sbo80
                Senior Member
                • Apr 2014
                • 2263

                The biggest difference is the TX law, both created this enforcement while also creating a new law. This one does not create new laws regarding firearms, it just references the existing ones. "You can sue someone who is already breaking existing law" isn't exactly earth shattering. It seems like this means, every time the police arrest someone for illegally manufacturing AWs in their basement for their gang friends, that private citizens unrelated to the case can also sue them? That's interesting, and I don't think the intent they have but that's how I read it. It's not like you can use this new law, to sue a manufacturer like Colt. Legit gun businesses follow the law as it's currently written, so there is nothing to sue for.
                As mentioned it seems the underlying true purpose of this law is just political, is to get someone to challenge it, and then point out hypocrisy of supporting the TX law but complaining about this. Meaning the whole thing is a PR op.
                All that said, this is a slippery slope, as once this is on the books, it becomes easier to add to the list of "reasons" you could sue.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Mulamu
                  Member
                  • Jul 2011
                  • 110

                  "This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice." State v. Sieyes, 225 P. 3d 995 (Wash. Sup. Ct. 2010) (Sanders, J.)

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Foothills
                    Senior Member
                    • Feb 2014
                    • 918

                    ATF is that you?

                    I wonder if any of the recent "ghost gun" arrests will be vacated and the prosecutions dropped.

                    Or maybe the ATF does it themselves without local support.

                    CRPA Member

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      TeeMan
                      Member
                      • Dec 2013
                      • 204

                      Told you this would happen. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, the Texas law is incredibly dumb and dangerous.

                      Republicans: Pass law to try to get around established constitutional protections for abortion

                      Democrats: Pass similar law to try to get around constitutional protections for firearms

                      Republicans: *surprised Picachu face*

                      My guess (and hope) is that all this crap will eventually get thrown out due to established legal principles of standing: a random individual who is not directly affected would not have standing to sue another random individual for breaking a law. But until then it's going to be a freakin' clown show as both parties try to pass similar laws.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        bigdaddyz1776
                        Member
                        • Nov 2021
                        • 265

                        Originally posted by TeeMan
                        Told you this would happen. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, the Texas law is incredibly dumb and dangerous.

                        Republicans: Pass law to try to get around established constitutional protections for abortion

                        Democrats: Pass similar law to try to get around constitutional protections for firearms

                        Republicans: *surprised Picachu face*

                        My guess (and hope) is that all this crap will eventually get thrown out due to established legal principles of standing: a random individual who is not directly affected would not have standing to sue another random individual for breaking a law. But until then it's going to be a freakin' clown show as both parties try to pass similar laws.
                        Stop blaming Texas for this, its not their fault that California deserves the leaders it gets.

                        California Democrats are no different than Texas Republicans, as they write laws that get adopted by Democrats in other states.

                        If their holy grail known as "Roe v Wade" tomorrow got booted out of existence by SCOTUS, California could set whatever regulations on abortions it wants anyway since states will decide their own laws on abortion. There is no right to abortion in the constitution for now, compared to guns.

                        Its surprising how Newsom is basically willing to burn his own house down to make another homeowner comply with his insane demands. Regardless of morals on the abortion issue, Newsom doesn't really care much safety of his constituents from crimes involving firearms unless another state does something else on a different issue.

                        On a side note, Sanctuary States.

                        The DOJ under Merrick Garland is suing Missouri for trying to become as much of a 2nd amendment sanctuary when California, under this governor told Trump to pound sand when it came to enforcing the border.



                        Both parties do it, regardless of whether its the right or wrong move.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          BeAuMaN
                          Senior Member
                          • Dec 2015
                          • 1193

                          Amended 4/7/22

                          Adds a severability clause to the $10,000 minimum statutory damages subparagraph and the direction on how to determine the amount of statutory damages subparagraph.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Robotron2k84
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2017
                            • 2013

                            Lol. If they add a severability clause, then there really is no bounty for individuals to seek, if denied by the court. What impetus is there now for individuals to seek any private action?

                            This bill is such a grandstanding joke.

                            Of course we already know that “individuals” will be Gun Control Group proxies financially supported and represented by the generosity of Gun Control Groups.

                            So much corruption.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              onelonehorseman
                              Veteran Member
                              • Oct 2012
                              • 4888

                              Originally posted by BeAuMaN
                              Amended 4/7/22

                              Adds a severability clause to the $10,000 minimum statutory damages subparagraph and the direction on how to determine the amount of statutory damages subparagraph.
                              So all those gang-banger homies won't be able to cash in by ratting out their opposition gang-banger homies?
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              UA-8071174-1