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

[bigdaddyz1776]

California really does hate Texas lol.

How dare those Texans do things that California's political establishment doesn't like.

Like almost getting rid of almost every hurdle to gun ownership over there and going even beyond that.

There is also the case of Florida as well though I doubt Gavin doesn't have the political will yet to pass a law mandating the reverse of a certain law signed by DeSantis that led to Disney losing their privileges for righteous reasons.

[Scotty]

So how many people can sue one person for transporting an illegal assault weapon or ghost gun? The police post pictures of the Amish with their SBR's. Imagine the chaos it would cause to the courts if we all file lawsuits.

[Foothills]

Petitioning

https://youtu.be/mUs__7ZZ01Y

The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is in the 1st Amendment. Precisely because in previous centuries the English government tried to punish dissent.

[DrewN]

The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is in the 1st Amendment. Precisely because in previous centuries the English government tried to punish dissent.

This does read like they just enacted punitive civil liability for dissent, doesn't it? I can't see how this stands.

[Dirtlaw]

Abortion was never a constitutional right. It is (and always was) a state's rights issue.

You got it!

[Dirtlaw]

The blindfold has been ripped from Lady Justice. Now the law depends on who you are. But even worse, if you disagree with their idea of the law you will be punished. Right now they will just bankrupt you. Next they will threaten your life. Power begets an uncontrollable drive for more power. And more power demands greater submission.

[DrewN]

“Any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief . . . shall not be deemed a prevailing party under this section or any other provision of this chapter.”

Does this mean you can't collect court costs if you win? WTF is up here?

[Dirtlaw]

Does this mean you can't collect court costs if you win? WTF is up here?

Basically it means that there is a 95% chance you and/or your attorney will be the one paying attorneys fees (if history holds). In simple language they have dramatically altered the calculus of bringing a lawsuit.

[champu]

[TruOil]

Interesting thought but I doubt it wouldt work that way. The prevailing party in a federal court will be determined by the federal court, a determination that is binding on any other court (except federal courts of appeal), under federal procedural and substantive law, not state law. Moreover, all of the claims would arise under federal law, not state law. Finally, this is a rule of procedure, not substantive law; there is no cause of action for recovery of attorneys fees except in a collections action. What this law does is eliminate attacks on state gun laws in state courts. So no, no countersuit would be allowed after the main action is concluded; it would be considered a mandatory cross-complaint and barred for failing to bring it in the main action. In my opinion.

[SamsDX]

If you haven't already, I would encourage you to read the various committee notes/write-ups as to why this bill was proposed, and how it is structured. One of the better analyses was prepared by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (as well as the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary, both of which seem to mirror each other), selectable from the document list here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...02120220SB1327

Bottom line, they know this is a problematic bill, and they know they're going to be violating our rights - they're not even making arguments as to why it might be plausibly constitutional.

Unfortunately, they modeled this exactly after Texas's SB8, which I understand include the very same attorneys fee provisions for those challenging the law, unfair venue rules, etc. This Assembly Judiciary analyses even acknowledges that a more analogous bill would be one which creates a private right of action against another individual who so much as posses a firearm that is otherwise perfectly legal under existing California law. (See page 11)

It's pathetic that California has stooped down to the level of throwing what are essentially legislative temper tantrums, but that's what this is. They're playing legislative activists over another state's laws, trying to force the issue to a head using a matter that are sure to inflame the passions on "our" side. On some level, I can understand what these legislators are trying to do. I never really agreed with the private right of action of SB8, (and now that I've learned about it, the "prevailing party" attorneys fee provisions) and with Dobbs overruling Roe v. Wade it's really not necessary anymore - the State has the authority to regulate abortion if they want to.

What they're forgetting, of course, is that the right to keep and bear arms is a Federally guaranteed Constitutional Right, whereas abortion is not, and that makes the key difference for future Federal Court litigation on this issue. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and both of these First Amendment-violating provisions should be found unconstitutional.

[Drivedabizness]

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?

There is NO RIGHT to abortion.

There ARE RIGHTS to ARMS.

Newsom is a douche and if the "right/smart people" from CGN [sarcasm alert] stay the **** away from it, this will be quashed in Court.

[pacrat]

NOTICE FROM CRPA RE 1327

In case you missed the announcement late last week, CRPA's legal challenge to the horrific SB 1327 took a step forward when Judge Roger Benitez dismissed the state's motion to dismiss the case altogether.

SB 1327 is among the more insidious of the post-Bruen bills, crafted to mimic a Texas anti-abortion law that was roundly criticized by the very lawmakers who then applied to gun ownership here in California.

The chilling effect of SB 1327 is particularly heinous, driven by provisions that make it nearly impossible to challenge any of the government's restrictive gun laws. Judge Benitez said as much in his ruling, noting that the new law tends to "insulate California firearms regulations from constitutional review".

Gots ta Love Benitez

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Californians have a green light to sue the gun industry. How will that work?

One of the strangest pieces of legislation ever enacted in California took effect Jan. 1, giving state residents and visitors the same power to threaten the gun industry that Texans now wield over abortion providers.

Even backers of the law say this isn't an entirely good thing.

SB 1327 authorizes anyone other than state or local government officials to sue people who violate the state's laws against the manufacture, distribution or sale of assault weapons, ghost guns and other banned firearms. Lawsuits could also be brought against gun dealers who violate the state's law against selling or transferring weapons (besides hunting rifles) to anyone under 21 years old...

[taperxz]

Californians have a green light to sue the gun industry. How will that work?