Tweet
According to the article... not quite...
There's a bit more background in this 16 December article... Federal judge to block part of California gun law modeled after Texas abortion ban. It's not so much about "guns" and is more about "abortion;" i.e., the law was intended to use the Right and their support for guns to undermine the anti-abortion ruling in Texas. In other words, it was never about 'fee shifting' related to firearms lawsuits. It was about getting such 'fee shifting' declared unconstitutional so as to challenge the Texas abortion law...
This 20 December piece is a bit more explicit... Federal judge strikes down California's 'fee-shifting' gun control scheme, which echoed Texas abortion law...
...On Dec. 19, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego nixed one part of SB 1327 on constitutional grounds: the "fee-shifting" provision that would have saddled gun-industry litigants with all or part of the court costs from any suit challenging the state's gun controls, even if they prevailed in court. The state attorney general's office had refused to defend it, having argued that the Texas fee-shifting provision on which it was based was unconstitutional.
After Benitez handed down his ruling, Newsom issued a statement saying the judge had "confirmed" that the Texas law was unconstitutional too.
The rest of SB 1327 remains in effect, including the private right of action. Officials with National Shooting Sports Foundation and the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. said they are waiting to see how the law is used and had no plans to challenge it preemptively...
After Benitez handed down his ruling, Newsom issued a statement saying the judge had "confirmed" that the Texas law was unconstitutional too.
The rest of SB 1327 remains in effect, including the private right of action. Officials with National Shooting Sports Foundation and the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. said they are waiting to see how the law is used and had no plans to challenge it preemptively...
This 20 December piece is a bit more explicit... Federal judge strikes down California's 'fee-shifting' gun control scheme, which echoed Texas abortion law...
...The Texas measure makes abortions illegal after a fetal heartbeat can be detected and permits private citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone else who assists in a woman's procurement of abortion for $10,000. This fee-shifting mechanism was designed to protect the 2021 law from judicial review to circumvent the Supreme Court's old abortion precedent in Roe v. Wade. The high court has since overturned that precedent, permitting states to restrict, or liberalize, abortion.
Newsom called on the California legislature to enact a similar law for guns days after the Supreme Court ruled than the Texas heartbeat law could remain in effect following a legal challenge.
California's gun law also creates a private right-of-action for citizens to sue gun manufactures who make "assault weapons and ghost guns" for $10,000. Newsom described the law as virtually identical to the Texas provisions, but Benitez wrote that "California's law goes even further." He observed that the gun control statute denies a prevailing plaintiff attorneys fees. Further, Benitez emphasized that only the California measure "applies to laws affecting a clearly enumerated constitutional right set forth in our nation's founding documents."
"Whether these distinctions are enough to save the Texas law fee-shifting provision from judicial scrutiny remains to be seen," Benitez wrote. "And although it would be tempting to comment on it, the Texas law is not before this Court for determination."
The judge's order is likely to set up a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the outcome Newsom desired. The governor's office called it "hypocritical" to block the state's gun law while permitting the Texas abortion measure to stand...
Newsom called on the California legislature to enact a similar law for guns days after the Supreme Court ruled than the Texas heartbeat law could remain in effect following a legal challenge.
California's gun law also creates a private right-of-action for citizens to sue gun manufactures who make "assault weapons and ghost guns" for $10,000. Newsom described the law as virtually identical to the Texas provisions, but Benitez wrote that "California's law goes even further." He observed that the gun control statute denies a prevailing plaintiff attorneys fees. Further, Benitez emphasized that only the California measure "applies to laws affecting a clearly enumerated constitutional right set forth in our nation's founding documents."
"Whether these distinctions are enough to save the Texas law fee-shifting provision from judicial scrutiny remains to be seen," Benitez wrote. "And although it would be tempting to comment on it, the Texas law is not before this Court for determination."
The judge's order is likely to set up a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the outcome Newsom desired. The governor's office called it "hypocritical" to block the state's gun law while permitting the Texas abortion measure to stand...
Comment