California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a controversial gun control bill modeled after Texas’ vigilante abortion law on Friday, teeing up a legal battle with a U.S. Supreme Court friendly to 2nd Amendment groups and firearm owners.
Newsom started a game of legal chess in December when he called for gun control legislation in California modeled after a Texas law that authorizes private citizens to sue anyone who aids and abets in an abortion, which the high court declined to block.
State Sen. Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) and a coalition of Democratic lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 1327 in response to Newsom’s request as a way to test the Supreme Court’s legal logic while setting up a political rivalry with states that have used a conservative majority of justices to expand gun ownership and curb abortion rights.
“If they are going to use this framework to put women’s lives at risk, we are going to use it to save people’s lives here in the state of California. That’s the spirit, the principle, behind this law,” Newsom said during a news conference to sign the bill.
Newsom on Friday morning also announced that he was running a full-page ad in Texas newspapers targeting Gov. Greg Abbott “for refusing to protect human life and take action against gun violence.”
“If Texas can ban abortion and endanger lives, California can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives,” Newsom wrote in a tweet.
Earlier this month, Newsom ran another campaign ad in Florida, which claimed that freedom is “under attack” in the Sunshine State and urged residents to “join us in California.”
Abbott Press Secretary Renae Eze said Newsom should instead “focus on all the jobs and businesses that are leaving California and coming to Texas.”
The new gun law, set to go into effect in January, will allow private people to sue anyone who imports, distributes, manufactures or sells illegal firearms in California, such as assault weapons, .50 BMG rifles and so-called ghost guns. The law requires a court to order $10,000 in damages for each weapon used in an alleged violation, along with attorneys fees. The bill was written so that if Texas’ law is nulled, California’s would similarly be invalidated.
Newsom placed SB 1327 at the top of a list of more than a dozen bills he prioritized this year to help address a national crisis of mass shootings and to further limit the gun industry’s already restricted influence in California. Newsom signed another measure this month to establish a “firearm industry standard of conduct” and to allow local governments, the state Department of Justice and gun violence survivors to sue for violations of state law. Other bills he signed limit firearm advertising to minors, crack down on ghost guns and require school officials to investigate credible threats of mass casualty incidents on campus.
Proponents billed SB 1327 as a way to curtail gun violence by enlisting the legal help of private residents in stopping the spread of prohibited firearms in the Golden State.
The Texas statute that inspired California’s law allows citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone who helps a person to obtain an abortion after five or six weeks of pregnancy.
“You’ve gotta do everything possible to reduce gun violence,” Hertzberg said. “If Texas is going to use this legal framework to essentially outlaw abortion for women, California is going to use this legislation to save lives.”
Lawsuits against many, if not all, of the bills are expected, with several gun ownership groups citing the policies as an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights.
“It is obvious that this is a retaliation against lawful gun owners and the court because of the Texas decision,” said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. “There’s a full expectation that the firearms industry will have a very strong reaction towards the signing of this bill.”
“They are really, really trying to be nothing but vindictive against lawful people in the firearms industry,” Paredes added. “All of our attorneys are in the process of evaluating what we are going to do on this thing.”
When the Supreme Court upheld the Texas law, some 2nd Amendment advocates voiced fears it could be used against them by gun control advocates, with Erik Jaffe, a lawyer for the Firearms Policy Coalition, calling the decision a vehicle for “deterring the exercise of any and all rights.”
But other legal experts question whether California’s strategy to mimic the Texas abortion ban will render the same outcome if it is brought before the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.
“One big difference between this law and Texas’ [abortion ban] is the likely opinion of the Supreme Court,” said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor with expertise in 2nd Amendment issues.
Winkler pointed to the Supreme Court’s recent decisions that struck down abortion rights guaranteed in Roe vs. Wade and a New York law that restricted concealed carry as evidence against its likelihood in upholding California’s new private right to action.
“The Supreme Court is much more likely to strike down California’s law than the Texas law. We now know one of the reasons the Texas law was not struck down is the court, within a matter of months, would overturn Roe vs. Wade,” Winkler said. “The same court is expanding 2nd Amendment rights and is now likely to take a ban on assault weapons as unconstitutional.”
The American Civil Liberties Union also raised serious concerns with the new law’s enforcement tactics.
Shilpi Agarwal, legal director at the ACLU of Northern California, said the group doesn’t object to what the bill aims to accomplish in limiting access to illegal firearms. Instead, Agarwal said the ACLU disagrees with circumventing the courts by allowing a private right to action as a way to enforce those restrictions, which could essentially establish a “constitutional arms race” with other states.
“The federal Constitution creates the floor on our rights that states can’t go below. That is what ensures that all citizens, no matter what state they live in, enjoy a baseline level of rights, which courts then enforce,” Agarwal said. Texas’ abortion ban “is meant to create a trap door in that floor. And now other states are creating their own trap doors. California is creating one as well. And with all of these trap doors, the floor becomes meaningless.”
A legislative analysis of the bill cautioned that replicating a Texas-style private enforcement strategy “may be flawed and dangerous” and noted that California already “tightly controls, regulates, and criminalizes activities related to restricted firearms.”
Hertzberg said the strategy is still worth trying.
“We don’t like the framework, but if we can take advantage of it and save lives, why is that wrong?” he said.
Newsom said that California has to assert itself after the Supreme Court “opened the door.”
“It was a terrible decision, but these are the rules that they have established.”
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
—————————————————————————————-Care to guess is planning to run for President? Grumpy