Connect with us

Gun Rights

What If Legislators Could be Sued (Like They Want to Sue the Gun Industry)?

Published

on

Ah, California. It’s the most beautiful place you’d never want to live, courtesy of its insane lawmakers and their dedication to disarming everyone, all the time, for any reason. Today, our friend Larry Keane at the National Shooting Sports Foundation has a bit of a thought experiment about our left coast legislators, and what it would take to get them out of their “safe space” and back into what the rest of us call “reality.” Take it away, Larry!

___________________________________________________________________


By Larry Keane

California politicians are abusing their legislative authority to draft political reprisal bills. Left coast lawmakers want to pass a law allowing the state’s attorney general, city or county attorneys, or anyone regardless of whether they suffered harm, to sue the maker or seller of a firearm that was illegally used to inflict harm.

It’s a bill that California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom called for and one that Democratic state Sen. Robert Hertzberg was glad to deliver with SB 1327. It specifically targets precursor parts used to build personally-made firearms – or so-called “ghost guns” – and Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) along with .50-caliber rifles, both of which are already banned in California.

Gov. Newsom admitted this legislation was a form of political reprisal. Worse yet, this bill attempts to open the floodgates against the firearm industry simply because he despises the industry that provides the means for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The frustrating part is that Gov. Newsom and his gun control allies in California’s legislature are openly mocking their own voters. They’re using the authority granted to them by voters to abuse the legislative process to score cheap political points with their special-interest gun control donors. They know they can get away with it too. Elected officials operate under qualified immunity that protects them from civil lawsuits.

So when President Joe Biden bellows from The White House Rose Garden about wanting to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which bars these frivolous lawsuits against firearm businesses for the criminal actions of non-associated third parties, he purposefully misleads the American public. Politicians can’t be sued for the harmful laws they write. But what if they could be sued?

Crime Victims

What if crime victims could sue Gov. Newsom, or even President Biden, for failing to enforce the laws that protect communities?

The question is relevant, especially in California. District Attorney George Gascón has drawn the ire of law enforcement and citizens alike for his soft-on-crime approach to even violent criminal offenders. Convicted gang member Luis Angel Hernandez bragged he was going to have Gascón’s name tattooed to his face for his lenient sentencing policies, after he was charged with shooting and killing a delivery driver in a 2018 armed robbery. Gascón is facing a recall from voters with 300,000 of the required 567,000 signatures with more than two months left before the deadline. A full 98 percent of Los Angeles prosecutors support this recall, according to the Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys (LAADDA).

The worst outcome for Gascón is he’s out of a job. But what if victims of crimes could sue Gascón for the damages they suffered because of his inactions?

Firearm Industry

What if business owners or corporations could sue lawmakers for intentionally maligning, harming or enacting laws that do irreparable damage to their ability to conduct business? What if those businesses, like the firearm industry, were Constitutionally-protected and politicians like Gov. Newsom intentionally ignored that to drive those companies out of business?

Gun makers and retailers would have a case against California for the state’s Unsafe Handgun Roster that sets in motion a slow-rolling handgun ban. The law was first enacted in 2001 and required handguns be certified for three specific safety requirements. In 2013, that requirement was updated to include all semiautomatic handguns to have microstamping technology built into any firearm brought to market. That’s winnowed down the number of handguns available for Californians from 967 models when the law was implemented by then-Attorney General Kamala Harris to less than 250 when same models with different paint schemes are taken into account.

Since microstamping is technologically unfeasible, this is a law specifically enacted to deprive firearm businesses their ability to sell a lawfully-made and Constitutionally-protected product. A similar argument could be made for California’s ban on traditional hunting ammunition.

State lawmakers are enacting these laws as a means of reprisal against the firearm industry. They know the requirements for microstamping are unachievable and the ban on hunting ammunition throughout the state is devoid of justifying scientific data. It’s a way of making it increasingly difficult to serve California customers.

Gun Owners

What about gun owners left defenseless against criminal home invaders because of intentionally-discriminatory laws depriving them of their right to keep and bear arms? California lawmakers banned adults under the age of 21 from purchasing any firearm, without meeting strict exceptions. That enacts an age-based gun ban for adults over 18 who are fully-vested in their civil rights – except for their right to lawfully purchase a firearm.

Fredrick Wesley was recently arrested in Stockton, Calif., for a home invasion in which left one adult dead and another wounded. Inside the home were three children, ages 10, 12 and 9, as well as an 18-year-old. California law bars that 18-year-old from purchasing a firearm to protect himself and his family. California lawmakers won’t have to answer to that 18-year-old for denying him the ability to protect his family. They also won’t have to pay for damages inflicted on this family since they are protected by qualified immunity. The same qualified immunity these liberal politicians want to strip away from police officers.

California’s lawmakers aren’t held accountable for wielding their legislative and executive authority, no matter how harmful it is to their own citizens. If they could be dragged into court and made to answer for their specious laws, they might not be so quick to weaponize their authority against the firearm industry and Californians.

8 Comments

8 Comments

  1. Max Wilkerson

    May 19, 2022 at 7:54 pm

    Greetings,

    This may be the wrong location to present an personal opinion but here it is nether the less!
    The Idea of legally attacking These Disgusting Politicians:

    Law Protectors That Do Not Protect!
    Law Makers Of Laws That Are Found To Be Illegal!
    Law Makers That Attack Our Founding Amendments!
    Law Makers That Perjure Under Oath!
    Law Makers That Obviously Threaten Our Freedoms & Safety!
    Law Makers that Do Not Support The True Needs Of Our Country,
    Only Their Own Selfish/Greedy/Personal Desires!
    Law Makers That Have Made Themselves & Their Families Rich!

    President Trump did not spend much time being President,
    His Time was Wasted Defending (Basically) False Charges!

    What Could He Have Accomplished If He Had?

    Our Government Is Our Biggest Threat To Pease & Harmony The Old American Way!

    One of the only Pleasures Leaving This World Will Be Not Watching
    The America My Family Helped Build Being Destroyed!

    Sincerely, Max E. Wilkerson II, Be Safe! Be Well!

  2. Michael K

    April 29, 2022 at 11:17 pm

    Have you ever noticed: the people who scream the loudest for GUN confiscation, are the same ones who have government provided ARMED Security, or have the $$ to hire ARMED Security.

    Mistakes by BIG Medical i.e. Doctor’s and BIG Pharma i.e. Pharmacict’s kill more people every year in the US than all murders by guns, knives, clubs – bats combined do. Guns are a guaranteed right by the US Constitution while practicing medicine as a Doctor or as a Pharmacist, are NOT guaranteed rights by the US Constitution.

    If gun owners can be denied the right to own a gun if they are an unlawful user or ADDICTED to alcohol or “street drugs, then the same should apply to any and all city, county, state of federal Employee’s and this definitely includes ALL who were elected. Start at the Federal level and remind them if they get 3 “HOT” tests, they are banned for life from ever holding any government position including POTUS to city dog catcher.

  3. Ken

    April 29, 2022 at 10:52 pm

    It seems to me that these legislators are held accountable , they are put back in office by votes from thee California citizens . they also can be not voted back into office .

  4. Donald

    April 29, 2022 at 2:15 pm

    Similar laws have been declared repugnant to the Constitution by the Supreme Court of the USA. Claims made to support the new laws are also invalid, fictions or outright lies. By the way, passing such a law that does not hold manufacturers of any implement used in a crime would be extremely selective. Kitchen knife manufacturers, rolling pin manufacturers, automobile manufacturers would all have to be liable for manufacturers of these and all implements used in illegal activities. BTW, cars, trucks and kitchen knives all kill more people per year than rifles abd must be held accountable too. Also, all of the manufactured goods that harm more people and are used in crimes far far outpace legally owned firearms and do not have the Constitutional recognition of a RIGHT THAT CAN NOT BE INFRINGED!

  5. Mark Allen Wilder

    April 29, 2022 at 12:55 pm

    From the article, “Elected officials operate under qualified immunity that protects them from civil lawsuits.”
    Qualified immunity needs to be abolished. All people regardless of position or title are to be held to the same standards and laws of this country period. Qualified immunity has allowed too much rot and corruption into out government.
    I do realize they can lose qualified immunity but that is always decided on by someone else who has qualified immunity.

  6. Lee

    April 29, 2022 at 10:38 am

    Sue politicians for hiding the fact that they may be a ‘drug addict’ of money or the ‘power of office’. Any addict is incompetent to serve the citizens honestly. Drug addicts of this type are harmful to our democracy. Drug addicts in Congress…what could go wrong? Hiding this heinous addiction from the voters should qualify for removal from any elected office.
    de oppresso liber

  7. Rickety Rick

    April 29, 2022 at 9:32 am

    Qualified immunity is not applicable when an official has obviously violated a persons obvious rights, such as an illegal search and/or any other of your constitutional rights. Police and other public servants are sued every year. This is not just a concept of dreams. More people and lawyers should get involved in doing this, as again, it is not just a pipe dream. There are so many sociopaths in office because they think they are immune from any responsibility. So yes it is time to start a new cottage industry of sueing politicians for not upholding their oath to protect and defend the constitution.

  8. Rat Wrangler

    April 29, 2022 at 9:24 am

    There are presently 32 military bases in California. Since it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to possess a firearm in that state, are all the troops there over 21, or are the younger ones prohibited from carrying, even on base? While the bases are technically Federal property, they still reside within the state. If someone claims that the laws do not apply on Federal lands, then those under 21 could legally carry in the national parks in California, since they are Federal lands, not state. I see some serious arguments about jurisdiction coming up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Trending

Copyright © 2021 Brand Avalanche Media, LLC. Guns & Gadgets Daily is a wholly owned subsidiary of Brand Avalanche Media, LLC. This copyrighted material may not be republished without express permission. The information presented here is for general educational purposes only. MATERIAL CONNECTION DISCLOSURE: You should assume that this website has an affiliate relationship and/or another material connection to the persons or businesses mentioned in or linked to from this page and may receive commissions from purchases you make on subsequent web sites. You should not rely solely on information contained in this email to evaluate the product or service being endorsed. Always exercise due diligence before purchasing any product or service. This website contains advertisements.