Good news

Posted on by

Via FOX News:

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California issued a permanent injunction on Monday against the “fee-shifting” provisions of the state’s gun law – which empowers private citizens to bring lawsuits against manufacturers of illegal guns – declaring it unconstitutional.

“‘It is cynical. ‘It is an abomination.’ ‘It is outrageous and objectionable.’ ‘There is no dispute that it raises serious constitutional questions.’ ‘It is an unprecedented attempt to thwart judicial review,’”

As Tom Gresham (@Guntalk) said:

This was absolutely critical. A “Must Win.”

Share

7 thoughts on “Good news”

  1. Point of clarification, please: Wasn’t the “fee-shifting” provision of the new gun law the part that stated that if a gun law is challenged and ANY PART of the plaintiff’s challenge fails for ANY reason, the plaintiff must pay ALL the legal costs … including the costs the State incurs defending the law?

    How does that “empower private citizens to bring lawsuits against manufacturers of illegal guns”? How does that “empower private citizens” to bring ANY kind of lawsuit involving guns?

    It seems to me that would disenfranchise and discourage lawsuits, which was probably the point when it was passed. Nothing “empowers private citizens” like getting a “congrats” on their victory … followed by a bill from their attorney for $50k … followed in turn by a bill from the State for $1.5 million.

    Or is this a different “fee-shifting” provision of which I wasn’t yet aware?

    Either way, good that it’s gone.

    • Point of clarification, please: Wasn’t the “fee-shifting” provision of the new gun law the part that stated that if a gun law is challenged and ANY PART of the plaintiff’s challenge fails for ANY reason, the plaintiff must pay ALL the legal costs … including the costs the State incurs defending the law?

      Both are true:

      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.”

  2. The anti freedom and liberty politicians know that the laws they are formulating and passing are Unconstitutional but they don’t care. They have no skin in the game as the tax payers will end up footing ALL the expenses related to any court and legal activities. Their objective is to bleed their opponents dry with frivolous law after frivolous law, just daring those who desire to exercise their God given rights to face the corrupt slings and arrows they will use to make any challenge as painful and as expensive as possible. This will continue until the politicians chickens are made to come home to roost. Until then, we cheer every win but we know that any win for freedom will never be conclusive until there is personal accountability on the part of those who continue hide behind their “legislative responsibilities to protect the populace” while denying the populace the free exercise of their enumerated rights.

  3. “These scumbags need to be prosecuted.”

    There are multiple definitons of “prosecuted;” please specify to which one you are referring.

  4. Judge Benitez’ order starts by quoting Newsom himself describing the Texas law he mimicked:

    “It is cynical”

    “It is an abomination”

    “It is outrageous and objectionable”

Comments are closed.