Unconstitutionally vague?

Why is this not considered unconstitutionally vague:

Gun makers and dealers in California will be required to block firearms sales to anyone they have “reasonable cause to believe is at substantial risk” of using a gun illegally or of harming themselves or others, under a new law that Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Tuesday that he had signed.

It’s a subjective requirement that goes farther than current background checks or prohibitions on selling guns to people prohibited from owning them.

The regulation is part of the new law creating a good conduct code for gun makers and dealers that also allows anyone who suffers harm from violations to sue.

The state’s firearm industry standard of conduct, starting in July 2023, will require those making, importing or selling guns to “take reasonable precautions” to make sure the weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands through sales or thefts.

That includes having “reasonable controls” to prevent sales to arms traffickers, straw buyers, those prohibited from owning guns, and anyone deemed to be at “substantial risk” of using the gun improperly.

Or is it deliberately written this way so as to cast a chilling effect upon the specific enumerated right and cause us to spend money challenging them in court?

And what about retailers being sued for discrimination for failure to sell on the basis of race and/or sex? Or the woman visibility upset because of her stalker being denied and later injured when unable to defend herself?

These characters really need to be prosecuted.


11 thoughts on “Unconstitutionally vague?

  1. It’s way past time to crank up the movement for Calexit again. Maybe if DeSantis (or Trump) wins in 2024 the nuts and the flakes in CA will do so, and good riddance.

    • Calexit is an inverted idea. It’s not the Left that wants to split off from the US. It’s the people on the right that want to carve out their own areas from those idiots, and either make new states, or add them to the existing bordering states, to end up with an area that is closer to Constitutional.

  2. Prepare for an even more in your face election steal and legislative assault on our freedoms this election…the peoples’ vote no longer matters…deeply entrenched voter fraud and fake pandemics will ensure our march to communism…

  3. He should try that with cars and alcohol. That would be interesting. That would surely put all Gavin’s wino making friends up in Napa out of business.
    Luckly for Newsom society has been morally subverted to the point of not thinking very critically anymore.
    And how would a manufacturer comply? They have no control over retail sales?
    And where’s the government in this? They’re the ones with all the info, passing background checks?
    Sue the government for violating it’s own laws?
    They certainly know any given criminal better than some retail gun shop would.

    • Also, any control a manufacturer tried to exercise over a retailer, even in the absence of “Fast and Furious” style government influence, would quickly run afoul of the anti-trust laws. These would operate similar to the manner in which ownership of movie theaters was separated from the studios in the late forties and the fifties.

  4. Under those circles I would not sell anything to any California government agency or police department.

  5. This runs afoul of Bruin’s need for any requirement be objective. Demanding g that for a carry permit certainly trickles down to the more base level purchasing.

    This also sounds like Jim crow eara laws. “Good moral character ” generally ment not black – it simply expanded over time.

    • Hence the pressing need for the Chinese Communist Party system of Social Credit Score.
      Coming to a Leftist state near you!

Comments are closed.