Have gun will travel. States to export both their gun laws and their abortion laws.

postman

Diamond Member
Feb 23, 2017
18,765
9,535
1,250
With the anticipated fall of Roe V Wade, one argument is that it wouldn't outlaw abortion, because there would be liberal states still allowing it. But now states seek to apply their abortion bans to the residents who seek abortions out of state.


In March, a Missouri legislator introduced a bill that would make it illegal to "aid or abet" out-of-state abortions.

The proposed Missouri bill, like many of the so-called "trigger laws" across the country, is anticipating a world without Roe v. Wade and the day when abortion bans are lawful, said Murray.

"If abortions are no longer lawful, it is perhaps easier to justify all measures to prevent them, including prohibitions on leaving the state," she said.


P.S.

Medication Abortion Next Battleground

The use of medication abortions, which involve a two-drug protocol to end a pregnancy, is already expanding rapidly as the number of abortion providers continues to decline in states with the harshest restrictions. In the event that Roe is overturned, the ability of states to restrict access to abortion pills, including those supplied via international websites, is likely to be the next battleground.
 
interdasting.jpg
 
That'll never fly.

I did a coast to coast to coast road trip last year. The speed limit in Montana is 75. In Wyoming it's 80.

However, the speed limit where I live, Florida, is 70.

The state of Florida cannot prosecute me for acting lawfully in Montana or Wyoming simply because that same action would be illegal in Florida. Nor can the state of Florida stop me from going to Montana or Wyoming just so I can drive at a speed which is higher than Florida's speed limit...
 
They cant do that shit. surely!

Who is to stop them? As the lawyers say, this is in uncharted territory.
The current Texas law makes facilitating somebody getting an abortion after 6 weeks a crime that it's citizens can sue any abettor through civil action, with a minimum reward of $10,000
 
That'll never fly.

The state of Florida cannot prosecute me for acting lawfully in Montana or Wyoming simply because that same action would be illegal in Florida. Nor can the state of Florida stop me from going to Montana or Wyoming just so I can drive at a speed which is higher than Florida's speed limit...

I just pointed out the Texas law, which makes helping somebody to get an abortion after 6 weeks, lets any citizen inside or outside of texas to sue any abettor, for a minimum of $10,000.


Instead it allows any private citizen the extraordinary authority to sue an abortion provider – they do not need to be connected to the patient or even reside in the same state

In fact, any individual can sue anyone who “aids or abets” abortion care or someone who “intends” to help an abortion patient, a breathtakingly wide range of possible people and groups. While those who sue can collect a minimum of $10,000 if they are successful, those unjustly sued cannot recover legal fees.
 
That'll never fly.

I did a coast to coast to coast road trip last year. The speed limit in Montana is 75. In Wyoming it's 80.

However, the speed limit where I live, Florida, is 70.

The state of Florida cannot prosecute me for acting lawfully in Montana or Wyoming simply because that same action would be illegal in Florida. Nor can the state of Florida stop me from going to Montana or Wyoming just so I can drive at a speed which is higher than Florida's speed limit...
Likewise, if we are shooting down federal authority, surely the Second Amendment is a ban on all gun authority at the federal level.

Thus, California cannot ban Texas from allowing its citizens to manufacturing and purchase machine guns.

It all works out in the end.
 
I just pointed out the Texas law, which makes helping somebody to get an abortion after 6 weeks, lets any citizen inside or outside of texas to sue any abettor, for a minimum of $10,000.


Instead it allows any private citizen the extraordinary authority to sue an abortion provider – they do not need to be connected to the patient or even reside in the same state

In fact, any individual can sue anyone who “aids or abets” abortion care or someone who “intends” to help an abortion patient, a breathtakingly wide range of possible people and groups. While those who sue can collect a minimum of $10,000 if they are successful, those unjustly sued cannot recover legal fees.
You know that is a straight up trap law, right?

it is intended to be shot down so it can be applied to gun legislation.

You guys are gonna lose big-time.
 
Who is to stop them? As the lawyers say, this is in uncharted territory.

Who's to stop them? How about the fact that you can't prosecute someone for not breaking another state's laws while a person is in that other state?

Let's say Arizona bans abortion completely and California permits it. If a woman travels Tucson to San Diego and gets an abortion, the woman hasn't broken any law in the state of Arizona. There's absolutely no grounds on which she could be prosecuted for anything...
 
You know that is a straight up trap law, right?

it is intended to be shot down so it can be applied to gun legislation.

You guys are gonna lose big-time.

The reality is that, in order for it to be just, it would need to apply to every single law in every state, not just abortion and gun laws.

That's ludicrous...
 
Who's to stop them? How about the fact that you can't prosecute someone for not breaking another state's laws while a person is in that other state?

Let's say Arizona bans abortion completely and California permits it. If a woman travels Tucson to San Diego and gets an abortion, the woman hasn't broken any law in the state of Arizona. There's absolutely no grounds on which she could be prosecuted for anything...
Right. These laws are certainly going to be shot down.

And the same reasoning used to shoot them down will be used when Texas decides to allow its citizens to purchase and manufacture machine guns.
 
Thus, California cannot ban Texas from allowing its citizens to manufacturing and purchase machine guns.

It all works out in the end.

What you cite is and has always been the law. One state can't interfere in another states affairs. If one state allows it's people to smoke pot, that's not the business of other states. But the legality stops at the border.

Yet you have states that want people to have the same gun laws apply when they travel. Such as somebody from Florida traveling to New York, wants to take their concealed carry privilege with them.
 
You know that is a straight up trap law, right?

it is intended to be shot down so it can be applied to gun legislation.

You guys are gonna lose big-time.
Actually the supreme court had the chance to enjoin it, but refused, allowing the Texas law to go into effect. The USSC gave it their stamp of approval.
 
I just pointed out the Texas law, which makes helping somebody to get an abortion after 6 weeks, lets any citizen inside or outside of texas to sue any abettor, for a minimum of $10,000.


Instead it allows any private citizen the extraordinary authority to sue an abortion provider – they do not need to be connected to the patient or even reside in the same state

In fact, any individual can sue anyone who “aids or abets” abortion care or someone who “intends” to help an abortion patient, a breathtakingly wide range of possible people and groups. While those who sue can collect a minimum of $10,000 if they are successful, those unjustly sued cannot recover legal fees.

Sure, yeah, that exists in Texas.

Has anyone been successfully sued yet? Has that law stood up to legal challenges?

The problem there is that the state wants to absolve itself from any involvement, yet any lawsuit brought forth would have to be heard in state court.

If and when it's challenged, that law will go down faster than a $2 whore on nickel night...
 
Who's to stop them? How about the fact that you can't prosecute someone for not breaking another state's laws while a person is in that other state?

Texas is using civil, instead of criminal law to prosecute. Example, if a woman 7 weeks pregnant, books a flight to New York for an abortion, the travel agent has abetted that abortion, and any citizen can sue the abettor for a minimum of $10,000.

Having the citizens prosecute through civil action instead of the state prosecuting through criminal action. That's how they got around it being struck down.
 

Forum List

Back
Top