Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Right, but you're looking at the wrong way.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.
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.
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, but you're looking at the wrong way.
It is now legal in Texas to manufacture and use a silencer (only subject to federal laws). How long do you think it's going to take for us to change our laws to where we can manufacture and use machine guns.
The only thing left to do is to repeal or shoot down the NFA, and Texans get machine guns.
Who is to stop someone from traveling to Texas and legally purchasing a suppressor or machine gun?
Why don't you go ask California about it? They have all sorts of qui tam laws.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.
It was challenged in the USSC, and the court let the law go into effect. They didn't even put a temporary stay on it, so they could think about it.Sure, yeah, that exists in Texas.
Has anyone been successfully sued yet? Has that law stood up to legal challenges?
I've pointed out the Texas law, which means anyone who aids or abets their traveling from Dallas to San Diego can be sued for a minimum of $10,000. Whether it's the travel agent, or the Uber driver, or Planned Parenthood setting up the appointment.
But the reasoning behind a complete ban on everybody is because someone might travel to Texas purchase a machine gun legally and return to their home state with an illegal weapon.Well, the issue there would be whether or not a suppressor or machine gun is legal in the person's home state. If the person buys it and never returns home, I guess he's in good shape...
They did that because there was no actual case in controversy. Nobody had actually been successfully sued and then appealed it. They don't make advisory opinions.It was challenged in the USSC, and the court let the law go into effect. They didn't even put a temporary stay on it, so they could think about it.
It was challenged in the USSC, and the court let the law go into effect. They didn't even put a temporary stay on it, so they could think about it.
How long do you think it's going to take for us to change our laws to where we can manufacture and use machine guns.
But the reasoning behind a complete ban on everybody is because someone might travel to Texas purchase a machine gun legally and return to their home state with an illegal weapon.
We are setting that argument to fail in the future.
We are using the recent trend in pot rebellion to effectively eliminate the NFA.
Instead it allows any private citizen the extraordinary authority to sue an abortion provider
And it will provide us with all the legal reasoning we need to shoot down other such laws.I've got a nice, new shiny nickel that says any such case that reached the Supreme Court would be shot down...
Why don't you go ask California about it? They have all sorts of qui tam laws.
you realize that if this gets shot down at the Supreme Court level, all of those California qui tam laws go with it, right?
They did that because there was no actual case in controversy. Nobody had actually been successfully sued and then appealed it. They don't make advisory opinions.
No SCOTUS simply refused to short-circuit the legal system. Under a constitionalist majority, the court is operating the way it was designed. A case has to wind its way through the state courts, then the federal appeals courts before SCOTUS can consider it.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.
We have had countless arguments with gun-grabbing communists that "lax" gun laws in one state causes violence in another state (see Chicago). This is the argument used for maintaining the NFA and for a national "assault weapons" ban.Right, but in your scenario you're talking about possessing something which is illegal to possess in many states.
No one really possesses an abortion...
Again, has any such case gone before the court and been successful?
When you sue someone in civil court for damages, you need to show that you actually suffered damages. How is someone from Houston going to suffer if a woman they don't know, who lives in Amarillo, travels to Las Vegas and gets an abortion?
www.cbsnews.com
I have no earthly idea why you think that matters.Those laws don't provide an automatic $10,000 payout plus legal fees, and immunity from the defendant seeking legal fees.
