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

[postman]

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.

That argument is specious. It's just like fireworks, or marijuana, or any other commodity legally purchases in one state, but prohibited from import into another state.

 

[TNHarley]

When it comes to a privilege sure they can

I dont agree, man.

 

[postman]

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.

The abortion providers in Texas sued, as plaintiffs who lost business (actual harm) from the law. So the decision was made as a matter of law, not of standing.

 

[postman]

That's not extraordinary at all. Any person can sue any other person anywhere in the country right now. It's been that way for a very long time, hundreds of years.

In order to sue, you have to show harm to yourself. Just like gay marriage doesn't harm other marriages. Someone getting an abortion doesn't harm any other person. Without actual harm, there is no standing to sue.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The abortion providers in Texas sued, as plaintiffs who lost business (actual harm) from the law. So the decision was made as a matter of law, not of standing.

They sued on the issue of lost business. They were the plaintiffs.

The issue of the qui tam litigation is not ripe.

Sorry you got those two confused.

 

[postman]

Exactly correct...

Texas abortion providers lost business (actual harm)

You can look it up, that's what got it all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In order to sue, you have to show harm to yourself. Just like gay marriage doesn't harm other marriages. Someone getting an abortion doesn't harm any other person. Without actual harm, there is no standing to sue.

Standing is not the issue. Qui Tam grants standing.

 

[postman]

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.

Like Bush V Gore (2000) ?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Texas abortion providers lost business (actual harm)

You can look it up, that's what got it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Losing business is not a constitutional issue, unfortunately.

 

[postman]

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.

It was enacted to provide traceability of weapons, and to eliminate firearms that had no useful purpose at all, other than to kill other people, such as ZIP guns.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The day someone gets sued in Texas for "aiding" in an out-of-state abortion and loses, then appeal it all the way to the SCOTUS is the day the SCOTUS will actually review this law.

 

[Vastator]

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.

Needs to happen.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It was enacted to provide traceability of weapons, and to eliminate firearms that had no useful purpose at all, other than to kill other people, such as ZIP guns.

And that is in DIRECT conflict with the 2nd Amendment, but you don't give a rat fuck because you are a damn hoplophobe. So, we go after something you DO care about and we get the legal reasoning we want.



Justice Kavanaugh has already hinted at this approach, but everybody missed it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Kavanaugh Presses Texas on Abortion Law as Path to Restrict Guns

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh sharply questioned Texas over the prospect that the legal machinery of its new abortion law could be used against other freedoms, including gun rights.

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[postman]

They sued on the issue of lost business. They were the plaintiffs.

The issue of the qui tam litigation is not ripe.

Sorry you got those two confused.

It was because of the qui tam nature of the Texas laws enforcement by the people, instead of by the state, that the USSC said they would allow it.
So the USSC gave qui tam the thumbs up.

Supreme Court denies request to stop Texas 6-week abortion ban, with John Roberts and liberals dissenting

The Supreme Court formally denied a request from Texas abortion providers to freeze a state law that bars abortions after six weeks. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent.

www.cnn.com

In an unsigned opinion, the majority wrote that while the clinics had raised "serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law," they had not met a burden that would allow the court to block it at this time due to "complex" and "novel" procedural questions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It was because of the qui tam nature of the Texas laws enforcement by the people, instead of by the state, that the USSC said they would allow it.
So the USSC gave qui tam the thumbs up.

Supreme Court denies request to stop Texas 6-week abortion ban, with John Roberts and liberals dissenting

The Supreme Court formally denied a request from Texas abortion providers to freeze a state law that bars abortions after six weeks. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent.

www.cnn.com

In an unsigned opinion, the majority wrote that while the clinics had raised "serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law," they had not met a burden that would allow the court to block it at this time due to "complex" and "novel" procedural questions.

Your quoted section says exactly what I said.


They only denied a temporary injunction because the clinics had not met their burden to prove irreparable harm.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Texas' 6-week abortion ban goes into effect after Supreme Court stays silent

The Texas law taking effect Wednesday prohibits virtually all abortions in the state.

www.cbsnews.com

Texas' 6-week abortion ban goes into effect after Supreme Court stays silent

In addition to outlawing abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy — before most women know they're pregnant — the measure allows private citizens to bring civil lawsuits against anyone who provides an abortion after six weeks or helps a woman access the procedure, such as a friend who drives a woman to obtain an abortion, or clinic staff. Those found in violation of the law are required to pay at least $10,000 to the person who successfully brought the suit.

Miller said the law creates a "bounty system," under which anyone in Texas can "call into question anyone who supports access to abortion."

The person suing only need prove the person got an abortion after the 6 week limit, and how someone aided or abetted the abortion.

And Ka-ching… $10,000. And if they lose they pay nothing.

For the third time, has such a suit been successfully taken to trial AND survived challenges?

 

[postman]

Standing is not the issue. Qui Tam grants standing.

Roberts said that the state Legislature had imposed a "prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks" and then "essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large" with the consequence of insulating the state from the responsibility of enforcing the law.

The law was designed to make it much more difficult to bring a pre-enforcement challenge because there are not the usual government officials to hold accountable in court.


The law allows any person -- as long as they're not a government official -- to bring a civil lawsuit in state court against a provider accused of violating the ban, regardless of whether the person bringing the lawsuit has any connection to the abortion being sought. If they prevail, they are entitled to at least $10,000 in damages, and the law is structured to make it especially costly for clinics that are targeted with an enforcement action. It prohibits clinics from recouping attorneys' fees from their court foes, even if a judge sides with the provider in the lawsuit.

Supreme Court denies request to stop Texas 6-week abortion ban, with John Roberts and liberals dissenting

The Supreme Court formally denied a request from Texas abortion providers to freeze a state law that bars abortions after six weeks. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent.

www.cnn.com

The court didn't enjoin BECAUSE of the qui tam nature of the case.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

For the third time, has such a suit been successfully taken to trial AND survived challenges?

He is touting a failed injunction request as an entire trial process.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Roberts said that the state Legislature had imposed a "prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks" and then "essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large" with the consequence of insulating the state from the responsibility of enforcing the law.

The law was designed to make it much more difficult to bring a pre-enforcement challenge because there are not the usual government officials to hold accountable in court.


The law allows any person -- as long as they're not a government official -- to bring a civil lawsuit in state court against a provider accused of violating the ban, regardless of whether the person bringing the lawsuit has any connection to the abortion being sought. If they prevail, they are entitled to at least $10,000 in damages, and the law is structured to make it especially costly for clinics that are targeted with an enforcement action. It prohibits clinics from recouping attorneys' fees from their court foes, even if a judge sides with the provider in the lawsuit.

Supreme Court denies request to stop Texas 6-week abortion ban, with John Roberts and liberals dissenting

The Supreme Court formally denied a request from Texas abortion providers to freeze a state law that bars abortions after six weeks. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent.

www.cnn.com

The court didn't enjoin BECAUSE of the qui tam nature of the case.

...because the issue is not ripe....


You keep saying what I have been saying, but you think it is different for some reason.