Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jezebel)   Oh look, the law of unintended consequences is coming for their guns   (jezebel.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Law, Supreme Court of the United States, United States, Human rights, Firearms Policy Coalition, constitutional rights, amicus brief, Liberalism  
•       •       •

7527 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Oct 2021 at 11:38 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



66 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-10-24 9:36:43 AM  
I guess I'm not the only person to think that was a possibility.  I don't think that encouraging private citizens to sue each other over public policy issues for a bounty is a good idea.
 
2021-10-24 9:57:33 AM  
SCOTUS isn't a judicial body any more.  They're purely political.  They'll find a way to oppress women and keep the guns flowing to kill the babies.
 
2021-10-24 10:28:22 AM  
Even Scalia acknowledged the possibility of a slippery slope (in the other direction) in D.C. v. Heller.

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons
Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
 
2021-10-24 10:35:16 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: SCOTUS isn't a judicial body any more.  They're purely political.  They'll find a way to oppress women and keep the guns flowing to kill the babies.


The Republicans did this for abortion and other rights not enumerated in the US Constitution and its amendments. Sadly, I have to agree with your observation. Voting rights for people of color are most likely next on the agenda.

/Pissed off I am.
 
2021-10-24 10:59:17 AM  
As soon as any freedoms are taken away, the rest will soon follow.
 
2021-10-24 11:05:08 AM  
Don't worry, there are already armies of right-wing lawyers and "constitutional experts" hard at work drafting convoluted arguments precisely explaining why an civilian-based enforcement mechanism like what Texas is using, which enforces restrictions on a so-called "right" to abortion that is based entirely upon one possible interpretation of a completely different right (privacy) that is actually named in the Constitution, but only in one of the later and therefore more suspect Amendments to the same, cannot be used to enforce arbitrary rules that directly contradict rights specifically and literally enumerated in one of the Constitution's more important, lower-number Amendments which are clearly more established, unquestionable, and important. In fact, they might suggest, there is a significant and growing number of experts in the field who wonder whether the Amendment granting our freedom to bear arms (the 2nd) should not actually be moved up to be the First Amendment, and whether that one should possibly be moved much further down the list, perhaps to 7th or 8th spot. Doing that used to represent a significant challenge that would have required possibly gallons of whiteout and locating writers skilled in the art of calligraphy. But now, with computer software and the advent of CTRL-C and CTRL-V, it can literally happen with the click of a few buttons. We live in a technologically marvelous age.
 
2021-10-24 11:42:21 AM  

Unobtanium: Even Scalia acknowledged the possibility of a slippery slope (in the other direction) in D.C. v. Heller.

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,


OMFG
They're coming after BB guns!
 
2021-10-24 11:48:22 AM  
Gee, its almost like ALL single-issue extremists are willing to burn down everything to achieve narrow myopic goals.
 
DVD
2021-10-24 11:48:43 AM  
Ya know, I really don't like this guy that vapes in his home.  I'll put up an unconstitutional law and a private bounty to take care of all of them!

Whattya mean this could be turned against my cigar smoking in my home???
 
2021-10-24 11:49:50 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-10-24 11:51:21 AM  
c.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2021-10-24 11:56:41 AM  
Well, I suppose that's as close as they're gonna get to understanding the utter immorality and un-Americanness of the Texas abortion law.  I'll take it, I guess.
 
DVD
2021-10-24 11:57:14 AM  

Destructor: [c.tenor.com image 498x280] [View Full Size image _x_]


________________________

Unintended consequences for guns is TIGHT!
 
2021-10-24 11:58:13 AM  

TaDu: I guess I'm not the only person to think that was a possibility.  I don't think that encouraging private citizens to sue each other over public policy issues for a bounty is a good idea.



Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-10-24 11:59:53 AM  

transporter_ii: [Fark user image 224x194]


Yes, the erosion of civil rights and rule of law in service of partisan goals is funny if you can use it on people you don't like.
/What, are you 12 or something?
 
2021-10-24 12:00:50 PM  
If the basis for abortion legality is the right to privacy, how is it that private citizens are able to skirt this right to privacy?
 
2021-10-24 12:04:44 PM  

Blahbbs: If the basis for abortion legality is the right to privacy, how is it that private citizens are able to skirt this right to privacy?


Because a group of voters decided your privacy is icky and thus it's no longer valid
 
2021-10-24 12:11:05 PM  
Remember when conservatives were in favor of tort reform? Or, at least claimed to be?
 
2021-10-24 12:11:30 PM  

edmo: As soon as any freedoms are taken away, the rest will soon follow.


To be precise - any time a mechanism for taking away freedoms is legitimized, it will be utilized by people not anticipated by those who originated the mechanism, and to take away freedoms they did not anticipate.
 
2021-10-24 12:12:58 PM  
Guns have an amendment. Abortion has an interpretation.

Have to imagine they feel pretty safe on this one.
 
2021-10-24 12:16:35 PM  
Is everyone so naive? The Texas bill isn't going to stand. It'll be knocked down in the same Court that will also allow the 15 week abortion ban in Mississippi stand. Eliminating the 6 week ban and enforcing the 15 week ban will minimize the impact on the 2022 elections. And the ratchet clicks one more time.

Gun owners have no reason to fear.
 
2021-10-24 12:17:15 PM  

whatsupchuck: Remember when conservatives were in favor of tort reform? Or, at least claimed to be?


They were only in favor of "tort reform" when it concerned the ability of a plebe to sue a corporation. Because that was a form of class warfare, you see.
 
2021-10-24 12:17:19 PM  
How about a law that allows you to Sue the police even if they're deemed to have so called qualified immunity? That's not in the Constitution so have at it.
 
2021-10-24 12:18:42 PM  
....I doubt that any insurance company is going to release medical records to any private individual in such a suit given HIPAA law requirements for disclosures.  This is 100% a right to medical privacy case and nothing more - the state won't prosecute and wrote the law this way: because they know this already.

This is literally nothing more than grandstanding to placate the evangelical morans that live in Tex'Ass and are a large majority of the Republican base still.
 
DVD
2021-10-24 12:25:50 PM  

Avigdore: Is everyone so naive? The Texas bill isn't going to stand. It'll be knocked down in the same Court that will also allow the 15 week abortion ban in Mississippi stand. Eliminating the 6 week ban and enforcing the 15 week ban will minimize the impact on the 2022 elections. And the ratchet clicks one more time.

Gun owners have no reason to fear.


___________________________________

I've been surprised that the more "women should know their place" deep-pocketed Christian groups haven't used the bounty system to knock down female employment in Texas.

"Your honor, we felt that providing a paycheck to a woman would assist her in obtaining an abortion.  So we filed one lawsuit per member of our church, totaling 15,000 separate claims against Shop-Here stores in support of that.  We ask that these suits not be made into on class-action suit and that Shop-Here's legal fees for 15,000 claims would add to the coffers of the State Treasury."

"That our church members would each get $10,000 upon successful resolution of these cases, is beside the point.  The point is that employers should stop providing pay for female work, so that they can't use that pay to obtain abortions, and the impact on Shop-Here's business as a result of the fees should send a clear message to other employers within the State of Gilead-Texas."
 
2021-10-24 12:26:30 PM  
They're not wrong.


The Texas Abortion Decision Is Bad For Everyone
Youtube PnO7pL-QWyc


TL;DR - The wording that Texas used is indeed a convoluted legal puzzle-box that it's almost impossible to defeat.  The catch, however, is that exact same legal wording can be used by anyone to outlaw pretty much anything regardless of what the Constitution says about it.

And if you're, say, a hard-core anti-gun state (i.e. California) you can basically copy/paste Texas' abortion law, change just a few words, a viola!  You've can now ban everything down to Nerf guns and the SCOTUS can't stop you.

"Do not throw the arrow which will return against you." - Kurdish Proverb
 
2021-10-24 12:30:16 PM  

Shaggy_C: Guns have an amendment. Abortion has an interpretation.

Have to imagine they feel pretty safe on this one.


The core language of the Constitution and several amendments can be easily cited in defense of the right to make personal medical decisions.
Defining personhood, or life, is another question, answered in Roe v Wade.
 
2021-10-24 12:41:46 PM  
So you could just go to gun shows and rack up a few hundred bounties on sellers and buyers?

Sweet,
 
2021-10-24 12:43:45 PM  

Avigdore: Is everyone so naive? The Texas bill isn't going to stand. It'll be knocked down in the same Court that will also allow the 15 week abortion ban in Mississippi stand. Eliminating the 6 week ban and enforcing the 15 week ban will minimize the impact on the 2022 elections. And the ratchet clicks one more time.

Gun owners have no reason to fear.


Every gun nut I know is nothing but a walking, talking ball of pants shiatting fear. It literally defines who they are.
 
2021-10-24 12:45:43 PM  

Shaggy_C: Guns have an amendment. Abortion has an interpretation.


Good to see you found the right account today.  Yesterday was a bit weird.  And everything in the Constitution is up to interpretation, nothing is set in stone.
 
2021-10-24 12:47:50 PM  

Shaggy_C: Guns have an amendment. Abortion has an interpretation.

Have to imagine they feel pretty safe on this one.


are you saying that constitutionally there are no limits on guns?
 
2021-10-24 12:48:39 PM  

Shaggy_C: Guns have an amendment. Abortion has an interpretation.

Have to imagine they feel pretty safe on this one.


Counterpoint: "guns" don't have an amendment. "Arms" does.

2nd, the concept of "privacy" doesn't have an amendment. But penumbras and the 9th amendment do exist in the constitution, so.....game over.

/9th amendment was LITERALLY written for Hamilton because of this exact problem. "If we list their rights, theyre gonna think anything we didn't explicitly list doesn't exist"
 
2021-10-24 12:55:46 PM  

Avigdore: Is everyone so naive? The Texas bill isn't going to stand. It'll be knocked down in the same Court that will also allow the 15 week abortion ban in Mississippi stand. Eliminating the 6 week ban and enforcing the 15 week ban will minimize the impact on the 2022 elections. And the ratchet clicks one more time.

Gun owners have no reason to fear.


Controlling precedent in Roe and Casey does not allow the Court to just "ratchet" down the timeframe when abortion must be legal. Roe and Casey are clear that all bans on abortion before fetal viability are unconstitutional. No hospital has ever successfully delivered and then sent home a baby born at 16 weeks; the earliest such delivery I've ever heard of was 21 weeks and 2 days. Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks plainly violates controlling precedent. If they want to rule the Mississippi law is constitutional, they have to come up with a principle that states Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and establish a new principle for when abortion bans are legal.
 
2021-10-24 12:56:08 PM  
 
2021-10-24 12:59:11 PM  

Serious Black: Avigdore: Is everyone so naive? The Texas bill isn't going to stand. It'll be knocked down in the same Court that will also allow the 15 week abortion ban in Mississippi stand. Eliminating the 6 week ban and enforcing the 15 week ban will minimize the impact on the 2022 elections. And the ratchet clicks one more time.

Gun owners have no reason to fear.

Controlling precedent in Roe and Casey does not allow the Court to just "ratchet" down the timeframe when abortion must be legal. Roe and Casey are clear that all bans on abortion before fetal viability are unconstitutional. No hospital has ever successfully delivered and then sent home a baby born at 16 weeks; the earliest such delivery I've ever heard of was 21 weeks and 2 days. Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks plainly violates controlling precedent. If they want to rule the Mississippi law is constitutional, they have to come up with a principle that states Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and establish a new principle for when abortion bans are legal.


Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.
 
2021-10-24 1:03:03 PM  

Serious Black: Avigdore: Is everyone so naive? The Texas bill isn't going to stand. It'll be knocked down in the same Court that will also allow the 15 week abortion ban in Mississippi stand. Eliminating the 6 week ban and enforcing the 15 week ban will minimize the impact on the 2022 elections. And the ratchet clicks one more time.

Gun owners have no reason to fear.

Controlling precedent in Roe and Casey does not allow the Court to just "ratchet" down the timeframe when abortion must be legal. Roe and Casey are clear that all bans on abortion before fetal viability are unconstitutional. No hospital has ever successfully delivered and then sent home a baby born at 16 weeks; the earliest such delivery I've ever heard of was 21 weeks and 2 days. Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks plainly violates controlling precedent. If they want to rule the Mississippi law is constitutional, they have to come up with a principle that states Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and establish a new principle for when abortion bans are legal.


Problem: the juris prudence that is used to decide Roe and Casey, was also used in cases like Griswold and Loving.

So if they overturn Roe and Casey, they also have no legal defense of access to birth control or interracial marriage.

Yep, if Roe falls, the individual state can decide if white and black people can marry each other.
 
2021-10-24 1:04:24 PM  

TaDu: I guess I'm not the only person to think that was a possibility.  I don't think that encouraging private citizens to sue each other over public policy issues for a bounty is a good idea.


I was wondering if this was going to happen myself...
 
2021-10-24 1:12:06 PM  

Elliot8654: Serious Black: Avigdore: Is everyone so naive? The Texas bill isn't going to stand. It'll be knocked down in the same Court that will also allow the 15 week abortion ban in Mississippi stand. Eliminating the 6 week ban and enforcing the 15 week ban will minimize the impact on the 2022 elections. And the ratchet clicks one more time.

Gun owners have no reason to fear.

Controlling precedent in Roe and Casey does not allow the Court to just "ratchet" down the timeframe when abortion must be legal. Roe and Casey are clear that all bans on abortion before fetal viability are unconstitutional. No hospital has ever successfully delivered and then sent home a baby born at 16 weeks; the earliest such delivery I've ever heard of was 21 weeks and 2 days. Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks plainly violates controlling precedent. If they want to rule the Mississippi law is constitutional, they have to come up with a principle that states Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and establish a new principle for when abortion bans are legal.

Problem: the juris prudence that is used to decide Roe and Casey, was also used in cases like Griswold and Loving.

So if they overturn Roe and Casey, they also have no legal defense of access to birth control or interracial marriage.

Yep, if Roe falls, the individual state can decide if white and black people can marry each other.


I don't think the people trying to ban abortion would find those outcomes troubling. No, I think they would celebrate the ability to ban women from taking birth control without a man's consent and ban all interracial marriages.
 
2021-10-24 1:19:28 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: SCOTUS isn't a judicial body any more.  They're purely political.  They'll find a way to oppress women and keep the guns flowing to kill the babies.


Not that hard really. They rule the mechanism of the Texas law is illegal and then use the Mississippi case to overturn Roe.
 
2021-10-24 1:21:19 PM  

Serious Black: Elliot8654: Serious Black: Avigdore: Is everyone so naive? The Texas bill isn't going to stand. It'll be knocked down in the same Court that will also allow the 15 week abortion ban in Mississippi stand. Eliminating the 6 week ban and enforcing the 15 week ban will minimize the impact on the 2022 elections. And the ratchet clicks one more time.

Gun owners have no reason to fear.

Controlling precedent in Roe and Casey does not allow the Court to just "ratchet" down the timeframe when abortion must be legal. Roe and Casey are clear that all bans on abortion before fetal viability are unconstitutional. No hospital has ever successfully delivered and then sent home a baby born at 16 weeks; the earliest such delivery I've ever heard of was 21 weeks and 2 days. Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks plainly violates controlling precedent. If they want to rule the Mississippi law is constitutional, they have to come up with a principle that states Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and establish a new principle for when abortion bans are legal.

Problem: the juris prudence that is used to decide Roe and Casey, was also used in cases like Griswold and Loving.

So if they overturn Roe and Casey, they also have no legal defense of access to birth control or interracial marriage.

Yep, if Roe falls, the individual state can decide if white and black people can marry each other.

I don't think the people trying to ban abortion would find those outcomes troubling. No, I think they would celebrate the ability to ban women from taking birth control without a man's consent and ban all interracial marriages.


That's actually in the briefs for the supreme court by the lawyer defending SB8.

It's their plan.
 
2021-10-24 1:21:38 PM  

whatsupchuck: Remember when conservatives were in favor of tort reform? Or, at least claimed to be?


The only thing they've ever been in favor of is stigginit. Literally nothing else matters.
 
2021-10-24 1:24:23 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: SCOTUS isn't a judicial body any more.  They're purely political.  They'll find a way to oppress women and keep the guns flowing to kill the babies.


That's called "textualism"
 
2021-10-24 1:47:12 PM  

TaDu: I guess I'm not the only person to think that was a possibility.  I don't think that encouraging private citizens to sue each other over public policy issues for a bounty is a good idea.


I am actively pushing DC to enact exactly such a law to allow victims of gun violence to sue the providers of the firearms to the perpetrators, with the same blanket protections against being assigned court costs as Texas is putting in for those suing abortion providers.
 
2021-10-24 1:57:40 PM  

Shaggy_C: Guns have an amendment. Abortion has an interpretation.

Have to imagine they feel pretty safe on this one.


Guns have an amendment that shields guns, to an extent to be determined by the courts, from the state.
This civil enforcement concept is virgin territory. It's hard to imagine a lawful version of this civil practice that could be somehow ruled Constitutional or not depending on the target.
If the SCOTUS passes on the practice, it will be down to what different states decide to hold civilly actionable.
I mean,. this is Fark, and it's okay for you to joke about it - but I thought you had enough common sense to know what a horribly dangerous precedent in law this would be.
For state governments to be making any activity they wish to suppress civilly actionable, and soliciting and encouraging randos to sue for them?
It's lunacy, Bro, and we both know it.
 
2021-10-24 1:58:36 PM  

Shaggy_C: Guns have an amendment. Abortion has an interpretation.

Have to imagine they feel pretty safe on this one.


You're missing the point of the law.

It isn't a constitutional argument at all.  The Texas abortion law presupposes that abortion is a protected right, and it side steps that right by giving private citizens a cause of action.

So by extension, any state can pass a similar law to side step any other right.  Whether it's specifically enumerated or not in the constitution is entirely beside the point.
 
2021-10-24 2:12:28 PM  

Blahbbs: If the basis for abortion legality is the right to privacy, how is it that private citizens are able to skirt this right to privacy?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-10-24 2:18:48 PM  

Dryad: transporter_ii: [Fark user image 224x194]

Yes, the erosion of civil rights and rule of law in service of partisan goals is funny if you can use it on people you don't like.
/What, are you 12 or something?


The rule of law has only ever been used to oppress something like 80% of the population. Let's have a change.
 
2021-10-24 2:40:20 PM  

jso2897: This civil enforcement concept is virgin territory. It's hard to imagine a lawful version of this civil practice that could be somehow ruled Constitutional or not depending on the target.
If the SCOTUS passes on the practice, it will be down to what different states decide to hold civilly actionable.


I suppose this gets into questions of what a"right" represents and what it means for limits on government. From my vantage point a civil offence is still defined by the government and, crucially, enforced by the government. So punting the ball and saying "oh, well, it's a private citizen using tort law to block someone's rights" misses the point that the government is still the one requiring the guilty party to pay fines, etc., so the government is still exercising a power and supporting the suppression of rights. Makes no sense to me that any court would even consider this ridiculous argument but IANAL.
 
2021-10-24 2:54:30 PM  

Avigdore: Is everyone so naive? The Texas bill isn't going to stand. It'll be knocked down in the same Court that will also allow the 15 week abortion ban in Mississippi stand. Eliminating the 6 week ban and enforcing the 15 week ban will minimize the impact on the 2022 elections. And the ratchet clicks one more time.

Gun owners have no reason to fear.


Reason or not, gun owners seem to thrive on fear.
 
2021-10-24 2:58:34 PM  
At least we will know that it was Texas who let the dogs out.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.