> I am a bit of a noob when it comes to American legal system and also the following of precedence. So let’s say if a small town in Texas decides x is legal or

> I am a bit of a noob when it comes to American legal system and also the following of precedence. So let’s say if a small town in Texas decides x is legal or not legal, does that mean the rest of the country has to follow? "Precedent" applies in courts, not in legislatures. A small town may decide that X is legal or illegal, and the validity of that declaration depends on its scope. Speed limits? Go right ahead. Banning religious or ethnic minorities from city limits? Not a chance. Higher levels of government generally override lower levels of government. A state law absolutely wins versus a local resolution, for example. A federal law usually wins over state law, but the federal government has limited jurisdiction over local matters. The federal government can't make it illegal (for example) for a state to teach creationism in public schools, but it can make federal funding contingent on it. That's a carrot rather than a stick. The US constitution sits at the highest level of the hierarchy, and no government may enact laws that conflict with it. This is (mostly) where the Supreme Court comes in. At the moment, a limited right to abortion is constitutionally protected. However, the argument behind the Texas law is that it isn't infringing on the right, it's just allowing people to sue each other about it (whereupon the individual case will need to be heard separately and possibly appealed). Constitutional rights apply against governments, not individual people. The proposed California law would apply this reasoning to firearms, which is another constitutionally-recognized right. From here, you can see why critics of this technique are worried. If it's okay for people to sue each other over the exercise of otherwise-protected rights, then that can frustrate the very existence of those rights. > I can see in a constitutional framework it may be useful to have an unelected body decide to interpret the constitution but other than that it just really looks to me an overreach for unelected individuals to irreversibly decide whether someone I know can have abortion or carry guns That first part of your claim -- an unelected body interpreting the constitution -- is exactly what's happened. The right to carry firearms comes from the second amendment, and the right to abortion derives from the right to privacy that is implied by (and necessary for) the Bill of Rights; the reasoning ultimately comes from Griswold v Connecticut (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut), which held that married people have a right to use contraceptives if they wish.