3 ms·
It will be interesting to see what happens. I think California may face a more difficult argument since 2nd Amendment rights are in the Constitution, but Roe v
by thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
It will be interesting to see what happens.
I think California may face a more difficult argument since 2nd Amendment rights are in the Constitution, but Roe v. Wade is just court precedent.
That said, it depends on how the law they propose to inact will work. The right to own a firearm is not the same as the right to manufacture or sell a firearm. They might drive firearm manufacturing and sales out of state, but not be able to prohibit someone buying a firearm out of state and bringing it home.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago> I think California may face a more difficult argument since 2nd Amendment rights are in the Constitution, but Roe v. Wade is just court precedent. That's a distinction without justification. Constitutional rights are basically however the Supreme Court interprets them. With respect to gun rights, there has been a long debate over whether the 2nd amendment applies to any individual, or just to "a well-regulated militia". The only reason it applies to any individual is because that's how the court interpreted it (and more recently than Roe v Wade) - through "court precedent", as you say.
- thesuperbigfrog 5y ago>> That's a distinction without justification. Constitutional rights are basically however the Supreme Court interprets them. Good point. That distinction is more artificial than I perceived it.
- beej71 5y agoAnd I'm not even sure that's in play here. The state isn't banning anything; they're just saying private citizens can sue manufacturers and sellers for up to $10k, right?