California Gov. Gavin Newsom played chicken with the federal government over gun law challenges and Texas abortion restrictions.
Newsom based his approach on a law in Texas known as S.B. 8, where legal fees are shifted to plaintiffs who sue the state over abortion protections if they don’t win on all counts. This move in Texas was made to keep civil litigation down.
The Democratic governor, basically, applied the same fee-shifting scheme to those who challenge gun-control laws in California.
In September, The Second Amendment Foundation, along with several other pro-2A groups, filed suit in federal court in California, asking for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment against the state’s new law asserting it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The complaint also says the California law enables government defendants to recover fees if a firearms plaintiff loses on any claim in the case, while the plaintiff can only avoid liability for fees if it prevails on every claim in the case. Therefore, firearms plaintiffs cannot be “prevailing parties” and are never entitled to recover fees and costs.
As of today, a federal judge has declared this approach to be unconstitutional and has permanently blocked the state from enforcing the provision known as Section 1021.11.
“‘It is cynical. It is an abomination. It is outrageous and objectionable. There is no dispute that it raises serious constitutional questions,” U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California said in his ruling. “It is an unprecedented attempt to thwart judicial review.”
While this verdict may seem like a setback for Newsom’s gun control plans, he has declared victory by equating the California gun provision with the Texas abortion provision.
SEE ALSO: Newsom Threatens Texas-Style Private Lawsuits Against Makers of ‘Ghost Guns, Assault Weapons’
“I want to thank Judge Benitez. We have been saying all along that Texas’ anti-abortion law is outrageous,” Governor Newsom said in a statement on his website. “Judge Benitez just confirmed it is also unconstitutional. The provision in California’s law that he struck down is a replica of what Texas did, and his explanation of why this part of SB 1327 unfairly blocks access to the courts applies equally to Texas’ SB 8. There is no longer any doubt that Texas’ cruel anti-abortion law should also be struck down.”
With this provision being struck down, it is likely the argument will be headed to SCOTUS which will give Newsom the platform he needs to challenge the Texas law. So far, Judge Benitez remains unimpressed with the governor’s tactic.
“Whether these distinctions are enough to save the Texas law fee-shifting provision from judicial scrutiny remains to be seen,” Benitez wrote. “And although it would be tempting to comment on it, the Texas law is not before this Court for determination.”
Whether or not this provision was actually aimed at gun owners or to prove a point about similar legislation, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) found cause to praise the ruling from Judge Benitez. SAF founder and vice president, Alan M. Gottlieb was thrilled with the ruling, saying it is a setback for gun control extremists.
“Christmas came early for Golden State gun owners and rights groups everywhere who find it necessary to challenge the state’s restrictive firearms regulations,” Gottlieb said in a statement on behalf of SAF. “Section 1021.11 would have penalized gun rights groups, and their attorneys, for having the courage to take the state to court.”
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***