Re:Even Epik says the Texas abortion “whistleblower” site vi...
by benmmurphy on Tuesday September 07, 2021 @08:01PM
(#28451320)
texas probably got the idea from civil liability laws that were used being used against gun manufacturers prior to the federal immunity law. gun control organisations were using the court system to bankrupt manufacturers as a backdoor to banning guns.
Re:Even Epik says the Texas abortion “whistleblower” site vi...
by rsynnott on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @07:34AM
(#28455607)
I don't think that's a similar situation, really; those allowed injured parties to sue the manufacturers who made the dangerous device. In the US gun manufacturers are generally special-cased here; they have unusual protections that you wouldn't have if you, say, manufactured a defective water heater.
In this case totally _unrelated_ parties can sue, which seems entirely different.
IANAL, but this is how I understand it. The supreme court does not strike down laws in a preliminary injunction, it just prevents the attorney-general or other applicable officials from enforcing it. This law is written so that the attorney general has no part in enforcing the law, so the supreme court can't do a preliminary injunction. It can only strike down the law once somebody tries to use the law and it bubbles its way up the court system.
But of course if everybody is too afraid to break the law, the law has effect without ever being applied.
The best suggestion I heard on how to get rid of it would be to have Massachusetts ban handguns using the same loophole. Somehow I think that this stacked court will come to its senses when it is the 2nd amendment being threatened rather than the 14th.