California Moves Forward With Gun Control Bill That Mimics Structure Of Texas Abortion Ban

Topline

California officials on Friday threw their weight behind legislation that would let private citizens sue firearm manufacturers and distributors if they violate the state’s assault weapons ban or other gun control measures—the first state effort to mimic the structure of Texas’ near-total ban on abortions for a different political issue.

California Governor Gavin Newsom at a news conference in Dublin, Calif., on Friday, Dec. 17, 2021.

MediaNews Group via Getty Images

Key Facts

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) announced Assembly Bill 1594 (AB 1594) Friday and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) spoke out in support of it at a press conference, promoting the legislation after the governor first suggested it in December and state lawmakers introduced it in January.

The bill would let anyone, including private citizens, bring civil lawsuits against “gun industry members” whose violations of federal, state or local gun control laws “[cause]

injury or death,” or who have engaged in “unfair business practices.”

The Associated Press notes the bill would let people sue over violations of California’s assault weapons ban, or if gun dealers knowingly sell firearms to people who can’t legally own them.

Newsom noted Friday the bill could also help people sue over “ghost guns”—untraceable firearm kits that people can buy without a background check and assemble at home—which have become a growing issue in California and have already prompted multiple local bans and lawsuits for deceptive trade practices.

The bill’s provision allowing lawsuits copies Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), which bans nearly all abortions in the state after six weeks into a pregnancy and is enforced through private lawsuits against anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion.

Newsom said Friday he’s confident the U.S. Supreme Court, which has repeatedly declined to strike down SB 8, could not overturn AB 1594, because “it is quite literally modeled after the law they just upheld in Texas.”

Crucial Quote

“If Texas can use a law to ban a woman’s right to choose and to put her health at risk, we will use that same law to save lives and improve the health and safety of the people in the state of California,” Newsom said Friday.

Chief Critic

Gun advocates in the state have stringently opposed AB 1594. “[Newsom] can’t ban guns, but he’s going to try to bankrupt lawful firearms-related businesses,” Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, told the AP in January.

Key Background

Gun manufacturers and distributors are largely shielded from legal liability through the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which stipulates they can’t be sued for acts of violence committed using their firearms. Bonta’s office noted Friday the federal law does allow for civil lawsuits if the gun maker or dealer “knowingly violates a state law regulating the sale or marketing of the product” which results in direct harm to the person bringing the lawsuit, and AB 1594 “would create a clear path” to bring litigation under that exception. The legislation is similar to a separate bill passed in New York last year before Texas’ SB 8 took effect, which allows civil lawsuits to be brought against gun industry members if they don’t have “reasonable controls” to stop the firearms from being used or sold illegally. The AB 1594 announcement comes days after the families of victims in the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School reached a $73 million settlement with gun manufacturer Remington Arms, a suit that also took advantage of an exception in the federal law.

Tangent

Texas’ SB 8 has let the state evade federal protections for abortion since taking effect in September, thanks to its lawsuit provision, which was designed to make it harder for those challenging the legislation to name defendants who can successfully be blocked from enforcing it. That strategy has largely proven successful in court: While one district judge initially blocked the law, his ruling was then overturned by an appeals court that put SB 8 back in place, and the Supreme Court ruled that most state officials cannot be named as defendants in a challenge brought by abortion providers. Critics of the law have repeatedly cited the fact that states could copy it for other issues as a reason not to uphold it. Gun rights groups warned the Supreme Court the law could be used as a basis for gun control laws like California’s bill, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund wrote in an amicus brief to the court SB 8’s structure could also extend to “all manner of constitutional protections and civil liberties” and be used for bans on critical race theory or to threaten First Amendment protections for journalists.