For Once. Maybe. California, Yes?

It seems California wasn't very happy with some of the laws that were passed in Texas last year and, partially in response to those laws, California dropped their own frustrating laws centered around guns.

California's SB 1327 authorizes anyone except local government and state officials to sue people who violate the state of California's laws against the manufacture, distribution, or sale of banned firearms. The lawsuits would also allow those who sell/deal firearms who violate the state of California's laws concerning selling or transferring weapons. What is more interesting is why SB 1327 came about - and of course it was to make a point. Like most things that may not make complete sense, it was generated out of spite in response to SB 8 which was passed in Texas. SB 8, like SB 1327, empowers anyone to sue those who are suspected of performing or knowingly aiding in an abortion once the fetus shows signs of cardiac activity. In case you weren't aware, that's at about 5 weeks of pregnancy.

Does the California law impact Texas? No, not for residents of Texas who do not travel to California with firearms. Does the Texas law impact California? It could potentially, if someone were to leave the state of Texas for their medical procedure beyond the 5th week of pregnancy, but whether or not California will uphold that lawsuit is a completely different story.

So, what is the point that the state of California is trying to make? We suspect that California is trying to point out the absurdity of Texas' approach to abortion law and by setting up this gun law, California plans to show the rest of the country (and more importantly higher law courts like the Supreme Court) how methods SB 8 can be applied to other rights.

Is this method working for California? Some would say yes based on the reception of SB 1327. In fact, in December of last year the U.S. District judge in San Diego pushed to get rid of part of SB 1327 on grounds that it was unconstitutional. The portion of SB 1327 in question was concerning who paid court costs, and the gun-industry litigants would be saddled with all or part of the court costs coming from any lawsuit challenging the state's gun control even if they won in court. The state's attorney general's office refused to defend it, having already argued that the same part of Texas' SB 8 was also unconstitutional. Of course, after this ruling was formalized, it was officially confirmed that the part of SB 1327 and therefore also SB 8 were both unconstitutional.

So far, that's all that has occurred for SB 1327 and by proxy SB 8 but it will be interesting to see how both change as lawsuits are filed using them. Not everything works out when done out of spite, but for once, California may be on to something with how they are choosing to handle what seems to be something unconstitutional happening in another state.

Don't miss our podcast at https://www.arbitragetrade.com/podcasts/