Skip to Content

California governor says he will use legal tactics of Texas abortion ban to implement gun control


By Andy Rose, CNN

California Gov. Gavin Newsom expressed his “outrage” Saturday at a Supreme Court decision to allow the Texas six-week abortion ban to remain in effect and said he would use similar legal tactics to tackle gun control in his state.

“I am outraged by yesterday’s US Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place, and largely endorsing Texas’s scheme to insulate its law from the fundamental protections of Roe v. Wade,” Newsom said in a statement.

“But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way,” the statement continued.

The Friday ruling from the Supreme Court allowed Texas’ abortion law that bars the procedure after the first six weeks of pregnancy to remain in place but said abortion providers have the right to challenge the law in federal court. However, the ruling limits which state officials can be sued by the abortion providers, which could make it difficult for them to resume providing abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy.

That is due to the law’s novel enforcement mechanism, which allows private citizens — from anywhere in the country — to bring civil suits against anyone who assists a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the law.

If lower courts are only allowed to issue orders blocking the select state officials from enforcing the ban, it is unclear if that will be enough to allow clinics to resume the procedure, as they might still face state court litigation from private citizens seeking to enforce the ban.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, Newsom said he directed his staff to draft a bill that would allow private citizens to seek injunctive relief “against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California.”

The bill would also provide for statutory damages of at least $10,000 in addition to attorney’s fees, the governor’s statement said.

“If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that,” Newsom said.

™ & © 2021 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

CNN’s Ariane de Vogue, Tierney Sneed and Jacqueline Rose contributed to this report.




  1. Well well…
    This is gonna melt the febal minds of the undereducated folk’s.
    constitutional law is a helva reality and the 2nd amendment isn’t guaranteed whenever you apply standing law.
    Hilarious and well played

    1. My “febal” mind can’t find the word “abortion” in the constitution. Please educate we febal minded folks on where that is located. Maybe I misspelled it.

      1. 4th Amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…”. Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In 1965, SCOTUS ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut, that this, plus the First and Third Amendments assert a Constitutional right to privacy. In 1973, SCOTUS ruled this also means the Bill of Rights grants a Constitutional right to abortion.

        What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If Texas can use this technique to nullify one Constitutional right, then other states can use it to nullify other rights.

        1. Your argument is flawed. The right to privacy does not give one the right to abortion. Nor does the first amendment. Neither mention the right to end a life nor do they give that right. You interpretation is misguided. The only right we have to take a life is in our right to self defense.

          1. Roe v Wade applied a much broader brush in its interpretation of the above stated amendments allowing abortion which prioritize a woman’s right to determine how and when her bodily vitality should be used, giving her the body autonomy that has been touted as everyone’s right during the COVID vaxx controversy. As predicted by many experts in constitutional law, the precedence of the TX abortion law, if allowed to stand, opens up a state’s right to legislate all kinds of personal liberties that we take for granted. Guns are just one of them. Who we love, how we love, even how we raise our kids are just some of the rights that can be targeted. A state could legislate that only one religion is acceptable. Celebrate Hanukkah and your neighbor can turn you on for a reward. The TX law reduces autonomy of ALL types for ALL Americans and also creates an atmosphere of legal vigilantism with its $10000 bounties and “injunctive relief”

        2. Details, details!!! This is exactly what was predicted would happen!!! Complete fail by the gun lobby to stop these Texas kooks!!! Bye bye little gun toys!!!

  2. OMG awesome how law work’s…
    “said he directed his staff to draft a bill that would allow private citizens to seek injunctive relief “against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California.”

    “The bill would also provide for statutory damages of at least $10,000 in addition to attorney’s fees, the governor’s statement said.”

    “If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that,” Newsom said.”

    Can’t wait for the constitutional law experts running on a 8th grade education to chime in

    1. I’ve been calling this scenario for weeks now. Conservatives were giddy that Texas found a way to subvert a federally protected right. I tried to explain that what plays for one plays for all. Too stupid to understand, they instead accused me of advocating abortion. But they understand now!

      1. Roe and Casey held that a pregnant woman has a
        constitutional right to obtain an abortion; that that right may be exercised for essentially whatever reason the woman sees fit; and that the
        state may not make or enforce laws that have the purpose or effect of
        inhibiting the woman’s abortion choice.3 The state may not forbid a
        reason — any reason at all — for which an abortion is committed or
        I have to admit to having conflicting views on the value of abortions especially when used an an instrument for advancing American Eugenics. Abortion based on race, sex or on disability is a fundamental reason for many abortions. Want a boy and not a girl? just abort the girl and try again the abortionist say. As crude as it may sound if all the leftist had abortions then there would be less of them. If conservatives opposed abortions, and had none then there would be more conservatives. Abortion = legal Eugenics.

        1. the percentage of black and brown abortions to white should also be very disturbing. most planned parenthood clinics are also in those neighborhood, but not out in the country where it’s mainly white.
          ask why?

              1. You want to blame someone who died in the 1960s for the locations of clinics? Fact is, location is decided just like it is by private business – on the law of supply and demand.

      1. Right because Biden who reads “End of message” from a speech obviously not written or rehearsed by him beforehand is so much better than trump. It’s a miracle if he can even put together a complete sentence. Biden and Democrats are literally destroying this country and your blind to it.

        1. Because reading “End of Message” is so much more destructive to our country than attempting a coup to overturn the cornerstone of our democracy. Talk about being blind!

          1. there was no attempted coup. the left is overdramatizing 1/6 for sure. yeah like the guy wearing the horns – who walked around peacefully WITH capitol police officers deserves 6 years in jail.

      1. You may be glad to know of Newsom’s plan to turn California into a abortion sanctuary state should Texas prevail. California taxpayers will be billed to import abortion seeking persons from throughout the country. It will be a whole new abortion vacation industry. Get paid to travel to California, visit Disneyland, stay in a free hotel and get your free abortion. All courtesy of the California taxpayers or what is left of them.

        1. dear logic. Sarcasm is hard to establish in print but I assume that that is your intent. It is not really an argument one way or another. It is simply a statement of fact.

          California plans to be abortion sanctuary if Roe vs. Wade is … › california › story › california…
          5 days ago — State lawmakers may help pay for people from other states to come to California for abortions if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs.

          With all the ails California they have the distinction of being the first state, in my knowledge at least, to be a certified (sanctuary, what a misnomer) abortion center. Taxpayers will pay for and recruit abortion seekers. Let that sink in for a bit.

    1. You know, I was all for him but your argument is so well thought out and compulsive that now I’ve totally changed my mind. You must be a stable genius!

  3. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Thank you, SCOTUS!

    Laws (in the vein of Texas $10k vigilante abortion law) I hope Oregon passes soon:
    1) Assault rifle/ghost gun sales/manufacture against any business or individual
    2) Churches to lose their tax-exempt status if they advocate for political party/candidate
    3) Anyone not wearing a mask indoors for harming the health of Oregon

      1. I thought you moved along with your business “Amalgamated Rusty Hammers” out of state years ago with your tail between your legs, yet here you STILL are.

  4. Just another distraction on Newsome’s part…

    To pull attention away from the state’s truly significant problems under his “leadership”.

    The loons and goons have made California a joke. And its DEM professional political robber barons rich.

  5. Yawn, so much whining from the anti-gun crowd. IF you clowns are so anti gun, why have you not called for Hunter Obiden to be in jail after his illegal gun purchase? But hey, No worries, Creepy Sleepy CHina Joe Obiden will fix everything, just ask Hunter and the ATF!!!!!!

      1. Since when is preserving a life wrong? What’s your answer to that? Tell me, at what point do believe life begins? And at what point do you begin to believe that life matters?

        1. Life is what happens when viability can be maintained outside a uterus. Without uterine support, zygotes and first trimester fetuses cannot survive. Heartbeats, used by so many as a means to determine when life begins, can be replicated in a Petri dish. What happens in a woman’s body and when she shares her vitality with a fertilized egg should be her decision, no one else’s since the fertilized egg is a part of and essentially belongs to her.

          1. who fertilized the egg? the baby is only 50% hers. yet men often have no say. so many stories of men who wanted the baby, the woman aborted anyway. it’s devastating.

            1. I’d say it’s more than 50% hers. She has to feed it and house it at a cost to her own health. And there are absolutely not “so many stories”. There is not a mass of unrepresented inconsolable potential single fathers out there.

            2. Looking forward to men needing to watch videos of babies and having to walk through waves of protesters and clinics needing admitting privileges and the man having to drive for hundreds of miles to find a clinic for a dude to get a vasectomy. See my point? No, no you don’t, because you don’t care until it happens to you.

  6. Guns (arms) guaranteed by the constitution. Abortion. No where to be found in the constitution. California loses. But if they pull it off. I propose a law allowing anyone to sue KTVZ and CNN for their constitutionally protected publishing.

    1. Red states will have right wing vigilante laws from now on, and blue states will have left wing vigilante laws from now on. Because Texas, and your maga SCOTUS. You are free to move to a red state if you don’t like it here, and you will not be missed.

      1. You haven’t answered my question. I suppose that life doesn’t matter to you. Just the eradication of what you call assault weapons. Please describe just what an assault weapon is. I’m curious to read your answer. But first, please be aware that I am well versed in weaponry. Also, in your own words, what does the AR in AR15 stand for? The R stands for rifle, can you even tell me what the A stands for?

    2. The Declaration defines “the pursuit of happiness” as an unalienable right. It says nothing about when a clump of cells becomes a person. One can argue that in many cases abortion upholds this fundamental right, both for the mother and any potential child.

  7. The writing is clearly on the wall. If Texas is allowed to implement a clearly unconstutional law, other states will copy cat the process to gut the second amendment. If someone didn’t see this comming, they’ve been living with their head in the sand.

      1. The judges on the Supreme Court asked this very question, and the lawyer for Texas admitted it could/would happen, and SCOTUS still couldn’t help themselves from letting it pass in order to kill Roe vs Wade. Maga caused this, and maga can suffer the consequences.

  8. Nice try, Newsom but these two things are not even in the same ballpark. The Texas law allows lawsuits to be filed against individuals participating in a specific act (abortion) that brings harm to other individuals. The manufacturing and selling of an object is not even remotely similar. The CA equivalency would be allowing lawsuits against individuals who used these objects (assault weapons) to shoot other people. Of course civil suits against murderers are already allowed and happen all the time. As to the constitution, abortion is never mentioned and was very loosely interpreted as a privacy issue. Guns, on the other hand, are explicitly spelled out as being protected.

      1. Let me help you understand the SCOTUS definition of “Well Regulated” . . . “It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.” In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.”

    1. When the term “arms” was used by the framers of the constitution, they were referring to muskets. So, it can be argued that cap and ball is protected, but anything more modern is not.

        1. Obviously you know as little about the Constitution as you do about machine guns. This probationary “limit” you think exists is illusionary. There are thousands of machine guns legally owned by civilians all around you.

      1. Your opinion has absolutely no basis in fact. It’s as ridiculous as saying that the First Amendment protections of freedom of speech only apply to those expressed with the use of a quill pen.

  9. Abortion was never explicitly protected by a Constitutional amendment, owning a firearm is. Newsome’s notion won’t survive a legal challenge. Yay, Founding Fathers!

    1. Guns and firearms are not in the Constitution same as abortion. The right to bear arms, not firearms nor guns, shall not be infringed. You don’t have the right to carry rocket launchers, mortars, grenades, etc.

      1. Actually, you can LEGALLY own rocket launchers, mortars, grenades, jet fighters, tanks, etc. However, you have to have the appropriate tax stamps at both state and federal levels. Oh, and there is a whole set of rules/laws that go along with that right.

    2. Separation of Church and State was also in the Constitution.
      Enjoy every church being sued for political activism, and losing their tax exempt status.

    3. Actually, you are completely missing the point. SCOTUS says that it can not have a legal challenge because the government is not the one enforcing the law. Vigilantes are doing the enforcing and one can’t sue them as they are just following the law.

  10. “But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way,” the statement continued.

    Interesting how he states that stopping people from manufacturing a tool would protect peoples lives, but stopping an actual person from using a tool to kill a baby has no mention of protecting peoples lives. Instead, its mentioned that its putting women in harms way.

    1. There’s one function a gun is made to do – kill -and protection is only secondary to that function. BTW, no “babies” are being killed. Zygotes and first trimester fetuses are not “babies.” That’s a term used by the unscrupulous to trigger raw emotion in the uneducated.

      1. As usual, you’re wrong. “Gov. Gavin Newsom’s aunt, Barbara Newsom, was once married to Ron Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law. Barbara Newsom and Ron Pelosi divorced in 1977.”

    1. And I think Trump could nail the part of a great Mussolini if he was casted for the part. I know I’d watch the end over and over again. But what’s your point?

  11. Gavin Newsom is a fool. This will go absolutely nowhere. The 2nd Amendment and Roe vs. Wade are in no way equivalent. He knows this, but wants to put on a show for his nut job constituents.

    1. The content of the 2A and Roe v Wade is indeed different. However, the legal precedent set can be applied to all laws, giving states the right to establish bounty rewards for citizens to enforce whatever legislation the state so chooses, whether it concerns abortion, gun rights, being gay or maybe even a step back preventing mixed race marriages. The precedent severely limit federal jurisdiction and the rule of law. It’s a newly opened Pandora’s box giving states the ability to curtail civil rights and freedoms.

  12. It amuses me that the hard arguement here is “abortion isn’t a word in the Constitution” as if that has any actual bearing on how Constitutional law (or even laws in general) work. I’m almost certain the majority of the people that love to comment on KTVZ are only here to prove Dunning-Kruger beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    1. Most on here haven’t read the Constitution and don’t even understand legal precedent or how once established, it can be applied to all laws, not just the one for which it was initially intended.

  13. LEAVE Californicated and come and screw up the new state as they wrecked Ca. Lot of them came to Lapine and they thought they were the smartest in the world. Check who you vote for not the typical BS line.

Leave a Reply

Skip to content