So.... Does this mean that a state can outlaw the ownership of assault rifles

[70sEraVet]

merely by creating a bounty for neighbors who report their owners?

[Walleye]

1. Surprised they haven't offered bounties for reporting immigrants

[Irish_Dem]

4. That will be next. Paying citizens to be informants could become the norm.

Like North Korea, China, Russia.

[Walleye]

5. Well I hope they enjoy the world they're creating. I'm old, let these young people live with their

Monstrous creation. I’m a quarter of a century past my child bearing years. I don’t have children of my own. And it’s getting harder and harder to care about these assholes

[Irish_Dem]

7. A friend of mine and I said the same thing. We are glad we are old and won't have to live in this

world being created in front of our eyes. We don't want to be a part of this kind of country and society.

[mopinko]

10. amen. 67.

do have kids, but no grands. not likely to be grands, so...

[PTWB]

2. No it doesn't...

Repealing or reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment would be required.

[d_r]

8. the texas law

didn't require repealing or reinterpretation of the 14th amendment though

[70sEraVet]

9. The private ownership of assault rifles is really another topic.

I'm really questioning how the formation of a bounty system as a method of enforcement has allowed a state to flout a previously settled Supreme Court decision.

[Under The Radar]

15. That's not True. There have been assault weapons bans

[kcr]

21. Huh. Then how did the ban an assault weapons happen in the first place?

[Demsrule86]

3. No, SCOTUS would stay/overrule that in a New York second.

[sir pball]

6. More like citizens being able to being charges of anti-trans discrimination

Which, come to think of it, would be a fantastic move if the TX law ultimately stands (SCOTUS denied an injunction, but it has not in any way been challenged in court yet).

Of course they'd still rule 5-4 that while it's ok to deputize citizens to force births, trans discrimination just isn't the same...but at least they'd have to say it out loud.

[LeftInTX]

11. Yes

[C_U_L8R]

12. Republican freemarketeering

Monetizing their hate and profiting at the expense of other's lives.
It's the natural next step of their awful beliefs. Fuck all of them.

[Ms. Toad]

13. First, the constitutionally of the law has not been reviewed yet.

Second, this law doesn't work on reporting. It works on adding.

The private citizen would need to hire a lawyer and sue the person they suspect was involved in an abortion (and prove it).

This isn't a reporting bounty.

Once the law is tested, It should fall, since shifting the burden to private citizens to perform unconstitutional acts only works if it does not require government action to enforce. Once you go to court, you have state action.

[FBaggins]

14. Yes and no

It means that if they do so, the law might not be effectively challenged until after someone tries to enforce it. It does not mean that such a law would last long past that point.

Even that may not last for long once the strategy itself is evaluated by the courts.

[hack89]

16. Once they pass an AWB

they could.

[dsc]

20. california did that the the 9th circuit overturned it

[hack89]

22. You have it backwards

The 9th upheld the AWB.

[LiberatedUSA]

17. The is SCOTUS would love a blue state to do that.

That sounds like a case they would accept.

[fescuerescue]

18. Yes it does

The question is what will the SC do when asked to hear it.

[maxrandb]

19. I think if the Supreme Court ultimately declares this law Constitutional

Then I think ANY Private Citizen, in ANY state, could bring a civil suit against ANY other Private Citizen that violates, or is suspected of violating ANY law.

I don't see how you could rule that ONLY Texas citizens are deputized as enforcers of law.

If this stands, then why couldn't I sue Donnie Dipshit and his family for tax fraud, or the voluntary manslaughter of 600K+ Americans.

At 10K a pop, I'd be richer than Bill Gates.