As previously noted, Gavin Newsom is presumptuously taking on Ron DeSantis.
In Round I, we saw the creepy governor of California try to sucker punch DeSantis with an ad that came 2,635 miles out of Left field (geographically, ideologically and metaphorically). Still, he swung and missed.
Now, he is trying to steal DeSantis' moves.
He jealously notices the Florida Governor's knack for effectively announcing action on current issues that are hot-buttons for much of the electorate.
So, Newsom thought he'd give that a try.
Issue Du Jour
Thinking he found the perfect vehicle on his side of the culture divide, Gov Gav made a big fanfare of signing a gun bill to allow Californians to sue gun manufacturers.
The legislation was modeled after the Texas abortion bill, but the Texas law was at least creative. At best, this Hollywood sequel was lazy. At worst, it was taking two serious subjects and playing a snarky game with both just to try and score a partisan gotcha.
"Nearly every industry is held liable when people are hurt or killed by their products – guns should be no different,” says Mr. Whitening Strips.
Well, kinda. Yes, companies are frequently held liable when their products hurt people. That happens when the product is properly used by the customer, but it malfunctions to cause injury. Or it has a side-effect that was improperly disclosed. In other words, the product did not do what it was supposed to do.
If a gun malfunctions and accidentally hurts someone, the gun manufacturer can already be, and is, successfully sued. If a gun works as it is supposed to, it should not be possible to successfully sue the manufacturer.
"So, you're saying that because guns are supposed to hurt people, it's ok?"
Proper uses of a firearm:
Committing a crime with a gun is (obviously) not a proper use. Neither is committing a crime with a knife. Or a sledge hammer. Or insecticide. The knife or hammer or insecticide manufacturer is not held liable. Nor should they be. Lots of things can be used as weapons to hurt people (just ask a prison guard), but that has nothing to do with the weapon and everything to do with the perp.
Who knows? Maybe, in our current litigation-crazed society, Ford paid some out-of-court money to the Wisconsin parade massacre victims and families, where a 2010 Ford Escape killed at least 6 people and injured over 60 more. But, anyone with a brain knows they shouldn't have to.** And, of course, they don't when a drunk driver kills someone.
With almost a half-billion firearms already in the US, driving manufacturers out of business would have virtually no impact on a criminal's ability to get a gun. However, it would make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase one to defend themselves and their families against that criminal.
Scoring Round II
See, Gavin, here's the thing: you are a shining example that form can go a long way over substance, especially in the Land of Fake Everything. But, thankfully, the rest of the country has a bit more depth and common sense.***
* for the record only, "self-defense" as contemplated by the 2nd Amendment may be broader than you think.
** Unfortunately, in 21st Century America, people sue anyone for anything. If a potential plaintiff has a story that can elicit sympathy from a jury and the potential defendant has deep pockets, you can find a scumbag lawyer who will file a claim. And, unfortunately, if the defendant is a corporation, they will frequently just cut a check, regardless of how innocent they are and how stupid the claim is, because it is simply the right business decision in terms of cost and management time/focus. There is an important general issue here about our litigious society and product liability and the impact to the cost of living, but that's for another time.
*** and so do a lot of Californians. They are just out-numbered by people who have more confidence than clue.