California law to stop civil rights lawsuits SB1327

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Newsome just signed SB1327 law that said of you sue the state over civil rights, that if you lose you are liable for the states costs...

Sounds patently unconstitutional. And why isn't the left, who sues the govt for everything and usually loses going nuts?

It only applies to civil rights cases involving firearms....

https://youtu.be/S9MZMO68u5Q

Banana republic....

Made even more egregious as the states pass patently unconstitutional restrictions on people's civil rights.

Even more evidence that we need SCOTUS decision to put these states under court order to restrict these laws from passing laws that are patently unconstitutional law.

[Diamondback]

Like making a rape victim who fights off an assailant pay for the scumbag's medical care and legal bills afterward. This should go STRAIGHT to SCOTUS and immediately be rammed up Newscum and Bonta's rear ends until it knocks out teeth.

#KaliforniaDelendaEst

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And I'm pretty sure that the 1A has been 'incorporated'(?) by the states...

Let's make this really easy. All the abortion cases that are going to be filed by the left, what would happen if they had the same standard. It would be all we hear about. Frankly, I think Abbot should pass this law but about abortion in TX, this week.

And how can this pass constitutional muster if it only about firearms...

[SomeOtherGuy]

Costs (as opposed to legal fees) usually isn't much. A similar rule applies to prisoner lawsuits in some states.

If this applied to ALL civil rights lawsuits I wouldn't be too excited. But singling out 2A is blatant discrimination, and likely unconstitutional.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Costs (as opposed to legal fees) usually isn't much. A similar rule applies to prisoner lawsuits in some states.

If this applied to ALL civil rights lawsuits I wouldn't be too excited. But singling out 2A is blatant discrimination, and likely unconstitutional.

Thanks, I meant to ask if this applied to any other lawsuits filed against the government. Besides the lawsuits around prisoners, can anyone think of anything else?

[SomeOtherGuy]

Thanks, I meant to ask if this applied to any other lawsuits filed against the government. Besides the lawsuits around prisoners, can anyone think of anything else?

Who pays court costs is an issue of state law and/or court rules in the various states, and it usually doesn't amount to more than a few hundred dollars (vs. legal fees that may be 5-7 figures). I'm not aware of any other common rule for suits against government. In suits between two private parties some states have the loser pay costs, but not always.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Found this on Reddit:


1021.11. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state, a political subdivision, a governmental entity or public official in this state, or a person in this state from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms, or that represents any litigant seeking that relief, is jointly and severally liable to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party.

That seems to, or the implication is that is the higher of the two numbers we are talking about.

But I didn’t see that in that bill? I’ve see it mentioned in two different youtube videos. Armed Scholar is pretty good, but as fast as things move, he is a bit over his skis at times now.

Supposedly this is a copy of the Texas law, but I don’t remember that in their law. As to the Texas ‘Bounty’ law, I don’t know how useful it is now. Just get whatever abortion law you want passed in the Texas state govt and roll with that?

ETA: I could see this being used against people defending themselves against gun charges also? Maybe a bit outside the reading, but sure seems that they could at least try it.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Found this on Reddit:

1021.11. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state, a political subdivision, a governmental entity or public official in this state, or a person in this state from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms, or that represents any litigant seeking that relief, is jointly and severally liable to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party.

That seems to, or the implication is that is the higher of the two numbers we are talking about.

1) Yeah this says "fees and costs" so it would apply to a much larger dollar amount.

2) It's horribly written, either on purpose or by accident, because it makes the plaintiff attorney liable for the fees and costs of the prevailing party, regardless of the setting. Does that mean that even if you win, your own attorney is liable for his/her fees and costs? Illogical and stupid. But I don't know if this was written that way out of idiocy, or malice.

3) By purporting to make any lawyer of law firm liable for the fees and costs of the other party, this is obviously intended to make it impossible to hire an attorney for such a purpose.

4) This implicates several different fundamental rights, including 1A, 2A, and due process, and I can't imagine any legitimate court tolerating it.

5) If I were asked to litigate this, I would try to start in federal court with an attack on this law, get it declared null and void, and then go after the anti-gun laws at issue.


ETA: I could see this being used against people defending themselves against gun charges also? Maybe a bit outside the reading, but sure seems that they could at least try it.

As quoted above it only applies to suits to bar enforcement of a law, and wouldn't apply to defending yourself against criminal charges. It's still utter BS but doesn't go quite that far.