So early next week

all the SCOTUS rulings will become official. And in all likelihood RvW will be overturned. And it should be. From a legal reasoning perspective it is the worst SCOTUS decision since Dred Scott, and for exactly the same reasons.

But the truth is, RvW has been dead for a bit. States figured out a way around it. They cracked the code.

The “fix” was to have the state openly support abortion and codify into law that no elected official can prohibit it, but then make abortionists and ANYONE associated (such as office staff, banks, insurance companies, benefit providers [employers], etc.) civilly liable for any damages.

States “cracked the code,” and RvW was functionally dead. All the rest now is just symbolic. ANY state that wants to can already functionally outlaw abortion (see: Alabama). Indeed, if RvW is overturned (and it looks like it will be) that will be great, but NOTHING actually changes in terms of functionality.

Could the same be done to gun manufacturers? Sure, but really, it would’t work. It would immediately be appealed, end up at SCOTUS (if it even gets that far), overturned, and then there would be legal precedent.

Because unlike abortionists, who chop up babies and who are clearly the proximate cause of death, gun manufactures didn’t “pull the trigger.” It will be very hard to establish that they are the proximate cause.

You can’t argue that “But for the gun manufacturer” there would be no damages (no proximate causation). Most of us with guns never shoot anyone. In other words, the gun is not the proximate cause.

See, the culprit could have done the deed with a sword, or nunchucks, or a pipe wrench, or those cool Chinese throwing stars, or a bread knife, or fists, or a big stick, or…

Therefore, the tort action against gun manufacturers fails.

Leave a Reply