California Gov. Gavin Newsom's call for gun laws that are enforced by arming random plaintiffs in civil suits mimics the idea behind Texas' anti-abortion-rights law — and suffers from the same problem. If a law can't stand up on its own in criminal court, recasting it as an invitation to legal vigilantism in civil court isn't a proper solution.

There has been much speculation lately about whether the Supreme Court will ultimately overturn Roe v. Wade. But the Texas law is specifically designed to eliminate abortion rights even if that doesn't happen. The law provides an incentive of $10,000 for plaintiffs who go into court and randomly sue anyone who violates the state's anti-abortion law. That law effectively bans abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy because clinics don't want to risk the financial and legal exposure.

The state couldn't enforce such a pre-viability law under current court precedent. The law attempts to get around that problem by using the civil court system as the enforcement mechanism, eliminating the whole concept of legal standing in the process. The plaintiffs don't have to have any involvement whatsoever in the specific abortion. They don't have to be related to the woman receiving it or the doctor performing it; they don't even have to be residents of Texas. If they win in court, they get $10,000; if they lose, they don't have to pay anything.

The fact that the Supreme Court has, so far, allowed this scheme to stand is alarming in ways that go far beyond the issue of abortion rights. Newsom aptly illustrated that with a weekend tweet in response to the court's latest ruling in the case: "SCOTUS is letting private citizens in Texas sue to stop abortion?! If that's the precedent, then we'll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets. If TX can ban abortion and endanger lives, CA can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives."

Newsom followed up with a statement saying his office will pursue legislation allowing anyone to sue anyone else who "manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts" in California, with damages set at a minimum of $10,000 per violation, plus court costs.

As it stands now, federal law provides far too much protection for not just those who manufacture ghost gun kits but for all gun manufacturers. They should be held civilly liable for the mayhem their products cause — but only in lawsuits brought by their direct victims, or victims' survivors. As satisfying as it might sound to put a big Texas-style target on the backs of gunmakers, the precedent set by such a move, as with Texas' abortion law, would sacrifice sound legal process on the altar of the culture wars.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Photo credit: Activedia at Pixabay