Silly to stockpile? every governor and mayor can effectively stop most sales now

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Take a look:
    https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03...first-tests-of-essential-under-shelter-order/

    And the justification openly cited by the mayor is NOT about virus protection, but about reducing access to guns and ammo for the law abiding and otherwise qualified citizen.

    “We are having panic buying right now for food,” Liccardo said Wednesday. “The one thing we cannot have is panic buying of guns.”

    The powers in question have to do with limiting people congregating, but the mayor is openly saying his reason is not that, but rather stopping sales of guns and ammo to persons who are completely legally qualified to buy guns or ammo. He is literally rationing a constitutional right and wants to lower gun ownership, not the virus transmission.
     

    Badger1

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 21, 2017
    53
    I was thinking about the executive powers during a crisis more generally; along the lines of 1st amendment issues of freedom to gather/demonstrate, freedom of association issues, and around religious practice/gathering.
    I think it's a good idea to practice social distancing voluntarily, but was thinking about the governor's executive order limiting gathering sizes, among other things. It's something that no one is likely to challenge during an emergency. So, given that we seem to accept executives having this broad power to restrict 1st amendment rights, what is to stop them from restricting 2nd amendment rights?
    I guess that is no longer a hypothetical... Thanks for posting.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    I was thinking about the executive powers during a crisis more generally; along the lines of 1st amendment issues of freedom to gather/demonstrate, freedom of association issues, and around religious practice/gathering.
    I think it's a good idea to practice social distancing voluntarily, but was thinking about the governor's executive order limiting gathering sizes, among other things. It's something that no one is likely to challenge during an emergency. So, given that we seem to accept executives having this broad power to restrict 1st amendment rights, what is to stop them from restricting 2nd amendment rights?
    I guess that is no longer a hypothetical... Thanks for posting.

    You are confused. this is not in any way analogous to limiting gatherings but akin the government forbidding the press from criticizing actions of the government. What you are saying is it would be justified for Trump to shut down the NYT if they criticized his actions, since it is in the interest of the government that everyone cooperate!

    And there are no "broad powers" to limit assembly to petition the government, that is about the most narrow power subject to the strictest scrutiny theri s.

    it is 100% unconstitutional even during an emergency to say that you are limiting gatherings in order to limit the expression of the right to express dissent.
    No US governor, mayor or president can say: "I am limiting gatherings,, gathering size etc protest due to government interest in limiting dissent"

    and no governor, Mayor, or President can say we are suspending mirandizing because we don't want people to understand their right to counsel.


    The mayor in this case is explicitly saying he is acting to limit the right, not the transmission risk.

    he is not closing the gun store because people could get wuhan, he is not doing this to mitigate wuhan transmission at all --he is using that law for another purpose entirely: so that qualified people can not acquire firearms or ammunition
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,176
    Sun City West, AZ
    When did politicians ever truly care about what is and isn't Constitutional when it comes to their desire to have power? There have a been a few who cared about the Constitution but most give it lip service at best but most have a "buffet-style" attitude towards it...they pick and choose what parts they like and ignore the parts they don't.
     

    dannyp

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 30, 2018
    1,464
    saves me from having to do it myself , cpap requires it . i'm not hoarding but i did buy an extra gallon .
     

    Outta Air

    Active Member
    Dec 28, 2015
    512
    Exactly where I want to be
    Unconstitutional as hell. That mayor needs to be arrested and charged with violating his oath of office.

    Most everything they do is unconstitutional and I fear this is only the beginning of the nightmares for law-abiding GOs. They'll continue their unlawful BS until 1. it goes to SCOTUS or 2. Americans rise up and finally say enough is enough with hardware in hand!!!
     

    Boxcab

    MSI EM
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 22, 2007
    7,865
    AA County
    You are confused. this is not in any way analogous to limiting gatherings but akin the government forbidding the press from criticizing actions of the government. What you are saying is it would be justified for Trump to shut down the NYT if they criticized his actions, since it is in the interest of the government that everyone cooperate!

    And there are no "broad powers" to limit assembly to petition the government, that is about the most narrow power subject to the strictest scrutiny theri s.

    it is 100% unconstitutional even during an emergency to say that you are limiting gatherings in order to limit the expression of the right to express dissent.
    No US governor, mayor or president can say: "I am limiting gatherings,, gathering size etc protest due to government interest in limiting dissent"

    and no governor, Mayor, or President can say we are suspending mirandizing because we don't want people to understand their right to counsel.


    The mayor in this case is explicitly saying he is acting to limit the right, not the transmission risk.

    he is not closing the gun store because people could get wuhan, he is not doing this to mitigate wuhan transmission at all --he is using that law for another purpose entirely: so that qualified people can not acquire firearms or ammunition

    The SCOUS needs to set the level of scrutiny for 2A ASAP.




    .
     

    Melnic

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 27, 2012
    15,282
    HoCo
    Sometimes those who did not learn to "stack it deep when its cheap" decide to panic buy when they think things may run low or run low and stay low for a period of time. Not just because they think they may need it right away.
     

    welder516

    Deplorable Welder
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    27,306
    Underground Bunker
    The Constitution is a document that means nothing , way before this pandemic they have been breaking constitutional laws and our rights . Means nothing to them they have never suffered as a result so they keep doing it .

    More or less like children making bad choices and never been held accountable turn int PITA adults .
     

    babalou

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 12, 2013
    16,019
    Glenelg
    Not a Judge Nap fan but...

    I was thinking about the executive powers during a crisis more generally; along the lines of 1st amendment issues of freedom to gather/demonstrate, freedom of association issues, and around religious practice/gathering.
    I think it's a good idea to practice social distancing voluntarily, but was thinking about the governor's executive order limiting gathering sizes, among other things. It's something that no one is likely to challenge during an emergency. So, given that we seem to accept executives having this broad power to restrict 1st amendment rights, what is to stop them from restricting 2nd amendment rights?
    I guess that is no longer a hypothetical... Thanks for posting.



    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-liberty-coronavirus

    towards the end

    ...Add to all this, the protection in the First Amendment of the right to associate and the judicially recognized right to travel – both of which are natural rights – and it is clear that these nanny state rules are unconstitutional, unlawful and unworthy of respect or compliance.

    Why is this happening? Throughout history, free people have been willing to accept the devil's bargain of trading liberty for safety when they are fearful. We supinely accept the shallow and hollow offers of government that somehow less liberty equals more safety.

    This happened here with the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 1790s when the Federalists feared a second revolution, during the Civil War when Lincoln feared dissent and Congress feared defeat, during World War I when President Woodrow Wilson suppressed the speech he hated and feared, and during the Great Depression when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt feared economic calamity and seized property without compensation.

    And, after 9/11, fearing another attack, Congress secretly crafted the Patriot Act's circumvention of the Fourth Amendment and creation of the total surveillance state.

    This sordid history came about when the public was fearful of the unknown and trustful of the government's bargain. But the safety offered for the liberty sacrificed never came to pass.

    Moreover, liberty is natural and personal. You can sacrifice yours, but you cannot sacrifice mine. The natural nature of personal liberty – Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence calls our rights inalienable and James Madison's Ninth Amendment reflects their nature as limitless – insulates their existence and exercise in a free society from totalitarian and even majoritarian interference.

    Today the fear of contagion gives government cover for its assaults on freedom and poses a question the government does not want to answer: If liberty can be taken away in times of crisis, then is it really liberty; or is it just a license, via a temporary government permission slip, subject to the whims of politicians in power?.....
     

    Glaron

    Camp pureblood 13R
    BANNED!!!
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 20, 2013
    12,752
    Virginia
    Unconstitutional as hell. That mayor needs to be arrested and charged with violating his oath of office.

    This part bothers me. If "Lawmakers" pass a law that is found to be unconstitutional, why do we have to pay to question it. They should be barred for life from being a lawmaker. Im a bit tired of paying for both sides of the screw. That's just me.:sad20:
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,921
    Messages
    7,259,069
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom