Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 19th, 2020, 09:57 AM #1
rascal rascal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 936
rascal rascal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 936
Silly to stockpile? every governor and mayor can effectively stop most sales now

Take a look:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/...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.

Quote:
“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.
rascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2020, 10:13 AM #2
Badger1 Badger1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 26
Badger1 Badger1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 26
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.
Badger1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2020, 10:48 AM #3
rascal rascal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 936
rascal rascal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger1 View Post
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
rascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2020, 12:13 PM #4
Boxcab's Avatar
Boxcab Boxcab is offline
MSI EM
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: AA County
Posts: 6,240
Boxcab Boxcab is offline
MSI EM
Boxcab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: AA County
Posts: 6,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by rascal View Post
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.




.
__________________
Quote:
"I do find myself cursing the ghosts of the politicians and gun owners who let our 2nd Amendment rights degrade over the past century. Seven plus decades of being afraid to enthusiastically challenge any new ban against our gun rights has proven to be very foolish. Your rights will not preserve themselves; they must be pursued, secured and vigilantly maintained."
Boxcab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2020, 07:45 PM #5
Bob A's Avatar
Bob A Bob A is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 13,440
Bob A Bob A is online now
Senior Member
Bob A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 13,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by rascal View Post
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.
Guess what? Maybe they "can't" say it, but they've already done it.

A hundred years ago.

Read all about Woody Wilson taking on the Press "for the good of the country":
https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=243156

Of course, that was back in the day when the press was able to explore more than one side of an issue; less of a problem today, where the Progs and the media speak with one forked tongue.
__________________
The Hand That Signs The Paycheck Rules The World

"Forget it, Jake, it's C̶h̶i̶n̶a̶t̶o̶w̶n̶ Maryland."

Originally Posted by Deep Lurker:
Quote:
Disclaimer: “No criminals will be harmed in the passage of these gun control bills.”
Bob A is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2020, 02:41 PM #6
babalou's Avatar
babalou babalou is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Monkey County
Posts: 5,953
babalou babalou is offline
Senior Member
babalou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Monkey County
Posts: 5,953
Not a Judge Nap fan but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger1 View Post
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/judg...ty-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?.....
babalou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2020, 10:27 AM #7
John from MD's Avatar
John from MD John from MD is offline
American Patriot
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USSR Maryland
Posts: 8,961
John from MD John from MD is offline
American Patriot
John from MD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USSR Maryland
Posts: 8,961
Bass Pro just pushed back an order I made to maybe 60 days. I'll probably cancel it as it was only some extra .22's I didn't need anyway.
__________________
John
Vietnam '72 - '73

"A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to the United States of America for an amount of up to and including my life. That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it."
(credit to a USAF pilot)

For those who gave all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUZHTE1jMXg


Proud Patriot Picket
John from MD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2020, 10:59 AM #8
TheOriginalMexicanBob's Avatar
TheOriginalMexicanBob TheOriginalMexicanBob is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Frederick
Posts: 10,175
TheOriginalMexicanBob TheOriginalMexicanBob is online now
Senior Member
TheOriginalMexicanBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Frederick
Posts: 10,175
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.
__________________
Socialism is like a Jedi Mind Trick...it only works on the weak minded. TheOriginalMexican Bob
I'm an American...your approval is not required. TheOriginalMexicanBob
Good people do not need laws to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. Plato
TheOriginalMexicanBob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2020, 11:07 AM #9
newmuzzleloader's Avatar
newmuzzleloader newmuzzleloader is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: joppa
Posts: 3,212
newmuzzleloader newmuzzleloader is online now
Senior Member
newmuzzleloader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: joppa
Posts: 3,212
Unconstitutional as hell. That mayor needs to be arrested and charged with violating his oath of office.
__________________
“The US should be a sanctuary for law-abiding Americans, not criminal aliens”
newmuzzleloader is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2020, 02:45 PM #10
Glaron's Avatar
Glaron Glaron is online now
Cynical Smartass
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 8,534
Glaron Glaron is online now
Cynical Smartass
Glaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by newmuzzleloader View Post
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.
__________________
NRA Life Member , NMA Life Member
-----------------
We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns? —Joseph Stalin
If the liberals and their Deep State puppet masters were not planning to do something bad to the American people, then why do they want to disarm us? - unknown
Glaron is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service