It's hard to prove a negative. Specifically, how do you prove something you can't directly observe is efficacious? Take the coronavirus lockdown. If we shut down the world and lock everyone into their houses, the spread of the virus slows down dramatically and less people get infected. The hospitals aren't overwhelmed and millions of people don't die. So let's say only 60,000 people die instead of 2 or 9 million. Does that mean the quarantines and all the government overreach didn't succeed? Of course not. So if you think the quarantines didn't work because not a lot of people are dead...I'm not going to bother explaining it to you. Just watch the video. My beef with the government's emergency measures is the constitutionality. The government went full retard in a lot of cases and went too far. Like basically making it illegal to go outside. See the paddle-boarder get arrested in LA? Closing churches? Hassling gun stores? Tracking citizens and screening people at state borders? So let's re-think what we've done. There's no reason call centers and office jobs can't be done from home for the time being. Some stuff needs to stay closed or someone needs to come up with a plan for businesses to re-open with social distancing in place and a way for health authorities to enforce it. And perhaps to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients, special pandemic hospitals should have been opened and all known or suspected cases sent there to keep regular hospitals open. Yes, the virus may still spread but someone who needs that cancer cut out of them or that stent put in might like to life rather than limping along some very elderly person isn't gonna survive the virus any how. People have done a good job getting along so far and even voluntarily complying. There's no reason why we need a boot on our neck over a virus. But whatever we do, there will be a second wave and it will be just as bad, if not worse, when the world does re-open. Balancing a lot of dead people versus civil liberties is difficult, but not that difficult. We are capable of a much better response from a health perspective and a constitutional one. It is possible to both praise the social distancing efforts while questioning their extent and efficacy. You are well aware I am critical of closing outdoor spaces (the real reason for the closure seems to be crowds, not spreading the virus). We can have a conversation about how-far is too-far. The pushes we make for the government to chill out, respect our rights, and not be incompetent will dictate how awful the next wave will be. New Mexico was one of the states that closed gun stores as part of their coronavirus crisis overreaction. State Troopers were sent to enforce the closures. Now, multiple gun rights groups filed suit against the governor and other officials for the closure. The case is Aragon v. Grisham and the plaintiffs include the Second Amendment Foundation, the NRA, and the Firearms Policy Center. Read more at Ammoland.com. From the New York Post by way of David Codrea. Read the article and watch the video at the Post. Finally someone in power, with the power to do something about it, is starting to question the lockdowns. Note that he talks about alternatives. The Constitution and courts find alternatives to violating rights to be very important. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, Utah is now tracking those who traveling into the state. If you cross the stateline in a number of "geo-fenced" areas, the state will recognize your cell phone and send you a text message directing you to fill out a travel registration form at entry.utah.gov. The check points are:
This news story summarizes it pretty well. How this is legal or constitutional is beyond me. Once states start closing their borders to each other, the whole concept of the federal republic is done for. The amount of tracking that can be done via cellphone should already be disturbing to you, but this takes it to a whole new level. Of course, what if you just ignore the text message? What are they gonna do? COVID-19 has become a major excuse for the government to clamp down like totalitarians and shred the constitution. Idaho and Wyoming were the only states in the Intermountain West to totally ban carrying a firearm (at least in cities and towns). Wyoming repealed its law, applying the ban only to concealed carry, in 1899. In 1902, the Idaho Supreme Court found that the state could not ban both methods and open carry was then decriminalized. The infringement of 1888 ends July 1, 2020, when Idaho restores constitutional carry for all. In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, 70 P. 609, 101 Am. St. Rep. 215, 1 Ann. Cas. 55 (1902). Supreme Court of Idaho. Nov. 15, 1902 BEARING ARMS—CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS. 1. The act of the territorial legislature approved February 4, 1889, which prohibits private persons from carrying deadly weapons within the limits or confines of any city, town, or village in Idaho, contravenes the provisions of the second amendment to the federal constitution and the provisions of section 11, art. 1, of the constitution of Idaho, and is void. 2. While it is undoubtedly within the power of the legislature to prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, and such regulation is a proper exercise of police power, yet the legislature does not possess the power to prohibit the carrying of firearms, as the right to do so is guarantied to the citizen both by our federal and state constitutions. (Syllabus by the Court.) Application of L. D. Brickey for a writ of habeas corpus. Writ granted, and petitioner discharged. S. S. Denning, for petitioner. Miles S. Johnson, Co. Atty., for the State. QUARLES, C. J. The petitioner applies to this court for a writ of habeas corpus, and in the petition sets forth and shows that he is unlawfully imprisoned, confined, and restrained of his liberty by A. W. Kroutinger, sheriff of Nez Perce county, at the county jail in the county of Nez Perce; in the state of Idaho; that he is so imprisoned under a commitment which issued out of the justice's court of West Lewiston precinct, in the county of Nez Perce, in a criminal action wherein petitioner was convicted upon the charge of carrying a deadly weapon, to wit, a loaded revolver, within the limits and confines of the city of Lewiston, contrary to the provisions of the act of the territory of Idaho approved February 4, 1889 (Sess. Laws 1889, p. 27); and, in accordance with the prayer of said petition, the writ was issued, and return thereto duly made by the said sheriff. From the petition and return it appears that the only offense charged against the petitioner, of which he has been convicted, and is now restrained of his liberty, is that he carried a deadly weapon within the limits of the city of Lewiston, in contravention of the said act of February 4, 1889. The second amendment to the federal constitution is in the following language: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The language of section 11, art. 1, Const. Idaho, is as follows: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law." Under these constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho, whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and villages. The legislature may, as expressly provided in our state constitution, regulate the exercise of this right, but may not prohibit it. A statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly weapons would be a proper exercise of the police power of the state. But the statute in question does not prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed, which is of itself a pernicious practice, but prohibits the carrying of them in any manner in cities, towns, and villages. We are compelled to hold this statute void. The statute being void, the said justice's court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action, and the said judgment of conviction, and the commitment which issued thereon, and the detention of the petitioner under said commitment and judgment of conviction, are illegal and void.(p.610) The said judgment being void, habeas corpus will lie, and the prisoner should be discharged from custody, and it is so ordered. SULLIVAN and STOCKS LAGER, JJ., concur. Special thanks to Guncite.com for hosting a transcript of the original source. Dean Weingarten, veteran gun writer and Arizonan, has been studying bear attacks for years and has compiled a fairly comprehensive list of incidents. He found that handguns are 97% in defending against bear attacks. He primarily uses this information to argue (correctly, less anyone get confused) that bear spray alone is not an effective way to stop bear attacks. Some people seem to think bear spray is more effective than a gun. His data is worth a read. No, we're not talking about California's rural open carry exemption. Did you know that there is a way to carry openly in urban California that anyone can use? Let's look at the Penal Code section: 26045. (a) Nothing in Section 25850 is intended to preclude the carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that any person or the property of any person is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property. That's right, it's just that easy to openly carry in California! To recap on how you can do it:
Isn't California great? Once you or someone else is already in danger, you can get your gun out of your house and your business and run out to protect others! They were so thoughtful towards the life of criminals that they only want you carrying a gun when it's too late to deter the crime. Plus people in public are safe because your gun has to be in your businesses or home where it can't hurt anybody! And don't forget, put the gun away before the police get there, or they'll shoot your ass dead, you gun toting monster. |
Archives
May 2021
For more content,
|