Tea party of NM is suing the state because of the shutdowns citing it goes against the 1st and 2nd.
The state sees gun stores as non-essential and gave gun stores still operating a cease and desist order to stop normal operations. Transfers and online orders can be picked up by appointment only.
Churches can't gather, assembly of any kind is limited to 5 or less.

Are these restrictions constitutional or not?

In my opinion there isn't much doubt.They ARE Constitutional

White17, from reading your posts there is no doubt you are an inteligent man but I could not disagree more with you on this.

I'm in between white and danny. There has to be a line there somewhere to become unconstitutional. Where in the world is pass-thru?

Can you guys open this ?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-constitutional-guide-to-emergency-powers-11584659429

From what I've gathered, quarantining a person who is sick or who came into contact with a sick person and has a high likelihood of getting sick is perfectly legal. Most of that power rests with local governments and not the feds. Quarantining healthy people "just to be safe" is not legal. Shutting down whole areas and cities and states almost certainly is not. In any case. you still have due process and if you feel you are being detained in your home against your will, whether by a quarantine, isolation, stay at home order, whatever, you can file a writ of habeas corpus.

You have a right to assemble, and a right to practice your religion, and a right to bear arms, and a right to be secure in your person, houses, papers, and effects, and those rights don't go away just because a bunch of people are getting sick.

Yeah but you have to subscribe to read it.

It opens, but ya gotta pay to read it.

You are Fffffe dd's

White I have to disagree the 1st and 2nd have been thrown out. Correct me if I'm wrong but the only way to throw out or suspended the constitution would be to declare martial law, right? No martial law has been declared.

OK I'll copy/paste

A Constitutional Guide to Emergency Powers
Federal leadership is crucial, but there are measures only states have the authority to take.



The Covid-19 pandemic has led to extraordinary restraints on liberty, from international travel bans to state and local orders that businesses shut down, individuals avoid large assemblies and even stay home, and infected patients remain in quarantine. Depending on the epidemic’s progress, even more-draconian measures may be needed, such as restrictions on interstate and intrastate travel. It’s possible that “social distancing” will last for months rather than weeks.

All this goes against the grain in America, whose people treasure freedom and constitutional rights. But the government has ample constitutional and legal authority to impose such emergency steps.
The Coronavirus Changes American Life and the Economy
Subscribe

Some state officials, such as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, have urged the White House to take charge. But this isn’t a task for Washington alone. While the federal government has limited and enumerated constitutional authority, states possess a plenary “police power” and have primary responsibility for protecting public health.

States may also take more drastic measures, such as requiring citizens to be tested or vaccinated, even against their will. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Supreme Court considered a challenge to a state law requiring everyone to be vaccinated against smallpox. Henning Jacobson refused vaccination and was convicted. The court upheld the law and Jacobson’s conviction.

“The Constitution,” Justice John Marshall Harlanwrote for a 7-2 majority, “does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” Instead, “a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic.” Its members “may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”

States also have the power, beyond criminal law enforcement, to make quarantine and isolation effective. If presented with widespread noncompliance, governors may call National Guard units to put their orders into force, to safeguard state property and infrastructure, and to maintain the peace. In some states, individuals who violate emergency orders can be detained without charge and held in isolation.

Federal leadership is crucial. Washington has wider access to data about the virus, its migration and trends. It is prudent for states to follow federal guidance on matters like quarantine and travel restrictions. But because Washington lacks states’ police power, compulsion is not always an option. The Constitution forbids federal officials from coercing the states or commandeering state resources or civilian personnel. While Washington may withhold some federal funds from states that refuse to follow federal law, it may do so only in ways that are tailored to advance the federal interests at stake and don’t amount to a “gun to the head,” as Chief Justice John Roberts put it in the 2012 ObamaCare case.

The federal government has the authority to order regional or nationwide containment and quarantine measures. The Public Health Service Act enables the surgeon general, with the approval of the secretary of health and human services, “to make and enforce such regulations as . . . are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases.” President Trump listed the Covid-19 virus for this purpose in January. The act authorizes the federal government to apprehend, detain and conditionally release individuals to prevent the spread of infection, and to detain anyone who enters from a foreign country or who would spread the disease across state borders.

The act can be read to allow for the general quarantine of all people from a particular state or states, including those who are asymptomatic or even have tested negative. But an attempt to do so would certainly result in litigation. Congress should promptly enact a statute that would affirm federal authority to impose a general quarantine if necessary.

To enforce such measures, the president can deploy civilian and military resources. He could federalize the National Guard over the governor’s objection. The Constitution allows Congress to authorize the use of the militia as well as regular armed forces for a variety of purposes, including suppression of insurrections, defense against invasions, and execution of laws.

Congress has placed significant constraints on the domestic use of the U.S. military. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the use of U.S. armed forces for “performing domestic law enforcement activities” and features criminal penalties for noncompliance. But lawmakers have enacted important exceptions that allow the use, in certain specified circumstances, of the military to enforce federal laws. One is the Insurrection Act, originally dating to 1807, which allows the president to use the military when dealing with domestic rebellions. Widespread noncompliance with federal quarantines and travel bans promulgated under the Public Health Service Act may qualify as an insurrection.

Containing the Covid-19 epidemic will require citizens, states, private companies and the federal government to work together. One may hope the steps that have been taken so far will suffice. But emphasizing the sound constitutional and legal basis of these measures is important in reassuring the public that government can do what is necessary to secure the general welfare.

Mr. Rivkin is a constitutional lawyer who has served in the Justice and Energy Departments and the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Mr. Stimson is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Interesting article from NPR about whether or not you can quarantine a healthy person...quarantining healthy people Basically the opinion in the article is that quarantines have to be done on an individual basis, and you can't just quarantine everyone out of an abundance of caution. But keep in mind, this was from 2014 and Obama was president then, so media opinions have changed.

Same here Catch. I’m concerned we are being led to a steep cliff, but I can see a need to limit exposure for people in populated areas. Not sure what to think yet.

Im not a lawyer or constitutional scholar but in my opinion based on the wording i have always heard the first 10 amendments know as the bill of rights are inalienable rights and can only be taken or suspended by God .

Here is a fairly long piece about the history of epidemics and society. From the WSJ this morning.

I found it very interesting. Maybe others will also.


How Epidemics Change Civilizations
Measures developed for the plagues of the 14th century are helping authorities fight the coronavirus now says Yale historian Frank Snowden.
By Jason Willick
March 27, 2020 7:06 pm ET


To put the coronavirus pandemic in perspective, consider what happened when the bubonic plague struck London in 1665. The onset of the disease could be sudden, says Yale historian Frank Snowden: “You actually have people afflicted and in agony in public spaces.” Trade and commerce swiftly shut down, and “every economic activity disappeared.” The city erected hospitals to isolate the sick. “You have the burning of sulfur in the streets—bonfires to purify the air.”

Some 100,000 Londoners—close to a quarter of the population, equivalent to two million today—died. Some sufferers committed suicide by “throwing themselves into the Thames,” Mr. Snowden says. “Such was their horror at what was happening to their bodies, and the excruciating pain of the buboes”—inflamed lymph nodes—that are the classic symptom of the bubonic plague. Social order broke down as the authorities fled. “Death cart” drivers went door to door, collecting corpses for a fee and sometimes plundering the possessions of survivors.
The Final Drama of the Coronavirus Bill
Subscribe

The plague’s violent assaults on European cities in the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods created “social dislocation in a way we can’t imagine,” says Mr. Snowden, whose October 2019 book, “Epidemics in Society: From the Black Death to the Present”—a survey of infectious diseases and their social impact—is suddenly timely.

I interviewed Mr. Snowden, 73, over Skype. We’re both home in lockdown, I in California and he in Rome, where he’s gone to do research in the Vatican archives. In the mid-14th century, Italy was “the most scourged place in Europe with the Black Death,” he notes. In the 21st century, it’s among the countries hardest hit by Covid-19.

Science has consigned the plague, caused by the flea- and rat-borne bacterium Yersinia pestis, to the margins of public-health concern (though it remains feared as a potential aerosolized bioweapon). Yet its legacy raises challenging questions about how the coronavirus might change the world.

For all the modern West’s biomedical prowess, some of its blunt tools against a poorly understood disease are similar to what was first attempted in the 14th century. Take quarantine. Hundreds of millions of Americans and Europeans are isolated in their homes in an effort to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

Isolation as a defense against infectious disease originated in the city-states of Venice and Florence. Italy was the center of Mediterranean trade, and the plague arrived in 1347 on commercial ships. The dominant theory at the time was “miasmatism”—the atmosphere was poisoned—perhaps by visitors’ garments—and people get sick “when they breathe that in, or absorb it through their pores,” Mr. Snowden says. “That is, there is some emanation, and it can be thought to be coming from the soil, or from the bodies” of sick people.

After plague visitations, the Venetian navy eventually began to force sailors arriving at the harbor to disembark on a nearby island, where they remained for 40 days—quaranta—a duration chosen for its biblical significance. The strategy worked when it was enforced as disease-ridden fleas died out and the sick died or recovered. Mr. Snowden notes that Americans returning from Wuhan, China, in early February were “detained on army bases for a quarantine period”—14 days rather than 40.

“We can see the roots of many aspects of modern health already in the Renaissance,” he adds. Another example is the wax “plague costume” worn by physicians. It resembled modern-day medical garb—“the protective garments that you see in the hospital for people dealing with Ebola, or this sort of space suit”—but with a long beak containing resonant herbs. They were thought to “purify the air that you were breathing in.” The costume “did, in fact, have some protective value,” Mr. Snowden says, because the wax repelled the fleas that carried the disease.

Antiplague efforts dramatically changed Europeans’ relationship to government. “The Florentines established what were called health magistrates, which are the ancestors of what today we call boards of health or departments of health,” Mr. Snowden explains. “Endowed with special legal powers,” they coordinated plague countermeasures.

The plague was more traumatic than a military assault, and the response was often warlike in its ferocity. One response was a “sanitary cordon,” or encircling of a city-state with soldiers, who didn’t allow anyone in or out. “Imagine one’s own city, and suddenly, in the morning, it’s cordoned off by the National Guard with fixed bayonets and helmets on, and orders to shoot if we cross,” Mr. Snowden says. Cordons were regularly imposed in European cities in times of plague risk, leading to terror and violence. In the 18th century, the Austrian army was “deployed to prevent bubonic plague from moving up the Balkan Peninsula and into Western Europe” by halting travelers who might be carrying it.

The sociologist Charles Tilly (1929-2008) famously argued that “war makes the state”—that borders and bureaucracies were forged by necessity in military conflict. Plague had similar effects, requiring “military commitment, administration, finance and all the rest of it,” Mr. Snowden says. In addition to a navy to enforce quarantines, “you needed to have a police power,” a monopoly on force over a wide area. Sometimes “watchmen were stationed outside the homes of people who had the plague, and no one was allowed in or out.”

Yet while the plague saw power move up from villages and city-states to national capitals, the coronavirus is encouraging a devolution of authority from supranational units to the nation-state. This is most obvious in the European Union, where member states are setting their own responses. Open borders within the EU have been closed, and some countries have restricted export of medical supplies. The virus has heightened tensions between the U.S. and China, as Beijing tries to protect its image and Americans worry about access to medical supply chains.

The coronavirus is threatening “the economic and political sinews of globalization, and causing them to unravel to a certain degree,” Mr. Snowden says. He notes that “coronavirus is emphatically a disease of globalization.” The virus is striking hardest in cities that are “densely populated and linked by rapid air travel, by movements of tourists, of refugees, all kinds of businesspeople, all kinds of interlocking networks.”

The social dynamics of a pandemic are determined partly by who is most affected. Cholera, for example, “is famously associated with social and class tensions and turmoil,” Mr. Snowden says. A vicious gastrointestinal infection, it was most prevalent in crowded urban tenements with contaminated food or water. “We could pick Naples, or we could pick New York City in the 19th century,” he says. “Municipal officials, the authorities, the doctors, the priests, the middle classes, the wealthy, who live in different neighborhoods, are not succumbing to this disease.” That led to conspiracy theories about its origin, and to working-class riots.

Similarly, the bubonic plague struck India, then a British colony, in the late 19th century. The British responded by introducing Renaissance-era antiplague measures—“very draconian exercises of power and authority, but by a colonial government, over the native population,” Mr. Snowden says. “The population of India regarded this as more fearful than the plague itself” and resisted. Britain, worried that “this would be the beginning of modern Indian nationalism,” backed off the measures, which were mostly ineffective anyway.

Respiratory viruses, Mr. Snowden says, tend to be socially indiscriminate in whom they infect. Yet because of its origins in the vectors of globalization, the coronavirus appears to have affected the elite in a high-profile way. From Tom Hanks to Boris Johnson, people who travel frequently or are in touch with travelers have been among the first to get infected.

That has shaped the political response in the U.S., as the Democratic Party, centered in globalized cities, demands an intensive response. Liberal professionals may also be more likely to be able to work while isolated at home. Republican voters are less likely to live in dense areas with high numbers of infections and so far appear less receptive to dramatic countermeasures.

Infectious disease can change the physical landscape itself. Mr. Snowden notes that when Napoleon III rebuilt Paris in the mid-19th century, one of his objectives was to protect against cholera: “It was this idea of making broad boulevards, where the sun and light could disperse the miasma.” Cholera also prompted expansions of regulatory power over the “construction of houses, how they had to be built, the cleanliness standards.” If respiratory viruses become a more persistent feature of life in the West, changes to public transportation and zoning could also be implemented based on our understanding of science—which, like Napoleon’s, is sure to be built upon or superseded in later years.

In ancient literature, from Homer’s “Iliad” to the Old Testament, plagues are associated with the idea that man is being punished for his sins, Mr. Snowden observes. Venetian churches were built to demonstrate repentance. Mr. Snowden also highlights the Flagellants of the 14th and 15th centuries, who would embark on a “40-day procession of repentance, self-chastisement and prayer,” whipping themselves and others.

For Europeans who survived the plague, Mr. Snowden says, it impressed the idea that “you could be struck down at any moment without warning,” so you should focus on your immortal soul. Paintings often featured symbols like “an hourglass with the sands running out, a flower that’s wilting.”

Coronavirus is far less lethal, but it does shatter assumptions about the resilience of the modern world. Mr. Snowden says that after World War II “there was real confidence that all infectious disease were going to be a thing of the past.” Chronic and hereditary diseases would remain, but “the infections, the contagions, the pandemics, would no longer exist because of science.” Since the 1990s—in particular the avian flu outbreak of 1997—experts have understood that “there are going to be many more epidemic diseases,” especially respiratory infections that jump from animals to humans. Nonetheless, the novel coronavirus caught the West flat-footed.

It’s too early to say what political and economic imprint this pandemic will leave in its wake. As Mr. Snowden says, “there’s much more that isn’t known than is known.” Yet with a mix of intuition and luck, Renaissance Europeans often kept at bay a gruesome plague whose provenance and mechanisms they didn’t understand. Today science is capable of much more. But modernity has also left our societies vulnerable in ways 14th-century Venetians could never have imagined.

Mr. Willick is an editorial page writer at the Journal.

If I disappear for awhile, either Paul gave me a vacation or the Nazis got me. I have several things I need to do daily that require me to be about.

I

I wouldn't even have a problem with it if there wasn't so much evil waiting at every opportunity. I don't think it's constitutional but folks have to take their own personal safety into mind at some point.

Guess we'll see how much of this is too save lives next flu season when thousands are expected to die.

I think we all read the Bill of Rights as absolute...but Scotus has weighed in on this. From the first WSJ article above..............."“The Constitution,” Justice John Marshall Harlanwrote for a 7-2 majority, “does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” Instead, “a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic.” Its members “may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”

I believe it is Constitutional but I certainly share your concerns about the potential for mischief

I feel it's a common sense call. There are and have been a lot of so called "healthy people" who didn't feel sick ended up with the virus even though they didn't have any symptoms. By the time they did have symptoms, it was too late for the rest of the people they were in close contact with.

According to our local TV station, in our state that applied to about 30% of the workforce that were required to stay home as non-essential workers. In the higher populated states, staying at home, especially for non-essential workers it's a no brainer, IMO.

There's a difference between what's a good idea and what's legal, and sometimes when the government tells you that you can't do something, it makes it all the more important to do it, so they don't get the idea that you're just going to bend over and take it. For example it's not normally the best idea to march around the state capitol with an AR15, but if the government tells you that you can't own an AR15, maybe it's time to buy one and go for a march. In the same vein, it's not normally a good idea to go to church when a bunch of people are sick, but when the government tells you that you can't go to church, maybe it's time to defy them and meet with fellow believers.

Thanks for the wsj article White. It's interesting for sure.

The mischief is going to heat up if these orders aren't lifted soon.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why 2a stores are considered non-essential?

I agree with your example of the Ar15. That can impact your life. But when you may infect and kill someone else because you are exercising your 'rights' to assemble.....your rights are null & void.IMO

White i get that others have chosen to lessen those rights i just stated my opinion. He gave his i gave mine and guess which one i value most. I try to respect the law and the government in place but there is a line that everyone has has to what they will comply with.

I hear what you're saying, but don't you know that an AR-15 is the same weapon soldiers take to war, according to Nancy Pelosi?

Morally right and just plain common sense.

But can't I infect and kill someone with the flu? Are my rights null and void during flu season? Yes, I realize that covid19 is certainly more infectious, and possibly deadlier than the flu, but the flu still kills 20,000+ people. Would it be worth shutting down the country and forcing people to stay home like this every flu season if 20,000+ lives could be saved?

To use a non-disease example,what about car crashes? If we restricted car travel to essential travel only, we would certainly save lives, right? Certainly nobody needs to go for a Sunday afternoon drive, if it would save lives?

I just deleted everything I was responding with. Some just live in another world.
Tom

I agree. The thing is that a person has to be willing to suffer the consequences for following his opinion if it is contrary to the law. If those consequences fall solely on the individual, that's fine. When they endanger the lives of others, that's not fine.

"All things are lawful, but not all things are advantageous.All things are lawful, but not all things build up.Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person." 1 Cor. :23,24

Certainly , a thoughtful path that many have been doing as of late, in not spreading sickness.

If there was a legal sanction against travel or assembly due to an ordinary flu outbreak, then YES your rights would be null & void. But we have never seen that degree of need until this point.

If I was high risk, meaning poor health and even the flu would possibly fix me, id stay in.

How does people going outside put them at risk, if those at risk do their part?

I was more asking your opinion about whether or not you thought the restrictions are a good idea. If it's a good idea to shut the country down to save live from the coronavirus, is it a good idea to shut the country down to save lives from the flu also?


(also, rights aren't null and void just because the government says so.)

I don't think going outside is a problem. It's contact with others that is the issue.

My entire state is on lockdown. No intrastate travel unless it's essential/medical. If you come from another state you will be forced into isolation by the state's police power.

But the governor and the state's medical authority were both quick to point out that it does not preclude outdoor activities such as hiking, trapping, cutting wood etc.

If the government was actually going by the Constitution a lot of things would be different right now.

So they are pretty much doing whatever they want and it will be no different with this.

I do think it's a good idea to shut the country down due to this virus.
Apparently people a lot smarter than I am believe this virus is far more dangerous than the seasonal flu. We at least have semi-effective inoculations that help to defeat the seasonal flu. So far, we don't have that with CV19

To my ears this sound like the argument for gun control. We have to take your guns because you may shoot and kill someone else because you are exercising your "rights" to bear arms. To be clear, this is not a dig at White. I have read this site daily for a number of years and have a great deal of respect for the man's opinion.

I can see how you think that.

Maybe a better way to express it is the old saying that "Your rights end at the tip of my nose".

A lot of good points being made as well as a lot of difficult decisions. I’m in NY but I’m 250 miles from NYC and so far only one confirmed case in the county. Non the less my wife and are are in very good health but also in our late 60’s This is our 12th day of isolation. Friends however tell me everything is busy and packed with people. Walmart is still the social focus point in my city of 10,000. Do these people need protection from themselves or do I need protection from them? I’m not waiting for my government to make that determination. Pres. Trump has just announced he is considering a mandotory blockade for the NY, NJ, CT area. Not sure if he has the legal authority or if they can even enforce it with so many roads and highways. If feels to me like an over reach. Scary times both from the health aspect and the civil liberties aspect.

Maybe a better way to express it is the old saying that "Your rights end at the tip of my nose".[/quote]


White i have alot of respect for you as i have said in other posts and in pms
But if we are using quotes to make our point lets start with
"Those that give up freedom for liberty deserve neither "

Im just posting the question if one is so worried that they feel i need to be locked down why are they out in public and not locked down themselves?

Frankly I am surprised that anyone...especially a parent...would be out where they or their kids could be exposed or expose others.

If everyone infected showed symptoms, this would be a lot easier to handle. It's those that are asymptomatic that are the threat to everyone else.

I am self quarantined, but did have to go out yesterday for supplies. Got a great deal on chicken which was a nice surprise. Anyway, I do see where the Fed's and the States have a long leash. I think we are ahead of the curve in preventing 19 and glad most people have commonsense. I do believe though that there is a limit somewhere. If you have grocery stores and weed shops open, gun shops should be open as well.

Grocery stores are open because you need food to stay a live . I own several guns but you don't need one to stay alive.

Precedent, see the Black Republican.

I wish some of you guys could read the 100 years ago column in my local newspaper. During the Spanish flue pandemic a lot of this quarantine stuff was done, at least here in our county. Families were quarantined in there houses by order of the county health doctor, people at the diner counters had to leave 2 seats between customers, grocery stores an cafes had a 5 customer max at one time. One town in the county wasn't going to shut it's public school down, next day the sheriff and deputies barred the students from entering the school and told the school board members either close the doors or be jailed. Lots of businesses were shut down, this is nothing new, it just hasn't been done in our lifetime. The state had the power to do this things then and now.

There was an account of one family being helped by an older woman. She would ride her horse across the section and pick up a note left by the sickened family on the front porch. She would then ride to town and pick up what supplies the family needed and deliver them to the porch and leave them the next day. Did this several times. The mother and 2 daughter survived because of the neighbor lady, her husband and 2 other children didn't.

I wonder what that angel on horseback would think about how people act today?

Watching the news tonight, it seems they are mandating stay at home practices all over the world, not just the US. We should have done it sooner if anything.

When supplies run low or the confined get squirrely, you will need one to stay alive lol.

Wife went shopping yesterday picked up everything but carrots and the truck was being unloaded still no real shortages here yet.

I went to the State Hospital to drop a guy off, no restrictions here but not much business out there to worry about the dollar store did not have a shopper it looked like, not sure it’s worth keeping the doors open.

Grocery stores are open because you need food to stay a live . I own several guns but you don't need one to stay alive.


That's up for debate!

It’s because they don’t take it seriously in my opinion.

“It’s just the flu” and “it’s like the common cold” according to some.


Honestly, if people were to see footage of hospitals that are being overwhelmed (with cases steadily increasing) and ice rinks being used as morgues to keep up with deaths, more people might appreciate the efforts thus far to slow its spread. To be clear, I was referring to what’s happening in Spain and Italy, just to make my point of what can be. Thankfully we’re in a better position here with better options, but I still believe it’s important to consider what this virus can be. It’s not so much that it’ deadly like Ebola, because it isn’t. However, Ebola doesn’t sp
read like this one. A small percentage matters when it’s being caught by hundreds, thousands, and millions rather than by dozens. Also, people seem to only care about fatalities. If it’s anything like the flu, without a cure, I want to avoid that! A bad case of the flu can be rough! I believe that if these measures hadn’t been taken, we’d be looking at much, much different times today.

A virus that is contagious for weeks without symptoms? Troubling.

Our libtard governor did that but state supreme court reversed it!!

U might one day!!!

Maybe sooner than you think the way things are going.

That's awesome GROUSEWIT. I hope our supreme court rules in favor of the gun stores being deemed essential. I know all guns stores in NM were to be closed by end of today, but that was before the the fed's stated gun stores are essential.

Going to be a lot of self appointed idiots out there over stepping their boundaries making up rules they have no power to enforce really. You have to consider how many local commissioners that run local governments that never ran a hotdog stand really. Think about that power gone wild or just zero experience to go on.

It's kinda crazy how they how they are picking and choosing things..Both my kids work in large Grocery chain store. Got some goofy rules in place there now.. They can get wrote up for sitting closer than 6ft from each other in the break room. Being to close to customers out on the floor.. Yet they still have people bagging or people on some check out lines. They just installed plex glass shields in front of the check out people at registers. Yet the same day they reset the meat and deli cases where clerks serve people?? So my son now has to do counter service again one on one with customers. Wasn't even 5 days before they pulled the cases to limit their contact..
I get it to a point people coming in store is hard to separate is going to be some contact. My son was kinda POed that resetting the case seemed more about money than worker or patron contact/safety.. They were doing fine plating items and putting them in self pick cases.
It's hard to get everyone on same page I guess..The store has been doing record sales and it's been hard to keep some items stocked. So why put back in services that up the customer emplyee contacts??

I don't think they should have to close the gun shops think that just a grab.. Don't know why there is a rush though either?? can't believe there are than many new gun buyers??


Mac

What I find sadly humerous is that a gunstore is non-essential and a liquor stores are deemed essential. Sad.

Alcoholics run out of booze and you would see looting like never before.

The good news is that the majority of us on this site already have guns and ammo.

My Grandfather gave up his freedom for almost six years during WW2. My Dad gave up a year of his freedoms in Vietnam. When I was in the Army I was not in combat but gave up certain rights. It is certainly constitutional to lock down folks for their own good and the good of the country. You all think you have rights they cannot touch. You are out of touch. Read this and see where they do have the constitutional authority to do whatever is needed to protect the masses from harm...… https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html

"Your rights end at the tip of my nose"

Yes, if I swing my arms wildly and hit you, I have violated your rights.

But my right to swing my arm doesn't end because your nose might potentially be there at some point in the next two weeks.

That is the key difference.

If we are going to take draconian measures to mitigate potential risks you might as well chuck the bill of rights in the trash right now... From here on out everything will be an excuse to crack down.

Mike

Did you even open the link I put up Mike. In certain situations the CDC can take away your right to swing your fist or for me to move my nose. I cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre. LLL

lll do you really think a government agency will admit their authority is limited?

It cost money to keep the lights on, places here can stay open but have closed down because of lack of business even AL’s Oasis our biggest tourist trap sent their servers home and a few managers are only doing take out now.

It is in black and white Danny. All you need is the ability to read it. It is not on tv. It is a power they have. Not what you want but none the less what they have been given by congress and the constitution. Sorry if you thought differently but you are wrong if you think they cannot. LLL

I have not seem not one place I would call busy in the last few weeks.

Jerry,you aren't looking in the right place. Look at your unemployment offices,look at your food shelves---I bet they are busy.
Tom

No I didn't open it. I'm too busy looking in the Constitution for mention of the CDC, nevermind what powers they may or may not have...

Funny thing about federal regulatory agencies... Those folks aren't elected. They do what they want with little oversight.

I'm more than willing to study and heed their guidelines for dealing with this mess... But their "badge" doesn't mean squat to me.

The DOJ has already requested the suspension of habeas corpus. You cool with that too?

Mike

Nothing crazy here people are normal no pushing/shoving over TP, the wife finds what she wants at the store no lines at the fast food drive ups just less then usual some places no business at all and we can roam free here.

The CDC, just like what was said is not going to list what they can't do. According to SCOTUS case law, and some that specialize in it, there are limitaions and gray area's that may get established if this keeps up. I'm all for self quarantines but the Gov does not have carte blanche, as you say they do.

Not quite accurate Mike. It was CONGRESS that REQUESTED proposals from DOJ.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/coronavirus-pandemic-law-enforcement-in-a-time-of-crisis/

Doesn't really make me feel any better about it Ken.

Mike

Not suggesting it should Mike. Just trying to prevent misinformation.

I went to the supermarket this afternoon and all of the employees looked beat. I quizzed one young fellow on how they were keeping/holding up. He told me distributors have them on an allotment system, they're getting in partial orders. He said it would be fine if everyone quit panic buying but they're not slowing down. Even Walmart looked the same. I've never seen so many depleted shelves.

Yes sir. And I appreciate it.

Mike