California's COVID gun store shutdowns ruled illegal

[ripcord]

Source: Associated Press

Two California counties violated the Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms when they shut down gun and ammunition stores in 2020 as nonessential businesses during the coronavirus pandemic, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

Officials in Los Angeles and Ventura counties had separately won lower court decisions saying gun stores were not exempt from broader shutdown orders aimed at limiting the spread of the coronavirus early in the pandemic.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected both lower court rulings.

The Second Amendment “means nothing if the government can prohibit all persons from acquiring any firearm or ammunition,” Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote. “But that’s what happened in this case.”

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-business-court-decisions-eric-garcetti-e0fda8d0abe484629beeaf9eb86a4a08

[Yandex]

1. Glad to see this n/t

[burrowowl]

2. Not the onion

[progree]

3. So important to have these open when just about everything besides grocery stores and drug stores

were shut down. 'merca

The Second Amendment “means nothing if the government can prohibit all persons from acquiring any firearm or ammunition,” Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote. “But that’s what happened in this case.”

Apparently a "well-regulated militia" means nothing to you; the 2nd amendment included those words (half the words of the 2nd Amendment are part of the well-regulated militia clause) at the beginning just as a throat-clearing exercise before getting into the heart of the matter.

What about REAL arms like bazookas? Rocket-propelled grenade launchers?

[PBC_Democrat]

9. When That was Written ...

It meant the militia was in an effective shape to fight. In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia

It's no different than if the state, any state, decided to close the newspapers, churches, or suspended free speech.

But you knew that ...

[progree]

12. Yeah, I agree, they chose the words "well-regulated" when they really meant "well-armed"

or "effective" just to own the libs of the time. Got it.

[Igel]

23. No, that's what the words meant.

It's like the "C" in NAACP. It wasn't a racist term--that would be foolish. It was the neutral term that even those later called "African-Americans" used.

Language changes. We can't read Beowulf in the original English; we have serious troubles with Chaucer; Mallory is a bit easier, but really; and not just Shakespeare, but also Milton and, yes, Jefferson, or even Lincoln, sometimes eludes the bast educated.

"Well-regulated" even 200 years ago meant "well equipped and well trained." "Regulate" meant "compare and keep up to standard." Impose a rule, not "impose rule." It did *not* mean "somebody is in charge of punishing you if you step out of line." A regula was a rule. Educated people then knew Latin, probably some Greek, and perhaps some Hebrew, and "regulate" is Latinate.

(I mean, seriously, is it really saying a "In order to have a militia that is tightly controlled and limited by bureaucrats, the right to own and carry firearms shall not be subject to limiting laws by Congress"? No. That's self-contradictory gibberish. "In order to have speech that is tightly constrained by Congressional and executive mandates, free speech shall not be constrained" is on par. Not that some people don't [oddly and schizoidly] think this, but it's also gibberish. Up there with, "Please free me--here are the shackles and gag! I've been a bad boy." Now, having a well trained and equipped citizenry is clearly the driving force, but a lot of writing and even state constitutions at the time shed light on what the text meant in 1790 and why it was desirable. To understand others you must first realize that you need to see things as they see or saw them. I find that my high-schoolers think that's an insane idea. They are the metric for judging all things. Bodes poorly for the nation.)

[progree]

28. Sigh, another linkless assertion of what something meant 200 years ago.

It has long been debated by constitutional scholars what was meant. Some think it was compromise language. But oh well, glad you're so sure about it.

Oh, I suppose I'll get a link -- there's a link to everything on the Internet.

So we should have bazookas and grenade launchers too I guess. I suppose I'll get a link about how they meant muskets, not cannons.

[dchill]

36. "...bazookas and grenade launchers..."

As long as they're "well-regulated."

[Griefbird]

21. Also when that was written,

The purpose of the well regulated militia was to suppress slave uprisings. Our second amendment has an illustrious pedigree.

[hack89]

42. That makes no sense

The debates regarding the adoption of the BOR were recorded. There is no historical proof of your claim. The anti-slavery movement was strong in northern states even then - they would have been loudly against such a thing - yet they were silent.

Every state added 2A language to their state constitutions, including the anti-slavery states. Why did they do that?

Besides, the lack of a federal 2A would not stop a state from setting up a slave patrol. It was purely a state activity with no federal jurisdiction.

[jmowreader]

43. Nope. Not even close.

The Bill of Rights can be seen as America's way of correcting the sins of its forefather, Great Britain.

Jefferson saw a standing army as a real threat because the Crown was using it to terrorize the populace. He didn't want one of our own; he believed "well regulated militias" - armies made up of ordinary citizens who'd rush home to grab their guns in case of enemy invasion - could defend the nation as well as a standing army could.

The fact that if we hadn't converted the "well regulated militia" into a professional army during the Revolution we would still be British somehow escaped him.

Anyway, a well-regulated militia needs firearms. That's how we got the Second Amendment.

Quite personally, I am going to petition the government for my rights to keep and bear a battalion set of these...

and a battalion set of these...

because let's be real: how the hell can I be a proper well-regulated militia with no artillery?

[NickB79]

27. So "the people" in the 2nd doesn't refer to an individual right, but a collective one?

But "the people" in the 1st DOES refer to individual right? Or is it also a collective right?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

[PBC_Democrat]

30. Funny you should ask ...

Can Americans legally buy a bazooka?

Yes. If it was manufactured before 1986 you can apply for a federal license to own one.

Thus, a bazooka and the rounds would be considered destructive devices under Title II. These are not illegal but are heavily regulated at both the State and Federal level.

Can Americans legally buy a Rocket-propelled grenade launchers?

A grenade launcher is a weapon you might expect to see in open warfare, but owning one is actually permitted in the U.S. under federal law – albeit with restrictions.

[Aussie105]

4. Ah, yes! The misinterpreted second amendment!

. . . . the words don't say what I want them to say, but if I hold my head just right, and squint real hard . . .

What is it in the psyche of normal *ahem* Americans that make them want to swap their hard earned money for somethings that make loud bangs, throws bits of metal around, and is useless beyond that?

Oh yeah, the coming Zombie Apocalypse, of course!

I wonder if a gun purchase comes with a certificate that says "You are now part of a well regulated militia, as required by the second amendment!" ????????

[EX500rider]

20. "You are now part of a well regulated militia, as required by the second amendment!"

I expect you'll agree the Founder Fathers knew what they meant when they put the 2nd in the Bill Of Rights, so when it was signed did they then make militia membership mandatory for firearms possession?
No they did not.

[keithbvadu2]

5. Were other gun stores open in the state?

Were other gun stores open in the state?

If so, no rights were being denied.

[ripcord]

8. California requires you to buy guns through licensed dealers in the state

If you buy a firearm outside the state it has to be shipped to a store with an FFL in the state.

[keithbvadu2]

10. If other gun stores were open in the state...

Were other gun stores open in the state?

If so, no rights were being denied.

[progree]

13. So for example if one county closes bars because of super-high infection rates

and another county, with much lower infection rates, lets their bars remain open, then the bars in the first county have had rights denied. Well, yes, that's a way to look at it.

Likewise, if Chicago regulates gun stores more strictly than some neighboring suburbs who preys off of Chicago's situation, yes, indeedy, rights are denied. Terrible, just terrible.

[PBC_Democrat]

31. The 'right' to drink ...

is not enshrined in the Constitution.

(much to my regret)

[Igel]

24. If NYC closes newspaper that Adams disagrees with,

and imprisoned the journalists, but you can still see the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle or the LA Times on line, is it a violation of the 1st amendment?

If so, then no rights were being violated.

[ShazzieB]

7. Oh, for Pete's sake.

That is first thing that wenvthrough my head when I read the title of the o.p.

Oh. For. Pete's. Sake.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

11. Hopefully this gets appealed to the full court.

It is an emergency. The Government needs flexibility during such times. The reason is public health, and you gun rights don't mean you can infect your neighbors with a deadly desease.

[LiberatedUSA]

14. This Supreme Court would love as many 2nd Amendment...

…cases as the gun safety side is willing to fight all the way to them.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

17. This Supreme Court

is illegitimate. Mc Turtle ruined the balance of the court.

[LiberatedUSA]

18. Well, I suppose that means you can ignore their rulings. N/t

[PBC_Democrat]

32. Only If You're Okay With ...

all of the other right in the Bill of Rights being suspended.

Hey, who need Freedom of Speech, Religion, the Press, Speedy Trials.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

33. Rights can be suspended.

They are not infinite. In my opinion, and I am Californian, my state should be able shutdown any segment of commerce it deams necessary to combat a public health emergency like the global pandemic we face, including gun stores, and churches.

If you see that as wrong...fair enough, but that's how I feel about it. This would have been over had the trumpers just got vaccinated like the Gov Newsome told them too. Instead they claimed rights, and tried to recall him.

[roamer65]

15. Just ignore the ruling, CA.

If states like TX and MS can completely ignore Roe v Wade, CA can ignore rulings as well.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

16. +1

[LiberatedUSA]

19. To be honest...

…red states were never going to go along with a federal ban, which is not looking like an option now. They were going to legalize those guns in their states, ignoring federal law, using blue states ignoring federal drug laws and legalizing weed as their prime example.

So we might be at a point where states just ignore rulings they don’t like. That will just lead us further to the break point where we become the United Countries of America.

[Initech]

22. Only in America can you buy a gun when everything else is shut down.

[madinmaryland]

29. Well leave it to the gun fetishists to keep the gun stores open. I suppose they need them to kill

The corona virus. Fucking morons. Having 30 guns and thousands of rounds of ammo is not going to protect you from Covid.

[Rhiannon12866]

40. There's a gun store I pass on my way to my dentist. They had a big TRUMP banner for a long time

I don't know if they're closed now, but we have a mask mandate here in New York to enter any business.

[MichMan]

41. The determination of what was deemed "essential" in many states was very inconsistent & odd.

In my state, veterinarians and dentists were closed, but recreation marijuana, party stores (liquor), lottery sales, auto parts and home improvement stores were all essential and remained open. I believe that half of all businesses were somehow deemed as "essential"

Hell, recreational marijuana was completely illegal in Dec. 2019 and somehow ruled to be essential just a few months later.

Pleasure boating was permitted, unless the boat had a motor, in which case you could be arrested as that was forbidden.

[jmowreader]

44. Which state was this in?

The Washington liquor and cannabis board used this rationale in declaring the stores they controlled to be essential: the state had authorized all stores selling "agricultural goods" to be declared essential. Because both alcoholic beverages and cannabis are products of agricultural operations...well, there you go.

Another theory they PROBABLY had, but couldn't express, was that by allowing people to stay home and get shitfaced on some mind altering substance, it helps with social distancing.

I remember when the churches were closed and the dispensaries were open, and the pseudo-Christians were screaming about this. Well...last time I went to a church people were standing shoulder-to-shoulder, singing, hugging, kissing and socializing for well over an hour. (And this was just a wedding. Can you imagine if these guys were in the middle of a full-blown Jesus Praisin' Service?) Last time I went to a dispensary, people walked in, bought weed and left after it was bagged. Completely different situation.

[MichMan]

45. Michigan