Maybe akin the Free Speech which meant Political Speech not pole dancing.

Freedom of Assembly probably doesn't mean attending a basketball game.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunset_Va:
Are many of these gatherings / meetings necessary for the world to go on? If you attended a basketball game, and found there were several people infected, mingled in the crowd, maybe next to you, would you be glad you attended?

I don't disagree, the right to assemble is in our bill of rights. But common sense should be added. Maybe the mass panic being promoted irks some, I can stay home away from crowds. Especially for something not crucial.

Thing about liberty is it’s supposed to be scary. I can think of another Amendment that restrictions are touted as “common sense”. Not a fan of any government intervention “for the children”. If private entities want to shut down, so be it. I am firmly against the government telling people that they can’t assemble.

Right now, Kentucky’s governor has suggested that all churches close until further notice. And he hasn’t ruled out closing them if they refuse to comply. Who can support this? I don’t care how many lives it may save. Or not. What was that quote about those who give up liberty for security and what not?

quote:

Originally posted by sgalczyn:
Note that many states will invoke additional restrictions on possession/carry of firearms during a "State of Emergency".....convenient no?

Concealed is concealed......no?

Firearms are not contagious.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Firearms are not contagious.

flashguy

Rookie.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
It's getting to be a de-facto martial law.

Nonsense.

Martial law has the military in charge of the legal system, with Marines, soldiers, sailors, air peoples (USAF PC speak), coast guardsmen, public health officers, and NOAA Corps officers enforcing the law, military tribunals trying cases, etc.

We've none of that happening.

My problem with governments limiting gatherings to no more than “X” people is that it is a completely arbitrary number..

All it takes is one person so 249 people getting together (as opposed to 250) somehow makes it ok???

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Sunset_Va:
Are many of these gatherings / meetings necessary for the world to go on? If you attended a basketball game, and found there were several people infected, mingled in the crowd, maybe next to you, would you be glad you attended?

I don't disagree, the right to assemble is in our bill of rights. But common sense should be added. Maybe the mass panic being promoted irks some, I can stay home away from crowds. Especially for something not crucial.

Thing about liberty is it’s supposed to be scary. I can think of another Amendment that restrictions are touted as “common sense”. Not a fan of any government intervention “for the children”. If private entities want to shut down, so be it. I am firmly against the government telling people that they can’t assemble.

Right now, Kentucky’s governor has suggested that all churches close until further notice. And he hasn’t ruled out closing them if they refuse to comply. Who can support this? I don’t care how many lives it may save. Or not. What was that quote about those who give up liberty for security and what not?

I’m in 100% agreement with this statement.

Legal or not, Constitutional or not, seems moot if everyone is in a panic and does it anyway.

Here's a news story addressing this question. You may question the source but just food for thought.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/na...rticle241106636.html

Ohio's part of that now. Our schools just got canceled for three weeks.

Last night we go the memo that our jail (which is ran by our county) will no longer accept prisoners from us unless it's for a crime of violence or sexual assault until further notice.

Oregon department of corrections is not allowing any visitors (which is fine by me at any time as prison isn't supposed to be fun or nice).

And as of last night our schools are closed for the next two weeks. One of those weeks was scheduled as spring break anyway for us. This means bus drivers in our area will lose a weeks worth of pay.

I really have a problem with arbitrary numbers in relationship to gatherings.

In the next county over there are three cases of this virus. The casino shut down for a few days to clean as one of the persons with this virus was at the casino, and earlier that same person was at a basketball game which caused that school to clean their gymnasium.

Their wasn't this much panic when SARS hit.

Also it really feels like the media is trying to blow this up so that the stock market tanks as they (the media) is trying to make our President look bad.

I am not going to buy toilet paper or cleaners as I already have enough for a month or more due to buying one case of TP and a package of Clorox wipes at Costco three weeks ago. I might buy a box or two of 7.62 x 51 to feed my HK G3 clone.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
It's getting to be a de-facto martial law.

Nonsense.

Martial law has the military in charge of the legal system, with Marines, soldiers, sailors, air peoples (USAF PC speak), coast guardsmen, public health officers, and NOAA Corps officers enforcing the law, military tribunals trying cases, etc.

We've none of that happening.

Not yet. It could happen very easily if the herd gets any more spooked.

States have "police power" which grants them the legal authority to protect health, safety and welfare. Every state has laws allowing them to quarantine people in a health emergency and restrict public gathering or curfews during a state of emergency.

Quarantines and such limits are permitted by states' exercise of their police power. The police power is the power to legislate for the public good. Even constitutional rights can be limited in the proper circumstances. To discuss what circumstances and rules qualify would take more than a book to discuss fully, but if the interest is sufficiently compelling and the means of advancing the goal is sufficiently narrow and related to reaching the goal, even limits on our constitutional rights are permitted.

There are specific tests and considerations for various kinds of infringements and regulations. Discussing them without having some real understanding and knowledge of the caselaw will lead you to folly. But this is the internet, so I realize that there will inevitably be a good bit of opinionating.

The courts have long held that such restrictions in the face of genuine plague are allowed.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
The ability of the state to restrict gathers and travel to stop pandemics predates the US.

That doesn't mean much. A lot of things pre-date the U.S. that we don't allow to happen under our constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
Maybe akin the Free Speech which meant Political Speech not pole dancing.

Freedom of Assembly probably doesn't mean attending a basketball game.

Pole dancing is protected speech. There are cases so deciding.

Freedom of assembly does include basketball games. Absent some sufficiently compelling interest and a narrowly tailored rule, the government can't keep you out of a basketball game. Although, at this point it is the NBA that cancelled basketball and the constitution does not limit their actions on this.


But see my brief comments a couple of posts up.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
It's getting to be a de-facto martial law.

Nonsense.

Martial law has the military in charge of the legal system, with Marines, soldiers, sailors, air peoples (USAF PC speak), coast guardsmen, public health officers, and NOAA Corps officers enforcing the law, military tribunals trying cases, etc.

We've none of that happening.

Don't ruin perfectly good fear-mongering.

quote:

Originally posted by lizardman_u:
I am curious how legal it is for Oregon and Washington's Governors to limit the number of people who can gather.

Doesn't this violate our US Constitution?

I don't believe that our rights can be suspended if we aren't convicted felons.

If I am of able mind, body, and am willing to accept the risk of attending a gathering of 250 people or more that should be my choice.

I fully understand businesses closing if that is the wish of the business owner, and I understand events being cancelled if that is the wish of the company putting on the event.

Am I incorrect in my thinking?

Is this issue just between your ears? Or do you WANT to go where there are hundreds of people?

I was at Jerry's yesterday (Home Improvement in Eugene). The checkout line usually is nose to butt. But last evening the customers spaced themselves 6-7 feet apart.

quote:

Originally posted by Hamden106:

quote:

Originally posted by lizardman_u:
I am curious how legal it is for Oregon and Washington's Governors to limit the number of people who can gather.

Doesn't this violate our US Constitution?

I don't believe that our rights can be suspended if we aren't convicted felons.

If I am of able mind, body, and am willing to accept the risk of attending a gathering of 250 people or more that should be my choice.

I fully understand businesses closing if that is the wish of the business owner, and I understand events being cancelled if that is the wish of the company putting on the event.

Am I incorrect in my thinking?

Is this issue just between your ears? Or do you WANT to go where there are hundreds of people?

I was at Jerry's yesterday (Home Improvement in Eugene). The checkout line usually is nose to butt. But last evening the customers spaced themselves 6-7 feet apart.

I honestly don't go where there are hundreds of people.

My question stems from curiosity and the fact that our Oregon Governor has been going against the people. She has overturned the voters on the issue of drivers license for illegals, has made an executive order to institute a carbon tax, and has violated the Oregon Constitution by deciding to keep the tax money from last year that wasn't spent.

I honestly don't trust our Governor, the WA or CA Governors either.

If I being of sound mind and body want to go somewhere knowing full well the risks to myself that should be my choice, not a choice the government makes for me. Granted I am not saying my actions should be without consequences if my actions were to put others at risk.

I see much of these actions from our Government to be knee jerk reactions. Hell if a private entity wants to shut their event or business I am all for them exercising their right to do so.

My town has 3300 people and I would be hard pressed to find a gathering of 240 people let alone 250 people.