Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#181

Post by Rebelgecko » Sun, May 31, 2020, 12:09 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #161

wl wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gun store issue in California is even worse because of the gun laws. You cannot lawfully acquire ammunition anywhere except at a gun store. You cannot lawfully acquire or transfer a firearm to another person except at a gun store. Lending a firearm to a friend in case of civil unrest is right out. And if you have a place to shoot right now, your ammunition supply is probably a little perilous.

> . Lending a firearm to a friend in case of civil unrest is right out. In California, you can lend a firearm to other people who have a firearms safety certificate for up to 30 days, civil unrest not required, and the rules are looser for family members out to grandparents/grandchildren. In the event of some imminent need due to civil unrest, the general criminal defense of necessity, which is recognized in Californ…

>In California, you can lend a firearm to other people who have a firearms safety certificate for up to 30 days... The state’s gun laws must be too loose if the firearms fetishists have to keep inventing fake restrictions to campaign against.

Maybe before you go around calling names it would be beneficial to do some research of your own? I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume that your knowledge of CA firearms laws is outdated as opposed to being maliciously incorrect:

Years ago you could lend guns to anyone with an FSC or HSC for edit: as mentioned below, it's still legal to let a non-owner handle a firearm as long as the original owner is constantly present and supervising. So sharing on a trip to the range is legal, but letting someone take a gun home afterwards is not.

[1]: https://a17.asmdc.org/article/2016-legislation-0

[2]: Law which amended PC § 27880[3] to ban nonfamilial loans: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

[3]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#182

Post by selimthegrim » Sun, May 31, 2020, 12:11 AM UTC

kurthr wrote: post #171

wl wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gun store issue in California is even worse because of the gun laws. You cannot lawfully acquire ammunition anywhere except at a gun store. You cannot lawfully acquire or transfer a firearm to another person except at a gun store. Lending a firearm to a friend in case of civil unrest is right out. And if you have a place to shoot right now, your ammunition supply is probably a little perilous.

There's an interesting constitutional issue there... which is that the right to bear arms is not the right to buy ammunition. That is made all the more challenging for an originalist, because metalic cartridges with percussion caps were not invented for almost a hundred years after the Bill of Rights. If black powder and shot for a muzzle loader are available, has your right been abridged? Is it merely that you as a…

Bear arms is usually understood as being read with keep, as in in keep-and-bear arms.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#183

Post by Lammy » Sun, May 31, 2020, 12:13 AM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #159

Lammy wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one type of church can be open then why not the other? I acknowledge the risk and wouldn't attend either, but the double standard seems apparent to me.

Cannabis is not in any way a church or recognized as a sincere held religious belief by the supreme court I believe if that is what you mean.

Nope, they don't recognize it as anything except a Schedule 1 substance. That's why it's weird that the weed shops are open but we're in here arguing about how those silly religious people should stay home.

As for the religion of cannabis, there's community, shared culture, ritual consumption of a specially-prepared substance, believers say how much it improves their life, etc. I even used to buy weed from here: http://coachellavalley.church/

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#184

Post by kmonsen » Sun, May 31, 2020, 12:13 AM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #178

kmonsen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overall I would rather 2nd amendment would not exist and I don't think it belongs in a modern world (I am a retired soldier that has served abroad, and have gone to gun ranges to shoot). I think currently stronger background checks, strong penalties for selling guns outside of this and bans of large magazines and ways of reloading quickly. I would support some way of limiting open arms in public places, I do not thin…

"I'm personally mostly OK with rifles, except automatic rifles with large capacity magazine." You mean semi-auto or fully-auto? I ask because many states in the stats I offered allow pretty much any semi-auto rifle to eligible people with little restriction, and the deaths are still lower than knives/fists. While I agree that some rifles are scary, the data just don't seem to justify restrictions on semi-auto rifles…

Agree fully about ways of transporting that includes walking. I have seen many pictures of people using guns for intimidation. I remember one picture of a black kid in Charlottesville laying down with the hands up and armed protesters were pointing guns and rifles at him. To me this is a pretty serious offence.

I think we mostly agree about everything except on the margins.

No full auto for sure, semi? I don't really know. As a soldier I never used full auto in training or in action other than for the memes. It is just not a reasonable way to spend your ammo and aim well.

The issue with rifles is not really that the stats show they are dangerous but the potential they have for example in school shootings so if possible I would prefer to keep them out of the hands of civilians. Perhaps banning them is too much and instead strict background checks.

As for sharing, I don't really know enough about it. There would need to be background checks for that person as well as if they would buy the weapon I suppose? Perhaps some minor way of tracking this, should be possible now that we have Internet. Weapons should be handled with care, if you have to take 5 min to share it I am OK with that.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#185

Post by _8j50 » Sun, May 31, 2020, 12:14 AM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #96

The difference between respecting a right and not can be seen by how much restraint goes into crafting the law. The details can get murky, but often the spirit is plain to see: was a good faith effort made to specialize the law to the problem being solved with minimal interference on any rights? Here, the California order doesn't ban going to church, it places additional building capacity and total attendance limits.…

Why not implement social distancing rules and require proper ventillation or even outdoor services? Religious orgs are non-profits that can't survive without attendance. Prohibiting the free excercise of religion is a clear violation, especially given that other unprotected gatherings are allowed with less restrictions. To many it's an optional gathering, to others it's a "church vs state" fight, but the right was esrablished to protect the people that consider these gatherings as important.

Sepration of Church and state is a two way road,you can't be ok with this and then have a problem with sharia law and honor killings. If religious law cannot force governmental law to accept a contradicting outcome that is acceptable only because the government in turn is restricted from telling religious organizations how to conduct their affairs. If this is a public health concern, rules must be established for everyone with no exceptions. If there are exceptions, religious organizations get priority because they are specifically protected along with freedom of speech and aseembly as the first right of the people.

Let me spin it a bit for you due to all the riots and protests that are happening, majority (most?all?) Gatherings to plan and mobilize civil rights movement protests happened in protected Church assemblies (people sometimes like to conveniently excluse MLK's tile of Reverend). Today it's a virus, next month a terrorist attack, maybe then an enemy invasion and natural disaster. I understand this opinion will be unpopular here but you must understand OUR equal application of rights has no exception. Period. For example,You can say freedom of speech can't apply if you're shouting "fire in a crowd", but you can't say Jack can shout fire but Christian Emily can't. It's not just because Emily is being picked on for being religious,but also because she's a person guaranteed equal treatment.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#186

Post by ryandrake » Sun, May 31, 2020, 12:17 AM UTC

pnw_hazor wrote: post #137

gumby wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Covid-19 rules restrict religious practices more than some commercial activities I think we have a problem. Oh come on. It's OK to pick and choose which activities are more important than a health rule -- a doctor or a plumber clearly should be permitted to perform some necessary activities or life would be at greater risk. And the law parses apart the cases: you can get respiratory care or chemotherapy but not…

The problem arises because the government is not supposed to judge the merit, efficacy, or importance/value of a otherwise lawful religious practice. The government needs a neutral independent reason that withstands strict scrutiny to regulate religion. For example, building fire codes can apply to religious buildings. But many zoning ordinances have to exempt religious buildings. Here the government is saying some c…

If the governments were smart, they would not pick and choose specific activities and industries to allow and disallow, but instead simply prohibited closely packed or indoor gatherings (by whatever measurement of "closely-packed" makes epidemiological sense) and left it at that. That way, if a church wanted to stay in service they could simply figure out how to comply, like by doing it outside and 2 meters between people.

But no, governments instead editorialized and said these kinds of businesses are cool and these aren't, turning it into a politically charged value judgment of this industry vs that activity.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#187

Post by Rebelgecko » Sun, May 31, 2020, 12:20 AM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #149

kmonsen wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curbside pickup ammo and guns is allowed, see for example http://reedsindoorrange.com/

Allowed the whole time in all California jurisdictions, or allowed now (after lawsuits)?

It was not allowed until after (but not necessarily as a result of) the lawsuits. CA gun stores first started getting shut down in March. On April 10th, the ATF issued guidance saying that it was OK to do curbside pickup (for the whole country, not just CA: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/atf-business-p...)

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#188

Post by Lammy » Sun, May 31, 2020, 12:24 AM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #87

cma wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cannabis dispensaries I’ve never seen a cannabis dispensary where masses of people crowd together and sing spittle into each other’s faces. Surely when looking at same treatment, you have to consider the differences in exposure. Plus church can feasibly be done remotely, where cannabis dispensing involves some physical transfer (could be mandated to be delivery though, and no singing and reduced capacity could be m…

Cannabis dispensaries are currently closed except for medical patients (I know, but if a doctor has written a prescription it is hard for the government to say no), and then only for curbside pickup. See here for example: https://www.airfieldsupplyco.com/mmj-recommendations So churches clearly have more access these days which makes that argument silly.

The dispensary near me (Bay Area) has been open for non-medical non-pickup purchases for weeks. There's a translucent divider and a folding table in front of the counter to create distance, and the iPad menus are gone, but aside from that it seems like business as usual.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#189

Post by Lammy » Sun, May 31, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

cma wrote: post #141

Lammy wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one type of church can be open then why not the other? I acknowledge the risk and wouldn't attend either, but the double standard seems apparent to me.

It isn’t about anyone’s individual risk, but the risk to the entire community, including nonmembers.

I think the isolation is a risk to the community too. We have to allow people some social contact.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/26/americans-w...

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#190

Post by quitethelogic » Sun, May 31, 2020, 12:27 AM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #87

cma wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cannabis dispensaries I’ve never seen a cannabis dispensary where masses of people crowd together and sing spittle into each other’s faces. Surely when looking at same treatment, you have to consider the differences in exposure. Plus church can feasibly be done remotely, where cannabis dispensing involves some physical transfer (could be mandated to be delivery though, and no singing and reduced capacity could be m…

Cannabis dispensaries are currently closed except for medical patients (I know, but if a doctor has written a prescription it is hard for the government to say no), and then only for curbside pickup. See here for example: https://www.airfieldsupplyco.com/mmj-recommendations So churches clearly have more access these days which makes that argument silly.

> Cannabis dispensaries are currently closed except for medical patients

This is not true for San Diego county.

You can't go and browse, but both medical and recreational users can order online and pick it up or have it delivered.