191–200 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears San Jose took a strong stance at least at one point: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/18/coronavirus-san-jose-... Not sure the current status, but I'm sure a lot of lawsuits happened.
They wanted to stay fully open, not curbside delivery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because these are facts not law! As Alito points out he isn't a doctor and he isn't going to second guess them in the middle of a plague.
I do not see any statement from Alito, but he voted with the dissent. The position of Roberts (writing for the majority) is that: > Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary," Which is to say, even the majority acknlowdges that there are times where the courts should intervene. The question of what a "comparable" secular activity is is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I’m strongly in favor out stronger gun control but find your argument here reasonable." A few genuinely curious questions. First, would you rather there was just no 2nd Amendment at all? I can understand that point of view. Second, let's assume there is a right to bear arms, and that it's not going away. Do you think all of the little half measures are actually helpful? Stuff like how you can buy ammo, or what model…
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…
Genuine question since I see this argument online with some regularity. Why don't you think the 2A belongs in a modern world? What does the time frame (modern vs not modern) have to do with human rights?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
False: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". "Free exercise" = "free practice" for the layman. For free speech, the protection should be for speech, there is no free action so your comment is not clear on what it points at.
You are making strong statements about things you need to read up more on. The congress and others can put limits on religious practice in many ways. The most relevant example here is that building and fire codes apply for churches.
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 es…
I am, and I do.
This is an egregiously hyperbolic argument. Perhaps you, personally, are unable to make the distinction, but most people are perfectly able to distinguish between a temporary restriction to stop a virus spreading and literal murder.
Your argument is logically equivalent to saying “if you support building codes that ensure churches have fire exits, then you also support sharia law and honor killings”
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…
In practice, the courts take dim view on such arguments, and if some element is required to practically exercise a right, it is usually protected under that right.
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…
> Overall I would rather 2nd amendment would not exist and I don't think it belongs in a modern world Genuine question since I see this argument online with some regularity. Why don't you think the 2A belongs in a modern world? What does the time frame (modern vs not modern) have to do with human rights?
- Civilians today do not have the means to stand up to a modern state. For a minor example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege, note the outcome was never in any doubt just how much casualties the feds wanted to inflict
- Weapons today have much larger damage potential
- We live in a world that violence and weapons are not part of the way it used to be, for the better. I don't think we are ready to go back to having to defend ourselves
- A strong and well armed democracy was hoped to be a better solution to this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I’m strongly in favor out stronger gun control but find your argument here reasonable." A few genuinely curious questions. First, would you rather there was just no 2nd Amendment at all? I can understand that point of view. Second, let's assume there is a right to bear arms, and that it's not going away. Do you think all of the little half measures are actually helpful? Stuff like how you can buy ammo, or what model…
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…
“Brandishing” a weapon is already a crime.
I think showing up armed to a protest against the government is sometimes important - reminding the government that the populace as a whole has the means to fight oppression is an act of political speech.
Using guns to imply a desire for violence against a group other the government seems wrong to me and I would be against it if I thought there was a way to legitimately differentiate between the two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> bias in the USA towards the predominant religious institution away from the minority ones Are you sure that is the case at the federal level? Some states or governors may sometimes do something like you suggest, but I think at least the Supreme Court is more reasonable. Some examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... > In God, Yahweh, Allah, Buddah, et al we Trust Some comments,…
> Allah = Christian God = Yahweh There is no consensus on this, either among Muslims or Trinitarians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Interfering with religious practice can cause irreparable harm to persons. It is up to the person and the religion. Growing up in a Christian home I'd say allowing religious services to continue is more likely to cause harm to people. Still, it sounds like you think physical religious gatherings are some kind of human right.
Well it most certainly is a human right. Religious or otherwise. That was actually never up for debate. The question is that right can only be temporarily, narrowly, and non-discriminately suspended under extraordinary circumstances, and 5-4 agreed that is in fact what has been done.