TexasCHLforum.com

mrvmax wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 8:31 pm I don’t think that’s practical. People are responsible for their own well being and like it or not we take risks every day in our lives. I’m not knowingly going to expose people but I’ve also got to live my life in this world too and I’m not big on government mandating when and where I can go just to “protect” everyone else. I’ll do that myself.

Not just that, by forcing martial law, mandating the closure of entire industries, and in some places even mandating a shelter-in-place requirement- they are mandating when and where people who have no chance of harboring the disease may be. What about people who have had it and are recovered? Can they go out? What about those who haven't been exposed? Can they go buy some groceries?

The amount of power some are willing to hand over to the government (of all levels) is appalling to me.

imkopaka wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 2:15 pm There's a man in Kentucky right now under 24 hour armed lockdown in his home because he refused to self-quarantine. To be fair he is confirmed infected, but it supports your point regardless. It's not a big jump to enforce that kind of quarantine on someone who may be infected, or is at risk of being infected, or whatever else they decide.

I don't think any circumstance should allow government to forcefully abolish the constitution at the barrel of a gun.

Emergency declarations or not, private property is private property and it is the basis of our common agreement regarding governance. I stand my earlier post outlining all the ways the constitution has been crapped on by this mess. I ALSO stand by the fact that I said self-isolation and social distancing are good ideas and should be practiced right now, I just don't think the government has the right to do so at the end of a gun.

I'll go on the record for these:
1) Social distancing is a good idea right now
2) Self and Household-quarantine after showing symptoms is a good idea
3) Postponing large gatherings (My church consists of 1200 regular attendees) is a great idea
4) Postponing school for a few weeks, and college's going with distance learning is a great idea

5) None of this is within Government's purview to force upon others at the barrel of a gun.

6) If you are immuno-suppressed, it is YOUR responsibility to take steps to avoid catching this
7) If you, by necessity, must visit or work with the immuno-suppressed, you have extra responsibility to self-assess for symptoms daily or hourly, and take extra steps to prevent possible early stage spreading of the disease (including masks, gloves, extra hand washing, etc).

If we trust those who are immuno-suppressed and those who work with them to fully assume their responsibility in this, we could get by with lower infection rates, a lower overall spread rate, and a more realistic overview. The idea that you 'wont catch it' is false. Us beating this thing is about those who would be serious cases not all catching it simultaneously, and quickly developing a vaccine as well as developing a method of care that produces the best possible case outcomes. The idea that we can shut it down completely is false.

Why have we abandoned personal responsibility and handed it over to the government? When has that EVER worked in any method whatsoever? What if it was determined that the 'home production of ammo' was dangerous to our society? What if it was determined (and rightly so) that guns kill more people than the Corona-Virus did, and we shut down our society over that? Would there be any logical reason to withhold a full ban on guns and ammo under that same line of thinking?

Do people really own their property or not? Do people really have the liberty of choice or not? Those are the fundamental questions at bay here, not just a viral scare.

Don't PATRIOT act the rest of my rights away.

I'm gonna cross post this right quick:

flechero wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:23 pm

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:13 pm Can somebody explain to me how this is legal?

Sure I think its a good idea, but it is still PERSONAL responsibility and decisions that should dictate, not top down implimentation.

Friggin police state.

The State of emergency changes the normal rules, I believe.

While I understand your sentiment, in this case I support it. A large percentage of the population would not adhere to a 'please stay home' request... and as one who has a number of high risk family members, I see this as a good move. Also have several friends who are Dr.'s and they also support it.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Amendment I: Violated via mandated maximum assemblies.
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.

Amendment II: Violated via several emergency declarations, and the right to muster a militia. See Example
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV: Violated via New York's "volunteering" of a profiteer's hand sanitizer stash. Ya the guy is a douchbag, but that doesn't mean he gets to have his rights violated. See Example
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V: Violated via Dallas among dozens of others forcefully closing resturaunts. If someone CANNOT use his private property however he deems fit, then the government is 'taking' it. See Example
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI: Violated via the siezure of property without provision of a lawyer, as well as not allowing jury trials for Emminent Domain upon which such seizures are based.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII: Violated via the siezure of property without allowing a jury trial when the Government is the defendant.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII: What are the fines going to be if someone refuses to close? I'm gonna bet they will be excessive.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX: IE, the government only gets to do that which it has been specifically, CONSTITUTIONALLY, enumerated. Just having 'emergency powers' in the millions of laws on the books doesn't make it constitutional.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: II guess the 10th is safe for once, at least for now.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.