L.A. Sheriff Changes Course, Lets Gun Shops Open

The Sheriff's position cites the Department of Homeland Security advisory (though it's not strictly binding on him); gun stores will still have to follow the social distancing requirements applicable to other stores that remain open.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

For more, see this post on the Second Amendment lawsuit against the Sheriff, this post on the DHS advisory, and this NPR (Brakkton Booker) story on the Sheriff's decision.

NEXT: New York May Re-Reform Its Bail System, and Criminal Justice Activists Aren’t Happy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I guess this proves the 2nd Amendment trumps the 1st. Churches must cancel services, but the gun stores must stay open. Just in case, I guess, that SARS-CoV-2 triggers the Zombie Apocalypse.

    1. You don’t really think this is a good argument, do you?

      1. I have noticed the “twitterization” of the comments thread as an ongoing thing. Billatcrea’s comment is a perfect encapsulation of a twitter comment.

        Yes, yes, I occasionally make short and/or trollish comments too, we all do.

        1. I agree that my comment was a bit snarky. Closing church services where large numbers of people congregate is, of course, prudent. But the idea that gun stores provide some sort of essential service in a pandemic is ludicrous.

          1. “…the idea that gun stores provide some sort of essential service in a pandemic is ludicrous.”

            Why?

          2. You’d feel differently if there was rioting and your family was at risk.

            Perhaps you’re too partisan to care about the entire Constitution.

        2. Exactly. The gun equivalent of the church scenario would be a gun show in an auditorium with thousands of people crammed into a small area. Nobody has any issue with banning those.

          1. “Nobody has any issue with banning those.”

            Not even the jerks and kooks who conduct or attend large-scale religious events during a pandemic?

  2. Consider the following:
    -a church service
    -a grocery store
    -a gun store
    -a liquor or cannabis store

    What’s you’re best epidemiological guess for which has the potential for maximum viral transmission? Are there any of those that can partially provide what they do in a safe way, e.g. by streaming online?

  3. Massachusetts Governor Baker has just reversed himself — now CLOSING gun stores which were open yesterday, changing the state web site, and then denying that there was a change at a press conference today.

  4. What about liquor stores?

  5. Why is any Sheriff EVER in a position to decide this? Police should never be deciding the rules, only enforcing. There are elected County Supervisors for the unincorporated areas of LACO (not to mention he first tried to shut gun stores in Burbank, which has a full city government). The people who carry guns should always be limited to enforcing policy made by representatives, never deciding those policies.

    1. I believe the LA Board of Supervisors just voted to boot Sheriff V, so he’s no longer head of emergency ops as of today. (Nothing to do with his sheriff position.)

  6. Meanwhile…

    https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/01/825667542/states-consider-whether-religious-services-qualify-as-essential?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=nprblogscoronavirusliveupdates

    Seems to me that making a specific exemption for religious gatherings DOES violate the First Amendment, because now the gathering restrictions are not content-neutral.

    1. Not if they treat all religious gatherings alike.

      1. You’re (deliberately?) missing that point that people congregating for religious reasons is now permitted, but people who congregate for non-religious reasons are still banned from doing so.

        Religious gatherings receiving special exemptions is not a content-neutral regulation. A point which was obvious before your response.

        1. Interesting point, are there any on point authorities for something like this? Cant imagine thered be many

        2. A religious gathering falls under it’s own specific mention in the first amendment, and not under free speech, though it would certainly suffer that protection, too. And therefore need not be content neutral.

          1. Incorrect. The First Amendment also specifically mentions peaceful assembly, and unless your reason is religious in nature, that is currently prohibited.

            Again, NOT content-neutral.

            1. AFIK the content-neutral requirement only applies to speech restrictions.

        3. And you’re missing the point that the 1st amendment specifically calls out the free exercise of religion for special protection.

          Maybe you’d like a constitution that was neutral between religion and secular activities, but that’s not the one we have.

          1. Peaceful assembly is also called out as a Constitutional right. Maybe you should try reading all the words next time Brett, though I doubt that your comments will become any more useful.

            Let’s try a fun game: quote the First Amendment in its entirety for me, and then we’ll dissect what specific protections are afforded religion, and why you’re wrong as usual.

          2. It depends upon your definition of religion.

            Is superstition required?

            Goofy dietary rules?

            Funny hats?

  7. While one side of the cultural divide focuses on science and attempts to overcome failings at the federal level while navigating a pandemic, the other is obsessing over guns and conducting massive, defiant faith healing services.

    I wonder which side is winning the culture war. I wonder which side will continue to win.

    1. While one side of the cultural divide focuses on science and attempt to overcome failings of the opposition party in the legislature focused on politics more than navigating a pandemic, the other is obsessing over abortion and conducting massive, defiant lawfare and propaganda efforts on behalf of China.

      I wonder which side is winning the culture war when progressives kill their offspring, and what they will resort to when Trump is re-elected.

      1. When do you predict Republicans and conservatives will begin to turn the tide of the culture war? This month? This year? This decade? This century?

        What’s coming back first from the right-wing wish list? Governmental gay-bashing? Criminalized abortion? School prayer? The gold standard? Creationism in science classrooms? Coal and iron police? Denying the franchise to women? Black men forced to lower their gaze in the company of white women?

        Please tell us more about the great conservative awakening you expect — the end to decades of our liberal-libertarian mainstream shaping American progress against the wishes and efforts of Republicans and conservatives.

        1. When do you predict Democrats and liberals will being to turn the tide of the culture war? This yea? This decade? This century?

          What’s coming back form the left-wing wish list? Wage and price controls? Legalized prostitution? Mandatory diversity classes in schools? Wage and price controls? Diversity quotas in the hard sciences? The Green New Deal? A ‘path to citizenship’? Disarming gun owners? Whites people forced to pay reparations for slavery?

          Please tell us more about the great liberal awakening you expect – the end to decades of libertarian-conservatives holding the line on the worst excesses of the progressives and communists.

          America will never be a socialist country. #MAGA

          (See how easy it is to be a fake? )

          1. You figure the clingers have been winning the culture war?

            Even clingers — the educated ones, at least — do not claim that.

            (You should ask an educated person to try to explain the term “coming back.”)

  8. Has it occurred to anyone that if governments close down gun shops during times of public emergencies, people who otherwise would not want to own a gun will realize that once things return to normal, they should start buying guns and ammo to include in their stockpiles of emergency food, water and batteries.

    1. There is nothing wrong with people possessing a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home.

      1. As long as you don’t get to define what constitutes a reasonable firearm.

        1. There’s nothing wrong with people possessing a firearm for self-defense outside the home either.

  9. Have you been planning to https://dltutuapp.com/tutuapp-download/ watch that particular movie for a while but missed it due to a meeting at the office.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.