Stay At Home Orders

mightymoose

mightymoose

Moderator
I am curious if anyone cares to share their view on the various state and local stay at home orders being issued around the country.

While I recognize the intent to protect the public, I view these orders as a tragic violation of civil rights. While there is a quarantine order that can be invoked, it is applicable to those infected or otherwise believed to be a risk to public health, such as the cruise ship passengers quarantined in California upon their return a few weeks ago. That state and local governments would attempt to "order" an entire population to stay home is an atrocity.

In some places these orders give specific reasons why a person may leave their home, and subjects them to misdemeanor fines and jail time to leave home for any other reason. People are told that they may not attend church, may not visit their neighbor, attend a party or other gatherings more than a specified number of people.

These all seem very blatant violations of 1st and 14th Amendment protections. Initially many jurisdictions went on record asking for compliance so enforcement would not be necessary, which led me to believe the absurdness of the orders was recognized and unenforceable. More stories are coming up all over- dad arrested for playing softball with his daughter, teen cited for going out for a drive, citations issued to people out watching the sunset.

It is sad to me that the people entrusted with enforcement are not seeing the basic violation of personal freedom required for them to take action.

The use of the word "guidelines" is prominent in the language being used and implies a choice, not a compelling order- but if your choice is in opposition to what they want you will be charged with a public offense.

Sad times.... I am sure the legal status of these orders will be sorted out later, but that is no help to people who choose to live free now.
 
I agree that the constitutionality of all this is suspect, but by the time it gets to the courts, it will (hopefully) be a moot point.

I really don't understand the orders to not drive anywhere. So long as one does not stop somewhere, what's the harm in a drive up the coast and back (for example)? How is that more risky than a walk around the neighborhood (which is allowed)?
 
mightymoose said:
Yes... If staying at home is for the protection of everyone, then so is confiscating firearms.
Click to expand...

Or just limiting law-abiding adult ownership.

Hell, there is a bill in both the house and senate that would ban the purchase and ownership of what the left calls assault rifles.
 
cbg said:
One of the saddest things about this country is the frightening number of people who are more concerned with their individual rights than the public good.
Click to expand...

The public good can be protected without destroying individual freedoms. People can make their own decisions about how to protect themselves and their families.
I believe most people would abide by these guidelines without being ordered and without the threat of fine or imprisonment.
These orders run contrary to everything this country is founded on.
 
The Los Angeles County Sheriff closed gun shops due to the Coronavirus...but not really. He closed them to avoid having a bunch of first timer buying guns in a panic. Those were HIS words, but I don't have the exact quote.

To put it more simply, he closed them so that people wouldn't buy guns, NOT in an effort to slow or prevent the spread of the disease.
 
 
Zigner said:
I agree that the constitutionality of all this is suspect, but by the time it gets to the courts, it will (hopefully) be a moot point.

I really don't understand the orders to not drive anywhere. So long as one does not stop somewhere, what's the harm in a drive up the coast and back (for example)? How is that more risky than a walk around the neighborhood (which is allowed)?
Click to expand...
Because while you are taking a scenic drive along the PCHW you could have an accident. Then the 1st responders will have to help you....this put's you and the 1st responders at risk.

Seriously....The more people are out and about unnecessarily the more people will be infected and possibly die.

Staying home can be boring and hurt your wallet but it won't kill you...whereas Covid-19 can.
 
justblue said:
Because while you are taking a scenic drive along the PCHW you could have an accident. Then the 1st responders will have to help you....this put's you and the 1st responders at risk.
Click to expand...

What if I were infected and there were a fire at my house? Or maybe if I had a heart attack? Or maybe...

I get where you're coming from, but how deep do we reach in to the hypotheticals?
 
mightymoose said:
Yes... If staying at home is for the protection of everyone, then so is confiscating firearms.
Click to expand...

A ludicrous comparison. In the first three months of 2020 there were 16,266 coronavirus deaths in the US.

Tracking the Spread of the Coronavirus Outbreak in the United States

Assuming that the death toll doesn't rise exponentially, multiply that by 4 and you get about 65,000 deaths possible for 2020.

In all of 2019 there were 15,381 gun deaths.

Gun Deaths In US: Comparing The Numbers In 2019 With Recent Years

mightymoose said:
The use of the word "guidelines" is prominent in the language being used and implies a choice, not a compelling order- but if your choice is in opposition to what they want you will be charged with a public offense.
Click to expand...

I'm as much of a "rights" guy as anybody but would you rather the governments take draconian measure (maybe in error) now, while the death toll is only in the thousands, or wait until the death toll is in the millions? Then you can complain about martial law being imposed.

mightymoose said:
I believe most people would abide by these guidelines without being ordered and without the threat of fine or imprisonment.
Click to expand...

"Most" people don't have the common sense that God gave a goose.

cbg said:
One of the saddest things about this country is the frightening number of people who are more concerned with their individual rights than the public good.
Click to expand...

Amen to that.
 
cbg said:
You wanted my views; I gave them to you.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that, but was hoping for more of a legal analysis of the orders being issued. Maybe there is some aspect I haven't looked at that really does justify the actions being taken, other than fear.
 
Zigner said:
What if I were infected and there were a fire at my house? Or maybe if I had a heart attack? Or maybe...

I get where you're coming from, but how deep do we reach in to the hypotheticals?
Click to expand...
16,200 + people have died over the last couple months....most of them in the last week and a half. Almost half a million are sick.

Keep in mind those are the people we know about...many are sick that haven't had a test...and many have died from this but weren't tested.

BTW...The drive isn't necessary. If your home was on fire or you have a heart attack that is beyond your control. Responders wouldn't be putting their lives at risk because a selfish person wouldn't use his common sense.
 
In my small state alone, there have been over 2000 confirmed cases and 70 deaths since YESTERDAY.

mightymoose said:
I believe most people would abide by these guidelines without being ordered and without the threat of fine or imprisonment.
Click to expand...

It's the ones who won't that are the problem. And there are far too many of them.
 
The only mandatory stay at home orders in my state are for people who have traveled. They are ordered to stay home for 14 days. The rest of us were told to "hunker down" and minimize contact with people outside our immediate household, and schools and non-essential businesses are closed, and group gatherings over 10 are not allowed. As many people as possible were sent home to work. So far I think the vast majority of people are voluntarily being very compliant about social distancing, and consequently we've seen relatively very few cases (235) and only a few deaths (7) in the entire state. Maybe because this is Alaska, and the state is huge and the population density is low. Maybe because many of us live in smaller communities that are spread out from one another (and in my case, on an island). Maybe we're used to being relatively isolated to begin with, so it doesn't feel like such a chore to self-isolate.

I have not heard any complaints about the mandates that have been put in place here. Usually I feel like Alaskans are a pretty feisty bunch about our rights & freedoms, but I think a lot of us are also loners at heart so maybe it feels like less of an imposition. I personally am an introvert so I rather enjoy being socially distant.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top