Maryland governor has issued an executive order forbidding all use of guns for pleasure purposes until the sniper is caught. Is this even legal? And even if it is, is it a knee jerk reaction with the government restricting citizens rights in a zeal to find a single violater of the law?
Probably not, but when has that ever stopped them?
Legal or not, something had to be done!
It seems like banning the use for a temporary amount of time might not be illegal. I’m just speculating, but you can still own the weapons for protection against the government and to keep the King of England from pushing you around, so it wouldn’t be unconstitutional. I’m not sure if I would call it knee jerk (we’re at 11 victims), no more than road blocks being used to catch one person.
I’m guessing the rights that have been restricted are the right to hunt and the right to target shoot (any others ?). After 9/11, in attempt to catch some terrorists, they closed bridges, highways, and stopped all air traffic in the country. An extreme situation required the government to inconvenience many for the protection of the people.
It would be different if they made people turn in their weapons until the killer was caught. That would be suspect and probably illegal.
That said, I don’t know that this action will help much, but it will probably bring down the amount of false reports.
Road blocks are a restrictive use of what is in essence government property ie. driving is a privilage not a right rap. However gun possession is more of an established constitutional right.<Although many may argue otherwise>.
11 victims? Should we ban cars, in light of the number of people killed using them?
A road block wherein they search each car, or give a breathalyzer to each driver, is not just restricting use of government property. It’s a search.
:rolleyes:
It’s your type that I fear…
Yep, all the sniping will surely stop now, now that shooting someone is extra super duper illegal, instead of just super duper illegal.
It doesn’t restrict all use of guns. The ban is limited to four countries and shooting ranges are exempt.
The problem here is that this is but one of MANY, many new changes we are going to be seeing from our government. They wouldn’t do something so outrageous that it pissed off everyone, everywhere, but over time the little things, like the temporary ban on guns, creep in. In 30 years look back and you’ll remember a very different time, assuming of course we all still have individual control over our minds at that date. 
Again, if everyone rereads, no items have been banned. Everyone can still own or possess all the guns they could before. Why does everyone keep saying they’re banned ?
If 11 people were killed by a similar problem in a car, they would issue a recall (maybe), if 11 people were killed at the same intersection in one week, they would probably take some action. If , as robertliguori says, you think they should ban cars because of ALL the deaths caused by them, then you need to look at ALL the deaths caused by guns, not just these few. I pointed out the eleven victims to show that it wasn’t a knee jerk decision. They waited for eleven people to get shot, then issued a restriction. Hardly knee jerk.
There is a restriction in firing them outdoors. There are restrictions in most cities about firing guns, but most people don’t claim it’s unconstitutional. I’m not anti-gun, I just don’t understand why people think there’s some kind of ban on their weapons. You can’t shoot them in my neighborhood…never could. But you can possess them.
I’m not even saying this is a good idea, I’m just saying I don’t think the 2nd amendment even comes into play here. robertliguori
Oops, accidentally ended my post with robertliguori .
Ignore that.
It’s a temporary measure because frightened people are calling police whenever they hear the sound of innocent gunfire.
That was resulting in wild goose chases and a waste of PD time. They are trying to cut down on the number of false alarms that are being called in.
The guns are not being banned. They are telling people not to shoot outdoors for reacreational purposes. No hunting this weekend, boo-hoo. They are also cancelling a lot of public events such as sporting events, dances etc. A lot of fun passtimes are being temporarily called off in light of the shootings.
You get to keep your guns. If someone tries to kill you, you can defend yourself with one if you’re so inclined. There are probably so many people jumping at sudden noises that the police don’t can’t even keep up with the calls – the moratorium is being enforced on recreational “loud bangs” to make sure the police aren’t flocking to every duck blind because a concerned neighbour heard a shot.
Slightly hijacking my own thread, would there be an ipso facto ban on guns if there were laws forbidding it to be taken out of the home?<even take this hypothetically if you must, and say there were laws prohibing it completly anywhere but home>
Yes. Would it be a ban on books if you could own as many as you please but were not allowed to read them? I don’t see how it couldn’t be.
To answer the OP, I doubt it is legal. The legislature gets to make laws, not the Govenor, (Unless there is some declared state of emergency or something like that, but even then I have my doubts)
Could the Govenor declare that the police can perform any search they want in Maryland with out a warrant because, as one of our enlightened posters put it, “something has to be done”? :rolleyes:
States (I think - or maybe counties) do prohibit watering lawns, washing cars, and having open fires during droughts. Is that something that is already provided for by law, or is it done by a separate declaration from the Governor each time?
every time I opine on law, I get my nose shot off (Hi Minty!), but:
in CA, draught restrictions are invoked by county officials (don’t know if there is standing authorizing legislation).
I think that, should suit be brought (Hi NRA!), the gov. would need show that his or her actions were a reasonable response to a threat to public. (I think that the “911 is swamped with reports of loud noises” would suffice as a justification to prohibit intentional gunshots)
A specific “the Gov. may ban sport hunting” law would not be required - it would be incumbent on the plaintiff to show that the action was NOT justifiable.
note: my id on a thread almost always gets a lawyer to respond. I like to think that I perform a useful function
Perhaps one of the members of HH’s fan club can opine more generally on the power and reach of ‘executive’ orders as a matter of law?
And, “Govenor”? Eek!
Say the sniper doesnt get caught for a month…or 6 or 5 years?? At what point does the ban go beyond 'temporary " and therefore somehow ok?