I will never understand the Left’s penchant for disarming people, including those who most need protection. But that’s exactly what the draconian, gun-hating state Governor Phil Murphy is doing in New Jersey.
And, not letting a serious crisis go to waste, he’s shamelessly exploiting a worldwide pandemic —the Chinese coronavirus— to achieve political goals. One thing this crisis is providing, though, is a visceral lesson in just how few cops there are and how quickly our public safety resources become depleted in any crisis.
When this outbreak began, nearly three dozen police officers and firefighters in Kirkland, Washington, where America’s initial Chinese coronavirus exposure and deaths occurred, were quarantined.
Another report has over 150 Detroit police officers under quarantine, 300 self-quarantining, with two staff deaths (a dispatcher and a top police commander) reported. St. Louis County, MO, is considering reactivating recently retired police officers to fill the gaps.
And in Los Angeles, LAPD officers are now on 12-hour shifts and all vacations have been canceled. I’m sure the story is the same in the fire department.
So, what happens when people become more vulnerable to criminals? Democrat politicians work to make their constituents even more vulnerable. Anti-gun rights radical Governor Phil Murphy included gun stores in Executive Order 107, which shuttered “non-essential businesses.” But isn’t he forgetting something important?
Aside from inhibiting his residents’ full rights to self-defense, I’m thinking this amounts to infringing on a little thing called the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights enumerated within the U.S. Constitution. Anti-gun politicians have no qualms about shredding their oaths to protect and defend our founding document.
As a consequence, Bloomberg Law (of all places) is reporting on gun rights groups suing New Jersey in federal court. They are “challenging the state’s temporary shuttering of gun stores…in response to the novel coronavirus pandemic.” The groups argue this action amounts to a total restriction from the people purchasing firearms. They’re right.
From the suit, “The plaintiffs bringing this action do not mean to minimize the severity or urgency of the coronavirus pandemic. However, this emergency (like any other emergency) has its constitutional limits. It would not justify a prior restraint on speech, nor a suspension of the right to vote. Just the same, it does not justify a ban on obtaining guns and ammunition.”
The plaintiffs include a couple of Second Amendment organizations, a gun store, and an individual who wants to purchase a firearm “in case the pandemic stops the government from providing emergency services…” His concern is a lesson for every American who doesn’t understand exactly what the Second Amendment provides for us.