Posted on 04/21/2020 7:57:07 AM PDT by rintintin
Gov. Gavin Newsom has issued an order banning large gatherings because of the coronavirus crisis, and Sacramento-area law enforcement officials warned last week that they will start citing people who violate the ban.
So why would state Capitol officials approve a Monday protest against stay-at-home orders that was advertised as attracting as many as 500 people?
It’s not entirely clear. The Capitol’s protest permit website shows the planned demonstration was permitted for noon on the west steps of the Capitol building, which is fenced off as part of a renovation project.
The California Highway Patrol’s capitol protection section, which issues such permits, referred questions Monday to the Senate Rules Committee. An official with that committee referred questions to the sergeant at arms, who said the Senate president pro tem’s office would have to answer. The pro tem’s office was looking into whether the permit was valid
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
short answer: Nobody wanted to deal with the flood of litigation that would have resulted from saying no.
Ultimately they would have lost.
Get in front of it, or be left behind.
OTOH, lead or be trampled...
A protest permit website? Since when do a free people need a permit to protest?
Maybe said state Capitol officials didn’t want to try seeing which wins, Gavin Newsome’s EO, or the U.S. Constitution, 1st Amendment, which guarantees freedom of assembly and speech.
This. Stay-at-home orders are unconstitutional. They are reiying on the power over the sheeple to do what they are told.
... the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Yeah all of a sudden we've found a kind of protest the MSM doesn't approve of.
Why does every article from the Sacramento Bee sound like some newspaper hack auditioning for a job with Pravda? Even dependable lefty fish wrap like the New York Times and the WaPo don’t come across as bad as that rag.
and could of been held personally liable.
and could of been held personally liable.
Protestors...can’t live with ‘em, can’t shoot ‘em...YET.
Why not a permit to publish a newspaper?
Free people? You're forgetting- this is California!
In related news:
Yeah, why didn’t the CHP and the Sacramento thieves take a page from the Hong Kong playbook and start shooting the protesters?
I actually heard this live on NPR (Yeah, I know.). There was actually talk of the CHP going in and forcibly removing the protestors and real concern about how that might turn out and how it would look.
Instead, you are very hard pressed to find any local news agencies covering this story. It’s all this fluffy BS stuff about how we are all working through it together and the government is going to save us.
Where is your permit for your last post?
Sjb, #46821140
I think I might have found the reason...”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.”
Fining people is all the authorities can do. They certainly can’t paddy wagon them off to jail to enforce social distancing. I suppose Whitmer is capable of calling in the fire hoses and dogs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.