Portland, Maine city hall
Portland city hall (Bigstock)
Previous Post
Next Post

Portland, Maine has failed to learn some important lessons from other jurisdictions that have tried to close gun stores during the COVID-19 outbreak. Last week the city council passed a revised State of Emergency Order.

3. The business, production and service sectors identified in Exhibit A are hereby designated as “COVID-19 Essential Services.” All of Exhibit A shall be applicable within the City of Portland, except that the following more restrictive requirements shall be applicable to the essential businesses and services identified below:
C. Gun shops shall not be considered an essential business or service within the City of Portland; and

Lest you think a gun store might continue to provide online services…

All businesses with a facility in the City of Portland that do not provide COVID-19 Essential Services, shall close their physical workspaces and facilities (“brick-and-mortar premises”) to workers, customers, and the public as of the effective date and time of this proclamation

Complete shutdown.

Maine, however, has a state preemption statute.

§2011. State preemption

2. Regulation restricted. Except as provided in subsection 3, no political subdivision of the State, including, but not limited to, municipalities, counties, townships and village corporations, may adopt any order, ordinance, rule or regulation concerning the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration, taxation or any other matter pertaining to firearms, components, ammunition or supplies.

3. Exception. This section does not prohibit an order, ordinance, rule or regulation of any political subdivision which, with the exception of appropriate civil penalty provisions, conforms exactly with any applicable provision of state law or which regulates the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction.

One hopes that the Portland Mayor and city council will take note of this provision in particular.

B. An individual aggrieved by a violation of this subsection may seek relief in an action at law or in equity for redress against any person who subjects that individual, or causes that individual to be subjected, to an action prohibited by this subsection.

The city council and mayor have put Portland taxpayers (and themselves) on the hook for lawsuit payouts over their blatantly unlawful action. All it takes now is a citizen to file suit and press the matter in court.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • The answer for these slimy worms is the same as always: Sue the craw out of them until they learn that the Constitution does not lose its authority in event of a medical emergency.

    • The answer for these slimy worms is the same as always: Sue the crap out of them until they learn that the Constitution does not lose its authority in event of a medical emergency.

  1. If we had all the money wasted by these idiots across the country that are trying to rewrite our bill of rights using the courts, we could pay of the national debt or a big chunk of it !

    • Speaking of idiots, you might want to check the national debt before you post such b.s. Did you take college algebra at the Trumptard Academy?

        • Well, he’s right. The poster he’s responding to must have missed a lot of decimals. And since Trump says stuff like “My father gave me a *small loan* of a million dollars.” they evidently have something in common.

      • Before anybody concerns themselves about the “National Debt”. Educate yourself on Modern Monetary Theory. The idea of national debt is irrelevant in today’s economic system. It’s how the world has been run for a long time.

        • MMT is far from a widely accepted theory.
          The job guarantee aspect is particularly challenging and far from feasible.
          (MBA Finance)

        • Darkman,

          Have read quite a bit of MMT. You are right to point out it is the defacto modus operandi of Congress.
          Although MMT seems a disastrous policy, the Federal government has effectively subscribed to it for decades through its binge-eating of deficit spending and debt. Now, trillions of dollars of newly printed dollars are being used to prop-up this shut-down.

        • This sounds like someone in a multilevel marketing scheme trying telling critics to ‘educate themselves’ on how it’s not a pyramid scheme.

          Yes, those who benefit from tremendous capital being washed around via ‘debt’ without any accounting for how it should be repaid (or if it should be repaid) certainly like the situation as it is.

          It doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. At the very least it depends heavily on the US dollar being the standard. And there’s no reason, historically, to believe that will remain the case. Especially if it doesn’t mean anything.

          And when it’s not the case anymore, those chickens all come home to roost at once.

        • Modern monetary theory is all about keeping the rubes pacated while the elite rob all the wealth. It doesn’t take much education to understand that, but if you have a real education you can’t miss the obvious.

  2. Friend of mine in Augusta told me Portland was full of Massholes. I think that sums it up nicely. Travel in any direction and you find real Americans.

    • He is correct, but no one is going to sue Portland over this, I’m almost 100% positive there aren’t actually any gun shops in Portland. Which makes this declaration even stupider.

  3. The sad part is it’s the tax payers who will end up paying for the damages. They should make the mayor and every member of the city council pay instead. They should have to sell everything they own, empty their retirement accounts and be dumped on the streets in an orange prison suit and flip flops.

  4. We, the PotG, must take note. Instances such as this one are ideal candidates to be chased up the judicial tree to the US Supreme Court.

    SCOTUS takes approximately 1/2 of 1% of the cases appealed to it. So, on a purely numerical basis, the prospects for getting SCOTUS to take your case are miniscule. And, that is when you have the resources (millions) to get your way that far up the judicial tree.

    If your case turns on the 2A, the prospects are dimmer; really dim. So, the key is to bring a case, or as many cases as possible, that are LIKELY to be taken up by SCOTUS. Such a case is one which has a SLAM-DUNK probability of going “your way”.

    One case that illustrates the proposition is Caetano v Mass. Ask yourself, how does:
    – a homeless single mother with NO money,
    – get convicted of a weapons charge,
    – get her appeal rejected by her state SC,
    – get SCOTUS to take her case,
    – based on a 2A appeal?

    Then, ask yourself, how does:
    – she WIN her appeal
    – with a UNANIMOUS ruling by SCOTUS,
    – ordering her state SC to take their reasoning (rejecting her appeal) and stick it where the sun don’t shine?

    If you can’t learn anything from this case then you can’t get traction in any future case. Do you want to succeed? Take a lesson from Ms Caetano.

    When the state (Federal/state/municipal government) so clearly oversteps its ground, and the arguments are narrow and precise, then it becomes a slam-dunk for SCOTUS to accept the case and rule in the direction it is most inclined to rule.

    It takes 4 SCOTUS justices to agree to take a case. These 4 must make a bet that a 5’th justice will – having been FORCED to weigh-in – rule on the case in the way the 4 hope.

    Heller and McDonald were such cases. Kennedy was the “swing” vote. Likely, he would have preferred to duck these cases. Nevertheless, if he were put on-the-spot by 4 justices taking the appeal, he could be predicted to “do the right thing” by voting with the first four.

    Caetano was the ideal case. The 4 “liberal” justices were (presumably) loath to take ANY 2A case. Nevertheless, 4 “conservative” justices had the power to put their 5 colleagues on-the-spot. Once FORCED to vote, they would have to take a stand; and, ruling against a single, homeless, battered mother for violating a flat-out ban on (non-lethal) stun-guns was a bridge-too-far. They would have to swallow the bitter pill of upholding the 2A. They could never explain themselves out of voting her down.

    In the OP case, it looks as though the arguments why SCOTUS should uphold the closure of gun shops are weak. The law (Constitution and state preemption law) all seem to compel striking down the municipal ordinance. SCOTUS would have to decide whether it would tolerate a rogue municipality defying its state’s supremacy – to say nothing of the US Constitution – or to support the state’s over-arching power. Looks like a slam-dunk.

    Moreover, SCOTUS’ ruling in such a case need not turn on supporting/diluting the 2A. Instead, it turns on enforcing the state legislature’s plenary power to define the metes and bounds of inferior municipalities’ power.

    Today’s coronavirus crisis is prompting municipalities and states to make moves that should prove disastrous to the cause of gun-control. We ought to welcome their opportunities to make the wrong moves. Then, capitalize by bringing cases up the state and federal judicial trees to SCOTUS.

    • The case and argument that needs to be brought before SCOTUS is the argument that government totally and completely lacks the authority to regulate the firearms industry.

      Please follow me here on this line of thought.

      The version of the Constitution that is in force today is the Constitution “as amended by the Bill of Rights and all subsequent amendments”. An amendment permanently alters and changes the original document as the amendment over rides and “supersedes” everything that came before the amendment. One can NOT therefore look to the provisions in the original document for authority if those original provisions are now in conflict with new provisions in an amendment. Government has relied on the so called Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause in claiming its authority to regulate firearms. However, this conflicts with the very explicit “command directive” of the Second Amendment that states that “the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall Not be infringed”… and which is the constitutional provision that must prevail under our system of law.

      There is in fact only one lawful way to make these kinds of changes that would allow for government to have the authority to regulate firearms and that is, as per our Constitution, via the amendment process. Only via another constitutional amendment that specifically addresses this issue of the Right to bear arms could government be granted the authority to regulate this industry… and this has so far NEVER been done!!!

      As a case in point; consider that the 18th Amendment banned alcohol consumption and made Prohibition the law of the land. And that afterwards it was soon realized that this had been a horrible mistake and that it should be reversed. However, it could not be undone via any act of the Congress nor by presidential executive order because the 18th Amendment had made Prohibition “the law of the land”. And so it was not until with the passage of the 21st Amendment that the era of Prohibition finally came to an end.

      To this day, the Second Amendment has never been changed or altered in any way and so it stands as originally written and is the law of the land. And it is therefore not subject to change, modification, alteration or re-interpretation via any act of the Congress or by presidential executive order because if the Constitution is to be respected and continued to be held up as the Supreme Law of the Land, then its provisions can only be changed via the constitutional amendment process.

      Let us not forget that;

      “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is
      repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137

      Additionally, “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425

      “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
      legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

      Constitutional Right – “A right guaranteed to the citizens by the Constitution and so
      guaranteed as to prevent legislative interference therewith”. – Delaney v. Plunkett, 146
      Ga. 547, 91 S. E. 561, 567, L. R. A. 1917D, 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 685. – Black’s Law
      Dictionary, 3rd Edition

      ”The Constitution is a legal binding contract between the government and its employer
      (the American people). The U.S. Supreme Court was right when it said, “The
      Constitution is a written instrument and as such its meaning does not alter, that which it
      meant when it was adopted, it means now.” U.S. v. South Carolina (1905)

  5. @Truckman
    Where are all the BODIES?? that many dying way to much for funeral homes wayyyy to many to store.NO FUNERALS?? NO MASS GRAVES THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE BEING PUSHED INTO PITS BY HI TRACK D-9s
    The news would be there to show it

    • I don’t mind a good conspiracy, but I can’t get behind one that relies on me forgetting that crematoriums are a thing.

      • @CASEY
        Where is the coverage? You dont think that Cuomo would have CNN cameras rolling while the smoke was pouring? You would have to wheel them out in public from the PACKED SEMIS to the crematorium If it was happening the NEWS would be there from CALIFORNIA TO NEW YORK enforcing the pandemic was real…see were burning people see America NOW GET BACK IN THE HOUSE

        • This is an eye-opening video. Dr. Buttar has some impressive credentials; he invented one of the medicines we used to recover our daughter. In the first part of this video, he discusses how the panic around Covid 19, is unjustified.

    • Weren’t there new articles about prisoners putting bodies into mass graves in New York?

      There were in my part of the world.

      • Have you heard of potters field?

        The US is a wealthy enough country that it hasn’t move to mass graves… for those who can pay. But those who are indigent or unidentified get buried on Hart Island. There is plenty of drone footage out there of it happening if you bother to look.

    • News shows bodies being buried on Hart Island by prison labor and refrigerated trucks brought in to serve as temporary morgues. Funeral directors give interviews. Photos leak of unused hospital rooms with bodies stacked up in bags. Nursing homes are found to have unreported massive mortality rates.
      You: “FAKE NEWS they’re just trying to sew PANIC!!!”

      News decides not to show bodies being buried
      You: “WHERE ARE THE BODIES!!1!”


      • @HANNIBAL

      • @HANNIBAL

      • Even CNN (communist news network) recently admitted the chinese sniffles is less deadly than seasonal flu.

  6. It’s just a cowardly excuse for gun haters to stick their behinds in the face of the public. Remedy? Sue their butts off.

  7. Such decrees, orders and commandments from on high are anti-American, pure and simple.

    These very same ideas to contain the spread of the virus would be perfectly fine if they were voluntary, encouraged by real leadership instead of monarchical/dictatorial decrees. A real leader goes to the The People, explains the facts of the crisis, how to deal with the crisis and inspires everyone to work together.

    No Governor and no President has met the test of LEADERSHIP in this current apocalypse, nor do any of them display the least comprehension of what leading Americans in a time of grave consequence is all about.

    Hell, take legal action against all these idiots.

  8. Let’s apply all the same restrictions on their first amendment rights, it doesn’t say shall not be infringed!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here