Like all trumpers, he supports rw criminality as long as it fits his beliefs.

Is he like Clarke but just anti-gun (at least for covilians)

One may have the right to a gun.
Communities have the right to allow, disallow or regulate businesses.

Ya'all can get your umpteenth gun later. Suck it up snowflake 2nd-Amendment gun-humpers.

Remember, as you gather your supplies needed to kill people, the sheriff is the highest law in the land.
Or so many gun worshippers claim.

No forum members were harmed in the making of this message.

sarisataka will probably quit the internet

But will endeavor to carry on

...according to SCOTUS the RKBA is a right of individuals. Since it is impossible to keep and bear without first obtaining, which do you think embraces Democratic ideals? Here's the options:
First is to buy one at a licensed store from a licensed operator. These are easiest to regulate and audit.
Second is buy one from a friend or just a guy who placed an ad on the web. Regulation here depends on the individuals.
Third is to steal one or get one from someone who is breaking the law by selling it.

Eliminating the first option adds to those taking options two and three. Learn from history, from Prohibition. Arms are an enumerated right, alcohol is not.

But I have considered my needs at this time and determined I do not need to purchase an umpteenth gun nor do I need any more ammunition than I currently have. Even if I did, I would not travel several days to LA county to make such purchases.

I am inferring several points from your response:
- communities may regulate and even prohibit businesses. I agree with this to a point. I do not think communities may entirely prohibit businesses that are protected by the Constitution or SCOTUS ruling, abortion clinics for example

- law enforcement may, in the absence of community regulations, decide on their own which businesses must close. Any business not specifically named as essential by order may be allowed to operate or not at the whim of the local law enforcement chief.

- you are in agreement that sheriff's are able to disregard higher authority in their position as the highest level of law enforcement in their domain.

- lastly, though the Constitution may guarantee a right, that guarantee does not extend to the means to exercise that right. For example the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from abridging the freedom of the press, but this does not mean a sheriff needs to allow a newspaper to print or distribute its papers, or by extension he may deem a television station's studio and transmitter facility to be "non-essential" and order them closed.

Please elaborate if I have drawn any incorrect conclusions.

I have no need to stop you. Everyone has the ability and perhaps right to be wrong as long as no one else is harmed.

I totally disagree with the 'sheriff is sovereign' idea that seems to be supported (nearly) exclusively by gun lovers.

-- one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty

Is that I agree the sheriff is not sovereign. Yet that is the role the LA sheriff is taking on himself.

I do not believe such decisions should be left to the police.

- communities may regulate and even prohibit businesses. I agree with this to a point. I do not think communities may entirely prohibit businesses that are protected by the Constitution or SCOTUS ruling, abortion clinics for example

i believe there are a few states attempting to do just that to abortion clinics.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/22/21189847/coronavirus-ohio-abortion-elective-surgeries

the LA County Counsel actually ruled in favor of gun-sellers in one of the most gun-hostile municipalities around.

But you're right, rather than have law enforcement define "essential", the governor's office - the issuer of the executive order - should clarify. This is just laziness or cowardice on the part of the governor's office.

As to the sheriff ignoring the County Counsel, there is probably no legal mechanism to force the Sheriff to comply because the Counsel is issuing a legal opinion, not a court order. If a court ruled that the gun stores could not be closed under the executive order, then the Sheriff would be bound to comply.

Of course, the fact that the County Counsel said that the closure order doesn't apply to gun-sellers means that the Sheriff's contrary action are likely to be contested in court, and assuming that an attorney knows more about the law than a sheriff, the Sheriff is likely to lose and then be bound by a court order.

I had read counsel as council. One letter makes a big difference.

I don't believe it is the job of law enforcement to determine my needs, be it guns, strippers or lavender scented shampoos. The governor's office such have provided clear guidance, especially regarding a business that would obviously be controversial whether declared essential or nonessential.

I see that the NRA plans to file a lawsuit. Of course it will not only be against LA county but the entire state of California. The sheriff's action may have widespread unintended consequences.

be it guns, strippers or lavender scented shampoos."

hm someone has an interesting night planed.

Are the liquor stores still open?

Are open. Most states have them on the list of essential businesses. Colorado also has allowed marijuana shops to remain open for business.