Please stop all the fear mongering posts you guys need to read the EUAlaw first the

[Kurgan]

........just a huge came a chicken........

So I shouldn't know poultry in the biblical sense?

[therealnickb]

Oh, emergency.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Folks, let's not be too harsh. I mean, note that his join date is December 2021 and it's not like we EVER discussed any of this before that time. He explained it not long ago...

It's not like we have a 'search' feature (cough) on the site where you can enter "EUA" and quickly be given 6 pages of threads, dating back to March of 2020, which include that acronym and the crossover with threads that contain the phrase "emergency use authorization." You know, right after the official beginning of the pandemic. I suppose it's even possible that, were we to have such a feature (ahem), one could miss where this has been explained and documented, in detail and with links, on a number of occasions, for those having 'such an hard time' understanding it.

I don't really want to come across as sanctimonious, but facetious does seem to fit in light of his attempts to 'educate' us and his offer to 'explain' all of this through the use of poor grammar, a lack of links, no cross references to posts/threads which have explained all of this, numerous times, already, etc. For instance... DOJ Says It's Legal To Mandate COVID Vaccines - w/ Link To Their Legal Opinion... from July of 2021.

If you read through that thread (Jeffjohns), you will find questions, concerns, and skepticism being raised regarding the actual legal authority Government had to enforce the EUA; not just from Calguns members, but actual legal/medical authorities (you might note the piece linked to and partially quoted in Post #5). Of course, there was also this one... Editorial: Could COVID-19 Vaccines Be Mandated? Federal Law Needs Clarification... from April 2021, which delves into some of the 'fuzziness' in the 2003 law allowing for emergency use.

I could go on for quite a while, listing specific examples of threads where even greater detail has been gone into and documented. The bottom line, however, is that you are correct insofar as many 'games' have been played and that the 'rules' have not be adhered to. It's not that we don't "get that" or are having trouble understanding it. It's that many are incredulous that it has been allowed to continue for so long, that legal challenges based on such incongruities have seen off-handed dismissal in the courts, in public, and in the media, and that while one side has played into/utilized such underhanded and potentially illegal means, neither side has completely clean skirts.

In short, just because you 'spent time' researching this doesn't mean none of the rest of us have. Likewise, being incredulous is not necessarily synonymous with a lack of understanding. In fact...

You are badly stating your case (in more ways than one), providing no documentation, and offending members who have already gone over these things, repeatedly, in detail and with documentation. That's why you are receiving the reaction you are seeing. We've already had several members, two or three of which who stand out prominently in memory, who have attempted similar condescending approaches (though, often, with links and better explanations) who have ultimately been proven wrong in many/most cases (though they still refuse to accept it). In that sense, as I said, you're not (entirely) 'wrong' in what you are attempting to say. But, there is some question as to the necessity of not only what you are saying, but issues surrounding how you are conveying it.

Just something to consider.

[sl0re10]

The eua law hasn't been a major issue of contention. We mostly just try to use the eua status as tool / argument to make Nuremberg type arguments about the inability to make informed consent since the research and safety study is inadequate... Which it really is.

[Dan_Eastvale]

He mistakenly thinks it’s as simple as a lawsuit.
Well within the means of everyone. NOT!

[DentonandSasquatchShow]

I love incomplete sentences and the op perfected them.

You mean incomplete sentence. That post is like trying to sell tampons at an old folks home. Not a single period there.

[ojisan]

Tere Hanges!

[stix213]

This is like saying don't worry about any new gun laws, just read the Second Amendment.

As for the Chicago case, they didn't actually lose, they settled. That's a big difference, in that it creates no court precedent of a judge's decision. No one can cite the example of the Chicago case in their own case because there was no final ruling. The hospital also didn't allow any religious exemptions, which is not what most companies were doing. Many companies are allowing exemptions for remote workers, but denying them for those who must come to the office, making the case for outright religious discrimination far more difficult.

The fact is we mostly live in the 9th circuit, and there's no court precedent in the 9th circuit of challenging a vaccine mandate based on an EUA argument and actually winning even though there's plenty of companies and government institutions with a vaccine mandate within the 9th circuit.

[gcvt]

Looks like booster shot #13 causes bad spelling and grammar.

[Paul_R]

How'd that bot get in here?

[DaveInOroValley]

[mygeaux]

Punctuation is one of the few free things in life.

[gimebakmybulits]

Can you please explain what you mean?

[JamesH]

I honestly don't even know what the heck the OP is trying to prove, disprove or even say.

[1911RONIN]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk