A buddy of mine sent this to me:
Gov. Pritzker’s Executive Order makes criminals of unsuspecting gun owners
That might be a bit of the bold statement but I see where they are coming from.
Illinois Governor Pritzker issued an order that makes wearing a mask in public mandatory during the month of May. The police can issue citations for people not wearing masks in public and that essential business can turn people away for not wearing masks.
That seems like some serious overreach, but here is where it gets worse.
According to (720 ILCS 5/24-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24-1) Sec. 24-1. Unlawful use of weapons.
(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
(9) Carries or possesses in a vehicle or on or about
his or her person any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or firearm or ballistic knife, when he or she is hooded, robed or masked in such manner as to conceal his or her identity.
So the question here is this:
If the Governor mandates that a citizen wears a mask for public health reasons, does that criminalize otherwise lawful concealed carry if the government decides that a medical mask conceals the carrier’s identity?
I did some searching and have not found an answer to this question.
Alabama doesn’t specifically prohibit carrying concealed while wearing a mask but does have a general anti-mask law, created during the civil rights era when Alabama was trying to fight off the Klan. The Alabama Attorney General said that he was not going to enforce the mask law against people wearing medical masks during the Coronavirus outbreak.
I haven’t looked into concealed carry and masks in other states.
I’m not sure if Illinois would arrest a concealed carrier wearing a medical mask for violating 720 ILCS 5/24-1, I suspect that it would depend on the jurisdiction. A downstate gun-friendly police department probably won’t, Chicago/Cook County might.
If it did happen, it would make one hell of a lawsuit, because the Governor would have effectively invalidated every residents’ CCW permit with his mask order, without due process.
I’m not going to panic just yet, but this is something to keep an eye on that I had not considered before.
This is the way infringement laws are designed. First to have complexities that are hard to know about and which are easy to break.
Next is that there are ways to invoke more infringements by minor changes.
I once read a series of bills by Maryland state representative that only made minor changes to the law in each bill. But when examined in whole would have made it a felony to drive pass a school while carrying a knife with a blade longer than 3 inches OR a firearm.
My friend lived on a peninsula. The only real road to his house went by a school. He would have become a felon if he had taken his firearm to the range.
And the biased judges that keep saying that as long as you have some of your right that there is no infringement will make it impossible for people to carry. See, you made the choice to break the law, you could have left your firearm home…
Florida has statutes against mask also extracted from the Klan era, however it does have it tailored for the Mens Rea of the user.
“876.155 Applicability; ss. 876.12-876.15.—The provisions of ss. 876.12-876.15 apply only if the person was wearing the mask, hood, or other device:
(1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws or for the purpose of preventing the constituted authorities of this state or any subdivision thereof from, or hindering them in, giving or securing to all persons within this state the equal protection of the laws;
(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of the person’s exercise of any right secured by federal, state, or local law or to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal, state, or local law;
(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person; or
(4) While she or he was engaged in conduct that could reasonably lead to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding against her or him, with the intent of avoiding identification in such a proceeding.”
And there is still one more statute covering specific non-criminal uses.
My very IANAL interpretation? Unless you do something criminal or stupid while wearing the mask, you should be OK…. but better ask a lawyer
This is an interesting point, and an important one.
I can only speak to Illinois, because as much as I hate here, this is where I am.
The “rubber meets the road” part comes into differentiating the two: one is an Executive Order: fiat rules issued by a fat-ass puppet who doesn’t know from which end of the gun a projectile issues forth. The other is State Law.
Which one do you think is going to stand a court challenge? In fact, the EO is dependent on “local law enforcement”. I have talked to a couple of cops, and two chiefs of police, who have no intention of enforcing any of this.
Here’s some insight from second city cop. Follow the link at the end, to the memo issued by the Chief Deputy Director at the State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office.
https://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2020/04/good-read.html
Did a quick search of the Colorado Revised Statutes for “mask”.
Only pertinent statute states that it’s “Introducing contraband in the second degree” to bring a mask into a prison. My guess is that it’s the state itself that’s violating law at this point.
CRS 18-8-204 (2) (h).
Two things come to mind.
One is Ayn Rand’s description of the purpose of laws like this, as expressed by her character Floyd Ferris in Atlas Shrugged — the more laws, the more violators, who can then be targeted when convenient.
The other is the Dutch legal (so to speak) treatment of marijuana. They didn’t legalize it; instead the policy was “toleration”. Similar to DACA, it amounted to a government policy that yes, the law was still exactly as before, but the authorities would simply ignore it. Oh yes, only selectively: retail sale of weed was tolerated, but wholesale was not. Never mind that a weed retail shop needed to get its stock from a wholesale supplier; such logic was beyond the dim minds of the politicians.
I emailed my Rep and I got a fast reply from an assistant saying they would direct the concern to the Governor (more likely his office) and was also aske to express my concern to the Task Force to Re-Open Florida with a link to the public comments submission form.
https://app.smartsheet.com/b/publish?EQBCT=59c1681fac504b6ab8da108d52501c92
Getting sporty in IL. Downstate Rep filed a lawsuit and a county judge put a hold on the order. IL Gov is shitting bricks.
https://www.wmay.com/2020/04/27/judge-rules-against-stay-at-home-order-pritzker-reacts