Guns and masks

[cdoc42]

My bank has a notice on the door: “You may not enter without wearing a mask.” I asked the teller if she ever considered taking, and saving, a picture of the Bank door for historical purposes after the pandemic mask suggestion ends. It would be a historical notation for party discussions, given, prior to the pandemic, one usually wore a mask to rob a bank.

Just coincidentally, today I received an email directing my attention to a concern that seems to have drawn enough attention to question whether those who wear a mask should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon.

Face Mask Carry Rights Guide v5.pdf (uslawshield.com)

Yes: 28 States that allow masks to be worn while carrying a firearm

Generally Yes, but use caution: 21: State may outlaw wearing a mask to conceal one's identity, conceal one's identity with intent to commit a crime, or other restrictions not directly related to firearms.

No: State prohibits or will likely interpret the law to prohibit wearing a mask while carrying a firearm. Illinois and Washington, D.C.

So- in Pennsylvania, if I rob my bank, I can wear my mask.

In 21 others States, it may be considered illegal to have worn the mask if I enter a bank with the intent to rob it.

In Illinois and Washington, D.C. anyone engaged in shooting or killing people randomly is not allowed to wear a mask.

Interesting times.

[NoSecondBest]

Nonsensical

[FrankenMauser]

It is illegal in several states to enter a bank while wearing a mask.
Yet, banks in those states currently require you to wear a mask to enter the building.

In my own state, for example, it is a felony to enter a bank with a concealed face (this has even been construed to mean wearing a hat, if the bank has signs saying "no hats" or "remove head coverings before entering"). This does not require intent to commit another crime. Entering with a concealed face is a crime.
But, all of the banks currently require masks for entry.

Over the course of the last year, I asked several tellers and two managers at my bank if they were aware of the state law - one each time I visited the bank (which was not often). Not a single one had a clue, even though it is one of those banks with a 'remove head coverings' sign.

I wrote my state representatives, pointing out the stupidity of selectively enforcing the law, because it sets an unofficial precedent leading toward a slippery slope. Only one responded, with what was essentially, "No one will get in trouble if they aren't breaking other laws."
That is a reasonable and justifiable opinion.

But, the law is the law. If it needs a temporary change, then make it happen. Otherwise, enforce the law, so that the banks can adopt a policy does not *require* breaking the law.

Several times, I asked when we were going to be allowed or required to carry guns for entry, since no one seemed to care about actual law, and people were not happy. In two cases, lobby-silencing gasps were heard.

Gun laws rarely make sense.
When you combine gun law with other niche laws, it gets really stupid.

[natman]

I went to my bank wearing a cap, sunglasses and, of course, a mask. The greeter at the front door said I could keep the cap OR the sunglasses, but not both. The mask was non-negotiable. I switched to clear glasses.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

I wrote my state representatives, pointing out the stupidity of selectively enforcing the law, because it sets an unofficial precedent leading toward a slippery slope. Only one responded, with what was essentially, "No one will get in trouble if they aren't breaking other laws."
That is a reasonable and justifiable opinion.

I respectfully disagree.

That is the attitude that results in poorly written laws that essentially have to be enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, or else they can't be enforced at all without arresting a majority of the populace. I respectfully submit that it's simply not good public policy to encourage the enactment of bad laws by simply dismissing them with statements such as "No one will get in trouble if they aren't breaking other laws."

If it's not worth arresting everyone for breaking, it's probably not worth having in law. If it's only going to be used as an add-on charge, then write the law so that it applies only to someone who is breaking some other law.

[cdoc42]

I agree with A.B.

A colleague of mine from Oklahoma responded to this by relating in his bank you cannot wear a mask until a teller recognizes who you are, then you don the mask. That must be a small town - which is the beauty of a small town.......

[44 AMP]

wait, you mean there are places that still let you into the bank???

At my bank, its still ATM or drive up window...ONLY

I say prayers for our "beloved" Governor every night. I pray he gets everything he deserves. I doubt he will, but I still pray for it.

[FrankenMauser]

That is the attitude that results in poorly written laws that essentially have to be enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, or else they can't be enforced at all without arresting a majority of the populace. I respectfully submit that it's simply not good public policy to encourage the enactment of bad laws by simply dismissing them with statements such as "No one will get in trouble if they aren't breaking other laws."

If it's not worth arresting everyone for breaking, it's probably not worth having in law. If it's only going to be used as an add-on charge, then write the law so that it applies only to someone who is breaking some other law.

The very next sentence that I wrote went into the same subject.

It's still there, if you scroll up.

[Paul B.]

I bank at a credit union and there is a sign, no hats or sunglasses but by, "God you damn well will wear a mask!" Quoted part added by me. Also the sign says no firearms or other weapons.
Paul B.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

But, the law is the law. If it needs a temporary change, then make it happen. Otherwise, enforce the law, so that the banks can adopt a policy does not *require* breaking the law.

That people almost always comply even when a quasi-legal edict doesn't make a lot of sense is one indicator that we are still in the grip of an hysteria.

It isn't entirely unlike the power gained by gun restriction advocates after a shooting in the news. What they offer may not relate in any reasoned way to the shooting, but harnessing uninformed concern gives some people an authority they relish.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

It isn't entirely unlike the power gained by gun restriction advocates after a shooting in the news. What they offer may not relate in any reasoned way to the shooting, but harnessing uninformed concern give some people an authority they relish.

Perhaps three or four years ago (maybe a bit more -- as I recollect, it was probably during the Obama administration) there was a video on YouTube showing part of a meeting of a county board of commissioners. They were debating enacting some very strict anti-gun ordinance. A member of the public stood up and reminded the commissioners that they couldn't enforce their shiny new law if they enacted it, because the state had a firearms preemption statute.

One of the commissioners thereupon made an impassioned statement that he didn't care about preemption, he was going to vote for the new law even if it couldn't be enforced, because "We've got to DO something."

You just can't debate "logic" like that. The shameful thing is that people continue to elect legislators who think in such ways.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

You just can't debate "logic" like that.

You can debate, but in doing so you risk an unhinged response and social opprobrium. Most people don't want to risk that.

I've had similar experiences on both topics. The new people on the block were outside their garage in the front yard painting a rifle obstacle/rest (I'm not sure about the proper term; it's a plywood triangle with different height slots through which a rifle is fired). I'm not friendly, but I stopped my jog to ask. The young mother was afraid that people would "hate" them or think they were weird.

Today, I was in a lockerroom and a middle-aged man 15 feet from me asked if I would mind if he removed his mask.

In both cases, the people were braced for a hostile reaction. In both cases they visibly relaxed when I urged them not to be sensitive to the wrath they feared. When the subject is firearms, I've been surprised at how much everyone in a group has to say once I've demonstrated that the topic isn't verboten.


I don't think the virus is a fiction, and I don't put a lot of effort into converting people on 2d Am. issues in social settings, but it helps a lot of people in social settings if I'm the first to signal that I'm not part of a hostile orthodoxy. That's not an ideal social condition.

[cdoc42]

If the goal of gun control is a reduction in the number of illegal deaths, which has been the issue for more years than I can recall, realistically, the only avenue is total gun abolition. No guns - no deaths. Period. The problem is that punishes law-abiding citizens who would not use their guns in that manner, supported by the Second Amendment.

In my opinion, the only other avenue to accomplish this goal albeit, more slowly, is a nationwide acceptance of the death penalty. Any crime in which a gun is used is punished by death. No delays; no arguments over whether or not there was intent to use it, blah, blah, blah. You used a gun, you are dead. If you rob a bank and throw the gun on the floor and it is traceable to you, you are dead. The argument that it is not a deterrent is moot. What is practical is we remove the offender forever from our midst.
And we haven't punished any law-abiding citizens.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by cdoc4

If the goal of gun control is a reduction in the number of illegal deaths, which has been the issue for more years than I can recall, realistically, the only avenue is total gun abolition. No guns - no deaths. Period. The problem is that punishes law-abiding citizens who would not use their guns in that manner, supported by the Second Amendment.

Not "Period." Not even comma. People who want to kill other people WILL find ways to do it. History has proven that. Look at the series (a couple/few years ago) of Islamist terrorists killing multiple people by driving cars and trucks onto sidewalks.

How about Columbine? Most people either don't know or have forgotten that the guns were the back-up plan at Columbine. Plan A was propane bombs. Fortunately, the two losers were poor bomb makers and the bombs didn't detonate, so they proceeded with Plan B.

The worst school massacre in U.S. history -- by far -- did not involve guns. It was the Bath Consolidated School massacre, in Bath Township, Michigan, in 1927. The casualty count was 44 killed and 58 injured. The weapon of choice was dynamite. And it could have been worse. The school had two wings. The perpetrator mined both wings, but the charges under one wing failed to detonate.

And don't forget knives ...

[cdoc42]

The statement was not meant to be all inclusive, but only confined to death by guns. I didn't think I needed to be more clear since the issue is "gun" control: "If the goal of gun control is a reduction in the number of illegal deaths by guns,........."

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

The statement was not meant to be all inclusive, but only confined to death by guns. I didn't think I needed to be more clear since the issue is "gun" control: ....

Isn't the point that death by gun or virus isn't really the issue once these matters are reduced in public conversations to symbolic gestures?

Your state has a law against mask wearing in the bank, yet there is a poorly conceived social mechanism in which government authorities participate that has a bank telling you to break that law.

If we view human history with a view toward the cause of illicit or wrong killing, we might conclude that human nature is complex and dark, but it is unlikely that we would discover that this darkness is uniquely enabled by any specific technical development. Airplanes and pressure cookers aren't themselves a danger to anyone, but unreflective malice can be. There is no solution to human nature, but in the absence of a real solution the "But we have to do something..." does real damage. That damage might be a person left defenseless against an occupied home invasion, a teenager who kills herself because she hasn't been permitted to see friends in a year, a grandparent denied visitation during his final months, or the minor injury of a society of vaccinated adults pretending that there is virtue in wearing a mask even if it doesn't make sense.

We have rules about how people should treat one another. When there seems a consensus that despite the rule about drowning people in the bottom of ponds, we need to do something in the face of the unprecedented number of witches, it's a healthy reflex to dissent.

[winkytink]

Strange times we live in. Around here not so long ago, putting on a mask before entering a liquor store would most likely have gotten you shot.

[Bowdog]

Now if you do not wear a mask you could be shot by someone because you did not. Things defiantly have changed.

[zxcvbob]

So force the issue by entering w/o a mask. The law says masks are illegal; there is no conflicting law that says you have to wear the mask, just an ill-conceived executive order that made sense a year ago but should have expired in a month or two (and replaced by an actual law if it was still needed.)

ETA: I wonder if that's why my bank has a sign at the door that says to remove your mask briefly for the security camera before entering? I don't know if Minnesota has a no-masks-in-banks law or not, but that sign would actually make sense if it does.

[Metal god]

I agree this topic may be a funny story to tell your grand kids some day but seems pretty minor compared to the real unconstitutional restrictions we all had to go through and many still are . In a public "health emergency" (wink wink ) there's all kinds of things that seem to have been ignored or completely changed . Oh I don't know...... maybe how you vote "might" have been one of those things lol . Here in San Diego restaurants or other sit down businesses were/are allowed to build outside dinning or seating areas in the parking lanes of the streets . Well now that things are opening up and inside dinning is allowed again . We are already seeing complaints about those temp structures blocking all the parking haha , funny how you can't satisfy everyone all the time .

[RETG]

You guys have it rough, I have not worn a mask for a week or two (except in a PO) when one day I looked around in two major big box stores with signs saying masks are required and half the people were unmasked.
Before, I was wearing in big box stores that had notices but in local type stores such as when I was furniture shopping, I asked first and in all cases the answer was if you want to you can and if you want, we (the employees) will put our mask on.

[44 AMP]

Personally, I'm ok with being told I ought to wear a mask. I'm ok with being asked to wear a mask, or business saying you must wear a mask inside their store.

What I'm not ok with is being ordered to mask by the govt. Nor am I ok with an eatery being forced to close while a strip club can stay open. OR telling people in church they cannot sing...or other unfair and stupid arbitrary rules.

and when the rule is not "specific mask with medical rating" but is "this mask preferred but any face covering acceptable" its real close to a moot point.

I spent over 3 decades working with, and in respiratory protection in radiologically and chemically contaminated atmospheres, up to and including IDLH levels. APRs, PAPRs, (full face masks and hoods) SCBAs and supplied air systems. Much of that experience is directly transferrable to biological contamination. Full protection requires full coverage. Anything less is only partial protection, IF THAT. And getting out of full coverage protection must be done in exactly the correct way, or you're throwing away all protection.

Just wearing "face coverings" is like wearing slippers inside your house. Provides a level of mental comfort but no real significant protection. When you need boots, you need boots, not slippers.

SO, now we have laws, written for and during "normal times" and they are apparently at odds with current social direktives. Which do you obey???

I'd say obey the one that is being enforced.

[Metal god]

Personally, I'm ok with being told I ought to wear a mask. I'm ok with being asked to wear a mask, or business saying you must wear a mask inside their store.

Me too in general . I had a contractor come to the house the other day with out wearing a mask . I asked him " I assume you've got the vaccine because you are not wearing a mask " ? He said no . As much as I do believe it's your choice to wear a mask in most situations . Going to a strangers home where you will be expected to enter . At minimum you should arrive wearing a mask . I'm vaccinated because I care for two family members who have several underlying conditions each . The idea this guy doesn't respect the fact he does not know the situation he will be entering bothered me . It also made me look inward and wonder should I have told him ahead of time . My conclusion was we both could have done a better job at this first encounter . I had two other contractors come out , one was wearing a mask the other asked If I wanted him to wear a mask . IMHO the last two is how the contractor or anyone coming to a strangers home should handle things .

I'm a contractor my self and I'm vaccinated and I still wear a mask when doing proposals . It's almost like leaving the slide locked back or the cylinder open . Yes I know the gun is unloaded but nobody else on the line does . A gun can't get "more" unloaded or safer but in a way it is safer if everyone can see that it's safe .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

As much as I do believe it's your choice to wear a mask in most situations . Going to a strangers home where you will be expected to enter . At minimum you should arrive wearing a mask .

In recent months I have had an emergency boiler service call, a routine boiler service call, an emergency plumbing repair call, two cable TV repair calls, and a telephone repair call. Not only did they ALL wear masks -- before each service tech or team showed up I received a telephone call informing me that if I wasn't wearing a mask they could not complete the service call.

Masks are certainly not 100% but, to whatever extent they are effective, it is much more to protect other people from the wearer than it is to protect the wearer. The contractor who came to your house should have been wearing a mask -- period.

[RETG]

I haven't worn a mask (except when raking dry leaves on a windy day) since the second week after the first Pfizer shot. And for sure since I had my second shot...probably never again. No one I know wears a mask unless in a large box store; however, those large box stores have less people every time I go without masks and ever one has an out for a mask.

Have had two contractors over, neither with a mask. Never even paid attention to that fact.

And all locations I go have a notation in their policy such as:
granting exceptions for children under age 5, people who cannot medically tolerate wearing a mask, people who have trouble hearing and must read lips for communication, people for whom a face covering would pose a workplace risk and, among others, people who are obtaining a service related to the face or head and must temporarily remove a face covering.

And no proof of medical reason required!

And if you go into a Walmart, Fred Meyer (aka Kroger) and a few local grocery stores, you will find half are not wearing masks and months ago when more were being worn, half didn't cover their nose.