Mask violations anyone?

[rtp]

Yep, 6 months before the election so only 2 years...

Yep. Im constantly trying to get people to vote from both sides of the aisle for change in their primaries. Just showing up for the general election will continue to result in the sameo sameo. Both sides need to get some folks in there that will do the people's work for whom they represent and not some national agenda. Im really trying to figure out if Im going to cast a vote for Cornyn or just sit that one out.

[Playa]

I was just noting that many people probably think (from reading various threads in this and other forums) because this is a presidential election year, it is also for the governor.

I think many people believe they are going to vote Abbott out in about 4 months and that simply isn’t true.

That was my only intent.

Well Abbott can fornicate himself and the wheel chair he rolled in on. I don’t care whether that is today, 4 months from today of 30 months from now.

(April 27 th) Abbott: “Individuals are encouraged to wear appropriate face coverings, but no jurisdiction can impose a civil or criminal penalty for failure to wear a face covering.”

(July 3rd) also Abbott: you don’t wear a face mask you can be fined.

I’ll tolerate a lot of bull from politicians, but complete flip flopping in 60 days indicates you have ZERO principal

[Shane]

The current Texas law allows for a disaster declaration by the governor and his orders are criminal law.

The Constable above makes the claim that it has to be a legislative passed law ... OR... the product of a regulatory authority passed by legislation. The problem is that the governor IS a regularity authority passed by the legislature.

What is your take on the wording from Abbott's proclamation here?

Following a verbal or written warning for a first-time violator of this facecovering requirement, a person’s second violation shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $250. Each subsequent violation shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $250 per violation.

Local law enforcement and other local officials, as appropriate, can and should enforce this executive order, Executive Order GA-28, and other effective executive orders, as well as local restrictions that are consistent with this executive order and other effective executive orders. But no law enforcement or other official may detain, arrest, or confine in jail any person for a violation of this executive order or for related non-violent, non-felony offenses that are predicated on a violation of this executive order; provided, however, that any official with authority to enforce this executive order may act to enforce trespassing laws and remove violators at the request of a business establishment or other property owner.

This executive order hereby prohibits confinement in jail as a penalty for the
violation of any face-covering order by any jurisdiction.

If I'm reading it correctly, a fine for any violation after the 1st warning could be subject to a fine, but the fine could be zero or any other amount that is less than $250. Who sets the local fine? Judge? Mayor?

But then the next paragraph doesn't appear to require enforcement. It simply says that local law enforcement and other officials can and should enforce it. The governor is requesting enforcement. But it doesn't say "shall enforce", which would require it. Right?

https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/covid/EO-GA-29-use-of-face-coverings-during-COVID-19-IMAGE-07-02-2020%20%281%29.pdf

[tvc184]

What is your take on the wording from Abbott's proclamation here?



If I'm reading it correctly, a fine for any violation after the 1st warning could be subject to a fine, but the fine could be zero or any other amount that is less than $250. Who sets the local fine? Judge? Mayor?

But then the next paragraph doesn't appear to require enforcement. It simply says that local law enforcement and other officials can and should enforce it. The governor is requesting enforcement. But it doesn't say "shall enforce", which would require it. Right?

https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/...%20%281%29.pdf

There is very little “required” enforcement under most laws... but there are a couple of exceptions.

That is why most police work is discretionary. A cop does not have to stop you for speeding. If he does pull you over he doesn’t have to write you a check. It is all discretionary.

It is the same with this law.... and it is the law. If a police chief or a sheriff tells his officers not to enforce it, great. If an individual officer decides not to enforce it, great. An officer is not violating the law or his oath by ignoring it or giving a warning.

I have not read the order however if it says that you must give a warning, then that is the law. It seems to me that Warning would have to be documented such as in a warning citation. Of course an officer could issue a citation on the scene if a person was warned and then refused a warning right there like he would not leave and he would not put on a mask.

This is the equivalent of a class C violation or roughly a traffic citation. These cases are held in front of a city judge if a city officer issues the citation (a city officer also has the option to write a citation to the county however his city would probably frown on it) or in front of a county judge for a state or county officer which is the justice of the peace.

[tvc184]

Well Abbott can fornicate himself and the wheel chair he rolled in on. I don’t care whether that is today, 4 months from today of 30 months from now.

(April 27 th) Abbott: “Individuals are encouraged to wear appropriate face coverings, but no jurisdiction can impose a civil or criminal penalty for failure to wear a face covering.”

(July 3rd) also Abbott: you don’t wear a face mask you can be fined.

I’ll tolerate a lot of bull from politicians, but complete flip flopping in 60 days indicates you have ZERO principal

Great! Sounds like a definite no vote for Abbott.

[LFD2037]

I was just noting that many people probably think (from reading various threads in this and other forums) because this is a presidential election year, it is also for the governor.

I think many people believe they are going to vote Abbott out in about 4 months and that simply isn’t true.

That was my only intent.

Understood. I misinterpreted your writings. My apologies, sir.

[Black Ice]

My company has made it mandatory that we wear one while in the office or visiting a customer.

My company also had a no beard policy so I’ll gladly wear a neck Gaiter until January so I can grow a good beard for the first time in my life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tvc184]

Understood. I misinterpreted your writings. My apologies, sir.

[Gringolevi]

The current Texas law allows for a disaster declaration by the governor and his orders are criminal law.

The Constable above makes the claim that it has to be a legislative passed law ... OR... the product of a regulatory authority passed by legislation. The problem is that the governor IS a regularity authority passed by the legislature.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no local or state law can be contrary to the constitution.

[glen]

I’ll let this speak for itself

[RiverRat1]

I'd be too scared to run, raise my voice, or even say "you can't detain me".. Because if an officer responded to a no mask call and rushed my way I'd assume he's a liberal ******

And I sure as heck know after he did whatever he wanted (beat me, tase me, shoot me, arrest me) there would be exactly zero outrage or help coming my way.

[tvc184]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no local or state law can be contrary to the constitution.

I agree.

What part of the Constitution are you claiming?

Article III of the Constitution says that there will be one Supreme Court and their “judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”.

So it is established that the SC has jurisdiction in all cases arising out of the Constitution. If an issue comes up in what is constitutional, the SC has the final say.

I know of 4 cases of state forced vaccinations and quarantine in front of the SC Every single one has ruled that the Tenth Amendment gives states the authority to vaccinate or quarantine for public health.

It is easy to claim that somethings is unconstitutional. I probably see it in various forums and topics several times a week. Don’t like the seatbelt law? Unconstitutional! Texas police are allowed to make an arrest on a traffic charge that does not carry a jail sentence even if convicted? Unconstitutional!’ During a traffic stop the police can force a passenger out of the vehicle with absolutely no suspicion or reason whatsoever? Unconstitutional! EXCEPT..... the SC has disagreed with those claims.

So again, I agree that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. As of today, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that states have broad authority during declared health disasters to issue mandatory vaccines and quarantines.

[tvc184]

I’ll let this speak for itself

That order, like speeding, open container and texting, bans arrests but not citations or criminal penalties.

Executive Order GA-28 placed the burden on business and not individuals. GA-29 reversed that and now makes individuals criminally responsible to wear make. As GA-29 quotes. . “ Executive Order GA-2$ is hereby amended to delete from paragraph number 15 thephrase:“, but no jurisdiction can impose civil or criminal penalty for failure to wear a face covering”.

[Mike D]

Mask violations anyone?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no local or state law can be contrary to the constitution.

Agreed unless the 10th amendment applies.

EDIT: I should have know TVC184 would
Ninja me on this. [emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[glen]

TVC. That is an email sent by our Association. I don’t think there will be any written but there is always that one squirrel