Governor's Executive Order vs. UUW violation?

[howie]

Anyone seen this yet? Looks like a UUW violation if you're carrying concealed while trying to comply with Pritzker's latest XO. IANAL, but I would think the statute would supersede the executive order. Thoughts?

 

https://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2020/04/gov-pritzkers-executive-order-makes-criminals-of-unsuspecting-gun-owners/?fbclid=IwAR3VP5kqUl8FJSDX0DKVYlWygzLS4Ps-qqJe8dz2hLNOVtB07mYllW4nQvg

[ScopeEye]

Gov. Pritzker’s Executive Order makes criminals of unsuspecting gun owners –

BY KIRK ALLEN ON APRIL 25, 2020 • ( 2 COMMENTS )

Illinois (ECWd) –

Illinois Governor Pritzker might be well advised to find new legal counsel, unless this was intentional, as it appears his upcoming Executive Order taking effect May 1st, 2020 does one of two things.

• Strips a gun owner of his rights while complying with the Executive Order to wear a mask, or
• makes them a criminal if they exercise their gun rights while complying with the Executive Order to wear a mask.

Proposed May 1, 2020, Executive Order

“Wearing a face covering in public places or when working. Any individual who is over age two and able to medically tolerate a face-covering (a mask or cloth face- covering) shall be required to cover their nose and mouth with a face-covering when in a public place and unable to maintain a six-foot social distance. Face-coverings are required in public indoor spaces such as stores.”

Criminal Code

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; (this violation is a Class 4 Felony)

Considering a mask that covers the mouth and nose will clearly conceal a person’s identity, those people complying with the Executive Order by wearing a mask while also exercising their right to bear arms, both under the State Constitution, US Constitution, and Illinois Firearms and Concealed Carry laws would be violating the criminal code.

This is yet another example of a political figure invoking rules upon citizens with little to no regard for their constitutionally protected rights.

[mauserme]

I agree.

If you look at the Aggravated Kidnapping, Aggravated Assault, and Aggravated Battery statutes, they all include as an aggravating factor:

Wears a hood, robe, or mask to conceal his or

her identity.

There is at least an element of intent in that language.

In UUW, the language speaks to effect rather than intent:

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;

[ChicagoRonin70]

So, does someone need to file a lawsuit over this?

[baldtaxguy]

?

[steveTA84]

I’m carrying daily and will abide by the mask order. If I get stopped and charged, I’ll gladly be a plaintiff in a case. On top of it, being in the medical field, it’ll be extra juicy

[mauserme]

So, does someone need to file a lawsuit over this?

The order will likely be over before this ever gets to the courts. And we would need someone with standing. I'd think a competing harms defense might work if push came to shove.

[Molly B.]

 

"in such manner as to conceal his or her

identity;"

 

 

Couldn't that be interpreted as "intent"? I would think criminal intent with the specific intention of concealing identity while committing a crime would have to be present before a state's attorney or judge would prosecute this? BUT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY!

[mauserme]

I'm not an attorney either but I think the language difference between the statutes is significant.

 

But, under the current circumstances of being masked, I agree that a reasonable state's attorney probably wouldn't prosecute. Still, it would be better to not have this potential conflict.

[InterestedBystander]

Does anyone know of any instance where a person wearing a mask, hood, etc was ever charged previously unless perhaps they were in the midst of committing a crime?

[mauserme]

I recently reached out to the sponsor of SB1842 in the 100th General Assembly, inquiring about that.

Senate Amendment 1, which was adopted before the bill was passed over to the House, added clarity to the intent to conceal one's identity (among other things). The bill was unfortunately further amended in the House to become something unrelated to its original purpose.

The bill sent to the House would have changed the language to:

affixes or manipulates a mask, cloth, or garment in
order to conceal his or her identity

I suspect there were events that led to this bill, but I have no details.

[steveTA84]

In all honesty, I don’t think this is going to be an issue unless someone is in commission of a crime and it be an extra charge slapped on

[Euler]

IANAL, but usually criminal charges require mens rea (criminal mind, i.e., intent) even if it's not explicitly stated in statutory law. Besides, government setting up a situation to entice or compel you into criminal behavior you would not otherwise do on your own is entrapment.

 

No mens rea is required for civil charges. You just need negligence. I'm not sure how you'd construct a civil suit for negligent mask wearing, though.

[mauserme]

I've never been a fan of relying on prosecutorial discretion, especially when a bill fixing the language has not only already been written, but passed one body in a prior General Assembly. And to top it all off, I think we might have the Attorney General's support since he was the original Senate sponsor.

[es503IL]

(720 ILCS 5/7-13) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-13)
Sec. 7-13. Necessity.
Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

 

By not wearing a mask you violate the Governors emergency order and potentially risk spreading a deadly communicable disease to the community and/or your family.

[TomKoz]

^^^. ONLY if you are infected !!! ^^^

 

Ive never been good at taking unlawful orders !

[crash7]

(720 ILCS 5/7-13) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-13) Sec. 7-13. Necessity. Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct.(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

 

By not wearing a mask you violate the Governors emergency order and potentially risk spreading a deadly communicable disease to the community and/or your family.

 

If the community doesn’t want the risk of ME possibly infecting THEM, then THEY can stay home.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[defaultdotxbe]

IANAL, but usually criminal charges require mens rea (criminal mind, i.e., intent) even if it's not explicitly stated in statutory law. Besides, government setting up a situation to entice or compel you into criminal behavior you would not otherwise do on your own is entrapment.

 

No mens rea is required for civil charges. You just need negligence. I'm not sure how you'd construct a civil suit for negligent mask wearing, though.

Hypothetically (I don't think anyone will be charged under this) I think they would go the other way with it. You intended to carry a gun, there was no government compulsion vrooms you to carry a gun, so you carrying a gun was negligent

[Quiet Observer]

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-13) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-13) Sec. 7-13. Necessity. Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct.(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

 

By not wearing a mask you violate the Governors emergency order and potentially risk spreading a deadly communicable disease to the community and/or your family.

If the community doesn’t want the risk of ME possibly infecting THEM, then THEY can stay home.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Do you also claim the right to drive any speed that you wish on any road in any lane or on the sidewalk, and if the public does not want to be injured, they can stay home?

[crash7]

 

 

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-13) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-13) Sec. 7-13. Necessity. Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct.(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

 

By not wearing a mask you violate the Governors emergency order and potentially risk spreading a deadly communicable disease to the community and/or your family.

 

 

If the community doesn’t want the risk of ME possibly infecting THEM, then THEY can stay home.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Do you also claim the right to drive any speed that you wish on any road in any lane or on the sidewalk, and if the public does not want to be injured, they can stay home?

 

Ah, you’re one of those. Gotcha.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mauserme]

Do you also claim the right to drive any speed that you wish on any road in any lane or on the sidewalk, and if the public does not want to be injured, they can stay home?

We're getting a little off topic, but there is an actual law against driving on the sidewalk, for example, because of demonstrable risk versus the spread of disease based on a guess that a person might be infected.

[Illini2A312]

Someone who commented on the article said that there is not even a carve-out for LEO's under the statute from 720 ILCS 5/24-1 through 10 (wouldn't be surprised if this was listed elsewhere in the statute though).

 

Also, what would this mean for FFL's who need to wear masks, shooting ranges (some ranges are starting to open back up with social distancing and masks required), etc.?

[Redlin]

Does anyone know of any instance where a person wearing a mask, hood, etc was ever charged previously unless perhaps they were in the midst of committing a crime?

In all honesty, I don’t think this is going to be an issue unless someone is in commission of a crime and it be an extra charge slapped on

 

What these two posts say..Never worried about it before,and I'm not gonna start now.

 

[Sol-Invictus]

I wish people could read, it says .... when in a public place and unable to maintain a six-foot social distance. I can maintain the distance, so I am able, but I may not. Thus no mask required.

 

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Smallbore]

Many have been convicted without the prosecutor having to prove intent. Our legal system is not a justice system

[crash7]

I wish people could read, it says .... when in a public place and unable to maintain a six-foot social distance. I can maintain the distance, so I am able, but I may not. Thus no mask required.

 

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

What do you do when the store you want to shop at demands it? LEOs can be called for your “trespass” if you mask up or leave.

If ALL stores demand it (and I bet most sheep stores will) then you can’t even vote with your feet.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[soundguy]

Then you have places like Costco where they have been overreacting the whole time. Wiping down carts in the rain?

 

And then there's Tractor Supply... Each cart is sprayed and wiped down as you bring it back to the front door so it's ready to go. The cashier sprays and wipes down her entire area after each customer leaves. All employees wear masks.

 

Overboard?

I don't think so.

 

And I like their new ad campaign.

[TomKoz]

 

I wish people could read, it says .... when in a public place and unable to maintain a six-foot social distance. I can maintain the distance, so I am able, but I may not. Thus no mask required.

 

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

What do you do when the store you want to shop at demands it? LEOs can be called for your trespass if you mask up or leave.

If ALL stores demand it (and I bet most sheep stores will) then you cant even vote with your feet.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tell them you have a medical condition that wont allow you to wear a mask.

The thought of having to wear a mask because of Jelly Bellys unlawful Executive Order makes you sick !

[mab22]

"in such manner as to conceal his or her

identity;"

 

 

Couldn't that be interpreted as "intent"? I would think criminal intent with the specific intention of concealing identity while committing a crime would have to be present before a state's attorney or judge would prosecute this? BUT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY!

 

 

I'm not an attorney either but I think the language difference between the statutes is significant.

 

But, under the current circumstances of being masked, I agree that a reasonable state's attorney probably wouldn't prosecute. Still, it would be better to not have this potential conflict.

I am not an attorney either but I will state this based on a recent civil issue.

It does not matter what we think, what we can prove, what statutes state, what is in the appellate's courts decisions, what your attorney argues, what your attorney thinks, what the other attorney thinks. (Yes im a bit jaded).

 

I comes down to what the JUDGE at the time decides or THINKS is what it is about and ,how that judge will rule based on what THEY THINK all of the statutes and situation.

 

Suggestion - Expect the worse if it's on the books, get it clarified in the statute, get an injunction etc. In other words don't be NICE but don't be a **** either.

[crash7]

I wish people could read, it says .... when in a public place and unable to maintain a six-foot social distance. I can maintain the distance, so I am able, but I may not. Thus no mask required.

Sent from my SM-T510 using TapatalkWhat do you do when the store you want to shop at demands it? LEOs can be called for your trespass if you mask up or leave.

If ALL stores demand it (and I bet most sheep stores will) then you cant even vote with your feet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Tell them you have a medical condition that wont allow you to wear a mask.

The thought of having to wear a mask because of Jelly Bellys unlawful Executive Order makes you sick !

 

From an LEO friend of mine:

 

You could, but if it boils down to a business owner wanting you removed, you'll be claiming your medical condition to a judge in a court room.

Police dont hear the cases, they just make the arrests.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk