Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018

a reply to: Xcalibur254

easy,if they charge it as a felony voting rights gone article said either 15 years or a fine so i would assume it would be used on a sliding scale so to speak ,wear a mask where a riot breaks out at a protest get a fine,smack some one with a pole while wearing a mask get up to 15 years in jail. the article didn't say if it would be a felony or a misdemeanor but it most states you get a felony you loose voting rights permanently

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: toms54

How do they define wearing a mask or in disguise? Couldn't posting anonymously on a website or using a VPN to hide your IP address also be considered a form of disguise?

As we've seen in the past, if we give the government an inch they'll always take a mile.

Can you wear a VPN?

I don’t know if you ever read a law book but they usually define terms such as that. Wearing a mask while robbing a bank is punishable by a life sentence. Why? Because they want to discourage would be bank robbers from wearing a mask because it’s hard to identify the person in a mask. I presume this is a similar law being proposed here. It makes sense. I’m all for it.

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: toms54

I hope so too. If you want to protest, do it peacefully. Otherwise, go to jail. Something everyone can agree on.

Although I agree with that in general, would the United States even exist if our founders only protested peacefully?

Protesting is one thing, wearing a mask and attacking people and property is not protesting.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

It's funny how it's always the side that says we need the Second Amendment so we can defend ourselves from a corrupt government is the same side that demands protests against a corrupt government be peaceful.

It’s just simply not a protest if you are attacking people or property. You wanna wear a mask and attack people or property? That’s fine but don’t call it a protest.

Wear your mask do your thing get 15 years, peace out Girl Scout.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

I seem to recall plenty of peaceful protests in the Occupy days that ended with police brutality. Is it any surprise that when you mace enough students sitting peacefully that eventually there's some pushback?

I may not 100% agree with antifa's methods, not you reap what you sow. If these protesters are going to get beaten and bloodied regardless of if they're protesting peacefully or not, can you really blame them for fighting back?

Just don’t wear a mask hahaha good law

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: Xcalibur254

easy,if they charge it as a felony voting rights gone article said either 15 years or a fine so i would assume it would be used on a sliding scale so to speak ,wear a mask where a riot breaks out at a protest get a fine,smack some one with a pole while wearing a mask get up to 15 years in jail. the article didn't say if it would be a felony or a misdemeanor but it most states you get a felony you loose voting rights permanently

15 years would be considered a third degree felony. The longest sentence for a misdemeanor would be for the first degree misdemeanor and that carries a maximum one year sentence.

a reply to: toms54

While the law is called the unmasking ANTIFA Act, it would apply to anyone involved in a violent protest wearing a mask. 15 years for the offense might keep people's faces visible.

This is definitely a slippery slope.

ANTIFA wears masks deliberately to obfuscate ID when they loot, burn and damage public property. Many of those harmed in the protests are hard-working business owners' storefronts. They are trying to get by like you and me.


They use violence to fight what they see as fascism without recognizing the irony. In my opinion, ANTIFA aren't worth the gunpowder to blow them to hell.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

As I said, I don't 100% agree with antifa's tactics. At the same time though we shouldn't really be surprised at their emergence. The past few decades have shown that all peaceful protest gets you is a boot on the back of your neck.

So now that people are standing up to such corruption the government wants everyone to play nice? Absolutely laughable.

I certainly don't want to see innocent people get hurt. But the government demanding peace when they've been responding with violence is hypocritical at best.

Oh PLEASE STOP the hyperbola .

Here lets look at some peaceful protesters that yes some faced brutality but PEACEFULLY CHANGED THE WORLD.

the tea party.
like their views or hate them the FACT is they had protests, LEGALLY DONE, when necessary got permits, NEVER LEFT A MESS for someone else to clean up, NEVER WORE MASK, never used violence, didn't try physical intimidation (sorry just because you dont like their message it isnt physical intimidation) , didnt block businesses or streets, and guess what.
they won and were a force to be dealt with.

ok I am betting someone is gonna go ape guano because they were "conservatives, republicans" or other such clap trap.

lets look at a group that the left (least in lip service) supports

MLK civil rights group.

He INSISTED ON PEACE AND WOULD NOT SUPPORT violence being used,
his protesters didn't break any laws (per say), didn't block streets, didn't block businesses , NEVER ENGAGED in violent attacks on ANYONE (unlike antifa), got permits to march when necessary (like in washington dc) , NEVER WORE MASKS, and never left messes like OWS and other liberal groups of today.
Also like to point out unlike OWS (for example) who were given LAWFUL LEGAL orders to disperse and force was ONLY USED when they crossed the legal line.
MLK marchers LEGALLY protesting (by any stretch you care to use) were OPENLY AND ILLEGALLY ATTACKED , arrested (sorry but OWS most arrests were legal) and some even gave their lives.

BUT STILL NEVER USED VIOLENCE.

they CHANGED THE WORLD .

So cut the CRAP that "peaceful protesters" cannot make a difference

BTW one critical point that must be made is what the protesters are asking for MUST BE WANTED AND SUPPORTED by the population as a MAJORITY.

I am sorry but claiming you "need to wake people up" and "by any means necessary" isnt a valid reason to act like the people do that this law is made for.

those are the attitudes of the brown shirts (nazi) , the black shirts (Mussolini facists) and the cultural revolution of MAO in china.

scrounger

originally posted by: NightVision
ANTIFA wears masks deliberately to obfuscate ID when they loot, burn and damage public property. Many of those harmed in the protests are hard-working business owners' storefronts. They are trying to get by like you and me.

They use violence to fight what they see as fascism without recognizing the irony. In my opinion, ANTIFA aren't worth the gunpowder to blow them to hell.

Im sorry but this was so well written and cuts though the bullstick of those against this law.

Scrounger

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: Xcalibur254

easy,if they charge it as a felony voting rights gone article said either 15 years or a fine so i would assume it would be used on a sliding scale so to speak ,wear a mask where a riot breaks out at a protest get a fine,smack some one with a pole while wearing a mask get up to 15 years in jail. the article didn't say if it would be a felony or a misdemeanor but it most states you get a felony you loose voting rights permanently

really?
your worried about someone who hides their face with a mask SO THEY DONT GET IDENTIFIED FOR COMMITTING A CRIME , especially a violent one not being able to vote?

So your ok with someone who for example hits YOU over the head with a pipe because you dont believe what he/she does and THEY KNOW ITS WRONG/ILLEGAL so they wear a mask VOTING?

Im sorry but this has to be the stupidest defense of voters rights I have ever heard.

Look they wear a mask BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT TO GET CAUGHT doing something ILLEGAL.

which part of this dont you get?

SMH

Scrounger

Look if someone is wearing a mask they KNOW what they are doing is wrong and most of the time ILLEGAL.

Hence that is why they do it.

Outside of say of a sub zero day , your protecting your face on a job site, a bandana while driving or riding on a motorcycle (or other open air vehicle), there is no legit reason to wear a mask during a protest.

On one hand it is a fair fear by wearing a mask your up to something illegal or your cause is immoral (ex KKK, neo nazi, street gang member) .

But lets say it is a noble cause that the PUBLIC at large might support.
by wearing your mask you are saying you really are not supporting your cause .

Look did the tea party (like them or hate them) wear masks?
did trump supporters (again wither you like him or not is irrelevant) wear masks?

or even more important......
did MLK civil rights marchers wear masks?

No and they changed the world.

Scrounger

Look I keep hearing its "a slippery slope, what if they use it for those commenting using a vpn".

I am sorry for my bluntness but THATS A LOAD OF PURE INDUSTRIAL GRADE FOOT DEEP BULL MANURE.

First wearing a mask is a PHYSICAL ACT. In short IN PERSON NOT ON A COMPUTER.
comparing apples to car tires .

Second to "drift" it would have to be ACTUALLY written in the law.
if one attempted to use it as proposed on the computer some judge along the way would laugh this out of court.

Lastly.....
there are ALREADY LAWS (alot before the patriot act) that say you cannot b on the internet , social media, ect, and make illegal threats, calls for violence , ect.
If you attempt to hide your id in making them that is ALSO ILLEGAL.
be you not giving your name, using a library computer, a smart phone, or even a VPN.
if it is a serious and illegal enough they will go find you and all those things will be used against you because it shows INTENT to evade the law.

this law even if what you all claim it could be turned into would not make it any more , worse, or "police state" than what already is on the books.

IMO this claim is just an EXCUSE to protect those doing ILLEGAL and harmfull things because (directly or indirectly) you support the mask wearers cause.

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

Anything that chips away at the First Amendment is a good thing in your book? How would you feel about a law that allowed the police to inspect your gun collection without a warrant? Would that be okay? Or would that be your own "slippery slope?"

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: toms54

How do they define wearing a mask or in disguise? Couldn't posting anonymously on a website or using a VPN to hide your IP address also be considered a form of disguise?

Using an online persona to get under someones skin and openly attacking people in the street are two different things. The internet can't burn down my house or bash me over the head with a bike lock.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: scrounger

Anything that chips away at the First Amendment is a good thing in your book? How would you feel about a law that allowed the police to inspect your gun collection without a warrant? Would that be okay? Or would that be your own "slippery slope?"

wow the hyperbola in your statement is just sad bordering on pure bs.

but to be fair lets take it point by point.

one...it does NOT "chip away at the first amendment"
you have the right to PEACEFUL protest. this is DIRECTLY WRITTEN .
it does not give you the right to break the law, commit violence and/or hide your identity .
in fact someone here already has pointed out the law and MULTIPLE rulings that YOU NEVER HAD THE RIGHT to wear a mask when protesting.

in fact this law is DIRECT RESULT OF VIOLENCE by antifa and wearing of the mask to escape justice .
also there is no cry of "first amendment" to the laws (and court rulings) of not wearing a mask in a bank, federal building, or wearing when committing a crime.

fail of point one

two...."How would you feel about a law that allowed the police to inspect your gun collection without a warrant?"
well we ALREADY HAVE an amendment in the bill of rights that protects against "unreasonable search and seizure"
you may have heard of it.. its called the "fourth amendment"
so this issue overall (not just for guns) has ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH multiple times.
not only except for LIMITED exception is the well established law of the land.
to be factual if one gets a class III licence to own an automatic weapon you give them that right at ANY TIME to see THAT SPECIFIC WEAPON(S) that fall under that licence.
so your point is not only a fail but shows blatant willful ignorance of facts because it does not support your point.

in short if your trying to make your case a little research and common sense goes a long way in prepping your argument
failure to do so and presenting things like this not only hurts whatever point your trying to make .


Scrounger

originally posted by: Konduit

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: toms54

How do they define wearing a mask or in disguise? Couldn't posting anonymously on a website or using a VPN to hide your IP address also be considered a form of disguise?

Using an online persona to get under someones skin and openly attacking people in the street are two different things. The internet can't burn down my house or bash me over the head with a bike lock.

shhh people trying to defend wearing masks and antifa dont like it when you put undisputed facts like this.

makes them angry

scrounger

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The gist of the proposed law: Source

Ҥ 250. Interference with protected rights while in disguise

“(a) In General.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, while in disguise, including while wearing a mask, injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

“(b) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to deter any law enforcement officer from lawfully carrying out the duties of his office; and no law enforcement officer shall be considered to be in violation of this section for lawfully carrying out the duties of his office or lawfully enforcing ordinances and laws of the United States, the District of Columbia, any of the several States, or any political subdivision of a State. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ‘law enforcement officer’ means any officer of the United States, the District of Columbia, a State, or political subdivision of a State, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of, or make arrests because of, offenses against the United States, the District of Columbia, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.”.

(b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item related to section 249 the following:


“250. Interference with protected rights while in disguise. ”.
SEC. 3. DESTROYING BUILDINGS OR PROPERTY WITHIN SPECIAL MARITIME AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WHILE IN DISGUISE.

Section 1363 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “Whoever, during the commission of an offense under this section, wears a disguise, including a mask, shall, in addition to any term of imprisonment otherwise imposed under this section, be imprisoned for 2 years.”.

Excellent observations Gryph!

Many can can see it makes sense that someone committing crimes would like to not be identified. This law might deter people who can't hide behind a mask while trying to intimidate or physically harm others and for whatever reason they do this, they should be arrested.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: dawnstar

Bee keepers, fencing, American football, Ice hockey. It just goes on and on....

YES for all of those examples of a mask, IF they are wearing one while committing a crime then it sure seems very practical to arrest and convict.

a reply to: Konduit

Read the law though. It is extremely vague and mentions multiple scenarios where it can be applied. Not just violent acts.