HB 26.01 Mask Mandate Act

[Dr. MB]

SENATE BILL

To provide for a nationwide police on masks to mitigate and reduce the spread of the Covid 19 Pandemic.

Be it Enacted in both Chambers of Congress Assembled,

Mask Mandate Act

To mandate the usage of masks nationwide in response to the COVID 19 pandemic

1. Starting 30 days after the passage of this bill, all regions receiving federal funding for police departments must institute mandatory usage of masks in the following situations:
   a. In any means of public transport
   b. In any shops, commerce or other public enclosed spaces; except those dedicated to the consumption of food and drinks
   c. Inside cars, if the people in the car do not live in the same household
2. People who do not follow this rule shall be fined $200
3. This bill shall not apply to people under the age of 6, nor to anyone with health issues where a doctor has prescribed that the usage of a mask would be negative for the patient's health
4. This bill shall automatically sunset on December 31st, 2021; or when the WHO declares the COVID-19 pandemic officially over
5. States may be exempted from having the mask mandate apply within them if they provide a formal request for an exemption to the President and the President accepts this request within 7 days.

People's Regional Senate
Passed 3-2-1 In the Atlasian Senate Assembled,

Sponsor needed

[SevenEleven]

I will sponsor.

[Left Wing]

This bill is a necessary step in keeping our community safe from the coronavirus.

[Left Wing]

I oppose such an policy as what's next? A future mandate on what clothes you can wear or prison sentences for insulting certain people??? I can't support such violation of the rights of our citizens and I urge my follow reps to oppose this bill. One has to see clearly even during this dark time in our nations history that good intentions can lead to bad things. I fully realize that this mandate would be helpful against the pandemic and probably save thousands of lives, but I can't support it as too many abuses will stem from such a power grab by the federal government against our citizens. Trading freedom for security is always a bad idea.

Ignoring the slippery slope fallacy, how does a mask restrict your freedom anymore than a seatbelt? We should not risk people's lives in the interest of arbitrary freedom. Nobody without a medical condition needs to have their mouth and nose exposed during a pandemic.

[SevenEleven]

SENATE BILL

To provide for a nationwide police on masks to mitigate and reduce the spread of the Covid 19 Pandemic.

Be it Enacted in both Chambers of Congress Assembled,

Mask Mandate Act

To mandate the usage of masks nationwide in response to the COVID 19 pandemic

1. Starting 30 days within 5 days after the passage of this bill, all regions receiving federal funding for police departments must institute mandatory usage of masks in the following situations:
   a. In any means of public transport
   b. In any shops, commerce or other public enclosed spaces; except those dedicated to the consumption of food and drinks
   c. Inside cars, if the people in the car do not live in the same household car is operating as a commercial transportation service, such as a taxi, rideshare, shuttle service, or medical transport
2. People who do not follow this rule shall be fined $200 for the first offense
     a. Subsequent offenses shall increase by $200 for each violation
3. This bill shall not apply to people under the age of 6, nor to anyone with health issues where a doctor has prescribed that the usage of a mask would be negative for the patient's health
    a. A valid doctor's advisory must be present
4. This bill shall automatically sunset on December 31st, 2021; or when the WHO declares the COVID-19 pandemic officially over
5. States may be exempted from having the mask mandate apply within them if they provide a formal request for an exemption to the President and the President accepts this request within 7 days.

Proposing this amendment.

[Rep Jessica]

SENATE BILL

To provide for a nationwide police on masks to mitigate and reduce the spread of the Covid 19 Pandemic.

Be it Enacted in both Chambers of Congress Assembled,

Mask Mandate Act

To mandate the usage of masks nationwide in response to the COVID 19 pandemic

1. Starting 30 days after the passage of this bill, all regions receiving federal funding for police departments must institute mandatory usage of masks in the following situations:
   a. In any means of public transport
   b. In any shops, commerce or other public enclosed spaces; except those dedicated to the consumption of food and drinks
   c. Inside cars, if the people in the car do not live in the same household
2. People who do not follow this rule shall be fined $200 $10.
a. Subsequent offenses shall increase by $10 for each violation
3. This bill shall not apply to people under the age of 6 10, nor to anyone with health issues where a doctor has prescribed that the usage of a mask would be negative for the patient's health
4. This bill shall automatically sunset on December May 31st, 2021; or when the WHO declares the COVID-19 pandemic officially over
5. States may be exempted from having the mask mandate apply within them if they provide a formal request for an exemption to the President and the President accepts this request within 7 days.

Proposing these amendments.

[tmthforu94]

6 years old seems like a really low age to be throwing out fines, aren't most jurisdictions doing 10?

[Dr. MB]

Sev is recognized as sponsor, his amendment is friendly so 24 hours to object.

[SevenEleven]

I will also lift the age restriction for children from 6 to 10.

24 hours to object.

[Rep Jessica]

6 years old seems like a really low age to be throwing out fines, aren't most jurisdictions doing 10?

This and the $200 bucks per offense will put our nations poor, old and disabled on the street in some cases. My amendment is meant to make it so these people aren't hurt. We could also consider an amendment fining based yearly wages.

 

 

[Pericles]

I do support Sev's amendment.

6 years old seems like a really low age to be throwing out fines, aren't most jurisdictions doing 10?

This and the $200 bucks per offense will put our nations poor, old and disabled on the street in some cases. My amendment is meant to make it so these people aren't hurt. We could also consider an amendment fining based yearly wages.

 

 

A $10 fine seems pretty meaningless. There should be consequences for not wearing a mask and therefore endangering public health. Remember also that the poor, old and disabled are more vulnerable to Covid-19 than other demographics, so they need us to suppress and contain its spread.

[Dr. MB]

I do support Sev's amendment.

6 years old seems like a really low age to be throwing out fines, aren't most jurisdictions doing 10?

This and the $200 bucks per offense will put our nations poor, old and disabled on the street in some cases. My amendment is meant to make it so these people aren't hurt. We could also consider an amendment fining based yearly wages.

 

 

A $10 fine seems pretty meaningless. There should be consequences for not wearing a mask and therefore endangering public health. Remember also that the poor, old and disabled are more vulnerable to Covid-19 than other demographics, so they need us to suppress and contain its spread.

But they're also not gonna be able to afford a $200 fine, especially one that keeps doubling. Find some compromise.

[SevenEleven]

I do support Sev's amendment.

6 years old seems like a really low age to be throwing out fines, aren't most jurisdictions doing 10?

This and the $200 bucks per offense will put our nations poor, old and disabled on the street in some cases. My amendment is meant to make it so these people aren't hurt. We could also consider an amendment fining based yearly wages.

 

 

A $10 fine seems pretty meaningless. There should be consequences for not wearing a mask and therefore endangering public health. Remember also that the poor, old and disabled are more vulnerable to Covid-19 than other demographics, so they need us to suppress and contain its spread.

But they're also not gonna be able to afford a $200 fine, especially one that keeps doubling. Find some compromise.

Ultimately the President will be faced with either approving or denying the bill Congress sends him.

The fine doesn't necessarily have to double, although I'm not sure why we would be considering rewarding repeat offenders who should've at least learned from their first fine. Most "minor infractions" such as speeding or not wearing a seatbelt have comparable fines.

The comparison to seatbelts was made earlier. This virus has already resulted in many times more deaths than automobile fatalities average yearly. The sick, old, poor, and disabled are more threatened by this virus than anyone and it's our duty to fully encourage these vulnerable groups to stay safe. A fine may cost $200, wearing a mask costs whatever a mask costs. I think there has been reasonable compromise regarding some of these restrictions (I've proposed some of them myself) and am willing to hear more from others, but reducing this to a toothless law does nothing to encourage safe practices, especially among our most vulnerable who have the most to lose right now.

[Pericles]

I do support Sev's amendment.

6 years old seems like a really low age to be throwing out fines, aren't most jurisdictions doing 10?

This and the $200 bucks per offense will put our nations poor, old and disabled on the street in some cases. My amendment is meant to make it so these people aren't hurt. We could also consider an amendment fining based yearly wages.

 

 

A $10 fine seems pretty meaningless. There should be consequences for not wearing a mask and therefore endangering public health. Remember also that the poor, old and disabled are more vulnerable to Covid-19 than other demographics, so they need us to suppress and contain its spread.

But they're also not gonna be able to afford a $200 fine, especially one that keeps doubling. Find some compromise.

Oh I see what Sev did. Well, $200 itself is fine-they should just wear the masks and frankly deserve the penalty if they don't. However the doubling part is a bit punitive, I think maybe do something like keep it at $200 for the first five offences, and then with the serial offenders get really punitive by raising it to $1000 and maybe even having it keep on increasing from there.

[SevenEleven]

I'm open to making changes if there are constructive suggestions. One of my concerns was that people wealthy enough to not care about $200 here or there if they get caught could flaunt the policy, while the more targeted communities would face a much tougher burden.

One other issue I wanted to bring up was law enforcement personnel wearing masks themselves. I've seen plenty of cops out not wearing masks. Not enforcing this on our own police would likely cause problems within the general public.

Also, it only doubles the first time as currently written. We can change the mechanism, but there should be some way to dissuade repeat offenders from flaunting the law.

What do my fellow Reps think about the President's suggestion?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The rhetoric of liberty too often lleans far too heavily into the territory of self and also short term considerations at the expense of long term ones. It is generally accepted convention that ones liberty ends, the minute said liberty infringes on the life, liberty and freedom of another.

While I sympathize with and share many libertarian views, in this instance I have concerns. Public health just does not lend itself well to prioritizing self interest as their is no direct market incentive to do the right thing, nor is their one to consider the long term consequences as opposed to the short term. It is similar but not exactly the same as how denying preventative medicine to save money in the short term merely creates larger and more damaging costs down the road. At the risk of digressing, insurance companies try to price in long term consequences of actions via various discounts for desired actions that reduce their liability by improving one's long term health, quitting smoking etc etc.

At the risk of digressing even further you get the situation of sin taxes where the argument that you are free to do whatever you want, as long as you pay for it yourself, comes into being.

I am a big believer in personal liberty and freedom of choice in terms of lifestyle, but at the same time I think one should not force other people to pay for your own decisions. In a number of cases the cry of liberty and personal freedom is used to cloak selfishness derived socialism, whereby the long term costs get "socialized" and spread across the sector through health care inflation, picked up by tax payers and/or in some other fashion is placed upon others to foot the fill for someone else and their choices.

If you want to put a bolder font on the matter, that is not freedom that is theft of someone else's property and money. Its own kind of freeloading in a sense.

So with that stated, this coronavirus is both costly and deadly. In a world where details didn't matter, like say some ancient law code with eye for an eye as a principle foundation of said laws, if you give coronavirus to someone and it kills someone... Even in this era, when someone engages in DUI and they kill someone in a accident, that is typically treated as a homicide.

I like to cover all of the bases, and I like to make other people rethink what they presume to know. Liberty is important but one has to reassess periodically whether it is liberty one is fighting for or the cloaked selfishness that manifests every time responsibility is shirked and OPM (Other People's Money) or in this case even OPL (Other People's Lives) are put down as secondary considerations to avoid the slightest inconvenience. Details matter as do long term consequences, yet people often don't think beyond the first order of events if that and many others only take things superficially.

At the risk of really, really, really digressing, I must say that I find myself worried as to whether or not we as a people could in this modern age defeat a Hitler. People don't want to be inconvenienced at all, nobody every admits to being wrong and confirmation bias is always a click away.

[Tamika Jackson]

Mr. Speaker,

This is a bold bill yet I am curious how it is intended to be enforced and by whom? Local police officers do not enforce Federal law. So are we expecting the FBI or some other Federal law enforcement agency to do so?

What is the penalty for states or police departments that do not enforce the mask mandate?

I yield.

[Former President tack50]

Personally, I think 200$ without doubling is more than enough. Further increasing the fine for repeat offenders is excessively punitive.

In fact despite irl Spain having very harsh mask regulations; the fine is only 100€; and you get 50% off if you plead "no contest" and pay within 15 days.

However a 10$ fine like Jessica proposed is meaningless. If you want a lower fine, I'd go with like 125 or 150$; but with no doubling

[Former President tack50]

Mr. Speaker,

This is a bold bill yet I am curious how it is intended to be enforced and by whom? Local police officers do not enforce Federal law. So are we expecting the FBI or some other Federal law enforcement agency to do so?

What is the penalty for states or police departments that do not enforce the mask mandate?

I yield.

Me and Yankee actually had a long conversation on this in the Senate and we failed to come up with any good ideas other than withholding funds

But if you have any ideas to fix the jurisdiction issue that would be great

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. Speaker,

This is a bold bill yet I am curious how it is intended to be enforced and by whom? Local police officers do not enforce Federal law. So are we expecting the FBI or some other Federal law enforcement agency to do so?

What is the penalty for states or police departments that do not enforce the mask mandate?

I yield.

Me and Yankee actually had a long conversation on this in the Senate and we failed to come up with any good ideas other than withholding funds

But if you have any ideas to fix the jurisdiction issue that would be great

Its also primarily why I switched back to Abstain once I triggered the 24 hours to change votes clause in the rules.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must say I am perplexed why slogging through jurisdictional concerns in Congress was the preferred course over just getting the three Governors together in a Discord DM a month ago and getting it done that way. Unless of course one of them was inclined to oppose such a mask mandate?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The fine is too high. The measures to strict, like for example people shall only be fined over the age of 16. This is a bill that will create and establish a police state. I won't support it under it's current form. Also, i'm in favour of more frequent evaluations of the bill. It's no longer necessary when a vaccine is available for example.

I propose a 50 euros fine, an evaluatuon of the bill each 3 months, more clarifixation for who's going to watch out and punish offenders, an increase for repeated offenders (250 euros,) and rsising minimum age of the mask mandate to 16. Children should not be fined, period. However there should be a recommendation for people of age 12 and higher to wear masks. People below 12 year olds should not wear a mask as infection rates among children are lower according to scientific research.

I will propose the amendment in an hour.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

SENATE BILL

To provide for a nationwide police on masks to mitigate and reduce the spread of the Covid 19 Pandemic.

Be it Enacted in both Chambers of Congress Assembled,

Mask Mandate Act

To mandate the usage of masks nationwide in response to the COVID 19 pandemic

1. Starting within 5 days after the passage of this bill, all regions receiving federal funding for police departments must institute mandatory usage of masks in the following situations:
   a. In any means of public transport , including the station area and station platforms
   b. In any shops, commerce, classrooms in high school or other public enclosed spaces; except those dedicated to the consumption of food and drinks and patients not infected with COVID-19 in hospitals in their individual rooms.
   c. Inside cars, if the car is operating as a commercial transportation service, such as a taxi, rideshare, shuttle service, or medical transport
   d. In crowded city centers / shopping streets outside or when a public event is taking place and crowds cannot be avoided, but those areas should be clearly signalled by local governments / city councils.
2. People who do not follow this rule shall be fined $200 $50 for the first offense
     a. Subsequent offenses shall increase by $200 for each violation shall each time be fined by $250
     b. If people refuse to pay their fine, they can decide to dispute the commited offence and bring it to the court, where the court will decide what the punishment will be, depending on circumstances and whether their points are valid. If declared guilty, the fine will be between $250 and $1250
3. This bill shall not apply to people under the age of 6 16, nor to anyone with health issues where a doctor has prescribed that the usage of a mask would be negative for the patient's health
     a. A valid doctor's advisory must be present
         b. People between the age of 12 and 16 are highly encouraged to wear a mask, but can not legally be fined.
4. This bill demands that the federal police, and local police actively look out for people who violate this bill, and fine violators accordingly.
5. This bill shall automatically sunset on December 31st, 2021 December 31st 2020; or when the WHO declares the COVID-19 pandemic officially over.
     a. This bill shall be renewed after a new vote in the house after each 3 passing months, until declared obsolete.
6. States may be exempted from having the mask mandate apply within them if they provide a formal request for an exemption to the President and the President accepts this request within 7 days.

Proposing this amendment.

Proposing this amendment

[Left Wing]

I don't agree with sunsetting it at the end of the year. The virus will still be here this December for sure. We don't need to pointlessly reauthorize it in just a few months.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I don't agree with sunsetting it at the end of the year. The virus will still be here this December for sure. We don't need to pointlessly reauthorize it in just a few months.

The situation can rapidly change depending on circumstances. But otherwise, we could reauthorize it every six months instead, or vote for a decrete that will instantly cancel this bill when legislators decide it's obsolete and not appliant for the current circumstances.