Nanny State

Oklahoma Bill Would Declare Emergency, Impose $500 Fine on Wearing a Hoodie in Public

|

NBA

Oklahoma has a law on the books, since the 1920s, banning the use of a hood during the commission of a crime. That law was apparently meant to provide enhanced sentencing options for Ku Klux Klan members committing crimes. Now a Republican state senator, Don Barrington, has introduced legislation that would declare an emergency related to the wearing of hoods, masks, and other clothing meant to "conceal" your identity in public, imposing up to a $500 fine for wearing such clothing in public, with exceptions for things like the weather and medical conditions.

KFOR reports:

Senator Don Barrington authored the proposed amendment; he says they want to help victims of robberies.

"The intent of Senate Bill 13 is to make businesses and public places safer by ensuring that people cannot conceal their identities for the purpose of crime or harassment….Similar language has been in Oklahoma statutes for decades and numerous other states have similar laws in place.  Oklahoma businesses want state leaders to be responsive to their safety concerns, and this is one way we can provide protection." – said Sen. Don Barrington of Lawton.

At a time of unprecedented engagement around the country on the issue of community policing and what kind of laws to send police out among the population to enforce, this bill seems particularly ridiculous, if typical of the legislative impetus to impose laws restricting people's freedoms.

h/t @windypundit

Related

NEXT: Reason TV Best of 2014: Strippers v. the Supreme Court!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ed (not me, the author),

    Not endorsing the bill, but I have a problem with your interpretation.

    The bill would prohibit a person from “intentionally conceal[ing] his or her identity in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.”

    But the girl in the photo isn’t concealing her identity, as far as I can see. We can see her face despite that hoodie of hers.

    I don’t see how a hoodie can conceal the face unless you get one of those Nazgul hoods:

    http://ow.ly/GKvkX

    1. And she’s obviously wearing that sweater in response to the cold weather. I mean, take a look, you can tell she’s cold.

      Ha ha, made you look!

    2. You don’t have to conceal your identity. You just have to intend to conceal your identity.

      And since our brave boys in black are hired at least partially on the basis of their ability to see into mens’ souls, they’ll know at a glance who is just rocking a hoodie and who is trying to cover their faces because they have something to hide.

      1. You don’t have to conceal your identity. You just have to intend to conceal your identity.

        Wrong. Read the bill. It says “intentionally conceal”, not “intend to conceal”.

        1. “Wrong. Read the bill. It says “intentionally conceal”, not “intend to conceal”.”

          And if you tell that to the cops, why, the cops will apologize and give you a ride home, too!

          1. If they’re that careless about the law, what’s to stop them from detaining you now, then?

            1. Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 7:03PM|#
              “If they’re that careless about the law, what’s to stop them from detaining you now, then?”

              I’m not wearing a hoodie.

              1. This isn’t the law yet, so it has no bearing on their ability to bring you in.

                1. Naive boy wanders back into the picture, naively.

      2. Check out the phrase “intentionally conceal his or her identity” – it’s not enough to have criminal intent, you have to do the act. The chick in the photo didn’t do the act, so even assuming that she *tried* to conceal her identity, she did not succeed and therefore would be safe under the bill.

        1. …”so even assuming that she *tried* to conceal her identity, she did not succeed and therefore would be safe under the bill.”…

          Sarc, right Eddie?

          1. No, just that there are plenty of criticisms of this bill without saying it punishes mere criminal intent.

            1. It doesn’t have to; it only takes a cop who presumes some amount of concealment. The burden of proof then falls on the accused.

              1. You’re FOS.

                1. referring to Stevo.

                2. Copsuckers should not go all aggressive on people, but it does suit them.

              2. I wouldn’t put it past the cops to abuse an anti-mask law. It certainly arms them with the power to hassle the Guy Fawkes mask guys, etc.

                Just because I’m questioning Ed’s interpretation of the bill doesn’t mean I think the bill is a good idea.

              3. Remember too that SCOTUS said a cop can be ‘reasonably mistaken’ about the particulars of the law and it’s cool.

                “Sorry, Your Honor, I figured hoodies constituted a disguise, and my service weapon discharged when the suspect resisted.”

                1. Yeah, I wouldn’t put it past a bent copper to try and pull that.

                  1. You can try to be nice to them and agree with them all you want. Once you step out of line they’ll turn on you like a pack of Yeti. It’s not worth it.

                2. Remember too that SCOTUS said a cop can be ‘reasonably mistaken’ about the particulars of the law and it’s cool.

                  And how is that different from the laws currently on the books?

                  There’s no reason to think this amendment of the law is particularly prone to misinterpretation, so you could easily use this argument about any change to the law regardless of what it is.

                  1. And how is that different from the laws currently on the books?

                    Did I suggest that it was? I merely point out how another way in which the law can be enforced in ways that the drafters of the law perhaps did not intend.

                    1. I don’t think it’s likely to be enforced in court in an unforeseen way. It’s not vaguely written.

                      Of course police could use it as an excuse to detain someone, and turn around and claim ignorance after the fact, but that could be done with any law (which is why that SCOTUS ruling is so awful).

                    2. I don’t think it’s likely to be enforced in court in an unforeseen way. It’s not vaguely written.

                      Neither is the Commerce Clause, or the phrase ‘Congress shall pass no law’.

                    3. Ha ha ha ha!

                      Naive boy is naive again.

          2. I could help manipulate her hood if needed.

  2. An exception for the weather, ones interpretation of the weather being subjective. This is for the sole purpose of giving cops one more pretense for harassing people, nothing more.

    OT: The other day I complained about the ASPCA ads being disturbing and how it affected my grandson. I did not know then that his mother had a video of the incident.

    Here it is:
    https://www.facebook.com /video.php?v= 10152753614888381&set=vb.652143380&type;= 2&theater;

    Take the spaces out.

    Seriously, fuck them.

    1. Ugh. Or look here and scroll down to the video.

      https://www.facebook.com/jordan.g.mckinney?fref=ts

      1. Poor kid.

  3. Reruns already? It’s only January.

    1. I’m not looking forward to having to defend rationality again. I have things to do tonight.

      1. Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 7:03PM|#
        “I’m not looking forward to having to defend rationality again.”

        No reason for you to start now; you’re doing just fine inventing apologias for stupid laws.

      2. “I have things to do tonight” No you don’t.

      3. Naive boy sets new record for “this hurts me more than it hurts you” naivety.

  4. There are so many exceptions that the proposed bill is just stupid:
    “To intentionally conceal his or her identity in a public
    place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.
    Provided, the provisions of Section 1301 et seq. of
    this title shall not apply to the pranks of children on Halloween,
    to those going to, or from, or participating in masquerade parties,
    educational, religious or historical character, to those wearing
    coverings required by their religious beliefs, for safety or medical
    purposes, or incidental to protection from the weather, to those
    participating in any meeting of any organization within any building
    or enclosure wholly within and under the control of said
    organization, and to those participating in the parades or
    exhibitions of minstrel troupes, circuses, sporting groups, mascots
    or other amusements or dramatic shows…”

    1. It isn’t written so that people can be prosecuted. It is written to give cops another excuse to stop, question, possibly arrest anyone they see that they think is suspicious.

      I am betting a Guy Fawkes mask will get your head cracked.

    2. Wait wait wait, “minstrel troupes”?

      1. Steve Scalise must’ve had a hand in writing the law…

      2. Black face make-up with bright red lips will be OK.

        I bet that’s never be done for a bank robbery.

    3. It’s aimed at gang bangers.

      1. Where have I heard that before..?

        Its aimed at the terrorists. It will never be used as ammo against regular….yeah, right.

        It is aimed at the cops. It gives them more power over you.

  5. Sounds like sales of Guy Fawkes masks will be declining in Oklahoma…

  6. Hoodies are so 2012

  7. The law is also detrimental to fighting crime.

    When someone walks into a store with a hoodie pulled tight around the face, the owner now knows who is going to attempt to rob him.

    The law takes away a good early warning device (dare I say, a trigger warning?).

    1. I doubt it will work that way. I don’t see someone contemplating robbery being deterred by a $500 fine.

      Which is the big stupid of the law.

  8. Now it declares an emergency! At the rate you guys are making stuff up about this bill, by the time the Steelers game begins the bill will be calling out the National Guard to confiscate hoodies from private homes.

    For those who didn’t see the other thread, no this bill does not even mention hoodies. It certainly doesn’t declare a state of emergency, not even sure where EEK got that from (JournoList?). It makes it illegal to intentionally conceal your identity with a robe, mask, or other disguise.

    1. Well, look there! There s/he is!
      Tell us how wonderful the LEO’s are and how this will never be used improperly!
      Given the rotten performance of a couple of football teams, we need a laugh!

    2. “SECTION 2. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.”

      1. Facts are so passe’; we can trust the cops not to misinterpret this!

        1. The emergency declaration is bogus – it’s to get around the requirement in the state constitution that bills can’t take effect earlier than 90 days after enactment. There’s an emergency exception, and apparently there’s lots of emergencies to judge by bills like this.

          http://oklegal.onenet.net/okcon/V-58.html

          1. So it really has no effect other than getting around legislative procedure. Doesn’t justify EEK’s hysteria.

            1. Two issues:

              1) It wouldn’t affect that girl’s hoodie. Maybe a Nazgul hoodie would be banned.

              2) The cynical *emergency* designation, just to hasten the bill’s effective date if it passes, is such a lame political gimmick as to reduce my confidence in the bill itself.

              1. Notorious G.K.C.|1.3.15 @ 7:15PM|#
                …”1) It wouldn’t affect that girl’s hoodie.”

                Probably; she’s not black.

              2. If anything, I think the constitutional provision about 90 days is silly. Either give it some teeth (such as requiring a 2/3 vote to get around it) or ditch it.

                They probably just write that emergency provision into every bill.

              3. “It wouldn’t affect that girl’s hoodie.”

                It affects whatever the cop says it affects. If he wants to chat her up and try and get her phone number then the hoodie gives him pretense to engage with her.

                If you are wearing a fucking hat, it affects you. If you have sunglasses on, it affects you. Anything that covers any part of your head or face, it affects that.

                This law is a pretense for the cops to stop you and find out who you are and what you are up to and fish for something to arrest you for. Thats all and that is how it will be used.

                1. I’m sure the laws on indecent exposure can also be “whatever the cop says it affects”. But so what? Where are the millions being prosecuted for indecent exposure?

                  You could eliminate all laws except the one on shooting ostriches out of season, and if the authorities want to fuck with you they’ll say you were shooting ostriches out of season. Laws like this one make no difference in this state of affairs. The only way to prevent abuses would be to abolish law. All law, I mean.

          2. Notorious G.K.C.|1.3.15 @ 7:10PM|#
            “The emergency declaration is bogus”

            And I presume you are going to court to prove so, or are we rely on the good offices of someone or other?

            1. What on earth do you mean, I’m *criticizing* the bill, dillweed, I mean good buddy!

              1. By bogus I simply meant a silly political ploy to have the bill take effect earlier than it should, in the event it passes.

                1. Notorious G.K.C.|1.3.15 @ 7:19PM|#
                  “By bogus I simply meant a silly political ploy to have the bill take effect earlier than it should, in the event it passes.”

                  OK, I thought you meant is *was* bogus, in that it would be unenforceable as a result.

                  1. No, I mean bogus as defined by the distinguished jurists Bill and Ted.

                    1. “NEGATIVE ADJECTIVES

                      “Bogus (b?!gcs)

                      “English definition: Counterfeit; fake.

                      “[Bill and Ted] Speak: Bad.”

                      http://www.billandted.org/howtospeak.htm

                    2. I apologize for the confusion – you were going with the English definition, while I assumed you’d be familiar with the more up-to-date definition you learned from those movies.

                      You *did* watch the Bill and Ted movies, didn’t you?

            2. I think he means “bogus” as in “silly”, not as in “invalid”.

      2. OK, I see. I was only looking at the amended part. Not sure what effect that section has; all it does is say that the bill goes into effect immediately when passed and signed.

        He’s still wrong about the law the same way Gillespie was, in that it doesn’t affect hoodies.

        1. Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 7:09PM|#
          …”He’s still wrong about the law the same way Gillespie was, in that it doesn’t affect hoodies.”

          You’re still wrong about the law as you were earlier this morning, but don’t let that stop you.

          1. As I said above, I think it would only affect Nazgul-style hoodies which obscure your identity.

            1. Notorious G.K.C.|1.3.15 @ 7:16PM|#
              “As I said above, I think it would only affect Nazgul-style hoodies which obscure your identity.”

              As I said above, that’s your opinion, NOT the opinion of an LEO in the field, and AFAIK, is worth squat.
              WIH makes you think this won’t be used in totally inappropriate circumstances?
              Maybe it’s a trust in the ethics of those who are trying to push it through as an emergency?

              1. So there’s two issues: (a) what the bill *means,* and (b) how the cops will apply it.

                As to (b), I am aware the cops could use this bill as an excuse for illegal harassment – or even legal harassment (eg, the Guy Fawkes guys).

                But I was focusing on (a), the content of the bill itself. Ed claimed the bill would “[i]mpose [a] $500 Fine on Wearing a Hoodie in Public,” and accompanied this claim with a picture of a girl whose activities would *not* be banned by the bill.

                If Ed had said, “a new bill would allow the cops an excuse for illegal harassment,” then sure I wouldn’t quibble. But to say *the bill itself* does all this is wrong.

                I think you’re proceeding from the assumption that only a supporter of the bill would try and correct misstatements of its meaning.

                It’s like only a supporter of Obama would admit he’s a natural-born citizen.

                Have we grown so polarized that we can’t even point out factual errors?

                1. Have we grown so polarized that we can’t even point out factual errors?

                  I think you know the answer to that one.

                2. Your pedantry is showing:

                  “Ed claimed the bill would “[i]mpose [a] $500 Fine on Wearing a Hoodie in Public,””

                  I didn’t see that. I read: “Now a Republican state senator, Don Barrington, has introduced legislation that would declare an emergency related to the wearing of hoods, masks, and other clothing meant to “conceal” your identity in public, imposing up to a $500 fine for wearing such clothing in public,”
                  Care to copy and paste your claimed comment?
                  ————————
                  “and accompanied this claim with a picture of a girl whose activities would *not* be banned by the bill.”

                  With the alt text “OK”.
                  Are you trying to out-Bo Bo?

                  1. Read the goddam headline Stevo.

                    1. Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 7:39PM|#
                      “Read the goddam headline Stevo.”

                      Read the goddamn article, idjit.

                  2. All right, maybe my sarcasm detector wasn’t working with the photo.

                    The quote I gave, though – and I apologize in advance for yelling – is from THE TITLE OF THE POST!

                    1. Notorious G.K.C.|1.3.15 @ 7:40PM|#
                      …”is from THE TITLE OF THE POST!”

                      Which is a good reason to read the article, isn’t it?

                    2. Oh, for crying out loud, I can’t quote a headline?

                      Now who’s pedant-ing?

                    3. Notorious G.K.C.|1.3.15 @ 7:44PM|#
                      “Oh, for crying out loud, I can’t quote a headline?”

                      You can quote a headline, but they tend toward hyperbole to get attention.
                      In fact they then to be as factual as a bleevers’ philosophy, you might say.

                    4. Lying != hyperbole

                      I would like nothing more than for Mr Krayewski to join us to give his point of view on his choices of wording.

                    5. So as long as every sentence he wrote is not mistaken, no one can complain.

                    6. So as long as not every sentence he wrote is not mistaken, no one can complain.

                  3. With the alt text “OK”.

                    Which is ambiguous, as this is an Oklahoma story and she’s wearing an OKC sweatshirt.

                3. Notorious G.K.C.|1.3.15 @ 7:27PM|#
                  “Have we grown so polarized that we can’t even point out factual errors?”

                  If you have factual errors, you might have a point; see below.

                  1. That headline is as full of factual errors as is the atheist philosophy.

                    /ducks

                    1. Temporary truce, Stevo. We need to rhetorically flay this character.

                    2. Ok, it is saturday night and I am bored. I will bite.

                      Do tell.

                    3. It’s no fun if Sevo doesn’t rise to the bait.

                    4. Oh well. I don’t give spittle flecked rants and make ad hominem attacks prior to stroking out. I calmly make sound irrefutable arguments.

                      Another time maybe.

        2. Tulpa’s back, and he’s Hackleraiser.

          Go ahead, tell us lore about your reason and eloquence.

          But don’t bother to read the law or anything, just begin speaking!

  9. Where’s our newest troll to explain to us that the bill really doesn’t threaten anybody, since we can trust the cops, prosecutors, judges and juries to always do right?

    1. So it doesn’t matter what any bill says, because the eeeeeeevil government is going to interpret it as allowing them to shoot our dogs, piss in our bathtubs, and buttfeed us until we crack.

      1. Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 7:00PM|#
        “So it doesn’t matter what any bill says,”…

        You’re very good at false equivalences. Did you major in sophistry?

        1. It’s Tulpa. He double mejored in sophistry and hackery.

          1. “You are a skilled debater. It is a pity you have used your talents for mere hucksterism and the advancement of your own greed.”

            1. More a pity that you have no talent.

        2. Hey! I majored in sophistry, and Hackle raiser is doing sophistry a disservice. There are much better ways to argue his untenable position!

    2. They have neither the time nor the inclination to explain themselves to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that they provide, then questions the manner in which they provide it.

      1. Go away fake.

  10. So this is a super awful law. Like really, really bad. Seeing as it’s already apparently a additional crime to disguise your identity while committing a crime, this simply makes it a crime to disguise your identity while not committing a crime. I mean if there were Fades roaming through Oklahoma it would be one thing…but I’m pretty sure they’re all dead now.

    That said, the law doesn’t ban hoodies. Saying it does is dumb and trivializes the bill’s awfulness.

  11. VERY MUCH ON TOPIC =

    when i was in 8th grade, i once spent a day in a friends basement watching 80s Action movies and trying to determine

    “highest single-movie kill-count for an action movie star”

    IOW –

    who killed more people? Stallone in ‘Rambo III’ OR Schwarzenegger in ‘Commando’? Or Chuck Norris in ‘Invasion USA’?

    Obviously these are crucially-important questions. I am happy to say, the official stats have finally been gathered @

    http://www.moviebodycounts.com

    Our semi-scientific junior-high survey required that a “Kill” actually involve cuts which include the Protagonist “attacking” and the antagonist “dying”. None of this ‘assumed dead’ stuff. also, important = Large Explosions do not count as ‘mass kills’. Only specific actors seen going “Oh my god we’re going to die” count.

    The findings of that sample =

    Rambo III (our junior-high winner) = 127
    Commando = 88
    Invasion USA = OMG 146!??!

    (we scored I/USA much lower due to a high degree of “generic booms” where you are unsure how many were taken out. Group Kills are Bullshit.)

    sadly, the Bodycount DB was not nearly so discriminating, and gives huge kill-stats to movies like “Dune” which shows crowds being smooshed by giant worms (incidental!) or “Lord of the Rings” (ppptt! non-human)

    I personally believe the finest single-film Kill-Fest of All Time would be John Woo’s ‘Hard Boiled’, which scores an impressive 307 – and every one of them *valid*

    1. Wow, Jason Statham is like a pacifist.

      1. Arnold Schwartzenegger’s Lifetime Movie Kill Highlight Reel

        Every single-handed kill-clip, from Conan to the Expendables

        These people may not follow my more-discriminating criteria, but at least they are open about it =

        “THE RULES
        1. Guns, blades and projectiles always kill unless otherwise depicted
        2. Close proximity explosions kill unless otherwise depicted
        3. Indirect kills as a result of an explicit action by Arnold count
        4. Kills must occur on screen, or be reasonably indicated through on screen action
        5. Dream sequences, fantasies or movies within a movie count. If it’s on screen, it’s a kill.
        6. People that are killed more than once count each time.

  12. “Section 1301. It shall be unlawful for any person in this state… To intentionally conceal his or her identity in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise”

    Would one be in disguise if one was logged into reason.com on one’s mobile device with an anonymous handle to comment on the H&R stories while in public? The SCOTUS ruled that the police can search your cell phone during an arrest.

    Would a hipster beard grown for “Movember” count as a disguise?

    If I put on an expensive suit for a job interview, but I am really a slob and usually wear jeans and a sweatshirt, am I in disguise?

    What if you are elected to the OK statehouse and wear a smile on camera, but you are really an a$$hole, is that a disguise?

    1. When you’re being held for ransom by a psycho with a rusty lawn dart set suspended over your face, and rats nibbling at the twine holding them up, maybe the cops will deliberate over the meaning of each word in the kidnapping law to decide if they really have justifiction for busting in and saving your ass.

      1. Holy crap! That’s exactly how I spent new years day! That’s amazing. Do it again!!!

      2. You really are a piece of work. Or a piece of something, at any rate.

        How does your comment have anything to do with anything about this law?

        1. “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

          — Orson Wells

          1. I do violence on my own behalf while I’m sleeping. It’s complicated.

          2. Wait. You sleep with rough men?

            1. Sag that the men of the old black tower,
              Though they but feed as the goatherd feeds,
              Their money spent, their wine gone sour,
              Lack nothing that a soldier needs,
              That all are oath-bound men:
              Those banners come not in.
              -Yeats

              1. Goats?
                You guys party pretty hard.

          3. http://orwell.ru/library/essay…..m/english/

            “…Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf…”
            George Orwell
            Notes on Nationalism, 1945

          4. Rough men stand ready to do violence on their own behalf. There is a difference, and it is a rather important one.

            You are out of your mind if you think knights in blue, holding true to their honor code roam the night ready to slay any monster that threaten helpless children.

            You watch too much TV Tulpa.

    1. Wow. I was just watching that video like 10 seconds before your post. You. Are. Good. Like John Edward good!

      1. I don’t have any pregnant mistresses to hide.

    2. Chow Yun Fat shot this thread to death

    3. Maybe you could go debate yourself some more with your sock puppet upthread.

      1. You don’t know the first thing about me, bub. Your name is appropriate considering you are a “jerk”.

        1. Don’t call me bub, pal!

        2. Although I must commend you on the pickup for my handle, though.

          But seriously, stop arguing with your own sock puppets.

          1. Actually, that’s a fake Tulpa.

          2. Actually, that’s a fake Tulpa.

  13. Sometimes man you just gotta say WTF man.

    http://www.Way-Anon.tk

    1. Wow! I said WTF just 3 minutes ago! You are almost as prescient as Tulpa, Anon-bot!

  14. Luckily, there is no actual reason to live in Oklahoma.

    1. *note:

      Tony lives in Oklahoma.

  15. Wow, Stillers suck tonight.

    1. He was pretty good in Tropic Thunder.

    2. You suck fake.

    3. You suck fake.

  16. To Eddie:
    You reacted to a headline which verges on hyperbole, but is not incorrect; that law could easily result in a fine (or far worse) for wearing a hoodie. Don’t bother with any claims that the law doesn’t *require* a fine for same; pedantry.

    To What’s-his-face:
    Fuck off.

  17. Fake Tulpa snowed all of you, that’s not me.

  18. Fake Tulpa snowed all of you, that’s not me.

    1. Wait, there’s two of you who look identical claiming the other’s a fake…

      Prepare for a line of questioning the answers to which only the real tulpa will know!

      1. If you have reasonable loaded on chrome you only need to look at the gravitars to distinguish.

      2. Or copy and paste into a hex editor.

        The 12:24 AM imposter has a Cyrillic A in the state abbreviation.

  19. It doesn’t matter. I just await an open thread so that the brown, brown tears of Warty can flow.

    Time to take down our Steelers-Ravens “House Divided” flag until next year.

  20. Maybe it’s like this? The government has spent millions putting cameras everywhere in order to track the movements of people. Some people do not like being tracked so try to disguise themselves. The government sees this low tech defense against being spied upon may actually work so they out law it.

  21. I wonder are the police exempt from this law? I have seen many photos of the police wearing full face coverings in order to conceal who they are.

  22. But have they solved the baggie pants problem?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.