Categories
Bill Whittle Now

I Carry, So Back Off: Threatening $12/Hour Clerks Who Try to Enforce COVID-19 Mask Laws

If you think that mask laws are ridiculous, useless, or just another way for elite politicians to control you, should you take that out on a $12/hour clerk just doing her job when she asks you to put on your mask? What do you think of an unmasked customer who says, “I carry, so back off”?

I Carry, So Back Off: Threatening $12/Hour Clerks Who Try to Enforce COVID-19 Mask Laws

If you think that mask laws are ridiculous, useless, or just another way for elite politicians to control you, should you take that out on a $12/hour clerk just doing her job when she asks you to put on your mask? What do you think of an unmasked customer who says, “I carry, so back off”? Should low-paid frontline workers risk abuse to enforce these orders? Do you get to decide which laws you obey? Are executive orders actually law?

Related: Swear You Don’t Have COVID-19: Are Employers Right to Require Daily Affadavit? [Right Angle]

Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott is a production of our Members. Join us now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkFaPPtlAmw

Listen to the Audio Version

Bill Whittle Network · I Carry, So Back Off: Threatening $12/Hour Clerks Who Try to Enforce COVID-19 Mask Laws

35 replies on “I Carry, So Back Off: Threatening $12/Hour Clerks Who Try to Enforce COVID-19 Mask Laws”

Scott: This is a perfect example of the “burnout” that I mentioned in my earlier comment. The correct response to this story is that the customer assaulted the clerk. He should lose his license to carry inasmuch as he abused the right when using it as a threat in a non-life-threatening situation. Really, it’s that simple. Indeed, if you want to take a deeper dive, this man (if he actually was carrying and was arrested for the assault) would become the poster child for those who want to disarm all Americans. Now, if you want to discuss all the other issues relating to the efficacy of masks or the apparent desire of Big Brother to micro-manage our lives, fine, have at it. But first, disconnect that conversation from the customer’s bad behavior.

Not assault, but threat. Assault (unless the code has changed recently) is an unwanted touching. If there was no touching, there was no assault. There may be criminal charges available for what he did, but making them stick might be a challenge. Not sure about losing the CCP, would have to review those statutes too. Agreed, behavior was bad. Not sure that it rises to the threshold of any current misdemeanor under state law.

A threat is an assault if the person has the means of carrying out the threat. In this case, if he is carrying a weapon when he threatens to use it unlawfully (as in this case) it is an assault. Conviction of such an assault would be sufficient grounds for taking away his CCP. Thus, this man is a threat to all citizens who have or seek to have a CCP

I can almost agree with Scott Ott in his bad guy roll. Unlike Bill, his other job is working in a retail store with customers, who sometimes are difficult to deal with. The whole Covid-19 thing has twisted this country into a knot. Where I disagree with Bill is over the not so veiled threat of the CWP holder. I jealously guard that privilege. The individual involved sounds like one who shouldn’t be allowed to carry. Threatening store personnel because you don’t agree with store (or government) policy is childish and dangerous. Your concealed weapon is there to protect yourself or those around you from physical; violence, not a stupid policy, be it government or otherwise. This incident is just fodder for the anti-gun crowd.

Scott, I believe you make a false supposition in your intital argument when you talk about “something a $12 to $15 an hour store clerk has to do under the conditions of his employment and as part of the rubrik of state law.”

That “polo shirt wearing” clerk is being paid $12 to $15 an hour to stock shelves and run a cash register, not to act as an enforcement arm for a governor’s or mayor’s executive order, which, btw, is not even “state law.”

Bill is correct that a customer on a business’ private property is prima facie in the wrong by defying that business’ directives for the conduct of business.

But you seem to go one step further, expecting citizens to treat other citizens as executors of law enforcement. The idea that an executive order can automatically deputize an entire segment of the civilian population (in this case clerks or business owners) to act as untrained, unpaid and unlicensed officers of the state – even when possibly against their own interests – is anathema.

That abuse of power by governors, mayors, health officials, etc., is where we should (IMHO) be spending a lot more of our energy and ire. And instead of directing entire segments of BWN to an attempt to trap Bill in a corner, bandwidth might better be spent in analyzing just how far any level of government or bureaucracy should be allowed to force its citizens to act against there own best intrerests and, indeed, against each other.

And I absolutely agree with Bill that “emergencies” need to be codified, and that “emegency” restrictions on rights have a life of 10 days, with the legislature needing to enact furthering the emegency restrictions every 10 days. (And I would be willing to hear arguments that the legislature’s furthering enactments must pass by supermajority votes.)

Whoa, fiery , I keep thinking back to one of my morning radio guys here in New York Mark Simone who said back in March they’re going to do this two weeks at a time they’re not gonna tell you six months up front. Bill’s right about the frustration at the open endedness of this. I am also frustrated at the people who don’t share my frustration! All of my plans for the year have been blown and I can’t even plan for next year. I found myself telling my nieces, some of whom buy into it that they will be wearing that GD face burqa until they’re 90

Bill needs to use the term “color of law”, which is clarified in a citation from Vol 16 of American Jurisprudence 2d, Constitutional Law, §256:
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
It’s as relevant today as when it was written. Executive orders are not duly enacted laws. Therefore, wearing a mask is not required by law.
At 12:35, Scott said, “But the law is the law until it is found to not be the law.” This is typical overreaching rhetoric of leftists.
Bill, since you affirmed a business owners’ right to force his employees to sign a document certifying they are symptom free of the COVID-19 strain, the day will come when all employees will be required to take Bill Gates’ vaccine in order to work at the company. Mark my words.

I believe the reason the person in the story mentioned he carried a concealed pistol is that in some states you cannot wear a mask and carry a pistol concealed, without breaking the law. He may not have been intending to intimidate the employee.

I stand corrected. However, our new king, Timmy the First, may mandate that to change at any time now that he has complete power.

Too bad the page no longer exists. Error 404 on my end. Is there a pay wall?

Scott, what is it about some days that you just thoroughly enjoy pushing Bill’s buttons?? As a “free” Wisconsin resident, we just learned that Gov. Evers has issued an order effective Saturday requiring all residents to wear masks indoors until the end of September. He has also declared a new public health emergency in Wisconsin over rising cases of the virus. Interesting that there are exceptions for the mask mandate, namely the members of the state Legislature, the state judiciary, speakers at religious services and reporters delivering news reports. I’m really thankful because we are allowed to take them off when we eat or drink or if we have breathing problems. Also interesting is that this order goes into effect on Saturday, the same day as the state Supreme Court’s liberal minority expands with addition of Jill Karofsky who was elected in April. Gov. Evers did clarify that “It doesn’t have everything to do with it–the virus is the issue, not Jill Karofsky.” I can identify with the guy Bill was describing as just having had enough. I’ve had enough; just not sure what to do about it yet.

Courtesy is the 10W30 that keeps the engine of society from melting down…That said, this country is witnessing storefronts and homes being burned down, people being beaten and murdered, and two bit, self worshipping politicians excoriating those that dare to be disgusted by it.
Oh, and a kid was offended by a guy who acted like a jerk.
The scales of imagined justice and situational relevance seem to be just a bit out of balance.

Bill, your 24 minute rant titled “Back off, I have a carry permit…” was about 20 minutes too long. While I agree with everything that you said, stay on topic. You sounded like a politician when asked a question, who shifts to their talking points. The customer was wrong on so many levels and should have been arrested and his carry permit revoked. That’s all that needs to be said. Stay on topic.

I have a friend whose canned response to “sir, we require a face covering in this store” is “Then I guess you don’t want my business” and leaves to go elsewhere.
Part of the ridiculousness of all of this is that the CDC and NIAID guidelines go to the states, they interpret them and issue to their states, the regional and local folks modify and pass them out to businesses and then the business needs to interpret. This results in a total lack of consistency and for the most part business owners are trying to do the right thing for their customers. Especially the small business people.
But, see my comment below. There is always a Heinlein quote.

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

Big Heinlein fan here too, and that’s from one of my favorites. “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”. Which was required reading for me somewhere or other and I still have a nice hardbound copy on my shelves.

That’s not quite the whole quote though, the first line is …
I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom.

That was the character “Prof. De la Paz” speaking to his friends, who knew him as “Prof”. My point is that wasn’t actually Bob Heinlein speaking as himself, though he wrote the words and there’s a little bit of Bob in Prof — In the book the character Prof was a big fan of people like Che Guevara and Machiavelli. The quote is from Prof explaining his ideas on “rational anarchy”. While he considers Thomas Jefferson the original “rational anarchist, Prof’s thinking is a little like the poppies in Oz, beautiful but with a little poison in it.

Then again, some of the best medicines are actually prudently prescribed doses of poison …

That is a great quote, even so. Please don’t think I’m criticizing you, the quote or that you posted it.

I loved the Socratic dialog between Prof, Mannie and Wyoh in the hotel room (same chapter, same context) where Prof asks “Under what circumstances may the State justly place its welfare above that of a citizen?”

Just for fun, here’s another chillingly prophetic quote from RAH speaking through Professor De la Paz —

“A managed democracy is a wonderful thing, Manuel, for the managers… and its greatest strength is a ‘free press’ when ‘free’ is defined as ‘responsible’ and the managers define what is ‘irresponsible.’ ”

I have read and re-read Bob many times. I keep an archive of quotes. Some reference the source, many do not.
I think I have read “Time Enough for Love” 4 or 5 times.
There is almost always a Heinlein quote that fits these topics.
I think I have posted the one you have there at the end at least once. I know it is in my list.

Sadly, or maybe not, Bob was a Science Fiction author not a Statesman. He had a whole slug of quotable characters who uttered profundities but alas, they were only characters in books …

I grew up reading Heinlein too, I have in one form or another everything he ever did. Notes, letters, short stories, novellas and novels. Like John Wayne’s movies, Heinlein’s stories were very influential in my thinking and still are to this day. He fueled the mental reservoirs of quite a few thinking people and left a significant mark on society, whether people know it or not.

I know a discussion of Heinlein is off topic and I’m probably boring you here. If so, my apologies. When you cited RAH I couldn’t help myself, that always triggers a trip down memory lane for me. I took a lot of Lazarus Long’s (Or Jubal Hirshaw’s or etc.) attitudes and views with me when I enlisted and kept many of them, though often slightly tempered by experience and age.

I just finished the new release of “Pursuit of the Pankara”, if you haven’t read it yet you might consider doing so. It’s what “Number of the Beast” was supposed to be before lawyers and bean counters made Bob re-write the whole thing to avoid copyright issues.

Thanks again, and again if I’m being a bother I offer my apologies.

A discussion of RH is never out of order. I would say that my thoughts about govt carry quite a bit of Lazarus Long. I always thought “number of the beast” was a bit off, though I enjoyed the concept greatly. I will look for the other.
There is a member here who goes by Friday, named for that character.

Thanks, I’m new here and still getting a feel for what’s “OK” with people. RAH is a favorite topic of mine and being as you mentioned him … I was enthused to talk about something I’m familiar with.

“Number of the Beast” was the result of Heinlein writing a story, quite a bit different from anything previous but still intersecting with his construct universe — And then being told to re-write it by his editors and their lawyers because they were worried about copyright infringements. It was a lot of fun up until the last dozen or so chapters. It ended really “off”, I remember reading it when first released and thinking “Why the heck did he end it like that?”

In the original much was set in the Lensmen (E.E. “Doc” Smith), Oz (L. Frank Baum) and Barsoom (ERB) universes and that was the sticking point for the lawyers.

I don’t know the mechanism but Heinlein’s estate managed to overcome whatever copyright or liability issues kept Bob from publishing the original novel. They published it and it was released just a few weeks ago under the title “Pursuit of the Pankara”. I got a copy the day it came out. It’s Bob’s writing, every bit of it and I think if you’re a fan of Heinlein you’ll enjoy it as much as I did. Or not, reading the reviews on Amazon people either loved it or hated it.

Heinlein was not much of one for middle ground and his readers seem to reflect that also.

To the person who dropped his pants to show off his concealed carry permit; May I suggest that after taking your frustration out on a clerk in a convenience store that you kick your dog when he greets you at the front door when you get home. Personally, I’d send off a quick note to corporate and search out another place to do business.
Bill, don’t think I’ll be supporting your idea of naming a state after a ccw permit holder whose sole purpose is to intimidate a kid (or adult) behind a counter because he is frustrated.
Yes, I know you jest, however, my teenage daughter is one of those $12 per hour part-time employees working at a ‘Circle K’ being told to go f#ck herself multiple times each shift and if you or anyone else reading this can find it in your heart to be kind to her I’d really appreciate it.

I understand and sympathize, however … It’s up to management at your daughter’s workplace to set and enforce policy. Your daughter then must implement that policy. If management is serious then they should set a policy of not serving anyone who doesn’t wear a mask. Because if they’re not willing to do that and thereby lose the business of people who refuse to wear a mask then they’re not serious. “No shirt, no shoes, no mask, NO SERVICE”

The point I’m making is that if they’re not serious, if they put up the sign saying “wear a mask” and they’re not refusing to serve people who violate that policy, then they cannot expect your daughter to enforce it either.

Then one of two things happens. Either she ignores whether people wear a mask or not (the not serious about it option) or she says something to the effect of (the serious option), “I’m sorry sir/ma’am, I cannot serve you if you’re not wearing a mask. I’ll lose my job and I need this job.”

If they’re going to be serious then the policy needs to come down from Corporate. If they’re not serious then your daughter should just ignore the policy as much as she dares because making the kid behind the counter a punching bag is just wrong.

Something that is too often ignored: executive orders ARE NOT LAW! Tinpot dictators do not belong in this country — especially in political office.

Thanks for the warning.
I often canot stand to listen in spite of the repeated reassurances that Scott is not a demon spawn of the Left. He too often accurately imitates the hysterical reality of screaming leftists which surround me, and I sense my brain cells dying with every shrill sound.
Added to all of that is this one is 24 minutes long. Why are the shrillest often the longest?

If one’s opinion of Scott Ott were developed purely from episodes of BWNow it is easy to see that one would think of him as worthy of working only at Vox or CNN.

No doubt about that. He succeeds in his mimicry of the Left’s shrillness. Fortunately for the rest of us, it seems to be only his hobby.

I would call it his “role” as his hobby was Scrappleface. Though, unfortunately, he has little time for it these days. Really enjoyed some of his satire pieces.

And it’s a bummer that he lost so much of his archived material! I remember searching for some old favorites a while back to no avail

I agree with part of what you posted: “I often cannot stand to listen ….” I’m put off by Bill’s defensiveness, though, not by Scott’s role. I can appreciate feeling defensive; I come from a long line of hyper-sensitive, volatile people. (I struggle with it every day.) I think, however, that the end result is not what you want, Bill. One can see the switch flip: You’re addressing the topic, Scott goads you a bit more, you turn on him. Your becoming emotional is fine; your getting angry at “the messenger” is not.

Leave a Reply