|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Guy Page
Many of the House Democrats who on Thursday co-sponsored House Bill 747 to ban masks for law enforcement officers also voted last year to pass a bill shielding law enforcement officials’ identities from online searches.
H.747 is a ‘companion’ bill to a Senate bill introduced by Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, now in Senate Judiciary. It would require that all local, state, and federal law enforcement officers clearly identify themselves by their agency and their name or badge number while interacting with the public in the performance of their duties. Additionally, this bill proposes to prohibit masks or personal disguises with certain exceptions for potentially hazardous situations and deployments.
Its sponsors are all Democrats, Progressives, or left-leaning independents – not a single Republican:
Rep. Leonora Dodge
Rep. Bram Kleppner
Rep. Angela Arsenault
Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin
Rep. John Bartholomew
Rep. Daisy Berbeco
Rep. Tiffany Bluemle
Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun
Rep. Jana Brown
Rep. Bridget Burkhardt
Rep. Elizabeth Burrows
Rep. Emily Carris Duncan
Rep. Conor Casey
Rep. Elanor Chapin
Rep. Brian Cina
Rep. Esme Cole
Rep. Abbey Duke
Rep. David Durfee
Rep. Zon Eastes
Rep. William Greer
Rep. Leanne Harple
Rep. Troy Headrick
Rep. Rebecca Holcombe
Rep. Robert Hooper
Rep. Kathleen James
Rep. Emilie Krasnow
Rep. Kate Lalley
Rep. Kate McCann
Rep. Jubilee McGill
Rep. Brian Minier
Rep. Christopher Morrow
Rep. Michael Mrowicki
Rep. Herb Olson
Rep. Gayle Pezzo
Rep. Phil Pouech
Rep. Monique Priestley
Rep. Barbara Rachelson
Rep. Lawrence Satcowitz
Rep. Laura Sibilia
Rep. Chloe Tomlinson
Rep. Dara Torre
Rep. Edward Waszazak
Rep. Kirk White
Last year, not a single House Democrat voted against a bill that would shield the identity of law enforcement officers. H.342, AKA ‘Daniel’s Law,’ about ‘protecting the personal information of certain public servants’ by requiring ‘data brokers to stop disclosing the protected personal information of certain public servants upon receiving a notice to stop disclosing the protected information.’
An op-ed authored by Reps. Arsenault and Priestley argued for protecting law enforcement: “these unscrupulous data brokers and tech giants are profiting from selling the information that puts our public servants in the crosshairs. They’ve built a system where home addresses and private details are readily available to anyone – stalkers, extremists, and those bent on violent revenge. They are complicit in the danger.
“But when it comes to protecting those who protect us, Vermont has a chance to play a leadership role. We should follow New Jersey’s lead and immediately enact a Vermont version of “Daniel’s Law” – legislation to shield the online privacy of our judges, police officers, and other vulnerable public servants from the predators lurking in the digital shadows…..Those who dedicate their lives to upholding the law and protecting our communities should not be forced to live in fear, constantly looking over their shoulders.”
H.342 passed the House and is now hanging on the wall of Senate Judiciary – the same committee poised to approve Vyhovsky’s H.209, banning the masks that protect police from identification by anti-ICE protesters, who often circulate known ICE agents’ identities online, leading to confrontations on and off-duty.
Those who voted Yes to send H.342 to the Senate included dozens of the same Democrat lawmakers supporting the anti-mask H.747. (Several Republicans also voted for H.342 as well.)
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Legislation
If police and the Fed ICE forces are Federal, the state cannot force this BS legislation. Try it Progs. You are jeopardizing your own safety. This is just Feel good legislation.
More glaring hypocrisy from demoprogs. If not for double standards, they would have no standards at all. The difference between now and last session is that we now are in the midst of a pandemic-level outbreak of Trump Derangement Syndrome and since there is only treatment but not a cure, proposing ridiculous legislation is one of their coping mechanisms.
Why not require law enforcement officers to carry placards displaying their names, home addresses, Social Security numbers, children’s names (with photos) and children’s schools?
After this passes, wouldn’t it be fun, especially for retired military and law enforcement officers, to don a (black) mask and slowly drive an SUV with tinted windows around, say, Winooski? This is NOT an original idea, as they may be finding out in the northern midwest….
Why do you want to pass something that may jeopardize future federal funding? It’s appearing that if you took all these sponsoring this bill, and melted down all their brains into a high grade of grease, you couldn’t get enough to grease a watch fob.
43 TOTAL, 26 WOMEN, more than half. All aliens.
Future headline?
“In the Most Recent Manflufactured Pandemic, New Vermont Law Mandates that ICE Officers Must Remove Masks Before Donning Mandatory Masks.”😲😷😳😷
do you imply that politicians hold a wet finger to the wind to see which way to vote? that would make them moderates
The protesters and rioters sometimes wear masks also. So, would you rather have masked rapist, murderers and illegals in your neighborhood or masked police officers protecting your skinny butts?