Proposed Virginia bill takes aim at law enforcement face coverings and immunity
One of the bills being forwarded in Virginia would prohibit most instances of law enforcement use of face coverings. The bill would also impact law enforcement immunity, opening avenues by which law enforcement officers could be held liable for things normally associated with “line of duty” actions. The bill’s intent is to “enhance” accountability and transparency in law enforcement. If passed, this bill would apply to both state and federal law enforcement.
From 13NewsNow:
The bill, filed November 20 by Del. Michael J. Jones, applies to state and federal law enforcement officers operating in the Commonwealth. It defines “facial covering” broadly, including opaque masks, balaclavas, tactical masks, gaiters, ski masks, or any item concealing a substantial portion of a face.
Under the bill, officers would generally be barred from wearing such coverings while on duty, unless the covering fits one of several narrowly defined exceptions. Permitted uses include:
* Translucent face shields or clear masks that do not hide identity
* N95 or surgical masks for disease prevention
* Respirators, helmets, or protective devices for hazardous environmental conditions like toxins, gas, smok,e or severe weather
* Equipment needed for underwater operations
* Motorcycle helmets when operating vehicles that require them
* Protective eyewear against retinal weapons such as lasers
* Face coverings used by officers assigned to tactical or special-weapons units (e.g. SWAT) while on official tactical duties
Supporters say the measure is meant to ensure that officers’ identities remain visible to the public during routine duty, while still preserving necessary safety exceptions.
An officer who violates the prohibition could face a Class 1 misdemeanor, Virginia’s most serious misdemeanor, unless their employing agency has adopted a written policy governing the use of facial coverings, using a model policy from the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS).
Agencies also would have the authority to impose internal disciplinary actions, including dismissal, demotion, suspension, transfer, or decertification.
A major component of the legislation appears in a separate section, which establishes a powerful civil liability mechanism.
Additional Reading:
Lundy, K. (2025, November 26). Virginia bill aims to ban police face coverings, open officers to lawsuits amid rise in ICE activity. 13NewsNow. Link.
Criminals first, its the democrat way…
Playing to their base: Suicidal Empathetic White Chicks, and Criminals/Illegals and their allies. We all know the ICE/DHS/CBP wear face covering to protect themselves and their families from doxing which is ILLEAGL in Virginia under (Virginialaw.gov) Sec 18.2-186.4 Use of person identity with the intent to coerce, intimidate or harass, but I’m guessing they won’t enforce that law.
“It defines “facial covering” broadly, including opaque masks, balaclavas, tactical masks, gaiters, ski masks, or any item concealing a substantial portion of a face”
Covid masks? I still see some postal workers doning them.
Sec Noem needs to authorize the below gear for all agents which complies to their bullshit.
Legislative kabuki theater. Just another “we did something” act that means nada. But, liberals thrive on that.
So who arrests the cops?
[…] blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post on a Virginia bill aimed at law enforcement face […]
The Pirate’s Cove
Would “excessive targeting for violent attacks on me and my family because they know our identities” count as a reason for wearing a mask? Asking for those who will be open to targeting based on democratic ill will.
And it cannot be applied to federal officers, since all they need is a federal regulation allowing their use of masks. It is called the Supremacy Clause for a reason.
Political theater is just that.
What about burkas and hijab?
Well those are exempt in the name of DEI
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa.
There will be no cultural appropriation here! Next you’ll be asking about corn rolls, twists and tapered pixies
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa.
There will be no cultural appropriation here! Next you’ll be asking about corn rolls, twists and tapered pixies
You can say that again.
“We cannot have a situation where officers can enforce the law without people being able to threaten them or their families. This is in the interest of giving the criminals a level playing field.”
Exactly!! How can our criminals threaten a specific officer, and their families, if they can’t identify him/her?
How do you know those officers aren’t They/Them? H8R!
Sorry, of course you are correct. Mea culpa X 4.
Wait! What???!
i don’t think the STATE of Virginia can impose a law on FEDERAL po-po. Much as the Virginia DildoCrats-In-Charge may want to put the FedGov cops in peril, somehow I don’t see it happening.
Without getting into a lot of weeds, I can see one easy workaround to this conundrum. Have a FedGov worker with authority…….
“All you state cops that want to continue doing your job while still wearing a mask, raise your right hand and say “I do”. You are now FedGov cops. Put on your mask and go do your job. Happy hunting.”
I hope every one on here remembers
Every county in Virginia either voted democrat or
or the number of people in the red county’s leaned
More left this past election cycle. Stunning
Apply to Federal Law Enforcement?
My Reaction:
Good luck enforcing that on federal officers. Looks good on paper though. Huh. They will arrest officers and it will be heralded across the media but the nullification of prosecutions will never be reported on.
The idea that a state law will affect Fed agents performing their duty is hogwash. They lack the authority over them and what they do. This is more of the mandatory “harumph” of petty politicians trying to cover their ass and secure their phony baloney jobs with their voters. This, on the other hand is likely to have repercussions with the local LEO’s (state on down) doing their jobs. “ The bill would also impact law enforcement immunity, opening avenues by which law enforcement officers could be held liable for things normally associated with “line of duty” actions.” If you want to handicap local LEO’s taking virtually any action that might result in hands on or real arrests of a violent person, that is the way to do it. There are already laws and safeguards for unlawful actions by LEOs and even “qualified immunity” does not protect them from that. There are plenty of suits filed and prosecuted that tell that tale. What this law will do is open the door for pretty much any suit against a LEO, even for actions that are within state law and proper procedures. It is going to flood the courts and cause Officers / Deputies being sued to likely be assigned lesser duties (desk duty) while the suit is heard. That’s going to reduce the already short number of street LEO’s patrolling and answering calls. One other reaction will be LEO’s not taking any action they are not absolutely required to. Felon in process of robbery/ assault, etc.? Slow response so as to just get there to take the report. There is already a SCOTUS ruling that specifies no duty for the LEO’s to protect any individual. No arrests without a warrant issued by a judge even for crimes that provide ample probable cause at the time of the response. Felon fleeing in a car, no pursuit, even if there is a “victim” in the car. Don’t want to get sued if the felon crashes into another car during the pursuit. Wait until the car and victim are abandoned by the felon and take… Read more »
The jack-wagons that came up with this BS we’re probably ALL-IN when the government made masks MANDATORY during COVID!!
Were*