Curfew restrictions: Is it legal to leave your house?

Lawrence Reed3 said:I honestly think that cell phone tracking law is probably going to fizzle out too:
Are they giving up on tracking citizens through their mobile phones?

The amendments to the law that would have allowed the government to track people via their smartphones have been sent to the U.S. Congress for a second reading. Does this mean the administration has basically thrown in the towel?

- The whole point of that law was to catch folks who were mass-returning from ski resorts in places like Italy or Austria when the outbreak first kicked off. But since that incubation period has passed, we're seeing how the CDC and other federal agencies are looking at ways to use modern tech to better spot infected people—or those who aren't following isolation rules.

I guess they’ll be brainstorming along those lines now, though I'm not really sure what will actually come out of those talks right now, said the official.

If it's heading to a second reading, maybe we can assume the crisis is calming down? If so, does this law even make sense anymore?

- Well, obviously, if the crisis settles down, then it doesn't make sense. That's why we need to do everything possible to get things back to normal ASAP. We just have to stick to the guidelines.

If there are people testing positive who still want to travel—even if they're supposed to be isolating—we definitely have to keep an eye on them. It's about appealing to their conscience, sure, but also having the police and federal inspectors step in where needed, the official added.

http://www.nytimes.com/news/US_updates_refresh=true

A measure like that actually makes sense because it's specifically designed to help contain the outbreak.

I mean, you can't expect to get results like South Korea without actually doing what South Korea did, right?
Or, well, let's not get ahead of ourselves with those kinds of dreams.

-briskjackal5

Jerry Robinson56 said:It isn't quite that black and white. You've bypassed the lengthy phase of education... we aren't machines or automated systems; progress takes time, though it eventually yields a definitive result. Do you truly believe (!) it is acceptable for someone to jeopardize their family or someone else's just because they claim to feel perfectly fine? To my mind, it's akin to handing a machine gun to an intoxicated or drugged individual and saying, "whatever happens, happens." They aren't to blame; it's just the alcohol doing its work. These permits are a necessary evil; they could have implemented a curfew instead... Do you actually possess a constructive idea beyond mere criticism? I agree that this choice was unfortunate, but I see no viable alternative. Tell me, have you ever managed a massive undertaking? The objective is recovery, yet most people barely understand what they are "fighting" against, and isolation remains the only proven effective measure through the centuries.

I am writing from a philosophical standpoint. Let us proceed methodically (please... you may pose your questions one by one alongside your own answers, which needn't strictly follow the flow of conversation) because it is the only way to navigate this dialogue given the sheer number of "loose ends." We will inevitably descend into selfishness and greed very soon.

1. Do you concede that movement must be restricted due to the current circumstances?

- Not merely those who are symptomatic, but also those who appear "healthy"... there is enough virus to go around, and it is undoubtedly among us. The question is simply whether enough of it will latch onto us to become the primary concern. Detection is neither fast enough nor reliable enough.

The goal is to explain to the public how they ought to behave, because even without symptoms, they can act as carriers. The aim is to localize potential hotspots. Think of it as a chain reaction—moderation through absorption and deceleration. Not everyone possesses the level of awareness or conscientiousness that we, and certain others on this forum, exhibit.

That is certainly an accepted practice, but the real question is how we restrict movement while minimizing the burden on the public. I opened the New York Post this morning and they’re reporting discussions about closing down Central Park, the High Line, and various other local parks if citizens continue to gather in groups.
Currently, the logic behind these movement restrictions is incredibly flawed, applying the same heavy-handed rules to someone living in a massive metropolis like New York City with millions of people as they do to someone in a tiny rural town with a population of maybe a hundred.

It is the mindset of a mindless, reckless bureaucrat who imposes rules on the population without having any clear understanding of the situation themselves. If ten idiots decide to congregate in a park, why on earth should you shut down that entire park for 10,000 law-abiding citizens who just want to take a walk while maintaining a safe distance from others? Why must these bureaucrats recklessly target honest, decent citizens, when in the end, it’s always the rule-breakers who come out on top because they simply ignore the mandates and face zero consequences? If you intend to be consistent, gentlemen, then send the police to break up a mass at a cathedral! Close down the churches and all other religious sites!

Given that nearly a million travel passes have already been issued, we might as well scrap these residency-based restrictions entirely.

nimbleharbor10 said:That is certainly an accepted practice, but the real question is how we restrict movement while minimizing the burden on the public. I opened the New York Post this morning and they’re reporting discussions about closing down Central Park, the High Line, and various other local parks if citizens continue to gather in groups.
Currently, the logic behind these movement restrictions is incredibly flawed, applying the same heavy-handed rules to someone living in a massive metropolis like New York City with millions of people as they do to someone in a tiny rural town with a population of maybe a hundred.

It is the mindset of a mindless, reckless bureaucrat who imposes rules on the population without having any clear understanding of the situation themselves. If ten idiots decide to congregate in a park, why on earth should you shut down that entire park for 10,000 law-abiding citizens who just want to take a walk while maintaining a safe distance from others? Why must these bureaucrats recklessly target honest, decent citizens, when in the end, it’s always the rule-breakers who come out on top because they simply ignore the mandates and face zero consequences? If you intend to be consistent, gentlemen, then send the police to break up a mass at a cathedral! Close down the churches and all other religious sites!

Given that nearly a million travel passes have already been issued, we might as well scrap these residency-based restrictions entirely.

Not just accepted, but demonstrably effective.
Naturally, the execution is both problematic and traumatic.
Within your own family, you can maintain closeness both at home and out in public. However, I am certain you know several individuals who couldn't care less about such things, so any notion of altruistic behavior falls apart. I have trained myself to be a far greater fool than most, but there are truly malicious fools out there whom you simply cannot outmatch. In those cases, you merely adopt their vernacular, and within a heartbeat, everything is supposedly fine.

nimbleharbor10 said:That is certainly an accepted practice, but the real question is how we restrict movement while minimizing the burden on the public. I opened the New York Post this morning and they’re reporting discussions about closing down Central Park, the High Line, and various other local parks if citizens continue to gather in groups.
Currently, the logic behind these movement restrictions is incredibly flawed, applying the same heavy-handed rules to someone living in a massive metropolis like New York City with millions of people as they do to someone in a tiny rural town with a population of maybe a hundred.

It is the mindset of a mindless, reckless bureaucrat who imposes rules on the population without having any clear understanding of the situation themselves. If ten idiots decide to congregate in a park, why on earth should you shut down that entire park for 10,000 law-abiding citizens who just want to take a walk while maintaining a safe distance from others? Why must these bureaucrats recklessly target honest, decent citizens, when in the end, it’s always the rule-breakers who come out on top because they simply ignore the mandates and face zero consequences? If you intend to be consistent, gentlemen, then send the police to break up a mass at a cathedral! Close down the churches and all other religious sites!

Given that nearly a million travel passes have already been issued, we might as well scrap these residency-based restrictions entirely.

They are essentially trying to rationalize the idea that "everyone" is a threat to others. I encounter stupidity—and even deeper levels of idiocy—on almost a daily basis, and one need only look at the President and his peculiar ideas regarding giving shovels to professional soldiers.
What alternative are you proposing?

nimbleharbor10 said:That is certainly an accepted practice, but the real question is how we restrict movement while minimizing the burden on the public. I opened the New York Post this morning and they’re reporting discussions about closing down Central Park, the High Line, and various other local parks if citizens continue to gather in groups.
Currently, the logic behind these movement restrictions is incredibly flawed, applying the same heavy-handed rules to someone living in a massive metropolis like New York City with millions of people as they do to someone in a tiny rural town with a population of maybe a hundred.

It is the mindset of a mindless, reckless bureaucrat who imposes rules on the population without having any clear understanding of the situation themselves. If ten idiots decide to congregate in a park, why on earth should you shut down that entire park for 10,000 law-abiding citizens who just want to take a walk while maintaining a safe distance from others? Why must these bureaucrats recklessly target honest, decent citizens, when in the end, it’s always the rule-breakers who come out on top because they simply ignore the mandates and face zero consequences? If you intend to be consistent, gentlemen, then send the police to break up a mass at a cathedral! Close down the churches and all other religious sites!

Given that nearly a million travel passes have already been issued, we might as well scrap these residency-based restrictions entirely.

How does one find those ten specific idiots? Perhaps they are simply waiting to blend into the crowd... I completely agree with your stance that the delinquents always get away with it... perhaps even Alexander Thompson will accept that and reconsider his position regarding those who refuse to follow the spirit of the law rather than just the letter.
One cannot generalize, yet it is truly absurd that any gatherings outside of familial connections are being permitted... particularly religious ones.

nimbleharbor10 said:That is certainly an accepted practice, but the real question is how we restrict movement while minimizing the burden on the public. I opened the New York Post this morning and they’re reporting discussions about closing down Central Park, the High Line, and various other local parks if citizens continue to gather in groups.
Currently, the logic behind these movement restrictions is incredibly flawed, applying the same heavy-handed rules to someone living in a massive metropolis like New York City with millions of people as they do to someone in a tiny rural town with a population of maybe a hundred.

It is the mindset of a mindless, reckless bureaucrat who imposes rules on the population without having any clear understanding of the situation themselves. If ten idiots decide to congregate in a park, why on earth should you shut down that entire park for 10,000 law-abiding citizens who just want to take a walk while maintaining a safe distance from others? Why must these bureaucrats recklessly target honest, decent citizens, when in the end, it’s always the rule-breakers who come out on top because they simply ignore the mandates and face zero consequences? If you intend to be consistent, gentlemen, then send the police to break up a mass at a cathedral! Close down the churches and all other religious sites!

Given that nearly a million travel passes have already been issued, we might as well scrap these residency-based restrictions entirely.

It is a necessary evil; the alternative involves expensive, drawn-out inspections and endless hours spent waiting on the police. It’s an ugly reality, regardless of whether this is a global test run or simply the truth of our existence.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Not just accepted, but demonstrably effective.
Naturally, the execution is both problematic and traumatic.
Within your own family, you can maintain closeness both at home and out in public. However, I am certain you know several individuals who couldn't care less about such things, so any notion of altruistic behavior falls apart. I have trained myself to be a far greater fool than most, but there are truly malicious fools out there whom you simply cannot outmatch. In those cases, you merely adopt their vernacular, and within a heartbeat, everything is supposedly fine.

They are essentially trying to rationalize the idea that "everyone" is a threat to others. I encounter stupidity—and even deeper levels of idiocy—on almost a daily basis, and one need only look at the President and his peculiar ideas regarding giving shovels to professional soldiers.
What alternative are you proposing?

How does one find those ten specific idiots? Perhaps they are simply waiting to blend into the crowd... I completely agree with your stance that the delinquents always get away with it... perhaps even Alexander Thompson will accept that and reconsider his position regarding those who refuse to follow the spirit of the law rather than just the letter.
One cannot generalize, yet it is truly absurd that any gatherings outside of familial connections are being permitted... particularly religious ones.

It is a necessary evil; the alternative involves expensive, drawn-out inspections and endless hours spent waiting on the police. It’s an ugly reality, regardless of whether this is a global test run or simply the truth of our existence.

Look, there are actually people whose entire job description is to hunt down and penalize those ten specific individuals...

Jerry Robinson56 said:Not just accepted, but demonstrably effective.
Naturally, the execution is both problematic and traumatic.
Within your own family, you can maintain closeness both at home and out in public. However, I am certain you know several individuals who couldn't care less about such things, so any notion of altruistic behavior falls apart. I have trained myself to be a far greater fool than most, but there are truly malicious fools out there whom you simply cannot outmatch. In those cases, you merely adopt their vernacular, and within a heartbeat, everything is supposedly fine.

They are essentially trying to rationalize the idea that "everyone" is a threat to others. I encounter stupidity—and even deeper levels of idiocy—on almost a daily basis, and one need only look at the President and his peculiar ideas regarding giving shovels to professional soldiers.
What alternative are you proposing?

How does one find those ten specific idiots? Perhaps they are simply waiting to blend into the crowd... I completely agree with your stance that the delinquents always get away with it... perhaps even Alexander Thompson will accept that and reconsider his position regarding those who refuse to follow the spirit of the law rather than just the letter.
One cannot generalize, yet it is truly absurd that any gatherings outside of familial connections are being permitted... particularly religious ones.

It is a necessary evil; the alternative involves expensive, drawn-out inspections and endless hours spent waiting on the police. It’s an ugly reality, regardless of whether this is a global test run or simply the truth of our existence.

...they’re just too preoccupied scanning passes to actually get anything done.

Regarding these passes, the sheer volume being issued is staggering, and frankly, it highlights how much of a failure this whole measure has been. Sure, maybe they caught a few fools breaking quarantine, but you have to wonder if they could have snagged way more if the police weren't stuck monitoring thousands of checkpoints all across the country.

And don't even get me started on the technology we already have at our disposal. They have those vans equipped with automatic license plate readers that trigger alerts to patrols—it would have been incredibly easy to use that same tech to specifically target vehicles belonging to people under isolation orders or their family members. If they hadn't botched everything with that cowardly attempt at a last-minute legislative pivot, they could have easily utilized mobile phone data for surveillance instead.

Furthermore, since the ultimate goal here is supposedly to reduce travel, the most efficient way to achieve that is simply to create congestion. In a roundabout way, these passes end up doing exactly that—you can bet a lot more people would just skip the trip if they knew they’d be stuck sitting in a massive line. Now, considering that outdoor construction isn't banned and most major American cities typically postpone huge infrastructure projects until they have less impact on daily life, traffic would have plummeted if they had just kicked off those projects now. We might have had to spend more upfront, sure, but that money would have pumped directly back into the economy, and the investment would pay itself off once everything is back up and running with better connectivity.

In the meantime, the police could actually be out doing their real jobs instead of wasting their lives at stationary checkpoints.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Not just accepted, but demonstrably effective.
Naturally, the execution is both problematic and traumatic.
Within your own family, you can maintain closeness both at home and out in public. However, I am certain you know several individuals who couldn't care less about such things, so any notion of altruistic behavior falls apart. I have trained myself to be a far greater fool than most, but there are truly malicious fools out there whom you simply cannot outmatch. In those cases, you merely adopt their vernacular, and within a heartbeat, everything is supposedly fine.

They are essentially trying to rationalize the idea that "everyone" is a threat to others. I encounter stupidity—and even deeper levels of idiocy—on almost a daily basis, and one need only look at the President and his peculiar ideas regarding giving shovels to professional soldiers.
What alternative are you proposing?

How does one find those ten specific idiots? Perhaps they are simply waiting to blend into the crowd... I completely agree with your stance that the delinquents always get away with it... perhaps even Alexander Thompson will accept that and reconsider his position regarding those who refuse to follow the spirit of the law rather than just the letter.
One cannot generalize, yet it is truly absurd that any gatherings outside of familial connections are being permitted... particularly religious ones.

It is a necessary evil; the alternative involves expensive, drawn-out inspections and endless hours spent waiting on the police. It’s an ugly reality, regardless of whether this is a global test run or simply the truth of our existence.

Way to go. Bravo. 🙂

Go ahead. Prove that banning travel between a small town of 2,000, a mid-sized suburb of 8,000, and a little town of 3,000 actually accomplished anything. I'm waiting.
They issued 12,000 permits across towns A, B, and C. Just great. 😵

And then there’s the local precinct. They flat-out refused to handle the measure because the towns they cover—Town A, Town B, and Town C—can't stop bickering long enough to agree on anything. Typical.
That's exactly what's happening in my town. It’s a total circus, honestly. 🤦

Talking nonsense about how they used those kinds of measures in China, Korea, or wherever else... please.
First off, they don't have 600 municipalities for a population of 3.5 million. And they definitely don't have ten cops on duty who are supposed to be monitoring forty different routes between Town A, Town B, and Town C. Give me a break.

Only a genius Secretary could dream up this kind of stupidity. Clearly, they haven't spent a single second dealing with how things actually work on the ground. Real life? Never heard of it.

Look, given how things actually look on the ground, calling this a "measure" is a joke. No sane person would even call it that. It isn't one.
At the end of the day, it’s basically just a glorified wish list—completely unrealistic and impossible to control.
In a perfect world, that measure would have done the exact same thing as "stay at home." But let’s be real—it actually backfired because it just pissed everyone off.
It’s basically the same thing, except this whole mess actually cost a fortune. Between developing the apps, server costs, toner, printers, security stamps, and all that nonsense for making passes... it was just a massive waste of money.
Of course. And let's not forget the massive pile of nerves belonging to everyone tasked with issuing, processing, and micromanaging those damn permits.
At the end of the day, it all just boils down to whether people actually have the decency to follow the #StayHome order or not. Pure willpower. That's it.

Passes agreement signed:

So, following the calls from the local emergency management teams, we finally got an agreement signed. This means folks living in those cities and towns can move around without needing those damn passes anymore.

Larry Walker24 said:

See? If we just had a map like this for every single municipality, everything would actually work.

We’d skip all the nonsense and the headache of those ridiculous permits, and the U.S. government would save at least $2-$3 billion a year.
That money could actually go toward building and fixing up schools, hospitals, and basic infrastructure. Life would be a whole lot better.

The only issue is that none of our politicians have the drive, the desire, or frankly, the guts to make it happen.
And let's be honest—we don't exactly have the backbone to sweep these parasites away once and for all either.

Look, most—if not all—of these tiny towns were actually carved out by the Republicans. In a way, they serve as little strongholds for their power and their voter base

Now, here’s a little trivia question for you

Why on earth would the GOP prune the very branches they're sitting on by destroying the small towns they built themselves?

Larry Walker24 said:Passes agreement signed:

So, following the calls from the local emergency management teams, we finally got an agreement signed. This means folks living in those cities and towns can move around without needing those damn passes anymore.

They basically merged two counties together, so now you can hit the next small town over without any paperwork.
Makes life a little easier, even if you still only get to go grocery shopping once every ten or fourteen days...

The national headquarters still hasn't officially signed off on that whole municipal merger thing...
At least not everywhere yet...
☕

Technically, it's prohibited, but everyone I know down at the coast says most of the weekenders already rolled in to soak up the sun for the holidays. And of course, they immediately swarmed the grocery stores. I mean, seriously, couldn't they have just brought food from home? I don't get it, honestly. Maybe they should just let those people who own vacation rentals in places like Cape Cod or the Hamptons do whatever they want, too... it's all the same thing, really.

silentskipper3 said:Technically, it's prohibited, but everyone I know down at the coast says most of the weekenders already rolled in to soak up the sun for the holidays. And of course, they immediately swarmed the grocery stores. I mean, seriously, couldn't they have just brought food from home? I don't get it, honestly. Maybe they should just let those people who own vacation rentals in places like Cape Cod or the Hamptons do whatever they want, too... it's all the same thing, really.

No, sorry, that’s just not how it works—they didn't come here for the holiday spirit, they came to check on their vacation homes and prune the gardens around them (not to mention half these properties are still officially listed as farmland or orchards in the county records), and that happens to be a perfectly legitimate reason to get a travel pass. Sure, for some people it might actually be true, especially if a neighbor called in a complaint or if they genuinely need to deal with a pest problem before the gophers take over the yard, but the system simply lacks any mechanism to tell the difference. But it doesn't matter; pretty soon every third American is going to have a pass. The main thing is that the measure itself is justified, and the fact that we could use those same police officers—the same amount currently enforcing these rules—to ensure that not a single person in quarantine so much as peeks their nose out of their apartment, or even have them deliver groceries, well, that's beside the point.

Joseph Taylor11 said:The national headquarters still hasn't officially signed off on that whole municipal merger thing...
At least not everywhere yet...
☕

The SD county situation is basically on ice right now because things have gone totally sideways over the last few days—and yeah, it’s obviously their fault.☕

Those idiots running the whole "stay at home" campaign? Honestly, they've done way more damage than any regular person ever could.

Rebecca Peterson94 said:The SD county situation is basically on ice right now because things have gone totally sideways over the last few days—and yeah, it’s obviously their fault.☕

Those idiots running the whole "stay at home" campaign? Honestly, they've done way more damage than any regular person ever could.

I wonder if the national task force has explicitly cleared that reopening yet? Like in, say, California? 🤔 Or maybe Florida?
I know of several other states where things are currently "on hold"... but my guess is they’re just waiting for the Easter holiday to pass. If they opened up too early, there might be way too much travel happening, which, to be fair, I actually get...☕)

Joseph Taylor11 said:I wonder if the national task force has explicitly cleared that reopening yet? Like in, say, California? 🤔 Or maybe Florida?
I know of several other states where things are currently "on hold"... but my guess is they’re just waiting for the Easter holiday to pass. If they opened up too early, there might be way too much travel happening, which, to be fair, I actually get...☕)

That’s my take on it too. When our guys sent over the request three days ago, they were told that if it actually gets approved, it hits the books next week.
My gut tells me it’s already live out in California.

Rebecca Peterson94 said:That’s my take on it too. When our guys sent over the request three days ago, they were told that if it actually gets approved, it hits the books next week.
My gut tells me it’s already live out in California.

Because if it's already live somewhere else, there's really no reason they shouldn't approve it for everyone else—or at least for the areas where the health situation is looking stable...🤷

Joseph Taylor11 I can't even begin to explain how much this absolutely grinds my gears. It’s just... ugh. I'm sitting here trying to make sense of this whole mess, and honestly? My head is spinning. It feels like everything we were promised is just slipping through our fingers, you know? Like, we're all just standing around waiting for something that's never actually going to happen. It's exhausting. Seriously. I'm probably just being dramatic, maybe a little too worked up, but someone has to say it. It’s ridiculous. Total nonsense. Just a complete and utter joke.
Look, if that rule is actually in effect somewhere already—I mean, if it’s legit happening—then there is absolutely zero reason why they shouldn't be approving everyone else too. Or, you know, at least people living in areas where the epidemiological situation isn't even a damn thing to worry about... it just makes no sense.🤷

Wait, isn't that one from the Chicago area too? I'm pretty sure it already cleared the approval process.🤔

Justin Phillips15 said:My girlfriend lives in a neighboring state, so I'm really hoping they get these roads cleared as soon as possible.

You can't even travel to the next county, let alone the next state. Find a girlfriend in your own zip code. 😁

hollowtrucker77 said:Why on earth would you be considered in violation just for requesting a permit?
The only person who could actually be in the wrong here is the official issuing it, not someone simply asking for one.

Exactly. Does it say anywhere what the specific conditions are for when you *can't* request a permit?

Matthew Jackson2 said:No, sorry, that’s just not how it works—they didn't come here for the holiday spirit, they came to check on their vacation homes and prune the gardens around them (not to mention half these properties are still officially listed as farmland or orchards in the county records), and that happens to be a perfectly legitimate reason to get a travel pass. Sure, for some people it might actually be true, especially if a neighbor called in a complaint or if they genuinely need to deal with a pest problem before the gophers take over the yard, but the system simply lacks any mechanism to tell the difference. But it doesn't matter; pretty soon every third American is going to have a pass. The main thing is that the measure itself is justified, and the fact that we could use those same police officers—the same amount currently enforcing these rules—to ensure that not a single person in quarantine so much as peeks their nose out of their apartment, or even have them deliver groceries, well, that's beside the point.

They aren't really, though, because everyone with a second home leaves a spare key with a neighbor to keep an eye on things during the winter or to let contractors in for repairs before summer hits, and so on. I have keys left with people too, but I'm not moving an inch while these restrictions are in place. As for the weeds, I couldn't care less; I'll deal with them when I get back.

So, what now? I suppose we can expect the criteria to be completely inconsistent from one state to another. It clearly all comes down to whatever the local officials decide to do.