From: atropos@mac.com
On Feb 10, 2026 at 12:50:38 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman""
wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 2025 at 7:49:59 PM PDT, "Rhino"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> California Gov. Nuisance has signed a bill banning law enforcement,
>>> including ICE agents from wearing masks as they perform their duties.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://globalnews.ca/news/11438455/california-face-mask-ban
law-enforcement/
>>>
>>> As BTR1701 predicted recently, this is going to make it a lot easier for
>>> "activists" to identify, harass, and even kill ICE agents and their
>>> families. Apparently, some of that has already happened. Newsom is
>>> almost literally painted targets on the backs of those who are only
>>> enforcing the laws.
>>>
>>> I think it is particularly telling that the law *doesn't* stop criminals
>>> and "activists" (yes, I'm repeating myself there) from wearing masks
>>> while they carry out THEIR activities. Apparently, it is "unsafe" for
>>> ICE agents to keep their anonymity but perfectly fine for criminals to
>>> do so.
>>>
>>> And this guy is the frontrunner for the presidential nomination for the
>>> Democrats in 2028! Nonsense like this should be a compelling argument to
>>> disqualify Newsom entirely!!!
>>
>> As expected (and contrary to the claims of that brilliant legal mind
>> "super70s" here on RAT), a federal court has blocked Newsom's mask ban for
>> law
>> enforcement.
>
> Isn't this the same ruling that ordered body cams?
>
> Doesn't what you said earlier, that bosses have sole discretion on their
> uniforms and equipmemt and that state law cannot second guess this,
> still apply? I don't see how body cams can be ordered under state law.
No, mandatory use of body cameras by federal agents cannot be ordered by state
law or state courts. Only Congress or the federal agency itself can mandate
use of body cameras.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
