From: dtravel@sonic.net
On 2/10/2026 12:50 PM, 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.
>
The reason being because as written it would have only applied to
city/county law enforcement and Federal law enforcement but not state
law enforcement. So it was discriminatory. The judge also made if
crystal clear that was the ONLY real reason for blocking that part.
The other part, that the judge upheld, was the requirement to have
visible identification including names and/or badge numbers. Which,
again as written, DID apply to all levels of law enforcement.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
