From: atropos@mac.com   
      
   On Feb 10, 2026 at 5:54:11 PM PST, "Dimensional Traveler"    
   wrote:   
      
   > 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-ba   
   -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.   
      
   We'll see how it plays out, but any federal judge without a political agenda   
   will have to acknowledge both the Constitution itself (Supremacy Clause) and   
   past precedent holding states powerless to regulate federal law   
   enforcement.**   
      
   If the judge does have an agenda, it will all get sorted out on appeal.   
      
   **As I posted earlier in the thread, Hawaii tried regulating federal law   
   enforcement when it passed a state law prohibiting all law enforcement from   
   carrying firearms while off-duty. The law specifically included federal agents   
   in its prohibition. When the DOJ sued Hawaii over it, the federal court   
   invalidated the law with regard to federal personnel and told Hawaii that they   
   were free to disarm their own police if they wanted to but they have no   
   authority over federal agents.   
      
   So even a non-discriminatory state law attempting to regulate which equipment   
   feds can use and under what circumstances they can use it was struck down.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)