From: atropos@mac.com   
      
   On Feb 10, 2026 at 6:26:20 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman""  wrote:   
      
   > 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-ban-   
   aw-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.   
   >   
   > My error. I said he upheld bodycams.   
      
   Apparently there's a big fight between the state rep who wrote the bill--   
   Scott Weiner, who can best be described as the ass cancer of California   
   politics-- and Newsom. Weiner never wanted to exempt CHP from the law in the   
   first place but it was the only way he could get Newsom to sign it. Now that   
   the court has blocked it, Weiner wants to amend it so that it covers CHP as   
   well (which still won't get him past the Supremacy Clause) but Newsom won't   
   support it. One wonders what CHP has on Newsom that has Gavvy running   
   interference for them like this.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)