• California Bill to Prohibit Law Enforcement from Wearing Masks

    From BTR1701@3:633/280.2 to All on Tue Jun 24 06:33:04 2025
    Even if passed, this could only be enforced on state and local police, and those aren't the ones the 'progressives' in Sacramento are so upset about.
    It's the ICE agents doing immigration operations that have their panties in a twist and their law will have no force or effect on them. Federal agents enforcing federal law places them well within the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, meaning state officials have no jurisdiction over them.


    https://abc7.com/post/no-secret-police-act-bill-introduced-california-lawmakers-would-prohibit-law-enforcement-covering-faces/16767520/

    Hawaii tried something similar about five years ago when its legislature
    passed a state law prohibiting law enforcement from carrying firearms while off-duty. The law specifically included federal agents-- FBI, Secret Service, DEA, etc.) in its prohibition. It took all of 10 seconds for a federal court
    to invalidate the law with regard to federal personnel and tell Hawaii to stay in its lane; if they want to prohibit their own cops from being able to defend themselves or others while off-duty, they can do it, but they have no
    authority over federal agents.

    The 'progressive' pols keep saying there's no legitimate reason for ICE agents to cover their faces while engaged in deportation operations, but there is actually a helluva good reason to do so: it preserves their ability to work undercover in future cases.

    And, of course, there's the real reason everyone from blue politicians to open borders activists want them to stop wearing masks: so they can take pictures
    of them, run them through a Google reverse image search, and identify them, so that masked (behold the irony, right?) Antifa types can show up at their homes and terrorize them and their children.



    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.1 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From moviePig@3:633/280.2 to All on Tue Jun 24 07:48:38 2025
    On 6/23/2025 4:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
    Even if passed, this could only be enforced on state and local police, and those aren't the ones the 'progressives' in Sacramento are so upset about. It's the ICE agents doing immigration operations that have their panties in a twist and their law will have no force or effect on them. Federal agents enforcing federal law places them well within the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, meaning state officials have no jurisdiction over them.


    https://abc7.com/post/no-secret-police-act-bill-introduced-california-lawmakers-would-prohibit-law-enforcement-covering-faces/16767520/

    Hawaii tried something similar about five years ago when its legislature passed a state law prohibiting law enforcement from carrying firearms while off-duty. The law specifically included federal agents-- FBI, Secret Service, DEA, etc.) in its prohibition. It took all of 10 seconds for a federal court to invalidate the law with regard to federal personnel and tell Hawaii to stay
    in its lane; if they want to prohibit their own cops from being able to defend
    themselves or others while off-duty, they can do it, but they have no authority over federal agents.

    The 'progressive' pols keep saying there's no legitimate reason for ICE agents
    to cover their faces while engaged in deportation operations, but there is actually a helluva good reason to do so: it preserves their ability to work undercover in future cases.

    And, of course, there's the real reason everyone from blue politicians to open
    borders activists want them to stop wearing masks: so they can take pictures of them, run them through a Google reverse image search, and identify them, so
    that masked (behold the irony, right?) Antifa types can show up at their homes
    and terrorize them and their children.

    Yes, there are obviously "legitimate reasons" for them to cover their
    faces ...just as obviously as doing so smacks of 'secret police".



    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.1 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From super70s@3:633/280.2 to All on Tue Jun 24 10:26:00 2025
    On 2025-06-23 21:48:38 +0000, moviePig said:

    On 6/23/2025 4:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
    Even if passed, this could only be enforced on state and local police, and >> those aren't the ones the 'progressives' in Sacramento are so upset about. >> It's the ICE agents doing immigration operations that have their panties in a
    twist and their law will have no force or effect on them. Federal agents
    enforcing federal law places them well within the Supremacy Clause of the
    Constitution, meaning state officials have no jurisdiction over them.


    https://abc7.com/post/no-secret-police-act-bill-introduced-california-lawmakers-would-prohibit-law-enforcement-covering-faces/16767520/


    Hawaii tried something similar about five years ago when its legislature
    passed a state law prohibiting law enforcement from carrying firearms while >> off-duty. The law specifically included federal agents-- FBI, Secret Service,
    DEA, etc.) in its prohibition. It took all of 10 seconds for a federal court >> to invalidate the law with regard to federal personnel and tell Hawaii to stay
    in its lane; if they want to prohibit their own cops from being able to defend
    themselves or others while off-duty, they can do it, but they have no
    authority over federal agents.

    The 'progressive' pols keep saying there's no legitimate reason for ICE agents
    to cover their faces while engaged in deportation operations, but there is >> actually a helluva good reason to do so: it preserves their ability to work >> undercover in future cases.

    And, of course, there's the real reason everyone from blue politicians to open
    borders activists want them to stop wearing masks: so they can take pictures >> of them, run them through a Google reverse image search, and identify them, so
    that masked (behold the irony, right?) Antifa types can show up at their homes
    and terrorize them and their children.

    Yes, there are obviously "legitimate reasons" for them to cover their
    faces ...just as obviously as doing so smacks of 'secret police".



    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.1 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From super70s@3:633/280.2 to All on Tue Jun 24 10:32:34 2025
    On 2025-06-23 20:33:04 +0000, BTR1701 said:

    The 'progressive' pols keep saying there's no legitimate reason for ICE agents
    to cover their faces while engaged in deportation operations, but there is actually a helluva good reason to do so: it preserves their ability to work undercover in future cases.

    When they start working undercover in this tactless and heavy-handed
    roundup they can have that privilege then.


    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.1 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From BTR1701@3:633/280.2 to All on Tue Jun 24 11:23:50 2025
    On Jun 23, 2025 at 5:32:34 PM PDT, "super70s" <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

    On 2025-06-23 20:33:04 +0000, BTR1701 said:

    The 'progressive' pols keep saying there's no legitimate reason for ICE
    agents
    to cover their faces while engaged in deportation operations, but there is >> actually a helluva good reason to do so: it preserves their ability to work >> undercover in future cases.

    When they start working undercover in this tactless and heavy-handed
    roundup they can have that privilege then.

    They can have the 'privilege' now because agents rotate in and out assignments all the time. You can be an assist on another agents immigration today and working undercover on your own child exploitation case or human trafficking case tomorrow.



    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.1 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)