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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
On 2025-06-24 01:23:50 +0000, BTR1701 said:
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 agent's immigration case
today and
working undercover on your own child exploitation case or human trafficking >> case tomorrow.
You're giving those involved in this ragtag operation too much credit
-- they appear a bunch of office workers-turned-storm troopers who have
been filmed brandishing their weapons at innocent bystanders for no
good reason. Behavior that would get normal law enforcement officers
fired.
On Jun 27, 2025 at 3:42:19 AM PDT, "super70s" <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-06-24 01:23:50 +0000, BTR1701 said:
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 agent's immigration case
today and
working undercover on your own child exploitation case or human trafficking >>> case tomorrow.
You're giving those involved in this ragtag operation too much credit
No, I actually know how things work in a federal law enforcement agency as opposed to you, with your Hollywood understanding of how law enforcement works, who just spouts off on Usenet about it.
-- they appear a bunch of office workers-turned-storm troopers who have
been filmed brandishing their weapons at innocent bystanders for no
good reason. Behavior that would get normal law enforcement officers
fired.
Then file a lawsuit and get them fired. Or just continue moaning impotently on
Usenet about it. Whatever.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 9 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 139:56:49 |
| Calls: | 161 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 79,249 |