- Reaction score
- 6,097
- Points
- 1,160
Agree, but even before that, I am unclear (and don't expect an answer, it's just part of boxes to be ticked in the investigation of events such as this), is scope of authority for ICE to do things like make a vehicle stop, demand identification, make an arrest, etc. No doubt they would have to be in furtherance of whatever statute they are enforcing. If it is anything like up here, if you are charged with obstructing a peace officer in the lawful performance of their duty, if it turns out that what they were doing was not, in fact, lawful, the charge would likely be tossed.seen this. Accurate?
Yes, ICE Is Law Enforcement—But Their Authority Has Limits You Need To Know
ICE is federal law enforcement with arrest authority—but ICE agents can't enter your home without a judge's warrant. Learn what ICE can and cannot do.allaboutlawyer.com
also this
View attachment 97695
and this
View attachment 97696
again accurate?
I'm certainly no US Constitutional expert, but I don't think the 'federal law trumps state law' is as applicable as it is up here. Their Constitution establishes very clear lanes between state and federal jurisdiction, and if a particular area is not addressed or unclear, it defaults to the state; whereas up here it would default to the federal government.You reject an official government document, out of hand, but accept the word of a former cartel member as proof? It sounds like your opposition is based, not on proof, but on your distaste for the current administration. Your assertion that there is no such thing as a bounty list, based on dubious sources, is not fact, it's opinion.
I posted some stats awhile back, generated by AI and was roundly pillored for it. It appears AI is not a respected source for use here.
Federal law trumps state law. Newsom, et al, can pass all the laws they want. Feds can effectively ignore them.
Bottom line, at the moment, no law exists stopping LEO from wearing face coverings. So, they can continue to wear them. People might not like it, can pick their favorite windmill to tilt at, and raise unholy hell. Doesn’t make a lick of difference.
And before I get too involved, that's where I stand. Take it for what it's worth. I'm out.![]()
A state can make a law about law enforcement face covering, but it would only apply to state/county/municipal personnel. In that sense, it would not apply to federal agents, but that is not the same as 'trumping' the state. Similarly, the federal government can pass a law that says all law enforcement must wear pink tutus, but it would only apply to federal LEOs.


