Federalism

Relative to California's ban on shock gloves as applied to federal officers, the Governor's office says the state may set law-enforcement requirements where federal immigration enforcement operates in California and lists the ban among the standards it set. That defends the state's authority to set law-enforcement equipment standards where federal enforcement operates, and the release lists the ban among them, so we used Defended or excused. The release does not say in terms that the ban reaches federal officers. The release answers the question of state power and says nothing on whether the gloves are safe. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because the same passage says the state cannot dictate federal immigration policy, but that limit concerns immigration policy and does not condition the office's support for the equipment ban.

Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, Arreguín supports the bill but says its focus is local law enforcement, and he does not argue that California can bind federal agents. He describes ICE's gloves in sharp terms, and he rests his own support on the risks to the public from local police use. We used Defended or excused because he defends the ban as enacted, which covers federal agencies, on safety grounds. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he sets the federal application aside, but he attaches no condition to his support.

Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, Wiener supports the ban on safety and public-trust grounds and says he does not want the gloves in anyone's community. He does not address whether California has the power to bind federal officers, so this is a statement on the safety question. We used Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he notes the bill has a sunset and can be evaluated later, but he asks for a yes vote without conditioning his support.

Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, Sharp-Collins defends it by pointing to ICE's planned purchase and calling the gloves new and dangerous. The remarks answer the safety question and single out ICE officers as the users she is most concerned about, but they do not argue that California has the power to bind federal officers. We used Defended or excused because she supports the ban and ties it to the federal purchase. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because in a later answer at the same event she acknowledged limits on what the state can regulate, which we record as a separate statement.

Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, the center supports the ban as covering any law enforcement agency and argues the gloves make Californians less safe, tying that to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement. The testimony addresses the safety question and does not argue that California has the power to bind federal officers. We used Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, but the testimony states no condition.