Posted on 01/21/2013 2:56:23 PM PST by neverdem
In my column this week, I asked why police officers should be allowed to have so-called high-capacity magazines if they have no defensive value. Since "no one needs" to fire more than X number of rounds before reloading (and assuming that "need" should define what people are allowed to possess), why not apply the same limit to everyone? It looks like the New York legislature, which this week reduced the state's magazine limit from 10 rounds to seven, did take an evenhanded approach—but only by accident. According to DNAinfo.com and WABC, the ABC station in New York, legislators were in such a rush to impose new gun restrictions that they forgot to exempt active-duty and retired law enforcement officers from the new magazine rule. Whoops.
Cops are complaining about the lack of a double standard:
"As a law enforcement officer for over 20 years, I understand the importance of instituting a new policy on mandating the limits of bullets that a regular citizen can possess, but as a matter of fact the bad guys are not going to follow this law," said Norman Seabrook, president of the correction officers union, the city's second largest.
"The way the current legislation is drafted, it actually handcuffs the law enforcement community from having the necessary ammunition needed to save lives," he said. "We must not allow this to happen."
Roy Richter, president of the Captains Endowment Association and a lawyer, said, "It puts retired officers in a position that the clip they were issued by the NYPD, carried for their careers and were fully trained on, is now considered contraband."
Michael J. Palladino, who is head of the NYPD's 6,000-member detectives union and president of the state's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, which represents 50,000 members, joined in calling for Cuomo and the legislature to immediately amend the law.
"Gun reform must prevent criminals and the deranged from getting illegal weapons—not restrict law-abiding retired cops from protecting themselves and the public," Palladino said.
"I support the governor in gun reform, however the new legislation restricts law enforcement officers who retire, and that could jeopardize the safety of the public."
DNAinfo.com calls the absence of a law-enforcement exemption a "loophole in the law," but in fact it is the very opposite of a loophole: Cops are outraged at the possibility that they might be treated the same as "a regular citizen" under the law. One has to wonder: If, as Seabrook says, the new magazine limit will have no impact on criminals and if, as Seabrook and Palladino agree, more than seven rounds sometimes are necessary to "save lives," what justification can there be for imposing this arbitrary restriction not just on "law-abiding retired cops" but on law-abiding citizens in general?
A spokesman for Gov. Andrew Cuomo told WABC, "We are still working out some details of the law, and the exemption will be included. Currently no police officer is in violation." I'm not sure why he says that, since the part of the law that bans pre-existing magazines holding more than 10 rounds is "effective immediately." According to WABC, "Nearly every law enforcement agency in the state carries handguns that have a 15-round capacity." The provision covering magazines that hold eight, nine, or 10 rounds takes effect on April 15. Contrary to what Richter says, such magazines won't actually be "contraband" for people who already have them, but their owners will be expected to put no more than seven rounds in them at a time. I am serious: That is what the law says. A prohibited "large capacity ammunition feeding device" is, among other things, a magazine legally obtained before April 15 that "contains more than seven rounds of ammunition."
It is implausible enough to suggest that a criminal—who by definition has no compunction about breaking the law, who is not legally permitted to possess firearms to begin with (if he has a felony record), and who is highly motivated to obtain the tools of his trade—would be deterred from obtaining a 10-round magazine by the legislature's new dictate, especially since plenty of them will remain in circulation. It is beyond fanciful to suppose that, having obtained a 10-round magazine, a criminal would think twice about putting more than seven rounds in it because legislators said he shouldn't. But in New York state, that whiff of a pretext suffices to abridge people's Second Amendment rights and, according to the cops clamoring for an exemption to the new limit, put lives at risk.
The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association says it is "actively working to enact changes to this law that will provide the appropriate exemptions from the law for active and retired law enforcement officers." State Sen. Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn), who is a former NYPD captain but nevertheless does not know which constitutional amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures, told WABC he will introduce legislation restoring the double standard to which cops have become accustomed. "You can't give more ammo to the criminals," he explains. I thought that was the whole point of this law.
Looks like New York messed up big time.
Bet it's far more difficult to write an exception to this law than it was to get the law passed.
Maybe the cops would like to go to the Federal courts to complain about this. Tell Scalia 'dis ain't fair judge, not fair'
His second point negates the first.
News to all law enforcement:
You ARE regular citizens.
There is NO “law enforcement community.”
Only in a police state, are you as elevated as you now presume to be above the citizens and entitled to powers your now imagine.
It’s time to start a Traitors to the Constitution list.
Anyone who votes for a bill like this one is on it. Any gov’t official, like these cops here, who complains about the lack of a double standard, goes on it.
It’s time to start shunning these people.
Are you defending their wish for a double standard?
Let me give you a clue - citizens should be equal under the law. The lack of royalty was one on of the key differences between the U.S.A. and the European countries our Founders had escaped from.
There’s nothing special about a cop with respect to their rights.
You want to try to argue otherwise, jump right in. FReepers will listen to a well-reasoned argument. Right now, you’ve got bupkis, other than whining. Unimpressive.
“You’re no better than anyone else. “
-
Huh?
.
Oh goody,another FR cop bashing thread.
Should be interesting.
How could you possibly defend this double standard?
I'd really like to know how you can justify extending this or any other exemption to ex-cops.
Like John McClain in Diehard - “Welcome to the party pal!”
Yes indeed. Just add transfats to the donuts and larger than 16 oz drinks and the mission will be complete.
The dogs will be safer too.
yippee I O ky ay!!
I, on the other hand, am quite pleased. Cops should never be exempted from gun control laws.
There are almost one hundred-thousand registered handguns in the county in which I live.
One would be hard-pressed to document an incident in which one of those handguns was used in the commission of a crime.
(It seems that the Progressives consider the criminal element to be their allies and the law-abiding to be an impediment to their dreams of power.)
JUst saying.
IMHO
At least we don’t have to worry about Cuomo in 2016. He pretty much shot himself in the foot on the national stage.
Also, the first thing that came to mind
Are you going to even attempt to defend the cops wanting a double standard here? Do you think there is something wrong with cops wanting high-capacity magazines for defense against groups of armed criminals, but many of the same cops want to deny private citizens the same magazines in case a group of armed criminals kicks down their front door in a home invasion robbery attempt?
There has long been a five round limit on semis for hunting in NY. My cousin hunts with an M1 “tanker” and has been asked to show his clip a few timeswhen he encounters ahunting enforcement officer.
—thanks —same for Wisconsin, among others—
—thanks—I will be curious to see clarified that one abides by the law by only putting seven cartridges in any given presently owned “clip” or “magazine”—
Only on the Iditarod.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.