I can understand (but still not like) the idea of current law officers being allowed otherwise prohibited weapons, but why do they always excuse retired cops? The current ones are covered by internal affairs and psychological evaluations. The retired ones are no longer subject to department discipline, no longer have colleagues keeping an eye on them to see if they are muttering to themselves all the time.
Another word for a retired cop is civilian.
My best guess as to why this was included is because most state, local and fed officers all have significant personal owned weapons themselves and are just as concerned about loosing them as we are.
This is an effort to encourage current LEOs to enforce the new restrictions because they have no incentive to do so if it will mean loosing their own guns.
I am a retired LEO and I do not think I have anymore rights than an average citizen. This is the standard dem playbook. Divide and concur, divide the law abiding citizens from the LEOs and military. Because if they are united against government tyranny the Marxists can not achieve their goals.
The fallacy in your statement is that any weapons would be otherwise prohibited. The 2A is there to insure the populace i as well, or better, armed than government forces.
Further, when the 2A was written people were expected to protect and care for themselves...........in all actuality this is still true today as the police are under no duty to protect you. Even while they are in uniform, on duty, armed, and the crime is being committed in front of them. They are under ZERO obligation to come to your aid.