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.
JUST WONDERING, how many of the outraged voted for the current governor ??
How many times have we seen stories about cops shooting a perp and blasting about 30 rounds at the guy and he still lives because they only hit him twice? It ain’t like sitting on the bench at the range with a paper target.
Maybe 0’s afraid LEOs and the military will turn on him and shoot him in the back. Just about every LEO or military personnel I know are conservative and believe in God and don’t buy into his BS
What about restrictions to Bloomturds and Cuomos body guards?
What’s that you say? You are ABOVE the law?
Hey, now. If they were any good, they’d only need 2 or 4 rounds to take down a robber, don’cha know.
ping
What are they crying about! For years they were armed with .38 six shot revolvers. this is just a return to the good old days!
***—I wonder how this applies to 8-round M-! Garand en bloc clips? ***
You can get 5 round and 2 round clips for the M-1 Garand.
In high power matches you have to fire 10 shots. That is why the two round clip was made. Many of us have a preference for two 5 round clip in the matches.
Excellent!
“the bad guys aren’t going to follow this law” says dumbass cop.
Then dumbass cop, why won’t you let regular citizens have the same chance you want to have with a larger magazine?
God libtards are idiots. And armed libtards are extremely dangerous.
Most LE people will probably just ignore the new regs. We all know the "bad guys" will. Cuomo is such a moron he doesn't belong in public office. Andrew, the moron...son of Mario, the Pius...what a pair of "duces".
pretty good actually ~ now every drug kingpin in the state understands that the cops don’t have enough bullets to shoot 8 or more dogs ~ so they’ll have 8 or more dogs on hand to attack the cops as they sneak up on them!
****I asked why police officers should be allowed to have so-called high-capacity magazines if they have no defensive value.****
The first time someone runs their revolver dry and is murdered, the MSM will say that the person should have just given up, then they MIGHT still be alive.
The first time a cop runs his revolver dry, and is murdered, there will be hell to pay as the MSM will demand more gun controls on the general public.
Me? When the smoke clears, I want to have a full 30 rd magazine still in reserve! Just in case.
Well, based on the NYPD’s most recent display of handgun proficency where 2 of New York’s finest needed 16 rounds to kill the perp AND hit 9 innocent bystanders to boot, I say the 7 rond limit should apply to them as well. In this case there’d be 2 less civilians in the hospital.
“but as a matter of fact the bad guys are not going to follow this law”
making this law useless to anyone
I didn’t think of that. I guess that’s why I’m not a kingpin.
Of course, if you apply the NYPD standard of marksmanship, a kingpin could put up what, two, maybe three dogs and the cop(s) would still run out of ammo before they ran out of dog.
The law is only supposed to apply to the peasants!
“But as a matter of fact bad guys are not going to follow this law”
Gotcha, this is an anti good guy law. I’ll pass...
Must suck to live in NY.
FTA:
“State Sen. Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn), . . . 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.”
The irony of his recognition that only law-abiding citizens will be disarmed, while criminals will disregard, is great.
I wonder if he realizes how stupid he is, or if he is so stupid he thinks he is smart.
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.