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.
What possible excuse can there be for exempting RETIRED cops?
Aren’t they just citizens?
Heard some liberal again demand to know why anyone who isn’t a law enforcement officer would ever need hollow point bullets.
No response or defense was given as to why Social Security people would need hundreds of thousands of hollow points under Baraq’s watch.
If I had been there I’d have gladly offed those two bums for the cops with M1A.
.308 in the head ain’t gonna feel good and I would have been ear down the street when I did it.
YOU DON'T NEED TEN BULLETS TO BLOW AWAY A CRIMINAL!!!
I'M SO NEUROTIC!
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW NEUROTIC I AM!?!
I'M SO NEUROTIC I COULD ONLY BE ELECTED IN NEW YORK
THAT'S HOW NEUROTIC I AM!!!
WOODY ALLEN DOESN'T KNOW WHAT NEUROTIC IS
THAT'S HOW NEUROTIC I AM!
Time to switch to belt fed weapons....
WOW! You've hit on a GREAT point there. The cops don't need more than 7 rounds because the bad guys will no longer have more than 7. That's an excellent point.
Yeah, there was no excuse for that lack of planning. Not a sniper on the force? Would have stopped it in > a minute with head shots. WTF?
LOL!
I normally support law enforcement and do not suffer from that rabid hate of them so often seen here. When my daughter calls 911, chances are those guys are showing up as fast as they can to help her. Car wreck, stalker, whatever.
But, something todays cops miss is that for most of America’s history the cops have carried much less firepower than the citizenry. This concept that the cops must always be able to carry overwhelming firepower when compared to us is a new thing.
And THAT mentality has changed how they deal with us. Before, they were usually bona fide representatives and protectors of the community. This is why they did not demand an overwhelming firepower, or expect a monopoly of firepower.
The current way of thinking is a subtle way of telling them they are a sort of occupation force, and that they never need to worry about pleasing the community.
So yes, the cops should have to revert to whatever magazines the civilians are forced to use.
Since the NY politicians did not give this “law” very much consideration before passing it, the law probably does not explicitly ban belt-fed weapons. Therefor, they are probably legal. This would be too funny if it were not such an unconstitutional law.
I remember that shootout. The perps had both fully automatic weapons AND body armor, BOTH of which are illegal, but since when has that ever stopped criminals. They finally just ran out of bullets and at least one committed suicide on camera.
No, but maybe their Union who probably supported Obama and Cuomo when the rank and file do the hard work, and their SEIU overlords sell then down the river on so many things they believe in...
Perhaps they need Terry Bowman...
Why do coops “need” more than 7 rounds? We have already heard for Rep Nadler that NO ONE “needs” more 2 or 4 round in self defense.
Well, instead of just dropping snide comments, perhaps you could mount a reasoned defense of why cops should have large magazines to defend against multiple criminal shooters, but civilians should not.
On second thought, I see why you are not bothering to try.
Since when doesn’t “law-abiding retired cops” = “private citizen”?
I don’t recall retired military being given special preferences concerning what they can or can’t carry, yet their oaths remain intact and in effect, too.
Sniper rounds go right through body armor.
Cue the "sad trombone" soundtrack.
There is no requirement to show need to exercise your 2A rights.
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.