« Interesting cert grant | Main | NRA video attacks Bloomberg »
NY exemption for retired LEOS
In a late night session, NY exempts retired LEOs from its 7 round magazine limit. This really goes to underscore how irrational and arbitrary that sort of thing is. If 7 rounds is all a citizen would need in self-defense, isn't the same true of law enforcement? But even if there was some evidence that law enforcement has some special need to perform their duties, that cannot apply to retired LEOs, who have no such duties and have need for self-defense identical to everyone else. It's just a patronage ploy, exempting a favored, and in NY politically potent, group of citizens.
UPDATE: yep, it exempts serving LEOs. That was the whole reason for the amendment. They rushed the legislation through, never let a crisis go to waste, and only then realized that they'd cut magazine size to seven rounds, officers I guess mostly carried 9mm Glocks, and try finding a seven round magazine for a 9mm Glock.
20 Comments | Leave a comment
Wouldn't a "highly" trained person need fewer rounds than a commoner?
Do retired LEOs still belong to the union? If so, it's even more clear that this is a political payoff, not a public safety/for-the-children decision.
Equal protection? Just what compelling state need is there for retired cops to have weapons that ordinary citizens don't?
They don't retain the authority to arrest or detain, they dont have mandatory recurrency training in firearms, etc.
Gun control is about who is special, and who ain't...
Oh come on....give em a break. NYPD fires 50 rounds at a "suspect" only 5 hit their target. They NEED the extra ammo. I suspect this move is going to come back to haunt somebody.
This is, of course, shameless pandering but it also demonstrates the power to move and influence legislation through relentless lobbying and political pressure. We mere mortals must do the same.
Why are NY's gun laws not being challenged in court? If there is a best example of infringing on the 2A, it's got to be NY! NYC especially!
rspock,
Why do people fail to research whether NY's laws are being challenged in court prior to asking?
There is an ongoing case as we speak. I believe it is referenced in this very blog.
I don't agree with the argument for the retired LEOs, but I'll make it:
Retired LEOs have a higher risk of an organized and premeditated attack by persons they arrested in their previous profession. Therefore, the argument goes, they have a higher need to carry a weapon and amunition.
What is the definition of "retired LEO"?
Could a Sheriff create a bunch of special deputies and allow them to retire? It would be one way of monkey wrenching the system by allowing citizens to qualify for these "special status privileges." Imagine if every CCW/CLP holder in a county just happened to qualify for this privilege? After all, if we can trust preople with guns, does 7 or 17 bullets make a difference?
Or cynically and criminally, think of how much the privilege could be auctioned for?
If retired LEOs have a higher risk because of their former job, dealing with criminals, then SO DO THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFY AGAINST THE CRIMINALS.
Therefor, where is the special exemption for witnesses?
Don't forget jurors and potential jurors. I know it's silly to suggest that a member of a jury would ever have a need for self defense in NY, but it could happen...
I think that we are all missing the Big Picture here.
The real goal is a mag capacity of zero rounds for citizens, no guns allowed at all.
Of course, the Kings Men will still be more equal than other men and thus will be granted extra rights.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others", and "Four legs good, two legs better!"
"Retired LEOs have a higher risk of an organized and premeditated attack"
Quantify that risk. Cite your source(s).
Until you can, your assertion is nothing more speculation, as baseless as other "common sense" assertions like "gun control reduces crime".
"Common sense" is usually code for "not supported by, and possibly contrary to, available data"
Similar to Brian's point - one of the "rules" I remember from my younger days in the law went "When the law's against you argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both the law and the facts are against you, blow smoke."
An appeal to "common sense" is almost always just smoke.
@anon - Re-read Cliff's post. He clearly stated he didn't agree with the argument. He's playing devil's advocate, anticipating the BS argument that our "betters" will make.
It it also create an exemption for active LEOs?
I would say that you couldn't make this up, but Orwell already did. This is ripped from the pages of Animal Farm.