Pro-gun control pols are hypocrites. They’re perfectly happy to pass laws that make it difficult if not impossible for law-abiding Americans to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms yet they, personally, have armed guards. In many cases, the politicians intent on disarming civilians are protected by a taxpayer-funded police detail. That’s bad enough. To my mind, this is worse: “State lawmakers are trying to carve out a loophole for retired cops in the sweeping state gun control law that Gov. Cuomo has touted as the toughest in the nation.” I don’t think “toughest” means what the New York Daily News thinks it means. But I do think the word “outrage” covers this. Take your BP meds and steel yourself for the deets . . .
A bill approved by the state Assembly Thursday would allow retired police officers to keep assault weapons and high-capacity magazines they purchased during their time on the force.
“They are going to have what they retired with, what they trained on,” said Assemblyman Joe Lentol (D-Brooklyn), who sponsored the bill.
Lentol said the bill — which was approved by a 96-15 vote — simply corrects an “oversight” in Cuomo’s original gun law that failed to account for retired cops and federal law enforcement officers, who, despite no longer serving, often take action during a crisis.
“We put this bill forward in order to make sure retired police officers have the firepower they need in the situations where it is necessary,” Lentol said.
To which the only possible response is: FOAD. This political hack reckons it’s OK for retired cops to have “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” for self-defense but not law-abiding American citizens?
Did I wake-up in Communist East Germany this morning? What possible excuse could a democratically elected official in a Constitutional republic possibly provide for this “four legs good, two legs bad” elitism regarding a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, to which Mr. Lentol swore an oath?
Need more hypocrisy? How about this: Empire State gun control advocates are OK with retired cops keeping and bearing “assault rifles” and “high-capacity magazines.” Not to mention loading more than seven rounds in a ten-round magazine (which residents are prohibited from doing).
Cuomo has not yet weighed in on the bill. His office said he is reviewing it but the state’s gun control advocates do not object.
“Law enforcement personnel are trained in the use of firearms,” said Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. “I don’t think it is going to weaken the intent of the law at all.”
The intent being to disarm American citizens—but not a protected class of citizenry. Remembering that cops are civilians, too. Gun rights advocates are understandably apoplectic. Well, I’m apoplectic. Tom King is resolute.
“When you retire from being a police officer you are just an ordinary citizen,” said Tom King of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, which has already filed a federal lawsuit against Cuomo’s law.
“There are just as many normal, everyday gun owners who have just as much training as many of these police officers do,” King said.
Which is completely besides the ‘effing point. It’s not about competency. It’s about exercising an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms. A pox on these politicians houses, the police who support them and all those who kowtow to their tyranny, knowingly or unknowingly. Now give me my damn coffee. I’ve got work to do.
What a crock of sh*t….this just proves that the law is worthless and Cumo is trying to silence or appease groups of people who are pissed and may hit him later at the polls.
The national carry thing for retired cops I get, it makes for good logic ( then again, it does for civilians also)…but this, there is no logical reason for it, except to stave off angry FOP groups in his and their next elections.
Cops are civilians.
Civilians that are more equal than others, apparently.
What does a “retired law enforcement officer” need “assault weapons and magazines” for that the typical law abiding civilian doesn’t need them for? Cuz once you are retired…that is it. You keep the badge but you don’t do the job anymore than your next door neighbor. The same stuff they deal with is your deal now. You aren’t an action hero. Abide by the law or make such laws null. Cops aren’t inherently better with guns…where this comes from I have no idea.
This exception is simply divide and conquer.
With the added distraction of pitting one group of middle class citizens against another.
How about this? Every sheriff in New York state exercise posse comitatus and deputize every law-abiding adult citizen for a day. Due to budgetary constraint, these deputies provide the firearms of their choosing and are ever after “permitted” to carry these arms with more than seven rounds.
That is awesome!!!!!!!!
I have actively been looking for a sheriff in my state to do this, seriously.
What about people like me who have years of active military service??? I think we have way more experience than the average cop.
At what?
At using assault-weapon-of-high-capacity-war-in-our-streets-the-children.
My comment was more a provocation then anything else. But as Robert says, experience isn’t even the point. It’s about our 2ndA constitutional right to arm ourselves. It doesn’t say anywhere that one class of citizen has more of a right than any other….and when our elected politicians make those distinctions they demonstrate their lack of constitutional knowledge and as said before, an unacceptable form of hypocrisy.
And when I mean experience…I mean my experience carrying a weapon as an infantryman during a time of war, and knowing how and when to use that tool efficiently and appropriately.
Again, it’s not about experience. Experience has nothing to do with it. Not if you believe in the 2A.
And if experience was a factor, have you ever seen your average cop shooting at a range? Or considered the hit ratio of the NYPD (sub-30 percent)?
I’d rather have a range buddy than a cop by my side in a gunfight any day of the week. The only advantage cops have: they can call for backup.
+1
Well, that and they seem to be immune from prosecution when their rounds hit something other than their intended target… especially in NY and LA
The point about military veterans is, however, very useful for bursting their little fiction about “Law enforcement personnel are trained in the use of firearms” as a justification.
Not really since the majority of Military personnel are not grunts and are ‘support” staff who rarely fire a gun except for quals after basic and never do so in combat. But then again, that argument can go round and round and do nothing but make a police vrs military thing out of this, which is not good for either. Like RF said…its not about that.
“Trained in the use of firearms” means just that. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve fired them in combat. Most police rarely fire their guns either.
I was wondering about that, too. Not that I think the 2A should be limited to LEOs and veterans, but it’s ludicrous that New York trusted you with an M9, and M4 and other actual weapons of war, yet doesn’t trust you with fully loaded Browning Buckmark.
NY doesn’t trust military personnel with weapons. Hurricane Sandy Mayor POS banned armed NG troops from providing securty. And looters ran wild.
And some wonder why there’s an “us against them” attitude dividing police and “regular” folks.
It’s not an attitude, HB. It’s a fact.
OTOH, there’s some speculation on the NY boards that passing this would add an equal protection clause issue to the ongoing litigation.
This is interesting. One could possibly try to argue that retired cops should be able to carry higher-capacity mags because they may be able to intervene in a crime if they witness it, so it’s a bit like having a “reserve” police force. But “assault weapons”? They can’t walk around with them, so it’s really for personal use rather than any public good. And if it’s more about some sort of reward for prior service rather than directly protecting the public after the retirement, what about the military veterans?
An honest citizen is just as able to intervene in a crime they witness.
“If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not
obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will
be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.” James Madison, Federalist 57.
So now we’re to the point where laws are passed and only apply to certain groups of people.
Shouldn’t there be a discrimination suit coming in?
Correct this insane law by voting
They are retired, and therefore have no more need for a 8+ round mag than the rest of us (which is all the need in the world). Besides, wouldn’t the fact they are highly trained and have years of experience translate into needing fewer bullets?
Two interesting point to be made here – the first is that, if I’m not mistaken, police officers (and by that standard, retired police officers) are statistically just as likely to commit murder as anyone else. They’re just as big a threat. Secondly, even if we do buy into the ‘logic’ behind the bill, then shouldn’t returning veterans be afforded the same right, if not more?
When I qualified for my permit in Boston (back when I lived there) there were three other people like me and 3 state cops doing their qualification. I shot better than any of the state cops, and the only guy who shot better than me? A returning Marine getting his CC permit.
what complete and utter foolishness this is..
So, in Soviet New York, only retired gestapo are allowed to own guns?
This X-cops only are allowed freedom splits the citizenship into Lords and Serfs. More directly, it dictates that New York citizens are slaves, and unworthy of the 2nd Amendment, while government officials, in fact- X government officials, are “More Equal” than others.
The story ‘Animal Farm’ coming true right before your eyes…
The Unconstitutional Illegal SAFE laws need deleted, even half senile old X-cops openly admit it is wrong, and use their political insider connections to get special favoritism while at the same time actively employed police are supposed to be arresting even Iraq & Afgan Veterans if they have more than 7 round weapons.
And why do X-police want to keep their guns?
For self protection against criminals.
Wow! That’s a great idea! Everyone should have the Right to Self Defense !
I hope this exceptional example of moral corruption does pass, because when the SAFE anti-law is finally overturned in court,
All fascist anti-American laws will take one step closer to being struck down.
Legal Citizens should not be punished for the crimes committed by criminals.
The coorect answer is:
Longer jail sentences for violent offenders, not punishment of the innocent armed citizens.
Then retired police can live free from the worry of some angry dirt bag coming back after them in just a few years…
They are exempt because they need the extra rounds to hit anything. Remember the 30% mentioned above.
With all due respect, the LEO exception has little or nothing to do with a trust in “Approved Groups” who the Illuminati like – most retired cops are very right wing. They do provide a pool of armed guards protecting people they really can’t stand. That is a factor, you’re right about that.
The main and simple fact is that they have an organized and powerful lobby who can make plenty of trouble for them and will do so if they don’t get what they want. As I’ve stated Ad Nauseam, this is exactly what I’ve urged us to do. Stick Together – Carve a Niche – Demand our Rights!
While you’re right that carving an exception for retired Leo’s is a violation of “Equal Protection” it can be used as a wedge to demand that others equally qualified should be exempted as well. Military vets, former peace officers, experienced shooters and collectors with clean records, etc.
Sadly – but realistically – something like this may well pass constitutional muster under “reasonable regulation” so lets think ahead and see if it can be made use of in the sense of qualifying most of us as “exceptional”. Everybody is above average, right?
I get the impression that most of the public is OK with lots of possession, CCW and other gun stuff as long as they feel that the people doing it are “checked out” in some way or another – we should use this instead of raging at the storm while being overwhelmed.
The problem with being “checked out” is that the process easily becomes more and more onerous over time. According to this article about pistol licenses in Oneida County in upstate NY – http://www.wktv.com/news/local/Pistol-license-applications-on-the-rise-in-Oneida-County-204780641.html – “the application requires four references who have known you for five years or longer, are not related and who live in your county”.
Now, that may seem fine if you’ve lived in Oneida County all your life, but what if you just moved there? Years ago, I had a guy in my pistol club in Tompkins County whose daughter had grown up there but moved to Alaska for a number of years. When she came back, she had her handguns shipped from Alaska to a local FFL where they would sit for a couple of years before she could apply for a NY State pistol license and then get her handguns. A five-year requirement really makes me wonder – maybe there is some short-cut the judges allow, but it all seems rather arbitrary.
Now, I am not saying there aren’t States where a permit system is fairly administered and has been for a fairly long time, but it is true that a system like that does get very easily abused, so one can’t be watchful enough. And then, I am not sure the attitudes are the same in all parts of the US about being “checked out” for ownership beyond the instant background checks.
I agree with you completely but you have got to play the cards you’re dealt. It’s only the “instant background” or “shall issue” sort of thing that I can stomach but if we need to go further in some of the Constitution Free Zones for really “scary stuff” than let’s do what we can. The filing demands you mentioned in NY are “onerous” and should be nullified, BUT I’m afraid a lot of it will hold up – and has – in court regardless.
You’re so right that the “slippery slope” is waiting and needs to be watched. Believe me, I only mention such actions in the sense of guiding this storm and using some ju-jitsu against the grabbers rather than being run over.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply – points well taken.
Compromise sounds appealing in bad situations, especially if it allows the pro-gun side to influence legislation at least in some measure. The problem is that if one only tries to manage decline, the end result is never going to be good, so one has to be very careful not to underestimate one’s chances and compromise where one doesn’t really have to.
In any case, amidst all the gloom, we should be celebrating the signing of the comprehensive gun bill in Alabama the other day. I am not sure the bill quite makes it a shall issue State now, but it seems like a step in that direction. That’s more liberty for 4.8 million more Americans.
good: I am not a lawyer, but i am under the impression that this will make it much easier to challenge.
That was my first thought as well.
I would like that too but don’t kid yourself. LEOSA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926C) already gives special privileges to retired officers. It is still the law and I don’t think there has been a court challenge that.
LEOSA concealed carry is also another example of the over broad use and reading of the commerce clause.
I keep saying that we need to sue over the United States Constitutional prohibition against titles of nobility. How else do we construe retired po-po having a different set of laws?
They are going to have what they retired with, what they trained on,” said Assemblyman Joe Lentol (D-Brooklyn), who sponsored the bill
I forget:
was Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan police actions.
These vets have more training and experience with actual weapons use in “situations” then any police.
Of course this not to advocate another carve out but to illustrate the hypocrisy.
Vets should speak up for themselves and all those for whom they served. Their voice has to carry some power and respect.
14th A Equal protection retired cop=citizen, citizen=citizen
NY state gov has a problem.so far the only law enforcement willing to enforce this law are the state police. This bill is a attempt to buy off/appease cops/sheriff’s into going playing ball with the govenor
it’s almost like once they arrive at their political job, they take full leave of their senses. Then they wonder why every day citizens hate them…
The reason that this exemption is being put forward is to curry favor with NY LEOs who are currently fighting the SAFE Act. It’s a bribe. And a rather pathetic one at that.
A couple of days ago, Gov. Mussolini summoned a bunch of NY sheriffs to his
throne roomoffice to threaten them because they were very vocally opposing the SAFE Act. That was the stick. This is a carrot. There will be more.You nailed right on the head ralph.
So, as a bad guy, I now know the cop that busted me 5 years ago is retired, and if I want to get my hands on the most potent weapons, I should steal his weapons.
Because cops are more important than mere civilians.
It’s a bribe. A big, fat bribe.
Remember the wisdom of Animal Farm – “all creatures are equal, but some are more equal than others”. Ironic that in both cases the animals are pigs.
You poor Easterners. Raging against the Machine.
Why don’t you “vote with your feet?” Get the hell out of there. I did, and I have no regrets.
As for all the anti-cop rhetoric: Clueless. You clearly don’t know how “real” cops (not the assholes that are more politician than cop, but the ones out there doing the job) think about gun rights. I wish I had a dime for every cop that’s told me that if the shit hits the fan, they’re siding with gun owners instead of confiscators. There are always going to be overzealous Barney Fifes out there, but don’t write off those that may end up being among your strongest allies.
To those offended by “Retired Law Enforcement Officers” being considered for exemption of the law, no doubt you may have had “similar” firearms training and I will even throw in Defensive Tactics. But I will ask you this———–How many of you gun carrying civilians made over 500 felony arrests of the worst scumbags on the face of the earth that upon conviction and possible release from prison threatened to kill you, your wife, your kids. The next time you bitch about retired cops having that extra edge to protect themselves from a real as opposed to an imaginary threat, think about that. Come out of denial, in no way is a civilian any way equal to Former Law Enforcement Officer turned civilian with hundreds of arrests and threats under his belt. Give me a break. BTW. The bill referencing High Capacity Magazines references Magazines that hold greater than 10 rounds. Maybe instead of griping about a cop turned civilians given an extra edge, try thanking him or her for his 20-25-37 years of placing his life on the line 365/24/7 working Saturdays, Sundays, Holidays, nights, extra tours to “Serve and Protect”
Richard Greco
Retired Law Enforcement
Richard, whether it is a former cop with hundreds of arrested felons or a civilian with a single mentally unstable former employee that has threatened to kill you, both people have the right to effective weapons to defend themselves. I don’t buy your argument that one deserves higher capacity mags than the other or the extra edge, especially when the limit we are talking about will make no real difference in fighting crime or lowering murder rates.
The carve out is a pay-off for support, not a logically justified extra-edge.
By the way, the retired cop I am talking about is a good friend and the civilian is me. I have the utmost respect for him and other LEOs and he doesn’t think I deserve less effective means to defend my self.
I retired from the Army 20 years ago. I was a support soldier. If you are not in a combat arms MOS or skill or related such as Military Police, then you are a support soldier. Support soldiers only fired a rifle ( M16a2)usually twice a year. However, I began collecting guns just before retirement and after. I now have a collection but needn’t go further. The point is I now do more shooting at the ranges than when I was active duty. I shoot more than what the local police departments in the County do. Since I shoot more often than local Leo’s, I could hypothetically be deputised and be better qualified than such. Not going to happen but just saying. Cops carry while on duty, I have a CCW license.
Comments are closed.