More Equal, Redux

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 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.
Naturally, the police and ex-police are all in a tizzy over the idea that they might be treated the same as everyone else under the law. 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.
You are the same as a regular citizen, boyos.  At least, you're supposed to be.  Part of the problem is that you think you aren't.

1 comment:

Dan said...

I suppose I could be biased, having spent 26+ years in the Army, but it seems to me that everyone NOT in the MILITARY is a civilian...