I do not believe one bit that the police should be affected by this legislation, because I believe that this legislation is unlawful in the first place.
I typed out a long response about the cavalry but decided to delete it. If you think that 99% of the time cops don't do anything and that the situation is handled by other people I'll just leave that alone.
When it comes right down to it, if tying emasculation of the People to that of the hired staff is the only way to ensure practical protections and guards against this sort of lunacy being enacted ... so be it.
IF as it should be LE in NY was going to be held by law to the same limits as NY put on citizens the legislators would not have even proposed the limits in the first place. Now follow me not because of you but because I am not a great speaker or writer. They wouldnt have proposed them in the first place had that been the case for two reasons. One NY cops would have raised such a ruckus they could not have ignored it. And two if the cops were by law to be held to the same standard as civilians even the most idiotic legislator would have realized the cops could not function limited to that level of armament.
That is my whole point on that and I like you think this wont stand in the courts anyway.
Now we are from the same state. My 99 percent of the time statement if you read it doesnt state the cops wont do anything. They will come to the scene. They will do their best to try to catch the BG. Both of us know that so 100 percent of the time they will do something. 90 percent of the time however, and lets be honest here regardless of good intentions the cops will be too late to be of any benefit to the victim of a violent crime.
The victim will either have successfully defended themselves or they will have been victimized and the BG escaped before the police can get there. They will investigate and try to catch the guy but after the fact. Not LE fault its simple logistics. And until the invention of instant transporters its going to stay that way.
Not proposing to screw up twice. Proposing that LE by law on the same level as civilians prevents the screw up legislation at all.
This isn't about disarming cops; it's about getting legislators to stop punishing the good guys for the actions of the bad guys. It's interesting to see which cops shout "me, me, me - cops are special", and which ones want to get the legislature to roll back the ban on everyone.
And this part is key. While it is true that cops are more likely to encounter deadly violence because of their job, when they do the threat is no more real than it is for anyone else. By the same token, In my job I am more likely than the police to risk exposure to lethal high voltage but it doesn't make it any more or less deadly than it would be to a cop.Quote:
numerous court cases that say police have no duty to protect
If someone in NY had some nuts they would bring the new law to the courts
I am positive it would be declared un constitutional ..As a former NYker all I can say
is I am happy I moved...
I buddy of mine went to the gun shop to pick up his new G19 he ordered and guess what they tried to hand him
a G19 with NO MAGS.........
For the same reason they speed past you on the highway only to get in the best hide to operate their radar.
The same is just as true for the average citizen.Quote:
(2) it is impossible to quantify the number of times a policeman that was carrying a weapon off duty in a way that was visible by a criminal stopped a criminal from making an approach on him or his family. ...
Most of whom are non-violent - traffic violations, trespassing, ...Quote:
The fact of the matter is, the average LEO is more involved day-to-day with BG's. ...
Nope, again, cite a study if you want to claim that. And before you go there, no, I'm not claiming that it never happens. Don't forget to account for the times an off-duty LEO is wounded/killed while confronting a criminal committing a crime which is not directly related to said LEO.Quote:
The only logical conclusion then, is that a LEO is at more risk than an average non-LEO at facing a BG when not "on the job" by virtue of their much greater exposure, their necessary confrontational position, and thus the greater risk of a BG coming after them in retaliation than anyone else.
We'll just have to disagree on this one b/c LEO's are not above any laws; when LEO's get special treatment, there's a problem b/c some will assume they are above the law on all counts.Quote:
EDIT: This doesn't mean I think that the law-abiding public should not be able to arm themselves with hi-cap mags, "assault rifles" etc. Instead, this means that regardless of whether civil laws are passed, the LEO's still should be able to, because in the end, even off duty, they are faced with a greater threat than the average citizen due to their job. For that reason, they should not be treated as an "average citizen" when it comes to firearms off duty.
OK si I actually read the entire thread...
First off NY Police Officers as defined in the CPLR artical 1.20, and NY Peace Officers as defined in artical 2.10 of the CPLR are exempt under Penal Law 265.20 sub.1 ... So the entire argument that the police cant have more than seven rounds in their magazine is moot.
A second point is... NY Police Officers are responsible to their oath of office 24 hrs a day, and 7 days a week. In sum and substance they are never off duty.
The term "Arms Race" is a poor way of putting it. There is no arms race between the police and the criminal element. In some situations the police are out-gunned, and in most situation the criminal is out-gunned. Such is life on the streets.
While I dont believe the non-sworn citizenry should be limited by magazine capacity, or even the kind of firearm they may choose from. To compare the average armed citizen with even the laziest, most do nothing, house mouse cop is foolishness. While citizens are sometimes confronted with an armed criminal... The police do it for a living... even those municipal patrol cops,and those traffic cops.... even those indoors cops. Armed citizens dont have the resources of the police. Armed citizens dont have the training of the police, Armed citizens dont have the experience of the police. Getting through an armed confrontation takes more than a high cap magazine. I'm not saying that an armed citizen is'nt capable of defending themself... I am saying that they are not the police.
alll the more reason to not limit the resources available to citizens to protect themselves.
I admit I have not read every post in the thread but I am just throwing opinion out there.
The police should not be exempt. Plenty of cops in my area are walking around with 1911's in .40 or .45acp and I don't hear them whining about being under gunned. For most of the last century most cops were carrying .38 special revolvers. There are plenty of weapons available to law enforcement agencies that are perfectly adequate and conform with the new laws.
As far as the people the police deal with, lets also not forget the circumstances they deal with them under. Yes, it is their job to go out and hunt the bad guys down. Dangerous work, no doubt about it. But the people they are hunting are being hunted frequently because they have been hunting the general public who are subject to these laws. In general the officers doing the hunting are the ones to determine how the contact is initiated. Not so John Q Public. Officers are generally in an area they know and their back up knows where they are (if they are doing their job properly). Again, not so for John Q. Public. Officers frequently are issued body armor and alternative weapons to their hand gun. Not so for John Q. Public. If an officer's cruiser breaks down at 0300hrs they can usually expect someone on their shift to either pick them up or hang out with them until the tow truck comes. In a lot of places for a police tow the truck has to be there in a certain amount of time (30 minutes in my old county). Not so for John Q. Public.
Lacking all of the tactical advantages the police have over the general public I think it can be argued that the public needs higher capacity weapons than the police.
I think the ones arguing that cops should not be subject to capacity limits are forgetting what the 2nd is about - protection from tyranny; it goes to the state/local gov'ts as well as federal. If we can't be trusted, neither can they.