Cops Are Outraged That New York's New Magazine Limit Could Apply to Them

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.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's terrible when there are consequences to rushing legislation through. Fortunately in this case it only affected those to whom law doesn't apply.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Cops should be nothing more than citizens with jobs in law enforcement, with no superior rights to weapons, killing, or anything else. What we have now is absurd.

  • ||

    ^^THIS^^

  • WTF||

    They're not ordinary citizens, they're heroes. Why do you hate our courageous heroes?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Heroes like. . .Richard Jewell (yes, I know he was an ex-cop when he went heroic)?

  • Tonio||

    PL, Richard Jewell was exonerated. He didn't do it. He was innocent. Christian terrorist Eric Rudolph did the bombing and Jewell got screwed over. WTF, dude?

  • robc||

    I think that was the point. Jewell wasnt a cop and was a hero.

  • juris imprudent||

    Look the union thug was very clear in his statement about "regular citizens" and his brethren in blue.

  • Killazontherun||

    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

    Eat the rich public sector.

  • WTF||

    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

    So why limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves? Oh, yeah, "Fuck you, that's why".

  • juris imprudent||

    Eat the rich public sector.

    That would be a very unhealthy diet. I don't think Nanny Bloomberg would approve.

  • Rich||

    they forgot to exempt active-duty and retired law enforcement officers from the new magazine rule.

    Emphasis added. How is a retired LEO not an ordinary citizen?

  • WTF||

    Some lives are more important than others.

  • Rich||

    Serious question: Do LEOs have permanent driver licenses?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Permanent exemptions from tickets is more like it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Round here a state trooper was busted for DUI recently. State law says anyone busted for DUI loses their license for a minimum of six months. Want to guess how long he lost his license for? If you guessed "nada" you would be correct.

    But there's no double standard. That's just fiction pushed by bigots.

  • Tonio||

    ^This.

    (Goes off to light the Dunphy Signal)

  • SugarFree||

    Dunphy Signal

    A diesel soaked turd jammed on the end of a nightstick.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I thought that was a dunphytorch?

  • SugarFree||

    You're right. I forgot about the seachlight with the turd cut-out cover.

  • some guy||

    Serious question: Do LEOs need a driver license when all they have to show is their badge?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    FOR THE CHILLUNS!

  • ||

    Emphasis added. How is a retired LEO not an ordinary citizen?

  • croaker||

    Some pigs are more equal than others.

    Orwell was a fucking prophet.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Piss on you, NY cops. I'd make sure your remarks and the legislative intent of any new cop-loophole opener legislation was Exhibit A in my suit to overturn this law.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "... 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."

    Maybe you can explain the importance of instituting a new policy that bad guys will ignore so that only the good guys have less of an ability to defend themselves.

    This looks like prima facie evidence that this guy is too stupid to carry a gun, period.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Paging Serpico...

  • An0nB0t||

    Goose, gander, etc.

  • sarcasmic||

    Since when did cops save lives? They don't save lives. They take lives.

  • ||

    Why would anybody cops ever need more than 7 rounds?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    When you're blindly firing into the side of a home or thru a door, you need lots of bullets to make sure you hit something with a pulse.

  • Rich||

    I'll just leave this here.

  • An0nB0t||

    I don't know what's sexier: thousands of rounds of indiscriminate gunfire, or a young-ish Sandra Locke.

  • ||

    Sandra Locke and Sexy don't belong within 50 parsecs of each other.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Clint obviously disagreed, considering she was in just about every one of his movies there for awhile.

    That said, and tastes vary, but his going for Locke made about as much sense as Michael Douglas's character choosing to cheat on Anne Archer, with Glenn Close. (?!)

  • Drake||

    Locke made more sense than that.

  • some guy||

    Also, what if the perp is a dog-hoarder. It takes a lot of rounds to finish off 30 Jack Russels.

  • Adam330||

    If 4 cops that shot Amadou Diallo only had 7 rounds each, then they wouldn't have been able to put 41 rounds in him without reloading.

  • entropy||

    What if animal hoarders have more than 7 dogs?

  • ||

    +1 cute copyrighted puppy

  • some guy||

    Damn. You beat me to it by almost 4 hours...

  • ||

    Take 2:

    Why would anybody cops ever need more than 7 rounds?

  • juris imprudent||

    Why would anybody cops ever need more than 7 rounds?

    Some dogs don't go down so easy.

  • ||

    I support the governor in gun reform, however the new legislation restricts law enforcement officers who retire

    I AM ABOVE THE LAW!

    Choke on it, fucking pigs.

  • WTF||

    That's okay, not to be outdone, the idiot democrats in New Jersey are looking to ban magazines of more than 5 rounds. So now I guess six-shooters will be illegal. And since I don't think many guns have available 5-round magazines except for small, easily-concealable pieces, most guns will be de facto illegal as well. How is this constitutional?

  • rts||

    In Canada magazines for semi-automatic centre-fire rifles are limited to 5 rounds as well, and there is no shortage of them. I'm not saying this is a good thing, only that it looks like a business opportunity for enterprising Ontarioans.

    (Handguns are limited to 10 rounds. There is no limit for rimfire or "manual" action rifles.)

  • An0nB0t||

    Never really looked into it, but didn't they manufacture high-caliber rimfire rounds in the old days? Are those at all popular in America's Hat these days to circumvent the magazine limits?

  • rts||

    I don't know about the old days; nowadays the only rimfire I see in shops is .22LR, but I'm not sure if that's due to legislation or the market.

    I bought a 10/22 specifically so I could get the 25 round Butler Creek magazine.

    Also, it isn't "circumvention", but rather "compliance".

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I bet you take advantage of tax loopholes too.

  • ||

    .22 Mag and .17HMR, among others, are rimfire, and you wouldn't want to be shot with either.

  • rts||

    I guess you can get those here:

    http://www.cabelas.ca/product/.....22-win-mag

    I just don't see them in the shops I frequent.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I don't want to get shot period. 'Even' with .22LR, if this video is any judge.

    I'm impressed that they were hitting pot roasts at 300 yds with a 22, much less ripping holes through them. And I thought I was a bad ass for knocking over aluminum cans at 60 yds with my grand-dad's Buckmark.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Except in self defense situations, you're not shooting to cause pain or shooting to kill, you're shooting to stop. And 22LR isn't likely to stop an attacker.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Despite Marshall and Sanow's stuff to the contrary, no handgun is, Tulpa. It's just that you can't carry an AR or a shotgun around as you get the groceries.

    That said, I agree with you that .22LR wouldn't be my first choice of cartridge for a defensive handgun. I wonder what the penetration characteristics for the above video would have been if they'd put some bones in front of the roast?

  • rts||

    We have this book in our office. The section on rimfire is quite interesting. .22LR does more damage than you might think.

  • Gray Ghost||

    It's a fascinating book and available online. (probably w/o the author's permission.) Gruesome as hell, but you expect that, given the subject matter. I didn't know until I read it that the "internal ricochet---bullets rattling around in the head" was a hallmark of .22 short, not .22LR. I also found really counter-intuitive, the idea that rifle bullets could cause much more damage to you if they encountered an intermediate obstacle, than if they just hit you.

    That said, .22LR is in a whole different universe than the wounds caused by centerfire rifles, especially those with expanding bullets. Velocity matters.

  • An0nB0t||

    Also, it isn't "circumvention", but rather "compliance".

    You are, of course, correct. I am deeply ashamed.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Actually it's damn near impossible to find 22LR in quantity right now. All I can find are the little boxes of CCI which are like double the cost of the old bulk packs. I just paid $30 for 375 rounds yesterday.

  • Zeb||

    Holy crap. I'm glad I stocked up last year.

  • rts||

    All the shops I frequent north of the border seem well stocked with all kinds of ammo. Last week I picked up 1000 rounds of 9mm no problem, and the bulk boxes of 22LR were right there too.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You mean Canada? I don't think that's an option for me.

    I suspect it's a perfect storm of people with 22 caliber AR uppers snapping it up and manufacturers switching production to more profitable ammo like 223 and 7.62

  • LarryA||

    [Never really looked into it, but didn't they manufacture high-caliber rimfire rounds in the old days? Are those at all popular in America's Hat these days to circumvent the magazine limits?]

    Yes, there was rimfire .44 cal back when cartridges used black powder.

    Modern smokeless powder generates much higher pressure. A rim thin enough to crush isn't thick enough to hold the higher pressure.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Pffffftttt. The Constitution? That thing is like... so old man.

  • Tim||

    Shut up or we'll make it 1 rounds...

  • ||

    Worked for Barney Fife didn't it?

  • ||

    It also worked for Han Solo

  • WTF||

    Only because Han shot first!

  • derpules||

    I for one am glad that all these blue states are legislating themselves out of the second amendment... makes them easier to invade.

  • ||

    I like the way you think.

  • ||

    Texas is coming.

    (Damn an edit button would be nice.)

  • rac3rx||

    Fuck that...we just want to leave, we don't want anybody else.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    What if they brings guns, and snacks?

  • ChrisO||

    What do they have of value, other than hungry mouths to feed?

  • WTF||

    New Jersey is right next door to the greatest cultural city in the world, has mountains, lakes, trout streams, 130 miles of beautiful sea shore, all within very easy driving distance. If it wasn't for all the proglodytes, it would be paradise.

  • Andrew S.||

    "New Jersey is right next door to the greatest cultural city in the world"

    Yeah, but only South Jersey. Unfortunately for people in North Jersey, they're stuck next to NYC.

  • Drake||

    You need to drive further west. Northwest NJ quite nice and represented by a Liberty Caucus guy in Congress.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I realize TEAM RED really likes the rugged individualism myth they've created for themselves, but generally speaking the hungry mouths are in the red states and blue states are the ones paying the taxes to support them:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....g_by_state

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's been debunked before; it's skewed heavily by military bases and other federal lands which are predominantly in the south and mountain west.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Oh right, I keep forgetting that military spending magically doesn't count as federal spending.

  • Adam330||

    It certainly doesn't count as feeding hungry mouths of red staters.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    "You mean to say in all your time at Gitmo you've never had a meal?"

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Your insinuation, at first, is that transfer payments/welfare are a "Red" state thing.

  • SugarFree||

    Your insinuation, at first, is that transfer payments/welfare are a "Red" state thing.

    It is in my very red state.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I am in IL - deep blue and sucking as hard as it can at the federal taxpayer teat as it can. I look over at IN and hear laughter and ringing cash registers :(

  • iggy||

    Also, southern states have far larger black and latino populations, who tend to get more welfare. It's funny how Democrats can insult black and latino welfare recipients so long as they're in the south.

  • John Henry||

    Also, southern states have far larger black and latino populations, who tend to get more welfare.

    Except they don't.

    Here are the statistics on 2011 welfare recipients:

    Traits of families on AFDC Race
    White 38.8%
    Black 37.2
    Hispanic 17.8
    Asian 2.8
    Other 3.4
  • iggy||

    That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen, John. Whites make up 72 percent of America's population. If 38.8 percent of welfare payments go to white families, that's well below the percentage of the population that whites make up. The black population makes up 14 percent of the population. If 37.2 percent of welfare recipients are black, that means they make up a much higher percentage of welfare recipients than their population would suggest.

    If you pick a black person and a white person randomly, the black person is more likely to be on welfare. If an area of the country has far more African Americans, they will likely have more welfare payments. Your numbers support this statement.

  • John Henry||

    That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen, John. Whites make up 72 percent of America's population. If 38.8 percent of welfare payments go to white families, that's well below the percentage of the population that whites make up. The black population makes up 14 percent of the population. If 37.2 percent of welfare recipients are black, that means they make up a much higher percentage of welfare recipients than their population would suggest.

    You are correct Iggy. I assumed (yes, I know) that these were weighted figures taking population %'s into account. Once I looked closer, it is as you say. It really is sad to see the numbers fall out as they do. I stand corrected.

  • Calidissident||

    That may play a part, but from the table, a lot of the Red states that get the most net spending have low minority populations (Alaska, the Dakotas, Idaho, Kentucky). Also, Texas and Florida (which is more a purple state than red) are the only southern states with above average Latino populations, so I'm not sure where that's coming from. States like California, New York, and New Jersey all have high minority populations and are net donor states. Texas is the only Red state that's majority-minority and they're a donor state as well. Most federal spending isn't on means-tested welfare. This isn't a defense of Team Blue by any means, by the way, just pointing out that you can not in any sense say that Red states tend to subsidize blue states

  • XM||

    Big states (typically blue) collect revenues from entertainment and tech industries. The coastal cities make a lot of money on tourism and related businesses. The ports are right there too. If the immigration size is significant, there's some import and export business there as well.

    Blue state dystopia like Oakland or Detroit has trouble running their own cities. If some states are "subsidizing" another state, most of that money is probably coming from the wealthy who live comfy lives in gated communities far away from poor, minority ridden districts.

    If you make money, the government will take your money and give it to someone. A chunk of the wealthy lives in blue states.

  • rac3rx||

    Disputed article is disputed.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    OTOH, one could just depend on the state for every scrap of sustenance and guidance, Stormy.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You could probably transform a 10-rounder into a 5-rounder by filling half of it with concrete. Just like a nuclear missile.

  • Tman||

    "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."

    If they are retired then they are private citizens. What the fuck is this guy talking about?

  • Bobarian||

    The argument is that retired cops are part of an auxilliary; much like retired military.

    Therefore in most places, retired cops get special licensing and dispensation to continue to carry.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Therefore in most places, retired cops get special licensing and dispensation to.... be self-entitled assholes who aren't going to be called up anytime like an actual reserve. They just want privileges.

  • Killazontherun||

    You can't go back to being regular citizens after acquiring a taste for power. What kind of cruel son of a bitch are you?

    And Bobarian, that may be the rationale given to legislate special privileges, but you know as well as I do, it is a silly one. Retired cops are not reservist for those special occasions when cops are overwhelmed. That is in when they call in the National Guard, you know, the real reservist.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    What kind of cruel son of a bitch are you?

    My son calls me a tyrant, a robber, and a thief.

  • Killazontherun||

    I'm sure my son would too if he knew those words. Just two. He hates it when I restrict the time he spends on activities and games, and doesn't get that old man owns all of it.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Yeah, get used to it. That lasts for a long while.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    My son hit 14 and it started to sink in. Just.

  • juris imprudent||

    Mine was quite of piece of work in his teens. Now 23 and I couldn't be prouder of him.

    Hang in there.

  • Ted S.||

    Mine was quite of piece of work in his teens. Now 23 and I couldn't be prouder of him.

    So when he was a teenager he was a Big State bootlicker, and now he's as vulgar and bawdy as all of us H&R commenters? :-)

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Mine is a good kid - he just was a bit divorced from the whole concept of "we have things because Dad works his butt off". He gets it now - but it took 14 years to sink in :)

  • thom||

    Escalades with FOP plates...

  • Adam330||

    Then they can pick up a gun from the department when they are called up. Otherwise, live like the rest of us.

  • Tman||

    Ah, I see. I suppose that makes sense, but it doesn't make it any less obnoxious.

    They are basically staying "even though I'm no longer a LEO, I am STILL above your laws puny private citizen".

    Finally I have found an aspect of this gun law mania that I can at least take a tiny amount of satisfaction.

  • sarcasmic||

    Federal law gives retired cops the right to carry concealed in all 50 states.

    Puny private citizens indeed.

  • Killazontherun||

    Ah, I see. I suppose that makes sense, but it doesn't make it any less obnoxious.

    No it doesn't. Ex-cops don't answer to the public nor their ex-colleges who were once junior rank. They become a law unto themselves just like they did during Katrina.

  • Killazontherun||

    In our on going decade long quest to find the most horrible human beings on the planet we may have finally done it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You know that they're not going to get arrested, let alone prosecuted anyway, so you have to write an exception for them to keep the rule of law intact.

  • juris imprudent||

    The forms must be observed!

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Our Sublime Padishah Emperor has appointed me as Judge of the Change, here to resolve all dispute...

  • MoonliteSonata||

    Wow.. Someone else can spout quotes from "Dune"!!!
    "Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class — whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy." -- Politics as Repeat Phenomenon, Bene Gesserit Training Manual

  • sarcasmic||

    He acknowledges that criminals will ignore the law, and then goes on about how those who do follow the law are better off less armed than the criminals?

    Seriously?

  • WTF||

    In all fairness, it must be tough to support the stupid law while at the same time seeking an exemption to it.

  • sarcasmic||

    I dunno. Cops are exempt from most laws anyway. What's another one?

  • WTF||

    Yeah, but they rarely have to argue for that exemption, it's usually just automatically written in.

  • Gadianton||

    "Gun reform must prevent criminals and the deranged from getting illegal weapons—not restrict law-abiding people from protecting themselves and the public,"

    FIFY

  • shamalam||

    "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."

    Cool, you guys get to be outgunned by the "bad guys" just like the rest of us law abiding citizens.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's especially precious given that correctional officers don't ever deal with criminals armed with anything more dangerous than weaponized soap.

  • Bobarian||

    The toothbrushes are much more dangerous than the soap.

    But as a correction officer, shouldn't they be carrying concealed truncheons and fire hoses?

  • OldMexican||

    Cops Are Outraged That New York's New Magazine Limit Could Apply to Them


    I am outraged that they're outraged! The law is supposed to curb gun violence! Bad guys will not be able to have guns that shoot many bullets! I mean, what's the point of signing laws if they're not going to be effective? Huh? HUH?

    "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.


    "Is he being serious?"
    "He's irony-impaired, let's move on!"

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    correction officers union

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's outrage all the way down!

  • shamalam||

    If the cops were limited to 7 round magazines, Amadou Diallo might be alive today.

    If is saves just one precious life...

  • DJK||

    Where are our new trolls? Do they not have any "nutter" responses to a cop agreeing with the thesis that these new gun laws will not affect criminals?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: DJK,

    Tony will retort with the contention that we need to take guns away from everybody in order to avoid such problems.

    It is akin to suggesting we get rid of all cars so drunks don't drive, or all airplanes so terrorists do not fly into buildings. That sort of twisted logic.

    If you don't believe me, just look at how some pundits (like the guy at The Young Turks show) argue that we cannot show the effectiveness of anti-gun policies because they're implemented in areas surrounded by lax gun laws. The insinuation is obvious: We cannot have such policies for only a few cities, we have to disarm 40% of the total US population to show that we're right!

  • Drake||

    Tony is busy trying to explain how Obamacare isn't Fascism. He's not having much success.

  • OldMexican||

    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?


    Speaking of the word "need," you have to admire the tenacity of liberal shitheads and pundits who keep asking the same loaded question over and over again: "Why would anybody 'need' a gun that can do" X, Y or Z.

    Those guys always resort to the same Maxian rhetorical crutch of confusing wants with needs. We don't need cars, we can walk. We don't need houses, there are perfectly good caves. The fact is that people produce and consume things they WANT, not that they necessarily NEED. I don't NEED a parachute right now, but I still have one when the time comes I want to jump out of a flying airplane without hitting the ground at 150 MPH. I don't NEED a glass of water right now, but I still WANT to have a water bottle at the reach of my hand.

    As well, there are plenty of things we don't "need", like amusement parks, pets, Christmas lights, ottomans, running shoes, etc. I may not need them but I procure them because I want them.

    So it is with guns - I don't need a gun right now, but I want it. I want to have it, that is my prerrogative and my right as a free person. Whatever I need it for is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Did Sandra Fluke WANT or NEED birth control?

  • ||

    Did Sandra Fluke WANT or NEED birth control?

    I doubt she NEEDS it, but in the event she does, she WANTS you to pay for it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Fat smelly drunk guys are just as potent as Ryan Seacrest.

  • ||

    Fat smelly drunk guys are just as potent as Ryan Seacrest.

    That's not quite the angle I was going for when I said she didn't "need" birth control, but your point stands. ;-)

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, there is very little that one actually needs. Basic food and shelter (if you live someplace where it gets cold) is about it. And even that assumes that you need to live. Which is debatable. I don't need to do anything. I could just sit here until I die.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "The way the current legislation is drafted, it actually handcuffs the law enforcement community from having the necessary ammunition needed to save lives,"

    This hurt my widdle head.

  • WTF||

    You mean, ammunition doesn't save lives?

  • Tim||

    Anyone remember that poor bastard who was shot forty something times by NYPD while reaching for his wallet?

  • Tim||

    Tried a search, but shit, they done shot a lot of people, a lot of times.

  • Adam330||

    Amadou Diallo

  • MissMalevolent||

    If you're retired, you are an ordinary citizen.

    Why is it people only care when THEIR rights are taken...don't they understand the inherent hypocrisy of being okay with a law as long as it doesn't apply to them?

    Just like those who were all to happy to have taxes go up on the top "2%" in the country, but were shocked and dismayed when they the 77% had to pay higher payroll taxes. People need to stop being so myopic and look at the greater picture.

  • Boots61||

    we said.... ty

  • The Late P Brooks||

    a former NYPD captain but nevertheless does not know which constitutional amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures

    Well, to be fair, it was a trick question; no such protection actually exists.

  • Xenocles||

    No, you're protected from unreasonable searches, but there just aren't any such things.

  • juris imprudent||

    If a cop suspects you, of course his search is perfectly reasonable.

  • Jordan||

    ...but as a matter of fact the bad guys are not going to follow this law...

    You don't say!

  • Xenocles||

    We don't need ten rounds to kill a deer, and cops don't need ten rounds to direct traffic.

  • pmains||

    I guess "gun reform" is the newspeak equivalent of "gun control." It's not guns themselves that are being reformed, of course. It's the laws attempting to control guns.

    I'm nitpicking this, because "gun reform" makes it sound like there's a system and somebody is in control. If there is another mass shooting, why there must have been a flaw in the system. Well, we can fix that through more gun reform. Reform, reform and reform again until we find the reasonable and proper scientific balance.

  • sarcasmic||

    Actually the newspeak is "preventing gun violence," so if you oppose gun control then you support gun violence.

  • Brendan||

    I hear the sound of millions of little violins playing in unison.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I guess the argument is that cops have to shoot primates, not ungulates, so they need more bullets.

  • juris imprudent||

    But what about the canines?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Bayonetting dogs is much more fun.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If former cops should be exempt from gun laws, why not former military personnel? Not just combat troops, but everybody; pencil pushers, egg scramblers, diesel mechanics and anybody who ever painted a rock white.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I'd cheer that, but I've known too many people in the 25th ID...

    Snark aside, I'd love to see someone push that and watch the spluttering as to why only retired cops should be patented nobility. anyone should be able to carry anything the cops, retired or not, carry.

  • Ted S.||

    My dad's former military, too. He had 18 months stolen from his life courtesy of the peacetime draft. He spent those 18 months at White Sands Missile Range, preventing the missiles from being stolen by the Ernst Stavro Blofelds of the world.

    I mentioned this last Veterans' Day on another board, and you should have seen how pissed the miitary fellators got.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Hey, but Blofeld didn't get any missiles - so Dad was a hero!

    I am with you - the only thing veteran status should confer, legally, is the ability to wear a funny hat at meetings of like situated folks!

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Oh, and piss on anyone who supports a draft - slave armies suck.

  • Paul.||

    My dad's former military, too. He had 18 months stolen from his life courtesy of the peacetime draft. He spent those 18 months at White Sands Missile Range,

    I was borned there!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    However, you were conceived in a boxcar on the Southern Railway.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Don't you mean launched?

  • Drake||

    Yes!

    And the craziest guys I served with are cops now anyhow.

  • Tonio||

    I'll just throw this out there. Ex-cops are more likely to have people gunning for them personally, as retribution, than the population as a whole. And I'm not advancing the argument that this justifies special treatment, but I think that's the rationale used for treating them specially.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So do ex-cons, and they are actually forbidden from owning arms of any sort.

    I know you're playing avocado diaboli here, but it's pure professional courtesy.

  • MJGreen||

    But why do they need 10 bullets to defend themselves, since proles can apparently make do with only 7? Shouldn't retired cops, being 'professionally trained,' need even fewer bullets?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I'd sure need to see some evidence of that - the time a cop retires, he's probably been at a desk or admin or leadership. Of course in Cook County, Illinois, he has been on disability, all the better to get 75% for the final pension. Besides, one of the LEO justifiers would have easily posted even anecdotal evidence by now, right?

  • Gray Ghost||

    Try it this way, Colonel. We don't allow an exception to gun control regs for appliers for a protective order. You know, the people who've actually had to demonstrate to a judge, that they are in danger to life and limb from the hands of the guy listed on the PO. These people have an actual demonstrable need for immediate means of self-defense, and they're basically told to go pound sand. Why then should retired LEOs get such an exception on a theoretical need?

  • sarcasmic||

    We're living in a feudal system.
    The political class is the nobility, the cops are the knights, and everyone else are serfs.

    Of course retired knights will get special treatment over serfs. They're knights!

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I meant the evidence of being under a threat of retaliation. I think a retired cop is just another "civilian" like me, now.

  • Jack the Reaper||

    GG - You don't need to prove shit to get a PO. In spite of any history of anything, my now ex-wife had one put in place on me as a suprise attack entering into divorce proceedings. After months, the judge apologized to me but justified it as erring on the side of caution. I just smiled and nodded my head instead of telling her what I really thought since I was locked out of my house and away from my children for the whole of that time.

    Restraining Orders are very abused and almost always against men.

    Which has little to do with the conversation but you hit a nerve on that one.

  • Paul.||

    Cops Are Outraged That New York's New Magazine Limit Could Apply to Them

    Holy fucking shit! Really?

    *Dances a jig in my cubicle*

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/01.....nt_3483325

    Change #3: Any restrictions to firearms even entertained by lawmakers must apply to law enforcement and security, both private and public. Magazine restrictions, barrel length, caliber etc. The law shall be applied equally to all citizens.
  • NL_||

    The idea that active cops need weapons too dangerous for us normies is odious but commonplace statism. Saying that retired cops should get the 'dangerous' weapons is creating a protected class of people unrelated to their alleged protective function.

    This is noxious, but probably to be expected. Cops don't really think the law applies to them, this is just being overt about it. Even if they don't get a formal pass, how likely is it that retired cops will get in trouble for this?

  • Paul.||

    "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,

    I don't.

    but as a matter of fact the bad guys are not going to follow this law,"

    We know.

    That's why the whole thing is stupid.

    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."

    Fuck you, cut spending.

    "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.

    So we must restrict law-abiding citizens from obtaining these useful devices.

  • Paul.||

    New York Police, you have made a clear, lucid and well-articulated argument as to why magazine capacity should not be restricted...

    OVERRULED!

  • Jose Chung||

    "... as a matter of fact the bad guys are not going to follow this law."

    belies the later statement

    "Gun reform must prevent criminals and the deranged from getting illegal weapons—not restrict law-abiding retired cops from protecting themselves and the public."

    LEO community really needs to get their stories straight. And let's not forget that since Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, the police are under no obligation to protect anyone at all, so this crap about protecting the public is just that, crap. As the police are under no obligation to protect the general public, any attempt to restrict the self-defense rights of anyone effectively nullifies their constitutionally enshrined right to life, does it not?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C......_Gonzales

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The way the current legislation is drafted, it actually handcuffs the law enforcement community from having the necessary ammunition needed to save lives.

    The Warrior Caste cannot be subject to the same laws as the Worker and Artisan Castes. Warriors must have access to the most powerful weapons possible to carry out the holy function.

  • freeAgent||

    I'd love to see someone try to perform a citizen's arrest of the cops in violation of the law.

  • Joe Moe||

    95% of laws are bullshit ... they only affect law abiding citizens ... that's it, they don't affect criminals. They simply put these laws in place to make you require government assistance that much more. This government seems like it's giving you freedom, ... but they just hide their true intentions and people are just so stupid they believe it. Something bad happens and all of the sudden people jump up giving the government anything they want to 'prevent' it from taking place again. People don't realize ... What is taking place now in America is what is causing these terrible things to happen ... those same laws you seem to care so much about, ... all it's doing is protecting the evil and running over the innocent. This place is so fucked. And it will continue this way until the masses pull their heads out of their asses and stop it ... but the overall IQ seems to be dropping, so I have no faith that people will realize they can stop it ALL.

  • Jay Quick||

    The anger expressed by law enforcement only speaks to the fact that the state is monopolizing guns, slowly but surely. They don't care about unilateral gun control, they only care about gun control enforced on civilians. This is precisely why people must stand against this new push for gun control.

  • egnilk66||

    Yes, but the number of guns in civilian hands FAR outweighs that of those in police AND military hands. By many orders of magnitude, actually.

  • LarryA||

    [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."]

    They're Gregoryed.

  • egnilk66||

    Cops are no different than you and me....except that they can kick the shit out of you with their buddies and get paid for it.

  • Tejicano||

    So this law allows people to keep "high capacity" magazines which were possesed before the law was enacted but makes it illegal to load more than 7 rounds into them. In addition to the utter stupidity of that idea it makes it against the law to lose count while loading a magazine??!??

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    New magazine limit? WTF? Hey, you wouldn't listen to me, but I told you so! I said, "Let the government get away with establishing the FCC to police program content and decide who gets to be a broadcaster or not, and pretty soon they come for print media!" Didn't I say that? Now you have to ask permission to start a magazine! I'll bet it's a payoff for campaign support from New York and The New Yorker! Any way you look at it, though, the First Amendment is toast! It's time for another bloody revolution ... uh, what do you want, there, fellow?

    (whisper, whisper, whisper)

    Oh. Never mind.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement