New York police union's amazing transformation from Sarah Brady into Ted Nugent

[GoSlash27]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/18/co...-yorks-new-mag

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.

The police Union's response?

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"

(emphasis mine)

Gee... ya *think*?

Another Union head goes on to say

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."

Again, em mine.

Apparently he believes that retired cops are somehow more entitled to keep their magazines (I hate when they call them "clips") than the average law abiding citizen. He never does say why...

And then...

"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."

So now the general law- abiding public public are automatically "criminals and deranged" if they didn't spend their lives on a police force. Good one.

So this brings up my point: This author doesn't bring up the distinction between an active officer and a retired one (and of course neither did these guys). An active duty cop is authorized to shoot in order to protect the general population, while retired cops are just like the rest of us.
And keep in mind that their argument is that high capacity magazines are "not useful for defensive purposes".

So really what they're saying is that retired cops are somehow more worthy to carry extra rounds than the rest of us. That even though they're only allowed to protect themselves and a high capacity magazine doesn't suit that purpose, they should have them anyway. WHY??

Police unions are and always have been elitist hypocrites. They love gun control laws... so long as they don't apply to them. There is no practical difference between a law- abiding citizen who is not a cop and a law- abiding citizen who is not a cop *anymore*.

[st33lersguy]

What do you expect from liberals, hypocrisy must be a tenet among libs. Of course they made a case for why EVERY law abiding citizen should carry a gun (probably unknowingly)