Questions that should be asked of NY lawmakers
First off, doesn’t any admission that a failure to exempt police officers from magazine size restrictions is a problem with the hurried-through anti-gun legislation (because, to quote one state senator, “you can’t give more ammo to the criminals”) suggest that the law itself is intended to make sure that only law-abiding citizens have less cartridge capacity in their firearms than do criminals? And given that the police are second-responders (the individual being the first responder) — and are under no legal obligation to protect you — isn’t this law essentially a means to creating a stratified populace in which police and criminals are both better armed than law-abiding citizens exercising their right to bear arms under the second amendment?
That seems troubling to me, both on a personal and Constitutional level. If we take into account that one of the main concerns of the second amendment was to balance State power, why is it permissible under the Constitution to give special exemptions to those who use force in the service of the State?
Further, why is the Patrolman’s Benevolent Association in NY pushing for an exemption on the “high cap” ban for both active police and retired officers. Or as I like to call them, civilians, who though once active duty police, no longer are?
It really does seem to me that in every bastion of progressivism, the populace is being balkanized — and individual liberty is being replaced by government beneficence toward its clients or enablers.
That’s not a constitutional republic. That’s liberal fascism.