LAPD Officer Peter Repovic (courtesy westsidetoday.com)

Here we go again . . . “In a hotly contested move, Los Angeles lawmakers decided Wednesday to carve out more exemptions to a city law meant to curb the carnage of mass shootings, arguing that it would better protect the public from such attacks,” lattimes.com reports. Note: MORE exemptions. In its infinite wisdom, the LA City Council has already exempted active police officers from keeping and bearing ammunition magazines with greater than 10-round capacity. (A law that violates both the United States Constitution and California’s gun law preemption statute.) And now . . .

The Los Angeles City Council voted 11 to 4 to allow some retired and reserve police officers to possess firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The City Hall deliberations played out at the same time that reports emergedof a mass shooting in San Bernardino — news that Councilman Mitch Englander shared just before the vote.

Guess who was fighting whom?

The debate pitted the Los Angeles Police Department and the police union, a politically muscular group that has been an important player in local elections, against some of the gun-control activists who had championed the L.A. ban on such ammunition magazines as a way to force attackers to interrupt their rampages sooner to reload.

Police argued that exempting retired and reserve officers from the citywide ban, which was passed earlier this year, would ensure they were equipped to face threats to public safety. In the throes of an attack, “wouldn’t you want some guy to stand up with a gun and be able to defend people?” asked Peter Repovich, director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League [above].

The cops’  hypocrisy is stunning. They support an unconstitutional law restricting citizens’ ability to defend themselves and other innocent life while arguing that they need a carve-out to defend themselves and other innocent life.

City Councilman Mitch Englander, who is an LAPD reserve officer, recounted incidents in which retired officers stopped robberies or other attacks and emphasized that the exemptions would apply only to officers who were deemed “qualified” under state or federal laws. And Councilman Mitch O’Farrell said it made no sense to bar police from using such ammunition magazines once they retired.

“I am of the firm belief that once a cop, always a cop,” O’Farrell said.

I am a firm believer that the “police are uber-citizens” philosophy underpinning these pathetic attempts to place law enforcement officers above the law is corrosive to our liberty. It should be opposed wherever it rears its ugly head, lest we [further] enable the creation of a police state. Police should be forced to face the same anti-gun rights music as any other civilian (which cops are). Like this:

Their arguments failed to sway Council Members Mike Bonin, Paul Koretz, Nury Martinez and David Ryu, who opposed the proposed exemptions. If the goal is to help retired officers fend off attacks on the public, “I’m not sure there are many cases that you could point to where you absolutely needed to spray 20 or 30 bullets” to stop a threat, Councilman Koretz said before voting against the exemption.

“The danger is that retired police officers are not necessarily magically any different than [sic] anybody else” and could suffer depression or other problems after retiring, Koretz added.

Not to coin a phrase, America was founded on the principle of providing liberty and justice for all. Cop carve-outs violate the republic for which we stand.

69 Responses to LA City Council Creates Retired Cop Carve-Out for Ammunition Magazine Limit Law

  1. So the same government thugs that preach sanctimoniously about being sheepdogs and first cleanup crew are the same people who deny the means of self-defense to the citizenry?

    Figures.

  2. I support this carve-out! Also the “active and retired police carve-out” for drunk driving, wife beating, pedophilia and everything else except for murder.

    Okay, for murder too.

  3. Like I’ve said before, if the rationale for carve outs is that, these are/were trained professionals, then based on what I’ve been trained to operate and/or qualified with during my career, I should be allowed to possess and use: aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, high performance military aircraft, air to surface weapons, crew served weapons and fully automatic small arms…I mean fair is fair….

  4. I thought ridiculous capacity magazines were only useful for mass murders. Is it okay for retired cops to be mass murderers?

  5. Nice. LA Times went to the trouble to fully name the four LA City Council members who had the balls to tell them to stuff it.

    I hauled ass out of that state in 1985… only time I’ve seen the future in my entire life.

    • I was just going to say, I’m glad I don’t live there. I used to love going to LA and California and often thought about moving there. No more. The place has become a cesspool. To think they’ve taken what it once was and ruined it.

      • Wait until they start getting real thirsty.

        Southern California has always been a water-deficit area (just ask Jake), and the jig is about to be well and truly up. It’s gonna get ugly… er.

      • The LA City Government, is becoming increasingly Mexican/Latin American. Like the city itself. Nothing wrong with Mexicans and other Latinoas, but even by the sordid standards of North Americans over the past century, the guys down there stand out as being singularly hopeless at forming and running governments.

  6. “Not to coin a phrase, America was founded on the principle of providing liberty and justice for all.”
    And that all men are created equal. Period.

  7. I’m not sure what is more vomit inducing, the carve-out the mafia union is asking for or the comment from Councilman Koretz.

    “I’m not sure there are many cases that you could point to where you absolutely needed to spray 20 or 30 bullets” to stop a threat.

    Because if there aren’t many cases where more than 10 bullets are necessary then it’s ok to deny people their rights. I wonder if Cortez sees 10 bullets as adequate defense against 10 assailants.

    • The difference is…if you realize you only have one or two pistol magazines, you don’t spray bullets. You try to make them count, unless you are trying to lay down covering fire for someone to advance or retreat. The only people who seem to “spray” bullets are civilian law enforcement and criminals.

  8. From Merriam-Webster:

    ci·vil·ian (sĭ-vĭl′yən)
    n.
    2 a :one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

    Police are civilians? Come again?

    • Well Ken, try this on for size. the carve out is for RETIRED (i.e. former) cops. So what is it: once a cop, always a cop, or once retired, they are just “little people.”

    • Police are civilians, in that they are (supposed to be) subject to the same civil laws as everyone else. As contrasted with members of the military, who are subject to Uniform Code of Military Justice.

      In any case, the carve-out is for retired cops, so no matter what definition you use, if you’re not on the police force anymore, you’re a civilian.

    • You cannot consult a common-usage dictionary to get a legal definition of a legal term. To be a civilian is to be subject to civil law (or practice it). In contrast, you have the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If a police officer or fire fighter cannot A) be arrested for quitting their job (AWOL) or B) face court-martial instead of indictment and trial in a civilian court then there is no way they are anything but civilian by any legal definition (and legally, they are civilians).

      Common-usage dictionaries change the definition of words based on common, widespread misuse. In a few years or decades, don’t be surprised to see “civilian” defined therein as “one not employed or contracted by the government”. There’s a reason common-usage definitions hold no sway in law school, in the smoke-filled rooms where legislation is drafted, or in the court room.

    • “selfie”, “bling-bling”, and “twerk” are also in the Merriam-Webster but are all bogus nonsense in a world where literate people converse. Nice try though…

  9. “In the throes of an attack, “wouldn’t you want some guy to stand up with a gun and be able to defend people?” asked Peter Repovich, director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League [above].”

    I was chatting with a co-worker today, who isn’t a gun owner, but not anti-gun. She said basically, “I told my husband I feel pretty safe at work. There’s alot of people here with CHLs, The police wouldn’t have to ask who shot the guy, but who didn’t”.

    • Wish more people would take that position. Don’t need everyone to carry ( but it’d be OK with me ) but the rest should at least appreciate it!!

    • “In the throes of an attack, “wouldn’t you want some guy to stand up with a gun and be able to defend people?” asked Peter Repovich, director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League [above].”

      Yes, I f’ing would. That’s why I carry a gun.

      Also, since the cops have no legal obligation to protect anyone even though it’s their goddamn job— a distinction the police themselves fought very hard for– the argument that they will “stand up” taller than another gun owner when they’re retired is pants-on-head stupid.

  10. How convenient. Take liberty from the populace, then when problems result or just happen, “solve” the problem by giving that which was taken as a privilege to the select.

    It’s not a slippery slope, it’s a mechanism that will work as long as it’s allowed to, because the people in power want it to and benefit from it.

  11. The union is representing its members. Good for them. If CA gun owners would all organize the same way, they could probably get the entire law tossed.

  12. Related to the fact that ZERO retired/reserve officers turned in their mags when the new law came into effect, and instantly became criminals?

  13. Bah. I don’t think ACTIVE police should have access to arms that regular citizens can’t own. Police should have to abide by the same laws as everyone else. Maybe then some of these big-city police forces, NJ, CA, NY, IL, etc, would be less enthusiastic about restricting people’s rights…

    • +1. One of the reasons that an agent of government is paid is because they are agreeing to set aside some of their rights and act under privilege while represented as agents of that government. Governments posess no rights; only privileges. Therefore, government can only confer privileges to its agents. The privileges can’t exceed rights. Yet, that’s exactly what our government has been trying to do at every turn. Power in our free society is supposed to flow from the People but government now operates as if it flow from government… And too many useful idiots swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

  14. What about us veterans or active members of the military? Sorry to say this but we shoot more and are better trained to handle terrorists than cops who should be there to protect and serve law-abiding citizens. What is happening to society? Where’s the leadership and what are they doing for the community?

    • Only cops get to play. Feds & military don’t “qualify” according to the law in Glorious Kommieformistan. Sorry, Comrade. Found out while shopping for PMAGs before Quantico Tactical closed up their CA shop.

    • Nope, off-duty and retired military can’t be trusted because with their PTSD they could snap at any moment, while cops, many of which are former military, are entirely trustworthy.

  15. A well-trampled citizenry, be necessary to the security of The State, the right of the pigs to cruise around in MRAPs, muzzle-sweep “civilians” with machine guns, and empty a magazine into your dog, shall not be infringed.

  16. Robert, maybe you should ask a California lawyer what California law says first. The LA ordinance probably does NOT violate California’s pre-emption law for the simple reason that 10+ mags have been verboten to the hoi poloi for any pistol or rifle purchased on or after 1/1/2001. Now technically us little people can continue to possess 10+ mags lawfully owned prior to then, but they cannot be sold or transferred within the state. In the past couple of years, I believe it was the LA County DA, began declaring 10+ mags to be “nuisances” and subject to confiscation without compensation–and getting away with it. This was particularly an issue for lawfully owned 20 and 30 round AR/AK mags. On top of that, SF has a very similar ordinance (with no carve out) a portion of which (the storage requirements LA also adopted) that was unsuccessfully challenged in Jackson v. SF. Under the SF ordinance, it is a misdemeanor to possess a 10+ mag except for ON DUTY police officers and only with respect to duty weapons and mags–personally owned mags are prohibited (if you live in City limits).

    There is one other aspect of this amendment to the ordinance that you did not cover. Because there was no “off duty” police officer carve out, a number of County Sheriffs, among them lead plaintiff Shasta County Sheriff Bosenko (who is very pro-2A and “shall issue” on CCWs), filed an action challenging the orignial ordinance. This new ordinance would seem to render that lawsuit moot

  17. I view carve-outs for those licensed to carry concealed in the same light. Special privilege for cops is just another carve-out for a government licensed activity. None of it should be happening in a free society.

  18. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
    ― George Orwell, Animal Farm

    I thought we tried to fix this with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of 1789?

  19. It’s a smart move by the statists to throw meaningless bones to their dogs if they expect them to stay loyal when the time comes.

    You need to make your boys feel special. Separate more and more from the common filth that we are. Pressed uniforms, shiny pins and jewelry and special privileges. That way you increase the likelihood that they’ll continue to fight and die for you. At least continue on longer than had you not created and sustained the illusion that they are better than, loved more and more valuable than the others.

    • I’ve never used an M16/M4 on active duty that was not loaded using a standard capacity 30 round magazine. I’m not sure when the standard capacity shifted from 20 round mag to 30, probably early/mid 80s. I’ve only used less than a 20 round mag in M14s in competitive shooting. So I’d classify anything less than what the current standard issue to be a “reduced capacity magazine”. A 75 round drum for an AR is a high capacity magazine, while for an RPK clone, it’s a standard capacity mag.

      • Very early in the 70’s the 20 rounder was standard for the m16. A common load out would be 10+ 20 rounders and 2-3 30 rounders. A bandolier of 10 round stripper clips and a “spoon” for reloading mags was also common.

        • The 20-round mags, once loaded by means of the stripper clips, slipped right back in the bandolier which contained the stripper clips and spoon, giving a bandolier with (I seem to recall) 7X20-round mags ready to go. All the same with me, except the only 30-round mags I saw were in the possession of ARVN, did not see Army with them either (I was AF). The few Marines I ran into (supposedly none were in the country, ha-ha) had only 20-round mags, as well.

        • Yeah, that 7×20 rings a bell. If memory serves, and maybe it don’t, I had some type of gas mask bag I carried the rare 30 rounders in.

  20. Amazing to me that on most “conservative” sites, NOT kissing cop ass is an absolute outrage. It’s so pleasant to see the wonderful, freedom loving comments on this thread. A place of refuge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *