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.