ABC via one of our favorite commenters, Tennesseean.
It seems to me this was never intended to include the police, and as the Governor's office said, it will be amended. The reason people are talking about this is to discredit Governor Cuomo. It's silly.
It should apply to everyone
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, there are two reasons to talk about this.
1: There wasn't much talk about it here, but I saw a lot of time devoted on MSNBC to making fun of those opposed to the law who were complaining that it was shoved through really quickly, without sufficient debate or evaluation of it. This oversight shows that the criticism was valid since this would have been caught if more time was spent evaluating the bill.
2: The attempt to amend it opens the door for debate regarding why police need high capacity magazines since they are not fighting a war. I know the first answer will be to defend themselves against criminals when there are several criminals or the criminal has high capacity magazines, but this can apply as much to a regular Joe dealing with a home invasion as it can apply to a cop--the cop may be more likely to deal with the criminal, but the danger, in that situation, is the same for both the cop and the regular Joe. You may object that the cops need them because they get sent into dangerous situations that we would not go into, but that begs the question why do they all need such guns and magazines--why not just make these available to the SWAT team? Do we even want the SWAT team using "weapons of war" loaded with "Mass Murder Magazines"?
Within the same vein, why would we, at the request of the police association, make an exception for retired police? Other people can be in the same situation of having criminals that hate them and want them dead--e.g. prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Let's also not forget that technically, your average patrol officers rules on the use of deadly force actually don't differ that immensely from those of private citizens. The standard is "Imminent threat of death or serious physical injury", essentially the same standard any civilian would have to follow. The "tactical needs" when facing an armed criminal are roughly the same.
Deletehttp://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf
(See page 9)
You must consider the fact that, unlike the average citizen, police bear the interest of public safety, and are therefore endowed with coercive power (lawful use of arms) as a means of carry out their duty. If a LEO draws his service weapon and kills Chester the Molester, it is considered a "Justifiable Homicide" (much in the same manner as a lawful execution), while if Chester where to invade your home and you where to kill him (with whatever means available, be it a NFA 1928 Thomson, or a wooden spoon) it would be considered a "Excusable Homicide".
DeleteIan if civilians are only allowed 7 rounds to defend themselves then it should be that way for the police as well.
DeleteIan, you're wrong on your definitions:
Deletehttp://definitions.uslegal.com/e/excusable-homicide/
An excusable homicide would be if my car hits a patch of oil on the road and collides with another, killing the other driver. The act that you described is justifiable homicide, whether it's done by a cop or an average citizen.
Ian,
DeleteThe main difference in the treatment of police rules of engagement and those for the rest of us is that police are usually allowed to use lethal force to prevent the escape of violent felons whereas the rest of us are, in most jurisdictions, not allowed to fire once the threat to us or another has passed.
The distinction you draw between Justifiable Homicide and Excusable Homicide is not one I have ever seen in the law as a distinction between police action and citizen action. There may be a jurisdiction in our fifty states where this distinction is draw, but I haven't seen it. Every definition of Justifiable homicide that I have looked up has said that self-defense, if allowed as a defense, is an example of justifiable homicide.
Also, you were a bit fuzzy in your explanation of the police shooting Chester--I'm sure you know what I'm about to say, so please don't take it as condescending, I just need to say it to proceed with my agrument. The police are not justified in shooting Chester unless he is posing a risk of grave bodily harm to them or another, or if he is trying to escape and the circumstances fall under the rules of that jurisdiction.
This final possibility is the only thing that their coercive power enables, when dealing with Chester, apart from what is justified in action by a private individual, and it is pretty rare because shooting at a fleeing felon is a great way to accidentally wound bystanders. Therefore, in most cases, police are acting defensively, either of themselves or a third party, just as Joe Schmoe is doing when he uses his handgun, shotgun, or rifle to defend himself at home, or his handgun when out and about.
For this reason, I think that the defensive needs of the individual are a pretty fair match for the needs of the common beat cop who isn't raiding fortified stash houses. The cop is more likely to have to defend himself than the average citizen, but the tactical needs in defensive situations are equivalent.
If it is appropriate for a cop to carry a handgun with a standard size magazine, then why should I not be able to carry the standard magazines for my handguns, whether it's the 8 rounder in my Walther clone (which is now illegal in NY) or the 12 rounder in my .45 (which would be illegal under the President's proposal and is illegal in many states)?
Similarly, if it is useful for a cop to keep an AR-15 locked in his car in case he needs it to defend himself or others in the case that a situation goes profoundly pearshaped, why is it that such guns are maligned as not being useful for me to defend my home with in the case that things go profoundly pearshaped for me as in the many cases of home invasions by multiple parties. (No, they're not as common as one invader invasions, but they're not exactly rare.)
Please note that in this last case, I'm setting aside the argument about the social utility vs the constitutionality of "Assault Weapons" bans--we can discuss that at another time or in a parallel string of comments, I'm just addressing the usefulness of the guns and appropriateness for certain situations--something that is denied when people say, "Why could you possibly ever need an AR-15 or a 30 round massacre magazine."
Rather than to exclude certain varieties of weaponry form civilian ownership (whether through means of extensive regulation or an outright prohibition) it would be of far greater benefit to require the licencing of all forms of weaponry. Such a system would additionally prohibit high risk groups such as children under 21 (or possibly 25), persons placed on a terror watch list (with judicial approval) and most forms of misdemeanants. Penalties for illicit possession by a prohibited (not simply unlicensed person) should start at a mandatory minimum of five years, and range up to life without the possibility of parole.
DeleteI say if there old enough to die for our country then there old enough to buy a gun.
DeleteIan,
DeleteIf there were not so many activists, in and out of government, for confiscations, I would feel much less nervous about your idea of having a license to own a gun. I dislike the idea of a license for a right, but if the license was a shall issue thing that didn't have ridiculous requirements, it might be something to consider.
I would submit that a streamlined background check process might be a better way to do things. Get rid of all of the form 4473's that make people nervous about registries, and don't record the type of gun or serial number when you do the background check.
This would remove 99% of objections to background checks as everyone I've ever known who disliked the checks disliked them because they feared the government could use the documents to create a registration list and confiscate the guns.
Also make the checks available to everyone who calls the number, and make it free, or a truly nominal fee like $1 rather than the $10 it is today. All of these would encourage compliance.
With regards to the 21 or 25 issue, these young adults are living on their own often times. They can be victimized just like anyone else and have the same need for protection. If you bar them from owning any guns, you make every neighborhood full of such young people a thief's paradise as they can burglarize the homes without fear much as I've described happening in Knoxville in a neighborhood full of students and hippies.
That problem in Knoxville was solved with increased police patrols. The problem created by barring youth from owning guns, however, would be spread over too many neighborhoods to increase patrols appreciably.
The police have law-enforcement powers, but the more times we make exceptions for them, the less free we all are. Those who enforce the law must be made to understand that they are not above the law.
ReplyDeleteIf you put up with violent crime on a daily basis, and have been through a six- month academy using your firearm almost regularly, you should be allowed to have more then 7 rounds. If you think otherwise, you can think of yourself as ignorant.
ReplyDeleteBut yet us veterans and others are to be limited when defending our selves.
DeleteDo tell--how much firearms training do most police officers receive? For the NYPD, for example, it's a lot less than the typcial citizen who gets a carry license and practices every month or so.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteI acknowledge that officers have dangerous jobs that put them in defensive situations more often than the rest of us. My argument is that the rest of us who have to defend ourselves, even though we don't need to do it as regularly as the cops, have the same tactical needs if we get into such a situation.
I'm not arguing to limit cops to seven rounds; I'm arguing for consistency. If police, using their weapon defensively have a need for standard capacity handgun magazines, then so do citizens using their handguns defensively. Contrapositively, if a citizen doesn't need more than 7 rounds for defensive uses, then those officers who use their weapons defensively do not need more than 7 rounds for those uses.
They should make the entire state of New York a Gun Free Zone and not allow anyone, including cops, to have guns.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Excellent idea, and all the gun manufacturers in the state should pull up stakes and move to Texas where their employment opportunities will be appreciated.
ReplyDeleteAnd they should stop selling guns and ammo to the State of NY as well.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me this was never intended to include the police,
ReplyDeleteWell that was the way the law was written, so what it seems to you is irrelevant.
and as the Governor's office said, it will be amended.
Again the law was written that way and even someone as stupid as Gov A.C. is see that they have to amend the poorly written law.
The reason people are talking about this is to discredit Governor Cuomo.
Yes The Guv should be discredited he is a statist/marxist/socialist moron, deserving of our ridicule.
It's silly.
Yes was a silly sack of laws,
They should have passed the, Don't-drive-your-crazy-ass-20-miles-to-murder-children-in-a-gun-free-zone-after-murdering-your-mother-in-her-sleep-with-guns-she-failed-to-secure-properly-LAW.
But hey this new law makes everyone feel beter so why don't you run with it.....
It really sounds funny, infantile really to say, if we can't have them then the police shouldn't either. It's their job for Christ's sake. What's wrong with you whiny gun owners?
ReplyDeleteMike,
DeleteAs I explained above, my argument isn't that if I can't have them, the police shouldn't have them either.
Rather, my argument is that if cops need them to defend themselves, so do it; stated another way, if I don't need more than seven rounds for defensive situations, why does a cop need more than seven for defensive situations? Hence my question about limiting the use to SWAT Teams in an effort to limit their use to what are more "offensive" actions than defensive.
Frankly, I would not put this limit in the law since I can easily see situations occurring where beat cops could need more than 7 rounds to defend themselves. The thing is, I can see that same situation occurring to me. It is less likely to since I'm not a cop, and I hope it never does happen, but it is possible, and the need for a standard capacity magazines would be just as real for me as for a cop if the situation does happen.
Mike im not a gun owner but i still feel that if a cop has the need for more then 7 rounds then so does everone else because the police wont always be there to defend you.
DeleteThe "wrong" is on your side, Mike.
DeleteFor the last few months, the opponents of responsible laws have said of semiautomatics and standard magazines such lines as (paraphrased) "no defensive purpose" and "only useful for mass slaughter".
Now, they're claiming that the police have need of devices that just days ago, they were claiming were only useful for massacres.
Either the claim of no defensive purpose is a lie, in which case the ban has no legitimate use and needs to be repealed, or the claim that police need them is a lie, and they should not be exempt from bans of any kind.
The fact is, you're trying to have it both ways. That's wrong.
Mikeb, you're the jack of whining here, Goldilocks being the king. Arguing that the police need to have weapons better than the people will get your hippie certification revoked. This ought to be a point on which we all agree--the people should be more powerful than the government. You're siding with corporations and politicians against ordinary citizens. Me thinks your younger self would hurl insults and poo at you. Flying Junior certainly should.
DeleteMikeB it is my job to defend myself and my family from attackers. If the police need 15 round magazines in their handguns to respond to an attacker or attackers at my home, so do I -- especially given the fact that I will have to handle the attackers myself before MULTIPLE police officers arrive.
DeleteWouldn't it make more sense to require the licencing of weapons as opposed to restricting cosmetic features or banning magazine capacity over a certain number of rounds? If someone is deemed competent to possess a firearm, then why would they not be trusted with a few extra shells?
DeleteMikeb said: "It really sounds funny, infantile really to say, if we can't have them then the police shouldn't either. It's their job for Christ's sake. What's wrong with you whiny gun owners?"
DeleteHOLD IT RIGHT THERE, BUCKO! You and your goofy friends are always talking about England and their low gun crime rate, well, the cops in England don't carry guns, so what in the hell is funny and infantile about my statement. Let NY be a Gun Free Zone like England. But no, now all of a sudden you want cops to have guns. What kind of crazy, mixed-up gun loon are you?
orlin sellers
We're not talking about England, we're talking about New York. Besides, things have changed in the UK regarding that.
DeleteCivilian gun ownership needs to be curtailed for two reasons. 1. most mass shooters and many everyday ones are legal gun owners right up till the moment they act. 2. criminals get their guns from lawful gun owners. This happens 4 ways, theft, straw purchasing, private sales without background checks, and good guys turning bad.
These are the reasons civilian gun ownership needs to be more seriously regulated.
The cops, as well as the military and the other government agencies, on the other hand should not be limited. They often have to deal with situations bigger and badder than your simple home invasion or armed robbery, which you can deal with adequately with your smaller arms and smaller magazine capacity.
Mikeb, I disagree. What you are saying is that, you like guns, you want guns, big guns, lots of ammo, big caliber ammo,and that these guns do more good than harm, when in the hands of statists, bureaucrats, men in blue, men in camo, men with tin badges or stripes on their uniform, but you hate guns in the hands of mundanes, citizens, the poor, black and brown people, single mothers, young ladies, truck drivers, cabbies, laborers, farmers, old people, etc.
DeleteI see. You want those that are the most vulnerable to be the most vulnerable. Make them reliant on government, take away their sense of being responsible for themselves and their families. I see. You love government guns and hate individuals who want to be responsible for their own safety and well-being. I see. You want to leave this business to others, to others who have no personal or vested interest in the welfare or security of those peons. I see.
orlin sellers
They also get their guns from police Mike. Last week in Kansas City there was a rash of burglaries of cop cars. 4 in one night were broken into and cleaned out of weapons.
DeleteWith regard to your statement: "They often have to deal with situations bigger and badder than your simple home invasion or armed robbery, which you can deal with adequately with your smaller arms and smaller magazine capacity."
You hedged there. They Often have to deal with worse situations than your Simple home invasion. This is exactly the rationalization I was trying to point out and avoid in advance. Are they more likely to be in a bad situation? Yes. Does this also increase the likelihood that the situation will be a really bad situation? Sure.
Can homeowners have to deal with more than a Simple home invasion? Yes. Just because it's less likely is not a reason to deny them the tool they would need in such a situation.
So what you're saying is that the law-abiding need restrictions due to acts of criminal misuse by a minority. That's wrong.
DeleteCommon sense dictates that misuse never comes before proper use. Regardless of the circumstances of a criminal act, a honest, sensible person will never, not *ever* demand restictions on the majority of owners.
It's not wrong, Guy, because "law-abiding" encompasses many who are unfit and dangerous but just haven't been busted yet.
DeleteIf they haven't been busted, then there's no Constitutional way to deprive them of their rights. No deprivation of rights without due process of law.
DeletePolice are called into dangerous situations, but they are usually called by a citizen who is already in that situation waiting for the police to show up. If they bring 15 round magazines and AR-15s when called to defend a citizen, then it seems they are relevant for defense. Are they really saying there is a difference between self-defense and defense of others?
ReplyDeleteThen they take it a step further and exempt retired officers. Saying they are more likely to be targeted doesn't change the fact that this exemption is a clear admission that more than 7 rounds is important to personal self-defense. Furthermore, if this is their justification, let's see the stats that show how retired law enforcement suffers from a higher rate of violent crimes than the general populace.
I find that exemption for retired cops a bit odd too. Maybe they should return to civilian status.
DeleteMike,
DeleteYou're one of the few who sees a disconnect there. Most make the argument about retired cops being more likely to be attacked, but they have a disconnect when it comes to others who can face the same elevated threat level.
It is not odd why. There is a clear reason for the exemption. Just about all the cops will oppose it otherwise. And they need to find cops to stand in front of a camera and support these bans.
DeleteThat's a realpolitik explanation that I'd say hits the mark right on.
DeleteI thought government was infallible. How is it possible that government made a mistake?
ReplyDeleteHere is the fundamental flaw. Police argue that violent attacks require an armed response with firearms having 15 round magazines. If the person responding to the violent attack needs a 15 round magazine, that is what they need whether or not that person is a citizen or a police officer.
And why should retired police officers be exempt from the 7 bullet limit? If a 7 round limitation is bad for retired police, it is bad for citizens.
A State with better gun laws adjacent to New York allows magazines up to 15 rounds. A limit of seven (or any limit under 10) could be deemed (by a judicial entity) to constitute a violation of the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Majority in DC. v. Heller.
DeleteAny limit on magazine size is a violation, period. It's also stupid, having nothing to do with safety. It's all about making gun ownership more difficult for law-abiding people and about leaving those people vulnerable to criminals.
Delete