search
top

Ooops

The idiot Cuomo forgot to exempt cops from his draconian new gun ban. I agree with Glenn Reynolds, who notes: “If I were a member of the legislature, I’d oppose a fix just as a lesson…”

25 Responses to “Ooops”

  1. Acme Rocket says:

    Everyday I’m asking myself, “They can’t possibly be this stupid, can they?”

  2. Old NFO says:

    Concur, DON’T give them an exemption…

    • UTLaw says:

      +1

      Plus, you have to love how retired cops always get the same exemption that the on duty police get.

  3. Mike123 says:

    They don’t need an exception. 7 rounds is all that you need for self-defense. Isn’t that what the Legislature decided for all of us.

    • Harold says:

      Indeed; consider the implications of this closing gem:

      State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he’s going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, “You can’t give more ammo to the criminals”

      The fact that citizenssubjects will also have less ammo … well, actually, that’s nearly Anarchotyranny 101, only falling short because this isn’t a near total ban like NYC.

  4. New York Stagehand says:

    I just e-mailed my state senator and assemblyman and suggested that they block the amendment or amend it to end ANY limit. Cuomo gets to live with his law or fix it for everyone. I wish the whole thing would be repealed but I’d take a lifting of magazine restrictions as a good start. oh and send more money to SAF.

  5. Andrew says:

    If the state senate refused to let him amend this, I would get a GOP elephant tattooed on my forehead and name my first born kid “Republicanus.”

    • Andrew says:

      I guess I should make a first kid before getting the tattoo, though. Might preclude a second.

    • Flight-ER-Doc says:

      What did your unborn kid ever do to you, to be given a name with those last 4 letters in it?

      • Andrew says:

        Damn you law of unintended consequences!

        But do I get rebuttal points if I mention that the middle of your nickname is t-ER-D? :)

        Ah, it’s good to hit this blog and smile. We don’t get to do that enough these days. Thanks.

  6. Stacy says:

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch…

  7. Clay says:

    Maybe Cuomo should ban rakes since it would stop him and other politicians from stepping on them and taking the handle to the face.

  8. McThag says:

    Repealing the entire sad sack of crap lets the cops have their normal cap mags back too.

  9. james says:

    I say leave the law as it stands. At least then we know only 7 innocent bystanders will be shot in NYC.

  10. Nobody needs these death dealing weapons of mass destruction. Keep the weapons of war off our streets. For the children!

  11. Bill Twist says:

    I just e-mailed by state senator and assemblyman and let them know that while I would prefer that the law be repealed, I believe that they should oppose exempting the police from its provisions unless it also exempts non-law enforcement gun owners.

    Both of them voted “NO” on the original law, so I’ve got that going for me, which is nice.

  12. Mike123 says:

    Remember. The police in NY are now the ARMED ENFORCERS OF GUN CONTROL.

    NY gun owners have a chance to punch back twice as hard. Don’t let the Senate Republicans cave again.

  13. Skippy says:

    Exempting officers is an equal protection violation. Especially if it extends to off duty or retired cops. We don’t need to create classes with special rights in this country. How many special rights does it take before cop is a title of nobility?

    • Flight-ER-Doc says:

      That is a very interesting argument…..one that I cannot comment on. Perhaps someone better versed in law can comment on how retired (i.e. no longer agents of the state) law enforcement can legally be given preferential access to a civil right than citizens?

      • J says:

        Not sure how it works elsewhere but I know of several states in the Midwest that exempt retired LEOs from several of the CCW requirements placed on less equal pigs (pardon the pun). To be fair, the same rules apply to veterans with honorable discharges.

    • Sigivald says:

      In reverse order: An infinite number, because a title of nobility is literally a title of nobility, not “something with some attached rights”. Also, I’m pretty sure being hereditary would be involved.

      Next, I’m afraid that no court in the history of the Republic (since the 14th Amendment) has ever agreed that that’s what “equal protection” meant.

      Cop is not a “class of citizens” in the way the Courts have always interpreted the term for this context, because any American has a (more or less) “equal opportunity” to become a cop.

      If people were born into a cop caste, that would be an equal protection violation.

      (I agree that special exemptions for cops typically indicate a bad law, but I don’t think it’s a violation of the 14th Amendment by any reasonable interpretation of what the Amendment was intended to do or even its plain language.

      [Remember, if there “are no exceptions”, then the right to bear arms must be extended to people in prison, because “equal protection”. And yet nobody ever thought it meant that…])

  14. dustydog says:

    If we lived in a country with justice, defense lawyers would be able to cite the current violation of the law as a defense after the law is amended.

  15. Bubblehead Les says:

    Hey! Something else to think about! Are there exemptions for the State Politicians!? If not, they better START with them when they go to Confiscate their Glocks in their NightStands.

  16. Patrick H says:

    Why do cops need more than 7 rounds? Are they mass murderers?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. This is what happens… « My Constructed Reality - [...] – Sebastian 0.000000 0.000000 Share this:Like this:LikeBe the first to like this.   Leave a …
top