The Sign of a Good Law

The New York legislature, in the stealth of night, fixes the SAFE act through a budgetary measure to exempt retired police officers. I say the title sarcastically. Remember folks, when retired cops have AR-15s, they are wholesome and good patrol rifles, highly useful for self-defense and sport. When we have them they are bullet-spraying assault rifles whose only purpose is to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Assault Weapons for Me. Patrol Rifle for Thee
  2. Madison Capital Times Not Up On Nomenclature
  3. I Really Hate Euphemisms

7 thoughts on “The Sign of a Good Law”

  1. What about equal protections? Retired LEO’s dont have the power of arrest, they don’t have to maintain currency in laws or ability with their weapons….what exactly makes them better than the rest of society?

    Further, my impression is that retired LEO’s commit suicide at a higher rate than age-equivalent populations.

    1. Actually, in the 9th Circuit, such an exemption to California’s assault weapons ban was thrown out on equal protection grounds. That was the otherwise disastrous Silveria case. The Supreme Court denied cert.

    2. I’m not sure how other agencies do it,but in the state of Florida,if you are retired deoty sheriff, you must shoot for qualification every year in order to carry that LEO ccw. You are also restricted to carrying,only, the weapon with which you qualified

  2. This story isn’t accurate. What was passed was a limited exemption for some retired LEOs who purchased items for official use only with their own money. Upon retirement they can keep those items provided they recertify with them every so often. It is not the blanket exemption the media is portraying it is.

    1. If I have a firearm that I’m expected to use for “official” uses, I’m damned well going to make sure that I’m proficient in it’s use. Therefore, I’m going to practice with it regularly. That means taking it to the range on a regular basis, and maybe even using it in competition. In effect, that would mean treating it like I treat pretty much every firearm I have ever owned.

      How is that NOT a blanket exemption?

      1. Example: LEO buys three 17rd mags for his duty Glock 17 with his own money. He then retires. He can keep those three mags, but cannot buy any new ones for the Glock nor may he possess any other 10+ mags for any reason.

  3. Jacob –

    As a New Yorker, I don’t care if it’s a limited exemption.

    If I have that box with a spring in it, I’m a felon. Does the law apply equally or not? Why is this citizen not a felon for having too big of a box with a spring?

    (Answer: because some pigs are more equal than others.)

    – Mike

Comments are closed.