Oversight in upcoming New York gun control law: Law Enforcement is not exempt from "high-capacity ma - Polidicks

[quote] NEW YORK (WABC) -- A troubling oversight has been found within New York State's sweeping new gun laws. The ban on having high-capacity magazines, as it's written, would also include law enforcement officers. Magazines with more than seven rounds will be illegal under the new law when that part takes effect in March. Nearly every law enforcement agency in the state carries hand guns that have a 15 round capacity. A spokesman for the governor's office called Eyewitness News to say, "We are still working out some details of the law and the exemption will be included, currently no police officer is in violation." The Patrolman's Benevolent Association President released a statement saying, "The PBA is actively working to enact changes to this law that will provide the appropriate exemptions from the law for active and retired law enforcement officers." 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"[/quote] Source w/ Video: [url]http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=8958116[/url] [url=https://www.google.com/search?q=A+troubling+oversight+has+been+found+within+New+York+State%27s+sweeping+new+gun+laws.+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a]Extra Sources on Google[/url] Nice job New York, this is what knee-jerk reactions get you. Luckily someone noticed this before they passed it.

You know. Even though criminals don't follow laws. I wouldn't mind having the Police, especially the NYPD, not be more outgunned than Hikock45. Seriously. The NYPD is more of a fucking Paramilitary organization than it is a police force.

Did they draft this bill up in crayon the night before it went up to vote? Thats a pretty large fuck up.

I think this highlights the absolute ignorance of these lawmakers when it comes to guns.

Now all said police officers are criminals and are currently breaking the law.

i think i have a solution guys. arrest [b]EVERYONE[/b]

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39283469]Now all said police officers are criminals and are currently breaking the law.[/QUOTE] [quote]"We are still working out some details of the law and the exemption will be included, currently no police officer is in violation."[/quote]

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39283469]Now all said police officers are criminals and are currently breaking the law.[/QUOTE] Takes effect in March

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39283490]-[/QUOTE] They can say that all they want. Does not mean that they should be placed above the law in any way. What a land of equality.

What else did they sneak in there. Because that's pretty stupid if the cops are not exempt

That's the liberal New York state government for you. They were so eager to ban guns, they were so stupid and didn't even read the damn bill before they voted on it. I can see these guys are really dependable when it comes to passing legislation. I was going to post this article but I see I was beaten to it. :v:

[QUOTE]We are still working out some details of the law and the exemption will be included, currently no police officer is in violation.[/QUOTE] Hopefully working out some details of the law includes not banning standard capacity magazines.

Taking guns away from the NYPD would probably be a good measure to reduce crime actually

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39283751]Taking guns away from the NYPD would probably be a good measure to reduce crime actually[/QUOTE] Because having all the criminals having guns and taking all police guns away is a good idea right?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39283751]Taking guns away from the NYPD would probably be a good measure to reduce crime actually[/QUOTE] dude what [editline]19th January 2013[/editline] have you ever even left your bedroom because that is literally the most sheltered thing I've ever heard anywhere in my entire life

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39283751]Taking guns away from the NYPD would probably be a good measure to reduce crime actually[/QUOTE] A: Can't express how much I missed you. B: How does this reduce crime?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39283751]Taking guns away from the NYPD would probably be a good measure to reduce crime actually[/QUOTE] Uh, explain?

They shouldn't be exempt :\

[QUOTE=Qui Cattus;39283875]They shouldn't be exempt :\[/QUOTE] So if 12 gunman storm to rob a bank and open fire on a police officer, he should only be allowed to have 7 bullets in his magazine? Yeah, makes a lot of sense. Police don't need more than 7 bullets because they shouldn't be hunting deer on the job. Because that's the entire purpose of the second amendment, right?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39283498]They can say that all they want. Does not mean that they should be placed above the law in any way. What a land of equality.[/QUOTE] Except police officers go through hundreds of hours of training and can effectively use their weapons?

[QUOTE=Ericson666;39283954]Except police officers go through hundreds of hours of training and can effectively use their weapons?[/QUOTE] well I've had about twice as much training as your average cop but the reason you should be arguing is that they're fighting criminals, aka people who don't follow the 7 round capacity law

[QUOTE=Ericson666;39283954]Except police officers go through hundreds of hours of training and can effectively use their weapons?[/QUOTE] please quantify your statement with actual citations but I realize you won't because what you said was completely false. Most recreational shooters have more experience with firearms than police.

[QUOTE=Ericson666;39283954]Except police officers go through hundreds of hours of training and can effectively use their weapons?[/QUOTE] Toronto Police only have to qualify with 150 rounds per year, any extra is on their own time and their own dime. I know people who compete in pistol shooting, IPSC, using similar, and sometimes the same, guns as those issued to police, and they shoot 500 rounds just to qualify for any one given competition. Most recreational handgun shooters, and almost all competitive handgun shooters, get in more range time and are more familiar with their firearms than the average police officer.

I don't think the Australian police use these kind of magazines and they get the job done Even though its a last resort method

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;39284199]I don't think the Australian police use these kind of magazines and they get the job done Even though its a last resort method[/QUOTE] What do you mean by "these kind of magazines"?

While I totally don't agree with disarming police officers, I do remember hearing about a 'mass shooter' in New York who shot his boss or something like that. When the authorities went to take him down they ended up accidentally killing a whole lot more people than he ever did. EDIT: I don't understand what you guys are disagreeing with: [url]http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/down-and-out-fashion-designer-targets-former-boss-nyc-shooting[/url] I'm just saying that bullets don't always solve our problems, but they usually do.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39283856]Uh, explain?[/QUOTE] Everybody was jumping all over the place this past summer when there was a mass shooting at the Empire State Building in NYC. Once all the details came to light, it turned out to be workplace violence that, when the NYPD showed up, escalated the situation by shooting the original gunman as well as 8 other people in the area.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39284278]Everybody was jumping all over the place this past summer when there was a mass shooting at the Empire State Building in NYC. Once all the details came to light, it turned out to be workplace violence that, when the NYPD showed up, escalated the situation by shooting the original gunman as well as 8 other people in the area.[/QUOTE] It might possibly have "lowered collateral damage," but it certainly doesn't fit his statement of lowering crime.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39283948]So if 12 gunman storm to rob a bank and open fire on a police officer, he should only be allowed to have 7 bullets in his magazine? Yeah, makes a lot of sense. Police don't need more than 7 bullets because they shouldn't be hunting deer on the job. Because that's the entire purpose of the second amendment, right?[/QUOTE] When 12 bad guys robbed the bank, the police officer could only kill 7 , leaving 5 alive. That's as many as five ones. And that's terrible.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;39284347]When 12 bad guys robbed the bank, the police officer could only kill 7 , leaving 5 alive. That's as many as five owns. And that's terrible.[/QUOTE] Police usually don't shoot to kill. Most times they shoot to neutralize. It helps avoid wrongful death law suits and allows the police to take the criminal into custody and press charges on them.