New York High Capacity Magazine Ban Should Not Exempt Police Officers

The Huffington Post recently ran an article by Timothy Martinell entitled, “Oops! NY Gun Law Restricts Police Officers”. The article laments the fact that New York legislators neglected to make police officers exempt from the new broad-reaching limitations on gun ownership. The bill, according to CNN, passed both the house and senate and was signed by Governor Cuomo in less than 48 hours. It goes without saying that this is an obvious example of the unintended results of legislation that is rushed through to gain political points instead of taking the time to craft thoughtful, informed laws. The focus of the Huffington Post article was on the part of the new law that limits ammunition magazines to seven rounds. As a sworn police officer, I have a strong opinion on this issue, but you might be surprised at that position.

I believe police officers should not be exempted from this law. Don’t get me wrong, I firmly believe that police officers should have access to high capacity magazines. What I don’t agree with is setting a different standard for police officers than the law-abiding citizens that make up the general public. My central point is that police officers carry guns for essentially the same reasons that any law-abiding citizen carries a gun. Police officers aren’t assassins who track down criminals with a government mandate to kill. Police officers use guns to defend themselves and others against criminal attacks. Legally armed, law-abiding citizens carry guns for the same reasons and should, in this instance, have access to magazines exceeding a seven round capacity. These magazines have been in use by both the police and the legally armed public for years for the simple reason that they are effective as a self-defense tool for police officers and legal gun owners alike.

I acknowledge that police officers are more likely to be attacked for several reasons. First, police officers are tasked with arresting people who break the law. Frequently, these people are not pleased with being arrested and, all too often, they target individual officers or law enforcement in general for retribution. Second, when a crime is committed, ordinary citizens will try to remove themselves from the situation if at all possible. Police officers, however, are duty bound to go to the scene of the crime and attempt to apprehend the subject. Finally, unlike ordinary citizens, police officers are required to insert themselves into situations, whether executing a traffic stop or serving an arrest or search warrant, where they may encounter a fugitive who may not be actively committing a crime, but are not interested in going to or returning to jail.

While it’s true that police officers are more likely than a civilian to be attacked by an armed criminal, the right to self defense shouldn’t be determined by the level of risk. It only takes one encounter with a violent criminal to end or ruin a life regardless of the applicable statistics. If a civilian decides to purchase a gun, train themselves in its safety and use and carry that weapon legally, they should have access to reasonable equipment to accomplish that goal. As a police officer, I think it’s outrageous that New York law enforcement officers would be limited to magazines with a seven round capacity. I think it is equally outrageous that ordinary law-abiding citizens would also be so limited.

In the now famous Supreme Court case D.C. v Heller, Justice Scalia stated in his majority opinion that, “…handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.” The vast majority of full size pistols available today have a standard magazine capacity of more than seven rounds. I think it is clear that a limitation of seven rounds certainly fails to meet the test posed by Justice Scalia.

There may be weapons that are appropriate for law enforcement and not for civilians, but handguns with magazines exceeding seven rounds are certainly not one of them. Police officers should not be exempted from this new ban; the ban is, in my opinion, an unconstitutional violation of the second amendment and should not be enforced on police officers or responsible civilian gun owners.