Knee Jerk – The Silliness of Gun Control Legislation

Knee Jerk Reaction: an immediate unthinking emotional reaction produced by an event or statement to which the reacting person is highly sensitive.

On January 15th, New York State Governor, Andrew Cuomo, signed the New York Safe Act, the law includes not only a tougher assault weapons ban which  broadens the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon, but also limits the capacity of magazines to seven bullets, down from 10.  As he signed the bill into law, Cuomo said it was not only "the first bill" but the "best bill."

Maybe the Governor might have spoken a little two quickly.

I feel I am qualified to speak on this matter as an ex pat New Yorker who was born and raised in NYC and who gave twenty years of his life protecting the residents of that city. Sadly, the city and department I love are mere shadows of their once great selves.

But on Tuesday, Governor Cuomo, with the aid of the New York State Legislature, passed what has to be one of the greatest knee jerk reactions to a tragedy I can remember.

For those who may have missed my earlier diatribe on the topic of gun control please take a moment to bring yourself up to speed here:

Gun Control Rears Its Ugly Head - Again (As Promised)

OK, so now that you are in sync with my feelings, let me just add the reason why I believe this is a typical political knee jerk reaction.

1. It only sounds like they know what they are doing, and

2. No one ever thought it through.

I say that, because very simply the state law bans magazines over seven rounds, firearms used by most police officers throughout NYS typically use magazines that hold twice as many bullets.

Nowhere in the law does it exempt police officers.

Which is precisely the reason for all the hand-wringing going on now and statements like “(police officers) are not in violation of this law and they never will be, period” being made. But the truth is they are in violation unless an amendment is added.

Now this territory is not new. A  previous law was enacted nearly two decades ago to limit magazines to ten rounds. Whether you agree with that law or not, at least the politicians in that last go round saw fit to exempt officers from the start. I guess this law was akin to the Affordable Health Act where you “have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”

Another interesting aspect of this “knee jerk” response is the fact that at the present moment, there is still some confusion as to whether officers can have a gun on school grounds.

No, I’m not making this up.

Now I am sure that the bright lights that illuminate the hollowed halls of the State Capitol in Albany will rectify this. I’ve gotten emails from at least a half dozen law enforcement unions and fraternal organizations trying to calm their current members. But there is one interesting issue that still hasn’t been addressed:

What about retired officers?

There are certainly enough people out there who have no problem with limiting the amount of rounds a retired officer may carry. I have heard more than enough of the sad arguments:

• Don't they understand the meaning of "retired"?

• Get over yourselves, ex-cops. No one's asking you to defend the public anymore. 

• Retired Officers (aka normal citizens) are complaining that the law applies to them? 

• If an officer is retired, he is a civilian and should be limited in bullets and guns as all civilians are.

• This is nothing but another example of how the police come to believe they are somehow better than those they are supposed to be protecting. 

• Why does a retired cop need more than 7 bullets in a gun. Technically he doesn't even need a gun!

Whether you agree with these views or not is not the actual issue. The fact is this matter was resolved under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (HR218) which provides for qualified retired officers. The question at hand today then becomes, why are the magazines that I carried during my career now illegal?

The answer is best summed up in my earlier referenced article, which is simply this is all smoke and mirrors. A quickly conjured up bill, to appease a particular group of people, without any consideration given to the actual merit of the items being proposed.

The truth is if magazines are restricted, someone will now simply carry two magazines instead of the one in his or her firearm. It will take anywhere from 1-4 seconds for someone nominally proficient to reload the empty 7 round magazine with another and have basically just as many as he would have prior to this bill.

I am curious though about a statement that Governor Cuomo made. "You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with commonsense, and you can make this state a safer state."

I guess in the eyes of the Governor, the fact that I disagree with him and his views now makes me an extreme mist. Thankfully I no longer reside in his fairy tale utopia. Although the present spit of land I call "home" is most likely only a step or two behind.

At the end of the day, at the very best, this is just another “feel good” legislation that will do little to no good in actually ending or even addressing violence. Let’s be honest, guns, like knives or vehicles or hammers for that matter, are jut instruments used to kill someone else. At the crux of the problem is the individual possessing them and if that individual has actually crossed the threshold from reality to a place where the intentional killing of another human being is a viable option for them you will not stop it.  As I have said before, you cannot legislate morality.

This isn’t the first, but only the latest in a long line of attacks against legally owned firearms, all in the name of safety. Unfortunately, like its predecessors, it will have little impact on gun violence. However, what it does do is something that people do not seem to be able to comprehend. It erodes your rights one small bite at a time. One day, those who championed “common sense” laws will wake up to the fact that the only thing common in all of it was a slow, systematic move to strip everyone of their firearms.

The 2^nd Amendment is like the “Main Beam” in the construction of the home, or the country for that matter. Now you can think that removing it will make your house prettier and give you more room for the things you want, but try taking it out and see how long your little quaint cottage lasts.

Don’t believe me? That’s your prerogative just like owning a firearm is mine. But I am often reminded of the quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin “Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.”

There may come a time when that quote is altered once again to read "Those who beat their plowshares into swords usually end up defending those who didn't."

I don’t know what the future holds, but I don’t like the clouds on the horizons. What scares me most is that all of this seems to have already been foretold. I implore you to look beyond today and look back in time, to a period when this country was first being formed, and to the sage advice of our founding fathers. Let their words guide your heart and mind, lest you wake up one day and find that you now reside in their worst fears, by your own doing.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."  - Tench Coxe (Delegate, Continental Congress)