It’s already obvious that New Jersey isn’t exactly a pro-cop state.
I could make a joke about New Jersey and the mob, but that’s picking low-hanging fruit.
It doesn’t matter why the state seems to have it out for its police, and I’m inclined to think this latest example isn’t so much due to oversight as it is by design. I mean, if this happened in some other state, I’d figure lawmakers didn’t think out the ramifications for police, if nothing else.
With New Jersey, though? The state doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt.
What am I talking about?
You see, when New Jersey enacted its new magazine restrictions, it didn’t write the law in such a way that it exempted off-duty officers.
Bernard Kerik, the 40th NYPD Police Commissioner, sounded the alarm about New Jersey’s new magazine ban. The law bans possession of any magazine over 10 rounds after December 10th. Kerik tweeted his opposition to the new law, not because it deprives citizens of the ability to better defend their families. No, he opposed it because it applies to (and endangers) off-duty cops.
Kerik seems to think police officer lives have more value than say, taxpayers. Especially those who pay the Garden State’s exorbitantly high tax rates. Which fund law enforcement. Taxpayers who have Second Amendment constitutional rights – except in New Jersey.
The cognitive dissonance from this political hack who ran the NYPD knows no bounds. He correctly observes that bad guys “don’t give a damn about magazine capacity.” Right after ignoring the danger to Joe and Jane Sixpack and their families.
I happen to agree with John Boch over at The Truth About Guns on this.
But I do understand why police often think they should be exempted. After all, the departments the officers work for own the magazines in question.
What’s going to have to happen now is that officers will need two sets of magazines, one for off-duty and one for on-duty. Plus, in theory, even if they’re in uniform but not working yet–such as being on their way to work–a case could be made that they shouldn’t be carrying magazines that carry more than ten rounds.
That said, this tickles me to some degree.
Police officers deal with criminals, sure, but I suspect more private citizens use firearms to defend themselves each year than law enforcement officers. That means we need standard capacity magazines just as much as on-duty police do, if not more. After all, who do we get to radio for backup?
New Jersey needs to repeal this idiotic restriction, especially since it’s unenforceable. The state knows it.
But if anything happens, it’ll carve an exception out for police. Frankly, that’s the minimum that should happen, but it’s not even close to enough. New Jersey shouldn’t deprive any citizen whatever magazines they think best serve their purposes. That means if someone wants a 1,000 round magazine for their handgun, they should be legally allowed to buy one (if it existed). It’s not that it’s practical or even intelligent, but that shouldn’t make it illegal.