CBS Sacramento: A federal court has rejected a challenge to California’s gun safety law, possibly paving the way for a requirement that new guns mark the bullets they fire so they can be traced. The ruling on Wednesday was a defeat for two gun rights groups that argued the Unsafe Handgun Act violated the constitutional right to bear arms. The law prohibits the manufacture or sale in California of any gun that doesn’t meet certain safety requirements. It was aimed at outlawing cheap [read more]
David Codrea has an interesting post on police and their view of assault weapons.
State Police Supt. Col. Steven G. O’Donnell said Monday they’d like to see a reinstatement of the ban on the sale of assault weapons…O’Donnell said assault weapons have one purpose, to kill people in war. He says civilians should not have assault weapons. [More]
So that’s why you guys have them, Steve? To have your standing army make war on and kill “civilians”?
Yet another indication of this elitism is seen up North.
The head of the NYPD’s largest police union yesterday called for an ”absolute ban” on assault weapons — except for cops and members of the military.
“There is no legitimate reason for an assault weapon with their high capacity magazines to ever be in the hands of a private citizen,” said Pat Lynch, head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association.
[ … ]
“There’s no reason for anybody to have those type of weapons,” he added.
Lynch’s comments echoed those of Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.
If there is no reason for anyone to have these weapons, and if their only purpose is in making war, then why do the police need them? Ah. Here is a key point. The Supreme Court decision in Tennessee versus Garner clearly decided that law enforcement doesn’t have the right to enforce the law by the power of arms. They can only shoot in self defense. If that’s the case – and it is – then why do the police get to defend themselves with their choice of arms and I don’t?