I wondered how long it would take for a progressive company like Starbucks to worry enough over branding that they caved on open carry of weapons inside their business establishments that they reverse their policy.

For three years, Starbucks (SBUX) has felt the ardent love of gun-rights activists as the coffee chain tolerated customers who openly packed heat. No more.

Starbucks Chief Executive Officer Howard Schultz tells Bloomberg Businessweek that firearms and cappuccino don’t mix. Beginning today, the ubiquitous caffeine bars “respectfully request” that gun owners leave their weapons in their cars or at home, Schultz says. “We’re not pro-gun or anti-gun,” he explains. The chain simply wants no part of the escalating debate over the Second Amendment and the place of firearms in American society.

In an open letter released today, Schultz wrote:

“Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called ‘Starbucks Appreciation Days’ that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of ‘open carry.’ … To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners. For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where ‘open carry’ is permitted—unless they are identified law enforcement personnel.”

Since 2010, gun owners in California and other states have shown up en masse and conspicuously armed for Starbucks Appreciation Days meant to promote the open carrying of firearms in the majority of states where the practice is legal. Acrimony over the guns-and-coffee demonstrations peaked in August in Newtown, the Connecticut community that was the site of the December 2012 elementary school massacre. Some residents of the town were so upset by the prospect of a pro-gun rally that the Seattle-based coffee company closed its Newtown store early on the afternoon of Aug. 9.

Under assault from gun-control proponents last month, the chain defended its previous policy. “Our longstanding approach to the open-carry debate has been to comply with local laws and statutes in the communities we serve,” a spokesman said at the time. “We continue to encourage customers and advocacy groups from all sides of the debate to share their input with their elected officials, who make the open-carry laws that our company follows.”

I see.  So “the only ones” can still carry weapons and can be trusted to be safe with them.  It’s just everyone else – like you and me – that mustn’t exercise our rights.  Frankly, this is a very, very bad idea.  Starbucks has a right to make the decisions they want, and we must respect their decisions.  Their places of business are private property.  But gun owners are very loyal, and we will make sure that Starbucks doesn’t have the luxury of “staying out of the debate.”  Just ask Smith & Wesson.  If we’ll put the beloved Smith & Wesson out of business, Starbucks is an easy decision for us.  This move is the wrong one, and Starbucks will regret it.

UPDATE: Codrea has a different perspective.

Mike Vanderboegh has a link that should interest all of my readers.  He cites the horrible PoliceOne.com again.

“After this (SWAT) operation, I was fascinated by the social media discussion that blossomed among ill-informed knuckleheads who were certain that the government was taking over.”

[ … ]

“What is it with this growing concept that SWAT teams shouldn’t exist? Why shouldn’t officers utilize the same technologies, weapon systems, and tactics that our military comrades do? We should, and we will.”

[ … ]

“Black helicopters and mysterious warriors exist. They are America’s answer to the evil men that the anti-SWAT crowd wouldn’t dare face. We will make mistakes but we are duty-bound to do what we can to minimize the chances of mistakes occurring.”

[ … ]

“I do believe to some degree that we SWAT operators should swathe ourselves in a cloak of mysteriousness….”

I’ll have more comments about this later, but it’s remarkable how bold and brazen PoliceOne.com has become at demonstrating to the world what kind of communists they really are.  But this snippet in particular interested me.

Black helicopters and mysterious warriors exist. They are America’s answer to the evil men that the anti-SWAT crowd wouldn’t dare face.

Now go back and read one LEO comment (see Steve Jarvis) to my article The Hazards Of A Militarized Police Force.

Guys like this sit around and talk shit about cops until they have something go wrong and then start screaming that the cops don’t show up quick (sic) enough.

So let’s overlook the fact that he needs to retake his English grammar classes.  I responded this.

Jarvis, I assure you. You will never see any of my readers “screaming” about the police not showing up quick (sic – quickly) enough. We don’t want or need your protection.

It’s laughable, really, how the SWAT teams see themselves as the savior-warrior of the American people, when in reality, no one I’ve talked to wants them around.  I admit that most of my readers have weapons … a lot of them.  But the idea that any of us would turn to a SWAT team rather than pick up one of our many, tactically positioned weapons in our home, is preposterous.

As a secondary point, the fact that we couldn’t also pick up one of our weapons at work (because of gun-free zones) is the only reason we are sitting ducks in the workplace.  It’s a problem that the government creates – and then pretends to solve.

Finally, I’ve seen commenters at reddit/guns (probably LEOs) who use slurs against people who would be so dumb (wink) as to clear rooms in their own home rather than hole themselves up and call the police.  I hope that you’re not one of those commenters, and I hope that you are not stupid enough to hole yourself up in a room and try to wait out a criminal, as if drywall is protection against a bullet.  I’ll speak more to this later as well.

I recently heard an interview with the base commander at the Navy Yard in Washington speak to the issue of how it feels to be defenseless in the face of an active shooter.  What bothered me most was the cavalier way in which he approached the subject.  Twelve people perished today, not including the shooter, and the sad part is that it didn’t have to happen.  David Codrea gives us his initial thoughts on one of the root causes.

… one fact is indisputable. The killer(s) took advantage of a “gun free zone” at not only the facility, but one that extends throughout Washington. D.C.

Security at the center utterly failed at stopping a murderer bent on killing defenseless personnel. And even acknowledging special security conditions at a military installation, in the absence of a special legal relationship the government has no duty to provide protection to people it prevents from protecting themselves, meaning there is no attendant liability should they fail to do so.

“Special security conditions” will never stop a determined shooter, and it didn’t in this case.  The folks are defenseless, and they have been made that way intentionally and with malice of forethought.  It’s the same way in church worship services.

HOLYOKE, Mass. (AP) — Holyoke police are looking for a man they say interrupted a church service and robbed several members of the congregation at gunpoint.

Lt. James Albert says the masked suspect entered the Pentecostal church at about 2 p.m. Sunday, announced the robbery, and took personal items, including cellphones, from several of the roughly 20 worshippers.

The fact that he stole from them rather than killed them is a blessing and a second chance.  They should never voluntarily be in a gun free zone (or a gun free state) if they have any other choice.

But leave it to the progressives to learn the wrong lessons.

Gun enthusiasts say it is inappropriate to talk about gun violence at the time it occurs. Better to wait … and wait … and wait … until time has passed, and the weeping next of kin have vanished from TV, and it’s safe to return to business as usual. The idea of the gun enthusiasts is that the way to show respect for the victims of gun violence is to do everything possible to multiply their number … better mental-health provision would contribute to the reduction of gun massacres. But America’s uniquely grisly record of gun death cannot be addressed without addressing guns.

I don’t know his state of mind, and thus I don’t know if David Frum really believes his propaganda that making guns illegal will stop the perpetration of crimes, or if he’s just too invested in his idiotic notions to turn back now, or if he is a full-orbed totalitarian.  But Frum wants to discuss guns, and wants to do it right now.

Very well.  I’m okay with that.  Here’s a note to Frum.  If you or your ilk ever try to take away my guns, I’ll use them to ensure that you don’t.  There.  I’m glad we had that conversation.  Tell me if you want to talk again.

Fox News:

The recent uproar over armed EPA agents descending on a tiny Alaska mining town is shedding light on the fact that 40 federal agencies – including nearly a dozen typically not associated with law enforcement — have armed divisions.

The agencies employ about 120,000 full-time officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests, according to a June 2012 Justice Department report.

[ … ]

The Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and Park Service are among 24 federal agencies employing more than 250 full-time armed officers with arrest authority, according the federal report, which is based on the 2008 Census of Federal Law Enforcement Officers.

The other 16 agencies have less than 250 officers and include NOAA as well as the Library of Congress, the Federal Reserve Board and the National Institutes of Health.

The number of federal department with armed personnel climbs to 73 when adding in the 33 offices of inspector general, the government watchdogs for agencies as large as the Postal Service to the Government Printing Office, whose IG has only five full-time officers.

The EPA defended its use of armed officers, after the Alaska incident.

“Environmental law enforcement, like other forms of law enforcement, always involves the potential for physical, even armed, confrontation,” the agency said.

It wouldn’t be a problem if the EPA didn’t exist, and most of these federal agencies lack justification for their existence.  Many of them are simply jobs programs for incompetent and inept stooges who cannot find gainful employment any other way.

So do you want to know where this comes from and who started it all, this idea of federal agents being armed?

The assertion of federal power over guns and crime fit perfectly with Franklin D. Rossevelt’s philosophy of using the government to protect ordinary American’s from the hazards of modern society. . . the New Deal was nothing less than a radical retructuring of American government . . . Roosevelt portrayed gun control and crime fighting as simply one more element of the Neweal — indeed, of the new America. . . “As a component part of that larger objective we include our constant struggle against the attacks of the lawless and criminal elements of our own populations.” Because crime drained the economy, federal crime control, we argued, was essential for national recovery.

Roosevelt understood that, like many of his other New Deal reforms, a federal push in the field of guns and crime would face opposition from traditionalists committed to states’ rights. . . The situation required a “New Deal for Crime.” Just as Rossevelt sought to expand the power and reach of the federal government over the economy, he determined to expand its power and reach over criminals and their weapons. The man Roosevelt tapped to to lead the push was his attorney general, Homer Cummings. A bald man with a round face and piercing blue eyes, Cummings was a close confidant of the president. He wasn’t the first person you’d expect to lead a revolution. One of Roosevelt’s speechwriters called Cummings “the least dramatic man in the whole world.” A a three-time former mayor and former chair of the Democratic National Committee, however, Cummings was well versed in politics, and Roosevelt knew he wouldn’t back down in the face of public or political opposition. . .

Cummings realized that he needed troops to wage war — in this case, a truly effective federal police force. The Justice Department aqlready had what passed for law enforcement agents in the Bureau of Prohibition and the Bureau of Investigation. Yet the former was being disbanded in the wake of the legalization of liquor and the latter was an underfunded agency devoted mainly to information gathering. The agencies were also hamstrung by the states’ rights tradition. Because policing was a state function, federal agents didn’t have the power to arrest people and weren’t allowed to carry guns. Soldiers in a war on crime couldn’t be effective armed with only notepads. . . Cummings lobbied for a significant reorganization of the Bureau of Investigation . . . Two years later, Cummings had the agency itself renamed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to emphasize the new role of the federal government in fighting crime . . .

Thanks to Mike Vanderboegh for the education on Roosevelt.  A progressive isn’t just a statist and totalitarian concerning your money.  He wants you guns too.  And as for starting all of this, Roosevelt was one in a long line of wicked rulers.

The Bible does contain a few direct references to weapons control. There were many times throughout Israel’s history that it rebelled against God (in fact, it happened all the time). To mock His people back into submission to His Law, the Lord would often use wicked neighbors to punish Israel’s rebellion. Most notable were the Philistines and the Babylonians. 1 Samuel 13:19-22 relates the story: “Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes, and sickles sharpened…So on the day of battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in this hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.” Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon also removed all of the craftsmen from Israel during the Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 24:14). Both of these administrations were considered exceedingly wicked including their acts of weapons control.

There is nothing new under the sun, and totalitarianism is always wicked at all times in history, regardless of the particular administration or form of it, and in spite of the claims to good will by the rulers.

Matt Valentine writing at The Atlantic has a breathless story about how the up and coming power broker on the gun scene is the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Every year from 1998 through 2010, the NRA spent at least ten times more than the NSSF on direct lobbying. Today those numbers are converging—the NRA has spent $1.7 million so far in 2013, compared to $1.1 million spent by the NSSF, mostly in efforts to loosen state requirements for concealed carry permits. The NRA still boasts the political muscle to sway the outcome of major legislation, but the big gun lobby’s intervention is conspicuous and subject to ridicule, and an NRA campaign contribution can sometimes become a political liability—in a 2013 PPP poll, 39% of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate backed by the NRA, whereas only 26% said they’d be more likely to. This April, when Senator Mitch McConnell (the NRA’s single biggest recipient of campaign contributions) used procedural tactics to block an expanded background check bill, NRA Board member Adolphous Busch publicly resigned from the organization, saying the group “clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of [its] 4 million individual members.”

[ … ]

This year, with gun deaths expected to exceed 31,000, and with the public more acutely aware of every tragic shooting, the NSSF managed to grab some positive headlines for a gesture of political compromise. During the senate hearings in the confirmation of B. Todd Jones to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the NSSF issued an open letter, endorsing President Obama’s nominee. A close reading reveals that the statement of support is hardly a ringing endorsement: “Undoubtedly, we will disagree with the ATF from time-to-time and are fully prepared to take the steps necessary to represent the interest of our industry members, but we are confident that under Mr. Jones we can agree to disagree with ATF in a mutually respectful manner.” However lukewarm, the letter was a surprising development—together with the NRA, the NSSF had pressured legislators to block every previous nominee for the ATF directorship since 2006. But under the threat of the “nuclear option” to change filibuster rules, Senate leaders had already agreed to confirm all of Obama’s appointments this summer. With Jones’s appointment a foregone conclusion, the main effect of the NSSF endorsement was to soften the headlines that would have otherwise prevailed (i.e. “ATF director finally confirmed after seven years of gun lobby resistance”).

Matt apparently believes the propaganda that gun owners really do support universal background checks.  This, along with some wishful thinking, has led him to conclude that the NRA is out of touch with its membership, while the more moderate NSSF is the up and coming powerhouse, more reasonable and less prone to extremes.

But Mike Vanderboegh calls the NSSF quislings and appeasers, and David Codrea and others lampoon not the NRA, but the NSSF.  In my extensive writing on the universal background checks, I somehow missed the fact that the NSSF had weighed in.  Had I caught this, I probably would have said something like they are a willing tool of Satan.

And it’s beyond me why anyone would think that gun owners care what Adolphous Busch had to say about anything.  The real rift that Matt misses because he is writing about something totally foreign to him, is that whether the subject is the NSSF or the NRA, they will all be held accountable for their sins if they ever sell out gun owners and side with the wicked totalitarians.

Eugene Volokh has a post up entitled Illinois Supreme Court: Second Amendment Protects Carrying Outside The Home, where he discusses the recent subject ruling.

From today’s unanimous decision in People v. Aguilar (Ill. Sept. 12, 2013):

As the Seventh Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. Moreover, if Heller means what it says, and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the home, as “[c]onfrontations are not limited to the home.” Indeed, Heller itself recognizes as much when it states that “the right to have arms *** was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.”

I think the result is correct, because Heller‘s reasoning does indeed apply to carrying for self-defense in most public places, and not just in the home. Indeed, Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago had no occasion to squarely confront this question, because they dealt with total handgun bans, including on home possession. Heller does speak of “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,” and stresses that the D.C. handgun ban extends “to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 635, 629. And Heller also holds that bans on concealed carry in public are constitutional, because of the long tradition (dating back to the early 1800s) of such prohibitions.

Eugene goes on to discuss what he sees as a technical error in the ruling, albeit not determinative, i.e., he still believes it’s the correct result.

I have exchanged e-mail with him on Georgia case concerning guns in churches / schools.  Eugene is a very smart guy.  But on this issue I disagree.  No, not that the Illinois Supreme Court ruled rightly, but how they got to it.

Read again.  And read Eugene’s analysis again.  They both presuppose that to answer the question of whether carrying outside the home should be legal, they must turn to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

We’ve discussed this before.  The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant us rights.  It circumscribes the power of the federal government so that they cannot infringe in those specific areas.  If you want to learn whether carry is protected in Illinois, turn to the Illinois state constitution, article 1 section 22.

It is a late addition to the constitution, but better late than never.  Folks, the notion that the founding fathers would have turned to a federal document to understand or delineate their rights is preposterous.  We have given the centralized government too much authority, too much legitimacy, and too much power.

We needn’t turn to the federal government, even when we get the answer we like.  We have rights because those rights were granted by God and recognized by our local and state covenants, not because the U.S. constitution says so.  And it should be embarrassing that the Illinois Supreme Court had to turn to Heller to make their decision.  Embarrassing.  Do they have a mind of their own, and aren’t they supposed to be deciding cases concerning Illinois?

Concerning the Colorado recall:

In an emotional concession speech, Mr. Morse called the loss of his seat “purely symbolic” and defended the record of the last legislative session as “phenomenal.”

“We made Colorado safer from gun violence,” he said afterward, as his supporters trickled away from a hotel ballroom here in his district. “If it cost me my political  career, that’s a small price to pay.”

[ … ]

Mr. Morse’s hand was on the tiller during much of that debate. A former police chief, he said he found himself in a position of not just rounding up votes, but actually explaining the mechanics of guns to fellow Democrats. He brought a magazine to show his colleagues how it worked. In an emotional speech in March, as the debate reached its peak, Mr. Morse stood on the Senate floor and spoke of gun violence and “cleansing a sickness from our souls.”

I had followed the Colorado recall elections for the simple reason that some of my readers forced me to.  But this is the first time that I have seen the theological undertones in the debates.  Now, take note how people like me, conservative Christians, are repeatedly mocked in the national discourse.  Trotting out our religion, we always are.  Forcing it on other people.  It’s incorrigible – they cannot help but mock us.

While it’s true that I do see theological issues surrounding the right and duty of self defense, it is Morse who forced his views into the law-making proces.  I never demanded the freedom to do such a thing.  For instance, while I see the historical and interpretive value of knowing that colonial citizens were required to own weapons, I do not support such a thing today.

Note his language.  He believes that his actions were “cleansing a sickness from our souls,” and he is willing to sacrifice himself in a vicarious sort of way in order to effect this redemption.  Good grief.  Morse thinks he is Jesus.

I thank God that I have been spared such theological confusion (does that make me sound like a Pharisee?).  If I ever declare myself to be Jesus, I think my astute readers will hold me accountable.

UPDATE: David Codrea doubts that anyone else wants to be Jesus.

While the successful recall will not be enough to shift the legislative balance of power in Colorado, it will no doubt show activists there and elsewhere what is possible when they apply themselves, and give a boost of confidence to retry recalls in efforts where not enough signatures were gathered, or to start new efforts where success seems possible. And it will no doubt energize gun owners to participate in the next election … Fear of that unpleasantness may be enough to rein in legislators seeing gun owners realizing a newly-discovered power. At the very least, recall actions can cause anti-gun politicians and their patrons to use up their resources defensively, as opposed to launching new aggressive campaigns against gun ownership …

Yes.  This is a battlefield victory.  But there are more battles to fight.  We’re just beginning.

Fox4kc.com:

The Missouri state legislature is trying to accomplish something that’s never been done: pass a law that will not only let residents own a machine gun, but also arrest federal agents if they try to take it away.

According to CNN, the Missouri Governor’s press secretary said there is a small provision in House Bill 436 that would make this possible, although it’s unlikely.

Meh.  I doubt that the Missouri legislature has the balls to do it, and even if they do, they won’t pass it with enough votes to override a veto.  Furthermore, since the state police report to the Governor, and since Governor Nixon is a collectivist, he won’t use the power of the state police to enforce such a law.  The next step in Missouri is replacement of their sorry-ass governor.

But it’s nice to dream, no?  I’m still waiting for the first federal marshall or ATF agent to be arrested and thrown in with the general prison population for enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws.  One day.

Or so they say:

A study by the U.S. Forest Service has concluded rifle ammunition may be to blame for wildfires across the west.

The Forest Service commissioned a research team based in Montana to investigate the link between fires and rifle ammunition, after several reports cited Utah wildfires caused by bullets during 2012.

The study started last year with the first test run in September. Scientists tested 16 different bullets composed of steel, copper and lead, totaling 469 rounds fired.

“We designed an apparatus that consisted of a steel deflector plate and a box at the bottom called a ‘collector box’ that we could fill with various materials that could be tested for ignition,” said research forester Mark Finney.

They found once certain bullets fragmented, they would ignite the moss in the collector box.

“The bullet by itself isn’t very hot until it strikes something very solid,” Finney said. “The process of deforming it….is what heats it up.”

Finney said this test is the first to provide proof rifle ammunition could be the cause of fires. So far, the team has only tested bullets in a controlled environment, which emulated dry conditions.

7NEWS Reporter Lindsey Sablan asked Finney if the research being done may one day have an affect on shooters on federal land. Finney said he was not responsible for policy change but said “I would hope people would just consider ignitions from target shootings as one possibility to watch out for.”

In June of this summer, the Bureau of Land Management in Utah banned “steel-core or steel-jacketed bullets” along with exploding targets and tracer bullets. Colorado BLM Director of Communications Steven Hall said they “certainly took a look at it.” He went on to say they chose not to impose an outright ban this summer because, “we have different situation and conditions in Colorado.”

The full report is found here.  It seems to me that they focused very heavily on steel core ammunition, which most shooters don’t shoot down the barrels of finer weapons (I understand the Eastern Bloc ammunition shot from Mosin Nagants is different, and I also know that we can purchase green tip ammunition for AR-15s, which I wouldn’t shoot for target practice anyway).

Nonetheless, I read some of the report, but I noticed that of the four authors, not a single one is a registered professional engineer, and so the work lacks a PE seal.  Thus, I see no reason whatsoever to read any further or lend any credibility to the report.

You can do with it what you want.

KCUR:

Several police departments and organizations around Missouri are speaking out against a bill that would bar enforcement of federal gun laws if they interfere with a Missourian’s Second Amendment rights.

St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch says House Bill 436 would in effect end cooperation between local and federal law enforcement agencies.  He cites a recent traffic stop where his officers apprehended two armed men wanted for different crimes.

“Typically we would take that case to the federal authorities, because (the criminals would) get a lot more serious prison time than you would on a state charge,” Fitch said.  “If this law is passed, it basically takes away the opportunity for us to do that.”

[ … ]

In addition, St. Louis city Police Chief Sam Dotson, Kansas City Police Chief Darryl Forte, and Chuck Wexler of the Police Executive Research Forum co-wrote an op-ed piece strongly opposing House Bill 436.  It reads, in part:

As police officials we are concerned about this legislation because it would make it a state crime for our federal partners at the FBI, ATF, and other agencies to do their job of enforcing federal gun laws in Missouri. The prospect of Missouri officials trying to arrest federal agents is unimaginable …

Fitch is a liar, and that isn’t the reason he opposes the proposed law.  The real reason is that while it is unimaginable to the authors of the letter that they would actually hold the collectivists accountable for their crimes (because they are themselves collectivists), it is quite imaginable that they strip their own people of their God-given rights.

So there you have it.  The benefit of things like this is that it allows liberty lovers in that neck of the woods the opportunity to see what their LEOs are really made of, and remove them from office, however hard that may be and however long that may take.

On to what is always an interesting read, PoliceOne.

Don’t expect any change in local enforcement of New York’s SAFE Act following recent comments by Gov. Andrew Cuomo … Schoharie County Sheriff Tony Desmond said he has no intention of enforcing the law, and that his office won’t do anything that would cause law-abiding citizens to turn in their weapons or arrest them for possessing firearms.

Good for the Sheriff, but the more interesting thing is the comments to the article, as it always is at PoliceOne.

I support laws limiting magazine capacity in the United States. Let’s say 7 rounds at most. Carry as many of those 7 round magazines as you want.

Law enforcement officers, due to the nature of their work, are excempt (sic) from these limitations.

The reasoning is this. There have been numerous situations in Law Enforcement where higher round magazines have been necessary to do what they do. It’s the nature of the job.

There is no evidence that a non law enforcement person needs a higher magazine capacity to protect themselves. It doesn’t exist.

And next:

Officer Discretion! It doesn’t matter what laws are passed, or what crooked politicians think. I can enforce or not enforce laws however I see fit. Its called officer discretion. I would hate to live/work in an area where LEO Officers feel they have to enforce every law, no matter what the circumstances. If you work for a city/county/state/federal department, you may not have discretion. Fortunately I work for the Office of the Sheriff, and (with the Sheriff’s Blessing) I make the decisions to charge/not charge the people I deal with.

The first commenter is easily answered by one name: Mr. Stephen Bayezes.  But the more involved answer pertains to how poorly trained and ignorant he is, as well as raising the question why police departments hire such badly qualified candidates.

LEOs can use weapons for only one reason according to the SCOTUS decision in Tennessee versus Garner: self defense.  Nothing more.  So whatever applies to LEOs applies equally to citizens who aren’t LEOs, that is, self defense isn’t unique to LEOs, and there is no compelling legal argument for allowing weapons in the hands of LEOs that aren’t in the hands of others.

The next commenter is a little more level-headed in that he would refuse to confiscate weapons, at least according to him, but just as ignorant in that he elevates discretion to the point that it overrides the law.

This makes for corruption in the ranks of enforcers just like it does in the ranks of law-makers, who sometimes feel that they can make any law they want for whatever reason they want.  Neither is true.  The constitution constrains us all, law-makers and LEOs alike.  The officer doesn’t have discretion to ignore enforcement of a law that is constitutional, and it is the very fact that a gun confiscation law is in fact unconstitutional that gives him the latitude to refuse to enforce it.  There are rules for all of us; our actions are circumscribed by higher law, first the constitution, and finally, God Himself.

So as you can see, LEOs are still having extreme difficulty dealing with the political and cultural crises in which we find ourselves.  I only expect the dilemmas to get worse for them.  They had better put on their thinking caps.  Right now they’re acting pretty stolid and dense.