Police officers in Sunnyvale, California discovered to their sudden dismay that the city's new ban (a confiscatory ban) on "high capacity" magazines (gun prohibitionist zealot-speak for standard capacity magazines that can hold 11 or more rounds) applies even to them, while not on duty, and as the NRA wrote in Ammoland.com, they are not inclined to tolerate that:
Voters in Sunnyvale recently passed a gun control package known as Measure C.
This new law includes a provision that bans the possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.
What many have not realized is that this magazine ban will force active peace officers who live in Sunnyvale to dispose of any magazines over ten rounds in their personal collections (even if their purchase was authorized for off-duty use) or face criminal liability.
The article goes on to point out that even an officer just passing through Sunnyvale while not on duty is under legal obligation to not have any evil 11-round magazines along for the ride. Although the law (an ordnance ordinance?) as a whole is egregious, personally, this correspondent has only one complaint about the part that renders off-duty "Only Ones" no better than the rest of us: that it does not apply to on-duty "Only Ones," as well.
Still, Measure C, as the Sunnyvale "gun control" package is called, is far better in that regard than proposed federal legislation to ban 11-rounders. This year alone we have seen H.R. 138, introduced by Rep. Carolyn "What's a Barrel Shroud?" McCarthy (D-NY); S. 33, introduced by the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ); S. 150, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); H.R. 437, another introduced by Rep. McCarthy; and S. 691, another introduced by Sen. Lautenberg.
The federal bills differ from each other in some respects, with the magazine bans in H.R. 437 and S. 150 being subsidiary components of larger bills banning so-called "assault weapons." They all share one interesting "feature," though--not only do they exempt "Only Ones," even retired cops are given a pass on the ban.
This is especially interesting given what Lautenberg said when he introduced S. 33 in the wake of the Tucson shooting that killed six people and inflicted on then-Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) brain damage severe enough to cause her to become fanatically anti-gun. Lautenberg explained then that, "The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly."
With Lautenberg having departed the world of the living, we will never learn his explanation of what he believed would bring about a legitimate law enforcement need to "kill a lot of people very quickly" (not exactly "peace officer" work, that), and we'll certainly never learn why he thought retired cops should have that capability.
Sunnyvale's Measure C is an intolerable assault on that which shall not be infringed, but the fact that it applies even to "Only Ones" mitigates the evil to some extent--or would, if it applied to them even when they are on the taxpayers' time.
- McCarthy magazine bill an affront to common sense as well as liberty
- Magazine ban effort ramps up, along with volume and heat of rhetoric
- Rep. William Lacy Clay so far only MO congressman to co-sponsor magazine ban
- Magazine ban advocates' shaky grasp of mathematics and reality
- Do anti-gun groups oppose 'assault weapons' for retired California 'Only Ones'?
- Why we need 'high capacity' magazines: Because there are more than 10 Democrats
- Ranking federal 'gun control' priorities: 'High capacity' magazine ban
- We're Not the Only Ones Hopeful Enough