Do Hi-cap bans with LEO exceptions violate equal protection?

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

I find the exceptions for LEO's on high capacity magazines extremely galling.

Police corruption aside, law enforcement is a civilian job. How are they any different than the rest of us peons? The courts don't give them any special status. I don't get it.

Explanations, please?

 

[tyme]

If the mags are for use in the discharge of official duties, I don't think equal protection applies.

However, there's a federal-level hi-cap mag exception if hi-cap mags are transferred to a LEO upon retirement. That seems to violate equal protection pretty clearly.

I've also wondered about potential equal protection violations simply on the basis of age in CA. Some young people had absolutely no way to get hi-cap mags, since they couldn't have owned them in CA before the ban. Older people did have that opportunity. Same problem with assault weapons, which could be registered before the ban.

 

[OF]

What about 'may-issue' CCW laws?

- Gabe

 

[SamAdams]

What about 'may-issue' CCW laws?

Yeah. I'm going to be applying soon for carry and I have to 'prove' my need for it. I've been thinking of carrying in a stack of armed self defense stories as well as disarmed deaths published. Not that it would help my position by looking like a know it all, but since when is my life up for approval?

 

[SIGarmed]

I beleive it is wrong for law enforcement to be issued full capacity magazines when the regular folks can't have them. Whats not illegal about it? Technically these laws are wrong. It needs to be legally challenged.
I listened to the L.A. cheif of police live on the radio,he stated that he was for this kind of law because we[us] shouldn't have them[full capacity magazines] and his officers should have them because of the tactical situations that his police face. Near my home in L.A. or within at least five miles of my home it was reported by the local news that there were five home invasion robberies by a group of latin thugs within one month alone in broad daylight. They haven't been caught to my knowledge either. Hypothetically when the police respond,if they show up in time after I call them,and I'm barricaded in the bathroom with the thugs on the other side of the door while they're trying to kill me or my family,the police are allowed to use full capacity magazines,but I am not!
I ask again what isn't illegal about it?
Talk about unconstitutional!

 

[IamNOTaNUT]

If you don't like the law (And who does?) you would be better served, IMHO, working to repeal it rather than having it applied to police officers too. Who gains anything that way?

That's like tearing your neighbors castle down so yours will look better. It is a destructive and counter productive course of action.

 

[RickD]

Theoretically then, citizens should be more likely to need full-cap magazines since when citizens face criminals it is likely to be by themselves whereas police have backup just a radio call away.

 

[IamNOTaNUT]

Just a radio call away? Isn't that the same thing as just a phone call away?

We're looking at the wrong argument. Argue why a "regular" citizen needs full capacity magazines, there are several compelling reasons. Don't waste your time arguing that the police do not need them, or that the average guy has a greater need for them than the police because that is an argument you will never win.

If I were a poker player I would suggest that you play your strongest hand. Since I'm not a gambler, I will just say stick with your most compelling argument. Adding in the other items merely gets people sidetracked. The other side will argue your weaker points, that they have a good counter for, and your most important point will be lost in the rhetoric. End result? You lose the argument and gain nothing.

 

[SIGarmed]

"If you don't like the law (And who does?) you would be better served, IMHO, working to repeal it rather than having it applied to police officers too. Who gains anything that way?

That's like tearing your neighbors castle down so yours will look better. It is a destructive and counter productive course of action."

Who said anything about having it applied to police officers?
The original question was wether it was a violation of equal protection rights,and my point was,yes it is. The arguement is that if police who are no more important than me as a citizen can have them for said reasons,why can't I?

 

[ankara36]

I never cared for the concept that LEOs should have better weaponry than is available to civilians. It is part of the desire to control the armed populace, since they are much easier to go after than criminals. A criminal isn’t going to give a rat’s @ss if he has a high-cap mag in his Glock when he knocks over a bank.

There are similarities between the way LEOs are treated, and the way “party members” were treated in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. We’re all equal. Just some are more equal than others.

The justification for civilians having high cap mags? I think its called the Second Amendment.