It’s not exactly a news flash to say the anti-gun loons from the left coast are imposing yet another gun law. As they have in the past, they say this new law will make the streets safer, but all these laws do are infringe on the rights of the law-abiding citizens and ignore the dangers posed by certain individuals suffering with mental health issues or violent criminals. The difference this time is the loudest voice in opposition to a new restrictive gun storage law.
The Los Angeles City Council is considering a new “safe storage” law. The new law would require that all handguns be locked in a safe or disabled with a trigger lock when not in use. Laws such as these are not new, particularly in California, where opposition to the initiatives fall on the deaf ears of lawmakers and to a large degree, law enforcement, but this time, a surprising group is taking a stand against the new “safe storage” law.
The proposed rules would exempt active-duty and reserve officers. However, the Police Protective League (PPL) wants more. The Los Angeles Police Protective League says retired officers should be excluded as well, warning of possible dangers to former officers and their families. While the PPL is correct, retired officers and their families do face possible dangers, so does every other citizen that lawfully owns and posses a firearm. Where is the ‘equal protection’ for those outside of law enforcement? Law enforcement is immune from the majority of the draconian laws passed to infringe on our Second Amendment right to self-defense. However, the new proposed law hits a little closer to home. On second thought, it is hitting them exactly at home. Law enforcement deserves full credit for the job they perform. Cops run to danger when others run from it. They put their lives on the line each and every day and deserve our admiration and respect.
There are however a few bad apples. Thanks to the proliferation of cameras on cell phones, dash cameras and personal video devices, these officers are exposed more often. Other bad apples within the law enforcement ranks have taken it to the extreme. It was only a couple of years ago that disgraced LAPD officer Christopher Dorner went on a killing spree that targeted police officers and their family.
Therefore, the police union believes that retired police officers (or even an off-duty police officer’s family members) need to be able to protect themselves quickly. The time and logistics of disabling a trigger lock or opening a safe puts them at risk. Is the extra effort required to defend yourself or family justified just because you are a schoolteacher, secretary, military member, firefighter, or any other profession? Perhaps the city council should simply mandate a few hours training while at the academy on the use of trigger locks. Shouldn’t that be sufficient for a trained law enforcement officer while off duty? Or better yet their families and children? If that is the standard that should be applied to an average citizen, how does the Police Protective League believe it should not apply to officers whether on duty or retired? During an ambush-style attack or home invasion, there are only precious seconds to defend your life or well-being or your loved ones. Your life and right to self-defense should not mean less than one of our heroes in uniform, a retiree or any other citizen. This should have all been resolved when the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Heller and specifically that a requirement to disable a handgun for self-defense within the home as an unconstitutional burden.
Should the Los Angeles City council give special rights or exemptions to law enforcement, retired law enforcement or those living in the house of a law enforcement officer? Let’s hear from some of you retired police officers as well. Please share your thoughts and opinions in the comments section.