If Retired Cops Are Safer With Unlocked Guns,
Why Aren't the Rest of Us?
By Kurt Hofmann, July 1st 2015
JPFO writer contributor, © 2015.
The Los Angeles City Council is considering implementing a more restrictive "safe storage" law, requiring all handguns to be locked in a safe or disabled with a trigger locking device when not in use. Given that this is L.A. we're talking about here, the only surprising aspect is that such a law hasn't already been on the books for years by now.
Well, no--actually, there is one more surprise to be found here--the loudest opposition is from the police union. What--L.A. cops against "gun control"? Well, they don't object to all the private citizens being required to lock up their best defense against home invaders. What they don't like is the thought that they and their families might be at the tender mercies of home invaders until they can unlock their best means of self-defense.
This opposition comes despite the fact that the proposed law includes a provision that exempts active duty and reserve officers (whose children, apparently are far safer around unsecured firearms than other people's kids). The problem, according to the union, is that retired officers are expected to deal with as many obstacles to their ability to defend themselves as are the rest of us. From the Los Angeles Times:
The proposed rules would exempt active-duty and reserve officers, but the Los Angeles Police Protective League says retired officers should be excluded as well, warning of possible dangers to former officers and their families.
Apparently, retired cops must be able to defend themselves quickly, but retired school teachers (for example) in the greater Los Angeles area are never murdered at home--oh . . . wait.
Besides, one would think that with the "Only Ones" apologists' love of the notion that cops are far better trained and capable with firearms than the rest of us, they would be able to deal with a trigger lock far more quickly than we lowly mundanes could.
But here's where it gets truly surreal:
In a letter to city lawmakers, the union argued that current and former officers needed quick access to guns for protection, citing the 2013 armed rampage by former LAPD Officer Christopher Dorner as an example of police and their families being targeted.
Yep--to bolster their argument as to why former L.A. cops need more immediate access to their firearms, they point to a former L.A. cop who went on a murderous rampage with firearms. That's like using the Hindenburg as an example of why hydrogen-filled airships are the best means of travel.
In a home invasion, the window of opportunity to successfully defend oneself and one's family can be measured in seconds, and no evidence has been presented that those criminals who target the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker move any more slowly than those who go after cops. As discussed here a few weeks ago, in the Supreme Court's Heller decision, the requirement that guns kept in the home be disabled was specifically cited as an unconstitutional burden on the right to self-defense--and not just cops' self-defense, but everyone's.
We are told that we are to lock up our guns, "for safety." We are told that cops (and retired cops) must have unlocked guns . . . "for safety." How does once having worn a badge make what's safe for one person the exact opposite of what's safe for the next?
A former paratrooper, Kurt Hofmann was paralyzed in a car accident in 2002. The helplessness inherent to confinement to a wheelchair prompted him to explore armed self-defense, only to discover that Illinois denies that right, inspiring him to become active in gun rights advocacy. He also writes the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Kurt Hofmann Archive.
