Skip to content

Crazy Gun Laws for Us, but NOT for Them

March 1, 2014

Other gun-grabbing states have crazy laws, but California is neck and neck with any of them, even New Jersey and Maryland.  Need examples of crazy gun laws? California legislators want each fired cartridge case to have a unique mark called a micro-stamp.  Stranger still is that the micro-stamping requirements don’t apply to guns used by law enforcement officers.  In fact, most firearms restrictions don’t apply to the police at all. How crazy is that!

More equal

You have special rules and special exemptions if you’re a favored government employee.  You’re exempt from the regulations limiting ammunition magazine capacity, exempt from gun storage requirements, “smart gun” restrictions, and buying handguns from California’s approved roster.  Those laws only apply to us, the everyday citizen.  That smells like political favoritism to me.   It stinks.

Who is exempt?  These laws apply to you and me, but not to sheriff’s deputies and police officers.  Not to the highway patrol, the department of fish and game, corrections officers or probation officers.  Oops, I almost forgot the auxiliary and honorary officers and deputies.   Then there are retired law enforcement officers who get special rules just for them.  These “life saving firearms regulations” don’t apply to the security staff at the state capital!  I see a pattern.  Honest gun owners are told that California gun laws are not punitive or inconvenient.  We are told these laws are essential to public safety.

Yet each time these public safety laws are written, public safety officers are the first to receive exemptions.

There shouldn’t be any exemptions if these gun laws are so convenient and essential!  In fact the police are exempt because these laws are harmful.  That is why I don’t believe the gun-grabbing politicians any longer.  These burdensome regulations on gun owners are politically motivated and nothing more.

The tip off is obvious. Gun laws are just like Obamacare.  You can tell an abusive law when the politicians exempt themselves and other government employees.

If these really are such great public safety laws, then we would see our enlightened public safety officers lead the way.  If modern firearms are too dangerous for civilians, then let us see law enforcement officers set an example and start using six-shot revolvers again.  Better yet, let’s start with the security staff in the state capital and state personal protection services.  Are there any takers?

Where are the moral leaders of our state legislature?   How about our nation’s capital?  Honest politicians speak up.



The legislature can lead the way with restrictive gun laws. I’ll follow their example.

DF hypocrite~_~_

What do you say?  Please rate, share and comment.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. March 1, 2014 7:24 am

    Reblogged this on So you want to know what its like having 4 kids. and commented:
    I’m not usually a proponent of new laws. I do think we need a federal law that makes our “Rulers” obligated to live under the same laws as the “Ruled”. That should include paying taxes. It’s my understanding that a large portion of our nations leaders are behind in paying taxes due. Why are we employing these folks? Why are they not dismissed or prosecuted? What makes them so untouchable?


  2. pappad permalink
    March 1, 2014 1:02 pm

    …the same thing that prevented card-carrying members of the Communist Party from being subjected to penalties, or even scrutiny, in the USSR. Watch “Citizen X” sometime. Perfect example that cost about 30 Russian kids their lives at the hands of a madman–who WAS a Party member.


  3. March 14, 2014 11:47 am

    Last year I suggested a solution to this sort of thing. Unfortunately it would take at least a law if not a constitutional amendment. . I called it the Equal Protection Amendment:

    1. No person holding any office under the United States, or any of them, may keep or bear any arms except those that may be borne by all law abiding competent adult citizens both in his place of residence and in the location of his office.

    2. No person holding any office under the United States, or any of them, may be protected by any personal arms he is barred from keeping under the previous article.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: