Of all the oddities and contorted positions taken by the anti-gun lobby, the notion that police are perpetrators of “gun violence” yet should be exempt from virtually every gun control law is one of the most grating, at least to me. Even Democrats opposed to qualified immunity for law enforcement are quick to shield them from any restriction on gun ownership. In California, for example, law enforcement officers aren’t limited to purchasing handguns on the state’s roster as everyone else is, even though it gives cops an incentive to break the law and sell off-roster guns to their buddies, associates, or strangers.
“Assault weapons” bans? Exempt. Magazine restrictions? Exempt. One-gun-a-month? Nah, buy as many as you’d like. Insurance mandate? Well, that’s where it gets interesting, at least in Maryland, where Del. Terri Hill has introduced a bill mandating that anyone who lawfully carries a gun in public must also carry a $300,000 liability insurance policy. At least, that’s how the bill was originally written. When Hill was informed that she hadn’t exempted law enforcement per usual, however, she was quick to pledge to make things right with police.
When asked about the motivation behind the legislation, Hill told FOX45 News a constituent came to her with the idea that gun owners should “bear some liability in cases where there is damage because of guns being used in ways that cause harm.”
“This bill places an unconstitutional burden on citizens to own a firearm,” Del. Ryan Nawrocki said.
While supporting overall gun regulations, Largo-based criminal defense attorney Vernon Brownlee said to FOX45 News he believes this bill may hold law enforcement officers accountable.
“[This] legislation aims to enhance accountability among police officers, particularly addressing the disproportionate impact of their misuse of deadly force on the black community,” Brownlee said. “In essence, the legislation introduces a mechanism whereby repeated violations of the statute could lead insurance carriers to consider an officer a liability, rendering them uninsurable.”
Hahahahaha, that’s cute. No, this legislation isn’t about enhancing accountability for police. Quite the opposite, in fact. Hill claims she had no intention to make police officers comply with the gun control laws they’re tasked with enforcing.
When pressed by FOX45 News about why local and state law enforcement are not named exemptions in the bill’s current form, Hill said she would be making corrections.
“Oh, that’s a good suggestion,” Hill said. “I think we will take that, and we will probably add an amendment to exempt local law enforcement as well. It should have been all law enforcement.”
The initiative’s co-sponsor Del. Cheryl Pasteur, D-Baltimore County, said “the exception is in the bill” in a follow-up email after Hill’s phone interview.
“[Del. Hill] noted she would go back, however, and make sure it is clear before going to a hearing,” Pasteur added.
“Police violence is gun violence,” according to Shannon Watts and groups like Everytown. If they really believe that, then why does law enforcement get a pass on virtually every gun control law they manage to put in place? The truth is that as much as the anti-gunners need to pretend to hate police so they can fit in more comfortably on the left, they’re utterly dependent on law enforcement for their very existence. What good is any gun control law if it’s not being enforced, after all?
So yes, police will get a pass from Hill’s blatantly unconstitutional attempt to impose an insurance mandate on the exercise of a fundamental civil right, just like they’re exempt from the state’s ban on so-called assault weapons, one-gun-a-month, handgun qualification license, and every other infringement that lawful citizens are forced to live under. No matter how much prohibitionists like Watts claim to the contrary, the fact of the matter is that the gun control lobby wouldn’t have it any other way.