Dave Kopel.

Two weeks ago, I filed an amicus brief in U.S. District Court in Colorado, in Gates v. Polis, a case challenging the Colorado legislature’s 2013 ban on magazines over 15 rounds. The brief was on behalf of Sheriffs and law enforcement training organizations: the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, the Colorado Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association, the Western States Sheriffs Association, 10 elected Colorado County Sheriffs, and the Independence Institute (where I work).

Some of the brief explains the practical mechanics of armed self-defense, and why bans on standard magazines do not impair mass shooters, but do endanger ordinary citizens, especially when attacked by multiple criminals. Another part of the brief shows that the key data created by some of the Colorado Attorney General’s expert witnesses is obviously false.

But in this post, I will focus on a more fundamental argument in the brief. The law enforcement amici reject the claim that arms universally recognized as appropriate for ordinary law enforcement officers should be banned for ordinary citizens. The claim is based on the pernicious idea that law enforcement officers are above the people, rather than part of the people. Here are some excerpts from the brief:

The magazine ban attempts to divorce today’s common arms of law-abiding citizens from today’s common arms of law enforcement officers, including sheriffs and their deputies. The divorce, contrary to the wishes of both parties, endangers citizens and officers alike.

The arms of ordinary law enforcement officers are carefully selected for only one purpose: lawful defense of innocents in civil society. Throughout American history, many citizens have looked to law enforcement for guidance in choosing arms for the same purpose. Denying those arms to citizens and to retired law enforcement officers  endangers them for the same reasons that denying these arms to active law enforcement officers would endanger them. The most important reason is the necessity of reserve capacity, as detailed in Part II.

More fundamentally, the magazine ban violates the principles of our Constitution and of American law enforcement. Policing by consent is the American value, not militarized occupation from above.

Well, that’s of course true (and you can read the rest of what he said at the link), but I think he gets the issue of people depending on LEOs for defense of society all wrong.  As he knows, based on:

Castle Rock v. Gonzalez

Warren v. District of Columbia

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

There is no duty to defend the society or anyone in it, and no expectation for them to do so.  In fact, in society today the police are more likely to harm society than help it.  As I’ve said before, there is no situation so bad and dangerous that it cannot be made worse by the presence of the police.  Furthermore, the modern judicial (and wrong) notion of qualified immunity has made them reckless, and the supreme court telling them that they can lie has made matters even worse.

Folks, the supreme court may have said LEOs can lie with impunity, but it’s still a sin and anyone who willfully lies to someone they have brought in by the power of a badge and gun will face a mighty maker one day and answer for his sins – all of them, including lying to people.  I don’t care what the supreme court said.

But if it’s true that police are part of “the people,” then that goes more to my point that they shouldn’t have qualified immunity, they shouldn’t be allowed machine guns and other NFA items while we’re prohibited from ownership of them, they shouldn’t be allowed to knock down doors and invade homes if I can’t, and they shouldn’t be allowed to muzzle flag innocent people because of “officer safety” when I would be thrown in prison for assault with a deadly weapon for doing the same thing.

I’d like to see Kopel go there in his brief to other cases.

By the way, the comments at this Reason article are as awful and beggarly as they always are at Reason.  Consider this one.

Assuming, he says.  He purports to set up a syllogism, or an immediate inference, and then does nothing of the sort.  The whole thing is a non sequitur.  Stephen Lathop is an idiot, but he is also a communist.  He sees police as the “People’s Special Constraint.”

You need to be constrained, and Stephen says that’s what the police are for.

When you read articles at Reason, just ignore the comments.  You will be dumber for having read them if you take a deep dive into the minds of children who are throwing tantrums and pretending like it means anything.