L.A. may allow gun control exemptions
Plan would let reserve and retired officers have larger magazines.
Less than three months after the Los Angeles City Council thrust itself into a national debate over gun control by unanimously voting to ban firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, city lawmakers could exempt some retired or reserve police officers from those rules.
The proposal pits the Los Angeles Police Protective League — the politically muscular union that represents city police — against some of the gun control activists who vociferously championed the new law.
It has already provoked rare division on a council that routinely votes in unison. And it has stirred up concern with City Atty. Mike Feuer, who has privately warned lawmakers that loosening the rules for retired officers could pose a legal risk for the city.
When Los Angeles lawmakers passed the ordinance, supporters said it was a small but important step to reduce the carnage of mass shootings by forcing attackers to stop sooner to reload. Gun rights groups argued the ban violated the 2nd Amendment and was preempted by state law.
Now lawmakers are considering a measure that would exempt retired law enforcement officers who have permits to carry concealed weapons — as well as reserve officers who work for agencies that already authorize them to possess such ammunition magazines.
A City Council committee focused on public safety voted 3 to 1 to back the proposed exemptions Tuesday. Councilman Mitch Englander, who first made the proposal, called them “common sense” rules that would ensure retired officers didn’t face criminal charges for holding on to the weapons they had been trained to use.
He emphasized that the exemptions would apply only to retired and reserve officers who were deemed “qualified” under state or federal laws. For instance, retired officers must have left the department in good standing, city lawyers said.
The only committee member to vote against the proposed exemptions was Councilwoman Nury Martinez, who later issued a written statement saying, “If we are truly committed to the idea of protecting families and loved ones from avoidable gun injuries and death, then I do not see how exemptions ... make us any safer.”
But the idea could run into more opposition when it goes to the full council for a vote. Earlier this year, several lawmakers opposed drafting the exemptions.
The L.A. rules already exempt police and military on active duty, licensed firearm dealers and several other categories of gun owners. The Los Angeles Police Protective League said it was important for retired and reserve officers to be exempt as well to combat threats to public safety.
Reserve officers “are highly trained people who go out there and put the same uniform on, drive in the same police cars, and run into the same situations,” said its director, Peter Repovich. In the face of violence, Repovich added, “there’s nothing better than to have somebody pop up that they wouldn’t think was necessarily armed, ready to go and eliminate the threat.”
Councilman Joe Buscaino echoed that argument, saying, “Heaven forbid, if this city were to be under attack, I would want retired and reserve officers who have the experience and the training to be allowed to protect the people of this city.”
Such arguments have failed to sway some of the gun control activists who fought for the city rules. Margot Bennett, executive director of Women Against Gun Violence, said her group was opposed to granting any additional exemptions “until we can be provided with real data that proves the need for these exemptions and outweighs the need for public safety.”
The city attorney has also warned against it: In a confidential report to the council obtained by The Times earlier this year, Feuer said exempting retired officers from the magazine ban would present “significant legal risk” because it would be hard to show that it was “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”
Englander, who is also a reserve police officer, said the city had done “extensive research” after the memo was written. “We believe we’re on solid legal footing.”