One Law for Me, Another for Thee regarding Armed Protection in New York City

[jordan179]

Outgoing New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and outgoing Mayor Michael Bloomberg are taking with them protective details of 6 and 17 armed police officer respectively, according to Murray Weiss of DNAInfo New YorkNow, I do not deny that (due to the prominence of their positions and the ways in which both may have made enemies among New

Comments

[prester_scott]

New York has always been at the forefront of such thinking; see the Sullivan Act, dating back to 1911.

[inverarity]

Elites imposing restrictions on the people that don't apply to themselves is hardly restricted to liberals.

What I have a problem with is the idea of elected officials being treated like aristocracy regardless of political party. Unless there are specific, credible threats, they aren't entitled to round-the-clock police protection. If billionaire Michael Bloomberg needs protection, he can pay for it himself.

I'll make an exception for ex-Presidents and ex-VPs, because they really would be high-profile targets, but this shouldn't be an automatic perk for ex-mayors and police commissioners, even of NYC.

[jordan179]

Elites imposing restrictions on the people that don't apply to themselves is hardly restricted to liberals.

True, but right now it is liberals, not conservatives, who are in favor of restricting guns to the elite. Gun control always works against people below some level of income, because (1) they are in the most routine danger, and (2) richer people can better afford to buy the necessary permits or hire people who have them. It rarely works against criminals, because most crimes that one can commit with a firearm inevitably carry much more severe penalties than would the mere possession of the firearm.

New York City is big enough and the center of enough crime that I understand why Bloomberg and the former Police Commissioner might need protection. Aside from organized criminals (who would mostly be afraid to attack any such high-profile) there might be personal vendettas and downright lunatics. My problem is not that they get armed protection: it's that they deny it to ordinary New Yorkers. What about the ordinary guy who

[inverarity]

Yes, but you claimed separate laws for the elite is "classic liberal thinking." It's not - elitism and believing in laws for thee but not for me is observable across the political spectrum.

As for Bloomberg and the Police Commissioner getting protection, it's only unequal inasmuch as they get personal police details, which ordinary private citizens generally do not get. If they were personally carrying their own firearms which are illegal for other citizens, then you'd have a case.

[superversive]

As for Bloomberg and the Police Commissioner getting protection, it's only unequal inasmuch as they get personal police details, which ordinary private citizens generally do not get.

They are being protected by persons carrying firearms, which is a class of protection that private citizens are not permitted to secure by their own efforts. That’s pretty damned seriously unequal.