I have read these bills (HR 218, and S. 253), and can find no wording which would extend the AWB. There is a provision that would exempt the officers in question from carrying machine guns, firearm silencers, and destructive devices; but nothing is said about the AWB. Maybe I am not looking in the right place.
If anyone wants to go to the US House of Representatives site(
www.house.gov), or the U.S. Senate site (
www.senate.gov) you might do better. I will note that S. 253 is recorded in the Senate as identical to HR 218. Is there another Senate bill addressing the same issue with an AWB extension riding along?
As to the question of the validity of the main point of the law, I don't care much for any legislation that that furthers the legal establishment of a separate class. And make no mistake, giving LEOs special privileges does just that. It was the same belief in a need for a "protector class" that gave rise to aristocracy in days of old. our enlightened forefathers knew that no man should need a coat of arms (or a badge) to bear arms. When people are given such exclusive powers, the tendency is to secure and further those entitlements. They begin to see themselves as different and superior. It is an inevitable human reaction. On their website dedicated to HR 218 (
http://leaa.org/218/), The Law Enforcement Alliance of America claims that they opposed and defeated several provisions in the bill, including the following:
"An amendment that would have added language banning officers from carrying "concealed hand grenades and bombs" and "assault weapons". (The grenade and bomb exception can be dismissed as the crazy ramblings of someone with a deranged view of America's law enforcement officers, the "assault weapon" language could be construed as an effort to ban the so-called "high capacity" magazines found in most police issued side arms)"
Read that again. If prohibiting LEOs from carrying "concealed hand grenades and bombs" and "assault weapons" constitutes "the crazy ramblings of someone with a deranged view of America's law enforcement officers," what is to be made of these same prohibitions as they effect law abiding citizens? Does The Law Enforcement Alliance of America oppose these restrictions of our Rights? Or just theirs? Too many LEO organizations have an "us and them" mentality in regards to the civilian population. When these organizations find a friendly ear in Congress these sorts of laws are the result. For example: in the past year, my own State of Michigan, like a lot of States, passed a law requiring motorists to slow down to 45 mph or move over a lane when they encounter a police car with it's gum balls flashing. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? It's not. The bill said nothing about fire trucks or ambulances or tow trucks. Are the lives of the men and women in these vehicles worth nothing? For that matter, what about your run-of-the mill motorist with a flat tire? When police agencies champion bills like this, they are saying "police officers are a cut above normal people and deserve special protection." With all due respect to LEOs everywhere, and to the important work you do, I have to disagree. The State's police powers originate from the State's obligation to protect The People's rights. Many restrictions have been placed on The People "to make it easier for cops to do their job." This is an insidious motive. When you relieve me of my rights, in order to aid you in protecting my rights, you serve only to erode my rights. And this is no good service.
Of course, denny was right, as usual.