Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
Lines 100-104 deal with the ability and necessity of occasionally calling upon armed citizens to assist law enforcement. The argument is put forth that limiting the efficacy of citizens arms impedes that purpose. The Ted Bundy case is cited as an actual example of Sheriffs doing just that.
No argument could be more literally in sync with the 2nd amendment's only announced purpose: the ability of the government to call forth an armed citizenry to effect security. In my opinion, this constitutional argument from 54 sheriffs is one of the strongest to date against AWB's and magazine limits.
By coincidence, I am halfway through a multi-week "citizens' police academy" being run by the local police department in the town adjacent to my home town. There's enough cooperation between the two towns that they open these classes to residents of my town if there aren't enough from their own town to fill the class. This year I got in.
This week's class was given by the department's armorer/firearms & tactics instructor/SWAT team leader. One of the things he said that I think most people missed but I latched onto was that he doesn't favor gun control or magazine capacity limits because he knows the citizens with carry licenses have been checked out pretty thoroughly, and he knows there may come a day when he needs one of us to save his life.
He did not say, however, whether or not his chief subscribes to that philosophy.