Was that, indeed, one of the justifications made? This was a means to prevent somebody from being a police officer because they wouldn't be able to carry their firearm. That seemed to be what some of the testimony was saying.
What you've clarified here I knew, because military members and police members are not required to have authorization to carry. It's part of their job, so we're not talking about police officers and taking away police officers' handguns here. If they're a danger, there are other processes to remove them from the force.
I think I would trust the CFOs in this case to make the right decisions. I don't think taking away this tool is going to enhance public safety.