The perceived divide between LEOs and non LEO gun owners.

There is a perception of a divide between LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers - aka "cops") and non LEO gun owners. This divide is a predictable consequence of gun laws that treat off duty LEOs differently than other citizens. It creates a disconnect between two groups in the gun owning community, breeds suspicion, and exempts LEOs from some of the laws that they enforce.

Once the initial disconnect is there, and people no longer see LEOs as standing beside the people, people give more credence to other reports they hear about LE behaving badly, and the divide grows wider. As the divide grows wider, LEOs tend to care less about what the citizens - now disdainfully referred to as "civilians" - think. And the vicious cycle continues...

The same disconnect between civilian gun owners and military gun owners doesn't exist, because military exemptions tend to only apply while on duty, and using government supplied weapons. There are also exemptions that allow non-Californians who are temporarily stationed here to keep possession of their legal and safe firearms - but these servicemembers are not Californians, don't vote here, and will most likely take those weapons with them when they leave California - so they aren't as important to the state.

While there may be good reasons for off duty and retired LEOs to have national carry rights (which are provided federally under LEOSA), there is no reasonable explanation for why they should be allowed to purchase firearms that the state deems "unsafe" (this actually creates an "officer safety" problem, if the CA handgun roster is legitimate, because now LEOs are using guns that the state claims "endanger" the LEOs), no reason that they should be allowed to personally own firearms that the state bans as "assault weapons" (this again creates "officer safety" issues, as it makes LEOs better targets for burglars who want to acquire "desirable" firearms), and no reason that they should need to have "high capacity" magazine when they are off duty (or even when they are on duty - since the party line is that LEOs are better trained with firearms, so shouldn't need more rounds to subdue a threat).

The distrust and bad feeling that we have seen developing between gun owners and civilian LEOs is working out exactly as planned by the anti-gunners. Civilian LEOs have been thrown enough crumbs that they don't speak out en masse against new gun control laws, and don't get their unions involved in fighting against gun control measures. Before antigunners included such LE exemptions in their bills, many rank and file LEOs would go on record as opposing gun control legislation, because they didn't want to have the right of the people - including themselves -to self defense infringed.

To some people, it seems that by granting LEOs privileges, the antigunners have muted LEO opposition to taking away the rights of the rest of the people.