One artifact of the American system of government is how different laws can be from one state to another. In most other countries, the laws at least seem to be somewhat universal. We, however, don’t like the federal government stepping in if we can help it. Instead, we tend to have broad disparities in what’s permitted and what isn’t from state to state.

Because of that disparity, there will always be some who take guns from one state and into another where there are more restrictions. Guns always find the “low spots,” after all.

Yet if gun control worked as advertised, that wouldn’t be the case. Too bad for anti-gun jihadists that it doesn’t, though. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.

Under a plea deal, Darwin “Weezy” Medina, 35, pleaded guilty to conspiring to sell drugs and possess weapons. In exchange, prosecutors dropped additional charges of possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and interstate transportation of firearms with altered or obliterated serial numbers, thereby avoiding a potential life sentence.

Officials say from at least September 2017 through March 2018, Medina and another man, John Guerrero, who said they were part of the Latin Kings street gang, were part of a drugs for guns pipeline into Franklin County, Vermont. Investigators say Medina brought crack cocaine to Vermont and then sold it to Franklin County customers in exchange for guns intended for use in a “war” in Boston. They say at least 30 guns were exchanged.

Medina was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

Yet the important thing to understand is that they were buying guns in Vermont, which had fewer restrictions and then transporting them into Massachusetts where there are more regulations.

“Stronger federal gun laws would have prevented this,” someone will likely say. However, I’d like to point out that these turdnuggets were being paid in drugs. I hate to break it to you, but we already have a total ban on cocaine here in the United States. If laws worked so well to keep out guns, they’d work equally well to keep out drugs.

How has that worked out for the United States over the decades?

Criminals, by definition, break the law. It’s what they do. Breaking another law isn’t really a big deal for them, in and of itself. They probably don’t even care all that much except in how it can impact their bottom lines.

If gun control worked as advertised, though, there wouldn’t be guns coming in from Vermont in the first place. Gun trafficking is illegal, after all. It’s already against the law. Yet here we are, looking at how it happened in Boston, one of the more gun controlled cities in the nation. It’s like those laws don’t really even matter.

Really, though, they do. They keep law-abiding people from being able to conduct certain actions that would be legal with pretty much any other lawful product. Trading a car in Boston for some cans of vegetables to sell to folks in Vermont? Not an issue. Trading a car from drugs would only be an issue because you were getting an unlawful product.

Yet buy guns and take them somewhere else for trade and you’ve now committed a felony. Good job.

I’m not saying these were choir boys or anything. Far from it.

I’m just saying that clearly, the laws didn’t accomplish a damn thing, otherwise we wouldn’t have this example.