The uneven application of enforcing laws

The uneven application of enforcing laws
welcomia/iStock/Getty Images Plus

While I really don’t like anyone telling me what to do, especially any kind of government, I try to be realistic. I understand that without laws, we essentially become barbarians. Some think we can create a system absent a government where private entities carry out literally everything, but that’s just dreaming to me.


Laws exist, but in order to keep them from turning into tyranny, they’re supposed to work for everyone.

Yet as a recent op-ed notes, that’s not quite how things are going with regard to the Second Amendment and guns.

Recently, Tacoma police warned the public that during one recent month they recorded about 10 reports of criminals stealing guns after breaking into cars. So, how do lawmakers want to address it? Not by holding criminals responsible for their actions. Instead, they want to use the crimes to infringe on law-abiding Americans’ gun rights.

KING 5 News reported, “There’s a state law [WA] that says if a gun is not secured properly and used in a crime, the owner could also face criminal charges for community endangerment.” What is it about the left always wanting to blame law-abiding people for the wrongdoing of criminals?

According to The Seattle Times, in 2018, Summer of Love Mayor Jenny Durkan joined other lawmakers in proposing “legislation to require gun owners to lock up firearms left in their homes and vehicles.” And, “as a response to a widespread gun-violence crisis… in Seattle,” they also wanted to “increase penalties for those who fail to report lost or stolen guns….”

But where are the anti-gun/self-defense rights folks on enforcing existing gun laws against criminals or increasing penalties for using a gun in a crime? They’re absent or doing the opposite. In Oregon, in a case the NPA has filed an important amicus brief in support. Please read the article that the NPA wrote, which in part reads:

The new law, Ballot Measure 114, requires a permit from local police (which may be impossible to get) just to apply for permission from the State Police simply to buy a firearm. It also outlaws the most common firearms ammunition magazines. These are the magazines that come standard with most modern firearms. The measure limits magazines to 10 rounds. Police officers, who are defending themselves from the same criminals as civilians, carry more, showing why prohibiting civilians from using magazines with more than 10 rounds is unconscionable as well as a violation of the Oregon (and U.S.) constitution [bold added].


The problem arises not just from the fact that lawful gun owners–the victim of theft in many cases–are being held accountable for actions beyond their control, but also from a few other points.

For one thing, this continued insistent by gun control states to declare virtually everything a “sensitive place” actually increases the risk of someone being forced to secure a firearm in their vehicle. Gun safes for cars exist, but they’re far from common and not exactly easy to install, thus making such a requirement onerous at best.

Additionally, we also have the fact that this effort corresponds with criminal justice reform efforts that minimize sentencing, removes cash bail in many cases, and overall put bad guys back out on the streets much faster with little incentive to walk the straight and narrow path.

So while the criminals get treated like demi-gods, we law-abiding gun owners are treated like we’re the problem.

This suggests there are two sets of rules. One for us and one for everyone else.

If you need me to explain why that’s a problem, please seek help immediately.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member