Police officers are often asked about the law. They know more than the average person about what's legal and what isn't and even some of the nuances involved.

What they're not, however, are legal experts. That's why so many Supreme Court decisions have found what the police did in a given circumstance was unconstitutional.

Now, I'm not bagging on law enforcement here. Most of us aren't legal experts and even the experts get it wrong.

Instead, I bring it up because Huffington Post has a piece where they apparently think that the Supreme Court Police are the arbiters of what is a gun and what isn't.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in Garland v. VanDerStok, a case that promises to settle the question of whether weapon parts kits for “ghost guns” require the same regulation as complete firearms bought and sold at gun stores. The case hinges on a key question: Is a bundle of parts that can be readily assembled into a working firearm the same thing as a gun?

As nine of the most powerful legal minds prepared to consider whether ghost guns qualify as firearms, Chris Harris thought of someone who may already have an answer: the Supreme Court’s police force.

“I noticed on the link that guns are prohibited on tours (makes sense),” the vice president of communications for Giffords Law Center, a major gun law reform group, wrote in an email to Supreme Court Police. “Quick question ― Does that prohibition on firearms apply to unfinished frames similar to the one linked below even though it is incapable of firing in its current state?” He then included a link to an incomplete Glock-style pistol frame that might be used to assemble a ghost gun.

“Correct, you cannot bring ANY weapon of ANY kind into the Supreme Court building or grounds,” the security team responded in a message shared with HuffPost.

For gun reform advocates, the issue is as obvious as it is for the Supreme Court Police: A gun is a gun.

Well, yeah, a gun is a gun.

But when it's not a gun, it's not a gun.

The Supreme Court's police force, however, isn't the party to determine when something is a gun and isn't as it applies to the nation as a whole. Their job, among others, is to protect the justices and staff of the Supreme Court. 

Now, I happen to think they're wrong here, because a hunk of plastic that is incapable of firing a round isn't a weapon, but I can see how they would argue for banning it anyway. Just because the frame looks unfinished doesn't mean it is, so they're not going to risk it.

Yet the question up for discussion isn't whether unfinished frames should be permitted in the Supreme Court building but whether the executive branch of government has the authority to treat unfinished frames as firearms despite not meeting any of the requirements of being one.

The job of the Supreme Court's police force isn't to interpret the law. They're not legal experts and if asked, I think most of them would tell you they're not. They're law enforcement, not law interpreters.

But the Huffington Post and Giffords think this is clever. 

If ignorance is bliss, these must be the happiest mo-fos on the planet.