I'm used to anti-gun officials using incidents to push for gun control, even if it's clear that gun control wouldn't have done anything at all to prevent the incident. For example, calling for an assault weapon ban when a mass killer used a handgun.
But the Chester County district attorney turned this propensity into high art, even if he did so unintentionally.
See, it wasn't a shooting, but there was a strong potential for one--or something much worse--at the recent "No Kings" protest in West Chester, PA. Luckily, police stopped it, but the DA took to the local paper, which published what looks like a campaign press release as an op-ed. It's title says clearly that this arrest illustrates the need for stronger gun laws, but here's what it actually says:
On June 14, the West Chester Police Department and Chester County Sheriff’s Office prevented a dangerous situation from unfolding at the “No Kings” protest in West Chester by approaching and ultimately arresting Kevin Krebs, who was armed with a loaded gun. The subsequent investigation by law enforcement — including my office and the FBI — led to the discovery of homemade bombs. We still have unanswered questions, and the investigation is ongoing. But what I do know is that there are three things that we can do to create a safer community.
First, we can outlaw machine gun conversion devices — also known as “switches” or “selectors” — in Pennsylvania. These devices turn regular handguns and rifles into fully automatic weapons by interfering with a firearm’s internal trigger mechanisms. They were found in a search of the suspect’s home. They are incredibly dangerous, already illegal federally, and their use by criminals is on the rise.
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 5,454 machine gun conversion devices were recovered between 2017 and 2021. In 2023, 5,816 were recovered. And just a few weeks ago, Philadelphia police determined that a 3D-printed machine gun conversion device was used in a mass shooting that killed two people and injured nine others in Fairmount Park.
...
Second, we need to talk seriously again about passing a “Red Flag” law in Pennsylvania that would allow police to temporarily disarm someone who is not mentally stable — before they commit a crime with a gun. Here is how they work: if a family member or police officer encounters someone who is mentally unstable, they can apply to a judge for an Extreme Risk Protection Order. Once the order is issued, law enforcement can take control of the individual’s guns while they get treatment. Once the mental health crisis is averted, the individual is able to regain their guns. In addition to helping prevent shootings, these laws mitigate the risk of suicide.
He also calls for increased funding for police departments so they can better respond to protests to keep everyone safe. That's the only thing he says that isn't necessarily a gross violation of his oath of office.
First, Krebs didn't have a full-auto switch on his Sig P320 handgun. One could argue that the most dangerous thing about what he was carrying is the P320's reported tendency to just go off. There are no reports of any kind of conversion device on that firearm, nor on the AR-15 that was left in the car.
There were, of course, the bombs. Destructive devices are illegal pretty much everywhere, and Pennsylvania has a state law banning them as well. Still, Krebs reportedly had multiples he'd built. It kind of suggests that laws banning people from doing things don't really keep bad people from doing those things.
Just sayin'.
Next, the issue of a red flag law. There's absolutely nothing at all in this to suggest that anyone would have used such an order to disarm Krebs before he could do anything. While reports seem to paint the picture of an angry young man with drifting ideologies and opinions, nothing screams that he intended to do anything.
Of all of the things in this piece, the only thing that might make some sense is the increased funding, though the fact that police still caught Krebs before anything could happen suggests they had enough. Still, I can see the argument that they got lucky here.
On gun control, though, literally nothing being floated here has any bearing on anything that happened. Instead, he's using the incident as leverage to try and push measures he likely wanted all along, and trying to suggest they absolutely needed them.
The pathetic thing is how often this tactic works.
Well, I can't say that it works so much as simply triggers the anti-gunners to parrot the same talking points as loudly as they can.
Yet the important thing to remember here is that there's not a hint of any evidence that anything would have changed if these specific measures were in place in Pennsylvania. Not a one.
So yeah, the DA can get bent.
