The Ek’s Files

I walked into a Target store the other day to purchase some cold medicine for one of the kids. In the cold medicine aisle I was greeted with shelves filled not with cold medicine, but rather filled with little cards depicting the medications. I had to take a card off the shelf and take it to the pharmacy counter, where I had to show identification and give my signature before I could have my chosen medication. It seems that the medicine I chose contained ephedrine, and our concerned lawmakers had recently passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 in an attempt to make it harder for criminals to purchase ephedrine-containing medications and turn them into meth. Law-abiding citizens are thus treated as potential criminals whenever they purchase something that has a perfectly legitimate and legal use simply because it’s also possible to use it to make an illegal substance.

After the Dec 2007 shootings at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, I learned that security guards in Colorado Springs were only allowed by city ordinance to carry revolvers, not semiautomatic handguns. I cannot fathom a reason for such an ordinance, other than that it was somehow felt that a semiauto held too many rounds and was therefore a menace to public safety (never mind that people with concealed-carry permits can carry semiautos legally). Thus, we place the security guard at a disadvantage to the gun-toting criminal. That’s so like California, which prohibits weapon magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. So once again, the honest, law-abiding citizen will obey this law and put himself at a disadvantage to criminals who have no regard for the law.

The state of Virginia is currently considering legislation to ban possession of firearms in libraries and at outdoor fairs with more than 500 people, further restricting the activities of law-abiding citizens to otherwise legally bear arms for their own protection. Practically every state prohibits carrying a weapon (even if you possess a concealed weapons permit) at schools, colleges, and universities. Now, I don’t think anyone would advocate having six-year-old Tommy packin’ heat when he goes to school. But do these laws prevent criminals from perpetrating criminal acts in those locations? In case you’re undecided on that one, I need to remind you of the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007, and the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School. Let’s not forget, too, the shootings at the Westroads shopping mall in Omaha in December 2007 (where the mall prohibits the carrying of firearms). What do these laws do? They keep honest men honest. A law-abiding citizen will obey these laws. A criminal will not. As far as criminals are concerned, laws that prohibit weapons in certain places simply make those places more attractive targets for crime.

Let’s face it–a person who is intent on robbing, raping, or murdering isn’t terribly concerned about the fact that he’s breaking the law. Does anyone honestly think that a criminal is going to stop at the door to the mall or school and say to himself, “Gosh! Weapons aren’t allowed here! I guess I better go somewhere else to find someone to rob or murder…” Can it be any simpler than that? On the other hand, a law-abiding person–an honest man–will say “Gosh! I don’t want to go to jail. I better leave my self-defense weapon locked in my car and go into this place unarmed.”

Is it not sufficient to have laws that prohibit obviously-harmful activities, like murder, robbery, or making and selling illegal drugs? Evidently not–we have a boatload of restrictions like the ones mentioned above that serve only to keep honest men honest but do nothing practical to protect honest men from those wishing to do them harm. We go even further–we have laws that increase the penalties for criminal behavior if they can be classified as hate crimes or crimes against the elderly or disadvantaged. I’m not sure why some victims deserve more protection than others, but the fact of the matter is that these laws do absolutely nothing to deter crime. These laws get passed by lawmakers who want to be able to say to their constituents that they are “getting tough on crime.” Bah.

Let’s stop passing laws that do nothing more than keep honest men honest–and disadvantaged.

Disclaimer: I know this seems like a rant against gun control, but that’s mostly because it’s so easy to find really stupid gun control laws. I also want it noted that I never even mentioned the second amendment to the Constitution (but don’t get me started…).