I just heard on the news that our leaders in Congress (sorry about the contradiction in terms) have reached a bipartisan agreement to extend the ban on “undetectable firearms” for another ten years.
Think about that for just a minute. That should be plenty of time to prompt a question or two.
Time’s up. So, how in the world are the police going to enforce a ban against something that’s “undetectable”?
The idea from these politicians is to make it illegal to have one of those plastic guns that aren’t detectable, the kind that can slip right through airport screening without being, um, detected.
Okay, so I can accept the premise that one does not want people boarding aircraft packing heat.
But the question comes back. Ban or no, if the firearm is undetectable, how in the world will law enforcement be able to arrest someone for having something that is undetectable? Probable cause? If a person looks like they might be the kind who would be carrying around an undetectable firearm, should they be searched for something that can’t be detected? And if the cops don’t find it, doesn’t that make the person guilty? The fact that the officers couldn’t find the gun on the person must mean that the person has it, right?
I thought so. Next stop? A law to ban silent prayer.
Policeman: Hey, you, were you just praying silently?
Being: No, sir.
Policeman: I’m arresting you on probable cause. You looked like you were praying silently.
Being: But, officer . . .
Policeman (taking out his handcuffs): You have the right to remain silent, you have . . .