The Los Angeles Police Department held a so-called gun “buyback” the day after Christmas, reportedly taking in over 2,000 firearms at two locations.
Disregarding for a moment that Chief Charlie Beck once more trotted out an inert tube and presented it as an active rocket launcher to awe the “Authorized Journalists” who don’t know any better (and it still hasn’t been established if it’s the same one he trotted out at a previous photo op), disregarding that Beck himself is armed and men under his command routinely deploy with firearms he describes as “weapons of war, weapons of death [that] have no place in our great city," and disregarding the hypocrisy of Mayor Villaraigosa, who has control problems of his own, and who lives behind a zoning ordinance-violating wall (while being anti-wall) surrounded by 24/7 taxcow-funded armed security, there are several unanswered questions the press never seems to be curious about.
If the object is public safety, why would citizens who are presumed not to be able to safely own guns be encouraged to handle and transport them?
If the guns are to be destroyed, and people who have been victims of thefts will not be given an opportunity to recover their property, how does it serve public safety for the police to act as a fence and reward those turning in stolen merchandise, and give them incentive to burgle again -- no questions asked?
If there is no need to check firearms that may have been used in crimes, how do the police know they are not destroying vital evidence that could help solve murders, and thus helping extremely dangerous characters get away with it? Wouldn’t public safety be better served by getting them “off the street”?
If guns can be destroyed by the police without checking to see if they can be traced to crimes, what’s the point behind the same characters turning around and supporting firearms registration and microstamping as necessary public safety measures?
But here’s the one question I really wanted to ask, and since all “official” media members covering the event are evidently oblivious, someone sure needs to: What the hell is one of Beck’s “Only Ones” (and where that term came from is especially significant here) doing with his booger hook on the bang switch at the “buyback”? That’s an AFP/Getty photo posted over at The Blaze, so it can’t be reproduced here at Examiner.com, which contracts with Getty but does not include this particular photo in its image inventory. Doing a blow-up of that section of the image for the sole journalistic purpose of illustrating a gross violation of one of the fundamental rules of firearms safety by supposed public safety officials would survive fair use scrutiny by not presenting or devaluing the complete work, so I have posted it on my Facebook page.
The maddening thing about this? It’s not the first time.
And here’s one more question I’d like to ask Chief Beck, and all LEOs and politicians who support these “No questions asked” turn-ins: Thinking for a moment about the implications, would you support a law prohibiting enforcement personnel from anonymously turning in guns at these events?
If not, why not?
If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream media, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."