April 7, 2006
Apparently, the only thing worse in parts of Colorado than owning a gun is having your photograph taken with one. In Evergreen, Colorado, a bedroom community just west of Denver, a 16-year-old high school student was recently arrested for possession of a firearm by a juvenile after posting photographs of himself with several of his father's weapons on the Internet. Colorado law states that a juvenile may posses a firearm inside the home with his or her parents' permission. This student had his father's permission. In fact, he and his brother had had extensive firearm safety training. It didn't matter. He was arrested anyway.
The boy had posed with various pieces from his father's gun collection. The judge, in his infinite wisdom, let the boy go on several of the charges but one photograph bothered His Honor to the point of conviction. In one photograph, the boy actually had his finger (gasp!) on the trigger.
Now, I'm not saying posting photographs of yourself with guns is a smart thing to do, especially when you live just a few miles from Columbine High. However, what law had the boy violated? He had already been chastised by his father. The father, an Air Force veteran and airline pilot, as well as an avid gun collector and enthusiast, removed all guns from the home and apologized to the judge for his son's behavior. Not good enough. The judge was determined to send a message.
And what message is that? That associating yourself with firearms is bad? I understand the infraction here but I don't quite understand the hysterical reaction. Was the judge trying to say that guns are bad? It sure seems that way. Guns, in fact, are good. I would suspect this same judge would think it was okay if a police officer showed up at school with his sidearm intact. If we expect our law enforcement officers to carry guns then, obviously, guns are not the problem.
The defense attorney in this case didn't help matters. When he stood up to give his closing argument he began with, “ This is a very difficult case.” He then evoked the memory of Columbine and attempted to back and fill his way out of the hole he had dug for himself. First rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging.
Columbine was not the issue in this case. The issue in this case was two-fold. It was about second amendment rights and parental rights. We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The courts have determined that certain limitations can be placed on those rights but this father and this son were clearly acting within the law, both federal and state.
This is what's come to be known as judicial activism. There was no violation of the law so the judge simply fabricated one. The father was probably terrified that his son was going to do time and the bonehead defense attorney didn't make him feel any better about the case. In the end, the boy was convicted of a crime that does not exist – photography with a firearm. It is the ultimate in political correctness. Like the myriad cases where something sounds offensive, in this case it looked offensive despite the fact there was no violation of the law.
These are dangerous times in which we live. Not because a youth, trained in firearm safety, is posting photographs of himself with guns on the Internet. But because rogue judges are now making laws rather than interpreting them. You tell me, which one is more of a threat to our freedom?