As someone who has worked the Second Amendment beat for the better part of a decade, there's a lot that I've noticed, including how often police chiefs weigh in on gun control discussions.
Major city police chiefs are notoriously anti-gun or virtually silent on the issue. The latter is fine, the former is annoying, but where are the pro-gun chiefs? I know for a fact they exist, but a situation in Massachusetts illustrates a problem.
You see, one police chief did what so many of his peers have done. He opined on the issue of gun control. For that, he got in trouble:
Ware Police Chief Shawn Crevier used his official position and public resources to advocate against and rally opposition to proposed gun reforms that were winding through Beacon Hill over the past year, a move state regulators said was likely a violation of the conflict of interest law.
The State Ethics Commission said they found “reasonable cause to believe” Crevier violated the law when he directed an administrative staffer at the department to draft four statements opposing the legislation and directed the person to post it to their official Facebook page.
A post from July 2023, which was signed “Ware PD,” took aim at the bill’s constitutionality, criticized the creation of gun-free zones, and encouraged residents to reach out to gun rights groups to oppose the measure, according to the State Ethics Commission.
Now, on the surface, I see why this might be an issue. Using public resources to advocate for a political position is sketchy at best.
But that wasn't really the issue:
Recommended
As an appointed policy-making employee, Crevier was allowed to use public resources, including his title, staff time, and the department’s Facebook page, to provide “factual information that could help legislators make informed, fact-based decisions” about the proposal, the commission said.
The chief was also allowed to state his opinion on the bill about the gun law’s effect on public safety in Ware and on the department’s social media channels so long as they were “based on objectively verifiable facts and not on personal opposition to increased gun control,” the commission said.
Here's the thing, there are no objectively verifiable facts in support of almost any gun control measure. Even the left-leaning RAND can't find ample support for most gun control measures to call the evidence sound. Despite that, police chiefs all over the country, including many in Massachusetts, have openly advocated for gun control laws. That includes advocating for laws at the federal level that objectively didn't do much of anything for Massachusetts.
And it's not like Crevier was alone in this. The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association opposed the exact same laws.
No, the issue here is that Crevier wasn't pushing the correct agenda.
Had he pushed the law, no one would have said anything. No one in anti-gun Massachusetts would have even blinked outside of his city. It would have been fine.
That's because when it comes to guns, far too many people love the double standard. You're free to push gun control whenever and wherever you want, but if you're pro-gun, the rules are different.
Take a look at this post on X from GIFFORDS:
Donald Trump and the RNC are hosting a debate watch party at a Georgia gun superstore less than an hour away from Apalachee High School—where last week two students & two teachers were killed in a mass shooting.
— GIFFORDS (@GIFFORDS_org) September 10, 2024
This is horrific and insulting to a community healing from tragedy. pic.twitter.com/t2kJgSwYis
Now, keep in mind that according to Google Maps, it's actually over an hour away. It probably depends on when you're looking, though, because Atlanta traffic is the reason I figure Gen. Sherman's only sin in burning Atlanta was not salting the ground behind him, so let's give them the benefit of the doubt there.
However, Georgia, while the largest state east of the Mississippi by land mass, isn't exactly some huge territory where an hour of travel is practically next door. This is a 50-mile trip, and it was about a week afterward, yet even then was too close and too soon.
But they'd gladly hold a gun control rally in Winder, Georgia, the next day if they could have planned it.
What we're seeing is how they want to take away our rights. They want to shackle us with restrictions on when, where, and even who can speak out about gun control or show support for the Second Amendment, while they routinely figure those rules not only don't apply to them but shouldn't.
As free Americans, we need to coalesce around the idea that we won't be bullied into silence. We won't be forced to speak in favor of gun control or not at all, because that's ultimately what's on the table. They won't just let us be. This will expand and continue until no one can say anything pro-gun or they're a terrible person. Then they'll try to use the law against us.
The problem with that plan? We still have guns.
