Who could be against a gun control law that bans guns in public during elections? After all, if you want free and fair elections, you don’t want people with guns running around intimidating anyone, right? And if that gun ban runs for four months or more, what of it? Especially if we’re talking about poor country, where uneducated people may fall prey to criminals and/or an unregulated militia. So U.S. gun control advocates should approve of Manila’s gun ban. They should also stop for a second and consider today’s news [via enquirer.net]: “The current election gun ban may be continued even after the May polls if it can shown that the temporary ban resulted in a significant reduction in gun-related crimes, a police official said here Friday. Chief Superintendent Rolando Añonuevo, Calabarzon police director, said the Commission on Elections-imposed ban may ‘possibly’ be continued even after it is lifted on June 9, this time under the aegis of the National Firearm Control Program of the Philippine National Police (PNP).” But surely that’s OK? Can you say “police state”? Check this out, from the PNP’s press release.
The legislative agenda of the NFCP may have suffered a minor setback in our desire to establish an effective system of gun control in the country but we assure that even the non-passage of proposed legislation for more effective gun control will not diminish our keen resolve to push thru with the noble intent of the National Firearms Control Program.
Noble intent. I like that. In theory. In practice, uh-oh. IGW (It Gets Worse). Back to the Inquirer:
“We will continue setting up checkpoints and choke-points (even after the elections),” said Añonuevo during a regional police security planning conference held here on Friday.
As for those individuals who had been issued permits to carry firearms before the election gun ban, “the chief PNP may consider not (honoring) the permits (anymore) if he finds the number of crimes reduced. They would just have to keep their guns at home,” Añonuevo said.
Or, perhaps, not at all. Is this a lesson for U.S. gun control advocates or a cautionary tale for already vigilant (a.k.a. paranoid) gun rights’ advocates? Probably, worryingly, both.