Bang! Bang!

By Cindy Gomez
Editor

So, I tune in to watch the Moorhead City Council Committee of the Whole meeting and what do I see? Chief Ebbinger back to see the Council about “facsimile” guns, as they are being called.

Why are we still talking about this issue, I wonder? The Chief and County Attorney Melton both know that we already have laws on the books that give them power to arrest anyone who is causing a public threat. In fact, the Chief gave the council members several examples of situations where people were arrested for carrying, showing or brandishing fake firearms.
Can someone explain why we need another ordinance for something police already have the tools to handle?

Most of the city council members were confused too. They asked all sorts of questions to clarify the need for this ordinance. Mark Hintermier asked a pretty common sense question: Why can’t I have one of these “facsimile” guns in my house? The ordinance proposed by the Chief would make it illegal for anyone to have a fake gun anywhere in the city—including on private property.
Hintermier tried to ascertain why a burglar could use a real gun to break into his house, and he himself would be restricted from using a fake gun in self defense. Ironic: real guns - fine, see Second Amendment. Fake guns - too dangerous to allow.

Diane Wray Williams and Brenda Elmer were concerned about infringements on privacy and property by police. Despite Ebbinger’s arguments that police need to have the right to come onto private property in these instances, neither seemed quite at ease with the answer.

Elmer and Williams brought up community fears that kids could be arrested for playing with toy guns, even on private property. Both Chief Ebbinger and Melton assured the council members that this would not be the goal of the ordinance, even though they would retain the discretion to do just that.

Next, Nancy Otto brought up the issue of personal restrictions on people, like her husband, who owns a fake gun. Then, Luther Stuland and Otto both pointed out that the proposed ordinance would make it illegal for Otto’s husband to take that gun across town and simply show it to his own son.

The Chief’s answer? Well, it was hard to understand, but basically he seemed to say we should just trust that police will always use proper discretion. In fact, that seemed to be the stock answer for all the council members’ concerns. But people do make mistakes—even police.

Do we really want the police to be able to come onto private property and arrest our kids for playing with toys? Even if the police promise to “use discretion” and swear on a stack of bibles that nothing bad would ever happen, why give them that power?

The Chief himself gave the perfect counter argument to his ordinance proposal, by using a recent story about “kids” that were arrested for using fake guns while shooting a movie in the park. These were college kids, mind you, but kids nonetheless. If the Chief had his way, those kids could have been prosecuted for making a movie.

Where was the discretion used in that situation? According to police, frightened people called to report sightings of men with guns. Did none of them see the cameras? It would have been prominent since they were shooting a movie. Did it occur to anyone that if there was a gunfight and no gunshots, that could mean it was a game? Did it ever occur to the police that it could be anything else but a gunfight?

I get why people react the way they do. We’ve been conditioned to be vigilant since 9/11. We’ve been taught to report any suspicious person, activity, behavior, package, or toy. We’ve been told to watch terror alerts daily for years. Of course we’re paranoid. But we need to be careful too.

We can’t begin criminalizing acts that aren’t criminal. Toys are not guns, nor should people be arrested, jailed and left with criminal records for simply possessing them. And remember, no one can brandish a gun or weapon of any sort—be it knife, fork, baseball bat, or ballerina Barbie—in a way which assaults or threatens someone. Police can—and do already—arrest anyone who does this.

The Chief and County Attorney Melton tried to scare the council into acquiescing by building up the threat from possible “drug dealers and thugs” who MIGHT use fake guns because they MIGHT not have access to real guns. This was tough since most of his examples had to do with kids and people who did not pose a real threat to anyone. It’s also tough to sell anyone on the idea that criminals have trouble getting access to guns or other weapons if they really want them.

So essentially, this ordinance would give the police powers for those times when they think the law is not clear enough. Those instances where someone has a fake gun, but doesn’t show it to anyone, doesn’t pull it out, does not threaten anyone with it. They want to have the ability to take away the harmless piece of plastic, and throw that person in jail for making them, or someone else paranoid. 

But they have that right now. The police can interrogate, detain and arrest anyone they want who they feel poses a threat to safety. They may have prove you did pose a threat, but in the meantime they can arrest you. The Chief wants to begin charging people with misdemeanors for things they MIGHT do, but won’t address fears that police MIGHT make mistakes too.

What constitutes a fake gun? Is the Buzz Lightyear™ toy gun that comes with my child’s happy meal a fake gun? How about the Nerf gun that my kids play with? My thumb and forefinger?
Well, under the proposed ordinance, that would be within the discretion of police. And since they already have that discretion under current weapons ordinances, why grow our government and create more unclear and unnecessary laws?

Look, the truth is there is no way the Chief can guarantee that overzealous cops won’t accidentally scare, detain, or jail innocent adults or children using this new ordinance which, again, we don’t need.

This “fake gun” ordinance is a solution looking for a problem, and an accident waiting to happen.

Questions and comments: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)