When I lived in England, I would rail against the government’s intrusion into its citizens’ private lives. During my time on the island, the U.K. became the most surveilled country on planet Earth. The natives weren’t restless. “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.” It’s the same argument gun control groups use when they lobby in favor of gun registries. “Legal owners have nothing to fear.” Yes, well, what about this, then?
A rookie Los Angeles police officer has resigned amid allegations he illegally tapped into a law enforcement computer on behalf of a gang member who was recently convicted of murder. The officer, Gabriel Morales, 25, was seeking information on two key witnesses who testified at the gang member’s murder trial, according to court records. Morales had been dating the gang member’s sister for several years.
The latimes.com quotes a top cop to instruct us on the lesson we’re supposed to learn from this potentially lethal hacking (ignoring the unauthorized access we don’t know about):
“Every officer has the choice between making good decisions and bad decisions. They have to ask themselves, ‘Am I going to let something a family member has done jeopardize everything I’ve worked for or am I going to do what’s right?’ ” said Capt. Steven Zipperman, commanding officer at the LAPD’s Southwest Area Division, where Morales was assigned. “Unfortunately, sometimes officers get into these situations and end up with their moral compass pointing in the wrong direction.”
Like we couldn’t see that one coming.
I call it the Field of Nightmares problem. If you build it (a database of gun ownership info), the bad guys will come. And they’re most likely to come down the road to hell, paved as it is with good intentions. But not always.
In any case, the easiest way to avoid an indefensible compromise of personal gun ownership data is not to collect it. That’s supposed to be the law. Somebody ought to tell California (long guns) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (and really big fires).
Why am I not surprised.
There is a famous quote, LBJ I believe, to the effect that any law should be judged not by it's potential good, but for it's potential for abuse. Same goes for databases IMHO. And how special that the officer in question was allowed to resign. I'd have thought reckless endangerment if not conspiracy to commit murder would be more appropriate.
It would have been more appropriate for –you–, Uncle Lar, but not for someone special like that brave minion of justice. Besides, it would set a bad precedent 😉
Anyone see the movie "Red Dawn"? The commies went straight to the sporting goods store to look for gun and ammo sales receipts and registrations to take the firearms from the people.
Other states allowed public access to CCW license information. One newspaper (in Ohio?) printed names of CCW license holders for all to see.
I don't want the bad guys to know what firearms I own, what ammo I buy, and if/when I am carrying.
In the above story the LEO had ties to a criminal gang. How many other LEOs, Border Patrol, DEA, et. al, have both access to personal data and ties to nefarious individuals?
Not being paranoid here, just careful.
My daddy always said dont put off till tomorrow what you can do today. Molon Labe.
Consider how Californians responded to the mandatory registration of "assault weapons": CA DoJ estimates that no more than 5% of CA gun owners complied with the law. There is a point at which the citizens will say "NO" to the government. Come after the guns, and you won't wonder any more where that point is.
Comments are closed.