Exactly why should a person have to explain to police why they own perfectly legal firearms? Here we have a surprising twist of an ATF spokesman actually standing up for a gunowner, while at the same time we have a Dallas Police senior officer who apparently doesn’t know the first thing about civil rights.
Dallas Police Deputy Chief Vincent Golbeck says, “Whoever the owner is will have to explain how these weapons came into their possession.” And then asks “Why does a person have these types of weapons?”
Does “None of your damn business” work for you on both counts, Chief Golbeck? Any other exercises of constitutional rights you require people to justify? (Yeah, I know. The potential child porn is a separate and troubling issue, and I reserve judgment until they clear that up.)
