PIERCING THE LOGIC OF BODY ARMOUR LAW

Personally, I'm not exactly what you'd describe as pro-criminal.

I believe the concept of rehabilitation is a scam perpetrated on
decent society by the vast left-wing conspiracy.

I also think it would be useful if, every now and then, we executed a
Paul Bernardo and broadcast the hanging to elementary school
classrooms to create a teachable moment for the nation's young people.

Yet, despite all my loathing for criminals, I have a moral objection
- - a couple actually - to the provincial government's latest
anti-crime brainwave.

Our Justice Minister, Alison Redford, wants to make it illegal to own
a bulletproof vest unless you're a member of a protected species.
Those on the list are cops, EMTs and security guards.

The measure is being proposed because suspected gang members are
getting caught wearing body armour.

With what passes for logic among cops and government bureaucrats, the
idea is that being able to buy a bulletproof vest emboldens gangsters
to leave their homes and move about in public.

Once out in public, or so the twisted logic goes, the gangbanger then
becomes a target for his rivals, and an innocent bystander might be
caught in the crossfire.

Let's put aside for a moment the fact that if the cops and the Crown
were doing their jobs effectively, gangsters wouldn't be running
around in public anyway.

They'd be behind bars somewhere.

But if gangsters haven't been convicted of a crime, or have done
their time and been released without conditions, then they're free to
leave their homes.

That's the way democracies work. That's the way democracies should work.

And taking away a suspected gangster's body armour will accomplish
what, exactly?

They'll simply buy what they need on the black market. It's where
they get their handguns and the dope they sell.

Even if they can't buy body armour, does anybody in their right mind
think they'll just stay home and engage in vigorous study of the Gospels?

Start selling Amway instead of amphetamines?

No. They will continue to go out in public.

And when one of them walks out of the house and takes a couple of
bullets to the chest .. how much of the blood pooling on the sidewalk
should be worn by Redford and her supporters?

Body armour can in no reasonable way be described as a threat to public safety.

It is not a weapon.

The only form of self-defence more passive is curling up into a ball
and begging for mercy.

If the province is determined to restrict convicted gang members from
owning body armour, then let them pass a law allowing the Crown to
ask a judge to make that ruling as part of post-incarceration
conditions, such as existing restrictions on firearms ownership.

Further, it seems monstrously draconian to allow sales of body armour
to only cops, EMTs and security guards.

The list of those able to purchase body armour should at the very
least include any individual without a criminal record.

Can the province of Alberta in good conscience deny bulletproof vests
to citizens at risk of criminal attack in our community, such as
pizza delivery guys, cabbies driving at night and convenience store
clerks in sketchy neighbourhoods?

That would be particularly ironic, given that the guy who first used
the miracle fabric Kevlar to manufacture soft body armour was a pizza
delivery guy who'd been shot on the job.

While he successfully marketed the product to cops - Second Chance
recently recorded its 1,000th "save" of a police officer - one
somehow doubts Richard Davis wanted to deny the protective vests to
.. I dunno ... say pizza delivery guys who are the frequent targets
of robbers?

A pizza delivery guy saved the lives of 1,000 cops and in Alberta and
the cops and the province look as though they're conspiring to deny
pizza delivery guys the benefits of that invention?

Talk about ingratitude.

(To see Richard Davis shoot himself repeatedly to prove the efficacy
of his product, go to: youtube.com/watch?v=bIhyETXW1u0)