The gun control discourse in America is rife with contradictions, particularly within the Democratic Party. One glaring issue is the party’s reluctance to enforce existing gun laws against criminals even while advocating for more stringent measures. This contradiction came into sharp focus recently during a violent encounter in Washington, D.C., where an off-duty Metropolitan Police Department officer was shot by a 21-year-old named Rasheed Thorne. Thorne’s history reveals troubling lapses in enforcement; despite multiple arrests for illegal firearm possession, he was not prosecuted by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves, a Biden appointee.
Rasheed Thorne’s criminal history illustrates a systemic failure. Arrested in both 2021 and 2022 for illegal possession of firearms, Thorne was released without prosecution. This leniency paved the way for Thorne’s subsequent involvement in the near-fatal shooting of an MPD officer. Matthew Graves’ decision to decline 67% of cases, including critical gun possession cases, is a manifestation of this failure. For context, a comparable office in San Diego, with a larger population to account for, declines less than 27% of cases. Graves’ approach creates an environment where known offenders remain unpunished, endangering communities as these offenders invariably escalate their criminal activities, just as Thorne did.
The laxity in enforcement is not an isolated issue. In Los Angeles, District Attorney George Gascon also demonstrates a leniency that undermines public safety. Gascon’s refusal to add sentencing enhancements for crimes committed with guns is another example of the soft-on-crime stance within liberal jurisdictions. Philadelphia, Chicago, and Oakland provide similar narratives where additional gun laws are proposed but existing ones are neglected, particularly when it comes to prosecuting actual criminals.
What emerges is a troubling pattern: Democratic prosecutors prioritizing leniency for offenders while pushing for more laws that predominantly affect those who follow the law. This approach suggests that new gun control measures would be equally unenforced, focusing instead on restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens. The inconsistency is evident in how high-profile cases are handled and in the disproportionate impact on communities that expect and deserve stringent enforcement of laws to ensure their safety.
The broader implications are concerning. This selective enforcement erodes public trust and emboldens criminals. When prosecutors like Graves and Gascon fail to take decisive action against gun crimes, they send a message that the law is ineffective—affecting the morale of law enforcement officers and jeopardizing community safety. President Joe Biden’s administration, through such appointments, signals a lack of serious commitment to tackling gun violence comprehensively. The focus on new regulations, without effectively enforcing current laws, indicates a misplaced priority that could have dire consequences for public safety.
Before advocating for further gun control, Democratic leaders must address the fundamental issue of prosecutorial responsibility within their ranks. The emphasis should be on robust enforcement of existing laws to deter crime proactively, ensuring that dangerous individuals are taken off the streets before they can commit more heinous acts. Until such measures are firmly in place, any call for new gun control laws will appear disingenuous, aimed more at scoring political points than at genuinely solving the problem of gun violence.
This dichotomy within the Democratic Party’s stance necessitates a reevaluation of priorities. Ensuring that prosecutors enforce the law against known offenders would be a significant first step toward restoring public confidence in the justice system. This, in turn, would set a solid foundation for any future discussions on gun control, built on the assurance that current laws are being upheld and that public safety is indeed a priority.
