Nothing better defines the illogic that governs much of politics than this:
In the post-Sept. 11 hysteria, metal detectors were installed at the entrances to Virginia's Capitol and General Assembly building. Yet individuals in the commonwealth have the right to carry guns. So when people packing heat approached the metal detectors, they handed their guns to the attendants, walked through the detectors, retrieved their weapons and proceeded inside. What were the metal detectors supposed to protect against -- car keys and loose change?
Now, at least the machines serve a purpose. The legislative committee in charge of Capitol Square recently decided that only individuals with concealed-weapon permits may bring guns into the buildings. This move has infuriated some gun owners, who see it as an infringement of their Second Amendment rights and vow to see the ban rescinded.
Anyone defending the Constitution has an ally in this corner, but these people are missing the bigger picture: What justifies blocking the entrances to these buildings in the first place?
We have no reason to believe that terrorists have Virginia lawmakers in their sights, and, if some did, they certainly would be shrewd enough to obtain concealed-weapon permits.
Virginians had open access to their Capitol until recently, and that was a freedom that represented no danger. Gunfire was exchanged in the Capitol only once -- in 1866, and it was between reporters.
Metal detectors are a small inconvenience, but they pose a significant danger: Their ubiquity is acclimating Americans to being stopped and searched for no reason. The fundamental tenet of a free society is the right to come and go as one pleases, with police having no right to interfere unless they have probable cause of wrongdoing.
Requiring citizens to submit to searches of their person and possessions before entering public buildings contradicts that -- which is probably why only 17 other states block their Capitol entries with metal detectors.
Certain gun owners aren't the only ones missing the forest for the trees. Defenders of "sagging" were claiming that people have an inalienable right to wear their pants below their hips. After the House of Delegates passed a bill introduced by Del. Algie Howell Jr. (D-Norfolk) that would fine such fashion violators $50, opponents denounced the bill as unconstitutional.
Although that bill died in the Senate, where does the Constitution guarantee the right to parade one's underwear in public? True, revealing one's skivvies probably doesn't reach the courts' standard of obscenity. Louisiana tried to pass a similar law last year and failed. Unfortunately, the only foolproof fix also is untenable:
Imagine kids' reaction if adults adopted the style. Saggers would break their arms pulling up their pants if math teachers and assistant principals started letting their pants go south.
The good news amid this legislative silliness is that this year's Assembly actually might restore a constitutional right by letting the program that permits stationary cameras at intersections expire. Whatever its potential benefits in deterring red-light running, such a technique should never have been allowed, because it is unconstitutional.
As former House majority leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.) repeatedly reminded Americans as traffic-enforcement cameras proliferated, the Constitution guarantees the right to face one's accuser. That isn't possible with an inanimate object such as a camera.
Nonetheless, Americans tolerated the cameras, believing they promoted safety. Last month a report by Virginia's Department of Transportation proved that assumption wrong. Its research showed an increase in accidents and injuries at intersections where cameras were present, because of an increase in the number of rear-end collisions.
Faced with evidence that the program is counterproductive, legislators are expected to let it end in July. If not, citizens have another recourse: They can ignore tickets issued by mail. As the state study reminded lawmakers, citations are invalid in Virginia unless they are served personally. "Thus, unless a jurisdiction is willing to devote resources to implementing extensive in-hand service," the study said, "citations mailed for red-light-camera violations become essentially unenforceable.
"The average citizen is probably not aware of this loophole," it went on, "but if word were widely disseminated, such knowledge could completely undermine the effectiveness of red-light camera programs."
Pass it on.
