For your reading enjoyment during the holidays, we are republishing some of the best Fitzsimon File commentaries written earlier this year. This commentary was orginally published on Monday, September 24th, 2007

Many politicians want us to think they are on the side of law enforcement on most criminal justice issues, from the current push for longer sentences for online predators from Attorney General Roy Cooper to the overheated rhetoric about new anti-gang legislation from police departments across the state.

Sheriffs and police chiefs are also among the most respected officials in many local communities, another reason why they have such tremendous influence with state lawmakers.

So you’d think that a major policy report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest nonprofit organization of police executives in the world, would have some impact in the state and create a buzz in the local media. 

But it didn’t happen when the Association issued its recent report “Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities,” and it’s not hard to figure out why. 

Politicians are all for law enforcement when it means getting tough on criminals, but when it means confronting the National Rifle Association and other gun groups, the love for law enforcement seems to disappear.

The report comes out of a summit on gun violence the group held in Chicago earlier this year and includes recommendations that seem like common sense. They include reinstating the ban on military assault weapons, sniper rifles, and armor piercing bullets for handguns, mandating reporting of lost or stolen guns, and allowing law enforcement to use gun trace data to fight illegal gun trafficking.

Hard to believe there’s anything controversial in that list. Why do citizens need bullets that will pierce a police officer’s bulletproof vest? And don’t we want to get illegal guns off the streets and keep them out of the hands of criminals?

The spectacle of Republican presidential candidates trying to outdo each other in their support of the NRA is the answer to that question.  So is the fact that the North Carolina General Assembly defeated legislation this summer that would have required gun owners to notify authorities when their firearms were lost or stolen.

The House defeated the proposal after a debate marked by absurd hypotheticals. One lawmaker worried about a gun falling out of his boat without his knowledge and being liable for not reporting it.

The debate was a sideshow. The NRA wanted the bill defeated and lawmakers obliged, depriving state law enforcement officials of important information about guns on the streets.

The NRA also praised our General Assembly this year for rejecting a plan supported by law enforcement that would have created a database of people who had been denied a handgun permit.  None of the bills restricted gun ownership at all. They just made it easier for law enforcement officials to keep track of guns and attempts to own them by people who might be dangerous.

The NRA’s muscle is nothing new. During the 2005 session the NRA bullied the House into abandoning efforts to study why North Carolina is ranked among the top five states in the country as the source of illegal guns.   

The report from the Association of Police Chiefs divides its recommendations into three areas—keeping communities safe, preventing and solving gun crime, and keeping police officers safe.

Sounds like a good beginning to an effective anti-crime platform. But none of things will happen until the state’s leaders stop ignoring the police chiefs and decide that their recommendations are more important than what seems to be their current number one goal—keep the NRA happy.