Most supporters of stricter gun laws still say they accept the idea of armed police and military. That common-sense exception has been treated like gospel — until now. The president of Brady has taken that allowance into question.
Kris Brown leads Brady, one of the most prominent national gun-control groups. Her recent comments suggest an unwillingness to accept even federal law enforcement carrying firearms. For people who argue they only want to disarm the public, this marks a sharp escalation.
Brown once praised the Star Wars show The Acolyte because it didn’t include blasters, just light sabers – the same kind of weapon Anakin Skywalker used to slaughter Jedi younglings in job lots–just to name one idiotic example. That cultural commentary was quirky; her latest public post was more concerning. On social platforms she has cast doubt on routine arming of federal officers.
That matters because these are federal agents doing a dangerous, necessary job. Immigration and Customs Enforcement handles criminals who cross the border, and who often bring violence with them. Suggesting those agents shouldn’t be armed ignores the threat they face every day.
ICE has expanded dramatically as the Biden administration presided over surging illegal crossings. Agencies grew to meet the operational demand of processing, detaining, and removing people who break our laws. Shrinking the tools those agents use would make a bad border crisis even worse.
Cartels and smugglers operate violent networks across the border, and reports of bounties on agents are not idle threats. When criminal enterprises move to target enforcement personnel, that shows deportation efforts are hitting their marks. Disarming officers in the face of organized violence would be reckless.
Brown’s fixation on guns rather than criminals misses cause and effect. Lawful firearm ownership and law enforcement tools are not interchangeable problems. Prioritizing disarmament over public safety invites harm to communities and to the officers who serve them.
Is the Brady leadership admitting it opposes routine police armament? The implication is hard to shake. If the organization will question basic protections for ICE and other federal agents, it signals a broader hostility toward armed responsibility.
There’s a saying that I’m sure you’ve all heard before: When they tell you who they really are, listen. Take that to heart here. These moments reveal more about long-term goals than soundbite disclaimers do.
Look at places that restricted police armament: ordinary responses become complicated, and public safety routines slow down. Critics argue Britain-style limits are a model, but those systems work with different legal traditions and force structures. Importing those ideas wholesale would weaken, not strengthen, American security.
The wider media response is predictable. Outlets that favor tighter gun rules will downplay this shift or excuse it. But readers should note the contradiction when gun-control leaders question arming the very people charged with enforcing the law.
There’s also a two-tiered hypocrisy at play: elites who oppose broad public ownership still hire private security for themselves. That double standard is political theater, not policy coherence. The consequences fall on taxpayers and on ordinary citizens who can’t buy protection.
If Brown’s concern were purely about budgets, it would be a different debate. Money matters and accountability are legitimate topics for discussion. But framing the issue as a principled objection to officers carrying weapons looks less like fiscal prudence and more like an ideological crusade.
This isn’t the first time Brady’s rhetoric has raised eyebrows, and it won’t be the last. The current posture is a reminder that policy moves can come from cultural signals as much as from formal proposals. For those who care about secure borders and safe communities, that should be unsettling.
Again.
