It’s difficult to imagine a law that would return a weapon to a person who, only a week before, had used it to fire at law enforcement officers, yet that’s exactly what happened last week, right here in Sampson County.

And it leaves one wondering if the laws enacted by our government really are meant to protect us?

That’s particularly true in this case, one involving a 24-year-old Roseboro man who threatened to kill himself, shot at deputies and then held officers at bay for several hours during a standoff before finally surrendering.

There would seem no scenario that would allow this person, who was later committed to a mental facility for evaluation, to ever be allowed to possess his weapon, particularly only five days after such a dangerous situation had evolved.

Yet last week that man was released from a mental health facility and only one day later given back the weapon he used in the standoff, all because law enforcement officers were bound by the law that stipulates they must do exactly that.

The law, N.C. General Statute 15-11.1, section B1 (parts 1-4), reads: “...By ordering the firearm returned to the defendant, but only if the defendant is not convicted of any criminal offense in connection with the possession or use of the firearm, the defendant is the rightful owner of the firearm and the defendant is not otherwise ineligible to possess such a firearm...”

In other words, the defendant wasn’t charged with a crime, wasn’t convicted of a crime and owned the weapon so when he asked for his gun to be returned, law enforcement officers had no choice but to do so.

As ridiculous as it is, that’s the law.

In this case, the 24-year-old suspect underwent a mental evaluation and, based on that evaluation, we assume, no criminal charges were brought in the standoff. In essence, he was returned to society much as he was taken from it five days earlier.

And, despite the fact that he threatened suicide, despite the fact that he shot at officers and despite the fact that he used his weapon to hold them at bay for some three hours, there was no legal reason for officers to withhold the gun they seized from him on Sept. 16.

While we understand the law is just that — the law — we have to question how sensible it is for a gun to be returned to someone who threatened to use it to do themselves harm. What’s more, how wise is it, really, to allow someone who shot at law enforcement officers to take possession of the weapon he used to do so.

The fact that the suspect was under mental evaluation only serves to make the law that much more questionable.

We don’t blame local law enforcement officers. They were, in fact, doing the job they’re charged with doing, albeit hesitantly and likely without liking it.

But we do blame lawmakers, those charged with assessing laws, adding teeth to them and seeing to it that they work to help citizens not hurt them.

A law that returns a weapon to a suicidal individual, particularly one who used it to shoot at officers, needs some serious evaluation. We can only hope someone sees fit to bring it to the attention of those who can do something to change it.