Jul 30, 2016 3 min read

U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey was a no-show at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland the week before last, but his absence wasn’t much noticed when you consider the other GOP heavy-hitters who were also AWOL, from recent standard-bearers John McCain and Mitt Romney to just about anyone with the last name Bush. Though it’s not that long a trip, Toomey decided to stump within the confines of the commonwealth rather than run the risk of being within shouting distance of Donald Trump.

Ironically enough, Toomey may or may not get a second term in the U.S. Senate based on how Trump fares in Pennsylvania come Nov. 8. Because he’s locked in a tight race with Democrat Katie McGinty, a Trump victory in Pennsylvania would probably be sufficient to nudge Toomey over the finish line. But if Hillary Clinton manages to keep Pennsylvania in the Democrats’ column, as it has been since her husband won the presidency in 1992, the wise money has McGinty snatching away Toomey’s seat.

Whether due to election-year calculation or conviction, Toomey was one of only two GOP senators who joined a June filibuster demanding expanded background checks for gun buyers and measures to stop suspected terrorists from purchasing guns. Toomey also worked with West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin on legislation that would have expanded background checks in the weeks after the December 2012 slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School. From a strictly political viewpoint, working on this kind of legislation could earn Toomey votes from moderates, particularly around the Philadelphia region, in a neck-and-neck race. No matter the motives, the senator deserves praise for breaking with much of his party and taking stands for gun sanity. As Toomey said, “Everybody ought to be in agreement in principle: we don’t want terrorists to be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun. …”

Even as he is on the right track when it comes to guns, Toomey is wrong when it comes to another issue he is deploying this campaign season – the militarization of the police.

In 2015, President Obama opted to curtail a program that funneled excess Pentagon gear to police departments around the United States. After images of protesters in Ferguson, Mo., being confronted with armored vehicles and assault rifles were broadcast around the world, Obama said police being outfitted like they are on a battlefield “can sometimes give people the feeling like there’s an occupying force – as opposed to a force that’s part of the community that’s protecting them and serving them.”

However, Toomey is arguing the program needs to be reinstated. During a stop in Pittsburgh in June, he said police having access to items like grenade launchers and body armor will save lives and is “more important than worrying about offending someone.”

But Toomey should listen to fellow Republican senator Rand Paul. The Kentuckian pointed out in Time magazine last year “there should be a difference between a police response and a military response” and noted the absurdity of police departments in small communities being outfitted with weaponry more suitable to war zones in Iraq or Syria.

Police should have more tools to work with than Barney Fife did in Mayberry. But their job, for the most part, is not to engage in no-holds-barred combat, and the equipment they use should reflect that fact.