Saturday, in the park …

It’s a pleasant Saturday morning. You and your pals pack a cooler and head down to the nearest municipal park for a game of Frisbee. Thirty yards away, oblivious to you, children play on a set of swings.

Now two police officers approach. You expect them to politely pass the time of day. Instead, they proceed to issue you citations, threatening you with arrest if you make a fuss.

Turns out you’ve violated the new Las Vegas city ordinance against persons older than 12 visiting the park unless they’re actively chaperoning a young child. Furthermore, you’ve committed the new crime of "loitering within 100 feet of children’s play equipment" — you have all become, in effect, suspected child molesters!

Next time, you’ll remember to rent one of the neighbor’s little kids to bring along as your "get out of jail free" card.

Would this scene ever play out, under the new "children’s park" ordinance currently proposed by City Council members Lois Tarkanian and Steven Ross, and supported by city Detention and Enforcement Director Karen Coyne?

Probably not. Instead, the ordinance smells suspiciously like another tool intended to be used selectively against hoboes and other "undesirables" — which is precisely what makes it so constitutionally dubious.

Homeowners who wish to form private associations, buy vacant land, build their own parks and make them available only to card-carrying members (of whatever age) are free to do so. But — barring thoroughly inappropriate behaviors — public parks have to be open to the public.

Barring access to existing parks based on race is not allowed, and directing similar policies toward "economically undesirable adults" is just as likely to bring fresh challenges from the American Civil Liberties Union — for starters.

On Tuesday, Las Vegas City Attorney Brad Jerbic asked a City Council committee to table their proposed new "children’s parks" ordinance for two to four weeks, pending the hearing of a related lawsuit between the city and the ACLU, scheduled for next week.

In support of the proposal, Ms. Coyne reported there have been 368 citations issued for loitering in the city’s parks in the past two years. Upon questioning, however, she was unable to say whether a single one of those incidents involved a threat to a child.

In fact, that record of citations indicates police already have tools in hand to deal with problem cases. Piling on new and more creative ordinances is only likely to involve the city in expensive new legal battles, without much benefit.

"It’s not about taking away someone’s rights," explains Councilman Ross. "It’s about protecting children."

Just once, we’d like to hear the sponsor of some new restriction on our freedoms proclaim, "This has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the children — we just feel like it."

In fact, Mr. Ross, virtually every ordinance is designed to restrict someone’s rights — starting with the right of city residents to keep and spend their own earnings, rather than see them grabbed by one or more municipal tax collectors to fund the defense of dubious edicts.