Homesteading Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,517 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
....I ask you to read this with an open mind. In the coming months, you’re going to hear a lot about “common-sense laws like the UBC”, and you’re going to be told how those of us who are against it are extremists who worship our guns and don’t care about reducing violence.

I very rarely post articles here, but this one is pretty important, and spells out the issue in a very clear way. I’m posting it in-full because the link is to a daily wire, and the article would have to be dug out of an archive should you try to read it tomorrow. I’ve made a few edits to remove the half-dozen or so political call-outs.


Article by Michael Bane:

Why Universal Background Checks Suck

I mean, who can oppose universal background checks? Well, me for one, but as I live in a UBC state, Colorado, it doesn’t make any difference.

However, in the fight against UBCs in Colorado in 2013, we all learned a lot about the concepts of universal background checks, and virtually all of it is bad.

For a start, UBCs really aren’t really designed to do what they say, that is, provide for a background check for every firearms sale. Rather, UBCs are designed to “criminalize” actions that we in the gun culture take for granted and are of quite literally no consequence.

The best way to sum up UBCs is that they are designed to change the definition of possession of a firearm from the current definition used by BATFE and pretty much everyone with more than three working brain cells — “ownership” — to “physical possession” of the firearm. Here’s how that would work under the UBC rules as drafted by Michael Bloomberg’s “law fare” group (which we were able to prove in Colorado).

I own a firearm, say a nice Glock 19. I know I own the firearm because 1) I paid for it and 2) it was transferred to me by an FFL dealer. You drop by the Secret Hidden Bunker and, in the course of the conversation, you ask to se my new Glock 19. Sure. I take it out of the safe and hand it to you. You ponder it for a few minutes, say, “Wow! It’s a Glock!” and hand it back to me.

Under sane laws, there was clearly no transfer of ownership of the Glock 19. I did not offer to sell it to you; you didn’t not offer to buy it; no filthy lucre changed hands. However, under the universal background check proposals that are being tossed around, in the above situation both my guest and I would be guilty of federal felonies:

  1. By handing my friend the Glock, my friend and I have executed a “transfer,” which under UBC laws can only be done by an FFL dealer. We are both guilty of an illegal transfer, even though there was no change of ownership of the firearm.
  2. When my friend hands me the gun back, we are now guilty of anotherillegal transfer.
Ridiculous, right? You betcha, but that is the real reason universal background checks are so dangerous. Think of how many time you have handled a gun that wasn’t yours, maybe at a match, maybe in a hunt camp, maybe because a friend was desperately in need of a self defense firearms. Those are everyday occurrences in our world, and, once again, are of no consequence whatever.

So why would a UBC law be so worded? Because it is specifically designed to be a weapon to damage or destroy our culture, to make owning a gun harder and more legally dangerous to the owner.

It gets worse…much worse. The original Bloomberg-drafted law was so broad that even if you have a person house-sitting, or you are military and deployed, and your guns are all in a safe where the person minding your house does not have the combination, an illegal transfer — one for every gun in the safe — is deemed to have taken place. Notice that there has been no change in ownership and, in fact, the person minding the house does not have access to the guns…just by being on the property of the gun owners, the house-minder is now guilty of a federal felony.

Let’s say you and your spousal unit are not married but share a home…while you are not home there is an attempted break-in and your spousal unit picks up the bedside gun to defend himself or herself. Well, if the gun is yours, that is, if it was transferred to you through your FFL or has been in your ownership for a long time, your spousal unit is guilty of a federal felony and could well do more time in the slam than the person breaking in.

The message in the universal background law proposals is that firearms are so incredibly dangerous and scary that they must be regulated at an unprecedented level, with an equally unprecedented level of intrusion into peoples’ personal lives.

So what about those polls, the ones that show everyone in America wants background checks? Well, a zillion years ago when I was in college, my major professor had dual PhDs in Mass Communications and Statistical Analysis. In order to pass his advanced class, I had to create an “objective” survey to be sent out to students, compile the results and present them to the professor. The catch was I had to present the results in advance of sending out the survey. It looked like an objective survey, but it was designed from the ground up to get specific results. I set the curve with an A+.

If some stupid college student could do that, imagine what the professional pollsters can do! The short answer to the polls is how the question is asked. Generally, it is asked in these kinds of terms: Do you favorite a background check on all gun sales? Yeah, sure. But if the question is expanded to should you be able to give a gun to someone in your immediate family, loan a gun to a good friend for a hunting trip, try a friend’s gun at the range, etc., the “consensus” collapses.

Secondly, we heard endlessly during the Colorado battle that 40% of all firearms sales did not pass through an FFL dealer. This number was repeated ad nauseam on television, in the newspapers, on the Internet and on the floor of the Colorado Legislature. It seemed reasonable to us to ask where the number came from. All those voices shut up. Here’s why, fromFactCheck.org <political edit>:

“But that figure is based on an analysis of a nearly two-decade-old survey of less than 300 people that essentially asked participants whether they thought the guns they had acquired — and not necessarily purchased — came from a federally licensed dealer. And one of the authors of the report often cited as a source for the claim — Philip Cook of Duke University — told our friends at Politifact.com that he has “no idea” whether the “very old number” applies today or not. <political edit>

In other words, the 40% number, which is still being batted around today, is total BS. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation laid on extra workers to handle the anticipated 40% increase after the law passed.

But…wait for it…wait for it…nothing happened. The real number of private sales was closer to 2-3% than the 40% lie. Most private transfers take place inside of families, which was carved out in the Colorado and which is carved out in the proposed national bill. The vast majority of firearms sales in the country, as many as 98%, already go through FFL dealers. You cannot buy guns on the Internet without the gun being delivered through a dealer. There is no “gun show loophole.” Private sales used to be a bigger thing. But as the hammer of liability laws has loomed larger and larger, private sales have dropped to a very small percentage of the overall number.

Finally, we come to the real reason <political edit> so badly wants universal background checks:

The system as described in the bills will not work without comprehensive, universal firearms registration.

The goal of a UBC is that the feds will know every time a gun changes hands, to track the movement of guns. But that information is fundamentally worthless if the fed doesn’t know where all the guns started their movement.

Here is the way that it will happen:

• Much like Captain Louis Renault in Casablanca — shocked…shocked I tell you! — to find gambling going on at Rick’s, the feds will be shocked…shocked I tell you!…to discover that there was not a huge flood of “private” sales.

• That data will likely be tossed into the Memory Hole, and the feds and the political stooges will announce that the real purpose of the UBC is to track the movement of guns so that the FBI can swoop in on the domestic terrorists and insurrectionists.

• Then, predictably, the FBI and their political stooges will announce that they can’t do their job of interdicting domestic terrorists and insurrectionist by trancing gun movements unless they know where every gun in the United States, be it 200 million or 400 million or a billion zillion guns, is right at this moment. If there were only a database of all the guns in America, the FBI could track down all the domestic terrorists and insurrectionists, for sure this time!

• Creating that database will require a bit of help from all the other acronym agencies and the Tech Oligarchs, but hey, it’s anEMERGENCY…violent domestic terrorists and insurrections are on the verge of overthrowing the duly elected socialist government of the Former United States of America…emergency measures have been declared. And when there’s an EMERGENCY, when emergency measures have been declared, Americans will queue up to surrender their rights, a la COVID-19. As you may remember from high school, “But it was alright, everything was alright, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

• Then, after an amazingly short period of time, all the political stooges will line up and chant in unison that the FBI’s magnificent database had failed, not because the FBI wasn’t super magnificent, but because there were just too many guns! Hmmmmmm…how might we fix that?

• Confiscations begin. If you’d like to know how that will happen, I refer you to Matt Bracken, author of the Enemies Foreign and Domestic trilogy, which is pretty much shaping up to be future history: “Team Tyranny won’t need to conduct many door-to-door gun raids. They’ll just lock you inside a digital gulag in your own house.

All gun registration always lead to confiscation. That is the only reason for registrations in the first place. The reason <political edit> keeps chanting about universal background checks, even though there is no rational reason for such beyond what we already have, is because they represent a crucial first step to “groom” the nation for confiscations, the same way certain non-white parties in the United Kingdom groom you girls, and for the same reason.

We’re going to get screwed.

—Michael Bane
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,292 Posts
Gun registration---

Nobody with any brains is going to commit a crime with a gun registered in their own name, so registration regs merely ensure that a second crime (stealing a gun) will also be committed.

Nobody is deterred from using a gun in a crime because it is not registered-- Like, the potential criminal is thinking "I'm so enraged with that guy that I'm going to murder him, but wait!...My gun isn;t registered so I could be in BIG trouble for using it!"

That leaves the purpose of registration, as noted by the article, to be a means of knowing who has them so they can be easily confiscated, and for those confiscating them to be prepared for resistance.

Down With Big Brother!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,877 Posts
While reading the OP, my mind harkened back to the infamous Obama and his Fast and Furious. :ROFLMAO:

I'm old, old and can get an unregistered gun anytime I want without government interference. I'm sure my southern, church going lady friends can too. What does that tell you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,304 Posts
I will also try and keep the politico side of this post out.
The current nominee to oversee ATF is none other than David Chipman. If you do not know who he is, he led the assault on the Waco Texas compound back about 30 years ago, where women, pregnant women, and children were shot down and murdered or burned to death. He is currently busy deleting most of his social media posts, ie claiming that Branch Davidians shot down two United State helicopters with Barrett 50 caliber machine guns and AR15s being purely marketed for mass shootings.
For a federal arm of the government such as ATF, which is supposed to be a non political, non agenda driven agency to be led by such a person should mean the end of the chicken little critics who own a firearm but poo poo the thought of losing rights. His idea of common sense is neither common nor sensical in the traditional definition.
Pay attention people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
....I ask you to read this with an open mind. In the coming months, you’re going to hear a lot about “common-sense laws like the UBC”, and you’re going to be told how those of us who are against it are extremists who worship our guns and don’t care about reducing violence.

I very rarely post articles here, but this one is pretty important, and spells out the issue in a very clear way. I’m posting it in-full because the link is to a daily wire, and the article would have to be dug out of an archive should you try to read it tomorrow. I’ve made a few edits to remove the half-dozen or so political call-outs.


Article by Michael Bane:

Why Universal Background Checks Suck

I mean, who can oppose universal background checks? Well, me for one, but as I live in a UBC state, Colorado, it doesn’t make any difference.

However, in the fight against UBCs in Colorado in 2013, we all learned a lot about the concepts of universal background checks, and virtually all of it is bad.

For a start, UBCs really aren’t really designed to do what they say, that is, provide for a background check for every firearms sale. Rather, UBCs are designed to “criminalize” actions that we in the gun culture take for granted and are of quite literally no consequence.

The best way to sum up UBCs is that they are designed to change the definition of possession of a firearm from the current definition used by BATFE and pretty much everyone with more than three working brain cells — “ownership” — to “physical possession” of the firearm. Here’s how that would work under the UBC rules as drafted by Michael Bloomberg’s “law fare” group (which we were able to prove in Colorado).

I own a firearm, say a nice Glock 19. I know I own the firearm because 1) I paid for it and 2) it was transferred to me by an FFL dealer. You drop by the Secret Hidden Bunker and, in the course of the conversation, you ask to se my new Glock 19. Sure. I take it out of the safe and hand it to you. You ponder it for a few minutes, say, “Wow! It’s a Glock!” and hand it back to me.

Under sane laws, there was clearly no transfer of ownership of the Glock 19. I did not offer to sell it to you; you didn’t not offer to buy it; no filthy lucre changed hands. However, under the universal background check proposals that are being tossed around, in the above situation both my guest and I would be guilty of federal felonies:

  1. By handing my friend the Glock, my friend and I have executed a “transfer,” which under UBC laws can only be done by an FFL dealer. We are both guilty of an illegal transfer, even though there was no change of ownership of the firearm.
  2. When my friend hands me the gun back, we are now guilty of anotherillegal transfer.
Ridiculous, right? You betcha, but that is the real reason universal background checks are so dangerous. Think of how many time you have handled a gun that wasn’t yours, maybe at a match, maybe in a hunt camp, maybe because a friend was desperately in need of a self defense firearms. Those are everyday occurrences in our world, and, once again, are of no consequence whatever.

So why would a UBC law be so worded? Because it is specifically designed to be a weapon to damage or destroy our culture, to make owning a gun harder and more legally dangerous to the owner.

It gets worse…much worse. The original Bloomberg-drafted law was so broad that even if you have a person house-sitting, or you are military and deployed, and your guns are all in a safe where the person minding your house does not have the combination, an illegal transfer — one for every gun in the safe — is deemed to have taken place. Notice that there has been no change in ownership and, in fact, the person minding the house does not have access to the guns…just by being on the property of the gun owners, the house-minder is now guilty of a federal felony.

Let’s say you and your spousal unit are not married but share a home…while you are not home there is an attempted break-in and your spousal unit picks up the bedside gun to defend himself or herself. Well, if the gun is yours, that is, if it was transferred to you through your FFL or has been in your ownership for a long time, your spousal unit is guilty of a federal felony and could well do more time in the slam than the person breaking in.

The message in the universal background law proposals is that firearms are so incredibly dangerous and scary that they must be regulated at an unprecedented level, with an equally unprecedented level of intrusion into peoples’ personal lives.

So what about those polls, the ones that show everyone in America wants background checks? Well, a zillion years ago when I was in college, my major professor had dual PhDs in Mass Communications and Statistical Analysis. In order to pass his advanced class, I had to create an “objective” survey to be sent out to students, compile the results and present them to the professor. The catch was I had to present the results in advance of sending out the survey. It looked like an objective survey, but it was designed from the ground up to get specific results. I set the curve with an A+.

If some stupid college student could do that, imagine what the professional pollsters can do! The short answer to the polls is how the question is asked. Generally, it is asked in these kinds of terms: Do you favorite a background check on all gun sales? Yeah, sure. But if the question is expanded to should you be able to give a gun to someone in your immediate family, loan a gun to a good friend for a hunting trip, try a friend’s gun at the range, etc., the “consensus” collapses.

Secondly, we heard endlessly during the Colorado battle that 40% of all firearms sales did not pass through an FFL dealer. This number was repeated ad nauseam on television, in the newspapers, on the Internet and on the floor of the Colorado Legislature. It seemed reasonable to us to ask where the number came from. All those voices shut up. Here’s why, fromFactCheck.org <political edit>:

“But that figure is based on an analysis of a nearly two-decade-old survey of less than 300 people that essentially asked participants whether they thought the guns they had acquired — and not necessarily purchased — came from a federally licensed dealer. And one of the authors of the report often cited as a source for the claim — Philip Cook of Duke University — told our friends at Politifact.com that he has “no idea” whether the “very old number” applies today or not. <political edit>

In other words, the 40% number, which is still being batted around today, is total BS. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation laid on extra workers to handle the anticipated 40% increase after the law passed.

But…wait for it…wait for it…nothing happened. The real number of private sales was closer to 2-3% than the 40% lie. Most private transfers take place inside of families, which was carved out in the Colorado and which is carved out in the proposed national bill. The vast majority of firearms sales in the country, as many as 98%, already go through FFL dealers. You cannot buy guns on the Internet without the gun being delivered through a dealer. There is no “gun show loophole.” Private sales used to be a bigger thing. But as the hammer of liability laws has loomed larger and larger, private sales have dropped to a very small percentage of the overall number.

Finally, we come to the real reason <political edit> so badly wants universal background checks:

The system as described in the bills will not work without comprehensive, universal firearms registration.

The goal of a UBC is that the feds will know every time a gun changes hands, to track the movement of guns. But that information is fundamentally worthless if the fed doesn’t know where all the guns started their movement.

Here is the way that it will happen:

• Much like Captain Louis Renault in Casablanca — shocked…shocked I tell you! — to find gambling going on at Rick’s, the feds will be shocked…shocked I tell you!…to discover that there was not a huge flood of “private” sales.

• That data will likely be tossed into the Memory Hole, and the feds and the political stooges will announce that the real purpose of the UBC is to track the movement of guns so that the FBI can swoop in on the domestic terrorists and insurrectionists.

• Then, predictably, the FBI and their political stooges will announce that they can’t do their job of interdicting domestic terrorists and insurrectionist by trancing gun movements unless they know where every gun in the United States, be it 200 million or 400 million or a billion zillion guns, is right at this moment. If there were only a database of all the guns in America, the FBI could track down all the domestic terrorists and insurrectionists, for sure this time!

• Creating that database will require a bit of help from all the other acronym agencies and the Tech Oligarchs, but hey, it’s anEMERGENCY…violent domestic terrorists and insurrections are on the verge of overthrowing the duly elected socialist government of the Former United States of America…emergency measures have been declared. And when there’s an EMERGENCY, when emergency measures have been declared, Americans will queue up to surrender their rights, a la COVID-19. As you may remember from high school, “But it was alright, everything was alright, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

• Then, after an amazingly short period of time, all the political stooges will line up and chant in unison that the FBI’s magnificent database had failed, not because the FBI wasn’t super magnificent, but because there were just too many guns! Hmmmmmm…how might we fix that?

• Confiscations begin. If you’d like to know how that will happen, I refer you to Matt Bracken, author of the Enemies Foreign and Domestic trilogy, which is pretty much shaping up to be future history: “Team Tyranny won’t need to conduct many door-to-door gun raids. They’ll just lock you inside a digital gulag in your own house.

All gun registration always lead to confiscation. That is the only reason for registrations in the first place. The reason the Left keeps chanting about universal background checks, even though there is no rational reason for such beyond what we already have, is because they represent a crucial first step to “groom” the nation for confiscations, the same way certain non-white parties in the United Kingdom groom you girls, and for the same reason.

We’re going to get screwed.

—Michael Bane
too late----we are so screwed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,517 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I will also try and keep the politico side of this post out.
The current nominee to oversee ATF is none other than David Chipman. If you do not know who he is, he led the assault on the Waco Texas compound back about 30 years ago, where women, pregnant women, and children were shot down and murdered or burned to death. He is currently busy deleting most of his social media posts, ie claiming that Branch Davidians shot down two United State helicopters with Barrett 50 caliber machine guns and AR15s being purely marketed for mass shootings.
For a federal arm of the government such as ATF, which is supposed to be a non political, non agenda driven agency to be led by such a person should mean the end of the chicken little critics who own a firearm but poo poo the thought of losing rights. His idea of common sense is neither common nor sensical in the traditional definition.
Pay attention people.
This is perhaps worse than anything that can be pulled off without legislation. Chipman is not just a choice that is unpopular with one side. Appointing Chipman to head the ATF would have the same affect as appointing the president of PETA to head the USDA. No, they could not outright ban beef cattle ranching on their own, but imagine how much more difficult and expensive beef would become for the ranchers and consumers if someone with such a sharp anti-meat agenda headed the regulatory body.

They hopped in the Way-Back Machine and brought back one of the criminals from the ATF’s darkest day, just because the agenda is more important than anything else.
95520
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,304 Posts
If anyone has seen the ariel footage of US agents firing automatic weapons into a burning compound as the people inside were dying they should be sickened, as well as by the photo above of Mr. Chipman posing in military fatigues.
He believes in stopping the production and sale of one of the most popular rifles to the general public and requiring registration of existing firearms, because "seeing a gun in public is frightening". Yet, the man himself carries a firearm.
 

·
Don't let "good enough" be the enemy of perfect.
Joined
·
1,600 Posts
I have trouble understanding why anti-Second Amendment folks have trouble grasping that the First Amendment and the Second Amendment both guarantee inalienable rights (rights that cannot be taken away by the government.)

They love to say, "Well no right is absolute. For example, the First Amendment does not allow you to yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater."

My response is, "So . . . following your analogy, the government should give some kind of psychological test to prospective theater goers to ensure that a person is not going to yell 'FIRE!' inside the theater? And maybe the government should issue a permit to those who pass that test. And only those with a permit should be allowed inside a theater?"

Obviously, misuse of a gun and misuse of freedom of speech should be punished if the misuse harms others---but the left also has trouble grasping that appropriate punishment PREVENTS the bulk of misuse of either right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,796 Posts
We do live in interesting times. And it looks like it will get even more interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,517 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I have trouble understanding why anti-Second Amendment folks have trouble grasping that the First Amendment and the Second Amendment both guarantee inalienable right (rights that cannot be taken away by the government.)

They love to say, "Well no right is absolute. For example, the First Amendment does not allow you to yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater."

My response is, "So . . . following your analogy, the government should give some kind of psychological test to prospective theater goers to ensure that a person is not going to yell 'FIRE!' inside the theater? And maybe the government should issue a permit to those who pass that test. And only those with a permit should be allowed inside a theater?"

Obviously, misuse of a gun and misuse of freedom of speech should be punished if the misuse harms others---but the left also has trouble grasping that appropriate punishment PREVENTS the bulk of misuse of either right.
What’s really interesting about that analogy is that you actually DO have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

Maybe there IS a fire. Maybe you’re in the cast, and that is one of your lines. What you don’t have the right to do is yell “fire” in a time/place/circumstance where it can cause harm to others. The government can’t limit your right to carry that word with you wherever you want. They can only punish you when you use it to harm other people.

Flip that logic on its head the next time someone presents it. The 2A equivalent would be that you have the right to carry any kind of weapon you want, wherever you want... your right just ends where it comes to the harm of someone else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,292 Posts
I have trouble understanding why anti-Second Amendment folks have trouble grasping that the First Amendment and the Second Amendment both guarantee inalienable right (rights that cannot be taken away by the government.)
This is a point that is ignored by members of the Natl Soc Party. They hate The Constitution because it prevents them from achieving their goal of complete control.

BTW- the "fire in a theater" argument does not apply to the discussion at all--- Freedom of Speech refers to opinions against the govt-- the govt is not allowed to punish you for or prevent you from expressing your opinion about govt matters. That's all.
 

·
Marked safe from the TP famine of 2020.
Joined
·
20,030 Posts
They love to say, "Well no right is absolute. For example, the First Amendment does not allow you to yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater."
I come back with that the Second doesn't allow you to open fire in a crowded theater either. But, both are wrong, as both the 1st and 2nd don't restrict The People, but, rather are restrictions on government.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
The whole problem here is that the law abiding gun owners aren't the problem, but we are the one's affected by the useless new laws the Gov will create. Criminals will still commit the crimes regardless of any gun laws. Convict the criminals and leave the law abiding gun owners alone.... like that's gonna happen, eh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,406 Posts
If anyone has seen the ariel footage of US agents firing automatic weapons into a burning compound as the people inside were dying they should be sickened, as well as by the photo above of Mr. Chipman posing in military fatigues.
For any who wish to see the evidence. Also, about half way through, we see that he was one of several sick SOB's to pose in front of one of their victims.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
811 Posts
What’s really interesting about that analogy is that you actually DO have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

Maybe there IS a fire. Maybe you’re in the cast, and that is one of your lines. What you don’t have the right to do is yell “fire” in a time/place/circumstance where it can cause harm to others. The government can’t limit your right to carry that word with you wherever you want. They can only punish you when you use it to harm other people.

Flip that logic on its head the next time someone presents it. The 2A equivalent would be that you have the right to carry any kind of weapon you want, wherever you want... your right just ends where it comes to the harm of someone else.
Actually, the Supreme Court has said you can.

You also have the right to any consequences.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
120 Posts
....I ask you to read this with an open mind. In the coming months, you’re going to hear a lot about “common-sense laws like the UBC”, and you’re going to be told how those of us who are against it are extremists who worship our guns and don’t care about reducing violence.

I very rarely post articles here, but this one is pretty important, and spells out the issue in a very clear way. I’m posting it in-full because the link is to a daily wire, and the article would have to be dug out of an archive should you try to read it tomorrow. I’ve made a few edits to remove the half-dozen or so political call-outs.


Article by Michael Bane:

Why Universal Background Checks Suck

I mean, who can oppose universal background checks? Well, me for one, but as I live in a UBC state, Colorado, it doesn’t make any difference.

However, in the fight against UBCs in Colorado in 2013, we all learned a lot about the concepts of universal background checks, and virtually all of it is bad.

For a start, UBCs really aren’t really designed to do what they say, that is, provide for a background check for every firearms sale. Rather, UBCs are designed to “criminalize” actions that we in the gun culture take for granted and are of quite literally no consequence.

The best way to sum up UBCs is that they are designed to change the definition of possession of a firearm from the current definition used by BATFE and pretty much everyone with more than three working brain cells — “ownership” — to “physical possession” of the firearm. Here’s how that would work under the UBC rules as drafted by Michael Bloomberg’s “law fare” group (which we were able to prove in Colorado).

I own a firearm, say a nice Glock 19. I know I own the firearm because 1) I paid for it and 2) it was transferred to me by an FFL dealer. You drop by the Secret Hidden Bunker and, in the course of the conversation, you ask to se my new Glock 19. Sure. I take it out of the safe and hand it to you. You ponder it for a few minutes, say, “Wow! It’s a Glock!” and hand it back to me.

Under sane laws, there was clearly no transfer of ownership of the Glock 19. I did not offer to sell it to you; you didn’t not offer to buy it; no filthy lucre changed hands. However, under the universal background check proposals that are being tossed around, in the above situation both my guest and I would be guilty of federal felonies:

  1. By handing my friend the Glock, my friend and I have executed a “transfer,” which under UBC laws can only be done by an FFL dealer. We are both guilty of an illegal transfer, even though there was no change of ownership of the firearm.
  2. When my friend hands me the gun back, we are now guilty of anotherillegal transfer.
Ridiculous, right? You betcha, but that is the real reason universal background checks are so dangerous. Think of how many time you have handled a gun that wasn’t yours, maybe at a match, maybe in a hunt camp, maybe because a friend was desperately in need of a self defense firearms. Those are everyday occurrences in our world, and, once again, are of no consequence whatever.

So why would a UBC law be so worded? Because it is specifically designed to be a weapon to damage or destroy our culture, to make owning a gun harder and more legally dangerous to the owner.

It gets worse…much worse. The original Bloomberg-drafted law was so broad that even if you have a person house-sitting, or you are military and deployed, and your guns are all in a safe where the person minding your house does not have the combination, an illegal transfer — one for every gun in the safe — is deemed to have taken place. Notice that there has been no change in ownership and, in fact, the person minding the house does not have access to the guns…just by being on the property of the gun owners, the house-minder is now guilty of a federal felony.

Let’s say you and your spousal unit are not married but share a home…while you are not home there is an attempted break-in and your spousal unit picks up the bedside gun to defend himself or herself. Well, if the gun is yours, that is, if it was transferred to you through your FFL or has been in your ownership for a long time, your spousal unit is guilty of a federal felony and could well do more time in the slam than the person breaking in.

The message in the universal background law proposals is that firearms are so incredibly dangerous and scary that they must be regulated at an unprecedented level, with an equally unprecedented level of intrusion into peoples’ personal lives.

So what about those polls, the ones that show everyone in America wants background checks? Well, a zillion years ago when I was in college, my major professor had dual PhDs in Mass Communications and Statistical Analysis. In order to pass his advanced class, I had to create an “objective” survey to be sent out to students, compile the results and present them to the professor. The catch was I had to present the results in advance of sending out the survey. It looked like an objective survey, but it was designed from the ground up to get specific results. I set the curve with an A+.

If some stupid college student could do that, imagine what the professional pollsters can do! The short answer to the polls is how the question is asked. Generally, it is asked in these kinds of terms: Do you favorite a background check on all gun sales? Yeah, sure. But if the question is expanded to should you be able to give a gun to someone in your immediate family, loan a gun to a good friend for a hunting trip, try a friend’s gun at the range, etc., the “consensus” collapses.

Secondly, we heard endlessly during the Colorado battle that 40% of all firearms sales did not pass through an FFL dealer. This number was repeated ad nauseam on television, in the newspapers, on the Internet and on the floor of the Colorado Legislature. It seemed reasonable to us to ask where the number came from. All those voices shut up. Here’s why, fromFactCheck.org <political edit>:

“But that figure is based on an analysis of a nearly two-decade-old survey of less than 300 people that essentially asked participants whether they thought the guns they had acquired — and not necessarily purchased — came from a federally licensed dealer. And one of the authors of the report often cited as a source for the claim — Philip Cook of Duke University — told our friends at Politifact.com that he has “no idea” whether the “very old number” applies today or not. <political edit>

In other words, the 40% number, which is still being batted around today, is total BS. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation laid on extra workers to handle the anticipated 40% increase after the law passed.

But…wait for it…wait for it…nothing happened. The real number of private sales was closer to 2-3% than the 40% lie. Most private transfers take place inside of families, which was carved out in the Colorado and which is carved out in the proposed national bill. The vast majority of firearms sales in the country, as many as 98%, already go through FFL dealers. You cannot buy guns on the Internet without the gun being delivered through a dealer. There is no “gun show loophole.” Private sales used to be a bigger thing. But as the hammer of liability laws has loomed larger and larger, private sales have dropped to a very small percentage of the overall number.

Finally, we come to the real reason <political edit> so badly wants universal background checks:

The system as described in the bills will not work without comprehensive, universal firearms registration.

The goal of a UBC is that the feds will know every time a gun changes hands, to track the movement of guns. But that information is fundamentally worthless if the fed doesn’t know where all the guns started their movement.

Here is the way that it will happen:

• Much like Captain Louis Renault in Casablanca — shocked…shocked I tell you! — to find gambling going on at Rick’s, the feds will be shocked…shocked I tell you!…to discover that there was not a huge flood of “private” sales.

• That data will likely be tossed into the Memory Hole, and the feds and the political stooges will announce that the real purpose of the UBC is to track the movement of guns so that the FBI can swoop in on the domestic terrorists and insurrectionists.

• Then, predictably, the FBI and their political stooges will announce that they can’t do their job of interdicting domestic terrorists and insurrectionist by trancing gun movements unless they know where every gun in the United States, be it 200 million or 400 million or a billion zillion guns, is right at this moment. If there were only a database of all the guns in America, the FBI could track down all the domestic terrorists and insurrectionists, for sure this time!

• Creating that database will require a bit of help from all the other acronym agencies and the Tech Oligarchs, but hey, it’s anEMERGENCY…violent domestic terrorists and insurrections are on the verge of overthrowing the duly elected socialist government of the Former United States of America…emergency measures have been declared. And when there’s an EMERGENCY, when emergency measures have been declared, Americans will queue up to surrender their rights, a la COVID-19. As you may remember from high school, “But it was alright, everything was alright, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

• Then, after an amazingly short period of time, all the political stooges will line up and chant in unison that the FBI’s magnificent database had failed, not because the FBI wasn’t super magnificent, but because there were just too many guns! Hmmmmmm…how might we fix that?

• Confiscations begin. If you’d like to know how that will happen, I refer you to Matt Bracken, author of the Enemies Foreign and Domestic trilogy, which is pretty much shaping up to be future history: “Team Tyranny won’t need to conduct many door-to-door gun raids. They’ll just lock you inside a digital gulag in your own house.

All gun registration always lead to confiscation. That is the only reason for registrations in the first place. The reason <political edit> keeps chanting about universal background checks, even though there is no rational reason for such beyond what we already have, is because they represent a crucial first step to “groom” the nation for confiscations, the same way certain non-white parties in the United Kingdom groom you girls, and for the same reason.

We’re going to get screwed.

—Michael Bane
Thought we already had background checks? What's all the ruckus about?..:confused:
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top