Very soon now, the House of Representatives will be considering a Universal Background Check bill that will have profoundly negative consequences on law-abiding citizens.

If private transfers are banned, you will not be able to loan your rifle or shotgun to a sibling, adult child, or friend to go hunting.

Suppose a friend, relative, or neighbor known to you to be responsible and competent with firearms but not owning one right now, suddenly becomes the victim of serious stalking and death threats. You won’t be able to loan them a gun on an emergency basis, with which to defend themselves and their loved ones.

The other side will claim, “Oh, you can just drive to the nearest FFL dealer and do the paperwork.”  No, you can’t.  They may be closed.  And, down the road, other anti-gun politicians may follow the Illinois legislation that requires onerous and redundant state firearms dealer licensing fees that are already driving small dealers out of business there. Dealers willing to do the transfer paperwork will be hard to find. 

A suicide prevention program spreading across the country, inspired by gun dealer Ralph Demicco and the New Hampshire Firearms Safety Coalition, encourages people to hold guns for friends and relatives until their period of depression passes. It has already saved lives. The proposed legislation will make this impossible, and will inevitably cost lives.

You thought you were just going to bequeath your valuable firearms to your heirs in your will? This legislation may greatly complicate that, and make it significantly more expensive…all to no good end.

The polls that say a majority of Americans want UBCs seem to be based on questions like, “Do you want crazy people and violent criminals to be able to buy guns at will, or not?”  The general public has not been given the first clue of how many ways this theoretically well-intended legislation will criminalize countless law-abiding citizens. I doubt that more than one percent of those who told the pollsters UBCs sounded good had ever read the fine print of the actual proposals.

Contact your representatives in Congress.  Link to this blog if you like, or copy it.  Let them know WHY it’s a bad idea that can literally cost innocent lives.

Time is of the essence.


  1. If guns aren’t registered, how does LE know there has been an illegal transfer?

    How many criminals will register their guns and go through background checks to transfer them.

    Seems to me that the poll numbers which supposedly show wide support for universal background checks don’t take into account the public’s ignorance.

    • If guns aren’t registered, how does LE know there has been an illegal transfer?

      That’s the $64,000 question, right there. The federal DOJ (IIRC) did a big study on the efficacy of certain gun laws, and found that “Universal Background Checks” are totally ineffective without full registration.

      Because I’m well past the tipping point for Hanlon’s Razor (“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”), passing UBC’s is just a stepping stone. When (not if) it fails to reduce crime, the Left can point to the DOJ study and say, “See? It wasn’t enough! We need registration to make it work!” And people will buy into it.

      Seems to me that the poll numbers which supposedly show wide support for universal background checks don’t take into account the public’s ignorance.

      And that’s exactly why polls are worthless. You can tell the pollsters’ and/or sponsors’ bias just by how the questions are phrased (see Mas’ example in the article). IOW, the questions are nearly always vague enough to mean anything, and the results are interpreted in ways that make statisticians cringe. For example, using Mas’ example again, anything less than strong “Yes, I want crazies and criminals to buy weapons at will” can be publicly interpreted as approving UBCs, even though it includes the “I don’t know / Not sure / No opinion” answers.

  2. Thanks for the heads up, Mas – I already contacted my rep last week about this bill as well as the ERPO bill, HR 1112. Both bills are aimed at the reduction of our rights while purporting to be necessary for our ‘safety’.

  3. Massad,

    You make some very valid points as always. But the law that you should address is the Red Flag Law just passed in New York state. It allows a teacher to single out a student that MAY be a threat to himself or others. The Liberal sect thinks this is great. All a teacher has to do is petition a judge to get a psycho-analysis of the student. But as always there is a caveat, once the child is “Red Flagged” how does the student get, for lack of a better term, un-red-flagged?
    Is the child branded for life? Who pays for the evaluation of the student let alone the treatment?
    Also in this litigiousness society can the teacher be sued for singling out this child?
    Will the parents be investigated?
    This along with the New York state SAFE Act is probably one of the worst laws Coumo has signed, most likely to get political points to run for President.
    I just can’t imagine a child brought up on violent video games, slasher movies and the like, being singled out for acting like his video meme’s labeled as dangerous…
    There is nothing in the law protecting the teacher from being sued.
    And as we all know even though a LEO is within the law he/she is always in jeopardy of a civil action against them.
    I personally am moving to another state where they don’t kill full term babys and don’t routinely pass laws for effect.
    I have always believed that you are innocent until proven guilty.
    In New York state this is no longer the case.
    This law is aimed at the gun owner,I failed to mention that the household of this child must surrender all their guns…in a safe or not.
    In closing I would like to see your thoughts on this matter.
    Be healthy, keep up the good work of defending our right, and God Bless.

  4. Thanks Mas! Excellent stuff as always.

    I sent this argument to my friend, a moderate Democrat who’s not afraid of guns and actually likes to shoot, but unfortunately is of the opinion there should be more controls in place. What is the most logical and non fear mongering sounding response I can give her to this? Thanks in advance.

    “Fair enough. But there’s nothing here attacking the fundamental wrongness of universal background checks, per se. What if we can address all those concerns for you? The idea of instituting some form of universal background check is not mutually exclusive to compensating for those dangers, or at least trying until we both run out of reasonable things to complain about. This is how better laws are made. You and I can’t keep having arguments about the dangers of poorly or ignorantly written bills, or imprecise language of new laws without addressing the real argument regarding whether we actually can construct a law that creates a positive outcome and avoids most of the burden for gun owners. There must have been some good points made when the NRA was in favor of universal background checks a few decades ago!
    How about this for a Universal background check proposal?

    1. Temporary loan of a firearm is permitted for some reasonable period of time that we would have to work out. In California, there used to be a 30-day lending period. I don’t remember hearing that it inconvenienced anybody. Enforcement and documentation would be difficult, but again, something we could work on.

    2. Transfer of a firearm from a person undergoing a depressive episode… this can take place immediately by way of the temporary loan period above, and extended through an FFL when convenient during that period. Maybe there’s a provision for a refund of fees if the guns are returned within a certain timeframe, or no fees charged if an indication were made on the form that it was for protective custody, so long as the person who has temporary custody of these firearms assumes some manner of legal responsibility. Gun owners seem to be all about personal responsibility, and that’s a good thing. Also, if it’s a legal document, I can assume most law-abiding gun owners would not lie about the nature of the transfer just to get out of paying 20 bucks. As you say, only criminals break the law, anyway. Alternatively, we could use some of the proceeds from background check fees to compensate registered firearms dealers for safe storage at no cost to the gun owner during these periods.

    3. Under the temporary transfer as described above, firearms released from the estate to the heirs would undergo the same temporary transfer allowances. Maybe we exempt parents, spouses, adult children and grandchildren from the background check and transfer fees, but all other heirs would have an extended version of the temporary transfer period to affect permanent transfer through a dealer. A trust could address minor children who are bequeathed firearms.

    These things will accomplish an expanded background check without a registry and will protect people from becoming inadvertent criminals. Punishment for non-compliance should be based on circumstances defined by law, and penalties should escalate to a targeted penalty level slowly, over a period of years after implementation.

    I’m just trying to be reasonable here. If we can take away all of the things that scare you, what is the best concrete argument against the fundamental idea of universal background checks? We can even grandfather in people who have completed a non dealer transfer before the law goes into effect.”

    • Ron, your friend’s #1 might be an acceptable middle ground for some on the pro-gun side. #2 Wouldn’t work with a protective custody order, which would be tantamount to the depressed person admitting for the record that they had mental issues, which they would be reluctant to do — one of the main reasons a friend or relative keeping the gun(s) is more palatable to such at-risk people. It also wouldn’t allow for a “take the gun right now” on a Saturday night when all the dealers were closed. #3, It is already against the law for beneficiaries who are prohibited persons or underage to receive bequeathed firearms.

    • Ron,

      I’m sure you mean well but you sound like a sheepdog who is trying to reason with a wolf. The wolf just wants one little lamb and then he promises to leave the rest of the flock alone.

      Forget it! The Second Amendment has been infringed too much already.

  5. there is no data to prove that background checks have any influence on violent crime whatsoever…’s the process…” Background Checks…Registration…Confiscation “….the leftist way.

  6. ALL People, including the bill authors, need to keep in mind the actual goals of legislation. People who see this issue as a binary code, all or nothing, miss the point. Try reading the book “Getting to Yes”. Of course the crazies won’t be stopped by legislation, but the impulsive decent person might be. it’s great when someone recognizes a “depressed” person at risk and has time to get their firearm away to safety, BUT that often isn’t the case. A background check would slow down an impulsive act. And for that depressed or momentarily angry but otherwise rational person, it might well be enough to prevent a tragedy. The solution must be multifactorial, and that includes well thought out “rules”. But of course common sense isn’t common. FYI, gun owning Democrat.

  7. As a ‘strict constructionist’ I ask where is their constitutional authority to require this? Arguably, the constitution gives them the right to control interstate commerce, and this is what allows them to require FFLs to do background checks. But where is their authority to tell me, an individual, who I can or cannot sell, loan, or give my personal private property to?

  8. The late LBJ is credited with a comment about how a bill shouldn’t be judged on the basis of the good it’s supposed to do, but on the ill effects it will have.

    What we have here is a feel good measure that will have limited, if any, positive effect and major ill effects.

    Tongue in cheek here, but for those folks who wish to feel safe I suggest Robert Heinlein’s concept of the Peace Brassard. One might consider it a personal gun free zone. I’m sure it would be as effective as the current fixed zones. Folks who wear the Brassard declare their wish to be excluded from gun violence/use of firearms. I guess enhanced penalties for those who violate the zone would be necessary. The rest of the population is free to carry/use etc.

  9. The firearm laws already on the books (assuming that they were enforced) are already more then adequate to achieve the Left’s STATED purpose of keeping weapons out of the hands of people (criminals, mentally ill, etc.) who should not have them.

    In other words, LEGITIMATE firearm regulations are already MAXED out. For a long time now, the Left has been deceitful about what they are doing in this area. They continue to shout “Keep weapons away from Criminals” while crafting laws that are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to go after legal gun-ownership rather than criminal ownership.

    In other words, the Left has moved into crafting laws for IDEOLOGICAL purposes rather then PRACTICAL ones.

    The myth of “Universal Background Checks” is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of how the Left LIES. The law is sold as enhancing background checks so as to keep firearms out of the hands of unqualified people. They sell it this way when conducting their polls so as to trick people into saying that they support it. Then they use these artificially-inflated poll figures to build support for passage.

    However, when one actually reads the statute, it is clear that it does not achieve that stated goal. Rather, it is full of burdens and legal traps that are all designed to make legal firearm ownership as BURDENSOME and LEGALLY DANGEROUS as possible.

    The TRUE PURPOSE of this law is to discourage firearm ownership. The Left is using classic BAIT and SWITCH sales tactics. They bait people with the promise that the new law will disarm criminals and then switch to a law that acts only to disarm the law-abiding firearm owners.

    This is how the Left works, folks. Even Satan himself must take a back seat to the Leftists when it comes to LIES and DECEIT!

    • Agreed, 100%. Especially with the criminal laws in place:
      – Shooting someone (not in self-defense): already illegal
      – Pointing a gun at someone (not in self-defense): already illegal
      – Using a firearm in the commission of other crimes: already illegal
      – Felon in possession: already illegal
      – Transferring a firearm to a “prohibited person”: already illegal
      – Transferring a firearm to someone suspected of planning to use it to commit a crime: already illegal
      – Stealing a firearm: already illegal
      – Receiving a stolen firearm: already illegal
      – Straw purchasing a firearm: already illegal
      – Trafficking firearms: already illegal

      All that pretty much sums up how criminals get guns and use them for crime. It’s all illegal already; prosecutors could have a field day charging and convicting based on laws already in place. They have the legal means to disarm and imprison all criminals now. Not next week, or next legislative session, or when the next law goes into effect; if disarming criminal were truly the goal, they could do it now.

      It’s well-known that criminals don’t go to gun stores to run background checks on themselves or each other, even where it’s legally required for them to do so. Only law-abiding people do that, where required. So of course the Left’s response is to enact that requirement on all law-abiding people everywhere.

      Someone once said, “Gun control is like this: Teenagers are driving 90 m.p.h. through a neighborhood where the posted limit is 25 m.p.h. Your solution is to lower the limit to 20 m.p.h.”

      Or another meme that’s been popping up: “Want to stop drunk drivers from killing sober drivers? Ban sober drivers from driving. That’s how gun control works.”

      Once upon a time, weapons control laws were about public safety; some truly reasonable ones (what few can be considered such) still are. All the rest — all the rest — exist only to discourage legal gun ownership and use by making it as difficult, risky, and expensive as possible.

      As to the lies, that’s exactly how you know they’re being disingenuous. They know their cause is unjust and punishes law-abiding people. If it didn’t, they wouldn’t have to deceive people to pass it. As another blogger put it, “If your cause is so righteous, why lie?”

      • Archer – I like the memes that you list. I have seen the one about reducing the speed limit before but the one about drunk drivers is new to me.

        Here is another one that I like:

        “Attempting to stop crime by restricting access to firearms is like attempting to stop child pornography by restricting access to cameras.”

        It is the same mindset as was seen with Alcohol Prohibition. The idea that human behavior can be controlled by regulating access to material objects in mankind’s environment. That is why I prefer the term “Firearms Prohibition” to the standard “Gun Control”. It is far more description of the underlying mindset.

        As I have noted before, Leftists are mentally “wired” with a belief that humans are, at their core, basically “Good”. This makes Leftists incapable of placing the blame for any social problem directly upon human nature. It violates their “Core Beliefs”. It violates the way their minds work.

        Leftists are, in effect, hardwired to look externally for the source of social problems. They are mentally blocked from looking internally.

        So, naturally, when it comes to crime and violence, Leftists simply cannot believe in the concept that it is caused by violent people. Rather, IT MUST BE, in their minds, caused by some external environmental factor. A century ago, the factor selected was alcohol abuse. Today, it is firearms that serve the Left as the scapegoat and whipping boy for violence and crime.

        Anyway, that is what motivates the “rank and file” leftist. The cynical, leftist leadership is also motivated by totalitarian impulses. They want to enhance their own wealth and power. They want to be the elite and to lord it over the “common” people. They want CONTROL. So, for the leadership, firearms prohibition “kills two birds with one stone”. It feeds their leftist worldview and also feeds their lust for power since they know that true control can never be achieved until the American People are disarmed.

        Universal Background Checks is actually about Universal Disarmament of the American People. That is the true goal of the Leftists. Depend upon it!

      • Forgive me if I fail to give you credit every time I use your drunk driver analogy. It will stay in my repertoire of talking points from here on out.

      • @Ralph: It’s not mine; I’m just presenting it here. No offense taken! 🙂

        As I have noted before, Leftists are mentally “wired” with a belief that humans are, at their core, basically “Good”.

        Like many-if-not-most (or all) Leftist beliefs, that belief is chock-full of logical fallacies. In this case, specifically, the “false dichotomy” fallacy: they believe that because humans are basically “Good”, that ALL humans are “Good”. It’s a false dichotomy between “Good” and “Evil”, with no gray areas, no mixed opinions, no internal conflicts or motivations, etc.

        When all humans are good, evil must be motivated or caused by external factors.

        The flaw in the belief is that, like so many other issues, the reality is more of a spectrum than a switch. A person can be basically good, but a little selfish (not necessarily evil). A person can be selfish and do some evil things, but with self-serving motivations, not because he/she is inherently evil.

        But some people — a very small percentage, thankfully — are just plain evil. Beyond not caring who gets hurt (which would be selfish), they go out of their way to hurt people. This is NOT due to external factors; some people are just broken. Or as the man said, “Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

        The Left’s blind faith in humanity can’t account for or explain these individuals, so they blame everything else — but (somehow) only the things they don’t like, such as firearms, Christianity, and straight white men. The things they DO like, that actually measurably contribute to the problems (e.g. fatherless homes, government dependence, rampant drug use, organized crime, lax criminal enforcement, etc.), somehow never get a mention.

        That the things getting blamed are also thorns in the side of those who seek power and control, is a bonus. A feature, not a bug.

        I also don’t use the term “gun control” without putting it in quotes (ditto with “gun safety” unless I’m discussing the Four Rules). I much prefer the terms “citizen disarmament” and “victim disarmament”, because that is the end goal. Your “firearm prohibition” is also accurate both as to the mindset and the history. I may start using it, if you don’t mind. 🙂

      • @ Archer – “The Left’s blind faith in humanity can’t account for or explain these individuals, so they blame everything else — but (somehow) only the things they don’t like, such as firearms, Christianity, and straight white men.”

        You need to understand that the Left’s blind faith in humanity, their inability to look internally at their own soul and their forced worldview of looking externally for the source of all social problems, is not simply a small facet of the Leftist mind. Rather it is the central foundation. It is the thread that binds all Left-Wing policies together. It is EVERYTHING when it comes to understanding the Leftist mind!

        Why do they love Communism/Socialism? Answer: Because they have identified poverty as a critical EXTERNAL factor in social problems and Karl Marx laid the blame for poverty at the feet of Capitalism. Capitalism requires internal (Individual) responsibility for economic success which flies in the face of the Left’s EXTERNAL worldview.

        Why do they love Prohibition movements? (alcohol, firearms, military arms, etc.) – Answer: Because they allow the Left to shift the blame for violence to EXTERNAL material objects rather than focus on the failings of human nature. Remember, the Left’s belief in humanity disputes that these failing even exist.

        Why do they love Big Government and Big Government Programs? – Answer: Because their absolute faith in humanity blinds them to the possibility that humans will use government power for evil ends. Since Leftists believe in EXTERNAL sources for all human problems, they view government COLLECTIVE action as the ticket to remaking the world into their leftist Utopia.

        Why is the Left so Pro-abortion? Answer: Because they place the blame for the social problem of unwanted pregnancies on EXTERNAL factors. Therefore, the woman should be blamed and should not suffer the consequences of getting pregnant and, so, must have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to abortion on demand.

        Why is the Left so accepting of deviant sexual behavior? Answer: They cannot blame the individual for not controlling their sexual appetite and, so, must adopt an unlimited view of sexuality.

        Why is the Left so Anti-religion (any religion except leftism itself)? – Answer: Because religions teach that humans are flawed creatures who must work and strive to develop a relationship with God. This flies in the face of their “Blind Faith in Humanity” ideology.

        Why is the Left so crazed about Environmental issues (climate change and all the rest)? – Answer: Because the Environment is, by definition, EXTERNAL to mankind and is thus ripe for incorporation into the Leftist worldview.

        I tell you that the ENTIRE LEFT-WING WORLDVIEW can be explained by simply understanding that Leftists have a blind faith in humanity and are, therefore, hardwired to look EXTERNALLY for solutions to all of mankind’s problems. They are mentally BLOCKED from looking internally at the individual or at human nature itself.

        As you point out, this worldview is logically flawed. It is an IDEALIZED view of the humanity that does not exist in reality. Leftists are able to create entire sets of CONSISTENT policy solutions based upon their belief system. The problem is that the resulting policies are inconsistent with real-world human nature and real-world human behavior. Therefore, the policies always fail and the harder that the Leftists push the policies, the worse they fail.

        Example: Leftists NEVER accept that Firearms Prohibition is a Failure even when it does clearly fail. They simply push harder and harder for more and more of it and assume that, when the magic level is reached, it will start working. I guarantee that the harder firearms prohibition is pushed, the more it will fail but the leftists will never accept that to be true. It violates their belief system.

        I can only guess that there must be a genetic component as well as an indoctrination/education component to the Left-Wing mindset. Each generation of humans seems to produce a “New Crop” of leftists that continue to believe in the same flawed worldview and failed policies as their left-wing ancestors. It is enough to make one think that the only solution is eugenics. That, in the end, we will only be able to rid ourselves of Left-Wing ideology by “breeding” it out of the human species as if it were a defective gene! 🙂

      • TN_MAN,

        I think some Leftists hate capitalism because they just don’t have a talent for it. They feel inferior.

        People usually do well in a capitalist economic system if they have a talent for business, math, science or technology. Some people are gifted in other areas, so they have a tougher time making money.

        Imagine a classical violinist or a jazz piano player trying to sell their music. Maybe they can make a living at it or maybe they cannot. Then they see a rapper make millions of dollars. What will they think about capitalism?

        The good thing about capitalism is it produces super-abundance. Other systems produce scarcity. So, capitalism is the worst economic system in the world, except for all the other economic systems. 😉

  10. If you look at it cynically, it’s simple.

    “Universal Background Checks” won’t reduce crime. They haven’t worked for that in the states where they’ve been enacted. In at least one state, violence went up.

    When it doesn’t work, however, Dems won’t say: “Gosh, this law didn’t work. We should repeal it.”

    No, they’ll say: “It didn’t go far enough. We need registration of all firearms. THAT will stop crime!”

    This is no accident: it’s the plan. It’s why, if HR8 passes, we’ll hear some lawmakers hailing it as “…a good first step!”

    The goal is NOT crime control. The goal is people control. Once all the guns are “registered,” confiscation is much easier, and ownership of an unlicensed firearm can be made a felony. They really do want to take all the guns away. That’s why they keep lying to us.

  11. The doublespeak propaganda term titled “Universal background checks” usurps the ownership of the country from We The People to some unknown governmental agency and is in direct conflict with the mandate of our forefathers the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Freedom as meant in the Constitution is freedom from governmental intrusion into peoples private affairs. To require the governments knowledge and permission in order to exercise a Constitutional right is antithematic to the meaning of freedom and Democracy and certainly fits the meaning of an infringement.

  12. Just where in the 2nd Amendment does it authorize ANY background check of any kind by any level of government? By giving the anti-gun left an inch, they are taking a mile. I am tired of being “reasonable” about limits on my basic individual constitutional rights. Any and all “gun laws” are “infringements” which are unconstitutional on their faces.

    • 150% agree with you!

      Think any Congressman, or Senator, who votes for such a Bill should Immediately be Impeached, for violating his/her Sworn Oath of Office to Support the U.S. Constitution!!

    • It doesn’t.

      In fact, in any other context, it would be immediately found prima facie unconstitutional (read: “on its face”; as written, not even as applied). Requiring “background checks” of any kind, let alone “universal background checks”, amount to a prior restraint on a Constitutionally-protected right.

      Someone wiser than me calls them “preemptively-prove-your-innocence” (PPYI) prior restraints. Imagine if you had to prove your innocence before you could exercise your right to speak in public or publish a book, or before you could exercise your right to remain silent during an arrest, or before you could consult an attorney.

      Imagine if you had to prove your innocence before you could demand your right to a jury trial. Or before you could object to an unlawful search of your person or effects. Or before you could decline to self-incriminate.

      And it is a prior restraint, with the burden of proof impermissibly on you instead of the State. The commonly-cited exception to the First Amendment is that you can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater (which is not exactly true; I’d expect you to if there’s a fire!), but UBCs are the equivalent of duct-taping every theater-goers mouth shut before being allowed in just on the off-chance they intend to shout “Fire!” … unless the attendees can prove ahead of time they won’t.

      (It would also keep people from alerting others if there really was a danger. It’s a pretty good analogy!)

      And we all know how easy it is to prove a negative. (Hint: It’s actually quite impossible.)

      That PPYI checks have been found Constitutionally valid is one of the greatest mistakes the courts have ever made. It’s right up there with Wickard v. Fillburn, in my opinion.

  13. Where is the Supreme Court on all this unconstitutional gun legislation? I live in Washington State, and it is overbearingly oppressive.

    • Same here in NY. With SCOTUS- beware never-Trumper RINO Roberts. The so-called conservative majority might not actually exist.

  14. I haven’t seen any exception for an instructor “loaning” a gun to a student during training. Does, that mean I’m at risk if I allow my student to use my firearm during instructing the student on its safe and proper use. Isn’t safe and proper use the goal behind the Left’s “Firearm Owner ID” and Maryland’s “Handgun Qualification License” program and all of the other training requirements to ensure competent firearm ownership?

    I have a tee-shirt that states: “The Constitution was written to limit the power of the Federal Government, not the people of the United States.”

    • The limited exceptions are a huge problem. As another example, there’s no exception for turning over a gun to police.

      Thus all “buyback” events are federal crimes unless every single gun has a 4473 and is called into NICS.

      If your child finds a discarded or unattended gun in a park, it’s a federal crime to hand it over to police without a 4473 and NICS check.

      If your firearm is taken as evidence for any reason, but is returned to you, it’s a federal crime to retrieve it from the evidence locker without a 4473 and a NICS check.

      Heck, it’s illegal for police officers themselves to store their personally-owned guns in the department armory, if the armory tech doesn’t fill out the 4473 and submit him/her self to a NICS check for each one. Ditto for the owners retrieving them.

      And those are just some of the issues that arise when working with police officers. There are many, many more between private citizens.

  15. Here’s a Copy of a Message that WE hope will will reach President Trump’s “Eye’s”, despite all the levels of filtration this must pass through?

    Mr. President Trump, WE are contacting YOU, because while on the campaign trail,YOU promised American”s to pass the Concealed Carry Reciprocity, and to repeal the the Gun Free (Killing) Zones.

    That’s why, while WE appreciate the push to Arm Teachers, We are still gravely concerned about the Gun Confiscation (Red Flag) Orders, proposed by YOUR Federal Commission of School Safety, which are now being proposed before the U.S. Senate.

    YOUR own Rouge ATF (Disarm the American Citizen’s) Agency also published a Rule Banning Bump Stocks, that’s SO VAGUE, that ANY Future Liberal Democratic President CAN USE IT TO TO BAN MANY COMMON AMERICAN SEMI-AUTOS (“DEATH BY BY A THOUSAND CUTS”)!

    At 83+ YOA, & after a Career in the Military (11 Yrs.) & Federal Law Enforcement (28 Yrs), it is my Considered Analysis that the Democratic Party has become Drunk on their Own “Power, & Authority” to the point where they are willing to engage in any, & All, actions, no many how Criminal, Discussing, & Despicable, so long as it keeps Party Line Democrat’s in Total Control in the Oval Office, the Senate, & the House, as well as what ever positions they require grind America, & maybe most of the rest of the World, Under Their Thumb’s.

    Paul, & Pam, Edwards,

  16. When Hillary was defeated for the Presidency, I thought we would get a four-year respite from attacks on our gun rights.

    Here is some good news from New Jersey. On December 10th, 2018, the magazine capacity limit went from 15 rounds to 10. Since then, not one illegal magazine has been turned in to a police department. The media asked the State Police how they were going to enforce the new law. They declined comment and referred the media to the attorney general, who has not commented yet either.

    So, it appears that, for now, the new law is not being obeyed or enforced. The Left practices civil disobedience when they fail to enforce immigration laws and declare “sanctuary” cities and states. I’m glad the Right is also practicing civil disobedience in NJ.

    Thomas Jefferson liked the motto, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” (“‘Resistance’ to tyrants…..”also sounds good).

  17. Last weekend a Chicago cop was shot while serving a warrant. The targer of the warrant had been busted in February with a loaded shotgun in her car, but the Cook County State’s Attorney refused to press charges.

    See here for details.

    IOW, failure to enforce existing gun laws against a known criminal.

Comments are closed.