(Editor’s note: The following was syndicated with the permission of Alan Korwin, the author of the article. Mr. Korwin is the author of 14 books, has been invited by the U.S. Supreme Court twice to observe oral arguments and runs the website GunLaws.com. He is also a friend of GunsAmerica.)
A Gun-Transfer Ban For Everytown Means Death To Liberty.
Half the media doesn’t even know it’s deceiving you when it talks about so-called “universal background check” bills. The other half knows it’s lying.
They know this code phrase means a national gun-transfer ban, plus universal gun registration — total government control over all guns held privately in America.
Without total registration, universal background checks don’t work. A comprehensive gun-owner list is the whole point of getting falsely reported “background bills” passed. One man — multi-billionaire former NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg — is pushing the bills and funding operations, with shell corporations, hired hands, advertising, federal cooperation and mountains of his cash.
His goal is to make you subject to arrest if you hold someone else’s gun — a “gun transfer” — with or without a sale, like he just snuck through in Washington State. Sounds impossible but it’s stone-cold true. He did that by deceiving the public with a $10 million false advertising campaign. He told the public one thing, for a law that did something else. When people found out, after they passed it, they were furious. Too late. Let’s do this by example, so you understand what we’re talking about.
Let’s say you buy a Colt Python from some regular Joe at a gun show, or my next-door neighbor, or in a class, it doesn’t matter where. Gun-show loophole is just a buzz phrase the media uses to bamboozle — the proposed bills always cover every inch of the nation.
Loophole is a synonym for liberty. Never forget that. Gun-show liberty. Bloomberg, an anti-freedom bigot of the worst kind, hides behind a privately armed army, assaulting your right to arms, while exercising his. He wants to kill a liberty you currently have, willing to blatantly lie to get his way, spending obscene fortunes to bully us.
But I digress.
Joe says he’s the Python’s original owner, bought it at retail from Tony’s Gun Store (where you shop sometimes) and you believe him. You’ve known Joe for years and he’s always seemed like a right guy. That might all be true, or not, you have no way of knowing. You now have the Python, it’s sweet, no paperwork, cash and carry. That’s got a name. It’s called freedom. Two free people doing business. You don’t even have to buy it — if Joe just hands it to you you’re both guilty under Bloomberg’s bill.
That handoff scares the crap out of the left and gun scaredy cats because both of you might be criminals! And there’s no controls! Joe the criminal could have just sold (or handed) you, the criminal, a stolen gun and the police won’t even know! Everyone in the world might be criminals, selling each other g- g- g- guns!
What they miss of course is if new background checks were required and everyone was a criminal, the exact same deal could take place anyway, without the check, like it does now. Laws stop nothing. Law enforcement does. That’s what’s missing, insiders understand this and the “news” omits it (too conveniently), leaving voters misled. We’ve already made all of those actions illegal — the criminals, the transfer, the sale and the stolen gun. But I digress again.
I’ve just described the private transfer of property between two free citizens in a free country, the same as the transfer of a Bible, gold coins, this publication or any legal property. In most states nationwide this is 100 percent legal. There’s no victim, no one is harmed and no crime is committed. Laws against it would ban liberties most of us currently enjoy, without affecting criminals who do all that now — even though it’s banned. All Bloomie’s new law would do is outlaw you. Anti-rights bigots and ignorami are hell-bent to outlaw these transfers for you.
Getting back to your shiny new Python, since you really have no idea where it’s been, let’s suppose several possibilities.
First, Joe is telling the truth, second Joe got the gun like you just did, from someone he knows (so he really doesn’t know its background), and third Joe stole the gun or it’s tainted in some other way (smuggled, traded for outlawed drugs, used in a crime, etc.) all of which are already highly illegal with harsh penalties. What does all this mean for you, background checks and gun registration? Will new laws requiring more government interference make anyone safer or help stop crime?
Loophole is a synonym for liberty.
Never forget that. Gun-show liberty.
If Joe, the gun and you’re all legal, which is typically the case, no amount of extra government helps anything, but it does raise everyone’s costs, diverts resources away from policing and into record keeping, and eats up time. As long as you use your sidearm righteously, no blood, no foul.
If some new private-transfer ban gets enacted, Joe and you can obey and travel somewhere during business hours, go through the red tape, pay the fees, fill out the papers, clerks in West Virginia (where the sprawling FBI campus for this has been built) enter the records, and nothing changes except — you have the Python, owned or borrowed, and now the government knows it.
There’s only one thing the government can actually do with that information besides store it. They can decide to come and take your Python, now that they know you have it, should they decide to do so. They would have to ban Pythons first though, to make the confiscations “legal.” Sorta.
But if Joe and you decide not to go through the rigmarole and just transact the property, who’s to know? Without a universal gun-registration system in place, the private-transfer background check accomplishes nothing — because there is no way to tell who owned what beforehand. The government obviously needs a list of where America’s 300 million guns are today before the system really works — they even said this themselves. And then, it just identifies innocent people who own property, with no connection to any crimes committed. How does writing everyone’s name on a government list help stop crime? (Hint: It doesn’t.)
How accurate do you think a government record of 300 million guns will be? Guns that look alike, distinguished by tiny characteristics, owned by Americans who want nothing to do with the system, with easily bollixed serial numbers in an obese inventory that’s constantly in flux, run by low-wage dead-end clerks who are tired and waiting for the Friday bell, just like any work force.
In this database — errors are felonies. If the system says Joe owns a Python and he can’t produce it with federal jackboots at his door, that’s a potential crime, and he has some jawing to do. If Joe sends anyone to your door you may admit to having it or deny it or clam up and demand an attorney.
Don’t forget, nobody here harmed anyone, this is a database problem. And I haven’t even gotten up to the part where criminals with guns cannot be part of the system — because they would have to self-incriminate to register. That’s prohibited, since they can’t have frickin’ guns in the first place.
No, the universal-background-check scam has one purpose — to control all of America’s privately owned guns. It has nothing to do with crime, blatantly violates the Second Amendment, is completely beyond any power delegated to government and should be rejected outright as an illegitimate public policy choice in this country.
A Final Thought
Bloomberg, and the leftist approach he represents, is misguided. To prevent criminals from potentially buying guns outside civil controls, they would subject everyone who isn’t criminal to submit to control, drastically reducing freedom. This is unacceptable from the perspective of liberty. Liberty is the higher requirement.
The public is guilty of nothing and cannot legitimately be subjected to such demeaning treatment. To prevent criminals from obtaining guns, they must be caught in possession, as hard as that is, which is why they are — and remain armed — historically, and possessed of other contraband despite laws to the contrary. Burdening the innocent, and drastically curtailing currently enjoyed freedoms will not improve the situation and are intolerable acts.