On Basic Human Rights – Accidental Youtube Star Billy Johnson – Interview SHOT 2015

National Rifle Association News Commentator Billy Johnson is an interesting dude.  He’s a news junkie, a political wonk and an absolute purest when it comes to all his Constitutionally-protected rights — not just the Second Amendment.

In many ways, he reminds me of myself.  Yeah, that sounds a bit egotistical given that this is his interview, but it’s true.  I share a lot of Billy’s libertarian (we-need-fewer-laws, not-more) views.  Specifically, I couldn’t agree more with what he had to say about former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s universal background check movement.

“Having to ask the government to exercise my any of my rights is an infringement on my rights…  I do believe background checks do qualify as an infringement on my rights,” explained Billy.

Amen, brother, amen!  I then went on to ask him about his thoughts on the bipartisan Manchin-Toomey bill that would have federalized universal background checks, essentially requiring them for all private sales and transfers, including those made over the Internet and at gun shows.

Since Manchin-Toomey was supposed to be a compromised version, it did include some perks for gun owners, I asked him whether it would have been better to strike a deal back in 2013 and pass Manchin-Toomey as opposed to fighting the Bloomberg machine at the state level where he is uniquely poised to pass his uncompromised background check bill (Bloomberg’s money has had an impact at the state level, thus far he’s been behind the passage of at least two UBC bills, one in Colorado, one in Washington State.  Now Bloomberg’s group is introducing a UBC bills in Nevada).

“I’m done compromising,” Billy said, rather candidly.  “Gun control advocates have always said, ‘Just compromise, just compromise, come to the table. ‘ Since 1936 gun owners have compromised, gun owners have given something up every step of the way, we have never gotten anything back.”

“People say, ‘Well you got concealed carry”– well that was always my right,” he continued.  “It was always my right to carry a gun.  Don’t tell me that concealed carry was some kind of concession by the anti-Second Amendment movement.  That’s ridiculous.”

He’s right.  Gun owners have compromised every step of the way.  Meanwhile, anti-gunners have only become more insatiable in their desire to roll back the Second Amendment.  That aside, what if we had compromised and agreed to ratify Manchin-Toomey?

Well, Billy brought up a great point.

“They’re not going to go away, they’re not going to close up shop, and say, ‘We won, go have your guns.’ It’s not going to happen.”

Right again!  Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and Mayors Against Illegal Guns (all of which belong to Bloomberg) are not going away ever.  They’re here to stay.  Therefore, as Billy insinuated, we ought to be prepared to fight them every step of the way.


Thanks to Billy Johnson and NRA News for giving us this opportunity.  Follow Billy on Twitter: AmidstTheNoise

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 15 comments… add one }
  • Cliff November 9, 2017, 8:42 am

    GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA HAVE NEVER COMPROMISED. GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA HAVE ALWAYS GIVEN SOMETHING UP. A compromise involves each side of an argument giving something up. What have “gun grabbers” ever given up?

  • ej harb January 27, 2015, 6:30 am

    Moms demand action now advocates calling the cops if they spot your gun and reporting a armed robbery in progress. So dont get spotted or you might get blown away by police

  • James Lydigsen January 24, 2015, 12:10 am

    I am not familiar with the requirements of the Colorado so called universal background check however I feel I am qualified to comment on the I-594 Washington State Universal Background Check. Until passage of Initiative 594 the Federal NICS BGC was to confirm the authorization of the FFL dealer to BOTH SELL a firearm to an applicant which similtantiously ALLOW the applicant POSSESSION of the firearm.

    What is minimally understood by the good folks in WA State is that the WA State I-594 UBGC is in fact TWO part. The WA State UBGC separates authorization purchase a firearm from authorization to possession a firearm. The federal CRIMINAL NICS BGC is stated as purposed ONLY for authorization to PURCHASE a firearm while the second part of the 594 UBGC provides for second phase BGC, a look see into the PERSONAL background of the applicant which is clearly stated as being for determining the INELIGIBILITY (their word not mine) of the applicant to POSSESS a firearm.

    In other words an applicant may successfully pass the criminal portion, the NICS BGC and authorize the dealer to sell the firearm to the applicant however the applicant may fail the personal portion of the WA. State UBGC and be denied possession of that firearm the NICS has authorized the applicant to purchase.

    How may this even be possible? The residents of the State of Washington still don’t realize what I am saying here is true. Why don’t they know? Because of the disingenuous presentation of the initiative and they fell for it hook line and sinker. Full implementation has not been possible because the state department of licensing has yet to publish the rules for implementation of the UBGC as authorized in the initiative and the state legislature has to approve those rules. Can you believe a population that would vote for a law like this and yet idolize a stupid football team owned by one of the prime backers of the law. A law, a game if you will, for which the players don’t even the rules for game they being asked to play and yet support the stupid football team owned by one of the primary backers of the law. Do you think for one minute team owner Paul Allen would field the Sea Chickens without knowing the rules of the game his team was being asked to play. Yet that is exactly what the voters and 12th man backers of his team did. They didn’t know the rules for implementation of I-594 UBGC but yet they agreed to play the game.

  • Charles January 23, 2015, 4:15 pm

    Background checks without any notation of what gun(s) the person was interested in might have been an easier sell at some point, as this would accomplish all the controllers say they want. But…it isn’t all they really want. They want the individual information AND the gun information. So de facto registration unless the government is destroying the information once the check is completed as they have repeatedly assured us they do. Meanwhile, back at NSA and ObamaCare data capture/share headquarters…

  • Dennis January 23, 2015, 2:33 pm

    As usual, people are missing the point entirely. It seems like Billy has got it, but most miss it. The idea of psychological tests to see who is sane and who is not, is NOT part of the right. Back ground checks to see who the government thinks should own a gun actually goes against the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment – that being the right of the people, individual and corporate, to have the appropriate arms to stop a government gone bad and institute a new government that actually follows the constitution. The right to bear arms in not selective, it is not restrictive, it is all encompassing. The framers of the Constitution understood that for the people to ‘set the government back on track’ the people would need the same armament as the government.

    The Constitution does not limit this right to select people, but is for EVERY CITIZEN. This means that if I want an Abrams Tank in my back yard, I have the right to obtain one, or make one. I have the right to own a 50 fully automatic machine gun. I have the right to own a 50 cal sniper rifle. I have the right to own any armament I choose or think may be needed in the protection of the Constitution if the day ever comes that the present government over steps its bounds to the point of removing my Constitutional rights.

    The idea of background checks, federal or state, are, in my opinion, unconstitutional. Again, the constitution does not say, only so and so type people can keep and bear arms, it says ALL/ANY can. So, While we may wish that raving lunatics could not be able to own arms, the only way that person is limited is if or when he/she looses their citizenship or it is instatutionalized and/or limited in their citizenship due to parole or other means. And by the way, while a naturalized citizen may have his citizenship revoked, a natural born US citizen cannot have his citizen ship taken away UNLESS HE/SHE AGREES.

    • Just A Guy October 26, 2017, 4:35 pm

      I agree on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But I do not believe it is an unlimited right. I think the below laws should be abolished:
      All magazine capacity limitations on firearms.
      All sound suppressor regulations.
      Short barrel rifle and shotgun restrictions
      Large caliber rifle bans. (If someone wants to own a rifle that fires semi automatic 20 millimeter cannon rounds I don’t care.)

      I am not an advocate for privately owned fully automatic weapons. Ever see footage of someone firing an M-134? It accurately fires 3,000 to 4,000 rounds per minute. Such weapons are far too dangerous to allow out into the public. I am also not an advocate of allowing rocket propelled grenades and hand grenades or such type of weapons into public hands.

  • Alan January 23, 2015, 10:57 am

    With regard to background checks at all: the real question in my mind is, does the government have the authority to restrict ANY free individual from keeping and bearing arms, at all? The obvious answer is, no. If it can, they are not free. So, as it seems to be a common thread to assume that the ‘mentally unstable’ should not be free men (and women), the issue then becomes, who gets the authority to declare an individual to be subservient? Is that authority given to ‘mental health professionals,’ who, I might remind the gentle reader, have been heavily indoctrinated for years in socialist educational institutions with a strong anti-liberty bias?

    We must remind the gentle reader that the purpose of government is NOT to ‘serve and protect,’ as seen on shields everywhere.

    “…that, TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

    The declared purpose of government in these united states was to secure rights, establishing as it were a society in which men are free to protect themselves from ALL tyranny — both of neighbor and of distant foe.

    This is obviously only a cursory examination of a complex issue, but proper foundations are extremely important if the structures we build are to remain strong, and we have extended far beyond ours.

  • Rip January 23, 2015, 9:29 am

    Good comback mprsox.Criminals are not goimg to have to adhere to any thing that troop emounds said jJust more useless paper for the legitimate gun carrier.

  • troop emonds January 23, 2015, 4:47 am

    There should be a federal universal background check. Oregon has a federal background check in order to buy any firearm. It costs $10.00 to have the State Police run a background check to ensure that you are not a felon, domestic abuser, or at least a person not on a watch list. They should make the consealed carry thing a Universal Carry license so you can be armed when going State to State like a drivers license.

    Also, you should have a training test to ensure you are safe with weapons, have a gun safe to secure all weapons from being stolen. If you can hit a 3″ bull at 50 feet with a serious handgun, and a 3″ bull at 100 meters you should be paid as a minute man and get $1,000 per year for ammo.

    Never has there ever been a greater need for minute men to be always ready to respond to a terrorist at the Mall sort of thing. I mean the Attacks in Mumbai, the Kenyan Mall, the attacks in Nigeria are all warning orders from the enemies of Allah, and more attacks will be coming our way.

    Politicians need to encourage gun safety courses in school, and encourage the nation to get interested in the shooting sports. Gun traffickers selling gun illegally to gang members, and criminals need to be hunted down and given serious 30 to 40 year sentences, as with all people who use guns in crime.

    • mprsox January 23, 2015, 8:42 am

      “Troop” guy – Your comments are mixed and confusing, you sound like a liberal trying to sound like a conservative. Billy is correct – we all have a constitutional right to carry a gun outside the home.. the govt has NO RIGHT to ask for a check or qualification of any kind. I do NOT care what libs think, I live in Texas and am proud to support ALL of the bill of rights – libs have a right to express moronic and incorrect opinions about the 2nd Amendment, but that expression does not make them right! fact is Texas is the safest state because we have liberal (word irony) gun laws – the crooks and bad guys will always have guns and the honest gun owners keep them guessing – that is the real deterrent. Imposing any restrictions on lawful gun owners has ZERO impact on criminals and negative impact on victims. FBI stats confirm that more CHL owners equals much LESS violent crime. Libs refuse to accept hard facts. Feel free to move to CA or NY and become a viable target. good luck with that.

    • Mountain Man January 23, 2015, 9:07 am

      Mixed, indeed. “Federal background checks for all,” you say, and then “30 to 40 year sentences” – which, if Bloomberg has his way, will be anyone who owns a gun regardless.

      I’m in Colorado. The new legislature is working hard to repeal the abominations foisted on us by the preceding body, and which led Magpul to move out – costing us something like $70 million in tax revenue. But I digress.

    • Terry January 23, 2015, 10:53 am

      Well Troop I think you are sadly mistaken. The Federal government has no right to require anything of law abiding U.S. citizen in order to own or carry a firearm. The usual liberal garbage about “welll you have to have a license and pass a test to drive a car” is specious. There is no RIGHT drive. It’s a privilege. The 2nd amendment makes the ownership and carry of a firearm a RIGHT not a privilege. The government is not empowered by the constitution to regulate RIGHTS!

      I would applaud if schools conducted non-political firearm safety classes for students. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon. When I went to high school we had Rifle Club with a faculty supervisor. On the days of practice we brought our firearms to school and they were stored in the advisor’s classroom until our practice time after school. Never had any problems with anybody. Today students would be expelled and the school would invoke their stupid “Gun Free Zone” for doing it. As long as public education is going to adhere to these silly standards firearm safety will never be taught in our schools. That is a huge mistake.

      • Dennis January 23, 2015, 2:39 pm

        I find it almost laughable when I hear the push for background checks. What those who support this illegal notion mean is that they do not want anyone they do not like or who disagrees with them to own a gun. The insane, the criminal, the malcontent and/or the terrorist will always be able to find or even make a gun to do the dirty work.

    • Dennis January 23, 2015, 2:50 pm

      Sorry Troop, but you are adding words to the constitution. No where does it say any of what you mention; nor does it put any of what you mention as a prerequisite. It says the people, not only so and so types who can hit a bulls eye at 100 meters. It does not say the people have to take a course in order to own a gun. It does not even say the militia is to only one who can own guns. It does say that in order to form a good militia, the people have a right to keep and bear arms. That is totally different than the militia have the right to keep and bear arms.

      Safety and safe use of arms is NOT part of the Constitution. While it is obvious that one should use arms safely, it is not part of the amendment nor is it a requirement of the amendment.

    • Jeff January 23, 2015, 7:31 pm

      Oregon does not have a universal Federal background check system. If you buy from an FFL holder, then yes there is a NICS. We still have private property rights between individuals that do not involve the Federal, State, or local government intrusion. I absolutely agree with your Constitutional carry comment, though.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend