By Kerry Sloan
There has been no shortage of discussion, recently and over the last decade, about the need for “universal background checks.” While we see pithy, eloquent responses to UBC proposals such as, “All gun laws are unconstitutional,” “Shall not be infringed!” and “Background checks only prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights” ad nauseam in social media, comment sections, and proclaimed in speeches at Second Amendment rallies, many still fail to fully understand the serious implications of enacting such legislation.
Those among us who support any form of expanded, enhanced, focused, targeted, tailored (choose your adjective) background checks or changes to address the “Charleston loophole” (giving the FBI another seven business days to complete NICS checks) are only playing into the hands of those who would eliminate civilian gun rights entirely. All while further endangering those who need the option of armed self defense to protect themselves.
In the last year alone, we have seen domestic violence and sexual assault perpetrators…many with long histories of violent crime arrests and convictions, being released after being arrested for domestic violence. We have witnessed rapists released on their own recognizance. We have read about individuals returning to attack their victims time and again, all while law enforcement in many jurisdictions is being defunded.
Because of these preventable crimes, many Americans are increasingly turning to firearms for their own self-defense and peace of mind. In April, 2021 alone, the NSSF reported almost 1.7 million adjusted background checks were processed through the FBI’s NICS system. With that kind of continued demand for firearms, challenges and delays with both the NICS and state-run background check systems are, in essence, de facto waiting periods or denials for the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
While these dilemmas are certainly frustrating for anyone who wants to provide for their own protection or that of their family, imagine being a woman who has just been beaten by her spouse. She calls 911 and hides while waiting for help to arrive…praying that law enforcement get to her before her attacker returns. When police finally arrive, the abuser is taken away and swears he’s going to kill her for putting him in jail.
Out of fear, she decides to buy a firearm to protect herself and her children, only to discover she can’t immediately take possession of the firearm because of an often backlogged background check process. As a result, she’s left helpless, hoping her background check is completed before her abuser is released from jail. A judge’s restraining order won’t be much of a barrier to further assaults.
Now consider what will happen if this already broken system is required to run universal/expanded/enhanced checks as some “2A defenders” as well as those in the gun control industry have described them. The additional volume and red tape that will inevitably create even longer delays associated with this dangerous law will put more victims at even greater risk of injury or even death.
If you think I’m exaggerating, ask Carol Bowne’s family about her horrendous murder at the hands of a former boyfriend while waiting for the Government’s permission to exercise her inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
The shortsightedness from those advocating for universal background checks and increasing time limits for the FBI’s NICS system to do its job is not only ignorant, it’s potentially deadly, especially for domestic violence victims. We already have an uphill battle in the defense of our rights. Adding more weak compromises will only complicate defending the right to keep and bear arms down the road.
When will we finally realize that those who support any further infringements on our natural right of self-defense only enable more restrictions in the future? When will we hold those responsible for giving in to “common sense measures” as complicit in the resulting increased crime and violence?
Hopefully, those who are in favor of a “common sense” compromise on background checks will think about the countless women who will become victims as a result of these laws. Rather than continuing to repeat the same useless talking points that clearly aren’t being heard, they should be talking about how these laws will result in the victimization women who will be prevented from adequately defending themselves.
Those who truly believe we should be more proactive about arming women and giving them the best, most effective tools to protect themselves should be pushing that message, not one one of compromise with those who would only further erode all of our Second Amendment rights.
A compromise is either getting something in return for a settlement or it is conceding your principles. The latter is shameful and the first is not what is being sought.
A compromise is an agreement that leaves everyone unhappy.
God created humans, but Sam Colt made them equal.
I consider it pointless. We already have background checks and yet the problem is still there and even gets worse. Running more people over NICS wont change anything. UBC never looks at the problem. THE problem is still ignored.
The bad guys (David Chipman, Mike Bloomberg, etal) never mean actual compromise when they use that word, what they mean is that you give up more of your freedom and they only give up a little bit of what they actually intend to do to us; they will be back next week or next month for more. That is why we can never give up anything, even in legislation that purports to give us back something in return you can be sure that the good part will be removed in conference. The result will smell as bad as a dead skunk in the middle of the blacktop on a hot July afternoon.
Indeed. For those of us who’ve read Unintended Consequences in the last 25 years, this scenario was addressed succinctly by BI Bedderson.
Lots of good points.
We could (but I think we should NOT) look at the barriers to acquiring a gun as a balancing of considerations:
– Barriers might prevent access to guns by those who really need them QUICKLY.
– Barriers might prevent access to guns by those intent upon committing a crime QUICKLY.
Balancing would call for research into the number of cases where purchases by 2A-able people were needed quickly; e.g., Carole Bowne. Likewise, cases such as Charleston where the perp was intent upon promptly committing homicide (or suicide).
But the problems are different in each case. The self-defender perceives a need to acquire a gun quickly; say less than 10 days. But she is not attacked for 2 weeks, 2 months or perhaps never. A waiting period (or other barrier) infringes upon her RIGHT to, at least, peace-of-mind until the need is imminent. What can balance-off such a right?
The perpetrator is driven by something that isn’t necessarily a passing whim. If delayed by 10 days his mental state is likely to persist for 2 weeks, 2 months or even years. He is highly apt to carry out his impetuous plan. Either by resorting to the black market or waiting-out (wading through) the barriers. Perhaps forensic psychologists could illuminate the probabilities here.
In any case, our evaluation of the self-defender’s or perpetrator’s respective cases is, unavoidably, a balancing off of conjectures. It’s hard to imagine that it will ever be any more scientifically persuasive than that. In our attempts to balance, we are just guessing.
How to resolve such a dilemma within our system of government? After all, we are trying to decide how to wield the sword of force (of law) to stop/slow one case or the other? Absent a dispositive rule, it’s a judgement call.
Here, under the 2A right (as is the case with respect to most rights) we HAVE a rule that resolves the dilemma. The need – perhaps urgent – for self-defense trumps what might be a reasonable – but nonetheless mere conjecture – about a prophylactic public safety measure.
NJ’s policy of issuing permits-to-purchase and permits-to-carry posthumously does not resolve the problem in favor of liberty or right.
Our system of a Constitutional republic falls flat on its face if we allow mere conjecture to trump a Constitutional rule. If we won’t respect the 2A as trumping conjecture than why should the rights under the 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A?
Considering who bears the burden of the law might help solidify what would otherwise be conjecture. So if we’re looking at a “universal” background check or a mandatory waiting period, or even a “maybe” waiting period if the government is slow, do they burden the bad guy (the one who intends to commit unlawful violence) or the peaceful, law-abiding good guy?
For the good guy who is law-abiding by principle, the equation is simple: if he breaks the law, he loses his ostensible good-guy status. There is no way for the good guy to escape the limits and burdens imposed by such laws and remain a “good guy” as such, even if his intentions are pure. Not to mention the chance that, if the need for self-defense is immediate, he has to choose between being a good guy and a potentially very dead guy. It’s a lose/lose proposition.
The bad guy, if balked by a waiting period, has a whole world of options that don’t violate his principles or change the legal equation much at all; if he isn’t a lawbreaker already, he presumably intends to become one and had few-to-zero scruples to begin with. And because he has already decided to break far more consequential laws than these procedural ones, the deterrent value shrinks down to a mere inconvenience at most.
There is no gun control law anywhere that passes a “burden” test. Every single one places an absolute limit on the law-abiding and impinges on their principles, while placing virtually no burden on the evil-minded.
@Ing: Excellent analysis.
We need not simply shout “not be infringed”. We can take-on the gun-controller’s arguments and see where they lead.
So, we can concede that, in theory, Carol Bowne MIGHT have been stalking her ex. She MIGHT have been a violent person. But this was substantially ruled-out by her NICS check. They were merely waiting on the FBI’s fingerprint check to come back to prove she wasn’t an impostor.
So, was this REALLY a barrier to reduce the number of people who could defend themselves? Or, did it serve a balancing purpose? Surely, as a female of slight build she had a low probability of harboring or acting on violent tendencies.
If we really want to balance risks, why not exempt 3/4 or 2/3 of the population from such delays (females, disabled, elderly)? If we wanted to rule-out the possibility that she is an imposter, why not allow her to bring witnesses to the police station to positively confirm her identity?
NJ slavishly sticks to subjective tests of “need” (you need to have a carry permit because you are a major Democrat Party contributor or you need to protect the property and persons of men-of-means). If we are a nation of laws not men why not use objective criteria to cut some slack for individuals who represent little risk to society?
Because, of course, the objective is to restrict those who most need a means of self-defense while favoring men-of-means.
The hope of inhibiting someone bent on crime is futile in a nation with 400 million guns and a flourishing black market. So, we are grasping at straws in stopping those with malevolent intent and leaving the innocent defenseless.
The gun-controllers’ real objective is to reduce the number of guns in America by orders of magnitude: 400 million to 40 million; then to 4 million; then to 400 thousand; to 40,000. Then only true Progressives, and their strictly controlled employees, would have guns. This presumes that any such goal could be achieved in America.
But this simply can’t happen. Not without changing the culture of America; or, that of 1/3 of its citizens. We would stand a better chance of reducing the criminals and crazies among us than persuading 100 million citizens to give-up their guns.
So, to pursue this fantasy (reduce the number of guns by orders of magnitude) they propose to infringe on the rights of innocents while having no impact on the malevolent.
Ok, one more time people; the “other” side spells compromise a little differently! S-U-R-R-E-N-D-E-R!!!
People who were at the Capitol Jan 6 but did NOT enter the building are reporting TSA is harassing them at airports with multiple searches of their person and carry-on item, causing delays and nearly causing them to miss flights. The Dems have weaponized the TSA. They are probably weaponizing NICS, also. Heck, they are weaponizing every portion of the Federal beauracracy against Patriots and against our Constitution.
Here in PA, we passed two amendments to the PA Constitution this week. Both place clear limits on the Governor’s emergency powers. We are fighting back!!!
There are ways of dealing with this. There are options but it is ultimately about choice. Our newest gun owners that continue voting Democrat are shooting themselves in the foot and harming others with their ricochet.
Don’t use planes for travel. No need to get involved with the TSA at all.
NICS isn’t even an absolute must (depending on state).
The more you use, the easier it is to harass you.
Prndll,
👍
The FBI could have had another 7 MONTHS to do background checks and the little racist in Charleston would still have had his gun… In fact there is not one instance of a mass shooting (where the perpetrator LEGALLY obtained the firearm) in which an extended period for background checks would have stopped those shootings… Extended periods for background checks is pure BS…
Patriot’s Constitutionally protected Rights = Marxist’s loophole.
Exactly. There are no “loopholes”, only “rights” the Left wants to take away.
Universal Background Checks are simply the trojan horse for getting gun registration. The anti-gunners get UBCs…what happens? Criminals still get guns, mass shooters still get guns….then, the anti-gunners come back and say, well of course criminals still get guns and mass shooters still get guns…they get them because we don’t know if a Universal Background Check was done because we don’t know who originally owned the gun…so…of course, we need gun registration…..and they will say that line they love…”It is only common sense….” They want gun registration and could not care less about UBCs…….but they need the UBCs to fool uninformed Americans into giving them gun registration when criminals and mass shooters still get guns……
The catchphrase is “commonsense” all mashed up together for some reason. Even ‘the press’ started publishing stories using this terminology. Just makes it easier to spot the loss of actual common sense, in my opinion (but also helps identifies who’s on Little Mickey’s Bloombucks account).
LOT OF GOOD COMMENTS TO THINK OVER . THANKS Y’ALL
Some people seem to tie their identity and self worth to the cause they are fighting. Whether an actual victim or someone whom stands along side of them, the cause is everything. A person who successfully defends themselves is perceived as a threat to the narrative and cannot be tolerated.
They see a victim as morally superior to someone who defended themselves. In my subjective opinion.
My real time work with facebook Im making over $2000 a month operating low maintenance. I continued hearing distinctive people divulge to me how an lousy lot cash they can make on line so I selected to research it.
Here is I started to…………www.Go2bank1.com
Spamming porn emails to children?
Or laundering drug cartel cash?
Not one more effing inch.
Preaching to an Echo Chamber bro!
Once again, the “Charleston Loophole” isn’t a loophole – it’s a fix for a loophole, to prevent the FBI from denying 2nd Amendment rights at will by simple inertia. Adding 7 days to the limit would not have stopped the Charleston shooting (weeks passed before they called to stop the sale, by then he was already in jail), it just establishes the precedent that pushing back rights for no gain is acceptable. The 3-day limit was enacted in the days of 60 MHz processors and 57.6kbps dialup internet. There is no reason it shouldn’t be sufficient today.
Otherwise the bureau will give the job of processing NICS requests to the summer intern to do during their lunch break.
NICS requests to the summer intern to do during their lunch break.
Pretty much what they do now…
The standard paranoid far right scare tactic is to rant against waiting periods but it is a bold face lie. Many states have emergency permits for people who are really under threat and most have safe houses for women that are locked and many even have armed guards refuting the lies the far right panders about immediate death because some one could not buy a gun.
Many times law enforcement simply under the current vetting system on new guns did not have enough time to check out a prospective buyer resulting in the buyer then committing mass murder when he had a prior record that was not instantly available. More time to vet a person is needed as well as better vetting by putting in more information about prospective buyers but this is controversial because it often involves medical data on the person. One might say that if someone is that paranoid then do not to apply for a background check to own a weapon.
All civilized nations have universal background checks and to not have them means any nut case or criminal can buy all the second hand guns he wants with the resulting crime and mass murder that follows. The big lie by the far right is that it leads to confiscation yet for decades the Brady Bill has been on the books and no such thing ever happened so why not vet second hand guns as well. The Brady Bill in the last 20 years has stopped 2.1 million people from buying guns that should not have had them and would have stopped at least 4.2 million if it had been enacted to vet second hand gun sales as well.
One might also say that the government does not need to register guns if it wants to ban a certain model or style of weapon as the penalties if stiff enough will give people no choice but to obey the new law because few sane people would want to risk being incarcerated, fined and lose their jobs. History has proven this works and one could name many countries that passed such laws and the people obeyed them, as in Britain, Australia, Japan, and recently New Zealand. Yes it takes a little time but even most of the diehards eventfully realize what would be the use of keeping a weapon you could never use for self defense, never shoot at a public range, or never sell without risk of being caught so the big scare about registration really is immaterial as the government does not need it.
There are many examples of criminals and nut cases not being able to get guns in foreign countries because of their very thorough vetting systems which vet all gun purchases. The London Bridge incident is one very good example on how terrorists were turned down for an instant sale of shotguns so they resorted to using knives when they invaded a local British pub but they got the shit beat out of the by the patrons using chairs and broken bear bottles. In the lawless U.S. the terrorists would have wiped out the bar patrons instantly with high powered assault rifles which are available to anyone who wants one 365 days a year because we for the most part do not vet second hand gun sales. Again its pure insanity.
Even in the gun control paradise of Australia, criminals always seem to be able to get guns and without the inconvenience of licenses, registration, and waiting periods.
Same in many civilized European countries as well.
Agreed but it is way more difficult to do so proving that no law is insurmountable but that is no reason not to have them. The same could be said about abolishing laws against murder or rape just because they are not 100 per cent effective
abolishing laws against murder or rape just because they are not 100 per cent effective
No law is a “deterrent”… Laws are simply to provide a mechanism for punishment after the fact… As you said murder is already illegal but attempting to regulate ONE particular device used to commit THAT crime is more about the advancement of Leftist political power than preventing crime… More people are “beaten” to death annually than are murdered with firearms…
“Many states have emergency permits for people who are really under threat and most have safe houses for women that are locked and many even have armed guards…”
I call bullshit. Name one restrictive state that has an “emergency permit” for people under threat.
As for your “safe houses,” double bullshit. Shelters for battered women do exist…but have you ever looked at how hard it is to find one and get into it in the first place? And what woman who has any kind of life is going to abandon her home, vehicle, and job to go cower behind someone else’s locked door?
As for armed guards, you’re drowning in it now. Armed guards have to be paid, and women’s shelters aren’t known for their deep pockets. There’s no such thing as a network of “safe houses” with armed guards for anyone short of a billionaire (who undoubtedly has made his own just for himself, to keep rabble like you and me out).
You’re living in a fantasy world. Go peddle your lies, deceit, and defeat somewhere else.
and narwhal tusks.
Ohio does in regards to concealed carry, you can get an emergency permit bypassing the concealed carry license.
All civilized nations have universal background checks
Most “CIVILIZED” nations do not allow possession of semi-auto rifles, if they allow civilian ownership of guns at all..
resorted to using knives when they invaded a local British pub but they got the shit beat out of the by the patrons using chairs and broken bear bottles.
After the terrorists KILLED eight civilians with a fucking van… Get the WHOLE story if you are going to use it as PROOF that your position has any merit, which it does not… France does not have a “right to bear arms” — the right to privately own a gun is not protected by law. In order to purchase a firearm, one must first obtain a hunting or shooting sport license, which requires a psychological evaluation and regular renewal… Paris experienced one of the worst terrorist attacks in modern history. Multiple shootings and explosions left at least 60 people dead, according to some reports. It comes less than a year after an attack on the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo left 12 dead…
Another “CIVILIZED” country? Belgium, it is forbidden for a member of the public to own a firearm, any firearm. In order to buy and own one, you need to obtain special permission of the government. Unlike the states, it’s a privilege, not a right… The applicant must not be under 18 years-old, must have no criminal record, must not be mentally unstable, and must not live with someone who would be restricted to weapons. After filling in the additional documents, the “Services provinciaux des armes” will answer within FOUR MONTHS… Bombings at Brussels airport and a metro station in the city on Tuesday 22 March killed 32 people from around the world, KILLERS intent on KILLING do not NEED guns…
NYC, one of the “MAY” issue cities w/strictest gun laws in the U.S., A terrorist in a rental truck sped for nearly a mile down a popular bike-only path in lower Manhattan on Tuesday — killing eight people in the shadow of the World Trade Center and then shouting, “Allahu Akbar.” (do we need to include 3000 killed by fucking airplanes?) KILLERS do not NEED guns to KILL…
Now tell me how ANY “gun control” law would have stopped those murderers… Oh, I know, how about Japan? A “CIVILIZED” country… Oh wait, crazy guy there killed least 19 people and injured 26 in a stabbing spree at a facility for disabled people west of Tokyo, making it one of Japan’s deadliest mass killings since World War II.
Australia? the killing of four people in northern Australia has caused shock in the country most often held up worldwide as an example of effective gun control. At least four people were killed in the city of Darwin and several injured when a gunman opened fire with a pump-action shotgun late Tuesday night in several different locations…
China? Is that a “CIVILIZED” gun control country… A group of knife-wielding men attacked a train station in southwestern China, killing at least 29 people and injuring more than 130 others in what Chinese officials called a terrorist strike, the official Xinhua News Agency said (just one of many mass KNIFE attacks in China including school attacks)…
OR, how about Norway? (I think we can agree Norway is a “CIVILIZED” country)… The purchase, possession, and use of firearms are tightly controlled in Norway, whose laws and regulations were made more stringent with amendments to the Firearms Act in 2009 and the adoption of new Firearms Regulations in that year. Permission to acquire a firearm must be obtained from the local police chief and is limited to persons of “sober habits” who have reasonable grounds for having a weapon. Fully automatic weapons, some semiautomatic weapons, and firearms disguised as other objects are banned under the law. Certain types of weapons not covered by the Firearms Act’s definition of firearms, such as stun guns, are also generally banned. In addition, the National Police Directorate may issue regulations prohibiting the acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms deemed through their design or operation to be especially dangerous or inappropriate for use… “NEWSFLASH” Anders Behring Breivik 13 February 1979, also known by his pseudonym Andrew Breivik, is a Norwegian terrorist who committed the 2011 Norway attacks. On 22 July 2011, he killed eight people by detonating a van bomb amid Regjeringskvartalet in Oslo, then killed 69 participants of a Workers’ Youth League (AUF) summer camp in a mass shooting on the island of Utøya. In July 2012, he was convicted of mass murder, causing a fatal explosion, and terrorism.
KENYA? Maybe not the MOST “CIVILIZED” country in the world.. The worst mass shooting in recent recorded history took place in Kenya on April 3, 2015. On this dire day, 148 people were killed in a terror attack committed in the name of the Somali Islamist group al-Shabab. The gruesome killing had four gunmen target students and staff who self-identified as Christians.
Hmmmmmmm… KILLERS gonna KILL, be it with car, truck, bomb, knife, hand gun, shot gun, “assault” rifle or even gas (Sarin gas kills 13 injures thousands in Tokyo subways) and you, like all gun grabbers, want to disarm the only “CIVILIZED” country left in the world where owning a gun is recognized by the Constitution as a natural right in the name of self defense… OBTW: murders in London went up by two per cent, from 257 in 2019 to 262 last year, in spite of heavy KNIFE regulations…
Um…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-24/black-lives-matter-activist-shot-in-london/100159866
“A prominent British Black Lives Matter activist is in a critical condition in hospital after being shot in the head in LONDON, her political party says.”
Where on Earth would someone in LONDON get a gun?
As for Australia less then 10% of citizens turned in their guns.
They realized that only criminals would be armed with guns.
In countries that had some kind of gun ban, home invasions went through the roof.
dacian, your missive is nonsense.
If you don’t like a free society you can always immigrate to one of those “civilized ” Countries you are so fond of.
Your ideals are a slap in the face of a simple judicial philosophys we have of being innocent until proven guilty and that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. To prove my innocence to practice a right is wrong no matter how you try to frame it.
The dumbass is strong with this dacian moron.
You’re spouting nonsense when you compare the USA to British Empire subjects.
Yeah, I know, terminology has changed drastically in the past 50 years. Most of you don’t think that you are subjects. You have constitutions. The Crown has ceded authorities. Blah blah, on and on it goes. But, bottom line, all of you accept the “fact” that government has the authority to govern virtually all aspects of your lives. You even contemplate active government surveillance inside of private domiciles. All for your own good, of course.
We, in the US, revolted, remember? None of your Big Brother nonsense is applicable. It doesn’t belong in any discussion of American citizen’s rights.
Please take your talking points back to the British Commonwealth, and keep them there.
And I forgot to mention the very thorough long vetting system for buying used machine guns has worked extremely well in keeping machine guns out of the hands of people who should not have them proving that yes it does work very well.
Also the price of genuine transferrable machine guns tends to be a deterrent to people trying to buy them. At the low end you are looking at least 4 figures for a tripod mounted water cooled gun. And getting serious five and even six figure sums for something more popular and more portable. And that was the last time I bothered to look.
Even before the Republican Reagan machine gun ban when you could buy a colt m16 for only $600 dollars there was a very low crime rate with registered machine guns. I personally know of only one instance which happened a few miles from me.
Does the long vetting process REALLY work?
In one word NO.
With the right connections you can buy a honest to goodness real AK47 for roughly $500-$700. If you are in countries that are in strife you can get one for 200 USD. Are they transferable?
Not by a long shot but they are out there.
You used to be able to go to a gun show and buy a drop in auto sear (DIAS) for an AR15. Then after that it was lightning links. To this day if you know the right people you can get a DIAS or lightning link. Any halfway decent machine shop can make these parts.
Are they registered? No. Do they run full auto? Yes. Do the people who get shot know or care that they are registered? No, they are usually not with us anymore.
Regardless of laws there will always be people who can figure out easy ways to skate said laws. Murder is a serious crime but yet people get murdered every minute of every day. The people who commit murder don’t really care about “laws”.
The vetting process keeps the price of full auto guns high for people who follow the law. It does not keep full auto guns out of the hands of people who do not care about “laws”.
The vetting process only affects those who care about it but does NOT keep full auto weapons from people who want them. Basically NO it really doesn’t work “extremely well in keeping machine guns out of the hands of people who should not have them”.
Registered M16 – $25K and up, DIAS about $200.
Buy a clue and quit deflecting from your anti gun, civilized nations, second hand guns, mass killings and Brady Bill BS.
If someone wants to kill you, they will find a method to do it.
They don’t need a gun to accomplish that.
I might add that when woman are threatened by ex-husbands red flag laws are useful as well
To an angry and embittered ex, a restraining order is typically worth the same amount of toilet paper. When someone is committed to doing someone else harm, laws and restraining orders are completely ignored and consequences be damned.
The police usually respond as historians and janitors.
Red Flag laws are already being abused by embittered exes, thank you very much.
Do you know how a Red Flag Law should really work? The frightened lady should have a few witnesses and/or a video recording of her ex threatening her. She should take this evidence to a judge, who weighs that evidence. The judge should make a decision whether to issue a warrant. If the warrant is issued, there should be a preliminary hearing within 72 hours. Burden of proof should be on the accusing ex, not on the defendant. You know, due process and all of that. If the embittered ex fails to make her case, then ex-hubby gets all his weapons back. Immediately, before he walks out of the court house.
I can understand the need for something like a red flag law – but we’re doing it all wrong.
As I mentioned above, subjects of the crown simply cannot understand due process. You expect the Mama Queen to ensure your safety 24/7.
The Least effective thing any politician does is Pass a Law with the intent of stopping someone from doing something they want to do bad enough. Hence the millions of criminals in jails and prisons. The problem of criminals needs to be addressed after the fact with swift punishment so severe that no sane person would ever want to experience it again and for those who refuse to learn the lesson. The Death Penalty is the only answer. If the criminal turns out to be a politician then the answer is immediate Death Penalty as an example to those politicians to follow. Political Corruption is the worst of crimes simply because if those in Power are willing to break the law it sends the message that they believe they are above the very Laws they have sworn to uphold. Deceit such as this unforgivable on any Level and deserves No Quarter.
Yesterday. This area: 6 killed in auto accidents, 0 killed by gunms
6 killed in auto accidents, 0 killed by gunms
But you don’t need a backround check to take control of a 4000 pound+ vehicle that will exceed 100 mph, go figure…
A post from the past that says it all. Wise words spoken to truth.
“When it comes to a Civil Right..Neither public opinion nor the risk presented by that Right…Is a Moral or Ethical reason to Curtail the Right itself.” strych9
Comments are closed.