So this came across my inbox today via Sean and my immediate though was of I-594.
Honestly this is not surprising to anyone who is actually active in this community or works with the facts on the subject. Doubly entertaining is when you also consider that criminals need not take part in this system since that would require them to self incriminate.
I am one of those who has received a NICS denial, got a couple of them actually while the state took it’s time updating records associated with a felony charge. But I hear you cry, how do you know you were legal? Because the prosecutor who charged me ordered the firearm I was carrying the day of the wreck returned to me.
So let’s think about this, what does an overly broad definition of transfers, where any handling of a firearm can be classified as a transfer get the other side?
The answer is simple, it makes firearm ownership so dangerous and precarious that very few will want to exercise their rights. Further even fewer of those will be willing to risk felonies to educate others. Not to mention the costs of attempting to stay within the bounds of the law given transfer fees and the use tax involved.
Vote NO on I-594. Don’t let the 1% confuse you in to vacating your rights.
TMM is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.
Many know his private name and information however due to the current political climate, many are distancing themselves due to the abandonment of Due Process.
Good post and good points… When simply letting someone else SHOOT your gun at the range becomes a felony, they really ARE out to get us…
Haynes v. U.S. should become a more prominent thorn in the side of the anti-rights people.
That is to say, we should be making it a more prominent thorn.
If registering a gun in accordance with law is considered self-incrimination when a felon is forced to do it (and is therefore unconstitutional), that should be evidence enough that any registry or “universal background check” law cannot be applied to criminals, and is therefore useless for its stated purpose of “reducing gun crime”.
And if it’s going to be useless for its stated purpose, but the anti-rights people are still pushing it, we should be making them answer the simple question of, “Why?”
Publicly.