We were warned that anti-American gun confiscating politicians in the House of Representatives were going to attack the Second Amendment this year, but not only are they doing that but in the same measure, they are attacking the Fifth Amendment whereby you must prove your innocence before exercising your right to keep and bear arms. The House passed its unconstitutional legislation which would mandate a federal criminal background check for every gun sale, including private transactions.
The House passed the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act” (HR8) on a 240-190 vote.
The bill was put together by two men known for their unconstitutional behavior in the past, Reps. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and Pete King (R-N.Y.).
“Gun violence is a true national emergency,” said Thompson, who noted that he’s an avid hunter. “If this bill did anything to erode gun rights … I wouldn’t support it and have my name on it.”
Yet, it does and Fifth Amendment rights, but he still put his name on it. By the way, this has nothing to do with hunting and these people know it.
Of course, while we are given the stories about how legislation will stop crimes committed with guns, including mass shootings, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), who was almost killed in 2017 when a Bernie Sanders supporter opened fire targeting GOP representatives at a congressional baseball practice, says it wouldn’t have stopped them.
In the case of Scalise, the man who shot him, obtained his firearms legally. Others have done the same and till others have obtained them through theft.
“If you look at the bill, it wouldn’t have stopped many of these mass shootings. What it would do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights,” Scalise told The Hill on Tuesday.
The legislation also offers an exception in cases of temporary transfers “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.”
However, who is going to determine that and how long will it take them to determine such a thing?
The bill is an overreach, just like any and all federal gun laws. These criminal legislators usurp their authority and not only are attempting to restrict and regulate firearms, but are also violating the rights of law-abiding citizens and denying them due process.
Let me explain.
By forcing someone to perform a universal background check before they can purchase a firearm to exercise a right granted to them by their Creator, not a privilege given by government, they are being denied their right and liberty without due process.
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution plainly states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (emphasis mine)
This, along with the explicit boundaries of the Second Amendment that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” demonstrate just how tyrannical those in Congress who have advanced this legislation are.
The fact is that this legislation would do nothing to stop mass shootings nor stop crimes committed with guns, and it isn’t just Scalise that has said this.
Even gun grabber Senator Dianne Feinstein has said that no set laws will stop such things, which tells you that this is not about safety or security, but about disarming Americans.
Furthermore, none of this works without a national gun registry. It’s simply unenforceable.
AWR Hawkins explained in 2017:
So-called “universal” background checks have become a go-to gun control push for anti-Second Amendment politicians. They come out of the woodwork to push such checks each time a high-profile firearm-based crime occurs. The fact that the vast majority of high-profile attackers already acquire their guns via background checks matters not; gun control proponents step up and demand that background checks be expanded to cover private gun sales anyway.
We saw this after the horrific attack on Sandy Hook Elementary. President Barack Obama called for universal background checks, Vice President Joe Biden called for them, U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., pushed legislation containing such checks, and the whole of the Democrat Party rallied to secure them.
But a strange thing happened while Manchin was trying to sell his gun control bill: The American people realized such checks would not prevent another Sandy Hook from occurring because the gunman in that attack did not acquire his guns via some private sale in a dark alley—rather, he stole his guns. Moreover, he stole them from his mother, then killed her before going to the school.
During an April 14, 2013, appearance on “Face the Nation,” Manchin admitted his gun control would not have prevented the attack on Sandy Hook.The bottom line—no amount of gun control would have stopped him, and universal background checks, in particular, would have proven impotent to restrain his evil desires. (During an April 14, 2013, appearance on “Face the Nation,” Manchin admitted his gun control would not have prevented the attack on Sandy Hook.)
If Manchin is right—that is, if universal background checks would not have prevented Sandy Hook—why do Democrats continue to push such checks, and why have entire gun control groups formed with seemingly the sole purpose of securing them? The answer is that universal background checks are insidious, and instead of being the end-all, be-all gun control that makes Americans safe, they are the vehicle through which other controls—including gun registries—are instituted. In fact, universal background checks are unenforceable without a gun registry.
Think about the mechanics behind universal background checks. They treat private sales like retail sales and require a background check to be performed whenever a gun changes hands. In many cases this includes requiring a background check before a hunter can loan a gun to a fellow hunter. Viewed theoretically, the Left sees these checks as a way to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” The theory sounds good and, when pushed after a high-profile attack, benefits from good-hearted Americans who are thinking with their emotions rather than their brains.
But ask yourself one simple question: How can the government know whether a gun is changing hands? That is, how can they know a resident in Nebraska is not selling a gun to his neighbor in Nebraska at this very moment? How can the government know that a resident in Kentucky is not selling a gun to his neighbor in Kentucky at this very moment? After all, they have to know these things in order to make universal background checks enforceable.
Consider the example of California, a state that adopted universal background checks in the 1990s. They followed those checks with numerous other gun controls, a gun registry chief among them. It is the registry that makes universal background checks enforceable, because it is the registry that tells the government the name of every gun owner and the guns that owner possesses.
The thing one must keep in mind is that UBCs are advanced as a stepping stone to gun confiscation. Here’s the process.
- Universal Background Checks
- Firearm Registration
- Firearm Confiscation
Furthermore, it is thought that Red Flag laws will be advanced as well, and the Trump administration with its new gun confiscating attorney general in place at the Justice Department has been promoting it for over a year now.
This bill will probably not make it through the US Senate, but make no mistake about it, this year your right to keep and bear arms is going to be attacked like it never was under Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah, so we have to remain vigilant.
Article posted with permission from Guns in the News
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.