This is what winning looks like

One of the things Scott Adams says in his podcast is how the moments right before winning looks a lot like the moments right before losing. Let me explain how gun owners can seriously win on gun control while looking at all times like we gun owners are losing…

Privately, the White House has floated at least one particularly unorthodox idea: an app connected to the National Instant Criminal Background Checks system that could be used to conduct background checks on private gun sales, according to three senators and other officials familiar with the proposal who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the proposals have not been finalized. 

Now the gut reaction of most gun owners who are politically active will be “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!” But before you jump up on that table and do your best Patrick Henry impression, let me explain why this is a good idea.

Currently, only Federal Firearms Licensees (gun stores, basically) can access the NICS system in order to conduct background checks. Right after Sandy Hook, Republican lawmakers proposed a method that would allow private citizens to access NICS so they could conduct a background check before a private sale.

It was a simple plan.

A gun buyer would log in to a free federal web portal and enter some personal information. If the buyer passes the background check, he or she would get a multi-digit key code, good for 30 days, to print out and take to a seller. That seller would use the same portal to confirm the authenticity of the background check

The Dems (driven by the gun grabbers) rejected it out of hand.

Why would they do that? If they wanted gun sales to proceed only after a background check, why would they make it impossible to conduct those checks outside of an FFL? The answer is obvious. They don’t care about the background check. They only care about getting the transfer on paper. If they don’t get the transaction written down and permanently recorded, they can’t later take that information and create the firearms registry that they actually want.

There’s an agenda here. The gun haters want to change two things about firearms. First, they want to change firearm ownership from an ordinary liability into a strict liability. Basically we treat dangerous objects like guns just like dangerous objects like cars. If someone runs into your car and your car hits another car, they guy who hit you is responsible for all the damages. They want to change that into a strict liability like for explosives. If you’re transporting explosives and someone runs into you, YOU are liable for the damage from the resulting explosion even though the other guy hit you and caused it. That’s how they want guns treated under tort law.

More importantly for this discussion, they want to reverse the burden of proof on firearms possession law. Instead of the law forcing the government to prove that someone possesses a firearm unlawfully, they want the law to force anyone in possession of a firearm to prove the firearm is possessed lawfully. Instead “innocent until proven guilty,” they want firearms ownership to be “guilty until proven innocent.” They want specific licensing and ownership documentation for anyone permitted to own a firearm and strong punishment for anyone who hasn’t complied with every jot and tittle of their licensing system. When the cops see you have a gun, it’s up to you (and your expensive lawyer) to prove that you have complied with the law and are legally in possession of the firearm.

This is what people mean when they say “firearms are a right, not a privilege.” When something is yours by right, the government cannot take it away without proving that you fall into a special case where your rights have been taken. If it is only yours by privilege, then it is you who must prove that you fall into a special case where you are permitted.

This “background check app” is what’s called a Devil’s Fork.

Image result for damned if you do damned if you don't

It’s a test. If you just wanted Background Checks, this is everything you’ve asked for. But if “Background Checks” are just a stalking horse for the universal firearms registration that you REALLY want, then this is the worst possible thing in the world.

Gun grabbers can’t possibly accept this.

But they can’t reject it either.

Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

They will reject it. They have to. Accepting it is an off ramp on the highway to gun banning. It throws a permanent roadblock between them and their fantasy of registering all guns, licensing all gun owners, and slowly reducing the numbers of both. It’s a stake in the heart of their long term plans.

But if they reject it, they get two things.
No Background Checks at all.
Their duplicity exposed for all to see.

Us: “OK, guys, you win. Here’s your background checks.”

Image result for you get nothing

And then for ever after we get to beat them to death with “We offered you background checks and you refused. You don’t actually want background checks, what you really want is registration.”

Their argument will be “oh! People will just refuse to do the check!”

[C]ritics say Coburn’s plan relies too much on voluntary compliance by private sellers.

“It’s unworkable,” said Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, “and there would be no incentive for any private seller to do a background check under the legislation.”

Our response will be, “And people will refuse to go to the FFL.”

Their real problem with this plan is pretty obvious.

Another problem for gun control advocates: There would be no lasting record of the sale.

“When there’s a crime committed, a police agency can go to a manufacturer and ask, ‘Hey, where did this gun go?'” said Mark Kelly, who founded Americans for Responsible Solutions with his wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords. The manufacturer can point to a federally licensed dealer, who would have a paper record of the sale, “and then they can help them solve some crimes,” Kelly said.

This was back when Starman was new to the gun control game. I doubt he would be stupid enough to give away the registration game so obviously.

The true goal here is registration of all firearms. The only way they will ever be able to prove transfers didn’t happen legally is to require all transfers to be registered with the government. That’s their end game. Registration, licensing, confiscation, enough red tape and bureaucratic nonsense to dissuade all but the most dedicated from becoming gun owners. Gun Culture dwindles down to just a few old guys clinging to their break action single shot shotguns (and maybe a Bible or two) and eventually just dies.

Robert Francis O’Rourke shot a giant freaking hole in their “No one wants to take your guns” argument, and this will shoot a giant hole in their “we just want background checks on all gun sales.” They never wanted just background checks. Background checks are just a stepping stone to their actual goals.

We need to put out weight behind this and push. Some simple app that allows us to conduct our own private, untraceable background checks before private sales. Something that doesn’t tell the FBI what guns got transferred. Something that doesn’t leave records of the check. Something like the Coburn plan.

14 responses to “This is what winning looks like

  1. This is what I want for Christmas

  2. That would be great. If I sold something out of state on gunbroker or whatever, I should be able to ship directly to the buyer since they had a “background check”. Change the various shipping laws and I’ll buy into that.

  3. Two thoughts:

    First, a possible downside: All the fed*gov has to do to shut down private sales is make the public-facing portal unavailable or difficult to use. “We are experiencing technical difficulties. Please try again later.” for months on end. There has to be minimum availability requirements in the law, say, 99.9% uptime plus backup servers to limit outages to a few minutes, and default proceeds if some unforeseen catastrophe takes it offline long term.

    (Note: These are not technologically unfeasible, or even unreasonable. Most commercial and government websites require better of themselves.)

    Second, a response to this: “It’s unworkable,” said Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, “and there would be no incentive for any private seller to do a background check under the legislation.”

    Solution: That key code is proof the seller did his/her due diligence regarding the sale, and he/she carries zero criminal or civil liability if the gun ever gets used in crime. In legal terms, retaining that code would be an “affirmative defense” to the accusation you sold to a criminal. As a bonus, limit FLEA/LEO arrest authority if the seller can provide a valid key code for that buyer — i.e. if you present the code to federal agents and it checks out, they no longer have authority to arrest or charge you for selling the gun.

    There’s your “incentive”, Ladd.

    If I had those legal guarantees, I’d run every buyer through the online portal. (If I ever sold my guns… what ones are left after that canoe accident, that is…. 😉 )

  4. Skinnedknuckles

    I’m on board because I want to be sure I don’t sell a gun to a prohibited person, even if the sale couldn’t be traced back to me.

    A major concern it how they will keep a record that the “multi digit key code” is valid and not bogus without keeping a record of the person who received the code. The current system “requires” that they delete the data within 24 hours of the NICS check (IIRC) for a similar effort to prevent building a database of transfers.

  5. I agree that almost every gun owner that is selling a firearm would love to have a way to make sure he/she isn’t selling to a prohibited person. This is the kind of thinking and strategy the 2A crowd must start to come together on if we expect to slow down the current push for more gun laws impacting the law abiding segment of gun owners.

  6. One interesting wrinkle to the whole red flag law thing was that in the House Judiciary Committee’s debate, Colorado Republican Ken Buck suggested red flagging people found in gang data bases. The Dems objected… claiming that innocent people are found on those databases. Think about THAT one for a minute.

    Or maybe the gangs (well connected to many pols and “activists” and “community organizers”) are the backup thugs for the Dems if Antifa doesn’t get the job done and they don’t want them disarmed.

  7. Now that they are trying to get NRA listed as a terrorist organization, they may just go along and we will all be one step closer to getting our door busted down at 5:00 AM!

  8. I don’t see that the proposal as described here would prevent development of a private sale registry. What is to prevent the government from making a database of all requests for the multi-digit key code? Am I missing something?

  9. I’ve been pointing out for years that the Dems have already rejected a version of this. Coburn offered it in 2013. No one publicized it. Criticize the Dems 24/7. They have no shame. They don’t care.

  10. Excellent idea, one that I have been advocating for several years. A self-background check, only mandatory if buying from a dealer, but with the incentive of completely indemnifying a private seller from criminal or civil liability if (s)he requires the buyer to provide proof of a clear background. Moreover, the background check could be valid for, say, 90 or 180 days and used to purchase as many weapons as the purchaser wished while valid.

  11. @FC The request could be made for any reason. Have a contractor that needs to gain access to your property while you are away? request they complete a BGC before handing over a key. Have a transaction that gives you pause (say a guy who wants to by a truck full of fertilizer and a tank full od diesel “for his farm”? Request a BGC before you will finish the sale.

    Since no gun info is attached to the request there is no way to say that the BGC was connected to a gun at all. (it will be on us to show the system has uses beyond guns of course, and to make such other uses common).

    @Mark Walker

    The BIDS proposal has been on the table since the 90s i think. Waht we really should do is compile a list of every time the gun banners have turned down such a proposal and throw it in their face every time they say we refuse to “compromise”.

  12. What the hell is wrong with you commenters here?

    No, a thousand times NO!

    No to red flag laws, no to universal background checks and no to any possibility of registration.



  13. Or they’ll just ignore the offer and continue to scream for more gun cinrrol.

  14. I have been thinking about it the only downside I see is there a photo of the purchaser in the NICS system? if not how do you guarantee the the name in the NICS check is the real name of the person attempting to purchase the gun. i would personally ask for a photo ID and copy it onto the bill of sale.
    Lets really make the gun banners heads explode. Instead of blithely accepting as a compromise what gun grabbing legislation the Libtards propose. I suggest (If you can find Representatives and Senators with the Balls to do it and stick with it). They should propose the following Repeal the National Firearms act of 1934 and the prohibition on fully automatic weapons from 1986. That is in addition to the NICS app and National reciprocity. By proposing all of it we can leave the fully automatic portion of the NFA Intact in the name of compromise. of course. The big thing is NO BACKING DOWN no matter how much the Democratic shills in the media attack them. They did this and stuck with it they would find their voter support increasing. If you yield to bully they will run you over. If you stand up to a bully you might get your ass handed to you. But the next bully might think twice before starting something with you.