One thing that is difficult for those not involved in advocacy for the right to keep and bear arms to understand is why many gun owners oppose an expansion of the "Brady check." Who could be opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of felons, after all?
Well, it depends on what kind of felon you're talking about, as a huge number of non-violent crimes are now felonies. Al Capone aside, tax evasion doesn't make one a lifelong threat to society, does it? There are thousands of such crimes that ought not make one ineligible to exercise one's 2nd Amendment rights these days.
Moreover, we have the history of the original "Brady check," in which the BATFE illegally kept the records for 18 months, the DOJ has refused to prosecute most people who lie on a firearm purchase form, and nobody has produced clear evidence that the background check has actually made us any safer. As the NRA and GOA told us, most truly dangerous criminals weren't getting their guns from a gun shop to begin with.
So what President Obama and many Democrats are asking us to accept is an additional burden on the law-abiding that does nothing to prevent crime and enables the government to keep a quiet registry of firearm owners--which can lead to confiscation. That is reason enough to scuttle any "universal background check" bill, don't you think?
Great, but. . . . - On the surface, this sounds like a positive development: Carol T. Christ, UC Berkeley’s 11th chancellor and the first woman to lead the nation’s top public...
49 minutes ago