You may remember several months ago, Katie Couric produced a deceptive "documentary" along with Stephanie Soechtig about gun violence in America. A number of news sources, including the Virginia Citizens' Defense League (VCDL), claimed they had proof that the film had been edited to make members of VCDL appear to be a bunch of bumbling fools when asked about the latest thing on the gun grabbers wish list, Universal Background Checks (UBC).
Well, now the VCDL is suing Couric and Soechtig. Matt Vespa has the story over at Townhall.com entitled See You in Court: Gun Rights Group Files Lawsuit Against Katie Couric Over Deceptive Edits in Documentary. Note that I am a former member of VCDL, and once held a Virginia Concealed Carry permit. It's good to see that there are occasional cosequences for such behavior.
So, just to recap, why are gun rights people so adamantly against the idea of UBC?
First and foremost, the current background check system does not work as it was intended. Remember, when it was first proposed the idea was that criminals would not be able to get hold of a gun. Predictably, (and predicted) the criminals simply went black market, and bought stolen guns, or stole them themselves. Universal background checks wouldn't improve the situation, because criminals would still just go around the background check system. So, what is it that the politicians who are pushing UBC want to achieve? Remember that the politicians actually know these facts. Keep in mind that the politicians won't actually say why they want UBC, but in other countries a UBC has usually been turned into a registrations scheme that allows the government to know where every firearm is located, and then allows them to seize them at will. This usually precedes a tyrant taking over.
Well, but what about the guns held by criminals? The government will not know where their guns are held. True, but then the criminals are not likely to resist the tyrant. More likely they will go along in hopes of reaping some of the spoils. No, it is the citizen, the salt of the earth, law abiding types, who have been betrayed in the most cynical ways, who are most likely to resist. Without guns, however, their resistance is largely futile.
Second, on a more philosophical note, but just as important, for laws have to be based on a philosophical foundation, background checks represent a prior restraint on a civil right.. Unlike your other civil rights, you must prove to the satisfaction of some unelected bureaucrat that you are worthy to exercise a right that all people have by virtue of being born human. This is petty tyranny in its own right, never mind what the gun grabbers want. After all, the unelected bureaucrat is supposed to be a public servant, not your master. What master allows his servants to be better armed than he is? Then there is this little inconsistency in the law: one must show a photo identification to buy a gun, but the Supreme Court has just said that it is racist to do so, since it won't overturn an appeals court ruling to that effect. Is the background check law then racist? Should it also be struck down? One wonders at the tangled web that is being created here.
As Matt Vespa says, "...good on VCDL for recording the audio of their interview as an insurance policy..." I do hope they win.