Hat tip TampaRed
The best way to sum up UBCs is that they are designed to change the definition of possession of a firearm from the current definition used by BATFE and pretty much everyone with more than three working brain cells — “ownership” — to “physical possession” of the firearm. Here’s how that would work under the UBC rules as drafted by Michael Bloomberg’s “law fare” group (which we were able to prove in Colorado).
I own a firearm, say a nice Glock 19. I know I own the firearm because 1) I paid for it and 2) it was transferred to me by an FFL dealer. You drop by the Secret Hidden Bunker and, in the course of the conversation, you ask to se my new Glock 19. Sure. I take it out of the safe and hand it to you. You ponder it for a few minutes, say, “Wow! It’s a Glock!” and hand it back to me.
Under sane laws, there was clearly no transfer of ownership of the Glock 19. I did not offer to sell it to you; you didn’t not offer to buy it; no filthy lucre changed hands. However, under the universal background check proposals that are being tossed around, in the above situation both my guest and I would be guilty of federal felonies:
-
By handing my friend the Glock, my friend and I have executed a “transfer,” which under UBC laws can only be done by an FFL dealer. We are both guilty of an illegal transfer, even though there was no change of ownership of the firearm.
-
When my friend hands me the gun back, we are now guilty of another illegal transfer.
It is a short read worth reading, in my opinion. TampaRed’s too.
https://www.shootingwire.com/features/3f5d260a-8f89-41e0-a6c0-c929433f271d
Will it be a crime when I transfer the lead/copper ammunition from my weapon to the head/body of an enforcer? Or will it still be ok since I retain possession of my weapon? And if they come and seize my weapon, will that be an illegal transfer too? What about when they pry it from my cold, dead hand? Asking for a friend.
There are some really interesting points in the article. It made me think about how they’ve legalesed our rights into a corner.
They cannot ‘legalese’ your rights away. Your rights are inalienable. Laws cannot invalidate or eliminate them. The exercise of your inherent rights can only be legally criminalized. Any entity that criminalizes inherent, inalienable rights is a criminal entity. Treat it as such. Throughout history, only two types of people have been denied the right of self defense (possession of weapons), prisoners and slaves. Which will you be?
Neither. I will be free.
If the cartridge flys further than the “safe six foot distance” zone, a fine, collected before your trial will be meted out.
That kind of logic likely has a very strong appeal to traitorous idiots like John Roberts. Better hope like hell he isn’t in a position to cast the swing vote.