By KrisAnne Hall, JD

With major retailers such as Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods among others deciding to not selling semi-automatic rifles to people under 21 years old, many people are citing federal anti-discrimination laws as a way to stop these businesses from doing so.

Small government Americans ought to be very cautious about jumping on this bandwagon of government control.  

It’s not an issue of the Second Amendment. It’s not a matter of whether we think that is a good idea or not. True freedom requires the allowance for good and bad ideas.

Liberty minded people should be opposed to any and all levels of government telling private business owners how to conduct their business; to whom they can or cannot sell their wares. This is exactly how we get ridiculous government intrusions like forcing cake bakers and photographers to do things contrary to their personal principles and religious freedoms — rather than allowing the free-market to reward or punish. 

All private businesses should have the right to conduct business as they desire; they are private entities, not government agents. If some private business wants to refuse to serve me because of my race, gender, sexual orientation, or even the color of my hair; then individually and collectively you and I can take our patronage elsewhere.

Better yet, we can create an alternative — adversity promotes progress and innovation. To use the force of government to require a private business to conform to my personal desires or principles is definitely a form of fascism and tyranny. 

In a free society it must be up to the free market to reward or punish a private business for good or bad decisions, not government. Any time government takes the role of the free market, the people cannot be free.

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at www.KrisAnneHall.com.


Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy. Whatfinger.com  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


 

Beware The Siren Call of Government Control On Gun Sales
Liked it? Take a second to support Rod Thomson on Patreon!

Get more stuff like this

Don’t miss a single act of Revolutionary Truth... delivered to your inbox!

2 thoughts on “Beware The Siren Call of Government Control On Gun Sales

  • March 5, 2018 at 10:07 am
    Permalink

    I see that in the aftermath of Parkland’s terrible event, many in the shooting fraternity are starting to embrace concepts that will destroy the second amendment. We need to be careful of what we wish for. One theme we keep hearing is that there should be universal background checks on ALL firearm transfers. This IS bad. Universal background checks on private transfers—a brainchild of Michael Bloomberg, requires a background check for any transfer–even lending a gun–between private parties. Gun lending is most common among hunters, when hunter A has drawn a permit for an elk, for example, and hunter B may offer the loan of a rifle more suitable for such a large animal. This loan would now require a background check before the borrower can receive the weapon, and another background check before he/she could return it to the lender.

    Also, consider this: an FFL holder cannot be compelled to aid a private party sale by performing such a check, and many will not. They see the seller of a used weapon as a competitor. Two weeks ago, when a friend offered me a deal on a matched set of upper and lower receivers for an AR-15, I needed an FFL holder to receive it and perform the background check as it was to be shipped from another state. One local gunshop, Butch’s guns, absolutely refused. He said they sell AR-15 receivers, if I’d like to buy one. He wasn’t going to assist a private sale though!

    If no private sale could move forward without an FFL, and no FFL was willing to assist in such a sale, only new guns could be sold, and used guns in the hands of private parties would have zero value, even if you want to sell it to an FFL holder. Why would a gun dealer pay fair market value for a used gun if the owner can’t legally sell it to anyone else? What would be the fair market value of a gun you cannot sell without a third party’s cooperation? Alternatively, an FFL holder—if he was willing to handle the transaction–could charge whatever he deemed acceptable for the service—and after paying for the background check, it could be more expensive for the buyer to get the used private party’s gun than to buy a new one from the FFL holder.

    Reply
  • Pingback: Note To Larry King: Armed, Freed Slaves Fought For Our Freedom -

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Learn How to
Decode the Media.
Download your free copy now!

3 Keys to Decoding the Media by Rod Thomson