Why object to "universal" background checks? These laws would severely punish tens of millions of mourning widows who failed to run background checks on those who were promised their dead husbands' firearms. Usually, those would be their children.

I’ve always wondered how the democrats hope to enforce this silly law. And it always comes back to the notion of universal registration, a practice already forbidden by the Supreme Court. The worst of this democrat plank is it won’t reduce crime because criminals don’t ask permission to acquire guns.

But clearly, NONE OF THIS DEMOCRAT HYSTERIA IS JUSTIFIED and it won’t help them. Universal background check laws are again being trumpeted to hoodwink owners with Bloomberg's rhetoric. Democrats hope owners won't read his 2018 data because it reveals gun homicides declined seven percent and injuries declined 10 percent. Fatal child shootings (under 18) declined 12 percent and unintentional shootings plummeted 21 percent.

What they really want is to register transfers between mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, cousins, friends, and neighbors. They're after inheritances, bequeathals, gifts and sales of inherited collections, however small they are. Even if you exempt family members now, never doubt that the democrats soon will add them. Bottom line is democrats want to choose who’s allowed to own firearms.

A transfer includes selling, giving, lending, returning, renting, or simply handing a firearm to another person or any action that causes a firearm to be transferred from one law-abiding person to another law-abiding person. The recent notion of “stranger-to-stranger” sales would only be effective if outlaws suddenly began asking the government’s permission to buy guns.

But amid all this high hysteria, democrats ignore and hope we won’t notice the fact that all the major crime indicators are trending downward. Bloomberg wants everyone to believe the nation is in crisis, suffering an epidemic, but folks, there is no crisis, no epidemic. They don’t want to admit that it’s OK for government to declare victory and watch the crime rates decline.

Since 1991, the murder rate has fallen by 45 percent and the overall violent crime rate has fallen by 48 percent. And since 1999, the statistical probability of a student being killed in school, on any given day by a gun has been one in 614 million. Your odds of winning the lottery are one in 300 million. The chances of your child being kidnapped are about one in 300,000.

Generally, shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the '90s. Fact is all but three mass shooters in recent history passed a background check. Two stole their rifles. The other one bought from a guy who assembled it from parts and sold it from home. Long guns are used in less than 2% of firearm homicides.

A footnote to data from 1998 through 2015 reveals the United States has about 4.6 percent of the world population, but makes up only about 1.1 percent of the mass public shooters over that period. Seems we shouldn’t strive to change that. During that time, citizens were buying a record number of firearms.

In 2019, more than 28 million requests were submitted to the National Instant Background Check System, a general indicator of firearms purchased and an historic record. That number exceeds 27.5 million in 2016 when purchasers were mortified that Hillary might be elected.

Hundreds of counties have proclaimed 2nd Amendment sanctuary status and almost 70 percent of the counties nationwide are projected to declare allegiance to the Constitution and refusal to enforce laws that violate it. That would comprise 472 counties with only one murder per year plus 1,700 counties that have no murders at all. If that materializes, one desirable result would force federal and state enforcement to start with the 63 counties where half the nation’s murders occur.

Democrats want US citizens to believe making the U.S. safer for criminals will make it safer for their victims. Ask yourself, do you believe being disarmed makes you safer? What kind of political leader would disarm his people while howling about the peril they face?

Or gun control, as honest people, unlike so many proponents of these actions now, would say.

That's the DC suburban growth, demonstrated again.

Universal background check, one gun per month, red flag law (which establishes what’s known as an extreme risk protective order). What's the beef? If a particular Virginian is one of the good guys they can still buy 12 firearms per year and won't have a protective order placed upon them by a Court.

It is witless to hypothesize a court would issue an emergency protective order restricting freedom of the press, prohibit attending mass, or prevent falling in a swimming pool. I agree with the 2A protestation, "guns are inanimate objects, people kill" and, whether one owns firearms or not, it is illegal in most states to make a statement of fearful threat such as shooting, stabbing, or beating someone to death. The greater majority of sensible, legal, gun owners agree with these tenets of responsible firearms ownership.

In California actions that might draw a protective order and lead to temporary firearm confiscation is violation of PC 422, in Virginia it could be PC 18.2-60. Just like any temporary restraining order (TRO), the accused will have an opportunity to have the protective order dismissed. Within that time it is highly unlikely the accused will have to claim "castle doctrine" in defense of their home or repel invading forces from our nation's coastline. The Second Amendment will survive for all law abiding citizens despite these new laws in Virginia.

As another analogy, if someone sips too much wine during dinner at home, a crotchety old aunt might be empowered to call the police and have them impound every motorized vehicle from the homeowner -- just in case he or she might decide to drive somewhere.

"The Second Amendment will survive for all law abiding citizens"

That's the thing about these laws, legislature single-mindedly attempting to bypass the Second Amendment can pass targeted law that make otherwise perfectly law abiding citizens into criminals.

In California for example, someone who legally bought an AR-15 in 2015 and simply kept it their locked gun safe for the last five years and forgot about it is not only committing a felony here in 2020 but that crime, being a felony, is so severe that his rights to own any guns for the rest of his life in this country are permanently revoked. It's not even that they have to prosecute. Just being able to instill fear in the gun owning citizens of the state is enough fo them to being giving up their guns. It certainly happened with this recent law on AR-15s.

There's nothing stopping legislature from passing laws that require registration of every cartridge of ammunition otherwise you can be a felon. We're already halfway there. Ammo purchases have to be recorded now. If someone has more ammo than listed in the registry, clearly they're up to no good. Law abiding citizens see this and the risk or expense of owning guns is too high. It's a death by 1000 cuts.