A “side-channel attack” is a computer hack that attacks security implementation issue rather than attempting to compromise the system head-on. In other words, it’s a sneak attack. Through the years, government agents intent on civilian disarmament have mastered this concept. Rather than attacking our firearms freedom head-on—amending the Second Amendment or creating laws that mandate outright confiscation—they’re sneaking up on it. They call it “common sense regulation,” “consumer safety” or sometimes even “gun safety.” It’s a cancer on our liberty . . .
New York readers reeling from the dead-of-the-night disarmament legislation known as the SAFE Act don’t need me to tell them that the registration requirements—for newly defined “assault rifles” and all ammunition sales—are working to reduce the number of gun owners in the state.
The SAFE Act’s privacy opt-out form is just one of many provisions that make it increasingly difficult for New Yorkers to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. Because acceptance is not automatic, because it is subject to judicial review, it add risk to the gun ownership, which decreases its likelihood.
The same can be said for the state’s vow to integrate mental health records, which scares away anyone who’s ever been treated for any mental illness. Or wants to have that option open in the future.
The federal push for so-called “Universal Background Checks” is another side-channel attack. As in New York, it can be used to “screen out” anyone who’s ever had any mental health treatment [ED: Some 4om Americans take anti-depressants.] It will add another layer of cost and delay and scrutiny to otherwise simple transfers.
A right delayed is a right denied. And don’t the disarmament advocates know it. If you want to see the chilling effect of a side-channel attack, just look at Massachusetts Gun Control Act, which dictates that every firearms transaction of any kind must go through an FFL. Even the recent “surge” in gun sales can’t make up for its disastrous effect. massgunlawreform.com:
According to a July 2002 House Post Audit and Oversight Committee report on firearm license numbers, there were approximately 1,500,000 licensed gun owners in the Commonwealth before the Gun Control Act was passed.
This number has been reduced to approximately 240,000 – a decrease of 84%.
A side-channel attack doesn’t have to be successful to be successful. At least not initially or on its face. For example, the Senate would never ratify the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. But the federal government will be “free” to implement its provisions, such as “regulating” the import of small arms into the U.S. civilian market according to its terms. The move would drive-up prices and reduce innovation, which would make firearms ownership less attractive to millions of Americans.
There’s the “training requirements” so popular with lawmakers “trying to protect the public.” Training requirements add to the cost and complication of carrying a firearm without any scientific evidence that they increase public safety. As the post-Heller regulations in Washington D.C. and post-McDonald regulations in Chicago prove, red tape and bureaucratic foot-dragging can be just as effective as an outright ban.
Gun-free zones? Cooling off periods? Lead ammo bans? Need I go on? Government gun grabbers don’t come after your guns or ammunition head-on—they just make it harder to acquire them, keep them or use them. They “de-incentivize” potential gun owners to prevent the exercise of their gun rights and slowly decrease their population. It is an insidious and effective strategy that must be countered.
Gun owners be politically active and try to prevent side-channel attacks from going on-line. They must work to highlight and delete legislation that’s created side-channel attacks. And they must work to get people through the system as it exists. Ultimately, it’s a Tron-like battle between an evil mainframe (government) and liberty-minded users (gun owners). We must be vigilant, engaged, determined and effective. In fact, we shouldn’t rule out stealth, either. We have to be their side-channel attack.