Win-Lose, again here is the same old foolish concept.
Taking this a step further.... as judgement is clearly not universal and there are already laws on the books, what methods are available to ensure that individuals don't sell to the prohibited?
Laws do not ensure, guarantee, or prevent anything ever.
Are you ever going to get this concept? Or do you disagree?
If laws actually prevented crime, we would have no crime.
Laws are a guide for the law abiding and a justification to punish the law breaker. But they do not stop anything. In fact, you can not stop these acts. You can't do it, it can't be done. At least not in a free society.
Before calling someone foolish, perhaps you should read what they wrote. I asked "... what METHODS are available to ensure that individuals don't sell to the prohibited?" Requiring the use of a method would be a law, the method is the means. Now, if you don't feel that you have a responsibility to not sell to prohibited individuals, then say so.
As to methods...
We currently have NICS which seems to have been pretty effective at preventing FFL's from DIRECTLY selling to the prohibited. There are clearly laws supporting this system that need to be enforced. If the FFL system can be expanded/staffed to support the additional load, without firearm registration (beyond the FFL's book), with fee schedules that FFL's will be able to effectively participate and perhaps tax credits for those that use the FFL transfer, we may have a workable system. To my mind, getting prohibited individuals to participate only in the black market will go a long way to put the burden of enforcement on the feds and away from us.
Like it or not, we have a very real argument ahead of us on universal background checks. When this argument is separated from all other items under consideration, we need to be able to be persuasive, on a logical level, to those who do not have the passion for the issue that we do. To date, I have not seen a single Pro Gun person being interviewed that has handled this question well. This discredits the rest of our positions because most of the population see's this as intuitively "reasonable" and without a persuasive argument, we are seen as unreasonable. So the challenge is to construct an argument that a middle of the road person (non-gunnie / non-anti) would accept as reasonable for not implementing universal background checks.