[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

I think you have already shown that does make a difference with the limited study you posted.

I disagree. If memory serves (& there's no guarantee on that), the study showed something like 80% of felons got their guns from friends or family members. The smart money says that family and friends already knew that these fellers were prohibited persons, and they broke the law anyway. UBCs won't help that.

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

It is still a right. You can the lose right. Having a background check will not prevent you from getting a gun unless you have lost that right.

Yes, it's still a right. Yes, it can be lost. I do not see any value in having to prove my eligibility to exercise that right prior to its exercise, however. Perhaps we should require folks to demonstrate good and substantial cause for needing their A4 rights before we allow them to require a warrant? Oh, wait, in that case, the warrant is the government demonstrating good and substantial reason for searching a house . . .

As far as "getting a gun," it's not just about getting a gun. If my father chooses to give me a gun, why should I have to wait for a NICS check to come back? The way it's being pushed, it's simply because some unhinged third party has done something bad with a gun. That's not a very good reason to limit my rights. There's no evidence that I had anything to do with any mass shooting, anywhere, at any time. The same argument applies to millions of gun owners.

A right delayed is a right denied. The burden is on the government to show that it has a sufficient reason for denying the rights of gun owners. It has not met that burden.

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

I still don't understand the registration argument. Here is the perfect chance to crush registration.

Would you mind expounding on the "perfect chance to crush registration" for me? I don't see how we're at such a point, but if we are, I'd sure like to know.

The registration argument. Without having the legislation in place, this is largely speculation. With that said . . . As things stand right now, it's virtually impossible to prosecute anyone for failing to go through a background check on a private sale. Let's leave current FFL/NICS checks out of it for the moment, and focus on the prosecution of a private intrastate transaction.

In order to prosecute someone for accepting a transfer without the use of whatever system is put in place by the UBCs, the State will have to show:
1) That Defendant John Doe accepted the tranfer of a firearm;
2) After the effective date of the legislation;
3) Without using the UBC system..

Remember that John has an A5 right not to be compelled to testify against himself, so the State will have to prove its case without John's help. If John is already a prohibited person, then I suspect that US v. Haynes (1968) will prohibit his prosecution in the first place. If John is not a prohibited person, how will the State prove that he accepted the transfer after the effective date of the legislation? Chances are that the State will need the testimony of Ted Transferor, who sold John the firearm. Problem: Ted has also committed a crime in transferring the firearm without the use of the UBC system. That means that Teddy also has an A5 right to not testify.

So the only thing that the State can really prove on this one is that John is in possession of a firearm after the effective date of the legislation. The only way that the UBC law will be enforceable is if the gov't goes ahead and pushes for full registration of firearms. If that happens, then the State will be able to prove that: (1) John is in possession of; (2) a firearm registered to Ted; (3) after the effective date of registration; and (4) without the appropriate UBC.