[Spats McGee]

JimDandy, I would have responded sooner, but I got stuck in court for a few extra hours today. It was an absolute zoo.

Originally Posted by JimDandy

That is incorrect. They will most certainly be able to prosecute anyone for failing to get a UBC for any firearm already with a post UBC paper trail. Any firearm manufactured or initially sold after the date is automatically covered -they'll find a 4473 at the initial point of sale after the date. Any firearm transferred after the date could be covered- If they can trace it through bound books to any point after the enactment date- any transfer without a 4473 afterwards is then illegal (or still trackable through the limited familial relation exemptions again using the recently proposed bill as a roadmap of what exemptions would be in this hypothetical world).

I will concede that any firearm with a manufacture date or initial 4473 date won't be too hard to track. However, in trying to prosecute any firearm that has already left the initial selling FFL via 4473 prior to the effective date, there will be almost no way to prosecute a non-UBC transfer. To use something similar to Tom's example:
Officer: Hi, Spats. Nice gun.
Me: Thanks.
Officer: Did you get a UBC?
Me: Didn't have to. Bought it years ago.
Officer: Got a receipt?
Me: Nope.
Officer: Who'd you get it from?
Me: Dunno.

OR:

Officer: Hi, Spats. Nice gun.
Me: Thanks.
Officer: Did you get a UBC?
Me: Didn't have to. Bought it years ago. Am I free to leave? . . .

So let's look at one of your assertions about the tracking system:

Originally Posted by JimDandy

Any firearm transferred after the date could be covered- If they can trace it through bound books to any point after the enactment date- any transfer without a 4473 afterwards is then illegal (or still trackable through the limited familial relation exemptions again using the recently proposed bill as a roadmap of what exemptions would be in this hypothetical world).

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but I've never known anybody to use an FFL for a private FTF to make a transfer between two residents of this state. Ever. So I don't have high hopes of LE being able to track firearms past that first sale, much less that they'll be able to establish a 4473 link after the effective date of a UBC law.

But let's play this out. Let's assume that LE successfully tracks a firearm from the first FFL to the buyer, the buyer says he pawned the gun at XYZ Pawn Shop, which has an FFL. The UBC is then enacted. Pawn Shop sells gun to Deceptive Dan, who sells it to his buddy, Slippery Stan. Stan is not prohibited (just to take that out of the equation), but he gets pulled over for DWI. An inventory search of the car turns up the firearm. Now Stan has a problem. But how to prove that Dan transferred the firearm to Stan w/o a UBC? Either Stan or Dan will have to testify against the other guy, and against themselves to prove it. If there's an exemption for loans "for sporting or evaluation purposes," the prosecutor will have to prove that it wasn't a loaner. Or will I have to do a UBC on my bestest buddy just to let him look at my gun while standing in my living room? (There were some troubling aspects about that in the last UBC bill.) That's a whole lot of time and resources spent tracking down two guys, neither of whom was prohibited from possessing the firearm in the first place. And let's not forget that if either one of them was prohibited, it's already illegal for them to possess the firearm.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate of me to say it as follows: The percentage of possibly successful prosecutions of a UBC law are so infinitesimally small as to make the law virtually unenforceable. That being the case, when UBCs fail to reduce crimes, the next "logical" step on the part of the antigun crowd will be to "strengthen" the UBC law, which will require registration. Let's not forget, even the DOJ admits that UBCs won't work without registration.

Originally Posted by JimDandy

Wait, why is this? I'm sure it takes a veritable ton of legal machinations to allow a felon to own, but not possess a firearm at least long enough to legally dispose of the firearm. What I'm not following is the train of logical thought that such a felon would not be required to use an FFL to process this transfer of title like anyone else. To the best of my knowledge, a felon isn't required to register assault weapon in some locations because of fifth amendment issues, but I've never seen that taken to mean they no longer have to undergo background checks to legally purchase a firearm (which I know, except for exceedingly rare situations as to be virtually non-existent they can't do). What I'm saying, and not very well I think is: Why does their immunity from this assault weapon registry imply some immunity from getting a background check, on someone else no less, to legally transfer title on a firearm they currently hold title to (or at least most of it given the bundle of sticks you explained earlier)?

Go pull Haynes v. U.S. (1968) and give it a quick read. Haynes was a convicted felon, caught in possession of a handgun in TX. He was charged with: (1) being a felon in possession; and (2) failing to register a handgun. SCOTUS overtuned the failure to register charge, stating that forcing him to register a handgun implicated his A5 right against self-incrimination, as it forced him to admit to committing the crime of possession.

Originally Posted by SCOTUS

We must now consider whether, as petitioner contends, satisfaction of his obligation to register would have compelled him to provide information incriminating to himself. . . . .

We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under § 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under § 5851.

In other words, because Haynes was prohibited from possessing the firearm to begin with, the gov't cannot force him to register the firearm which he (illegally) possesses. IMNSHLO, convicted felons will be similarly immune from prosecution for failing to use a UBC when transferring a weapon, either to or from their possession, as it would require them, under penalty of law, to admit to committing the crime of possession.

Originally Posted by JimDandy

Or at least an address that can tracked using other resources. If I can people search someone for fifteen bucks on the internet, I assume the government, with access to tax, census, and more/other records can do an even better job.

You have more confidence than I, JimDandy.

Originally Posted by JimDandy

IOW, now you want me to pay more taxes, so that I can drive to an FFL and pay for a "mandated service" with which I want nothing to do. If the number of NICS checks increases greatly, the number of NICS employees and resources will have to increase greatly, as well. The cost of those things will have to be paid for with taxes from somewhere.