[JimDandy]

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

You know the law better than I do, but Frank just went over this pretty well a couple to a few months ago- are they immune to the 4473 requirements at a retail POS? (Assuming this has ever come up in some wildly rare state vs federal dual sovereignty mash-up)

I'm not so sure. When the FFL takes a firearm into their bound book, I've been told they have to do some sort of book keeping for the source, but none of this includes recording whether the seller actually possessed the firearm.

As far as I know it's not illegal for a prohibited person to sell a firearm. From previous discussions I'm under the impression prohibited possessors with a collection that isn't seized as contraband have some recourse for disposing of their collection through an agent. Do I have this incorrect?

If so, a prohibited possessor can sell a firearm as long as they don't possess it, and as this isn't a crime I don't see a lot of 5A issues? Can you claim the 5A privilege if what you did wasn't a crime?

If the prohibited possessor isn't the buyer but instead the seller I REALLY can't see how they're able to claim someone else's 5A protections, they're not even ON the 4473 form.

Either Stan or Dan will have to testify against the other guy, and against themselves to prove it.

Well, Dan has no reason not to testify beyond loyalty to Stan and whatever plea deal is available on the DWI so it's up to the prosecutor's discretion on which is the bigger crime I suppose. The penalty is strictly on Stan. At least my understanding of this is so, there may be some other combination of federal laws to backdoor this but it's my understanding it's not illegal to buy from an FFL without a background check, it's illegal for the FFL to sell to you without a background check.

Sort of the opposite of it's not illegal to sell to someone you don't have a reason to believe can't buy, but it is illegal for someone who can't to buy. As far as I know that sort of jeopardy only flows in the one direction in any given transaction unless there are multiple infractions (ie prohibited possessor AND FFL without NICS check)

To use something similar to Tom's example:

Which of these three examples rise to the same level of investigation you gave the government credit for when discussing Bound Books and so on here:

There's also insurance fraud, and who knows what else. Once the gov't gets to digging around on one offense, it may lead to proof of others.

You have more confidence than I, JimDandy.

Really, you think with a name, birthday, and most likely a social security number (either from the form itself or a call to whatever records department can cross reference name, place of birth and date of birth to find it), the government can't find most of us in this day and age?

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.

Yup! The same way I want you to pay more taxes for any other government program you may want to have nothing to do with but provides a valuable service- Elections, City Attorney's Offices, and the like.

Edit to Add a couple more points

1) I just remembered- Frank's main point as I remember it was the government doesn't force you buy a firearm, so they don't force you to fill out a 4473 form which is why it's not self incrimination. I never did get why it was different for registering the firearm they still don't force you to buy, but he's got the JD.

2) In all these scenarios offered up by you and Tom, how many of these do you think would result in an actual gun trace? I don't think even the DWI would result in a gun trace. Would they even check if it or anything else in the car was (reported) stolen?