It's been discussed here before that the UBC requires gun registration to work...
Except that they don't, as has been mentioned in previous discussions. UBC do not require gun registration, or any information about the gun, AT ALL. The check is on a person, and the person can be determined to be eligible or prohibited based on existing records without any specific gun information at all.
HOWEVER, every version of the UBC that we are being offered (by the usual suspects) includes specific gun information being required as part of the process. This is because the sponsors WANT it there, not because it is needed for the check. This is so that the UBC check records can either function as registration, or provide the information for a registration database.
It is by design, NOT need!!
So, should we say 'whatever' and save our determined resistance for when they come back for gun registration or should we show determined resistance for the UBC's even though there's no registration in the current proposal.
the devil is in the details, and our "determined resistance" should be based on what the proposed law actually says. Not against the concept of background checks, that won't fly to the general public, but on the specific law proposed. It will be flawed, count on that, what we need to do if identify those flaws and make them the focus of our fight.
The public has been trained and accepts the idea that doing a background check to stop a criminal from legally getting a gun is a good thing. And it is, and would be, if it actually worked. We can't win fighting that idea. What we can do is show how this specific law fails, and where, and how it puts an unnecessary burden on innocent citizens to no benefit.
In 2016, Washington state passed a background check law. Passed by initiative after being defeated in the legislature three consecutive election cycles. The law requires a background check to be done, by an FFL on all "transfers". The law is written so badly that it is unclear what is and is not a transfer covered under the law. SO badly that all state law enforcement agencies have refused to enforce the law, without further clarification. TO date, such clarification has not been provided.
That law requires the owner, the gun, and the person it is to be transferred to, to present themselves to an FFL for the check to be run. That law also limits the fee the FFL can charge for the check.
That law does contain a couple of exceptions, which include loaning a gun to someone on a "certified range" (not defined) or while hunting, or transfer to certain family members can be done without going to an FFL for a background check.
ALL other situations, could, under that law, require a FFL check, there is no guidance on that, so, possibly, you visiting a friend at his home, him handing you one of his guns to look at, you taking it, and then handing it back to him, COULD be crimes under the law, because you didn't go to an FFL and have the check done on you, to receive the gun, and another crime because you didn't get an FFL check to give the owner back his own gun.
That law uses the term "transfer" and does cover more than purchase transactions. As written it is not just a bad idea, it is a bad law, and when not only the Sheriffs, but the State Patrol AND the Conservation Dept all say "we're not enforcing this until you explain it better" that ought to be a clue.
However, there is a downside to this, no enforcement means no trial cases that can be used to overturn the law. So it stays on the books.
The idea that a background check will stop a person committed to doing violence carries the same weight in the real world as the paper Chamberlin got in Munich in 1938, giving us "peace in our time!" the world found out how much that was worth in 1939.
