zukiphile wrote:
I am curious about whether people here:
1. Oppose a federal UBC generally,
2. Oppose a federal UBC only if it is imposed by Executive Order, or
3. Support the idea of a UBC.
Would anyone else care to state his position?
As with most things, the devil is in the details, and I remain skeptical of it's efficacy. Additionally, the sale of the UBC to the American people hinges on several incorrect bits of data:
1) The claim that 40% of all gun sales are done via private party
a) We actually have data on this, beyond the wild guess that was made during the single study that claimed it. In CA and CO, the numbers are anywhere from 7% to 20%.
2) That largely criminals are acquiring their firearms through people who would comply with the law.
b) A large majority are procured via straw purchase (already illegal), theft, or street sources. None of these sources would be impacted by a UBC
3) As with most other regulatory arguments, the total number of gun deaths is cited rather than simply the murder rates
a) Suicides make up 2/3rds of gun deaths. It's disingenuous at best or straight up lying to lump them in and say they would be impacted by this regulation. It would have ZERO impact on this important issue
4) It's commonly cited as a fix to keep mass shooters from getting guns
a) Mass shooters, from all of the records we have seen in the last several years, are acquiring their guns through an FFL rather than a private party. Which means that not only are we legislating based on a false premise of solving the issue, but we're also doing so for statistical outliers, when resources to push for this legislation would be more impactful by redirecting those resources to different areas.
This all said, I live in a state that has UBC's. Hasn't ended the world. However, although the slippery slope an overused trope, CA has most definitely not stopped with UBC's- now we're on UBC's for ammo, confiscating magazines in excess of 10 rounds, limiting the type of pistol that one can buy to ones that have a technology that doesn't exist, and a whole host of other ill-informed ideas.
So for these reasons, I'm generally more against them than I am for them.
In theory with the right implementation I could see them having minimal impact, but not if one has to go through an FFL. If it's mandatory, then there is no charge, it's web based, and one can submit your data first to obtain an approval number to forward to the seller, who can verify it before meeting you, then check your ID when you get there.
OR if it was tied to a universal concealed carry permit, with states not having the ability to deny without just cause, and the removal of suppressors from the NFA. If we had those two points as part of the negotiation, I could far more easily be persuaded to support it- but that's not what's been put on the table.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou