--------
First, let us address an issue often brought up when I am addressed on this issue--"enforcement": Many conservative-types--and certainly libertarian-types--are understandably resistant on law enforcement departing too much from their intended reactionary function. Police in a non-police state are more about dealing with crimes while or after they are committed. Too many of those concerned, though, are knee-jerk and almost religious about this, focusing only on prosecutions (which should be indeed increased, to be sure), and will admit to almost no preventative action.
Ron Paul, a libertarian who overtly worked in the 2000s (decade) to cause a U.S. military defeat in Iraq, made this mistake in the 2008 GOP primary debates when he claimed that Timothy McVeigh, the 1995 Oklahoma City bomber, was a case of our domestic security system actually working--that is, he was caught, tried, convicted, sentenced, and executed. Newt Gingrich pointed out his libertarian fail: "Timothy McVeigh SUCCEEDED!" He managed to blow up the federal building and kill 168 people, including children. Gingrich rightly and accurately pointed to the law enforcement's role generally to be "on defense," while pointing out in such matters of terrorism that preemptive action is necessary.
Now, people can legitimately argue whether or not legally compelling UBCs on some private sales for the legitimate purpose is good/proper policy. As with any security provision, the potential misuse in the name of "fighting terrorism" or anything else is a VERY legitimate concern that needs to be addressed. (We saw such a misuse in the Deep State "Resistance" to Donald J. Trump from even before his election as possibly the last LEGITIMATE President of the United States.) Indeed, there may be more secure alternative ways of addressing the matter, and opponents should bring those forward (I briefly addressed my call for facilitating and encouraging voluntarily checks by private sellers in TDF 37). It is not reasonably denied, though, that the concept is on that legitimate side an attempt to address a compelling state interest--combatting acquisition by Prohibited Persons. Preventing such checks from connecting specific guns to specific persons in the records is a way to address the very real and serious concern about its misuse.
As a practical matter, so long as any such law includes logical--dare I say, "common-sense"--provisions on the scope of when such a check is needed, it is not necessarily egregious or burdensome. Handing a hunting rifle to a friend while climbing over a fence: No check. Permanently selling a firearm to "some guy at a bar": Yeah, probably a check. With a range of transfers in between (intrafamily, range sharing, immediate and anticipatory self-defense, "long-term loan," etc.) that can be discussed at a future time.
"THE SECOND AMENDMENT AIN'T ABOUT DUCK HUNTING." It's also not about a hobby. As I noted in TDF 37, "you don't need to be trading and such like [guns] were baseball cards." When one's private buying and selling--especially selling--of firearms reaches such a regular level that one truly considers it a "hassle" to do checks, then in reality that person is crossing into being in the firearms business, and ought to get a dealer license. Some twenty years ago, I heard a conversation at a gun shop wherein the typical "purist" was griping about the then-fairly-new NICS system. The dealer-clerk talked about people at gun shows or flea markets who every month sold a few guns alongside other things as private sales. "That's, 'engaged in the business'" (a legal standard for when one is required to get a license), he said. And he was probably right.
To put it as a response to libertarians and their aims: "It is not worth risking RKBA in the name of your futile effort to ensure violent felons, druggies, and nutcakes can easily get guns." Such efforts, if they insist on pressing that politically suicidal agenda, should be directed at changing the laws prohibiting those classes in the first place, efforts which can be readily separated from rational and realistic efforts to ensure and enhance RKBA.
Ron Paul, a libertarian who overtly worked in the 2000s (decade) to cause a U.S. military defeat in Iraq, made this mistake in the 2008 GOP primary debates when he claimed that Timothy McVeigh, the 1995 Oklahoma City bomber, was a case of our domestic security system actually working--that is, he was caught, tried, convicted, sentenced, and executed. Newt Gingrich pointed out his libertarian fail: "Timothy McVeigh SUCCEEDED!" He managed to blow up the federal building and kill 168 people, including children. Gingrich rightly and accurately pointed to the law enforcement's role generally to be "on defense," while pointing out in such matters of terrorism that preemptive action is necessary.
Now, people can legitimately argue whether or not legally compelling UBCs on some private sales for the legitimate purpose is good/proper policy. As with any security provision, the potential misuse in the name of "fighting terrorism" or anything else is a VERY legitimate concern that needs to be addressed. (We saw such a misuse in the Deep State "Resistance" to Donald J. Trump from even before his election as possibly the last LEGITIMATE President of the United States.) Indeed, there may be more secure alternative ways of addressing the matter, and opponents should bring those forward (I briefly addressed my call for facilitating and encouraging voluntarily checks by private sellers in TDF 37). It is not reasonably denied, though, that the concept is on that legitimate side an attempt to address a compelling state interest--combatting acquisition by Prohibited Persons. Preventing such checks from connecting specific guns to specific persons in the records is a way to address the very real and serious concern about its misuse.
As a practical matter, so long as any such law includes logical--dare I say, "common-sense"--provisions on the scope of when such a check is needed, it is not necessarily egregious or burdensome. Handing a hunting rifle to a friend while climbing over a fence: No check. Permanently selling a firearm to "some guy at a bar": Yeah, probably a check. With a range of transfers in between (intrafamily, range sharing, immediate and anticipatory self-defense, "long-term loan," etc.) that can be discussed at a future time.
"THE SECOND AMENDMENT AIN'T ABOUT DUCK HUNTING." It's also not about a hobby. As I noted in TDF 37, "you don't need to be trading and such like [guns] were baseball cards." When one's private buying and selling--especially selling--of firearms reaches such a regular level that one truly considers it a "hassle" to do checks, then in reality that person is crossing into being in the firearms business, and ought to get a dealer license. Some twenty years ago, I heard a conversation at a gun shop wherein the typical "purist" was griping about the then-fairly-new NICS system. The dealer-clerk talked about people at gun shows or flea markets who every month sold a few guns alongside other things as private sales. "That's, 'engaged in the business'" (a legal standard for when one is required to get a license), he said. And he was probably right.
The political truth is, most Americans want UBCs of some sort, but not nearly as many want a national gun registry. Those are two separate issues that can and should be separated. But that separation can't and won't occur in the legislative process so long as supposed "purists" act in kneejerk fashion and allow anti-gunners that cover.
I went on to say in TDF 37: "If you're not careful, your self-indulgence will be your downfall." Dogmatically upholding a situation that appears to many people in the general population to be aimed at expressly enabling Prohibited Persons to acquire arms (which it indeed is for some in the libertarian mindset) and opposing proposed actions to address it WITHOUT OFFERING ALTERNATES is a recipe for exactly that in RKBA.
Private sales serve the purpose of heading off registries by providing Patriots with a build-in defense in the event of enforced registration/confiscation: "I sold that gun you think I owned at one time to some guy at a bar." Such is infringed upon by connecting private sales checks to specific weapons in kept records. It is NOT, however, necessarily infringed upon by checks on specific buyers NOT connected to specific weapons.
Let us separate the two, address the legitimate issue, and deprive anti-gunners of a major political cover.
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html