The idiots who wrote earlier bills expressly excluded non-FFLs from using the NICS system. Fixing that would be a start, but leaves the problem of how to enact federal control of intrastate commerce. That's a guaranteed SCOTUS issue and I have no clue how they would get it past that review.

But the idea itself is very sound and supported by the overwhelming majority of both gunowners and controllers.

wikipedia where with a simple query you will find that all the way back to the Madison court the Interstate Commerce Clause has been coupled to the Necessary and Proper clause to regulate intrastate as well as interstate commerce. As late as the 1990s Antonin Scalia cited the two clauses to rule that growing Marijuana and giving it away (medical use) was regulated under federal law.

I'm surprised it hasn't been done by now if it's that cut and dried but then I leave such things to the legal profession. Not that they would ask me in any event, but I'd have no problem with the idea. Few would.

We've had it in Illinois for several years now with no outcry or big deal about it. Check their FOID card, call the Illinois State Police special phone number or go to an FFL and pay a few bucks to check them out.

IMHO, for most people the issue isn't as much the UBC itself, but the Bloomberg promoted version of "UBC" that requires mandatory registration of all firearms with it and doesn't distinguish between a temporary loan to someone at the range or to your BiL for a weekend of upland bird hunting and permanently transferring/selling a gun to someone.

With that version, if I let a student use one of my revolvers in a class, I'm an instant felon.

I personally would not loan my shotgun to anyone unless I was present at all times. Sometimes you think you know people and you really don't.
My neighbors are wonderful people. Quiet, polite, lovely home known them for years, I would not hand over my shotgun to them and watch them walk off with it. If they wanted to borrow it to take care of some vermin I'd walk over there with them. I just feel like since its my weapon I'm responsible for it.
I had no opinion on this until a few years ago when a young man had his guns removed by the court and he went and bought several rifles from a neighbor. He wound up killing 8 people including the neighbor. It was a legal gun sale as far as the dead neighbor was concerned. But if he had been required to get a ubc he would have at least been informed of course he could have sold him the guns anyway.

Got it back in great condition with a couple boxes of good shells and a cleaned bird as a thank you.

I teach basic pistol and concealed carry, so letting a student "borrow" a gun that fits them better is normal at the range. But with the students, I'm always right there with them.

Sometimes at the range people will let somebody try their gun. Last Summer I swapped one of my Garands with a guy next to me at the range, so I could shoot his Holland & Holland 600 Nitro Express double rifle (Elephant Gun). I'll never see one of those outside of a museum and he was a WW II vet that hadn't touched a Garand since 1945. We both had fun and walked away with big grins and a huge bruise on my shoulder from that thing.

Private sale background checks were part of the deal to get concealed carry here in Illinois. The Chicago people wanted more but they had to settle for that. 2 years later, it has made zero difference in Chicago criminal shootings, without a single declined transfer or prosecution. "Amazingly", the people doing all the shooting in Pilsen, Chatham and the other neighborhoods aren't getting the guns from law abiding people that would use any system. no matter how simple.

technically, under Washington law, simply letting the person shoot it in your presence even for training classes would require a background check. That is why security companies went to court. If, say, Brinks were to follow the law, the armorer has to meet each of the drivers at a gun shop and each driver goes through the process at the beginning of each shift. Then afterwards, the armorer would go through background checks during end of shift turn in. If he is responsible for ten trucks, that's 20 background checks at the end of the day. Or, they can just ignore the law or just have crews take the issue guns home with them. Washington law requires companies and PDs to provide guns if they are a job requirement. The only reason the suit didn't go forward was because nobody has been arrested for it.

That doesn't mean I oppose UBCs, just not poorly written ones put together by Bloomberg employees.

There is debate as to how effective it they will be however there is no real downside to universal background checks

of enforcement.

Oh noes! Theys commin to git my gunz!

And then there is "for now" or the "first step"

...happen again. Y'all are just paranoid not to trust us."

Feh. I'd sooner buy a used car from Donald Trump.

I am curious on what they plan on compromising on?

No matter what reassuring words you try and pass off.

Even when they said they would not.

I am plenty calm knowing that no invasive control and confiscation/registration schemes will pass Congress.

Please take your own advice

it doesn't really control straw purchases and illegal dealing.

Needs registration to be effective.

Or does it cost some arbitrary amount, in effect another sales tax? And if it costs, do I get on the phone in front of a buyer and read my credit card info to the clerk at UBC Central?

I don't mind things the way they are now.

I've only sold two guns. I have a record of who the buyer was in each case, along with a driver's license number. If anyone from law enforcement expresses an interest in either gun, I'll give them that info. I don't expect to hear from them.

However, as always, the devil is in the details, and politics is complicated.

First, as others have noted, most UBC legislation is vague enough that something a minor as letting a friend try a gun at the range might require a background check. This is absurd, and rife for abuse, particularly in certain anti-gun jurisdictions.

Second, most UBC legislation requires detailed registration lists. While this may be a feature, and not a bug, to some, most gun owners and their supporters find it very objectionable. When you have the president and the leading Democratic presidential candidate citing Australia as a model for gun control (i.e., confiscation / involuntary buyback), these objections appear more than justified.

Third, UBC's are always offered as part of far broader gun control legislation, including assault weapon bans and magazine limits, that are far more objectionable. It's obvious that UBC's are little more than a Trojan Horse for other more severe restrictions. It poisons the well in any negotiations, makes compromise impossible, and gun control advocates have only themselves to blame.

Fourth, there's no real evidence that UBC's will have any demonstrable effect on firearm crime or deaths. For instance, virtually all mass shooters passed a background check, and in the case of the Charestown shooter, the government actually screwed-up the check. With people like Adam Lanza, not only would he have passed any check, he stole the weapons he used after killing his own mother to procure them. Most other shootings involve guns purchased in illegal transactions that similarly would not be affected by UBC's.

Lastly, and as evident by a mere perusal of the comments here, gun control is part of a cultural battle, and UBC's are meant as an incremental measure to change "gun culture." Accordingly, from a purely political perspective, why should gun rights proponents agree to UBC's without anything in return. For instance, I've always suggested UBC's and national firearm training standards in return for national concealed carry reciprocity that preempts state and local gun laws, particularly in "may issue" jurisdiction.

if the government has a list.

Let be real, there is no possible way the government could or would try to collect guns. The first person to be collected on the list would start a social media nightmare with actual people marching in the streets. So not sure why registration would matter. And lets face it, there is not enough police in the USA to collect 300 million guns.

I agree that background checks might not make any difference. But knowing where criminals guns come from might be helpful.

Also, only 9,000 murders a year in the USA by guns. Stolen guns (50,000) could cover that number so people will get guns another way to bypass the UBC if needed.

Like you said, most mass shooters got them legally, so it will not stop those anyway.

I mean sure it's possible that wholesale confiscation may happen in the future but it's a pretty damned unlikely scenario that would likely either take years to get through the courts giving plenty of warning or be in tandem with an equally unlikely TEOTWAWKI scenario like a military coup when legal gun ownership would not be high on the list of our problems. I mean the only even vaguely plausible version is that a few more theocrats get elected/appointed and we go full-Scudder, in which case known non-Christians may see selective confiscation, but even then Muslims would be priority one and therefore again plenty of warning/time for most of us to react.

In the 999,999 out of 1MM possible futures where none of that nuttery occurs, I truly could not give a damn if I'm on a list or not. We're all on voter lists, tax rolls, soc sec lists, DL databases, yadda yadda yadda and none of those have led to jackbooted thugs yet so I doubt a gun owner list would be a problem for law-abiding folks either.

I clearly recall when the Journal News recently released the names and personal information of gun owners derived from registration information, much of which was not only incorrect, but shockingly included active and retired law enforcement personal, crime victims, those under protective orders, etc.

These law-abiding gun owners certainly thought there was a big problem, and I believe many JN executives and reporters still have armed security because of their foolishness. I guess some elites do indeed deserve armed protection.

Further, under the new SAFE act, New York has also confiscated firearms by comparing registration lists with medical and pharmaceutical information. If that wasn't bad enough, some of the firearms confiscated were mistakes due to problems with the lists, and the owners were forced to engage in lengthy and costly litigation to compel the state to return the guns.

Besides the political idiocy of references to Australian-style gun control, the effects of registration lists in the USA are far more than mere theory. They can, and have been, abused, and talk of more draconian gun control, particularly by top elected leaders of our Party, only makes the problem worse, and gun safety compromises all but impossible.

Many gun owners (I actually don't own any firearms) are more than amendable to checking to whom they sell their guns. If registration lists are a problem, and make no mistake, they are, the government could simply open up the NICS system to private parties, instead of just FFL's.

Such a system might not be as truly universal as some would like, but it would be better than the system now. It would also help condition the electorate to tolerate more extensive checks in the future. If everything is all or nothing when it comes to national gun safety legislation and policy, the outcome will almost always be nothing.

I also believe far more would be accomplished by focusing on improving the NICS system we have, including more funds to coordinate and modernize data entry and reporting. Something along these lines might have actually prevented the Charlestown shooting and would be unlikely to trigger conservative ire, particularly because much of the focus would be reporting those who have been adjudicated mentally ill or are convicted felons, and thus unable to own guns.

the system will never know if a firearm has transferred between hands unless registered. And lots of people are against registration.

initial sale?

Heres how it works.

You have the manufacturer who makes the firearm and puts a serial number on it.

The firearm is then sold to a distributor.

The distributor sells to the licensed dealers.

The dealers sell to the public.

So if a firearm is found/used in a crime they start at the manufacturer and go down the list. The firearm (if it disappears) is from either the public person selling it, losing it or having it stolen.

Licensed dealers must keep their records for 20 years.

So how do criminals get guns if we have such great tracking?

Daesh kills with guns made by 'respectable ' corporate people.

Bad guys get guns from good guys.

Pass laws requiring, under SEVERE penalty that no-one can sell or transfer their legally owned gun except to/ at a licensed gun dealer with FULL waiting periods, background checks and newly updated ownership records being kept.

Create and enforce laws charging the legal gun owner each and every time his/er gun is lost, stolen, misused, involved in a crime, etc

or an illicit gun dealer.

You would need a registration to do what you want, which a lot of people are against. Many firearm owners would like to see NICS (the Federal background check) opened up to citizens who want to sell a firearm and be able to run a check on the purchaser.

And your last suggestion, charging the owner of a firearm for it being stolen? Whats next, a teenager breaks into my garage and steal the beer from the fridge and I'm charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor?

Gun owners to secure their guns. I think it's also reasonable that if you leave your gun laying around at say a party at your house or in your unlocked car, you may not be considered a responsible gun owner I figure if a toddler van find a loaded gun in your home it is not reasonably secured. I would think there is some responsibility of the gun owner to not leave it laying about. Sort of like if you have an unfenced pool, a dog at large etc

Nor will you EVER get it passed so long as so many on the left demand outright bans.

Logistically, all it would require is going through an FFL for any private transfer of ownership, which would probably cost a fee.

So I can't be of much help with the opposing argument! UBCs are no panacea (obviously actual professional criminals will never subject themselves to one), but they might end up denying a spree killer or suchlike. They also encourage people to stop and think about who they're considering selling a gun to.

and typically structure their UBC proposals to emphasize registration of all transfers to enable selective confiscation, rather than merely background checking.

I am on record here as a long-time supporter of UBC's, but I changed my mind after the gun control lobby changed their emphasis from "let's keep guns out of the hands of criminals" to "let's ban as many guns as possible from as many peaceable citizens as possible". In that environment, UBC's are a whole lot more controversial than they otherwise would be.

The irony is, had the prohibition lobby not gotten derailed on the "assault weapon" fraud in the '90s, the NRA likely would have signed onto a non-registry national UBC system, but the Joyce Foundation and the media shot that possibility dead.