You're not going to "leverage" ANYTHING. The ONLY thing you're going to get in exchange for racially invidious gun control is MORE racially invidious gun control. The other side is infinitely deceitful and infinitely malicious. Expecting any anything else from them is simply foolish. It's Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football, only instead of a football, it's a bear trap and she NEVER pulls it away.
I've been fighting this fight for quite some time. I've learned which arguments we can make effectively and which positions become untenable.
The fact that UBC won't do a thing to prevent crime doesn't matter. The proponents don't care, and the plebians supporting it/them can't be bothered to have it explained. The fact is that, prima facie, it seems like a good idea to a huge number of people, and that's good enough to win their support. It's also very easy for them to paint opponents as callous or even bloodthirsty in this sound bite world. All they have to do is point to a case where a violent actor was denied a purchase from an FFL but was able to get his weapon in a legal private sale and do the deed. That he would have done it regardless is irrelevant; they make their point that he was able to legally procure a firearm in a private transaction because there was no background check requirement.
I've seen it before. Back in 1999, Colorado was still a pretty conservative state, and we had a conservative state government. After Columbine, when it came out that the duo had procured one of their weapons from a gunshow, a bill sailed through the legislature and was signed on Owen's desk requiring BGC on sales made at gun shows. That the girl who actually made the purchase for them was 18 and could have passed a BGC anyway didn't matter.
Meanwhile, we have a solid argument for national reciprocity and HPA, but not a lot of public support or enthusiasm in the legislature. Neither are gonna happen on their own, especially with dems controlling the house now. But if we attach one or both to a UBC bill, one of two things happen:
A) The libs will kill the amended bill in the house and now
we can argue that
they're the unreasonable ones or
B) They grudgingly pass it, and we get some benefits out of a deal that was going to happen within a few years one way or another.
If you think we're gonna be able to fight off UBC for more than a few sessions, you'd better open your eyes. The left gained a lot of traction in 2018, and unless they screw up big time, they're in a position to not only hold what they got but increase their winnings. We have only two years of guaranteed conservative control in the senate and oval office. Maybe we'll hold one or both in 2020, maybe not, but eventually the pendulum always swings back. A quid pro quo may be tough now, but the mere idea will be completely laughable once the dems control both houses again. Maybe it'll be 2 years. Maybe 4. 8. Who knows, but it will happen.