UBC and NFA should stand or fall on their own merits and not be traded one way or the other. [snark]Would I accept UBC for relaxed auto emission standards on my old truck?[/snark] They are all seperate issues.
No trade.
The constitution of my state declares in Article I (rights of the citizen), Section 26, that the citizens have the right to keep and bear arms but the legislature reserves the power to regulate with a view to prevent crime.
According to court rulings, state attorney general opinions and statements of legislative intent, the test of a gun law is two-fold:
1. Will it unduly infringe on lawful, traditional use by the lawabiding?
2. Will it actually prevent crime, impact bad behavior by bad people?
This is the legislative regimen I grew up under in regards to firearms.
The "40%" claim used to support a call for Universal Background Checks comes from the NSPOF National Survey on Private Ownership and use of Firearms conducted in 1994 under the Clinton Administration.
NSPOF came up with 251 (two hundred fifty one) private citizens (of a total sample of "2,568 noninstitutionalized adults aged 18 and over ... and live in households with a telephone") who bought guns in the previous three years 1991-1993.
60% from licensed dealers
19% gifts from family or relatives
5% inheritances
13% purchase (used) from private parties
3% swap/trade of guns among private parties.
40% of gun transactions NOT through licensed dealers in a small random selection of ordinary citizens. This the "40% from unlicensed dealers" stat used by the Obama Administration to push UBC. [lol]When mom and dad gave me a .22 rifle for my 15th birthday, they were acting as unlicensed dealers.[/lol]
As long as the recipient of the gun is not a known felon, is not expressing felonious intent, and the gun is legally owned by the source, gift from family or friend, inheritance, second hand purchase or swap is traditional and lawful transfer.
Looking more recently at Bureau of Justice prison inmate surveys of Firearms Using Offenders.*
Code:
Sources of Firearms for State Inmates
possessing a firearm
1997 1991
Retail Sources
Retail store 8.3 14.7
Pawnshop 3.8 4.2
Flea market 1.0 1.3
Gun show 0.7 0.6
Total Retail Purchase 13.9% 20.8%
Friends or family**
Purchase or trade 12.8 13.5
Rent or borrow 18.5 10.1
Other 8.3 10.2
Total Friends/family 39.6 33.8
Street/illegal source
Drug dealer/
street sales 20.8 22.5
Theft or burglary 9.9 10.5
Fence/black market 8.4 7.8
Total Street/illegal 39.2 40.8
The UBC
is based on survey data from the National Survey on Private Ownership and use of Firearms of 251 noninstitutionalized adults living in households with telephones.
The UBC
is not based on survey data from Bureau of Justice Statistics from interviews of thousands of state and federal institutionalized Firearms Using Offenders.
Mull that a bit.
Back to the Tennessee Test for acceptable regulation:
1. Will it unduly infringe lawful, traditional use by the lawabiding?
2. Will it actually prevent crime, impacting bad behavior by bad people?
Private background check in Tennessee costs $29 going through the state, $30 going through a licensed gun dealer (FFL holder). The state check is state records; the check through an FFL includes state and federal records.
Will UBC affect the 40% of non-dealer firearms transfers (19% private gifts, 5% inheritances, 13% privates sales and 3% swaps)? $29 or $30? You bet.
[snark]Would people who can afford $200 Form 4 transfers trade that for a $29-$30 UBC on all private gun transfers? Sure. But what about those of us who cannot afford a $200 ATF tax stamp? Those of us for whom $30 surcharge would be a deal killer?[/snark]
Will it prevent crime? Donning my Karnack turban, I predict: No. Just as the 1953-1968 "dry law" local option prohibition promoted bootlegging here in Sullivan County and made alcohol abuse worse, it would not prevent crime, but cause new crime. As Edgar Allan Poe pointed out in reponse to an 1844 moral crusade: "Your reformist demi-gods are just devils turned inside out."
So should we accept UBC which will dampen traditional, lawful private transfer among the lawabiding, costing millions with little promise of impacting criminals, in exchange for loosening NFA restrictions? Ha. Look what the anti-gunners did with the Hughes Amendment. Never forget Hughes. It is unlikely the anti-gunners will loosen NFA restrictions no matter what we give up. They'll dangle a carrot, but once we take the step, they're more likely to snatch it away and feel justified in deceiving us.
(To open another can of worms: ideally SBR, SBS, AOW should be lumped with handguns as "concealable weapons" and buying one from a dealer should be legally treated like buying a pistol or revolver, with making one requiring the same extra scrutiny deemed necessary for a handgun purchase. BUT not part of a useless trade.)
__________________________________
* Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D., BJS Statistician, "Firearm Use by Offenders: Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities", U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, November 2001, Revised 2/04/02, NCJ 189369.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
** "Friends or family" in the 1986 felon survey (Wright & Rossi, "Armed and Considered Dangerous") included criminal aquaintances of the felon. Family of felons are often involved in crime themselves. Retail purchase included a family member or friend making a straw man buy on behalf of the felon. So "friends and family" in the BJS survey probably includes felonious transfers under existing law.
Brb while I cry myself to sleep.
