This is often repeated but it's not true. We have universal checks for alcohol sales but we enforce them through undercover stings, not alcohol bottle registries.
If we were trading something for UBCs, I would rather get 50-state reciprocity for CHLs than repeal of NFA restrictions. I don't have much use for an SBR or SBS, but I'm less than 30 miles from the California border, and the minute I cross, my driver's license keeps working but my CHL does not.
We recently imposed UBCs here in Oregon and the sky didn't fall, and no, there's no registry of firearms or firearms owners.
That's a false comparison on two levels. First, it isn't a "universal check" on alcohol. It's a one-time check at initial purchase from a "dealer". After that (in most states as far as I know; I don't drink) you can "transfer" it to anyone who is of age. If you had to call a government office every time you handed your friend a beer out of your fridge, just to verify that he passes a background check, then you'd have a universal check.
Second, alcohol is a consumable and not a durable good. It's more akin to ammunition that to a firearm.
On top of that, alcohol isn't mentioned as a right in the Constitution at least as of my last reading. (It's mentioned, via amendment, but then "unmentioned" via amendment, so it really isn't mentioned.)
UBC isn't properly enforceable without registration, either registering of firearms or registering of owners. Here's a theoretical situation. I have a shotgun that I was given in the late 80s before background checks were "a thing". My dad bought identical shotguns for my older brother and I at a now-out-of-business retailer. There is probably a record from the manufacturer of the retailer they sent them to, but I doubt there's anything else after that. We got them new-in-the-box, but they were trade-ins and were originally bought a couple of years earlier from a different retailer. Now let's move to the "UBC-is-law" universe. I get stopped. I have that particular shotgun with me. Again, it was purchased waaaaaaay before background checks were required.
Mr. LEO asks me when I bought the gun, so I tell him. He doesn't believe me, which is fine, and he thinks I bought it more recently. A check of my criminal record shows that I don't have a criminal record. He checks the serial number of the gun and sees that it hasn't been reported stolen, because it wasn't. Theoretically, that should be the end of it.
Now, switch the situation slightly. Same gun, different person. Make it any gun that has changed hands in a private transaction prior to the implementation of a UBC. Someone gets pulled over. He has a similar shotgun with him. He has a criminal record, but nothing that would make him a prohibited person. They check the gun and it hasn't been stolen either. He says that he got it years ago, long before the joyous Utopia that is the world of the UBC. The police have nothing that indicates otherwise so they let him go. Same exact outcome.... Until a couple of days later when the same guy is arrested for a double murder committed with that same shotgun. Further investigation reveals that the bad-guy bought the gun very recently in a face-to-face transaction (illegally) from someone who had "borrowed" it from his dad who never used it and wouldn't even notice it was missing for months, if not years. The universal background check law wasn't followed by a criminal! (this is my shocked face -
) In a UBC world, it's easy to verify that a background check was done on any NEW gun that was sold since all they have to do is contact the manufacturer and follow the chain of to the retailer and check the retailers records. It's not so easy when the gun has changed hands prior the the law taking effect. There is no chain to follow past the initial dealer in most cases. That's one of the flaws in a UBC system; it only really functions on new guns. Guns that existed before in free states have no paper trail if they've ever changed hands in a private transaction.
This drives the news cycle for the next couple of months where the "shortfalls" of the UBC system are paraded across the main-stream media unceasingly. One of those is that there isn't any way to verify that a person actually owns a firearm that they possess. The antis go into full "Wevegottodosomethingthinkofthechildrenifitsavesjustonelifeitwillbeworthit" mode. They know that background checks aren't going to do anything to stop crime. They knew that when it was forced down our proverbial throats. It's impossible for universal background checks to be of any value when going after criminals. But they knew that. All UBC does it burden the law-abiding. So what's the next step?
"We need to register all guns so we know who owns them and if you're caught with a gun you don't own, it's an automatic 10 years in jail." (paraphrasing, but actually proposed by Bill O'Reilly, along with nationwide policy of stop-and-frisk. Two rights infringed for the price of one! ) Without registration, there is no way to know if a background check has been done or if the gun had changed hands at all. Criminals don't go get background checks done when they buy a gun from someone else on the street or steal one from a family member. But since they wouldn't register them either, make registration mandatory and then they're even more worser bad guys. But so is the guy who hasn't bought a new gun for 40 years and, therefore, doesn't think the registration laws apply to him, if he even knows about the new law.
UBC isn't, and has never been the goal. It's just a step and an ineffectual one at that. The goal for the antis is and always has been confiscation. They know that UBC won't solve anything. The only people who will be caught will be otherwise law-abiding gun owners who didn't realize that gifting a rifle to a hunting buddy required a background check. It won't catch actual criminals, other than the occasional add-on charge to some other charge. Even after registration, criminals will still have guns and there will be a whole new set of criminals who didn't register their guns because of misunderstanding of the law.
There's another option. When you get a background check done, you have to have proof of the check with the gun at all times. Again, this doesn't do anything for guns that were owned prior the enacting of the law.
Matt
