Fabs, this position emboldened above, which I believe that I saw you articulate a week or two back as well, is one thing that has not gone over well. Beyond what I’ve quoted above, you’ve also argued that it might do good. Obviously laws that restrict protections would (in an ideal world of course) have compelling data of an actual benefit vs a supposition.
However, in your further elaborated stance, you’ve indicated that there are real flaws with the NICS system (and how MD approaches it) and that the pro-2A side should get something in exchange. I’m not sure if you are also saying that you are against UBCs for secondary long gun sales on just principle - as that seems different from what you wrote above. I think we all can agree that a neutral position on the enactment of this legislation also aids the anti argument of having to do a NICS check on temporary long gun loans.
So above you list concessions, if I understand you correctly, as well as concerns that you would have if NICS checks for secondary sales are enacted. One of the arguments that you’ve listed is an emotional one (underlined), but I’m sure is sincerely presented. I prefer logical, data driven reasons to implement new laws, as you do (based on your requests for information). How will NICS checks on secondary long gun sales make the public safer? Do you have information to support this contention?
As per implementation of points that you would like to negotiate, how? You’ve stated there is significant support across the board for UBCs - but that’s probably a national number, that also includes handguns, and relates to states where private sales of handguns may still be possible. I bet the numbers would be lower if there was a poll about “used” long gun sales between individuals in hunting or farming communities that might not be near an FFL or have the spare cash to cover the transfer fee. Lol, of course that sort of specific question would never get polled, so what we’re left with is the generic catchall poll, that is then spun as having import by lobbyists.
You anecdotally mentioned your friend in Wisconsin, who like you, supports UBCs. Being from Wisconsin, I have a lot of friends that are still there. There’s a much bigger gun culture in that state, and the numbers of privately held firearms in Wisconsin is higher than Maryland. They have less restrictive gun laws, and a similar population as Maryland. They also have lower gun homicides (Milwaukee isn’t as dangerous as Baltimore) even with more guns and less 2A restrictions. Of the gun owners that I know there (probably a dozen), they tend to be to the right of me on 2A and other issues. What I’m saying, insofar as my experience, other than you on MDS, I don’t really know a lot of people that support UBCs in the gun owning community. I’m sure there are some, but they are in the minority of those drawn to participate on this board. Thus, maybe among those you interact with outside this board that are gun owners, you may be able to find a community of likeminded folks to try to rally and compromise on 2A issues - and achieve some progress on protections in the state through these negotiations with gun controllers. Maybe Hogan would work with you too. Unless there is a way to rally numbers to your cause, I think it’s a nonstarter. But if there is truly a wide swath of people that support UBCs, it might be easy to enlist support.
Again, I personally don’t see an upside in UBCs expanded to secondary sales of non banned long guns in the state, but don’t want to discourage you if you think there’s a better way to go about it to benefit the 2A community and society in the deal.
