Would UBC mean national reciprocity?

**alethialogos57** · April 9th, 2013, 09:25 AM

I don't support UBC one bit. What follows here is just a thought I had while pondering life under UBC.

The "left" is famous for attempting to block any sort of reciprocity between states. We see that with our neighbors to the south (can't carry in MD even with a PA CCW). So, if everyone in the nation were to be required to pass a national background check, and that same check were a requirement for CCW, then it could open the door to national reciprocity. Yes? No?

**mbinpa** · April 9th, 2013, 10:12 AM

In a perfect world, if UBC were required (oximoronic, I know) then sure, a UBC used for a purchase or LTCF in PA would also be acceptable in NJ or NY. But that would also require the consent of the states, either by individual states or some national agreement like they use for drivers licenses or marriages, and I doubt that would happen.

**RGHess** · April 9th, 2013, 10:17 AM

National Reciprocity for CC will never happen. I have read the bill from Schumer a few times , and it really only talks about purchase. But, if it is a national check, would you be able to purchase guns out of state ? I don't think that UBC's are the answer to the problem either, but after reading it, it doesn't differ much from what PA does already. And since we alreadyhave to go through PICS now- that is linked to NICS, why shouldnt people in other states have to do the same ? It makes me wonder though how other states handle these transactions?

**alethialogos57** · April 9th, 2013, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by RGHess

National Reciprocity for CC will never happen. I have read the bill from Schumer a few times , and it really only talks about purchase. But, if it is a national check, would you be able to purchase guns out of state ? I don't think that UBC's are the answer to the problem either, but after reading it, it doesn't differ much from what PA does already. And since we alreadyhave to go through PICS now- that is linked to NICS, why shouldnt people in other states have to do the same ? It makes me wonder though how other states handle these transactions?

What I worry about is at first it will be "We don't store any PII, just like today". Then it will be "We'll just store this small bit of PII", to save some complexity. Then it will be "We're going to create a national registry by collating all of the bits of PII that we already have".

Everything they do is only a pathway to what they really want.

**RGHess** · April 9th, 2013, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by alethialogos57

What I worry about is at first it will be "We don't store any PII, just like today". Then it will be "We'll just store this small bit of PII", to save some complexity. Then it will be "We're going to create a national registry by collating all of the bits of PII that we already have".

Everything they do is only a pathway to what they really want.

I didn't look at it from that point of view, and I agreed with your points

**fortysix** · April 9th, 2013, 11:12 AM

PICS is NICS, so it already should be national reciprocity, without having to go the UBC route. If MD were to want to *see the proof* that you are ok to carry a firearm - say they had border checkpoints - they would ask NICS, which you can prove you've already done via your LTCF, which uses PICS, which uses NICS. Done and done. But the problem is that MD does not want to allow PA residents to carry in their state, regardless if they have a letter from their mother or a card or anything. That wouldn't change with UBC, unless the law says such a thing, or MD magically decided to enter into a reciprocity agreement.

The argument for PICS is NICS and national reciprocity is the same as I argue that PA ought not to have a LTCF or any carry permit in the first place. If I can pass PICS to buy the weapon I want to carry, that should suffice to allow me to carry. My town's police officers saying they never heard of me should have no bearing on it, my county's sheriff not being able to find anything on me should have no bearing on it. Sure, I can go insane or beat my wife or get DD from the Army between buying the gun and carrying the thing, but I can do all those things the day after getting my LTCF as well. Off-topic, but in the same vein.

All of this is moot, since *shall not be infringed* should mean what the words say, and that would mean LTCF, PICS, NICS, UBC, are all illegal.

**alethialogos57** · April 9th, 2013, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by fortysix

PICS is NICS, so it already should be national reciprocity, without having to go the UBC route. If MD were to want to *see the proof* that you are ok to carry a firearm - say they had border checkpoints - they would ask NICS, which you can prove you've already done via your LTCF, which uses PICS, which uses NICS. Done and done. But the problem is that MD does not want to allow PA residents to carry in their state, regardless if they have a letter from their mother or a card or anything. That wouldn't change with UBC, unless the law says such a thing, or MD magically decided to enter into a reciprocity agreement.

If UBC brings with it a Universal Process, then one could argue that passing the UBC in one state equates to passing the UBC in another.

Originally Posted by fortysix

The argument for PICS is NICS and national reciprocity is the same as I argue that PA ought not to have a LTCF or any carry permit in the first place. If I can pass PICS to buy the weapon I want to carry, that should suffice to allow me to carry. My town's police officers saying they never heard of me should have no bearing on it, my county's sheriff not being able to find anything on me should have no bearing on it.

Agree 100%

Originally Posted by fortysix

Sure, I can go insane or beat my wife or get DD from the Army between buying the gun and carrying the thing, but I can do all those things the day after getting my LTCF as well. Off-topic, but in the same vein.

Of course. One can't legislate "crazy". There are a myriad of things that could be used to cause mass destruction. I remember after OK, the Feds put limitations on the amount of fertilizer one could purchase. Which had the unintended consequences of leaving the farmers saying "um, how am I supposed to treat 100+ acres with 5lbs?" (I forget the actual limit)

Originally Posted by fortysix

All of this is moot, since *shall not be infringed* should mean what the words say, and that would mean LTCF, PICS, NICS, UBC, are all illegal.

If only the "Fools in Black Robes" saw it that way. Wasn't it Scalia himself that wrote about "reasonable restrictions". Way to make it subjective rather than quantitative, eh?

**claudel** · April 9th, 2013, 12:04 PM

Only if the congresscritters supposedly on "our" side insist on it.

Doesn't look like it'll happen anytime soon.

If a proposed UBC law actually enabled legal 50 State concealed carry and prohibited linkage of items to individuals then I could probably support it.

Of course, that's counter to the purpose of the proposed UBC, I'd guess.