Makes sense.
The greatest problem here in America has often involved micromanagement. If I need to drop off a firearm with someone who is trusted because I'm house someone who cannot or should not be trusted around firearms, I do not need government impeding me from doing so, thereby increasing the risk instead of decreasing it.
+1
I trust I'm not the only who has informally stored firearms for friends or family members who, acting in an abundance of caution, felt it prudent to remove the guns from their homes for a short period of marital turmoil, personal depression, etc. How many gun owners are going to exercise that degree of caution if they are required to go through formal transfers with both background checks and putting their guns back on the books in the process?
Not to mention all kinds of other stupid inconveniences if even temporary transfers require government involvement to be legal. A bunch of friends carpooling to the range or hunting area now have to make sure that everyone's guns stay in the same vehicle as the owner, rather than being able to put guns into the travel trailer or the truck with the camper shell regardless of who is riding in which vehicle. I can lend or sell virtually ever other piece of property I own--power tools, books, cars, dirt bikes, fishing and archery equipment, grandma's fine china--without government getting involved. But now some gun haters are trying to make a case that the one item I own with specific constitutional protection should be subject to all kinds of limitations on lending, borrowing, selling, or who stores it where??!?!?
Charles