turns out it's not always so easy to sit down a write out a general description of a particular activity, that neither includes too much nor excludes important varieties of that activity.
consider the federal statute making it a serious federal crime to be an unlicensed gun dealer, "in the business" of selling guns without a license. i've gotten some serious hard-core pro gunner types to finally admit that the private sellers captured on secret camera youtube clips, sitting behind tables with scores of guns for sale, who are filmed bragging about selling 340 guns per year, are "probably" breaking this federal statute.
now, if these guys are probably committing a serious federal crime with this activity, then why are those guys still there, still selling, at every gun show in America?
the answer is that the law was poorly written. the intent of the law is clear, yet the language of it had the result that it does not prohibit the activity that it was written to prohibit.
now, the same could very well be true for some state UBC laws as well. i am not defending every sentence of every single state UBC law in existence because i haven't read them all. and i certainly don't have a problem with pointing out scenarios in which a new law could appear to prohibit activity that is considered innocuous, or common practice, in a particular jurisdiction.
but politicians don't win elections by declaring wars on "the very way of life" of their state's more countrified voters. it's true that due to population density factors, they may sometimes pay more attention to the cultures of the in-town voters than to the out-in-the-country voters. and as a result, i'm sure that many laws are written that create these potential prohibitions that the lawmakers hadn't intended, or hadn't envisioned.
but it's paranoid to simply assume that city politicians, with their urban voter base, are rubbing their hands together with evil glee at ruining the favored passtimes of voters living 100 miles away in hunting-and-fishing territory. it just doesn't happen like that. and if Roscoe P. Coltrane does haul your butt into jail for handing the hunting shotgun to your best friend while you climb over the fence, then it's probably because he doesn't like you dating his daughter, not because he runs around hiding behind fences waiting for the 10-second illegal gun "transfer".
another example is speed limits. nobody worries about accidentally exceeding the speed limit by 1 mph. for whatever reason, we've settled into a comfortable agreement with our State Troopers that if we drive right around the speed limit, they won't pull us over for bopping over it for a sec. but you don't see picket lines of angry demonstrators in front of the state capitol building demanding that the speed limit laws be re-written to specify precisely what speed you cannot exceed without the expectation of a ticket. and this, even though it's not even written down anywhere what will get you pulled over. we know that they know that we know that they won't ticket us for 1 mph over the speed limit, so that's good enough for us and the world goes about its business.
but again, certain parts of certain laws are, i'm sure, in need of rewording. and if you're a person whose favored activities are potentially affected by this situation, then by all means, call your congressman and tell him so. get all your hunting buddies to do the same. politicians tend to be pretty responsive to organized groups of voters who have a seemingly legitimate gripe about one particular detail of a new law, especially if the group identifies a fix for the law that doesn't affect its purpose.