Universal background check

A universal background check for guns is a policy that requires a background check for all gun sales or transfers, regardless of where they occur or who is involved. This includes sales at gun shows, private sales between individuals, and sales made online. The idea is to close loopholes in existing laws that currently allow some gun purchases to occur without background checks.

Proposals in the United States, as part of gun control to curb gun violence, would require all gun sales or transfers to be recorded and go through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), closing what is sometimes called the private sale exemption. Universal background checks are not required by U.S. federal gun law, but at least 22 states and the District of Columbia currently require background checks for certain private sales of firearms.

Federal gun law requires background checks (through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS) only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for 78% of all gun sales in the United States. This figure was published in a 2017 study by the Annals of Internal Medicine which, using a 2015 survey, found that 22% of recent gun transfers (purchased and nonpurchased) were completed without a background check.^[1] The authors noted that while this number was less than in years past, it nonetheless indicates that millions of U.S. adults are able to obtain firearms without background checks.^[1] The current federal law allows people not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms to sell firearms without a license or records. A 2008 report from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) stated that the NICS had prevented over 1.4 million felons and other prohibited persons from purchasing firearms in the years between 1994 and 2005.^[2] According to the CSGV, the law also has a prohibitive effect, that deters illegal purchases.

In November 1998, President Bill Clinton directed the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and the U.S. Attorney General (A.G.) to provide recommendations concerning the fact that 25% or more of sellers at gun shows in the U.S. are not required to run background checks on potential buyers. This was called the gun show loophole.^{[3]: 3, 12 [4][5]: 27} Two months later, Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces was released.^[3] The Secretary and the A.G. made seven recommendations, including expanding the definition of "gun show," and reviewing the definition of "engaged in the business".

After the Columbine High School massacre in April 1999, gun shows and background checks became a focus of national debate.^[6][7][8] In May, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, "We think it is reasonable to provide mandatory, instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show."^{[9]: 118} Those concerned about the shows believed they were a source of illegally trafficked firearms.^{[10][nb 1]} Efforts to reverse a key feature of the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) by requiring criminal background checks and purchase records on private sales at gun shows, which had become prolific in the U.S. since the law's passage in 1986, were unsuccessful.^[11][12]

In the August 5, 2010, issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers Garen J. Wintemute, Anthony A. Braga, and David M. Kennedy, wrote that gun shows account for only a fraction of all U.S. gun sales and that a more effective strategy of preventing gun violence would be to make all private-party gun sales go through the screening and record-keeping processes that Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealers are required to do.^[13] Their report concluded:

Drawbacks with respect to expense and inconvenience notwithstanding, 83% of self-reported gun owners and 87% of the general population endorsed regulation for all private-party gun sales in a 2008 poll that was conducted for the advocacy organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Gun owners gave stronger support to this all-inclusive approach than to a gun-show-only proposal in a 2009 poll conducted for the same organization. Either proposal would face tough sledding on Capitol Hill. It would therefore seem preferable to move forward with the version that is most likely to reduce the rates of firearm-related violence.^[13]

Tras la masacre de la escuela primaria Sandy Hook del 14 de diciembre de 2012 , hubo numerosos llamamientos a favor de verificaciones de antecedentes universales ^{[ 14 ] [ 15 ] [ 16 ]} para cerrar lo que ahora se conoce como la " laguna legal de las ferias de armas " o la "laguna legal de las ventas privadas". ^{[ 17 ] [ 18 ] [ 19 ]} En un ensayo publicado en 2013, Wintemute afirmó que las verificaciones de antecedentes exhaustivas que incluyeran las ventas privadas darían como resultado un marco simple y justo para el comercio minorista de armas de fuego. ^{[ 20 ] : 103} En febrero de 2014, investigadores del Centro Johns Hopkins para la Política y la Investigación sobre Armas informaron que después de la derogación en 2007 en Missouri de una ley de larga data que exigía que todos los compradores de pistolas pasaran una verificación de antecedentes, hubo un aumento del 23% en los homicidios con armas de fuego. ^{[ 21 ]}

Un estudio de 2012 publicado en la revista Injury Prevention encontró que casi el 80% de todas las armas de fuego utilizadas con fines delictivos se obtienen a través de transferencias de distribuidores sin licencia, que no están obligados a realizar verificaciones de antecedentes en la mayoría de los estados debido a la exención de venta privada. ^{[ 22 ]} Una encuesta de 2016 de reclusos de prisiones federales y estatales realizada por la Oficina de Estadísticas de Justicia encontró que entre los prisioneros que poseían un arma durante su delito, el 10,1% obtuvo el arma a través de una fuente minorista (7,5% tienda de armas, 1,6% casa de empeño, 0,8% feria de armas y 0,4% de un mercado de pulgas); el 25,3% obtuvo el arma de un individuo (miembro de la familia, amigo u otro, ya sea comprada, intercambiada, prestada o recibida como regalo); el 43,2% obtuvo el arma en la calle o a través del mercado clandestino (como "mercados de bienes robados, intermediarios de bienes robados , delincuentes o empresas criminales" o personas involucradas en el tráfico ilegal de drogas ); El 6,4% obtuvo el arma mediante robo; y el 17,4% la obtuvo de otra fuente. ^{[ 23 ]}

En 2017, un estudio realizado por investigadores de la Universidad Northeastern y la Escuela de Salud Pública de Harvard mostró que el 22% de los propietarios de armas en EE. UU. que habían obtenido un arma en los dos años anteriores no se sometieron a una verificación de antecedentes antes de hacerlo. ^{[ 24 ]}

Universal background checks for guns enjoy high levels of public support; a 2016 representative survey found 86% of registered voters in the U.S. supported the measure.^[25] Five national polls conducted in 2015 show high levels of support for "expanded background checks for gun purchases," with rates varying (93% and 89% support in two Quinnipiac University surveys, 92% support in a CBS/New York Times survey, 86% support in a Gallup survey, 85% support in a Pew Research Center survey).^[26] A 2015 survey found that more than 90% of Americans supported universal background checks, and that, on average, Americans thought they would be more effective than any other gun policy.^[27] There is evidence that many Americans incorrectly think that universal background checks are required by federal law; a 2016 survey found that 41% of Americans believed this to be the case. The same survey found that 77% of Americans supported universal background checks, while only 53% supported stricter gun laws. Based on this data, the authors concluded that "this difference might be attributable to poor awareness of the limitations of existing laws."^[28]

In 2015, large majorities of American adults, both Republicans (79%) and Democrats (88%), supported background checks for private sales and at gun shows, according to a Pew Research Center survey.^[29] In 2017, strong majorities of American adults, both gun owners (77%) and non-gun owners (87%), supported background checks for private sales and at gun shows, according to a Pew Research Center survey with an error attributable to sampling of +/- 2.8% at the 95% level of confidence.^[30] In 2018, after the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, nearly all Americans supported universal background checks.^[31][32] 88% of registered voters supported universal background checks, according to a Politico/Morning Consult poll with a margin of error +/- 2%.^[31] 94% of American voters supported universal background checks, according to a Quinnipiac University Polling Institute poll with a margin of error of +/- 3.4%.^[32]

Una encuesta realizada por NPR en julio de 2019 reveló que el 89% de los encuestados apoyaba la verificación de antecedentes para todas las compras de armas en ferias de armas u otras ventas privadas. ^{[ 33 ]} Una abrumadora mayoría de republicanos (84%) y demócratas (96%) manifestó su apoyo, lo que sugiere que existe un consenso popular bipartidista sobre este tema en la opinión pública. ^{[ 34 ]}

Grupos defensores del derecho a portar armas, como la Asociación Nacional del Rifle de América (NRA) y la Fundación Nacional de Deportes de Tiro, se oponen a las propuestas de verificación universal de antecedentes. ^{[ 35 ] [ 36 ]} Los opositores a las verificaciones universales de antecedentes argumentan que las leyes de armas existentes son suficientes; que el gobierno no procesa suficientes compradores no elegibles que intentan comprar armas y que son rechazados por el sistema actual; que las verificaciones de antecedentes son una invasión de la privacidad; y que "transferencia" podría definirse de manera demasiado amplia. ^{[ 37 ]} Los opositores también sostienen que las verificaciones universales de antecedentes no detendrían el crimen ^{[ 37 ] [ 38 ]} y afirman que la única manera de hacer cumplir adecuadamente un sistema universal sería requerir una base de datos de registro, lo cual, si es implementado por el gobierno federal, está prohibido por 18 USC § 926(a) de la Ley de Protección de Propietarios de Armas de Fuego . ^{[ 38 ] [ 39 ] [ 40 ]} El defensor del derecho a portar armas y autor John Lott argumenta que las verificaciones universales de antecedentes impiden que los estadounidenses más pobres adquieran armas. Lott afirmó que, a diciembre de 2015, las verificaciones de antecedentes añadían un costo efectivo de 80 dólares (Nueva York), 60 dólares (estado de Washington) o 200 dólares (Washington D.C.) a la transferencia de un arma de fuego. Lott argumenta que las verificaciones universales de antecedentes constituyen un impuesto efectivo sobre las armas y pueden impedir que los estadounidenses de bajos recursos las adquieran, y que esto afecta de manera desproporcionada a las minorías pobres que viven en zonas urbanas con altos índices de criminalidad. ^{[ 41 ]}

Algunos condados locales han adoptado resoluciones de santuario de la Segunda Enmienda en oposición a las leyes de verificación universal de antecedentes. ^{[ 42 ] [ 43 ]}

A Reason magazine article from March 2023^[44] cited a series of studies conducted out of the United Kingdom that stated:^[45]

The evidence indicates that state laws requiring background checks for private sales,^[45] which in practice means they must be completed through federally licensed dealers, are widely flouted by gun owners who object to the added expense and inconvenience.^[44]

Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP) found that comprehensive background check policies led to increased background checks in Delaware, but not in Colorado or Washington. Non-compliance with the policy may explain the lack of an increase in the latter two states.^[46] Universal background check laws were associated with a 14.9% reduction in overall homicides, according to a 2019 study by medical researchers including Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health and David Hemenway of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health published by the Journal of General Internal Medicine. The study authors wrote that "further research is necessary to determine whether these associations are causal ones".^[47]

An October 2018 study conducted by the VPRP at UC Davis and the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found no change in firearm homicide or suicide rates in the ten years following California's 1991 implementation of comprehensive background checks. The study's control group used firearm and non-firearm mortality data for 32 states that did not implement major firearm policies during the period from 1981 to 2000. In the study period, firearm suicide rates were 10.9% lower in California but a similar decrease in non-firearm suicide was also observed. The study found no net difference between firearm-related homicide rates before and during the study period. The study authors identified a number of possible reasons for the null finding, including inadequate reporting of criminal records or other disqualifying information to background-check databases (especially pre-2000); a failure by sellers to conduct the background check as required by law; and the small number of persons affected by the California law.^[48]

Un estudio publicado en julio de 2018 no halló ninguna relación entre las tasas de homicidios y suicidios con armas de fuego y la derogación de las leyes de verificación exhaustiva de antecedentes en dos estados. El estudio comparó las tasas de grupos de control sintéticos con las tasas de Indiana entre 1981 y 2008 y de Tennessee entre 1994 y 2008. Las tasas de los períodos de estudio de ambos estados se encontraban dentro del rango de variabilidad natural . El estudio también concluyó que, para comprender si las verificaciones exhaustivas de antecedentes generalmente reducen las muertes por armas de fuego, se necesita más evidencia de otros estados. ^{[ 49 ]}

Un estudio publicado en junio de 2018 en el Journal of Urban Health por autores afiliados al VPRP de UC Davis y al Center for Gun Policy and Research de la Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health encontró que las leyes de verificación exhaustiva de antecedentes (CBC, por sus siglas en inglés) no vinculadas a una ley de permiso de compra estaban asociadas con un aumento en las tasas de homicidios con armas de fuego, pero no en las tasas de homicidios sin armas de fuego. ^{[ 50 ]} Los autores del estudio señalaron, sin embargo, que no han "identificado ninguna teoría plausible para explicar cómo exigir a un posible comprador de armas de fuego que se someta a una verificación de antecedentes resultaría en un aumento de las tasas de homicidio". ^{[ 50 ]} En un intento por explicar los resultados inesperados, los investigadores propusieron una relación endógena, de modo que los estados que aprobaron las leyes de CBC únicamente lo hicieron en respuesta a las tasas de homicidios con armas de fuego que ya estaban aumentando. ^{[ 50 ]}

A 2016 study published in The Lancet attempted to measure the impact that 25 different state laws had on overall firearm-related mortality, and it found that universal background checks had the strongest overall impact.^[51] Additionally, the researchers' projection of a federally implemented universal background check policy predicted that national firearm mortality could drop from 10.35 deaths per 100,000 people to 4.46 deaths per 100,000 people.^[51] A 2015 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that a Connecticut law (enacted in 1995) requiring handgun buyers to undergo a background check (in order to obtain a required permit) "was associated with a 40 percent decline in gun homicides and a 15 percent drop in suicides" during the law's first ten years in effect.^[52] A 2014 study published in the Journal of Urban Health found that the 2007 repeal of a "permit-to-purchase" handgun law in Missouri (including the repeal of a background-check requirement) was associated with a 23% increase in the firearm homicide rate and a 15% increase in the murder rate, translating "to increases of between 55 and 63 homicides per year in Missouri."^[53] The study controlled for other variables that might affect homicides, including "changes in rates of unemployment, poverty, incarceration, burglary, law enforcement officers per capita, and the presence of four other types of state laws."^[53] A 2013 study published in the JAMA Internal Medicine analyzed various types of firearm legislation across the U.S. from 2007 to 2010 and firearm-related deaths across all 50 states, and concluded that stronger background checks were associated with lower overall firearm fatality rates.^[54]

In a survey published by The New York Times in January 2017, a panel of 32 scholars of criminology, public health, and law rated universal background checks as the most effective policy to prevent gun deaths, ranking it #1 of 29 possible gun-related policies (7.3 on a 10-point effectiveness scale).^[55] In a subsequent expert survey published in October 2017 on policies to curb mass shooting deaths specifically, the expert panel ranked universal checks for gun buyers and universal checks for ammunition buyers as 6.6 and 6.5 (on a 10-point effectiveness scale), respectively, ranking them as the fifth- and sixth-most effective of 20 gun-policy proposals.^[56]

A survey by Arthur Berg, Gary Mauser, and John Lott, published in the winter 2019–2020 edition of the Cato Institute quarterly Regulation, asked respondents (38 criminologists, 32 economists, and 50 public health researchers who had published an empirical study on firearms in a peer-reviewed journal) to rank the effects of 33 firearms policies (20 policies in the New York Times in 2017, plus 8 additional policies that would loosen gun regulation, and 5 additional restrictive policies) on reducing murder rates and mass shootings. (Berg, Mauser, and Lott asked about "murder rates" rather than gun homicides because they made the assumption that stricter gun laws would not affect the homicide rate.) Respondents ranked universal background checks 13th and 14th for reducing the murder rate and reducing mass shootings, respectively. Public health researchers were substantially likelier than economists and criminologists to rate universal background checks as effective.^[57]

Universal background check laws, which require a background check before any firearm transfer, may extend to temporary removals of firearms from the homes of individuals at risk of suicide. Some clinicians have noted that these laws can create uncertainty regarding the legality of such transfers, potentially complicating their ability to effectively counsel patients on firearm safety in these situations.^[58]

As of 2024, 22 states and the District of Columbia require background checks for at least some private sales of firearms; of these, 19 states and the District of Columbia require background checks for all gun sales.^[59]

• Editorial board (February 18, 2014). "Missouri study shows why we need universal gun background checks". Chicago Sun-Times. Sun-Times Media. Retrieved June 30, 2014.
• Krouse, William J. (March 1, 2013). "Gun Control Proposals in the 113th Congress: Universal Background Checks, Gun Trafficking, and Military Style Firearms"(PDF). U.S. Department of State. Retrieved February 17, 2015.