PF Nov 2017 - Universal Background Checks - Introduction

Resolved: The United States should require universal background checks for all gun sales and transfer of ownership.

Introduction

There is no question, perhaps, the United States has a gun violence problem. As I write this, we have learned of an incident which just took place in Las Vegas where early reports are more than 50 killed and hundreds injured due to a shooting rampage carried out by a lone-gunman. According to the watch-dog group, Gun Violence Archive, there have been close to 46,600 incidents with guns including 11,600 deaths, 23,400 injuries in 2017 alone. Some, 3000 of those deaths or injuries involved young people below the age of 18. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there were more than 21,000 suicides by firearms in 2014.

For generations, there have been calls to either disarm or impose additional regulations which limit the ability of individuals to harm others or themselves with firearms. However, in the United States, advocates for gun ownership will always first cite the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) as recently as 2008 in the case of District Columbia v Heller, upheld the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense apart from service in a militia.

Despite the overwhelming power of the U.S. Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in support of private ownership pf guns, there is a large number of Americans who believe that not everyone should be allowed to have guns or own certain types of guns. Indeed, there are already federal restrictions on gun ownership which limits the ability of individuals to own sawed-off shotguns, fully-automatic weapons and machine guns, and silencers. Moreover, certain non-citizens, drug addicts, mental patients and certain classes of ex-military, criminals or offenders are not allowed to possess guns. However, many will argue these restrictions alone, are insufficient since there are no laws in place which guarantees that individuals belonging to a restricted class cannot easily acquire a gun because their background is not adequately known or checked.

Currently, in the United States, many states permit the sale of guns in an array of department stores, sports equipment stores, and similar outlets. Additionally, many states permit the sale of guns at various gun shows, auctions, and through private sales. Generally, the retail establishments possess Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL) for the right to sell firearms to the public. This license provides access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which allows retailers to verify the purchaser is not a felon or on some kind of federal list which would deny their right to buy a gun. Some states will enforce a waiting period, between the time a person purchases a gun and finally takes possession of it. Presumably the waiting period, allows time to verify the buyer's background and provides a kind of "cooling off" period to prevent spur-of-the-moment sales by a purchaser in a compromised emotional condition. Gun shows and private sales outlets are not required to carry the FFL and so do not access the NICS. Gun show proprietors may sell guns with nothing more that a reasonable belief the buyer does not fall into a restricted class. This is the so-called "gun show loophole".

This resolution takes on this issues and claims that universal background checks should be required before an individual can acquire a gun. But, we are not given any additional information upon which to erect cases for or against this proposal, so we shall begin our initial analysis, as usual, by defining the terms.

Definitions

The United States 

There is no need to formally define 'The United States'. The United States is comprised of a federation of  50 states and its territories which grants certain powers to a central government which we know is comprised of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. It is the legislative branch which makes federal laws, the executive which upholds and enforces the laws and the judicial branch which interprets the laws. The U.S. Constitution (which is often claimed to be 'the supreme law of the land') basically functions as a legal instrument which limits the power of the government to infringe citizens' rights.

require 

Merriam Webster defines require as "to claim or ask for by right or authority". An additional interpretation states, "to impose a compulsion of command on".

universal 

According to Merriam Webster, "including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception".

universal background checks

As we shall soon see as we explore the Pro and Con positions, the meaning of "universal background checks" in the context of this resolution is subject to various debatable interpretations. While we may look to various mechanisms and means and argue about their reliability or efficiency, we can generically state that a 'universal background check' is a mechanism by which the government can ensure that a person desiring to own or possess a gun is not restricted from doing so due to falling within a restricted class such as being a convicted felon or deemed mentally incompetent.

all gun sales

The noteworthy thing about this terminology is the fact, the resolution states 'all gun sales' as opposed to certain classes of weapons such as handguns or assault weapons.

transfer

Merriam Webster's definition is, "to convey from one person, place, or situation to another".

ownership

According to Merriam Webster, this word means "the state, relation, or fact of being an owner" and an 'owner' is one who has a legal title to something.

Topic Analysis

This resolution falls into a group of past resolutions which can be called "gun-control" topics, since it requires some conditions and implies there may be limits to how freely citizens may trade, sell, or otherwise acquire guns. In September of 2012, Public Forum debated, Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, limiting the sale and ownership of certain semi-automatic weapons and associated devices. In January of 2016, Lincoln-Douglas debaters argued Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Each of these prior resolutions dealt with specific types of weapons and each sought to greatly limit or restrict a person's ability to obtain such weapons. This resolution is different in that it does not specifically ban any weapons other than those already banned. In fact, this resolution does not specify any changes to existing laws which oversee the possession of any or all weapons. What this resolution does do is require a "universal background check". We can make some reasonable inferences about what that means.

We initially assume, the purpose of the universal background check is to ensure that the individual seeking to take possession of a gun is not a member of a federally restricted class (felon, unlicensed non-citizen, etc.). There is nothing in this resolution which seeks to alter existing laws which may restrict one's right to own a gun for any purpose. Further, even though the resolution does not say so, we can assume the process of conducting the background check and officially confirming an individual is not a member of a restricted class must be completed prior to the individual taking possession of the gun. We may also surmise this resolution has no bearing on any individual who already possesses guns; only those who seek to acquire guns after the resolution is affirmed.

The Pro side of this debate will be arguing that affirming the resolution does not prevent citizens from owning or acquiring guns except those already restricted under existing federal law. The resolution merely provides that all sales or transfer of ownership must be done with a satisfactory background check confirming the owner's eligibility. One may conclude affirming the resolution, closes the gun show loophole. The Pro side becomes much more difficult when examining the issue of private sales or what the resolution calls, 'transfer of ownership'. The resolution requires a background check for ALL transactions in which gun ownership is transferred. This would include a sale such as me selling a gun to a friend or even me giving a gun to a friend as a gift. Applying the restriction to ALL transfers strongly suggests that some form of licensing mechanism would be required in order to assure compliance with the resolution.

On the Con side, debaters will argue that such background checks will not solve the harms arising from gun ownership. Statistics will prove that a large percentage of the guns used for crimes and murders are bought and sold "underground" on the so-called black market, from dealers who are themselves felons under criminal law and thus have no intention of conforming to federal requirements for gun sales. The Con debaters will try to turn the Pro case by proving that the mechanism of background checks will have the effect of a ban for many people and will deprive them of their constitutional right to own a gun for self-defense. The Con will view any expansion of federal law to regulate who owns guns and who does not as just one more advance down the slippery-slope of eventually banning all private ownership of guns.

This topic may potentially arouse emotional responses on both sides of the debate and certainly it is a topic in which many, many judges may have already formed an opinion one way or the other. Therefore, both sides need to be aware of these possibilities especially when arguing in front of a "citizen" judge. Both sides should choose their sources carefully, avoiding whenever possible, strongly biased evidence from groups who's sole purpose is to lobby for or against gun control legislation. Of course that is not to say, good information and valuable statistics can not be gained from such sources. I am merely cautioning because I would expect some opponents to question the credibility of evidence based upon source bias.

For more information on this topic or other Public Forum Debate topics, select the 'Public Forum' page tab.