Talk:Gun show loophole

FOPA and the gun show loophole

This seems to be under discussion here and under the "Lead section" discussion, which is rather distracting. I suggest that we keep it here, and once it's ironed out, we can incorporate it into the lead, per the excellent guidance in WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

There are numerous good quality sources that discuss the relationship between FOPA and the gun show loophole. Judging from Anastrophe's objections to this topic, there must be some sources that discount such a relationship. Our job as editors is not to argue the relationship here, but to find the best quality sources on the topic and present them here to the reader in as NPOV manner as we're able, not putting undue weight on either POV. I will go try to find a handful of good - the "gooder" the better - quality sources on this and present them here, and I suggest interested parties do the same. Lightbreather (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few. The 1999 DOJ report and the 2013 Jackson Free Press article were already given earlier by Darknipples. I've just put them into WP:CS1 format.

• "APPENDIX C: History of Federal Firearms Laws in the United States". Gun Violence Reduction: National Integrated Firearms Violence Reduction Strategy. U.S. Department of Justice. 1999. Retrieved July 5, 2014. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) (Scroll down to III. A Step Backward: The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986.)
• Mott, Ronni (January 16, 2013). "The 'Gun-Show Loophole'". Jackson Free Press. Jackson, Mississippi. Retrieved July 5, 2014.
• Masters, Jonathan (July 15, 2013). "U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons". Backgrounders. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved July 5, 2014.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

To maintain balance of perspective on this topic, here is a citation that provides the NRA's perspective on the GSL FOPA relationship. - *Once again, though, things didn`t go the way anti-gunners hoped. Gun sales actually increased at a faster pace than the increase in the U.S. population. And as gun control supporters are sorely aware, the nation`s thousands of gun shows each year are among the main reasons for that trend. That`s why, in the 1990s, anti-gun groups and politicians began claiming a so-called "gun show loophole" gives criminals "easy access" to guns by letting people other than dealers sell guns at shows without running their transactions through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). To be sure, it`s not a "loophole," because FOPA made clear no license is required to make "occasional sales, exchanges or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby," or to "[sell] all or part of [a] personal collection of firearms." But an argument over legal technicalities misses the point. It`s not about criminals getting guns--the federal government`s own studies have found that less than one percent of people in prison for using guns in felonies got their guns from shows. For gun control supporters, it`s really about the American people owning guns. http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2010/the-war-on-gun-shows.aspx - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Addressing the cites directly above in reverse order:

• The NRA's statement is actually dispositive that there is no actual 'loophole', so doesn't really support that FOPA itself is the proximate cause of same.
• The cfr's statement does draw that relationship, even though its claim is patently false (The law doesn't "allow" convicted felons to buy firearms. That convicted felons violate the law and buy firearms isn't the same thing).
• The Jackson Free Press also suggests a relationship, even though it only barely makes such a case - but it does suggest it, rightly or wrongly.
• The USDOJ source, however - specifically bullet-point two - does draw an indirect relationship, based upon the change of definition of those formally engaged in doing business such that more private individuals could sell firearms without an FFL, and thus without performing background checks at gun shows (without specifically calling out gun shows per se though).

The burden appears to be that while 'gun show loophole' is most specifically and commonly used to identify 'gun show sales without a background check', it is not unreasonable to identify the inferred connection to FOPA based upon several reliable sources.Anastrophe (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(SEE FOPA SECTION & BOTTOM OF LEAD SECTION ON TALK PAGE) (A) The Jackson Free Press can of course publish whatever they like, however this is simply incorrect. The term 'gun show loophole' has nothing to do with FFL's or FOPA. This has already been established by the numerous cites within the article. A single cite that incorrectly characterizes the term isn't meaningful or notable to the article. Anastrophe (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)(DN) Which citations within the article explicitly state "The term 'gun show loophole' has nothing to do with FFL's or FOPA."? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC) (A):"Find a reliable source that says that the term "Gun Show Loophole refers to changes made by FOPA in regard to FFL's", and we'll have a starting point for discussion." (DN) I suggested this. (section III & IX) http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm#N_8_ - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC) (A):And? I scanned and searched through it, I didn't see anything that supports what you suggest. Please quote precisely (and briefly) the portion you believe makes this claim. Anastrophe (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC) - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(A)"Which again is a false assertion, from a strongly biased source. Private individuals have *always* been able to sell firearms at gun shows without background checks." Anastrophe (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC) - (DN) My (somewhat limited) understanding is that both sides are just referencing and interpreting the same laws differently. It is unclear (to me) why assertions made by either side should be considered "false" as long as they explicitly reference GSL in a relevant manner, and are presented concurrently with relevant opposing citations i.e. one side's interpretation of the law shouldn't trump the other. Or, are you referring to something other than WP:POV & WP:Balance? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A. I don't really understand what you wrote about the NRA statement DN gave. Would you say that this is a fair summary:

The NRA, citing federal government studies that found less than one percent of imprisoned felons said they got their guns from shows, says that when gun control supporters refer to the "gun show loophole" they are not really talking about criminals getting guns, but about the American people owning guns.

--Lightbreather (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Anastrophe: Please rest assured I have no desire to draw any kind of synthetic relationship between GSL and FOPA. The inferred causation is by the sources themselves, and appears evident in the quotes that LB and I have provided. FOPA simply keeps appearing in conjunction with searches for the term GSL. Granted, they are not always mentioned in the exact same sentence, but the context in these particular sources make it explicitly clear that FOPA is at least part of GSL etymology, in that, GSL refers to loophole(s) in the law (FOPA) regarding gun shows and private party sales. Whether or not this is considered accurate by other sources relating to GSL is another matter that should also be made clear, in a concurrent manner, if it hasn't already. Darknipples (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"But one of the proposals that seems to be beyond argument is background checking — checking that is already required in Illinois, but not in many neighboring states and certainly not in states where huge gun shows are much more common. This is what people are talking about when they refer to the "loophole" at gun shows. They are called "private party" gun sales, and 33 states have no regulations covering them. Even federal law, amended a few years back under something called the Firearms Owners' Protection Act, can't touch these private sales. Federal dealers must keep records. Private sellers don't have to in most places." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-10/opinion/ct-perspec-0310-guns-20130310_1_gun-show-big-clips-array-of-gun-legislation Darknipples (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"The NRA also scored a long-lasting victory in the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, which eased rules so individuals could sell weapons from private collections without possessing a federal firearms license. That redefinition of what it meant to be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms opened up what came to be known as the “gun-show loophole,” in which private sellers circumvent paperwork and background-check requirements imposed on licensees. To this day it “handcuffs the ATF,” as gun-control advocate Dennis Henigan put it." http://conservativeread.com/how-the-nra-became-atfs-biggest-enemy/ - Darknipples (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"However, critics maintain that a so-called "gun show loophole," codified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, effectively allows anyone, including convicted felons, to purchase firearms without a background check." http://www.cfr.org/society-and-culture/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735 - Darknipples (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Under the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals “not engaged in the business” of selling firearms are not required to conduct background checks on buyers or maintain records of sale. For gun-grabbers, this law is known as the “gun show loophole.”" http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-targets-gun-shows.html - Darknipples (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Gun shows haven't always played a vital role in the retail gun trade. Historically, they were conducted to bring collectors together and were off-limits to dealers. The 1968 Gun Control Act, passed after the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., established a licensing system that required dealers to sell guns only at their business locations. But in November 1984, ATF issued a rule that let dealers "conduct business temporarily" at gun shows. Congress solidified that rule in 1986 with the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which legalized gun-show sales by firearms dealers and allowed "occasional" private sales at gun shows by individuals without licenses. Gun-control advocates' campaigns in Colorado and Congress to "close the gun-show loophole," begun in response to Columbine, aim to reverse a key feature of the 1986 law by requiring criminal background checks and purchase records on private sales at gun shows. Colorado proponents suffered a setback Friday when a legislative committee killed a gun-show bill backed by Gov. Bill Owens." http://extras.denverpost.com/news/shot0213.htm - Darknipples (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood." http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html - Darknipples (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"However, critics maintain that a so-called “gun show loophole,” codified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, effectively allows anyone, including convicted felons, to purchase firearms without a background check." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gun-policy/ - Darknipples (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Federal law requires that persons engaged in dealing firearms must hold a federal license and perform background checks on all firearm purchases, however under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals who only make occasional sales within their state of residence are not required to conduct background checks, nor are they required to maintain records of sale." http://humanevents.com/2013/07/07/gun-rights-activists-split-on-gun-show-loophole/ - Darknipples (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"What is the gun show loophole? The gun show loophole appeared in 1986, when Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act that differentiates between licensed gun dealers and private sellers." http://www.ncpa.org/media/sheriff-bailey-chief-monroe-close-gun-show-loophole - Darknipples (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• The National Center for Policy Analysis has been characterized as a "Right Wing Think Tank" by the People for the American Way, a politically liberal advocacy organization.- Darknipples (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1360&context=lclr Darknipples (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=dpzN711aYlQC&pg=PA126&dq=gun+show+loophole&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ivm6U6L3JcK2yASNu4DIDQ&ved=0CBsQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=gun%20show%20loophole&f=false Darknipples (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(pages 95-96-97) (With regard to gun show loophole, private sellers, the secondary market, and FOPA) - "The secondary market consists of transfers by unlicensed private parties such as the individual attendees at gun shows (Cook, Molliconi, and Cole 1995 et al. 2002)" - "Even if the purchaser is a prohibited person, let alone a non-prohibited person with criminal intent, a private party may sell him a firearm without committing a crime. The key is that while it is always illegal for a prohibited person to buy a firearm, it is only illegal to sell a firearm to a prohibited person if the seller knows or has “reasonable cause to believe” that he is doing so (U.S. Code) How did this come to pass? The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act apply only to those who are “engaged in a business” of selling firearms. Any clear understanding of what “engaged in a business” might mean was abolished by the 1986 Firearm Owners’ per style sheet Protection Act (U.S. Code). FOPA specifically excluded from the scope of engagement in a the business a person who makes “occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms” (U.S. Code). The practical result was to make it much more difficult to set an upper limit to the number of firearms sales that an individual could make without being required to have a license and comply with the safeguards described above (Braga and Kennedy 2000, Wintermute 2007, 2009b). ATF summarized the situation this way in a 1999 study of gun shows: “Unfortunately, the effect of the 1986 amendments has often been to frustrate the prosecution of unlicensed dealers masquerading as collectors or hobbyists but who are really trafficking firearms to felons or other prohibited persons” (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 1999b" http://books.google.com/books?id=sQxNVhV-W7oC&lpg=PA95&ots=M-5qgFGSgC&dq=%22gun%20show%20loophole%22&lr&pg=PA95#v=onepage&q&f=false Darknipples (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

UNITED STATES CODE CONGRESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE NEWS - 99th Congress-Second Session 1986 Volume 4 - legislative history - public laws 99-272 Cont’d to 99-449 (page 11) - "Determining Who Needs A License" – A feature with major impact is the change in defining who is required to obtain a license as a dealer, manufacturer or importer. This is an area that has many who use firearms very upset. Persons who are “engaged in the business” of manufacturing, importing, or buying and selling firearms are required to obtain a license. S. 49 and H.R. 945 define “engaged in the business” in terms of “the principal objective of livelihood and profit” whose underlying intent is “predominantly one of obtaining a livelihood and pecuniary gain” (emphasis added) (S. 49, sec. 101(6), pages 3-5) and 102(1); H.R. 945, sec. 101(6)). This definition, which does not follow the case law, is likely to have a serious weakening effect on GCA. Current law permits ordinary firearms owners to sell their firearms but not to “engage in the business” of selling firearms without a license. These provisions expand the number of persons who can engage in firearms transaction or importation without needing a license or having to comply with the record keeping requirements of the law. THIS DEFINITION HAS LOOPHOLES for a person, believing the public ought to be armed for self-protection, who sells large volumes of firearms at no markup price which does not make a profit, who would not be “engaged in the business.” Unfortunately, this new definition does not solve the AMBIGUITY that confronts an active collector. http://harrislawoffice.com/content/areas_of_practice/federal_firearms/legislative_history/FOPA%20House%20Report%2099-495.pdf - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(Anastrophe) "You may be mistakenly inferring that what follows Mr. Kennedy's assertion about "the whole gun show loophole" is supportive of his assertion about "the whole gun show loophole". It isn't." - How else is this assertion to be inferred? (DN)- (A)"The whole point of the term 'gun show loophole' is that guns can be sold by non-FFL's without having to perform background checks. That's the whole of the matter." - To my knowledge, GSL represents a political concept, held by one side, that there is a loophole in the laws affecting gun shows. Whether or not it is a non-FFL or an FFL that is acting as a private party, is not the issue. (DN) - (A) "It's what legislation in support of 'closing' the gun show loophole has as its intent." - I have since created a section for this. You will find that suggestions by USDOJ to close GSL explicitly reference laws which FOPA is directly responsible for. (DN) - (A) "Mr. Kennedy was always strongly in favor of any gun control that passed his desk. Would you suggest that the opening sentence of the article be written based on his inflammatory tone?" - No, and with regard to your comment regarding the statement by Handgun Control Inc. and Interactivetimeline.com, I see your point, however, to ignore these citations that assert a relation between GSL and FOPA would be disingenuous of me - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

According to multiple sources FOPA is a key component to the GSL controversy...Under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), firearm dealers with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) were prohibited from doing business at gun shows (they were only permitted to do business at the address listed on their license). That changed with the enactment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), which allows FFLs to transfer firearms at gun shows provided they follow the provisions of the GCA and other pertinent federal regulations.... Darknipples (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"The NRA ultimately got much of what it wanted in the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA, nicknamed "Faux Pas by its opponents). The new law eased rules so individuals could sell weapons from private collections without possessing a federal firearms license. That redefinition of what it meant to be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms opened up what came to be known as the "gun-show loophole." in which private sellers circumvent paperwork and background-check requirements imposed on licensees." http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/The-ATF-and-the-NRA-a-shared-history-4964934.php Darknipples (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20100121/the-war-on-gun-shows - First, FOPA allowed federally licensed firearm dealers to do business at gun shows. (Until then, a dealer could only operate at the address on his license.) Second, FOPA ended abusive prosecutions of gun collectors by making clear a person does not need a license to occasionally sell firearms to reduce or improve a personal gun collection. And third, FOPA eliminated the GCA`s record-keeping requirement on sales of handgun ammunition. (For more on that issue, see p. 50.) During the Clinton administration, however, two developments gave gun control supporters new hope of reducing gun sales.

First, the 1993 Brady bill increased dealer licensing fees significantly. Second, and more important, the 1994 Clinton crime bill included language that let the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms deny license renewals on the basis of local zoning ordinances. As a result of that and other Clinton administration policies, the number of FFLs in the country was reduced by 75 percent within just a few years.

Once again, though, things didn`t go the way anti-gunners hoped. Gun sales actually increased at a faster pace than the increase in the U.S. population. And as gun control supporters are sorely aware, the nation`s thousands of gun shows each year are among the main reasons for that trend.

That`s why, in the 1990s, anti-gun groups and politicians began claiming a so-called "gun show loophole" gives criminals "easy access" to guns by letting people other than dealers sell guns at shows without running their transactions through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Darknipples (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The NRA Refutes FOPA as being a "Loophole" "To be sure, it`s not a "loophole," because FOPA made clear no license is required to make "occasional sales, exchanges or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby," or to "[sell] all or part of [a] personal collection of firearms." But an argument over legal technicalities misses the point." https://www.nraila.org/articles/20100121/the-war-on-gun-shows - Darknipples (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"What “Loophole”? Anti-gunners call private individuals who sell a few guns from their personal collections--their personal property--the so-called “gun show loophole.” What some refer to as a “loophole” is actually federal law." https://www.nraila.org/articles/20091001/the-truth-about-gun-shows-1 - Darknipples (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

GSL Disambiguation

I've noticed several different references to GSL, such as, "private seller loophole", "The Hinckley Loophole", or the "Brady law loophole". If anyone else feels further clarification within this article is prudent, please share your thoughts here. Darknipples (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Gun Control Loophole" http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/07/The-Gun-Control-Loophole Darknipples (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

According the U.S. Department of Justice, because federal law does not require universal background checks, “individuals prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers and do so without any federal records of the transactions.”2 “The private-party gun market,” one study observed, “has long been recognized as a leading source of guns used in crimes.”3 Although the private sale loophole is frequently referred to as the “gun show” loophole (because of the particular problems associated with gun shows), it applies to all private firearm sales, regardless of where they occur. http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gun-background-checks-policy-summary/

I think the whole article is overly simplistic and does not spell out what GSL really means: outlawing all private sales of firearms. GSL is just a term to confuse and scare the soccer moms and pajama boys into voting for something they don't understand.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Mike - As far as we all know, GSL refers to background checks, and has nothing to do with "outlawing all private sales of firearms". I know I'm new here, but I'm doing my best to make sure this article retains an objective and balanced point of view. Do you have a viable citation that states GSL is "just a term to confuse and scare the soccer moms and pajama boys into voting for something they don't understand."? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the coalition to stop gun violence "The gun show loophole refers to the fact that prohibited purchasers can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at gun shows." http://csgv.org/issues/universal-background-checks/gun-show-loophole-faq/ Darknipples (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(PDF) Starting at the bottom of page 34 - Titled: Gun Shows and Private Firearm Sales To some, this may appear to be an incongruity in the law. Why, they ask, should licensees be required to conduct background checks at gun shows, and not nonlicensees? To others, opposed to further federal regulation of firearms, it may appear to be a continuance of the status quo (i.e., non-interference by the federal government into private firearm transfers within state lines). On the other hand, those seeking to increase federal regulation of firearms may view the absence of background checks for firearm transfers between nonlicensed/private persons as a “loophole” in the law that needs to be closed. A possible issue for Congress is whether federal regulation of firearms should be expanded to include private firearm transfers at gun shows and other similar venues. http://file.wikileaks.org/file/crs/RL32842.pdf - Darknipples (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I still think that we should include the other names GSL is known by. This has been a major point of contention, so I think it would be prudent to include this somewhere. I'm considering adding them in to one of the existing sections or creating a new "history" section. Are there any objections or suggestions? Darknipples (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Gun Law Loophole" - 1993 LA Times http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-26/news/mn-5670_1_gun-show - Darknipples (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"pejorative term-of-art "

Editors (see above) can't make these things up on their own. If there ain't any sources calling this a "pejorative term-of-art" then don't put it in the lead. That'd be an opinion anyway and goes somewhere else in the article. And it's deceptive to say that the lack of a requirement is limited to gun shows - try to edit neutrally, OK? 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey- opinions don't belong in the first sentence. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not an opinion. The term "gun show loophole" is only used by those who think it (whether or not, actually, a "loophole") should be eliminated. That makes it propaganda. "Pejorative" is weaker. I suppose replacing "term-of-art" by "term-of-propaganda" might be adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The "Gun show loophole", is, almost by definition, limited to gun shows. The "lack of requirement" is not so limited. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the first sentence; it is not necessarily to say "pejorative" in the first sentence, if the intended use is stated. Phrasing similar to that in assault weapon seems adequate to indicate the use of the term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And it was removed. Oh, well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with IP 162. Based on the RS, "term" is the NPOV term for the lead sentence of this article. Lightbreather (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I see IP 162's point, as per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY Darknipples (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Gun show loophole is a term-of-art, referring to, by those opposing, private sellers at gun shows not being required to perform a background check on private buyers, consistent with a longstanding practice of private commerce in the United States"

This is way better than the previous version. But it reads like shit. Why not say it more simply. "The Gun show loophole exempts sales of firearms between private parties from the requirement for background checks, whether at gun shows or elsewhere." Or something like that. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Got controversy?

Has anyone even given a good look at this article? Three of its sections are:

• 2 Current controversy
• 3 Past controversies
• 4 Ongoing controversies

Is that a neutral way of covering a topic or what! 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a very controversial topic so we are covering it as such, it might need expansion but it is pretty neutral. - SantiLak (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Lots of articles cover controversial topics. That ain't an excuse for making them about the controversy instead of the basic topic. To pick an article from your editing as an example, the Los Angeles Police Department is a very controversial law enforcement agency. Nobody would move the article to "Los Angeles Police Department controversy", without discussion, and devote 3/4 of the headings to controversy. This article is using a POV structure and WP:NPOV warns about that. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, under existing law, there is no loophole. All licensed dealers at gunshows are required to conduct NICS checks. However, there is no way under existing law that private citizens can conduct a NICS check. Hence, no NICS check is required for private sellers selling to residents of their own state, at least by federal law, at gunshows, or, for that matter, anywhere else in the state. A few states have passed laws that go beyond the Federal law, that do require NICS checks for private sellers selling guns to private buyers, thereby forcing private sellers to have to use FFLs in their state to transfer a gun between private sellers, but this is not required by Federal law, nor even by most states. But, that is a different topic altogether. The topic of this article is therefore a controversy, as some individuals would like for the law to be changed. The use of a "loophole" in the terminology is factually inaccurate, as no loophole exists. The title including the term "controversy" is therefore factually accurate. Instead of contrasting it to a non-existent LAPD Controversy, which is nonsensical, it might be better to contrast it to a title such as Flat Earth Controversy. A "Flat Earth" does not exist. Neither does a gun show loophole. But, there is a controversy amongst those who believe in a Flat Earth and there is also a controversy whether or not the law should be changed, requiring a NICS check be performed for all firearm transfers at gun shows. But, it really isn't about gunshows, either, as proponents that use the terminology "gun show loophole" actually want all firearm transfers to go through a NICS check. There is very little POV structure in the existing article in describing well what the controversy is all about. It is not about a gun show loophole that doesn't even exist under existing law! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel as though this topic is already under discussion in multiple sections of the talk page. Do we really need a whole new section for this? - respectfully Darknipples (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously "current" and "ongoing" should be merged. Does anyone object to this? Darknipples (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I support merging them. The "ongoing" items should be moved up and merged into the "current" section.

I also agree with IP editor 162.119.231.132 that it is overkill to have the title of this article, plus three section headers, include the word "controversy." He/She makes a good point that there are many articles on Wikipedia that are about controversial topics, but no style guide that advises us to put the word "controversy" in those article titles. I am going to re-open the discussion about this in a separate section. Lightbreather (talk)

Glad to see some common sense and neutrality here. Just gotta point out that the main source for the so-called "ongoing controversy" is from 1999. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

POV title 2

IP editor 162.119.231.132 made a very good point in the "Got controversy?" section that many articles cover controversial topics, but that it is no excuse for making the articles about the controversy instead of the basic topic. Consider the results of these searches:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I know I agreed to the "controversy" title in August of last year - see discussion "POV-title" started by another editor - but I've changed my mind. Although some disagree that there is a gun show loop hole, that does not mean that there is not one. The majority of sources call the topic the "gun show loop hole," not the "gun show loophole controversy." The former is the commonly recognizable name of the topic. For Wikipedia to tack "controversy" on the end creates a POV title. Lightbreather (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that while the title may offend people of certain persuasions, the term stands on it's own. There are plenty of controversial articles on WP that don't have the word "controversy" in the title. We should be able to adequately address the "controversy" in the lead and/or the body. Darknipples (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Support move to Gun show loophole, I'm glad that someone brought this up as I have similar feelings towards the use of the word "controversy". I just went through a content dispute in the Steve Scalise (a U.S. politician) article (actually, I'm not sure its over...) regarding him speaking at an event for a group related to David Duke. I've been advocating for just a simple reporting of facts (as best as we can discern them) without any POV including the use of this word. We should let the content speak for itself and leave it to the Readers to make up their own minds. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Good article work

I've decided that I'm going to try to get this article in shape for a GA nomination - say in a week, two weeks tops. Anyone who wants to help me is welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No problems in trying for a GA nomination. But, to edit wholesale the entire article with no discussions on the talk page by just one editor with no discussion in an attempt at BRD, with no R or D, is a bridge too far. Lets discuss each section that you believe needs to be changed, and establish editor consensus on changes first, instead of throwing out the past several years of edits that comprise the article. Have reverted back to the last stable version by Arthur Rubin, before all the many, many edits by just one editor. Thanks. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

So which among those edits do you object to? They were mostly gnomish improvements to style, grammar, and structure. Lightbreather (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, please note that the article is months old rather than years. Although it was created in 2006, it was merged into "Gun show" months later. It was made into its own article again just last summer and expanded upon a great deal by Darknipples and myself, with some input by Anastrophe, too. Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, to start, the preliminary opening lede sentence you proposed is not factually correct: "Gun show loophole is a term referring to the ability of private buyers at gun shows being able to purchase firearms from private sellers without a background check." Actually, there is no loophole in the law. Everyone engaged in the business is required to be an FFL. On the other hand, private individuals have never been required to have an FFL (license) in order to sell their private goods. In addition, under Federal law, private individuals have no access to the NICS computers. The statement you proposed for the lede is factually not correct. That's just a beginning of the issues with the many, many edits you made in one large Bold, Revert, Discussion (BRD) attempt at boldly trying on a major edit. Now, it is time to discuss and to gain the consensus of the community. (One question, though. Are you not still topic banned from editing in this area for 6 months?) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I will take the change I made to RSN. It's been argued about too much here already. I haven't got the energy to jump back into that again. (I can see having part of the article mention that some people think there is no gun show loophole, or that the term is a "pejorative," but those things don't belong in the lead. Dozens if not hundreds of RS refer to this topic as the "gun show loophole.")

I am watching my granddaughter right now, but after her father picks her up, I will start an RSN. Lightbreather (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

So, are you or are you not topic banned, still, from editing in this area? And, are you now refusing to work with other editors in arriving at a consensus before making major changes to an article in a space where you are (or were) previously topic banned? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My topic ban expired yesterday, and your question doesn't seem to AGF. Actually, reverting everything I did today didn't seem very GF. If the changes to the lead are what bothered you, you could have simply reverted that part. Lightbreather (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. The lead sentence is posted to RSN and there is a notice about that below. Next? Do you dispute my removal[1] of the sentence at the end of the lead - sourced to a blogger named "aguadito" - that the term is a "pejorative"? Lightbreather (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits from today, one by one

I'll just put 'em here to keep things moving. If there aren't complaints, I'll put them back.

• added "from private sellers" to after "to purchase firearms"[2]
• standardized date format throughout article[3]
• standardized percents throughout[4]
• replaced all caps per WP:ALLCAPS[5][6]
• WP:CS1 format and citations/improvements:[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
• add "See also" section and items:[14][15]
• wikilinks[16][17]
• fix quotes and attribution[18][19]
• removed first paragraph of "Legislation" section to this talk page for discussion[20]
• removed a poor source that was sandwiched between two RS[21]
• c/e sentence about LaPierre's testimony before the House[22]
• c/e[23]
• c/e[24]

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at just the first one, the gun show loophole is not an ability at all. The fundamental definition is wrong. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That has to do with the lead, which I opened a separate discussion on below: "Notice of discussion of lead sentence at WP:RSN". Let's talk about the lead there. Lightbreather (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There being no complaints about the gnome edits outlined above, I am going to restore them (leaving the lead alone for now). Lightbreather (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this paragraph

I removed this paragraph from the top of the "Legislation" section. I am preserving it here for discussion.

During the April 9th, 1986, House floor debate over the Firearm Owners Protection Act it was noted that private-party sales at gun shows have never been required to perform background checks, while Federal Firearms License dealers must comply with the background check requirement for all sales, including at gun shows.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The first source especially concerns me. First off, it's very poor quality, it's unclear what it's supporting or where within the source the supporting information is found. (When I print-preview it, it takes up hundreds of pages.) I think it should be droppped completely.

The second source, although published on a law firm's website, is at least better quality in that it is a PDF that appears to be a true facsimile of the original document. However, like the first source, it's unclear what it's supporting or where within the source the supporting information is found.

The third source is a single sheet from the Consumer Federation of America: according to its website, "an association of non-profit consumer organizations that was established in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, advocacy, and education." I'm still figuring out if/how it might be used in the article. Lightbreather (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(LB) I added this when the article was first being put together. Other editors changed it from it's original context and form to whatever it says now. (See previous discussions on FOPA in relation to GSL) Multiple citations state FOPA is considered the source of GSLC. The first two citations refer to the "loopholes" concerning what constitutes "engaged in a business" within FOPA. The last (3rd) citation was used because it was from a seemingly viable and unbiased source with a much more "user friendly" explanation of GSLC.

Here are the relative sections:

1. S. 49 and H.R. 945 define 'engaged in the business' in terms of 'the principal objective of livelihood and profit' whose underlying intent is 'predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain' (emphasis added) (S. 49, sec. 101(b), pages 3-5) and 102(1); H.R. 945, sec. 101(6)). This definition, which does not follow the case law, is likely to have a serious weakening effect on the GCA. Current law permits ordinary firearms owners to sell their firearms but not to 'engage in the business' of selling firearms without a license. These provisions expand the number of persons who can engage in firearms transactions or importation without needing a license or having to comply with the record keeping requirements of the law. This definition has loopholes for a person, believing the public ought to be armed for self-protection, who sells large volumes of firearms at no markup or a price which does not make a profit, who would not be 'engaged in the business.' Unfortunately, this new definition does not solve the ambiguity that confronts an active collector.

2. (this citation essentially reiterates the first one. I was basically using it to back up the first one, or vice versa.) UNITED STATES CODE CONGRESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE NEWS - 99th Congress-Second Session 1986 Volume 4 - legislative history - public laws 99-272 Cont’d to 99-449 (page 11) - "Determining Who Needs A License" – A feature with major impact is the change in defining who is required to obtain a license as a dealer, manufacturer or importer. This is an area that has many who use firearms very upset. Persons who are “engaged in the business” of manufacturing, importing, or buying and selling firearms are required to obtain a license. S. 49 and H.R. 945 define “engaged in the business” in terms of “the principal objective of livelihood and profit” whose underlying intent is “predominantly one of obtaining a livelihood and pecuniary gain” (emphasis added) (S. 49, sec. 101(6), pages 3-5) and 102(1); H.R. 945, sec. 101(6)). This definition, which does not follow the case law, is likely to have a serious weakening effect on GCA. Current law permits ordinary firearms owners to sell their firearms but not to “engage in the business” of selling firearms without a license. These provisions expand the number of persons who can engage in firearms transaction or importation without needing a license or having to comply with the record keeping requirements of the law. THIS DEFINITION HAS LOOPHOLES for a person, believing the public ought to be armed for self-protection, who sells large volumes of firearms at no markup price which does not make a profit, who would not be “engaged in the business.” Unfortunately, this new definition does not solve the AMBIGUITY that confronts an active collector.

3. In most states, a private gun owner may legally sell his or her gun without proof that the buyer has passed a criminal history check, whereas federally licensed gun dealers must perform Brady background checks on all gun sales. The discrepancy between licensed dealers and private sellers has been highlighted recently by the “gun-show loophole” debate. Current law exempts private individuals who sell at gun shows from performing a background check while licensed dealers selling at gun shows must comply with the background check requirement. This loophole has made gun shows a key source of crime guns. Consumer Federation of America - Darknipples (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that helps me understand a bit. I am beat for tonight, but I will return tomorrow and read what you've written again. Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Relative to the claim, "Current law exempts private individuals who sell at gun shows from performing a background check while licensed dealers selling at gun shows must comply with the background check requirement.", this is not actually true. Current law actually prohibits private individuals from performing a background check. It doesn't exempt private individuals. Private individuals are doing precisely what the law requires. How does this become a loophole? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Current law actually prohibits private individuals from performing a background check. To be clear, when you say current law you mean federal law? And prohibits? What if I suspected that you might have a criminal background, and I wanted to be sure before I transferred my gun to you? Lightbreather (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

NICS is a Federal system. Federal law governs who can access it. It prohibits anyone not in the business (i.e., private individuals) from having access to it. Under current law, if you suspect someone has a criminal background, then you are prohibited from selling a gun to the person. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So, if I wanted to sell you my gun, but I was concerned that you might be a criminal, there are no other options? Could we agree to let the nearest licensed dealer run it? Would that be prohibited? Lightbreather (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You could always sell your firearm to a dealer, instead of to a private buyer. That would be OK. But, typically, you would only get about 50% of the retail value. However, with a private sale to a private individual, you could get about 90% of the retail value, or perhaps even slightly more, depending on condition. You can also transfer a firearm through an FFL if the private buyer were in another state, or was a legal resident of another state. The transfer fee you would pay might be anywhere from $25 to $35, depending on the FFL fee for transfers. The receiving party would also pay an FFL transfer fee, too, for the FFL on his end. This can easily add $70+ to the price of a firearm. And, if you transfer your firearm through an FFL, the buyer usually has to pay state sales tax, too, which can be 6-7% or higher, depending on which state the recipient lives in. Going through an FFL can easily add up to a significant percentage of the price paid for a firearm, adding perhaps $100 to the price of a firearm. Not all firearms are even worth $100. And, only around 1% of firearms used in crimes passed through a gun show by Government statistics. The issue is really economics, not crime. And, especially, tax revenue, for the state(s). Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I've read your answer several times now, and I think it answers my first question - partially at least. But what about the others, which I'll combine here: If I wanted to sell you my gun, but I was concerned that you might be a criminal, and we agreed to run a check on you with the help of an FFL, would we be legally prohibited from doing so? Lightbreather (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, there are state level registries of stolen firearm serial numbers. You can verify whether the gun has been reported stolen in, say, Florida. (It has a system like this.) This helps protect an individual from buying a stolen firearm. The link for this is here. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That's great, and I imagine a section of this article should mention that some states have systems to help regulate the sale of firearms. But the one you're describing protects the buyer from buying a stolen gun. It doesn't help the seller or the state to keep from selling a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. Lightbreather (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Train station loophole

I read that the terrorists in Paris bought their weapons at a train station and no bg check was conducted. Should we address the "Train Station Loophole" to make the article less US-centric?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that if there is term/phenomenon called the "train station loophole" that is discussed as the "train station loophole" in hundreds of RS, you should start an article about it.

;-)

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

At least you get it. Seriously much of this could be avoided if they would simply grant FFLs to folks who want to sell at gun shows without a brick and mortar store.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of discussion of lead sentence at WP:RSN

Re this lead sentence[25] that was reverted today[26] (along with a couple dozen other mostly gnomish, separate edits):

Gun show loophole is a term referring to the ability of private buyers at gun shows being able to purchase firearms from private sellers without a background check.

I have started a discussion at RSN called Gun show loophole. --Lightbreather (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Did anything happen with this? I see that it was archived. Darknipples (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Background checks

Until now I hadn't noticed this article. This is indeed fertile ground for another "lively discussion" of an article about gun control. For right now I'll limit myself to suggesting a factual improvement that can be made to the current version of the lead section. One of the things it says is that under federal law private sales of firearms, including those at a gun show, are legal and don't require a background check, but some states have passed laws requiring all gun sales to go through an FFL holder where (although the lead doesn't explicitly say this) a background check is required. However, these are not the only two options. For example, in Illinois private sales are allowed, i.e. they don't have to be done through an FFL. However Illinois requires background checks for all firearm sales (with a few limited exceptions). In Illinois you have to have a Firearm Owners ID card, issued by the state police, to legally possess firearms or ammunition, and there's now a requirement for private sales that the seller has to check the buyer's FOID card with the state police, to make sure that it's still valid and to re-do the background check using an automated, real-time system. At a gun show this has to be done using a dial-up check called FTIP, and for a private sale not at a gun show it can be done using a web site, but it amounts to the same thing. My point is that the lead section suggests that either there's no background check, or the sale is done through an FFL, but there are more options than this, for example Illinois where a background check is required but going through an FFL is not required. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to add anything to the lead until the RSN is cleared up for the lead sentence. As for other elements, let's follow WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Find the best place in the body to summarize the information into the body, and then summarize that into the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing plenty of action on this article and its talk page, but I think my first post in this section raises a quite significant point that has not been addressed yet. I agree that the lead should summarize the article, so that would mean that what I'm saying here should be incorporated into the body of the article and also the lead, which still presents a misleading either/or dichotomy. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Mudwater - Perhaps we should include a section that includes state laws on background checks? Or, a section for states with specific exceptions or procedures not covered in the lead, like the ones you mentioned. I am no expert on how to create well formulated articles, but I think some kind of "Background Check" section seems prudent. Perhaps it could be incorporated into the Legislation section? Darknipples (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: (1) That sounds reasonable, but the lead section still needs to be changed, for the reason I explained in my first post in this section. (2) If you want to "ping" or notify someone, just typing an @ won't do the trick. You have to use a {{Reply to}} template. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: As far as the "lead follows body" guideline, the article already says, "As of August 2013, 17 U.S. states require background checks at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Four require background checks on all handgun purchases at gun shows: Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Six require individuals to obtain a permit that involves a background check to purchase handguns: Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Carolina." So what I'm talking about is already in the body. Note also that the body says that 17 states require background checks at gun shows, but the lead makes it sound like only seven do. And I think the article really should call out the point that some states require background checks by requiring all sales to go through an FFL, and some states require background checks in other ways, without requiring the transfer to be done through an FFL. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

How is a professor of Emergency Medicine opinion relevant to gun shows?

With regard to this edit [27], how is the opinion of a professor of emergency medicine at U.C. Davis relevant to gun shows? Obviously Garen J. Wintemute had something to say about it, but why is it included in this article? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 09:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

He is also director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis, which is probably a better way to identify him in the article. And we need to quote him, or do a better job of paraphrasing, because what's currently in the article:

According to the Center for Gun Policy and Research, there is no such loophole in federal law, in the sense that the law does not exempt private-party sales at gun shows from regulation that is required elsewhere. They suggest that the fundamental flaw in the gun show loophole is its failure to address the great majority of private-party sales, which occur at other locations and increasingly over the internet at sites where any non-prohibited person can list firearms for sale and buyers can search for private-party sellers.

Is copied almost verbatim from the source, Garen J. Wintemute. (The words are from a chapter in a book that he authored, edited by Webster and Vernick (of the Center for Gun Policy and Research), and published by JHU Press.

Wintemute's actual words were:

There is no such loophole in federal law, in the limited sense that the law does not exempt private-party sales at gun shows from regulation that is required elsewhere.

and:

The fundamental flaw in the gun show loophole proposal is its failure to address the great majority of private-party sales, which occur at other locations and increasingly over the Internet at sites where any non-prohibited person can list firearms for sale and buyers can search for private-party sellers.

These were copied almost verbatim into the article, without proper attribution, though the word "limited" was dropped. (I bolded it above to make it stand out for anyone skimming this discussion.)

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK, Your opening sentence was enough for me. Now I get it, and yes, I agree that it would be a better way to identify him. Thanks! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Creating sections that represent each side's stance on the article equally.

I feel that in order to maintain balance and satisfy both sides of this argument, it would be a good idea to create a section(s) that appeal to each side. To start, why not begin a section focused on the "pro-gun" stance on GSL? Then, a section on "anti-gun" and so forth? The point is to improve the article by allowing both sides of the argument to represent and cite their sides of the argument, equally. For example we could create a section that focuses on the NRA's stance and a section that focuses on VPC's stance and so forth. Darknipples (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy, that's a slippery slope if I ever saw one. First off, how exactly do we "balance" each section? Word count, sentence count? And which sources or groups represent each "side". Even the NRA is criticized for not being "activist enough" for some groups. And not the least of which is what terms to use, using "pro gun" and "anti gun" will tick off many especially those that do not view it only as a "gun issue".

We need to sort and categorize our sources first to figure out which one are useful for basic facts versus editorial opinion. The content usually sorts itself out from there. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Kudos on offering a problem-solving solution. It is an option, but I suggest reading WP:CRITICISM. (The first thing you should note, at the top of that page, is that it's an essay. When other editors point you at something like that for advice or as an argument, always look at the top of the page to see if it's (in order of authority) a policy, a guideline, or an essay. Read the page's nutshell and lead before reading any particular section.) WP:CRITICISM is an essay, but I think it's a good one.

I think a criticism section is a possibility on this article, but there is no reason that it has to be equal. How much criticism to include has to do with the quantity and quality of critical material in reliable sources (RS) relative to the quantity and quality of other material in RS. Also, the criticism or "con" section (in this case, "there is no gun show loophole") usually comes after the description of the subject (in this case,"the gun show loophole"). Lightbreather (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, the policy most applicable here is WP:WEIGHT. Lightbreather (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Source evaluation

In article, in order of 1st appearance

Lead

1."Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces" (PDF). atf.gov. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). January 1999. Retrieved June 27, 2014. {{cite web}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
2."Gun Show Undercover" (PDF). October 2009. p. 11. Retrieved June 26, 2014.
3."Firearms Trafficking: U.S. Efforts to Combat Arms Trafficking to Mexico Face Planning and Coordination Challenges" (PDF). gao.gov. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). June 2009. p. 27. GAO-09-709. Retrieved June 24, 2014.
4."U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44, § 922 - Unlawful acts (d)". law.cornell.edu. Legal Information Institute. August 13, 2013. Retrieved June 24, 2014.

Legislation

5.Clinton, William J. (November 6, 1998). "Memorandum on Preventing Firearms Sales to Prohibited Purchasers" (PDF). gpo.gov.
6."History of Federal Firearms Laws in the United States Appendix C". justice.gov. Retrieved July 4, 2014.
7."Gun show loophole bill is back in Congress". United Press International (UPI). July 19, 2009.
8."H.R.141 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013". Congress.gov. Retrieved January 16, 2015.
9.Rucker, Philip (August 5, 2013). "Study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checks". Washington Post. Retrieved June 24, 2014.
10."2008 Brady Campaign State Scorecard" (PDF). West Virginia Public Broadcasting.
11."Brady Background Checks: Gun Show Loophole: Frequently Asked questions". September 27, 2009. Archived from the original on September 27, 2009.
12.DeLuca, Matthew (April 10, 2013). "Background checks for guns: What you need to know". NBC News. u.s. news. Retrieved July 1, 2014.

Current controversy

13.Johnson, Nicholas J. (January 13, 2009). "Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem": 837–891. Retrieved June 24, 2014. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
14.Burnett, H. Sterling (February 23, 2001). "The Gun Show 'Loophole:' More Gun Control Disguised as Crime Control". ncpa.org. National Center for Policy Analysis.
15.Cox, Chris W. (January 21, 2010). "The War on Gun Shows". nraila.org. National Rifle Association of America Institute for Legislative Action. Retrieved July 6, 2014.
16.McCullagh, Declan (June 16, 2009). "Gun Rights Groups Plan State-By-State Revolt". CBS Interactive.
17.Wintemute, Garen J. (2013). "Comprehensive Background Checks for Firearm Sales: Evidence from Gun Shows". In Webster, Daniel W.; Vernick, Jon S. (eds.). Reducing Gun Violence in America. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 9781421411101. Retrieved July 1, 2014. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
18."Records Required--Licenses". ATF.GOV. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
19."FFL Application Form" (PDF). ATF.GOV. ATF. Retrieved July 1, 2014.

Past controversies

20.LaPierre, Wayne (May 27, 1999). "Statement of Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association". commdocs.house.gov (Testimony). Washington, D.C. Retrieved July 4, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |event= ignored (help)
21."National Firearms Act (NFA) — Machine Guns FAQ". atf.gov. U.S. Department of Justice. 2014. Retrieved January 15, 2015.
22."National Firearms Act (NFA) — Firearms FAQ". atf.gov. U.S. Department of Justice. 2014. Retrieved January 15, 2015.
23.Lind, Michael (June 6, 2011). "Closing the 'terror gap' and the gun show loophole". The Washington Post.
24.Madison, Lucy (June 28, 2011). "Mayors invoke terrorism for gun control argument". CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on July 2, 2011. Retrieved June 24, 2014.

Ongoing controversies

25.Martinez, Michael (2013-01-28). "'Universal background check:' What does it mean?". CNN US. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
26.#Sherfinski, David (2013-01-31). "NRA head wary on background checks, wants better instant check system". The Washington Times. Retrieved 7 July 2014.

Further reading

27.Cooper, Michael; Schmidt, Michael S.; Luo, Michael (2013-04-10). "Loopholes in Gun Laws Allow Buyers to Skirt Checks". New York Times.
28.Kessler, Glenn (2013-01-21). "The stale claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks". Washington Post (blog).

--Lightbreather (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice work, good start! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Source suggestions

High-quality suggestions from a mix of sources:

• Kopel, David B. (January 10, 2000). "The Facts about Gun Shows". cato.org. Cato Institute. - An early, gun-rights/pro-gun position on the topic.
• Janofsky, Michael (November 15, 2000). "Both Sides See Momentum in Congress for Gun Control". New York Times. - 2000 report in The New York Times.
• Editorial board (April 23, 2007). "Close the gun control loophole". Los Angeles Times. - op-ed by the Los Angeles Times after Virginia Tech.
• Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (January 10, 2000). "The NRA: A Criminal's Best Friend" (PDF). cato.org. Cato Institute. - First section is about FOPA, with a specific subsection re gun shows.
• Wintemute, Garen J.; Braga, Anthony A.; Kennedy, David M. (August 5, 2010). "Private-Party Gun Sales, Regulation, and Public Safety". The New England Journal of Medicine. 363 (6). Massachusetts Medical Society: 508–511. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1006326. Retrieved 26 June 2014. published online at nejm.org on June 30, 2010 - NEJM report saying gun show loophole accounts for only 3 to 8% of private sales; recommends subjecting all private gun sales to "screening and record-keeping requirements that apply to sales by licensed retailers."
• Dinan, Stephen (December 17, 2012). "Gun bills face tough sailing on Capitol Hill". Washington Times. - a Washington Times report after Sandy Hook.
• Kesling, Ben (December 24, 2012). "Fear of New Restrictions Drives Crowds to Gun Shows". Wall Street Journal. Contributions to article by Jess Bravin. Dow Jones & Company.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

More recent sources

I was collecting sources for a different article when I found this from the Seattle Times.

• Cruz, Caitlin (August 13, 2014). "SPU shooter: Despite troubling history, law let him have guns". Seattle Times. Retrieved January 20, 2015.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Past Controversies Section

There are multiple sources regarding GSL's connection to the Columbine High School massacre. This section (Past Controversies) seems to be the appropriate place for these citations.

Nevertheless, shortly after the Columbine killings, the various gun prohibition groups began putting out press releases about the "gun show loophole." This is an audacious lie, since there is no "loophole" involving gun shows. The law at gun shows is exactly the same as it is everywhere else. http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2000/Getting-Columbina-Right.htm

During April 2010, television ads paid for by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun control advocacy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), hit the airwaves in selected areas. The ads say, “The Columbine school massacre. The killers got their guns because of a gap in the law, called the ‘gun show loophole’. . . . Close the ‘gun show loophole.’”The claim, and the implication that the Columbine crime would have been prevented if the so-called “loophole” had already been “closed,” are absolutely false. Some clarification of the Bloomberg-MAIG terminology and soundbite is in order: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20100426/michael-bloomberg-s-and-maig-s-deceptiv

In the year after the shooting at Columbine, 800 gun bills were introduced around the country, according to Popular Science Magazine. Less than 10 percent passed. One of the failed efforts included a federal bill to close the gun show loophole, which allows unlicensed dealers to sell guns without background checks.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/27/after-mass-shootings-the-status-quo-reigns-supreme-in-congress/

Checks are not required for transactions by private sellers, who do not have federal licenses and are a regular presence at gun shows. In fall 1998, President Clinton urged Congress to require background checks for these sales, to fix what had become known as the gun show loophole. Less than six months later, Columbine reignited the debate. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were too young to buy the weapons they would use to kill 12 classmates and a teacher in April 1999. So they asked for help from an 18-year-old friend, who later said she chose a private seller at a gun show to avoid a background check. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/26/nation/la-na-gunshow-loophole-20130226

Chicago — When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold embarked on their shooting spree at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., in 1999, three of the four guns they used were purchased at a gun show by a friend who wasn’t subjected to a background check. Now, on the 11th anniversary of the Columbine school shooting where Harris and Klebold killed 12 classmates and a teacher and injured 23 others before shooting themselves, gun-control activists are focusing on the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows people to purchase guns from private sellers without the normal paperwork and background checks. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0420/On-Columbine-school-shooting-anniversary-focus-on-gun-loophole

The idea that gun legislation is a political nonstarter is commonplace now, having gained currency in the wake of the 2000 election, when many Democrats blamed it for Al Gore's loss. The push to close the gun-show loophole in the wake of the 1999 Columbine shootings petered out, and the assault-weapon ban was allowed to expire in 2004. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/can-sandy-hook-really-change-the-politics-of-guns/266430/

Robyn Anderson, a friend of the two students responsible for the killings at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, assisted them in buying three of the four weapons used in the massacre from different sellers at the Tanner gun show outside of Denver. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has been actively supporting a change in federal law to close the “gun show loophole” which allows unlicensed dealers to sell weapons at gun shows without conducting a Brady law background check. This provision is included in Senate-passed juvenile justice legislation, but has been rejected by the House of Representatives. Following a two-month vacation by the Congress, there appears to be no action in the House-Senate Conference Committee on the juvenile justice bill. The following statement was released recently by her attorneys. Ms. Anderson has not been charged. Statement of Robyn Anderson, January 26, 2000... http://www.usmayors.org/usmayornewspaper/documents/02_21_00/friend_article.htm - Darknipples (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this merits at least a paragraph in the article. These proposals don't just materialize out of thin air. Regardless of whether one agrees that there is a gun show loophole, what is the background for the concept? Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@ LB - Are you talking about the etymology of the term? If so, that has been quite a hard nut to crack. I have spent months trying to find the earliest citations of it. It's difficult because it is more or less a political concept, and has been referred to under different names (see GSL Disambiguation section in the talk page). Darknipples (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I agree that has been hard to pinpoint. What I mean is, the National Firearms Act and Federal Assault Weapons Ban articles have "Background" sections. The Gun Control Act of 1968 has a "History" section. This article needs a similar section. Lightbreather (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting your discussion, but what I think you are getting at is an "Overview" section that is expanded version of the Lead with additional content. This could easily include "History" and "Background" information and maybe more detail on the groups (factions) involved and their stances. Just my 2 cents... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think having an "Overview" section with "History" and "Background" subsections would be overkill. I think a top level section immediately after the lead (like the articles cited in my last post) would help to put the article in context. First, a section that explains why, how the topic became a topic, then sections going into detail about the proposals and reception to them, including current/recent discussions in RS. Lightbreather (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, but the distinction between this article and those that you cited is that they are single pieces of legislation whereas this article is about several pieces of related legislation and an issue that connects all of them. I can't see how a 4 paragraph Lead is going to accomplish what you are trying to do. I agree with DN's original points and feel that both "History" and "Background" are important to this article in order to represent the issue and content fairly and completely. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no way that four paragraphs are enough to summarize a complicated topic such as this, unlike simple topics such as World War II or Religion. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Introduced legislation - notability?

Is legislation that has merely been introduced notable? The article contains reference to two pieces of legislation that were introduced, but never passed. Given the volume of legislation that is introduced in a typical year, do either of these bills meet the criteria for notability? I would like to clean up the "Legislation" section by 1) moving paragraph 1 (Clinton) under "Legislation" to the "Past" section of "Issues, stances, and positions" 2) deleting paragraph 2 (HR 2324) and paragraph 3 (HR 141) as I do not feel that either of these bills meet the threshold for notability, and 3) changing the title of the section from "Legislation" to "Current Legal Status." Thoughts? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

First, notability is important for determining if a topic can have its own article. Second, yes a lot of legislation is introduced every year - but not a lot of it gets covered by the advocacy groups and media like gun-control legislation. If it's covered by a lot of advocacy groups and the press, it gets a place in the appropriate article or articles. Lightbreather (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel that this applies to some legislation that never "made it" (e.g. Manchin-Toomey), but I don't think any of the above really meet the threshold for notability. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

These proposals were as hotly debated after Columbine as Manchin-Toomey and AWB 2013 were after Newtown. The fact that they've faded from the forefront of the debate doesn't negate their contribution to the topic, which has been discussed for 16 years now. Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember them being as hotly debated - the debate centered around the NICS improvements with mental health records being added. (Also, these were after Virginia Tech, not Columbine.) Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Faceless Enemy - GSL became most prevalent in the early nineties after the Columbine_High_School_massacre which coincided with the release of this document https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/treas/treas-gun-shows-brady-checks-and-crime-gun-traces.pdf . There are plenty of citations from that time period and directly after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting which mention GSL. Darknipples (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree; my point is that the 2009 bills were 15 years after Columbine, and the 2013 bill was largely eclipsed by Manchin-Toomey. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This section gives undue weight to failed legislation that died in committee with no support. No need to to cite failed bills. (There are thousands of failed bills; Wikipedia is not a list of failed bills that died in Congress.) Have removed these sentences. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Miguel Escopeta, this is the arguement that Faceless Enemy made. Did you read my response? Some failed bills get a lot of attention in WP:RS. That's how we decide whether or not they have a place in an article (or an article of their own) - not just by whether or not they failed. Lightbreather (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Miguel Escopeta - Simply deleting this information from the article seems premature at this point. I ask that you wait until there is a compromise or consensus. Darknipples (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

• Editorial board (July 2, 2009). "N.J.'s one-a-month gun legislation: Not the gun law we need". Star-Ledger.
• Khimm, Suzy (April 14, 2010). "Gun Control: What Stupak Got Right". Mother Jones.
• Editorial board (April 17, 2010). "Columbine, 11 Years Later". New York Times.
• Paulson, Amanda (April 20, 2010). "On Columbine school shooting anniversary, focus on gun 'loophole'". Christian Science Monitor.
• Editorial board (February 26, 2013). "The Latest Hurdle to Gun-Law Reform". New York Times.
• Memmott, Mark (April 10, 2013). "Bipartisan Bill Would Extend Background Checks To Gun Shows". National Public Radio.

Should new bills be introduced, they can be added. Nothing wrong with that. This is the power of Wikipedia to cover current events. But, there are thousands of failed bills. Historically low importance bills, that only had 15 supporters, are not significant, no matter how much one might like them to be. It is undue weight to portray them as being more than what they were. There is no need to cover them. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so:

• Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 = Three news hits, none of which I'd say hit the threshold for notability (Prison Planet, a press release from an advocacy group, and a single editorial by a different advocacy group). No newspapers. Two book mentions, one as an example of a failed bill one and the other only as a footnote. Two mentions in scholarly articles, one as an example of "laws that bit the bullet," the other as an example of current legislation. No mentions on JSTOR.
• Gun Show Background Check Act of 2009 = One news hit (Prison Planet). No newspapers. One brief book mention, as an example of a failed bill. One mention in scholar as example of "laws that bit the bullet." No other scholarly mentions besides the aforementioned book and a dead website. No JSTOR.
• Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013 = One news hit, which is nothing more than a list of pending bills. No newspapers. No books. One scholarly article, possibly as a footnote? No JSTOR.

Again, I don't feel that any of these are worth mentioning at this point; none of them have any chance of becoming law any more, and none of them made it out of committee or received widespread coverage. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to replace them with laws and bills that did pass, in relation to GSL, such as the Brady Bill, FOPA, and and the most recent legislation presented, then, put the older bills specifically related to GSL in the footnotes, or "see also" section? Darknipples (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What effect did FOPA or the Brady Bill have on GSL? Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest you look through the talk page and at the many citations for these references, first? Darknipples (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at WP:NPOVN

There is a discussion at WP:NPOVN about this: Undue weight to mention failed bills about the subject of the article Lightbreather (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Preserve statistic

Though I don't mind including this statistic in the article, I'd like to find a better source citation.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), citing federal government studies that found less than 1 percent of imprisoned felons said they obtained their guns from shows, says that when gun control supporters refer to the gun show loophole they are not really talking about criminals getting guns, but about the American people owning guns.

I am going to rewrite the sentence in the article without the "citing federal government studies that found less than 1 percent of imprisoned felons said they obtained their guns from shows" part and a better summary of what the NRA said about gun control in this source.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Found it. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! I am going to call it a night, but please see the discussion I started below, "Reorganized chronologically". I would be beholden if you'd keep that in mind if you add anything to the article from this source.

Here's your source in WP:CS1 cite web format:

• Harlow, Caroline Wolf (November 2001). "Firearm Use by Offenders" (PDF). Bureau of Justice Statistics.

--Lightbreather (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem sentence

In this paragraph:

Opponents of gun control say there is no gun show loophole. In January 2010, the NRA said that gun control supporters' objectives are to reduce gun sales and register guns. They challenge federal jurisdiction in intrastate transactions between private parties, which they say exceeds the federal power created by the Commerce Clause.

The last sentence needs work. Who are they? The article is from 2009. What is the status of this challenge? I will dig around, but if anyone knows... Lightbreather (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Sorta. Lightbreather (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This sourced could/should be mined for information that complements the McCullagh source above. Lightbreather (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Preserving subsection

Past

Use of the gun show loophole was advocated in the summer of 2011 by al-Qaeda operative, Adam Gadahn, who said: "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card". In fact, however, individuals cannot legally buy a fully automatic firearm anywhere in the U.S. without undergoing background checks, obtaining approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and paying a tax.

Individuals on the U.S. terrorism watch list are prohibited from air travel but may purchase firearms.

Reorganized chronologically

To get past the log-jam of debating how to organize this thing, I put it into chronological order. There are now two main sections: "Background" (1998-2001) and "Recent developments" (2009-to date). (We have a gap of eight years?)

I am not wedded to those headers or date ranges, and I'm open to suggestions for other neutral headers, and which dates to put under what. Lightbreather (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Gun show loophole": NPOV article title

Naming this article "Gun show loophole" violates the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy. The phrase is biased towards a pro-gun-control agenda. A loophole is "a method of escape, especially an ambiguity or exception in a rule that can be exploited in order to avoid its effect." But there's no ambiguity or exception involved. Under federal law, firearm sales by a licensed dealer (FFL) require a background check, and sales by private individuals don't, regardless of where the sales take place, at a gun show or somewhere else. At the same time, some states either have laws that prohibit private sales (i.e. require that all firearms sales be done through an FFL), or laws that require background checks for all, or some, private sales. Of course, whether or not these various laws are appropriate is the subject of much debate. Many people, including some gun owners, think that background checks should be required for all private sales. And I suppose there might be some people who would favor requiring background checks for private sales at gun shows, but not for private sales elsewhere. But there's not a loophole here -- although it might be okay to cover this point somewhere in the article. Some might argue that they can find many references where the phrase "gun show loophole" is used by reliable, third-party sources, but that doesn't mean that the phrase has a neutral point of view. In fact it does not, and using it for the title of the article is inappropriate. Therefore this article should be renamed to something a lot more neutral. I suggest Background checks for firearm sales in the United States. I'm adding a {{POV}} tag to the article to let readers know that this is an unresolved issue. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

At that point, why not merge it with the existing NICS article? Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The gun show loophole was at the center of national debate for at least 13 years, from 1999 (Columbine) to 2012 (Newtown), when it morphed into a debate about universal background checks. The gun show loophole received so much attention for so long that it deserves its own article. The preponderance of RS shows that. Lightbreather (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mudwater See WP:POVNAMING "In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." The title of the article meets these standards. Our job is to create an article that does not take sides, but explains them fairly and without bias. Darknipples (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Darknipples on this. Per WP:TITLE, this title satisfies all five points under naming criteria, and it is the topic's WP:COMMONNAME. Since we only just discussed this about a week ago, I have started a discussion about this at WP:NPOVN under Gun show loophole. Lightbreather (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at WP:POVNAMING, I don't think "gun show loophole" is analogous to names like "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", or "Jack the Ripper". Those other names are way more widely used and accepted than "gun show loophole", which, as I said, is a very biased and misleading term. And they don't have easily recognizable alternative names. "Background checks for firearms sales in the United States" is a much more neutral name for the subject. Private sales at gun shows and private sales not at gun shows are hugely overlapping topics and, as I talked about in my first post in this section, it's actually misleading to talk about privates sales at gun shows without putting it in the context of background checks in general. So I still really think that the article should be renamed. Re the previous discussions on this topic, I'm not seeing a consensus to keep the article name as it is, so I think it's appropriate to discuss it further here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY

I am trying to get this article into shape for a GA nomination. To accomplish this, I strong suggest that we follow the advice of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I have every intention of including the "there is no such thing as a gun show loophole" argument in the lead, but not before we analyze the number and quality of sources and choosing the best, and summarizing it properly. This recent addition to the lead is an example:

The use of the word 'loophole' implies that federal regulations allow otherwise prohibited retail purchases ('primary market sales') of firearms at gun shows, but this is false; no additional sales are permitted at gun shows than in any other location.

The author this statement is attributed to - in Wikipedia's voice - is an authority on energy and environmental issues.

Let's leave the lead brief, very brief, until we've polished up the body, and then re-compose a NPOV and properly weighted lead - please. Lightbreather (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this sums it up fairly well...(page 36 - Congressional Research Service:Gun Control Legislation)

"Federal firearms licensees—those licensed by the federal government to manufacture, import, or deal in firearms—are required to conduct background checks on non licensed persons seeking to obtain firearms from them, by purchase or exchange. Conversely, non licensed persons—those persons who transfer firearms, but who do not meet the statutory test of being “engaged in the business”—are not required to conduct such checks. To some, this may appear to be an incongruity in the law. Why, they ask, should licensees be required to conduct background checks at gun shows, and not non-licensees? To others, opposed to further federal regulation of firearms, it may appear to be a continuance of the status quo (i.e., non-interference by the federal government into private firearm transfers within state lines). On the other hand, those seeking to increase federal regulation of firearms may view the absence of background checks for firearm transfers between non licensed/private persons as a “loophole” in the law that needs to be closed." http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/156521.pdf - Darknipples (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Preserving lead

Preserving current lead here to recraft after article body is polished.

Gun show loophole is a term referring to private sellers at gun shows not being required to perform a background check on private buyers. The practice is consistent with a longstanding practice of private commerce in the United States. Private sellers are however forbidden under federal law from selling firearms or ammunition to persons they know or have reason to believe are felons or are otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms. The use of the word 'loophole' implies that federal regulations allow otherwise prohibited retail purchases ('primary market sales') of firearms at gun shows, but this is false; no additional sales are permitted at gun shows than in any other location.

Seven states have passed laws requiring all gun sales to go through a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder before being transferred; in most states, however, only guns sold through dealers are required to go through an FFL holder before being transferred. Private individuals in all states are not permitted under Federal Law to perform background checks; only Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders are permitted to run background checks.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not fundamentally opposed to this approach. However, if this goes on for too long (more than a couple of days), I would suggest we put this back into the article, while all the details are being worked. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Gun show loophole"

This was in the first paragraph of the body, from previous editing attempts to show that RS call this the "gun show loophole."

This was called the "gun show loophole."

I'm preserving it here for use else where in the "Background" section, or early in "Recent developments," if we decide to move the cut-off year. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Help with red links

I'm assuming as part of a good article review, red links will be a ding. Anyone want to create some articles, even if only stubs?

If not, cool. I'll work on them after I finish copy-editing the article body. (I've started at the top and I'm just working my way down, paragraph by paragraph.) --Lightbreather (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Garen Wintemute  Done
• Berkley Media Studies Group
• H. Sterling Burnett  Done

Protocol

There is an open question re the title of this article at WP:NPOVN. Let's let that work for a few days and then, if necessary, start an RFC - a new one, neutrally worded, below. Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC to rename article

Should the article be renamed, from "Gun show loophole" to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States"? The discussion concerns the Neutral Point Of View policy. Previous discussions are above. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Previous discussion, January 15-16, 2015: POV title 2
• Previous discussion, January 27-28, 2015: "Gun show loophole": NPOV article title
• Open question at WP:NPOVN, January 27, 2015: Gun show loophole

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, the article should be renamed as I am suggesting. Please refer to my explanation above, at #"Gun show loophole": NPOV article title, where I explain this in detail. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per title policies WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. Consensus was reached on this 12 days ago above at POV title 2. --Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Consensus was definitely not reached. That's why we're having the current discussion. I will be very interested to see the views of other editors. We need to give the wider editing community enough time to weigh in on this discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Four editors supported it and zero editors opposed it. And it was the original name of the article until a now-topic-banned[[28]] editor renamed it - without discussion - on December 2, 2014.[29]. And I waited 10 days after the consensus was reached (to let others weigh in) before I moved the article back to its original title.[30] --Lightbreather (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reply Yes, it was the original name of the article that you created last June, here. Anyway, we could keep arguing about this discussion -- whether or not there was a previous consensus, etc., etc. -- but how about if we instead use this section to discuss whether or not the article should be renamed? Let's see what other editors say about that in the next week, or two or three weeks, and see how that goes. I'd rather discuss the article than discuss discussing the article, wouldn't you? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Rename and refocus: I feel going with a rename would allow the largely duplicative material here to be merged in, and could allow this article to encompass the wider issue of background checks/registration/etc. for firearm sales in general, rather than focusing on the narrow issue of gun shows. It would require more work, but we've got editors involved in this page who could make it happen. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: While I am still fairly opposed to merging GSL into an existing article that deals with gun politics, I would like to state that Firearm Owners Protection Act seems like a more appropriate choice, given the volumes of information provided by a majority of our sources and citations that infer it as the key source of GSL by both sides of the issue. Darknipples (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see the connection between FOPA and GSL. Please explain? Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reply: The talk page has become quite expansive with these kinds of questions and discussions, so I'm happy to help you. See FOPA and the gun show loophole Section - Darknipples (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: The title seems to meet all policies and standards set by WP in my opinion. Editorializing the title does not seem appropriate at this point, nor does merging it into another article, for reasons stated previously on the talk page here, and, on the gun show article's TP. Darknipples (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Rename This is not the American Wikipedia. "Gun show loophole" means nothing to non-Americans. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• DELETE or DELIVER more like -- the article simply does not deliver 'Gun Show Loophole (Political Concept)' so the non-neutral but common name seems not excusable. For the label to use the basis of biased but common term I think the article would have to focus on that topic, so content has to *do* that and show me the concept. The current content is all background and recent events, the lead doesn't even mention the associated bits about it is a biased label in common mentions, so this article content could be easily regarded as part of and folded into National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System without anything lost. Maybe could be like Death Panels, an article about a political label -- just follow the cites for what it is and have the article present that. If there is not content on the concept then there is no separate topic, and it will just be a name that occurs within some other topical title and redirect to that article. Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: "Loophole" is inherently NPOV. Per its definition, it is "an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system." By agreeing to call it a "loophole," we are implying something about the intent of the law which I'm not sure is verifiable or even accurate. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Seven consecutive Congresses introduced bills titled "Gun Show Loophole ..." , in 2001 (H.R. 2377), 2004 (H.R. 3832), 2005 (H.R. 3540), 2007 (H.R. 96), 2009 (H.R. 2324), 2011 (H.R. 591), and 2013 (H.R. 141). I haven't researched if it was in the titles of state legislature bills, or in the titles of state laws, but the term was undoubtedly used in those bills/laws. Not to mention it was the common name/term used in numerous government, academic, and media reports, and used by the general public - including gun control and gun rights supporters - for about 15 years, and is still used, though often now to mean private sales and not just private sales at gun shows. Lightbreather (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Gun show loophole" is a specific phrase referring to specific subject matter, (like the note in the lead suggests - a U.S. political term). "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" is just another way of referring to this article. Might I also suggest that the first instance of FFL be wikilinked, Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) is a possibility. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The NICS article does not and should not encompass all background checks. Many states have their own independent systems and do not rely on NICS. The GSL article also does not currently cover the issue of "universal background check" legislation, which is very closely related. A "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" type article should be created either way. Once that has been done, it would be hard to make the case that this article should not be merged with it. A move solves a lot of issues at once. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Related article

Since it is a related article with some overlap (similar background, but the gun show loophole is talked about less and less - after about 15 years of being central to the debate - and, at least since Sandy Hook, has shifted more toward universal background checks)...

I have split what was the "Universal background check" of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System into it's own article: Universal background check. (FWIW, I originally created that section last June.[31])

There will be work to be done to not over-duplicate related material. (More focus on the earlier gun show loophole debate here, more focus on the more recent universal background check debate there.) --Lightbreather (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: I feel the two concepts are so similar that they should be merged. Perhaps "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States"? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive FYI

I realized today that some of our discussions have been archived to a different article's archives! I am going to fetch them here right now. Lightbreather (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done [32]

WP:OR Original research

Some material has been added that is sourced to Congressional records. The material suggests that a certain number of GSL bills have been introduced over a certain number of years, and that none has passed. This is clearly original research by an editor. The refs do not state that information, they link directly to the bills. Are these the only such bills, is this the breadth of the duration of the introductions, are these even notable? We don't know. the material is primary source original research. To include we would need an actual RS article discussing it not editor(s) trying to create research on their own. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To make this easier to discuss, here is what was removed:

"Gun Show Loophole" bills were introduced in seven consecutive Congresses, in 2001 (H.R. 2377), 2004 (H.R. 3832), 2005 (H.R. 3540), 2007 (H.R. 96), 2009 (H.R. 2324), 2011 (H.R. 591), and 2013 (H.R. 141). None were passed.

Those links are to Congress.gov, the official website for U.S. federal legislative information.

I believe I've had a discussion similar to this before on another article. I believe to use a bill or law for details about the bill or law is OK, though it would be OR to argue from the (primary) source.

I have asked for advice at WT:LAW - Help, please. Lightbreather (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wait! I found it myself at WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. So there is no need to exclude what I added to the article. Lightbreather (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal advocacy group material WP:OR

This is sourced to the group's website. We should look for reliable source for inclusion. Why this group, this opinion? If this is notable for inclusion we should have no problem finding RS news accounts. There are hundreds of advocacy groups opining on this policy area. The NRA material, for example, is sourced to news accounts. If not it would be subject to removal as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the article (removing the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence material and leaving in the NRA material) appears to be WP Undue Weight. The citation is from the New England Journal of Medicine - http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/publications/WintemuteBragaKennedyPPGS.pdf . Could you also please include the sourced news accounts the NRA used so we can compare and determine RS, before leaving this edit? Darknipples (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I'm following you, DN, but I do think it's odd that this was deleted:

The gun control advocacy group Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence call this the "private sale loophole."

But this was kept:

In January 2010, the NRA said that gun control supporters' objectives are to reduce gun sales and register guns.

They're both advocacy groups, but the one that was kept is pro-gun - and of course way bigger.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to go with this standard - no advocacy group material - we have a helluva lot of gun-control articles to go around to and remove source citations to advocacy groups. Lightbreather (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Though honestly, I think in this case both the LCPGV and NRA are acceptable per WP:BIASED and/or WP:RSOPINION. Lightbreather (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather:, agreed. I think it would be detrimental to the article to gut out such a large amount of acceptable content. We just need to WP:BALANCE Darknipples (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that both should be kept, provided that the article's tone remains neutral and quotes from each group are clearly presented as such. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)