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. To this day it "handcuffs the ATF, as gun-control advocate Dennis Henigan put it.

FOPA also limited federal inspections to once a year, reduced paperwork violations to a misdemeanor, and required prosecutors to prove firearms dealers willfully violated these rules before revoking their licenses" 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)

What I saw at the gun show - Rolling Stone June 8, 2000 "At the national level, President Clinton and his congressional allies are trying to close what they call "the gun-show loophole" that lets thousands of guns be sold without background checks, registration or any record keeping at all. The heat is on. Gun shows as arms bazaars are a relatively recent phenomenon. The federal gun law passed after Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were killed in 1968 didn't ban private gun sales between individuals but did require anyone in the business of selling guns to have a federal license and to sell only in a proper store. Dealers could display their goods at gun shows, but nobody was allowed to sell them there. Then, in 1986, Democratic Rep. Harold Volkmer and Republican Sen. James McClure – both recipients of the National Rifle Association's Legion of Honor award – sponsored a bill allowing dealers to actually sell at gun shows, making it easier for people to traffic in arms without the regulations imposed on those "engaged in the business." The bill passed, and President Reagan signed it."

"As a result, gun shows suddenly became places where huge numbers of weapons could change hands. While licensed dealers have to conduct business at the shows just as they do in their stores – running background checks before handing over the merchandise – ordinary folks can almost always sell firearms with no restrictions at all. They don't even have to rent a table in many states – they can simply wander the aisles or hang around in the parking lot, offering whatever to whomever, no questions asked. The attraction is obvious, both to law-abiding citizens who don't want to be bothered with paperwork and to the people who wouldn't be able to buy a gun at a store."

"Since the law was passed in 1986 that gave rise to retail gun shows, about 175 companies and individuals have gone into the business, staging more than 4,400 events a year. An average of 2,500 to 5,000 people show up for each, paying from five dollars to fifty dollars to get in." Darknipples (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is the cite with the percentage of private sellers "25-50%" @Miguel Escopeta: -- http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2013/jan/16/gun-show-loophole/ -- Darknipples (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

2013 - http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Agency-forms-unlikely-alliance-4975747.php#page-2 The NRA ultimately got much of what it wanted in the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. The new law eased rules so that 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 ultimately were able to circumvent paperwork and background-check requirements imposed on licensees. To this day it "handcuffs the ATF," as gun control advocate Dennis Henigan put it. FOPA also limited federal inspections to once a year, reduced paperwork violations to a misdemeanor, and required prosecutors to prove firearms dealers willfully violated these rules before revoking their licenses. Darknipples (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL Disambiguation AKA

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)

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)

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)

1989 - 'glaring loophole in federal gun laws - http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1989/Bar-Association-President-Calls-For-Waiting-Period-For-Gun-Purchases/id-6945aedffca99ae56e662685a3fa799d - Darknipples (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

1991 - "Gun Law Loophole" - (baltimoresun.com) Gun law loophole lets some felons get firearms - "Many of the criminals on the list were convicted of non-violent offenses -- tax evasion, forgery, even moonshining. But the total also includes an untold number of violent felons, most of whom only became eligible to own guns as a result of a little-noticed clause in a 1986 law backed by the National Rifle Association." "But criminals who had used a firearm in the commission of a felony were not allowed to apply for exemptions until Congress undertook a broad rewrite of gun control laws in 1986." -- Darknipples (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

1992 - "Loophole in Gun Law" - http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/loophole-in-gun-law-allows-felons-to-own-firearms/article_9d34af7f-b62e-5b38-96bc-ef614dac5a1f.html

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

1993 - "loophole at gun show" - http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-03-31/news/1993090070_1_gun-lobby-buy-guns-gun-shows

1993 - Gun Sale Loophole - http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-03-24/news/1993083193_1_gun-dealers-loophole-gun-shows

1993 - Brady Bill Loophole - http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1290&dat=19931220&id=3fhTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Ao0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5330,2581703

1993 LA Times "Gun Law Loophole" - Darknipples (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

1999 -- the so-called Brady law loophole -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/june99/house18.htm

2000 - (p. 648) "Brady Bill Gun Show Loophole" - https://books.google.com/books?id=zibhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA411&dq=gun+show+loophole&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t53WVNqrOsK7ggSRp4ToCg&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=gun%20show%20loophole&f=false

2007 - Brady Bill Loophole - http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/ci_5809237

2013 - 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/

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

2013 Gun Sale Loophole - http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/10/background-check-compromise-would-close Darknipples (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

2013 casual sale exception - http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/gun-shows-internet-keep-weapons-flowing-around-background-checks -- Darknipples (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

2014 Background check loophole - http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2014/08/honor-jim-bradys-legacy-close-loopholes-background-checks -- Darknipples (talk) 23:59, 7 February 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)

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)

I think we've come a long way. Perhaps we should ping all the editors to see what else needs to improved before we submit at this point? Darknipples (talk) 22:36, 5 February 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.

"Gun show loophole": NPOV article title

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)

POV title 3

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)

Creating WP:Balance

I would like to discuss the feasibility of entering the word "controversial" into part of the lead in efforts to resolve the WP:NPOV tag on the article. While I still do not feel it is proper for the word "controversy" to be placed in the title, it may be beneficial in resolving certain issues with those editors that take exception to the title as is. This is in effort to improve the article in good faith ASAP. Here are some citations in which the word controversy has been conjunctive with the GSL...Whether they have WP:Weight, I would refer to those with the most knowledge and experience.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/20/gun.control/ "Controversial gun control measure included with Gore's tie-breaking vote - 1999"

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-show-pictures-2013-9 "Here's What You Can Buy At The Biggest Gun Show In The Southeast - 2013"

William J. Clinton p. 1032

Please let me know your thoughts (everyone). Darknipples (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

LEAD DISCUSSION

@Miguel Escopeta, Lightbreather, Faceless Enemy, Felsic, Capitalismojo, and Ca2James: Let's all discuss Miguel's recent BRD here, shall we? Darknipples (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is the disarmament portion. Why not simply include it? The GSL is not about gun shows, per se. Rather, it is about eliminating private sales, and ultimately requiring gun registration, through the establishment of keeping records, as a prelude to gun confiscation, all as a part of the plan of disarmament for removing guns from society. There is not even a "loophole", as the laws are clear. Private sales are legal in most states. Private citizens don't even have any way to do a Federal background check, being legally prohibited from accessing the NICS database. By including the disarmament portion, though, we achieve a neutral point of view, I think. Discussion? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

So are you abandoning the idea of writing an article using the neutral point of view? That's what this edit does.[28] It has a lengthy quote, right there in the intro, from a partisan and it repeats another partisan's opinion in Wikipedia's voice. That's not balance. That's advocacy.

According to "gun rights" proponents around here, guns are great big things fired by artillery brigades and battleships. Rifles and pistols and shotguns are "firearms". So there's really no such thing as "gun shows". It's all a dysphemsism for a euphemism for a non-existent neologism created by a media cabal solely to grab guns using the clever technique of not calling them firearms. That's the real "elephant" here. Felsic (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Felsic, with all due respect, I realize you may be frustrated, and I empathize, but the idea here is to be productive, not just confrontational. Let's try to find some common ground and compromise if at all possible. Darknipples (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Compromise? That's funny. Here's what compromise looks like: [29][30][31][32][33][34] Felsic (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Miguel, with regard to your BRD, the issues I have are with the following statements...

"Gun show loophole is also a euphemism used for the disarmament of private citizens"

"This implication is false. The real criticism is leveled at secondary market sales by private citizens."

I feel we need to edit or remove them in order to maintain balance, weight, and non-POV. I appreciate your efforts to resolve the issue and I am willing to work with you. I've taken your suggestions in the past and added to the article as you have suggested of my own accord. I just want to find a middle ground, as I'm sure we all do. Please try to see this from both sides of the issue, and how it looks in WP Voice. Respectfully -- Darknipples (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What is it about the second reference, citing the euphemism, that is false? Consider this quote from the second reference: Quote=Even though the overall disarmament goals appear the same, euphemistic labels now cloak legislative proposals that would do very much more than innocuous titles suggest, for example, a bill to protect police officers, and gun show loophole... How does this not cite the statement of Gun show loophole is also a euphemism used for the disarmament of private citizens? The issue that needs addressing in the lede is that the very title of gun show loophole for the article is offensive, pejorative, and factually inaccurate. (There is no loophole, it's just Federal law, and it's not about gunshows, either, but for disarming citizens, and preventing private ownership of firearms. What is wrong with giving balance to the extremely POV title of gun show loophole, and the blatant attempt to register, and, ultimately, confiscate all guns? And, yes, I know the technical differences between guns and firearms, but, in vernacular English, guns is often used as a catch-all for collectively discussing firearms.) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

FellSick, please discuss. We have tried the B and R of BRD. D, Discussion, is now needed. You reverted. Now, please explain what you propose instead. As it stands, the lede is now extremely POV and I have retagged it as a POV violation and as a POV section problem, too. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:49, 6 February 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)

I have restored the lede stored above, with the additional work added to the first sentence since it was summarized above. If we need to remove the lede again, OK, but we should be able to work it there if there are any issues, at this point, I think. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta and Lightbreather: Sorry I haven't had much time to look at this section before, but the lead is really long as it is. Which citation is this sentence from, and is it referring to GSL or "gun commerce"?

"The practice is consistent with a longstanding practice of private commerce in the United States."

-- Darknipples (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea, and that's part of why I removed it before. Lightbreather (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta: Please help us find the section that states "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." within it's referred citation Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem - Darknipples (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's mostly on p. 874. quote = "Criticisms of the "gun show loophole" imply that federal regulations allow otherwise prohibited retail purchases ("primary market sales") of firearms at gun shows. This implication is false. But, it is additionally explained further in several footnotes, too. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Miguel Escopeta:. We need a correction, however, in regard to this line at the end that reads "but this is false, no additional sales are permitted at gun shows than in any other location" According to the citation, it says "This implication is false. The real criticism is leveled at secondary market sales by private citizens." Agreed? Darknipples (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. No problem. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll point out that this "Criticisms" comment is quoted in its entirety near the end of the "Background" section. Lightbreather (talk) 22:12, 3 February 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
• Berkeley Media Studies Group  Done
• 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)

• Question for @Mudwater: - What is the notability of the proposed term "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" with regard to WP:Notability?

• 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[[35]] editor renamed it - without discussion - on December 2, 2014.[36]. 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.[37] --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)

• Reply: Thank you very much, I understand your point now. However, doesn't this help to show that the "loophole" was intentionally protected, and is therefore not a "loophole," as commonly known? GCA didn't have anything to explicitly end private sales, and it appears that FOPA was enacted in response to overzealous ATF prosecutions of private sellers. Therefore, though the current title may meet the "common name" standard, it is also not at all neutral. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reply: We must bear in mind that GSL has evolved from only concerning private sales at gun shows to all private sales. Even though the meaning has essentially changed over time, the term has not. See section title III in this citation http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm As far as GCA not restricting private sales in general, it did restrict FFLs from selling at gun shows. FOPA also specifically addressed their ability to act as private sellers as long as certain criteria and protocols within FOPA were met. Not to mention the proliferation of gun shows after FOPA is inferred in these cites. http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2013/jan/16/gun-show-loophole/ -- http://extras.denverpost.com/news/shot0213.htm Darknipples (talk) 02:36, 29 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)

• Strong Oppose this article is not about "background checks" in general, it is about the specific instance of background checks in relation to gunshows. It is not about "universal background checks" either, since nothing in the article covers every instance, it only covers it in relation to gunshows. Therefore the proposed title fails WP:PRECISE as it is not precise enough to identify the topic. The proposed name has a much broader scope than the current content of the article. Background checks at gun shows for firearm sales in the United States would solve that problem. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per COMMONAME. Also background checks is a wider subject. Now, if articles are merged as suggested, then there would be no problems. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" is a crazy made-up name. Pick something in common use and stop fighting over semantics. We all know what this is about - private gun sales. Felsic (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support name change to indicate that this is a US-specific issue. This is a global encyclopaedia but the current title doesn't reflect this global nature. The title should be updated to stop contributing to the systemic pro-Western (and especially pro-US) bias on Wikipedia. Ca2james (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OTHERPARENT. This political issue is well-known and most commonly known as "the gun show loophole", even in an official sense (see Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009). It doesn't need to be renamed for neutrality or political correctness, nor for countering systemic bias. Ivanvector (talk) 17:43, 7 February 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.[38])

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)

I disagree. Gun show loophole was the center of debate for 15 years. The focus has shifted to universal background checks - and they are related, have similar roots - but they are each notable in their own right. (Consider one example, that we have separate articles for National Firearms Act and Title II weapons. They are related and have similar roots, but they have their own articles.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The NFA article covers a particular law, whereas the Title II weapons article covers firearms regulated under that law. Any implementation of UBC would automatically close the GSL. The two are much more closely intertwined conceptually. UBC and the GSL are essentially the same thing. The issue of the GSL has been almost completely eclipsed by UBCs. It's like a car having a redesign between model years. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy and Lightbreather: In regard to the statement, "Any implementation of UBC would automatically close the GSL", I could use some clarification. The only way I can wrap my head around this assumption is if UBC was instituted at a federal level. Even then, the fact that private party sales of guns in other countries are still legal may infer that GSL would still exist even after a federal regulation instituting UBC in the US. Some states have already essentially instituted UBC and some have not, yet, GSL still exists. So, the inference that "any" implementation of UBC would automatically "close GSL", in any universal sense, without providing any notable citations to that effect, confuses me. - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose, per Faceless Enemy, and per my posts in the #"Gun show loophole": NPOV article title section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This needs to be reworded so everyone knows what they're voting for. Up top is a notice that UBC was split into its own notable article from NICS. It wasn't a proposal. But this article's page proposes merging UTC into this article? And an "oppose" vote supports that? Lightbreather (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Oppose" means that I oppose splitting "Universal background check" from this article. The merge proposal is to merge them back together. Meanwhile there's a proposal to rename this article to "Background checks for firearms sales in the United States". So I don't see the need for any rewording, though if you have a specific suggestion, feel free to post it here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge Universal background check into this article - Gun show loophole?

Created because of this "Oppose" vote on the notice that this section is a subsection of. Related discussions "Gun show loophole": NPOV article title and Related article.

• Oppose. Both "Gun show loophole" and "Universal background check" are notable in their own right. Lightbreather (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support merging back the article that Lightbreather split off earlier today, for the reasons that Faceless Enemy explained earlier in this section, and as per my posts in the #"Gun show loophole": NPOV article title section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You did catch that I split Universal background check from National Instant Criminal Background Check System and not from this (Gun show loophole) article, right? Lightbreather (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't catch it, and thanks for explaining. But my merge proposal still stands. There should be one article, "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" -- a merger between "Universal background check" and "Gun show loophole". And the "National Instant Criminal Background Check System" article should remain separate. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per above. Really though, both articles need to be merged into something with a more accurate and neutral title. Again, it would solve the whole NPOV title thing and would allow for a more comprehensive history of the debates and developments surrounding the issue. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see how or why the alleged concept of the absence of background checks should be merged with the alleged concept of UBC when they both mean two very different things, respectively. Could someone provide some citations, precedent, and or, explanation as to the logic in doing this just in order to change or dissolve the GSL title, please? Darknipples (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The answer is here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The answers here indicate that the title of this article is not POV. Lightbreather (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is strange. Last year, I created an article called "Assault weapons ban" because there are numerous AWBs in the U.S. besides the federal one that expired 10 years ago. The article that I created got renamed to "Assault weapons legisation." To this day, when you google "assault weapons ban" (go ahead and try it) it looks like the only AWB that ever existed, at least according to Wikipedia, is the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired 10 years ago - even though there are active state bans. Now, there is an effort to ensure there is no "Gun show loophole" article or a "Universal background check" article, despite the fact that they are both notable topics, commonly known by those names. Lightbreather (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly some editors have agreed that the article title "Gun show loophole" does violate the NPOV policy. But what I meant by my previous post was that the gun show loophole, falsely so called, is a subset of the issue of background checks for firearms sales in the United States. As I explained in the linked post, these are not two different subjects. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I thought that we must "bear in mind that GSL has evolved from only concerning private sales at gun shows to all private sales. Even though the meaning has essentially changed over time, the term has not."? Again, the two concepts are so closely intertwined that it is impossible to separate them. However, neither term fully encompasses the issue...hence the rename and refocus proposal below. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reply @Faceless Enemy: It might help if you provide some citations, precedent, and or, explanation as to the logic in doing this just in order to change or dissolve the GSL title. I apologize if wasn't clearer as to why the two terms mean essentially the opposite of one another. As a friendly reminder, the issue is still being discussed in another talk section - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't want just a rename - I want to broaden the scope of the article to include the GSL issue, the UBC issue, and other issues closely associated with background checks for firearm sales in the United States. The fact that we get past the issue of the title's neutrality is just icing on the cake. Regardless, the two concepts are nearly identical and should be merged (per your earlier comment), and, once merged, neither "Gun show loophole" nor "Universal background checks" is adequate. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reply: Support on the condition that WP:NPOV is resolved and the GSL title remains. If you truly do not wish to just rename the article then we may reach a compromise in my case. With regards to GSL's etymology, and it's references FOPA, UBC could possibly be considered a result of GSL , however, without good citations and references it would be entirely WP:SYNTH. The lack of which I have previously noted and requested, respectfully. Even though they are entirely different political concepts, if the appropriate citations and context were in line with WP guidlines and policies, it could be possible. The point is to improve the GSL articles' efficacy and quality as soon and as easily as possible. I feel a compromise in this vein may be amicable as long as the GSL title remains, but I reserve the right to wait until all editors have clarified their positions to make a final call at this juncture. - Darknipples (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples:, my point is that, once merged, neither "UBC" nor "GSL" are accurate or adequate. I'll ping you once I've created the full "background checks" article - hopefully you'll see what I mean then.  :) Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy: After looking at the UBC article I see the amount of overlap. It looks like they just took everything from the GSL page in order to create the article, which doesn't make sense, since many of the citations and most of the content doesn't focus or even mention UBC. In other words, the problem is with the UBC article, not GSL. UBC needs a lot of work and I have decided to focus half of my attention on correcting those issues I mentioned. I look forward to seeing your new article and I will be happy to help out with it any way I can. ;-) As far as the accuracy of the GSL article I respectfully disagree. Darknipples (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Makes more sense to go the other way. Felsic (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - These are related, but separate and distinct topics. They each deal with specific issues of law that vary from state to state and at a Federal level and have debate, although with crossover, that is unique to each subject. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:23, 9 February 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 [39]

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)

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)

@Capitalismojo:, I agree with @Lightbreather:; this is within the guidelines of the OR policy. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The point is well made. The material should remain. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:27, 29 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)

@Capitalismojo:: Your recent edit to the main 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)

INSERT I don't see where that NRA quote is in the article. It isn't in the section I edited. In the section I removed the LCPGV sentence from the NRA sentence was ref'd to a newspaper. The quote you have above from Cox at the NRA seems undue and primary sourced, it should be removed unless we can find a RS ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:02, 29 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)

The point is not that this is material from an advocacy group. Who cares. The point is that it is ref'd to a non-RS. The NRA information in the section is ref'd to a newspaper. The noteworthiness of the advocacy group's material is an issue. If we had some article in RS saying it, we should use it. Absent any indication that this opinion of this random advocacy group's opinion is notable or noteworthy (a RS discussing, quoting, or using it in anyway would be an indication) it shouldn't be included. That is part of the point about avoiding primary sources. The information dug up seems important to the person doing the original research and it just might not be. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a good mix of sources: government, scholarly, newspaper, advocacy groups (pro and con; nraila.org twice, BTW, not just NRA from a newspaper article). This is an article about a political term so advocacy group opinions, properly weighted and attributed, are appropriate. Lightbreather (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That response is off point. I would be fine with information from advocacy groups if it was not Original Research sourced to primary materials. Is it impossible to find this information in a RS? If it is impossible, that is a strong indication that this is not worthy of inclusion. does this organizations press releases or reports not get picked up in the media? Let's get some RS ref here. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this concept doesn't have to be sourced to this group. There are hundreds of gun policy advocacy groups, surely one of them got this idea into the public square. If it must be this group's quote it would be nice to hear why? Capitalismojo (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So, it turns out that this is not just a term used by that particular advocacy group and there are plenty of refs suitable for this info. I have added a Huffington Post ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Primary"?

FTA: Those concerned about the shows believe they are a primary source of illegally trafficked firearms, both domestically and abroad.

[emphasis added] From the GAO source: "around 52 percent of trace requests from Mexico that were submitted to ATF’s National Tracing Center identified the first retail dealer." (Page 14) "From fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2008, of those firearms ATF was able to trace back to a retail dealer, around 95 percent were traced back to gun shops and pawn shops—around 71 to 79 percent from gun shops and 15 to 19 percent from pawn shops, according to ATF. In addition to these firearms that are successfully traced back to a retail dealer, some ATF officials told us, based on information from their operations and investigations, many seized guns also come from private sales at gun shows, though it is impossible to know this exact number due to the lack of records kept for such purchases, which is discussed further below."(Page 21 of GAO).

I don't think "up to 5% plus an unknown proportion of the remaining 48%" hits the threshold for "primary." More relevantly, I couldn't find the word "primary" linked to gun shows in either source. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This part caught my eye, in reference to your question. Hope it helps... "many seized guns also come from private sales at gun shows, though it is impossible to know this exact number due to the lack of records kept for such purchases, which is discussed further below."(Page 21 of GAO). Darknipples (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The "further discussion" is pretty sparse - "Gun shows. According to ATF officials, individuals can use straw purchasers as they would at gun shops to acquire guns from gun shops with booths at gun shows. In addition, individuals can also purchase guns at gun shows from other individuals making sales from their private collections. These private sales require no background checks of the purchaser and require no record be made or kept of the sale. ATF officials told us this prevents their knowing what percentage of the problem of arms trafficking to Mexico comes from these private sales at gun shows." (Page 22). Of the samples ATF was able to trace, 95% came from normal retail sources. I was unable to find any indication in the source that the remainder would be significantly different. Again, more relevantly, neither source mentions anything about gun shows or private sales being a "primary" source of trafficked firearms. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm too preoccupied with the various requests to move and rename this article and/or the Universal background check article to care about the word "primary" right now. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. It's majority oppose !votes, citing valid reasons. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Gun show loophole → Background checks for firearm sales in the United States – The proposed title is both more descriptive and more neutral. It would allow coverage of both the "gun show loophole" issue and the "universal background check" issue. It would also allow for discussion of particular state background check systems, such as Massachusetts' Firearm Identification Card web portal system. This would bypass all of the issues (as discussed above) associated with calling something a "loophole" (an inherently non-neutral term) in the article's title. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A note to anyone who is new to this talk page: This requested move is an extension of the discussion in the #RFC to rename article section above. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• OPPOSE per the 3, 4, or 5 related discussions that are currently open. Lightbreather (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: To my knowledge, and with all due respect, isn't the issue of WP:NPOV currently being discussed for a second or third time in another section of the talk page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_show_loophole#.22Gun_show_loophole.22:_NPOV_article_title -- Darknipples (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. But I'm not clear on whether or not it's helpful to have a Requested Move in addition to the #RFC to rename article section. They kind of amount to the same thing, so it might be better to keep the discussion all in one section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel that this is about changing the whole focus of the article, rather than just changing the title. This wasn't intended to be duplicative. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose this article is currently not about "background checks" in general, it is about the specific instance of background checks in relation to gunshows. The proposed much broader scope is something for a new article to cover. I see no reason for it expanding the scope of the current article, as it is a tightly defined topic that is notable and in the news in and of itself. If this article needs renaming, then Background checks at gun shows for firearm sales in the United States would solve that problem. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@65.94.40.137 and 65.94.40.137: Background checks at gun shows for firearm sales in the United States are, by and large, exactly the same as background checks for firearm sales in the United States. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No it's not, as you can get a gun without a background check, so it isn't the same, since not having a background check as the "background check" is not the same as having a background check. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support some move - the current title is completely opaque and fails WP:CRITERIA, should certainly have US in it. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Didn't I just vote on this already? How many of these bureaucratic hurdles are folks gonna throw in the way of making better articles? Felsic (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Similar to the Universal background check move request, although not necessarily recognizable this does appear to be common usage in reliable sources [40]. Zarcadia (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Notice: This proposal is inconsistent with the similar proposal to move Universal background check to Universal background check for firearms sales in the United States (note "firearm" vs. "firearms").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Darknipples & 65.94.40.137, and per WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. The current title is not regularly confusable with anything else, or at least we have no sources suggesting this. While it could conceivably refer to something else in some cases, this particular phrase almost almost refers to US firearm policy, and to a specific aspect of it. Even if it did regularly refer to something else, this would still be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It's also probably the WP:COMMONNAME.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question

@Faceless Enemy and Mudwater: Between the two of you, how many discussions do you have open right now re the title of this article? Lightbreather (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reply I have about a half. I don't consider it the proposed rename to be a discussion of just the title - it's about the topic of the article as well. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• I believe there are currently two sections devoted to renaming the article -- "RFC to rename article" and "Requested move 29 January 2015". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Lightbreather, there's three. You split "RFC to rename article" out of the ""Gun show loophole": NPOV article title" section, on the basis that an RFC should start a new section. So, those two plus the new requested move. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a general question. Do we really need three different talk sections about this one topic? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears as though one budded off of the other in good faith, and I don't consider mine to be strictly about the title - it's about a refocus as well. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of edits re renaming this article and Universal background checks

This is such a mess that I'm going to create a timeline here for my own help, but also to help anyone who comes along trying to understand it! Should take me about 30 minutes. Lightbreather (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

History of Gun show loophole article

• 7 February 2006 Stubby article Gun show loophole was created.
• 6 December 2006 It was "merged" into Gun shows (now Gun shows in the United States) which was also a stub. This version was the result.
• 11 May 2014 Gun show loophole was in a section called Controversies in Gun shows in the United States. The only "controversy" in the section was the gun show loophole, and the word "loophole" appeared in the section nine times.
• 25 June 2014 After about six weeks of off-and-on again work by Darknipples and four other editors the Controversies section had a brief opening paragraph, and a five-paragraph subsection headed "Gun show loophole."
• 25 June 2014 After a lengthy discussion about splitting Gun show loophole into its own article - concluding with the discovery that it had started out as its own article - I split it back out into its own article.
• 1-8 August 2014 After discussing with two other editors Darknipples agreed to adding "controversy" to the end of the article title. (Two other editors are now topic banned.)
• 2 December 2014 Article renamed with "controversy" on the end (by now topic-banned editor).
• 8 January 2015 In addition to having "controversy" on the end of its title, the article had four main sections - three with "controversy" or "controversies" in the header!

Recent discussions on two pages (plus notice added to Universal background checks)

• 8 January 2015 Talk page discussion Got controversy? was started.
• 16 January 2015 Consensus was reached to restore original article name in discussion POV title 2.
• 26 January 2015 Original article name was restored.
• 13:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "Gun show loophole": NPOV article title started here on the GSL talk page.
• 23:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC) After 10 hours and no consensus at "'Gun show loophole': NPOV article title" discussion and same arguments as previous discussions, Gun show loophole was started at WP:NPOVN.
• 00:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC) One (1) hour after discussion started at WP:NPOVN, originator of "'Gun show loophole': NPOV article title" discussion added an RFC template to the top of it.
• 01:15 28 January 2015 (UTC) RFC was moved to its own section: RFC to rename article.
• 19:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Editors notified that Universal background check (UBC) was split from National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
• 01:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Editor proposes in UBC split notification that it (UBC) should be merged into Gun show loophole (GSL) to create a new article titled "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States".
• 03:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC) This became subsection Merge Universal background check into this article - Gun show loophole?
• 03:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC) An editor requested that Gun show loophole be renamed and moved to Background checks for firearm sales in the United States.

@Darknipples, Faceless Enemy, and Mudwater: Sorry if I'm missing anyone currently active editing this page. I would like to propose that no more requests be opened re this article or the Universal background checks article. There are so many right now that I don't know how we can take action on any of them until things settle down. I am going to spend some time today improving the UBC article, focusing on 2010 and after, since that's when the debate started to shift away from the gun show loophole and onto UBCs. I suggest that if anything is added here, that it be from before 2010, when gun shows were central to the debate. Lightbreather (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed - There seemed to be quite a few TP sections discussing relatively similar topics that do not focus on improving the content of the article. It will be much easier for everyone to discuss improving the article if we can make navigating the TP easier. Darknipples (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed - For now, I'm going to create the full "background checks for firearm sales" article, with links to the other two. Let's let the current renaming discussions play out, and, if no consensus is reached, open a new discussion a week or so from now when some of the interim issues have been ironed out? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Faceless Enemy: I highly advise you to hold off on that until these two articles' fates are decided. You have proposed merging them into one article. Those proposals are not yet decided. To go ahead and do what you prefer anyway would be to create a WP:CONTENTFORK. Lightbreather (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Private sale loophole

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

• Mayo, Michael (May 22, 2013). "Can Fort Lauderdale compel background checks at gun show?". Sun Sentinel. Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
• Moore, Tina (July 31, 2013). "Guns from out-of-state make up the grand majority of city crimes, Bloomberg attempts to push back". NY Daily News.
• Wallstin, Brian (February 11, 2014). "News Primer: Gun Bills At The Statehouse". New Hampshire Public Radio.
• "Facebook, Instagram crack down on gun sales on social networks". Reuters. March 5, 2014.
• Rosenfeld, Steven (June 26, 2014). "9 signs America's gun obsession is getting worse". Salon Media Group.
• "Obama to seek expanded checks on gun buyers, end of private-sale loophole". Plain Dealer Publishing. Associated Press. January 16, 2013.
• Williams, Damon C. (October 2, 2014). "Gun background check amendment shot down". Philadelphia Tribune.
• Taylor, Marisa (December 22, 2014). "Gun law loophole could have provided Brinsley's murder weapon, say experts". Al Jazeera America.
• Dobbs, Taylor (January 16, 2015). "Gun Rights Group Slams Proposed Legislation". Vermont Public Radio.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: If we change the name to "private sale loophole" then the page should absolutely be merged with the UBC article. In fact I'd say that any references to it belong on that page, not here. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: I'm a bit confused by this section, although, I realize you have added "Some gun control advocates call this the 'private sale loophole.'" to the article. It has also been referred to as the 'Brady Loophole', the 'Hinkley Loophole', the 'Gun Law Loophole', and the 'Gun Control Loophole'. I created a talk section entitled GSL disambiguation in this regard, but I'm afraid it is a bit of a mess with irrelevant citations. I could clean it up for you if you'd like to merge these sections? My only worry is that this is somehow WP:Synth. Could you clarify the rules on this, since you are more familiar with them? Darknipples (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I only meant for it to be a section to hold some sources related to the shift that started (about 2008, after Virginia Tech) to referring less to the gun show loophole and more to the private sale loophole. This is shown in the source that was until recently in the lead, but misrepresented there.

How the source was used in the lead:

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.

How it is now used (quoted) near the end of the "Background" section:

"Criticisms of the 'gun show loophole' imply that federal regulations allow otherwise prohibited retail purchases ('primary market sales') of firearms at gun shows. This implication is false. The real criticism is leveled at secondary market sales by private citizens."

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I might add that this shift from "gun show" loophole to "private sale" loophole went hand-in-hand with talk of "universal" background checks rather than just background checks. That's why I'm trying to take it slow about renaming and merging articles until we've sorted out the sources better. Lightbreather (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:American political neologisms

Should this page be included in Category:American political neologisms? I added it in, but @Lightbreather: removed it, stating that "a term that has been in popular use for at least 15 years is not a neologism." The terms "Evil empire" (1983), "Bradley effect", (1983) "Soccer mom" (1996), and "Red states and blue states" (2000) are all in this category, despite having been in popular use for many years. There are more here. Many have been in popular usage for much longer than "gun show loophole." I don't see any usage of "gun show loophole" in Google before 1994 or so, so I feel it meets the definition of "neologism" - the earliest mention I can find is by the Clinton source in 1998. It was invented in the context of American politics, so it is an American political neologism. Thoughts? Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy: - I'm not sure what a neologism is, but how does this improve the article? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the the article and the TP, it seems that many of the examples are old and out of date. Darknipples (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:American political neologisms? It's simple, really, IMO. A neologism is a newly coined word or expression. Rather than add "gun show loophole" to this category, I think it would be better to remove the articles that are no longer neologisms. Mercy! Just about every word/term starts out in life as a neologism, but after scads of people have been using them for years... they aren't really neologisms any more. Lightbreather (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: & @Lightbreather:, I don't see any definitions of neologism that include the requirement "that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been accepted into mainstream language" outside of the Wikipedia definition. (I am trying to get ahold of the sources the article cites). See definitions from Dictionary.com Merriam-Webster, and the free dictionary. Either way, "gun show loophole" has not entered mainstream language. Compare to "soccer mom" it has 282K hits vs. 19.1M hits on Google. I have not seen it used outside of the confines of the gun control debate in the U.S. I also don't see a clear-cut age requirement - 20 years is not that much in the history of a language. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply With regard to this statement, "Either way, "gun show loophole" has not entered mainstream language." and with all due respect @Faceless Enemy:, does this seem in line with WP:Good faith policies? Darknipples (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply @Darknipples: I'm not sure I understand the question. By "either way" I meant "whether 'that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been accepted into mainstream language' is part of the definition of 'neologism' or not." If that doesn't answer your question, would you please re-phrase it? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply @Faceless Enemy: Since it is only a "may be" I am opposed at this point. I would look into it, but I prefer to put my efforts towards improving this article, and thereby improving the the whole of Wikipedia. If you find a more compelling argument in this matter, please add it to this talk section. Respectfully -- Darknipples (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply The "may be" was irrelevant to the point I was getting at. Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply @Faceless Enemy: Okay. Darknipples (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Find some sources calling it a "neologism". Felsic (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Felsic: Here you go. https://www.vpc.org/studies/gunloop.htm. 1996 source did not call it GSL, 2001 source does. Term was therefore coined between those two dates. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If the sources don't mention the "gun show loophole" then they aren't about the gun show loophole. Felsic (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think what Felsic is asking is for a source that calls it a neologism. Let's say for arguments sake that it was "coined" in 2000. That was 15 years ago. How are you deciding that's a neologism? Is that something as editors that we should be deciding, without a source calling it a neologism outright?. Modern sporting rifle was coined in 2009. Unless a source says it's one, can we call it a neologism? Lightbreather (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree that MSR is a neologism. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I would, too, but for peace on the project, I don't. I think not pushing this gun-show-loophole-is-a-neologism thing would help to keep the peace, too. Lightbreather (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

At best it may be an "old neologism". Sorry for the oxymoron. Darknipples (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Folks, we seem to be splitting hairs on this. Neologism is simply a "newly coined word in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been accepted into mainstream language". Relative to language and vocabulary there is not clear definition of how long something can be considered "new" or how long it should take for it to enter mainstream language. Given that we have words that have been in use for several centuries, relative to the entire English Lexicon, GSL is still relatively "new".

"Gun show loophole" IS clearly a neologism (by definition and we're allowed as Editors to apply definitions) that has not gained mainstream acceptance and may not ever since it does not deal with a mainstream subject. Nothing we do or say can change that. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Dysphemisms

Should this page be included in Category:Dysphemisms? I added it in, but @Lightbreather: removed it, stating that: "[a term] that has been in the title of numerous federal and local bills and laws is not a dysphemism." I disagree.

• "Loophole" is inherently loaded; it implies "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."
• "Loophole" is in Category:Abuse_of_the_legal_system.
• The term was apparently coined by the Clinton administration in an effort to promote additional gun control, not as a neutral descriptor.
• The appearance of a term in bills or law does not make it less of a dysphemism; see "gas guzzler" in federal law, "junk food" in a bill, "ecoterrorism" in the title of a bill, "junk science" in a bill. Just because a politician uses a term does not mean it is not a dysphemism (see also: "death panel").

For all of the above reasons, I feel that the term "gun show loophole" belongs in Category:Dysphemisms. Thoughts? Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy: 3 questions...

(1 & 2) You stated that "The term was apparently coined by the Clinton administration". Do you have the citation, and would you be interested in adding it to the article with a balancing citation from the other side of the issue?

(3) How would this help the article?

Respectfully -- Darknipples (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reply: (1 & 2) I'm referring to this source in the article. That's the earliest mention of the issue as "loophole" that I can find - the idea seems to have originated in a 1996 VPC study. (3) Categories help readers to find, and navigate around, a subject area, to see pages sorted by title, and to thus find article relationships. So it doesn't necessarily help this article, but adding proper categories helps to improve the encyclopedia as a whole. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Dysphemisms says it's for intentionally harsh words or expressions. "Loophole" isn't harsh. In fact, several words/expressions on that list don't look like they belong there, while some - like "feminazi" - most certainly do! But not "gun show loophole." Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply: "Loophole" is certainly pejorative. For example, a more neutral and strictly factual term would be "private sale exemption." I'm not sure I've ever seen "loophole" used in a non-pejorative way. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• The only source that has been given that it's a pejorative is a Daily Kos blogger named "aguadito." (I brought this up in a previous discussion.) No source has been given that it's a dysphemism. Lightbreather (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I feel Loophole" is inherently negative. See:

• "It's a loaded, partisan word, one that implies wrongdoing and scandal where none exists, and inserting it into a political argument gives the inserter the upper hand. When loophole creeps into news stories, they start to read like editorials."
• "When used by newspaper reporters and politicians, the term 'tax loophole' is always a pejorative"
• "The term 'loophole' has been used throughout the heated debate regarding this section. Describing the provision as an undemocratic loophole is a good example of the rhetoric provoked by this issue. The term is as pejorative as it is inaccurate."
• "She explains that she tries to avoid calling these provisions "loopholes" because that word has a pejorative connotation"

etc. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Lightbreather: any objection to re-adding the category? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I object. There is no preponderance of RS that says "gun show loophole" is a dysphemism or supports that it is. Lightbreather (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply - @Faceless Enemy: You have already created WP:NPOV discussion sections on the talk page, and to continue creating TP sections in this vein may be considered distracting by editors that are interested in improving the the article, itself. With regard to your citation, it is rather lengthy and I would ask that you point out the section that states "The term was coined by the Clinton administration" and let us know if you would like to introduce it into the article (with a WP:Balance citation, of course). - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply @Darknipples:, I am discussing a specific improvement to the article. I made it in good faith, it was reverted in good faith, and now I am discussing it in good faith. I don't know where else I would discuss it other than in a new TP section. As to the Clinton thing, that's just the earliest mention of the issue as "loophole" that I can find. I am continuing to look, of course, and I am about to add the VPC study into the early history of the article. This publication by the VPC in early 2001 claims that the 1996 publication was "the first to analyze the origin and effect of what is now known as the 'gun show loophole.'" The term therefore appears to have been coined some time between 1996 (the 1996 publication makes only one, narrow mention of a "loophole" - in reference to one line of the 1986 FOPA) and 2001, when it appears to be widespread among gun-control advocates. The 1998 Clinton source is prominently featured in the article right now, and seems to be a likely source for the term. However, until I confirm that with RS I will not add it to the article. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Find some sources calling it a "Dysphemism". Felsic (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Felsic: please see list of links above. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If the sources don't mention the "gun show loophole" then they aren't about the gun show loophole. Felsic (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Related to the discussion below about whether or not the coined-in-2009 "modern sporting rifle" is a neologism: If it is, we ought to create a Category:American political euphemisms and add MSR to that, too... But for peace's sake, let's not and get on with the more substantive problems related to this article. Lightbreather (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A majority of the linked examples given by Faceless Enemy seem to refer to tax laws. I didn't see any specifically citing GSL. I still think it meets the regulations (or loopholes ;-) under WP:POVNAMING. - Darknipples (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

2012 Azana Spa shootings.

We can discuss WP:Weight and WP:Notability etc... here, @Miguel Escopeta: - Darknipples (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• It was a small shooting. Subsequently, no laws were changed at either the Federal or state level, that resulted from this shooting. Additionally, the cites included with the statement you included as being part of the "publicized" shooting includes the statement that gun control advocates misrepresented this case in the media. So, why should we continue to misrepresent this case in Wikipedia's voice, with an inaccurate summary, that also go against what the cites that you inserted support? This looks suspiciously like a POV push, not a factual statement of fact, that you inserted. Please explain why this should be misrepresented here, in Wikipedia's voice. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• Multiple shootings lead up to the introduction and passage of the assault weapons ban of 1994, and it's the same here about what reignited the gun show loophole debate. The question is how much weight to put on the individual shootings. The straw that broke the camel's back was Newtown, but how many were there that year? Azana. Aurora. Wisconsin Sikh temple. Sandy Hook. Lightbreather (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying we need to include these in the article, but they might be useful while we work:

• "U.S. mass shootings in 2012". Washington Post. December 14, 2012. Retrieved February 1, 2015.
• Zornick, George (December 14, 2012). "Sixteen US Mass Shootings Happened in 2012, Leaving at Least 88 Dead". The Nation. Retrieved February 1, 2015.
• Dahl, Julia (December 18, 2012). "Mass Shootings in 2012: Crimesider reports on this year's public shootings". CBS Interactive. Retrieved February 1, 2015.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply - I am perfectly fine with leaving it in this form @Miguel Escopeta:...

"In October 2012, the gun show loophole was cited by the news media after the 2012 Azana Spa shootings in Wisconsin. The shooter purchased a handgun through a private sale despite a restraining order that prohibited him from possessing a firearm."

No POV push was intended and I am grateful for your edits in this regard. If you still wish to remove it completely, I am willing to discuss further soon, when I have more time. -respectfully- Darknipples (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think that a POV push was intentional on your part. But, there was a POV push in the media. Hence, I think that instead of "cited", the word "exploited" might be a better word here, as the cites make it very clear that there was intentional misrepresentation by gun control advocates in overplaying this admittedly minor shooting. We are not presenting this in a neutral accordance with what the cites currently say, by using "cited". "Cited" is a better choice than "publicized", though. However, there does seem to be an undue emphasis put on this minor shooting in this article. For that reason, I advocate removing this shooting completely, especially with the cites establishing that this minor shooting was misrepresented intentionally in the media to push a gun control POV in the media. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, neither "Aurora" or "Newtown" had anything to do with the gun show loophole. The guns for these were acquired legally, with background checks. They were not even bought at gun shows. Mentioning these shootings here appears to be a total synthesis problem. As for "Azana", it was a relatively minor shooting that was exploited by the media to advocate pushing for universal background checks. All three of these appear undue here, for reasons of non-relevance and by virtue of intentional misrepresentation in the media, as noted in the cites. I think this whole paragraph needs to go away. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather and Miguel Escopeta: I think an easier fix would be to include cites that Miguel is talking about. Miguel, do you have any RS references regarding "the exploitation of shootings by the media" that specifically reference GSL either in the title or in context? I think this will give it the WP:Balance you are looking for. Darknipples (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made a number of edits that I think fix the problem, but I agree that if Miguel has some good RS that talks about media exploitation, then that would be a good thing to include. Lightbreather (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarify 25-50 change to 50-75

Hey, Miguel, can you improve this edit?[41]

1. It removed material sourced to the Jackson Free Press - and removed the source - and replaced it with different material sourced to "http://topgunsmithingschoolsonline.com/" - a commercial site. However, the document at that site is a document already cited earlier (ref name ref name=DOJ1999January) in the article at the ATF web site "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. Also, how about a page number, since it's a 42 page document? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Never mind... I found it. Lightbreather (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on FOPA

This sentence:

Indeed, according to the Firearm Owners Protection Act, an FFL may legally sell firearms as a private-party seller at gun shows in the United States, provided the firearm was transferred to the licensee's private collection at least one year prior to the sale. Hence, when a personal firearm is sold by an individual who also happens to hold an FFL, no ATF Form 4473 is required.

is currently in the "Recent developments" section. Is it a recent development, or does it date back to the passage of FOPA in 1986? Lightbreather (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This was changed under FOPA, but I'll keep digging to find some better sources...

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. http://harrislawoffice.com/content/areas_of_practice/federal_firearms/legislative_history/FOPA%20House%20Report%2099-495.pdf -- Darknipples (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

National Rifle Ass'n v. Brady, 914 F.2d 475 (4th Cir. 1990) Section II - Sub-Section C

"Prior to the passage of FOPA, licensed firearms dealers were required to record the sale or other disposition of firearms held in both their business inventories and their personal collections. See United States v. Endicott, 803 F.2d 506, 510-11 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Currier, 621 F.2d 7, 9 (1st Cir.1980). Initially, FOPA altered this scheme by providing that, with respect to their personal collections, licensees need only comply with those restrictions applicable to any other person who disposes of a firearm. The statute read as follows:

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer from maintaining and disposing of a personal collection of firearms, subject only to such restrictions as apply in this chapter to dispositions by a person other than a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer. If any firearm is so disposed of by a licensee within one year after its transfer from his business inventory into such licensee's personal collection or if such disposition or any other acquisition is made for the purpose of willfully evading the restrictions placed upon licensees by this chapter, then such firearm shall be deemed part of such licensee's business inventory.

Pub.L. No. 99-308, section 103(4). Concerned that the statute as written might contain a loophole through which licensees could dispose of firearms from their personal collections without leaving any records, Congress amended the statute on July 8, 1986, by appending the following language to the end of the prior formulation of the statute:..." - Darknipples (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

So the paragraph I copied to the top of this discussion belongs in the "Background" section? (It's not a recent development?) Lightbreather (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: Correct, unless you consider 1986 "recent". ;-) Darknipples (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

From since the dawn of time, yes, recent. In relation to the topic, no. I will try to work it into the "Background"section. Lightbreather (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Might I suggest?;

"Their efforts included reversing a key feature of the Firearm Owners Protection Act by requiring criminal background checks and purchase records on private sales at gun shows. Since the law's passage in 1986, gun shows have become prolific in the United States. The enactment of FOPA also made it legal for FFLs to make "private sales" in the United States, provided the firearm was transferred to the licensee's private collection at least one year prior to the sale. Hence, when a personal firearm is sold by an individual who also happens to hold an FFL, no ATF Form 4473 is required." Darknipples (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I added[[42]] this:

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), firearm dealers were prohibited from doing business anywhere except the address listed on their Federal Firearms License (FFL), and private sales at gun shows required background checks and purchase records. In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), which relaxed controls in the GCA. Licensed firearm dealers were allowed to sell at gun shows, and private sales at gun shows no longer required background checks or purchase records. In addition, FOPA made it legal for FFLs to make private sales, provided the firearm was transferred to the licensee's private collection at least one year prior to the sale. Hence, when a personal firearm is sold by an individual who also happens to hold an FFL, no ATF Form 4473 is required.

Whatcha think? Lightbreather (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Capitalismojo has reverted it with this edit summary: This is all highly original research ref'd to government primary documents Not allowed so I await his explanation. Lightbreather (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This issue is more than adequately covered by mainstream reliable secondary source outlets. There should be extremely limited need to rely on primary source material on this page. The material removed was sourced to government primary materials. It was impressive original research but that's not what we do here. Every bit of the material may be re-added with reliable secondary sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

As I shared less than a week ago, WP:PRIMARY says: 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.

What exactly in the above is other than a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact that could not be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source? Lightbreather (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I think some might argue whether or not these sources are primary. Do you think that all government sources are primary sources? Lightbreather (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you, in fact argue that these government publications are secondary? Because in Wikipedia's guide to identifying primary and secondary sources government proclamations are the example and pinnacle of primary sources. I have never seen them not described as primary. What is your theory that these are not primary? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The essay Identifying and using primary and secondary sources gives as an example a proclamation of victory as a primary government document. The sources in the background paragraph that was added to our article are 1) A joint report by two offices using data from a third office, and 2) A joint report by two offices with a 24-item bibliography. I am going to restore the paragraph that you removed. If you want to add material using equally RS, please feel free, but please make sure it's duly weighted. Lightbreather (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the material supposedly ref'd by the government sources is not "straitforward, descriptive statements of fact" Some of the material is not even mentioned in the ref's. It failed verification. So, no this doesn't match the limited legitimate uses of WP:PRIMARY source material. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps using one of these citations, in addition to the "questionably OR" ones, would be an acceptable compromise?

• Not only did Congress reject that three-step plan, but in 1986 it passed the NRA-supported Firearms Owners` Protection Act (FOPA). Among its many key reforms, FOPA amended the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 to reduce burdens on gun dealers and record-keeping on gun owners. 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...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... https://www.nraila.org/articles/20100121/the-war-on-gun-shows -- Darknipples (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Who’s Behind The Table? At shows, you’ll find guns on the tables of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and private individuals. Before 1986, most with guns at their tables at shows were collectors, selling a few items from their personal collections, as FFLs were prohibited from conducting business at shows. The 1986 McClure-Volkmer Firearms Owner Protection Act allowed FFLs to conduct business at other locations, and FFLs started attending shows--the vast majority of tables with guns on them at major shows are run by FFLs--all following the same laws by which they abide at their licensed places of business....'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

• - https://www.vpc.org/studies/gunloop.htm -"The VPC study documented how the 1986 "Firearms Owners' Protection Act" (FOPA) led to the uncontrolled proliferation of gun shows—events at which private citizens and federally licensed gun dealers congregate to buy and sell firearms and related paraphernalia. The VPC's research revealed that the law has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number and size of shows, which occur in auditoriums, fairgrounds, and other outlets in almost every state on virtually every weekend of the year. The VPC's research also demonstrated that this dramatic increase was due largely to two little-noticed changes the FOPA made in the way that federally licensed firearms dealers are regulated—"

"The law made it legal for Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders to sell at gun shows."

"The law expanded the opportunities for private citizens to buy and sell firearms at gun shows by raising the threshold of what constituted being "engaged in the business" of selling firearms for purposes of defining who must obtain a federal gun dealer's license."

• (Page 126) https://books.google.com/books?id=dpzN711aYlQC&pg=PA126&dq=gun+show+loophole&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-8TRVPidNITnsAS4q4LwBw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=gun%20show%20loophole&f=false - "The utility of gun shows to such dangerous individuals stems primarily from the exemption enjoyed by private sellers from the sales criteria of the Brady law, including a background check. This, in turn, encourages licensed dealers (FFL holders) to sell weapons without following the sales criteria of the Brady law in order to compete with unlicensed sellers."

In particular, it focuses on the proposed Gun Show Accountability Act (GSAA) that proponents put forward as a plan for “closing the gun show loophole.” - Regulating Gun Shows - The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) restricted FFLs to selling arms at their place of business. But the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) allowed FFLs to sell firearms at gun shows. Leading to an increasing number of these events. FFLs must initiate Brady background checks on gun show purchases just as they do on purchases just as they do on purchasers who come into their stores, except for purchasers of guns from an FFL’s “personal collection.” Thus, FFLs can avoid Brady background checks by declaring certain guns part of their personal collections or by giving guns to relatives or friends who, as non-FFLSs, could sell them at a gun show without subjecting the purchaser to a background check.

• http://everytown.org/documents/2014/10/guns-show-undercover.pdf (page 10-11) - The definition of “engaged in the business” of selling firearms is found in legislation passed in 1986. This legislation defines “engaged in the business” as repeatedly selling guns for the purpose of profit. The legislation also introduced exceptions for “occasional sales” and selling from a “personal collection". These “needlessly complex” exceptions make the law against “engaging in the business” without a license difficult to enforce. ATF has said the legal standard “often frustrates the prosecution of people who supply guns to felons and other prohibited persons.” Even though this law can be difficult to enforce, it is clear that some private sellers cross the line. While there is no definitive standard, courts have looked for several key indicia to determine whether defendants are unlawfully “engaged in the business” of selling firearms without a license:

The Gun Show Loophole - The term “gun show loophole” is often used to describe the fact that federal law allows private sellers to sell firearms without background checks or record-keeping....In its 1999 report, ATF concluded that 30 percent of guns involving federal illegal trafficking investigations are connected to gun shows. ATF reported that the gun show loophole creates an environment where criminals can easily and anonymously purchase firearms from private sellers:... ATF has also observed illegal activity by licensed dealers at gun shows: “unscrupulous gun dealers can use these free-flowing markets to hide their off-the-book sales. While most gun show sellers are honest and law-abiding, it only takes a few to transfer large numbers of firearms into dangerous hands.” Research has suggested that certain FFLs may be more likely to violate background check requirements and participate in straw sales at gun shows than in retail stores, in part because of the competition they face from private sellers. According to ATF, 34 percent of trafficking investigations connected to gun shows involved licensed dealers that participated in straw sales, sold guns without a background check, and sold to out-of-state residents, among other illegal business practices. -- Darknipples (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Using non-primary source refs is excellent! Well done. As I had indicated, there is no need to do research in government online archives to reference information in an active policy area. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta: - Please discuss your issue with this diff here, please. Darknipples (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure. You falsely claimed that private sales required background checks due to FOPA. No. Not true. Even the cites you give do not say this. The first cite says, -- 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. -- But, the campaigns were not successful. Their aim was to require private sales background checks. But, they failed. Stating they were successful, when they were not, is a false statement. I was simply removing the false statement and the two cites that do not support the false statement that was made. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta:"You falsely claimed that private sales required background checks due to FOPA." I was unaware. It certainly was not intentional. I did not see such a claim in the text you removed. Could you point it out for me or are you saying it is "implied"? I thought it only mentioned the efforts of of GC advocates in response to the Columbine incident which has WP:Weight in the context of this section of the article. I hadn't considered whether or not they were successful as the point, but I will point that out in the text to give it better balance. I also invite you look over the citations in this talk section. It may help provide some context for you as to why it is relevant. Darknipples (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead section and background checks

The lead section of the article contains this statement: "Seventeen states require gun sales by private sellers to go through a background check via a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder before transfer." No, they don't, and I raised this same point several weeks ago, in the #Background checks section above. There are many ways to require background checks, at gun shows or for other private sales, and requiring sales to go through an FFL is only one of them. This reference, from later in the article, says "Hatalsky noted that 17 states have closed the gun-show loophole in their states...", meaning that 17 states require some form of background checks, but not necessarily going through an FFL. And this page from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence website, which is also cited in the article, says "Seventeen states and D.C. have extended the background check requirement beyond federal law to at least some private sales." It gives quite a bit of detail on this, that I bet was quite accurate when it was published in August 2013, including this: "In California, Colorado, Delaware, and New York all firearm transfers must be processed through licensed dealers, who must conduct background checks on prospective firearm purchasers." That's four states, not seventeen. Meanwhile, this article talk page has been edited well over 600 times in the last month alone. I did a word count, using Microsoft Word, and there are now more than 27,000 words of discussion on this page, not counting the archived threads. What is wrong with this picture? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Why don't you change it then? I only changed it because it said something about 7 states, rather than 17. Honestly, I'm so tired right now I can hardly see straight. I should go make dinner. Lightbreather (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

At the moment I'm not convinced that editing this article, or discussing it any further, would be an effective use of my time. Maybe I'll change my mind about that, but I suggest that you and other editors do what you think is best, without waiting for me. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Mudwater - Do you still have the citation for this..? "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." Darknipples (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

When you ask if I "still" have the citation for that, it suggests that I used to have the citation, and I'm not sure why you'd think that. But you're bringing up a good point. I don't see how the three current citations at the end of that paragraph directly support that statement. So that should be reworked also, to make sure it's accurate -- I don't know if it is or not, offhand -- and to have citations that directly support whatever the revised text ends up being. "P.S." The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a pro-gun-control group and so they're biased in that direction, but in my opinion they're a really good source of factual information on gun laws. So I do think their page on "Universal Background Checks & the Private Sale Loophole Policy Summary", cited elsewhere in the article, is a good source for this information, especially the section on state law. Although it's already outdated: Since January 1, 2014, Illinois has required point-of-sale background checks for all private sales, and not just those at gun shows (and without going through an FFL!). — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Law & year

This was in the lead but mentioned no-where else in article. What law does it come from? That is, when was it enacted? Does anyone know?

I would like to insert into the body of the article in the appropriate chronology, and then, maybe, restore it to the lead if it's due there.

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.

--Lightbreather (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This was originally written into the GCA, and then expanded upon in FOPA to read as it does now. Darknipples (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Reception section

I have held off on doing this, but I have added a "Reception" section, as it now seems like the right time to do it.

I have been working on the principle of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and I have been developing the body chronologically to hold off on the usual jockeying for position within the article and the lead.

This paragraph was added to the lead, although the facts it states and the points it makes are not in the body, or not said explicitly in the body. Also, it's unclear if the whole of it is sourced to the one citation given - Wintemute's 2013 report.

Those licensed by the government to deal in firearms, Federal Firearm License holders (FFLs), are required to conduct background checks on individuals seeking to obtain firearms from them, by purchase or exchange. Individuals that do not meet the statutory test of being “engaged in the business”, are not required to conduct such checks. For those opposed to further federal regulation of firearms, it is the continuance of legal commerce under the status quo (i.e., non-interference by the government into private property transfers). To others, it is an incongruity in federal firearm regulations. Those seeking to increase federal regulation of firearms often view the absence of background checks at gun-shows between non-licensed/private persons as a “loophole”. Others say that there is no loophole in the law that is being exploited.

--Lightbreather (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

After removing misstated[43] and duplicated[44][45] material, and copyediting what was left, this is what remains:

For gun control opponents there is no "loophole," but the continuance of legal commerce under the status quo (i.e., non-interference by the government into private property transfers). To others, it is an incongruity in federal firearm regulations. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/156521.pdf (page 36 - Congressional Research Service:Gun Control Legislation) -- Darknipples (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

--Lightbreather (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've found a source for the first sentence, copyedited. Since it's so small now, I'm going to move it toward the end of the "Early efforts" section, which already makes a brief mention of the Commerce Clause. Lightbreather (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Newtown Sandy Hook Shootings

I have to leave soon to take my granddaughter to an appointment, but I want to say that this sentence is problematic.

Similarly, the Sandy Hook shooter acquired his guns by stealing them from his mother whom he murdered after not wishing to wait 14 days for a background check to purchase a rifle; no gun show connection or Internet connection existed.

This is sourced to a story the day after the shooting, and I believe later reports cleared up some errors. Lightbreather (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with LB. Particularly in regard to this text "no gun show connection or Internet connection existed". This may be implied, but not explicitly inferred by this citation. Also, I do not see the relevance in mentioning that he "murdered his mother".

The actual quote from the citation reads as...

"Adam Lanza, the suspect in the suburban Connecticut elementary school shooting rampage, tried to purchase a "long gun" rifle from a local shop but was turned away because he did not want to wait for the required 14-day background check, law enforcement sources said Saturday."

@Miguel Escopeta: Might I suggest this as a compromise?

"Similarly, the Sandy Hook shooter did not acquire his weapons from a gun show. They were stolen from a relative after attempting to purchase them from an FFL that required a 14 day waiting period." Darknipples (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What we need is a better source, and then re-write the sentence. This source was the day after the shooting. In fact, it was later revealed that he did not "steal" the guns. I'm still out with gd so I can't look right now. Lightbreather (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The shooting article doesn't mention anything being stolen. The final report, page 36, says the weapons were legally purchased by the mother, though that page doesn't say where. There must be a better source than these two. Lightbreather (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly a better source: [46] . Take a look. Or, we could always go back to the Breitbart source.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_show_loophole&diff=645794581&oldid=645793167] It is as good, or more of a RS, than many sources that are used on Wikipedia. I looked, and Breitbart has even been an acceptable source in many other articles on WP. Not sure why it is not acceptable here. Perhaps it is. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Found a couple that work. Lightbreather (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Background Section

@Faceless Enemy and Lightbreather: In regard to FE's recent dif, "modern" firearm commerce has operated under the FOPA version of the GCA since 1986. GCA was passed in 1968. Not to mention the NEJM is "among the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals and the oldest continuously published one"- According to the NYT. Why would this be at issue? Darknipples (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply: And what about Brady (1993) and the PLCAA (2005)? GCA '68 is by far the most important one since the FFA '38 - everything else since then has been a tweak. Some pretty big tweaks, sure, but tweaks. As to NEJM, they're just not the best source for that particular statement. It's like citing Guns & Ammo for information on cardiac surgeries. Sure, they might be right. But they're not the best source. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as the PLCAA, I'm somewhat unfamiliar with that, and therefore not sure what the relevance is in regard to GSL at the moment, but I definitely welcome adding anything with WP:Weight to improve the article. Notable citations linking GSL and Brady are welcome as well, of course. Darknipples (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

With regard to your "Guns & Ammo" analogy, I disagree. You should be aware, in case you aren't already, some of the editors have been taking issue with citing "primary sources", even though they provide a good majority of that kind of information. NEJM seems like a decent enough compromise to me. Darknipples (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Faceless enemy is right that fan magazines like "Guns & Ammo" are lousy sources. I hope he ain't trying to say that they're better than academic journals. Felsic (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to be referred to as "they". And no, Guns & Ammo was a poor example. A better example would be citing the American Journal of Political Science for technical details about washing machines. Is AJPS a reliable source? Yep. Is it well-respected? Yep. Is it probably correct? Still yep. Is it the best source for comparing washing machine spin cycles? Probably not. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy: In regard to my recent diff, maybe I forgot to clarify that in case your removal of that text wasn't just an accident, the reason it is correct in that context is because the sentence begins with "Hence", as in moving forward. That paragraph was meant to reflect more than just the year 1986, of course. Respectfully Darknipples (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't an accident. I was trying to convey that background checks weren't even a thing yet in 1986, and, therefore, FOPA did not change anything in regards to BGCs. @Darknipples:, do you think that's even a point worth making? Got any better ideas for how to phrase it? Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL was about the absence of background checks at gun shows, so yes, FOPA's effects on how private and licensed sellers operate is an essential component to GSL. I don't really have an issue with the current phrasing, but I will think about how we might make it more "precise" for you. Darknipples (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What if...

What if we took out the comments from the opposing sides altogether? What I'm talking about is the forth paragraph where we have a quote from the VPC and the NRA. We still have plenty of information about the topic, but it seems that little is gained with these statements. For the most part, everything else is quite factual and neutral in the article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I could go either way. Faceless Enemy originally added it because there was a claim by VPC to a study that first identified GSL. We balanced it out with the Kopel quote and here we are. VPC's claim is not that notable in my opinion, but I agree that if we remove it, we should remove the Kopel quote to maintain balance. Darknipples (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If a quote from an NRA person was added for the purpose of adding/keeping the VPC quote, that's not neutral or balance, it's manipulation of the article content. The WP:NPOV policy has a section about "giving equal weight" and "False balance". Yes, the whole paragraph should be removed. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My point was just that it wasn't my idea. I don't really see those cites as particularly essential or notable, but I try to pick my battles, so to speak. As far as "manipulation", I'd be careful in pointing that particular finger at anyone. I believe those edits were made in good faith. Determining balance has been a difficult issue with this article, as I'm fairly certain you're aware. You could try moving it to a more appropriate section first, or just remove it with a more "diplomatic" explanation in the diff, something other than "manipulation"? If we keep things civil we can improve the article more quickly and effectively. Respectfully Darknipples (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It was added because I believed it was a notable piece of background information - to the best of my knowledge (and at least according to the VPC) it's the first time mainstream gun control groups focused on the issue of background checks and private sales at gun shows. When the "background" section was started, it was very different. At the time I added the VPC article it belonged there. Now I think it should probably be moved - the "background" section is now more about the legal background, rather than either side's statements. I'm going to go ahead and move it now. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Image for the article

I am trying to secure an image for the article - I just asked about one at the Teahouse[47] - and then I'd like to see about getting a review of the article. I feel like it's really come together in recent days, even though there were a few tense moments. Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to be picky on this aspect of the article. The one LB suggested is fine by me, but I do have some alternative suggestions, just in case there are any issues...

• [48]
• [49]
• [50]
• [51]

Darknipples (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

We need an image which is freely licensed. This image is already available on Wikimedia Commons. I recommend cropping it (which is allowed) to eliminate the out-of-focus firearms in the foreground, and some extraneous items to the right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Houston Gun Show at the George R. Brown Convention Center

• Approved - Darknipples (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Cullen, I had found that one, and am still considering it, but it's also the image used in the Guns shows in the United States article. I was just hoping we could find a different one. Lightbreather (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel the article subject is difficult to convey in an image - all of the images I've seen posted so far appear to be of licensed dealers doing business at gun shows, which is not what the article is about. The only image of private firearms is the one on the American flag, which feels a bit too pro-gun. Addendum: the current image appears to be the inventory of S.A.W. Inc., a licensed dealer that is obligated to perform background checks and keep records like any other FFL. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply FE, I have to ask, how can you tell the difference as to which is which in the photo? How do you know who is an FFL and who is a private seller, or, which guns are part of a personal collection and which are retail, from just a photo? Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply: 3 tables full of guns, all with signs that say "Why you should buy at S.A.W.S." Also, S.A.W.'s website states that "SAW, Inc. stands for Schramm Ammo and Weapons which has been in business for over two decades . Jeff started selling at Gun Shows and in 2008 he opened a store due to customer demand. We still set up at Gun Shows in different parts of Texas, Austin ,Houston, San Antonio, Tyler and most of the Dallas / Fort Worth area. We have grown to be one of the largest dealers in Texas that still displays at Gun Shows and maintain a brick and mortar retail store front location." So to recap, lots of guns, with signs that seem like they're from a local gun dealer who talks about how he sells at gun shows. Also, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, FE, I should have clarified, I was referring to this one [52]. Here is another one that is similar, but appears to be a candidate for WP Commons. [53]. Darknipples (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Still not a fan of either. They both depict gun shows, not private sales. What we really need is a picture of a private individual with a firearm for sale at a gun show. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - great image, but does it need to be so big? I try to keep mobile Users in mind whenever I'm editing or adding images. Having it largre than the Legal Topics list box seems overkill. I've put it at 250px instead of 380px. The Media viewer still allows for zooming. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment/Reason for Reversion @Lightbreather:, an image of an FFL's inventory at a gun show is not only off-topic, but misleading as well. It could give the impression that private sellers routinely show up with hundreds of firearms for sale. This article is about private sales at gun shows, not gun shows. If the caption made it clear that the seller is an FFL, and was therefore required to perform background checks, then I might be okay with it. I tried several versions of it, and they all ended up sounding a bit silly (not to mention wordy). Better to leave the image out until we find one that's more appropriate. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• FE, while I am not all that concerned with the article's "image", I would like to just point out that FFLs can also make private sales/transfers for their personal firearms at gun shows. I'm not saying this needs to be conveyed in the image in any way, I just don't know if excluding any and all images of FFLs conducting business at gun shows, is necessary, or even feasible. Respectfully. Darknipples (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. And I didn't mean to say that we can't have FFL inventory in the photo - just that the focus of any image should be a private sale, not an FFL's inventory. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, good point Faceless Enemy. I guess I'm so used to the site at shows, that I didn't stop to consider that it might be construed negatively. But Darknipples makes a good point too. I do think the article would be better off with an image and I think the one that was there was OK. Maybe it just needs a better caption? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't come up with anything that didn't boil down to "Guns at a gun show. Not pictured: gun show loophole." And I think no image at all is better than one which misrepresents the article topic. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

POV tag and lead section

With this edit the POV tag -- "The neutrality of this article is disputed" -- was removed from the article. I'm going to put it back. The article is still quite biased towards a pro-gun-control perspective. As before I'm focusing on the lead section, which should provide a neutrally worded summary of the subject of the article. The current version of the lead falls far short of doing so, more by what it omits than by what it says. If the lead were changed to be something along these lines, I might agree to the removal of the POV tag:

Gun show loophole is a term sometimes used in the United States to refer to the fact that, under federal law, sales of firearms by private parties do not require a background check of the buyer. This is in contrast to sales by licensed gun dealers, which do require a background check.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia require background checks for some or all private firearm sales. Many of these states also require private sellers to keep a record of gun sales.

The gun show loophole is technically not a loophole, since there is no ambiguity or exception in the law that is being exploited. Furthermore, the federal law makes no distinction between private sales at a gun show and private sales elsewhere. But gun control advocates find the phrase useful in drawing attention to what they see as a weak point of federal law that they say makes it much easier for criminals and other prohibited persons to obtain firearms.

A reference for the state laws referred to in the second paragraph is here, on the website of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mudwater: - I originally thought the tags were removed because these issues had been addressed within the current lead. I think it's possible the issue of POV still exists in the article because certain questions in regard to WP policy & guidelines may have not been answered satisfactorily. The Teahouse is also an excellent resource for this. Here are my questions in regard to your proposal.

1. What specifically makes the current lead biased towards a pro-gun-control perspective? Please address these specific issues individually. For example, which points do you feel are being omitted?
2. Which citation(s) is your suggested paragraph, "The gun show loophole is technically not a loophole...", taken from? Please include the original context for it.

As far as the rest of the article, perhaps we can bring these issues up in their respective talk page sections under the heading POV, so that we can sort them out more easily and continue to move this article forward. Darknipples (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead that I'm proposing, though still very brief, presents a more balanced and complete overview of the subject than the current version. For example, a basic and important fact is that some states already require background checks for private sales -- a point that was included in the lead pretty recently. But, let's look at this from another angle. Would you agree to change the lead to what I'm proposing? If yes, fine, let's see if other editors go along. And if not, why not? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Mudwater, you did not answer any of my current questions in your response. The information on state laws is already listed in the legislation section. I tend to think moving this to the lead would make the it unnecessarily long, but my main concern is the POV tag you have placed because of the issues in the lead you eluded to but have not specifically addressed. I will be more than inclined to give my opinion on your proposed edits to the lead once you respond to the questions I have already asked. Respectfully, Darknipples (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree to what you're proposing. It's adding material to the lead that is not in the body.

Here is the current lead for comparison:

Gun show loophole is a political term referring to private sellers not being required to perform a background check on, or record the sale of firearms to, private buyers, whether at gun shows or elsewhere. Gun rights advocates say that there is no loophole, and that a federal law requiring background checks for all private party sales, whether at gun shows or not, would exceed the government's authority and be a prelude to registration.

Darknipples has asked really good questions. What are your answers?

I don't have a problem with your proposed second paragraph, if you first make sure that the Legislation section has the same material in it, sourced.

Honestly, even the current lead leans toward a pro-gun POV because it doesn't even say what gun control advocates think of the loophole. (And your proposed third paragraph disguises your take of gun rights advocates opinion of the loophole in Wikipedia's voice. At least the current lead says "Gun rights advocates say....") Lightbreather (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples:, to your second question ("Which citation(s) is your suggested paragraph, "The gun show loophole is technically not a loophole...", taken from?"), please see Talk:Gun_show_loophole#FOPA_and_the_gun_show_loophole - according to the discussion and RS there, private sales were not regulated by GCA '68. FOPA '86 intentionally clarified the definition of a private sale. None of the various changes to the law since then have made private sales illegal. A loophole is, according to Black's Law Dictionary, ""an allowed legal interpretation or practice unintentionally ambiguous due to a textual exception, omission, or technical defect, evades or frustrates the intent of a contract, law, or rule." It was clearly not Congress's intent to outlaw private firearms sales - if it had been, it could have outlawed them at any time. One source: "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." (emphasis added). Another source: "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." (emphasis added). There are more, but the talk page here is long enough without me copying and pasting whole sections. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy: Can you please be more specific in your answer to the question about which source "The gun show loophole is technically not a loophole" is from? The discussion you linked to goes back to July 2014 and contains dozens of citations! We do have some RS (Kopel, the NRA) who say that the gun show loophole is not a loophole, but there aren't enough high-quality RS to justify saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that "The gun show loophole is technically not a loophole." To do that, we would have to engage in WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Lightbreather (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

1. First off, when we are still actively editing the body, why are making changes or even discussing the Lead?
2. Second, why do we need what either side SAYS or THINKS about the issue in the Lead other than to say that the issue is debated by various groups? The specific detail of who believes or says what can be in the body. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead is biased towards a pro-gun-control perspective in two ways. (1) It misrepresents the position of gun rights advocates, some of whom do not think that requiring background checks for private sales would exceed the government's authority, or that it would be a "prelude to confiscation". (2) More importantly, it omits basic, important points about the subject of the article, and as a result it obscures the facts, and encourages the attitude that the current laws aren't strict enough. You can tell what these basic, important points are by reading my proposed rewrite, but I'll be happy to summarize them here. The lead should say that licensed gun dealers are required to perform background checks. It should say that some states already require background checks for private sales, and that some of those states require that records of private sales be kept. And last but not least, it should explain that the gun show loophole is not a loophole. About that last bit, take a look at the Guinea pig article. The lead explains that these animals are not pigs, and they're not from Guinea either. Similarly the lead of this article should explain, as in my proposed text, that the gun show loophole is not a loophole, nor does the federal law say anything different about gun shows vs. other private sales. What I was thinking was that we as editors could agree on this point. Remember, a loophole (according to Wiktionary) is "a method of escape, especially an ambiguity or exception in a rule that can be exploited in order to avoid its effect," and the rule in question is that licensed firearm dealers are required to perform background checks. To further clarify -- and in hindsight I probably should have said this before -- I feel very strongly that a reasonable person can agree that the gun show loophole is not a loophole, while simultaneously taking the position that requiring background checks for all private gun sales is a really great idea, that would make it much harder for criminals to get guns, while not imposing an undue burden on law-abiding gun owners. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mudwater: As per your requests...

1. "It misrepresents the position of gun rights advocates, some of whom do not think that requiring background checks for private sales would exceed the government's authority, or that it would be a 'prelude to confiscation'".  Done
2. "The lead should say that licensed gun dealers are required to perform background checks".  Done
3. "It should say that some states already require background checks for private sales, and that some of those states require that records of private sales be kept." I feel this does not belong in the lead because it would turn what should be a sentence into an entire paragraph. These details are already in the body, in the Legislation Section. Also, it does not necessarily define GSL, so to speak. To compromise, I have moved it to the very top of the body of the article to give it prominence. (see LB's edit)  Done
4. "And last but not least, it should explain that the gun show loophole is not a loophole." This is already in the lead where it says... "Some advocates for gun rights say that there is no loophole". Wikipedia is not advocating gun-control simply by including an article about GSL, nor will it advocate for either side of the issue. If anything, it would be fairer to add..."some gun-control advocates "believe" their is a loophole"... to balance the mention of what gun-rights advocates believe. Or even simply remove it all together. However, we are trying to accommodate the views of everyone involved in improving this article, not just some. Done

I am going to remove the POV tag until we have discussed these compromises that have been made in good faith, at which time we can decide whether or not to leave it off or put it back. Darknipples (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Good job, DN. I agree about the lead sentence. It is very common in these gun control articles for the lead sentences to get up into many dozens of words and become almost inscrutable. FWIW, I also added the LCPGV source to the Legislation section, so that we could add about D.C., and I added the capital to the last, lead paragraph that mentions federal and state legislation. Lightbreather (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm putting the POV tag back on. Please don't remove it until "there is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved", per Template:POV#When to remove. Also the tag itself says, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." At the rate we're going, that won't be any time soon. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mudwater: You are the one that put the tag on, it wasn't a consensus to put it there. Also, you either did not read my notation, or you just ignored it so that you could put the tag back up. I'm removing it one last time. Please examine my good faith efforts and discuss it with me before putting it back on, again. Darknipples (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you think the article is not NPOV it's beholden on you to give specifics as to why, and not just long replies without citing sources. Also, are you planning on startin an WP:NPOVN discussion? The one there is simply about whether or not the title "Gun show loophole" is POV, not about the whole article. Lightbreather (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Re POV template use

For anyone who hasn't read it, or hasn't read it recently, here is the link to Template:POV. I think what it says about removing the template is important here:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Number two applies here: No satisfactory explanation has been given. So please get specific, and work toward a resolution, or remove it (or let it be removed). Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Hello, everybody. I'm going to take a break from editing this article, and participating in this discussion. Maybe a short break, and maybe not so short, we'll see. Please carry on without me. Cheers. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What do gun rights advocates think of the loophole

Except for something about what the VPC said in 1996, this article does not mention what any gun control advocates think about the loophole.

Gun rights are well-represented here, perhaps over-represented when you consider that H. Sterling Burnett's field is environmental policy, and Nicholas J. Johnson is and Brian Anse Patrick are hardly a gun rights icons. Gun rights POVs are represented here by: Dave Kopel, the NRA (Wayne LaPierre and Chris W. Cox), H. Sterling Burnett, Mark A. Keefe, and Brian Anse Patrick. (Seriously, shouldn't Burnett go? If not, we ought to include the opinion of a gun control advocate who isn't a gun control expert.) Lightbreather (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to create a Reception section, for pro- and con- POVs. I've done so a couple of times now, but it was small enough that I incorporated the material into the body of the article. Lightbreather (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added a quote from the Brady Campaign and removed the bits sourced to the environmental policies expert and the associate professor of communications' book about concealed carry. I am going to look for at least one more opinion source from a gun control advocate or gun control advocacy group. I think that will balance the advocates' opinions in the article. Lightbreather (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Miguel Escopeta thinks this sentence belongs in the article:

An associate professor of communications wrote that "gun show loophole" is a euphemism for the disarmament of private citizens.

As it says, the author is an associate professor of communications, and the book is about concealed carry. The disarmament opinion of this person does not reflect the opinions presented by any preponderance of reliable, verifiable, respected gun rights advocate or advocacy group sources.

It is immediately preceded by this sentence, sourced to the NRA's Chris W. Cox:

The NRA said that gun control supporters' objectives are to reduce gun sales and register guns.

That supports the leads claim that gun rights advocates think closing the gun show loophole will require registration, which is a much more popular claim among the gun lobby.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The fear of gun registration and eventual confiscation is implicit with the gun show loophole. There are numerous reliable sources available for this, if we need to add them. Here's one source. More RS are available, too. Such as here. It is a concern that is held by many. We should include this viewpoint, with appropriate RS, of course. Including this viewpoint, with RS, would go a long ways toward addressing the POV concerns with the article. (The article still has a very strong gun control slant, instead of a neutral point of view, at present.) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta: Please list your specific points on why you think this article has a gun-control slant within their respective talk page sections. Please create new talk page sections for each section of the article that you feel is POV with their relative title (Background Section for example). If there is already a TP section, just title the discussion with POV inside the section. This will help resolve these issues much more quickly and easily. Respectfully, Darknipples (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The whole Clinton paragraph and list is about a gun control advocate's POV. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Peer review

FYI: I have requested a peer review on the article.[54] I haven't given up on the idea of nominating this for good article designation, and I think a fresh perspective will do us all some good. Lightbreather (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Intrastate

Intrastate only, please see here, questions 1 and 2. ("A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State...") (Emphasis added.) Darknipples, please unrevert ASAP. The page is currently inaccurate. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, this citation is not referring to GSL in any way. Do you have a different citation for this? Please hurry, as I must get AFK soon, it's been a long day. Darknipples (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It says that private party sales are only legal within the same state. Not sure how to make it any more clear. See also 18 USC 922 (a)(5). Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you on that, but this citation does not say "The gun show loophole only refers to intrastate sales". Find one that is a RS, and then we can probably change it. Darknipples (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is about legal behavior, not illegal. Private sales across state lines are illegal. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, unless we have a RS citation that says it, it is pure WP:SYNTH. Do some searching and you might find something. Good luck. Darknipples (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy: You didn't need to remove it. It was starting to grow on me, actually. Clarifying that GSL can refer to both intrastate and non-intrastate sales, could very well be notable for the lead. What makes it contentious? Darknipples (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it's dead wrong. "GSL" refers to legal behavior that some groups would like to see made illegal. Interstate private sales are already illegal. If we're going to start including illegal behavior, we should just go ahead and merge the page with Arms trafficking and be done with it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Which RS citation states that it's "dead wrong"? Did you find one? How and why did you come to the conclusion that "we should just go ahead and merge the page with Arms trafficking and be done with it."? Not that I think it's feasible at this point, but what purpose would that serve? I did find these...

• Page 30 - http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/final.pdf - "The ATF's Phoenix Field Division reported that "many gun shows attracted large numbers of gang members from Mexico and California. They often bought large quantities of assault weapons and smuggled them into Mexico or transported them to California."
• The Relationship Between Gun Laws and Gun Trafficking - http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100927-guns-report.pdf
• "It is illegal for a gun trafficker to purchase guns from a private seller in a state that does not regulate such sales and sell them in another state. However, because private gun sellers have no obligation to assure that purchasers have passed a background check or to maintain records of the sale of their firearms, it would be incredibly hard to prosecute that trafficker for a gun later used in a crime, because there’s no evidence he transferred the gun to the criminal." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/03/why-expanding-background-checks-would-in-fact-reduce-gun-crime/
• Floor Statement of sen. John McCain on Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - [55] - page 2988 [56]
• Keeping guns out of the wrong hands

I think we should see what the other editors say, and see if we can find a consensus as to whether mention of intrastate sales has WP:Weight for the lead. I'm pretty sure one or more of these might already be in the body. Darknipples (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Gun show loophole = "a political term referring to the sale or transfer of firearms between private parties not requiring a background check or a record of the sale, on the buyer or transferee, whether at gun shows or elsewhere." In this context, "require" means "legally require." As interstate sales must go through an FFL, they all require background checks and recordkeeping. Therefore, interstate sales are not involved, as they already require a background check and a record of the sale. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect I find this a little confusing. You originally added it to the lead stating..."Added 'intrastate' - very important distinction. Adding it made the lead awkward, so I rephrased. Please feel free to rerework, but I feel it's important to keep 'intrastate' somewhere in the lead." [57] However, now that I've reworked it [58] and made the correction, you no longer seem to feel it is "important to keep 'intrastate' somewhere in the lead"? My point is, some of these citations state that GSL has been documented as a means to traffic guns between states and into Mexico, either by sale or transfer. Sometimes by FFLs. As far as the legal requirements are concerned, whether or not one of the parties is an FFL isn't always necessarily relevant, but there may be state or local laws or regulations that govern this type of transaction. Then, there are interstate transfers between private individuals.

• "A nonlicensee may ship (transfer) a firearm by a common or contract carrier to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State." [59]
• "If a person maintains a home in 2 States and resides in both States for certain periods of the year, he or she may, during the period of time the person actually resides in a particular State, purchase a handgun in that State." [60]
• "A person (non-licensee) may ship a firearm to himself or herself in care of another person in the State where he or she intends to hunt or engage in any other lawful activity. The package should be addressed to the owner." [61]
• "[62] District Judge Rules Federal Interstate Handgun Sales Ban Unconstitutional" & "[63] Federal Judge Strikes Down Federal Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban & [64] U.S. court rules residency requirements for pistol buys is unconstitutional

@Lightbreather, Capitalismojo, Miguel Escopeta, Scalhotrod, Felsic, and Isaidnoway: Let's see what everyone else thinks...Darknipples (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You didn't correct it. You made it go from correct to absolutely, 100% incorrect (in good faith), unless I'm completely misreading the point of the article. The article is about legal sales without a background check or records, not about various kinds of illegal sales (e.g. straw purchases, arms trafficking, etc.). Private interstate sales are illegal under federal law. As to your examples: #1 - either intrastate or going through an FFL. #2 - not a transfer. #3 - Not a transfer. #4 - Will be appealed, does not apply to private party sales. Again, interstate sales of firearms legally require an FFL to be involved, keep records, and conduct background checks, and are therefore not part of the "gun show loophole." Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

On further reflection, it looks like all we're disagreeing about is the scope of the term, rather than whether or not certain sales are illegal. Does the term "gun show loophole" apply to activity that is already illegal under federal law? Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This quote is taken from the Early Efforts Section of the article, and it may help to clarify why this is an important topic we should all discuss. "On November 6, 1998, U.S. president Bill Clinton issued a memorandum for the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General expressing concern about sellers at gun shows not being required to run background checks on potential buyers.[11] He called this a "loophole" and said that it made gun shows prime targets for criminals and gun traffickers." - Darknipples (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm only here cause you asked. You guys seem to like to argue more than edit. It ain't necessary to get into the definition to just explain the law briefly. I added "Private sales are only allowed between residents of the same state" to the intro. Do with it what you like. Anyone who reads the sources knows that private sellers don't put much effort into confirming the residency status of someone offering them cash. (Or their mental status, past convictions, discharge status, etc.) That's the whole point of closing the loophole. Felsic (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the relevant legislation to cite, but based on my personal experience intrastate private transfers are not allowed unless a Federal Firearm License (FFL) holder is involved. The one time I sold a gun that went out of state, on Ebay back in 1998, I had to ship it to an FFL holder and I had to notify the California Department of Justice that a gun registered in California had left the state. Additionally, back in 2003 or so, I ordered a gun from an out of state mail order company and had to do the same, provide the address for an FFL holder for it to be shipped to. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: The contention is whether GSL applies to gun trafficking and interstate transfers/sales (regardless of legality) or just intrastate sales. Most of the sources and citations I've been able to find state that GSL applies to both. I have not seen a single one that states..."The gun show loophole only applies to intrastate sales.. The only other question is whether it belongs in the lead, which is a good possibility since it is already in the body. Darknipples (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think that is where the confusion lies. Originally the term applied only to sale of firearms literally AT gun shows from one private party to another not being required to go through an FFL holder. Since then, the media and possibly politicians have confused and conflated the issue to include ALL private party to private party sales whether it takes place at a gun show or not. I do not remember how early this term was used, but I do remember reading about this issue after the Columbine high school shooting. The history of the terms use is something that could be added to this article as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL only applies to intrastate sales from one private party to another private party. These are the only legal sales that can occur between private parties, and both parties must be residents of the same state. Gun trafficking refers to illegal sales, an altogether different topic, unrelated to the GSL. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta and Scalhotrod: We need a citation to back this up. Do we have one? If not, we must consider that GSL applies to both, otherwise it will be WP:SYNTH. Darknipples (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

used firearms

What the heck? What source says that guns have to have been used before the gun show loophole applies to them? This kind of editing is downright disruptive.[65] Felsic (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Pre-owned" would be accurate. And please don't assume the intent was disruptive. "Pre-owned" and "used" are almost interchangeable, and it's not surprising that another editor would use the wrong term. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Everything is owned by somebody. "Pre-owned" is a euphemism created by used car dealers. There ain't nothing in any rule I've seen about this. Making up stuff is disruptive. Felsic (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As soon as you drive a car off the lot, a car is "used". As soon as you walk out the door of a gun store, a gun becomes "used". Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your definition of "using a gun" is walking through a door with it? Weird. But it's a madeup definition. A gun and a car are different things. One has to be licensed and registered for safety purposes.

If an FFL goes out of business he can convert all his brandnew, never used stock into a private collection and sell it as a private seller. Don't make up crap and edit war to keep it in the article. That is disruptive. Felsic (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If an FFL goes out of business, converts all his stock to privately owned status, keeps it 1 year and a day, the former FFL can the sell the used guns at that time, no paperwork required. However, manufacturers warranties tied to the guns do not have to be honored, as the warranty only applied to the original private owner, which in this case, was the FFL upon conversion of the guns to private collection status. Once an item is owned by a private owner, even for minutes, the item becomes used, and manufacturer's warranties do not apply under Federal law. (There are exceptions, where a manufacturer provides a lifetime of the gun warranty, but only a few vendors offer such warranties to repair "used" guns.) Nothing weird about understanding Federal law. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah? And where does it say that all that is part of the definition of gun show loophole? Give us a source that directly connects the concepts. Otherwise it's just OR. Disruptive OR. Felsic (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I don't have a copy at hand at the moment, but that information is taken from the FFL guidebook issued by the BATFE. There's probably a copy on their website. I remember this from when I looked into applying for an FFL. By the way, I have purchased as collectibles several "unfired" firearms over the years from private parties and needed to go through an FFL because of their age, not being used or not. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

By Federal law, all new gun sales go through FFLs. No exceptions. This is true in all states. It is illegal for a Federal Firearms Licensee to sell a new gun to any private individual without a background check. The gun show loophole applies only for sales in the secondary market, between private individuals. The difference is when the sale occurs, whether in the primary, new firearms marketplace, or in the secondary, used firearms marketplace. The GSL applies only to sales occurring in the secondary market, for sales conducted between private individuals, of used firearms. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy, Miguel Escopeta, and Felsic: We need to go with what the citations say. That way we avoid WP:OR and WP:Synth. Please cite your sources when making an argument for a change, it will make this so much easier, I promise. Darknipples (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It would help if editors would assume good faith, be less confrontational, and work with other editors. Fortunately, that is mostly the case here. Here is an RS reference that gives the distinction of used vs. new firearms: The GSL applies only to selling used firearms. ALL new firearms sold to private individuals must be sold through a Federal Firearms Licensee, by Federal Law. No exceptions. Dealers can sell between themselves, all while the firearms remain "new". But, upon a firearm being sold to a private individual, the firearm become "used". Some refer to these as secondary market sales. The GSL only applies to used firearms being sold from one private individual to another private individual, both of whom reside in the same state. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say that the gun show loophole only applies to used or second hand guns, Miguel Escopeta? The cite says... "The absence of regulation of second-hand sales is often referred to as the "gun-show loophole." It may imply it, but it doesn't seem to explicitly say that "new" retail guns are beyond the scope of GSL. Are there any other sources that say this? Another issue to consider is the [WP:Rs]]. The citation you are using is an "opinion editorial". According to RS guidelines..."Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." We are also not minding WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Darknipples (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting take on the situation, but lets keep in mind that fully citable BATFE regulations apply to ANY firearm in the possession of an FFL holder, new or used, and regardless of where its sold; a gun show, a store, or a private home. According to those same regulations, no non-FFL holder can purchase firearms directly from a domestic manufacturer or purchase & import them from an foreign manufacturer. So by default, private party firearm sales/transfer are for "used" guns, but for the sake of accuracy. Referring to any firearm as "used" is misleading, we should just refer to them as "primary" and "secondary market" firearms with clear definitions of each in the article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, with all due respect, the article is about GSL, not just BATFE regulations. Unless we have a citation that explicitly says... "GSL only refers to used guns", we shouldn't use it. All we have is just a single Op-Ed, and we are putting it in the the lead, without any discussion first? This does not seem right. Darknipples (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

DN, with all due respect, the article is indirectly and most definitely about BATFE regulations or at least the lack of them. Its the source of the GSL. The "controversy" about it is what the media reports, but the laws regarding certain categories of firearm sales/transfers are quite clear. Not taking this into consideration just reduces the quality of the article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Felsic and Darknipples are spot-on here. The lead should be returned to its simplified state. Add these details to the article, if there are high-quality RS supporting them, into the section where WP:DUE, and then - if necessary - add to the lead. Otherwise the lead is going to become another inscrutable gun-control article lead that hides the salient points. Lightbreather (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Lightbreather, but its starting to look like we need the input of uninvolved third parties to prevent exactly what you fear will happen for either pro-gun or pro-control interests. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Here is what it was:

Gun show loophole is a political term referring to private sellers at gun shows not being required to perform a background check on private buyers.

Word count: 25. Readability grade level: 12.1.

Here is what it is right now:

Gun show loophole is a political term referring to the sale or transfer of used firearms between private parties not requiring a background check or a record of the sale, on the buyer or transferee, whether at gun shows or elsewhere.

Word count: 41. Readability grade level: 17.0.

I'm recording these here to keep an eye on what happens as y'all dicker over what you consider key words that simply MUST appear in the lead sentence (some of which don't appear in the article body.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not about key words or any that MUST appear in the Lead sentence, its about stating the contents in the article accurately. The top version is inaccurate and misleading. Also, unless you plan to post a link to the means that you are getting your "Readability" statistic, its irrelevant unless you plan to run the entire article through it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, I'm reminded of our conversation in the Background Section of the TP, where you said..."If a quote from an NRA person was added for the purpose of adding/keeping the VPC quote, that's not neutral or balance, it's manipulation of the article content. The WP:NPOV policy has a section about "giving equal weight" and "False balance". Yes, the whole paragraph should be removed." My point is, I agreed with you, but we are also trying to come to a consensus, and that means we must sometimes compromise. Just my two cents worth. Darknipples (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What else to say? I disagree with your assessment of the top version. WP:LEADSENTENCE says:

Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

As for the readbility scores, here's the link: Readability-Score.com Lightbreather (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Some VS All and Weasel Words

@Miguel Escopeta: There is an issue withe your changes in regard to what you are referring to as "weasel words". The reason we must use the words "some" or "many", is because if we don't we are inferring that "ALL" or "EVERYONE" in these groups feels the same, which there are no citations or reliable sources which seem to state that. I think it would be an ASSUMPTION on our part that EVERYONE in these groups believes and says the same thing in this regard. Please consider a revert to include "some" or "many" in the context that clarifies these positions. Thanks. Darknipples (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC) FYI, I'm referring to this diff Darknipples (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)