Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gun show loophole: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:11, 18 February 2015 editMiguel Escopeta (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,731 edits →POV-lead: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 23:22, 18 February 2015 edit undoDarknipples (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,342 edits →POV-lead: reply WeldNeckNext edit →
Line 1,219: Line 1,219:


:Hoplophobe is actually more of a ]. It is not really ]. The word is usually not considered uncivil, but as being more of a statement of fact, describing a condition of an irrational fear of weapons. Mostly, it is a common condition of people who have no history of ] in their personal lives. Yes, it is mostly only these people who use the term "gun show loophole", as this term, gun show loophole, is considered to be pejorative by members of the gun culture. ] (]) 23:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC) :Hoplophobe is actually more of a ]. It is not really ]. The word is usually not considered uncivil, but as being more of a statement of fact, describing a condition of an irrational fear of weapons. Mostly, it is a common condition of people who have no history of ] in their personal lives. Yes, it is mostly only these people who use the term "gun show loophole", as this term, gun show loophole, is considered to be pejorative by members of the gun culture. ] (]) 23:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


::::{{re|WeldNeck}} I consider your question offensive, and off-topic. ] (]) 23:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:22, 18 February 2015

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun show loophole article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Gun shows in the United States was copied or moved into Gun show loophole with this edit on 12:09, 25 June 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFirearms
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Notice of discussion of lead sentence at WP:RSN

Re this lead sentence that was reverted today (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.
  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}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (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.

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)

This is the link to the archived discussion, and in a nutshell, it was stated that this lead sentence:
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.
is sufficiently sourced.
I might add, it puts the focus on the buyer, not the seller. Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  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}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (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.

The lede currently calls this an "ability". Yet, this is clearly synthesis, as it is not called an "ability" in any of the cited references. This is a serious synthesis problem. "Freedom" would be a better choice of wording, here. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it is synthesis, unless there is a cite stating to the contrary, however I'm not an expert on semantics. I'm not sure what the precedent of RS verification is either. My only other possible suggestion, in terms of a possible compromise, would be to refer to it as a "legal right", but as I said before, I don't know the precedent that is set by WP on RS confirmed. Whichever one means a better article rating is the one I'm likely going to vote for. Darknipples (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The cites uniformly do not call this an "ability". You can search all of the cites using a word search, and "ability" is never used; not even once. How about we address the POV-section tagline issues with the following rewording: "Gun show loophole is a U.S. political dysphemism referring to private buyers at gun shows purchasing firearms from private sellers in legal commerce without a background check or a record of the sale." This would largely address the POV concerns, without using the word "freedom" which is what it is at present. -- In the majority of states, there is no law that prohibits private, unpapered, sales of firearms. -- The GSL is more of a lacuna than a loophole, but it is not called the Gun Show Lacuna, although that would actually be technically correct. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:45, 17 February 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; Misplaced Pages 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)
Should new bills be introduced, they can be added. Nothing wrong with that. This is the power of Misplaced Pages 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)

This is the link to the archived discussion, and in a nutshell, there is no general prohibition of failed bills; it depends on whether or not the sources find the failed bills notable/relevant. Lightbreather (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
But, the overall consensus of this discussion was that failed bills generally do not merit inclusion. If a member of Congress is notable for only one failed bill that never passed, then it is ok to mention it in an article on her. But, to mention failed bills in an attempt to synthesize some greater importance than the members of Congress themselves found to exist seems to be a POV push, instead of being merely informative. Looks like there is no need to include the failed bills in this article, from the discussion noted here: the archived discussion Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
the overall consensus of this discussion was that failed bills generally do not merit inclusion? There was no such consensus. Lightbreather (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there was. Consider this part of the discussion: Kinda hard to ignore what was actually said. @Capitalismojo: Hence, this edit, to remove this from the lede, where it most certainly is undue weight: .Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I know this may come as a surprise, but I did not see a "consensus" either, one way or the other...Here is what I noted from the editors not involved in editing this article, that leads me to believe this does not warrant NPOV, but rather refers us to whether the cites are more about the bills (failed or not) rather than about GSL. We can compromise with better cites and not just have to remove them because of an alleged NPOV issue.
  • "I think its a question for talkpage consensus, but definitely not general prohibition." - Formerip
  • "If the cites about the concept typically mention a bill then it goes in here. If the cite is mostly about the bill and just inherently ties by name and known background seems not enough by itself, it should be on the article topic and look and weight the explicit statements more than our understanding of unstated context." - Markbassett
  • " I think a brief mention of a specific bill that did not pass is probably fine...so long as most of the bill that did not pass is about the specific article and not just some pork that was attached to a larger bill." - MONGO
Darknipples (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd also say that I'm fine with leaving this diff (and that entire portion of context) out of the lead. It's already in the legislative section. Am I missing something here? Darknipples (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, I did leave it in the legislative section. That was intentional on my part. It's OK there, for completeness. But, it clearly does not belong in the lede. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
My thinking is that it's undue weight on laws that are passed to not include those that are not, especially since they were popularly supported by the people, vehemently opposed by gun rights groups, and prominently covered in the media - the ones that passed as well as the ones that did not. Lightbreather (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No offense to Capitalismojo or Lightbreather here, I didn't include their remarks because they are involved in the article. What matters here are the "impartial" editor's takes, IMO. Darknipples (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a POV push to push failed legislation to greater prominence than it received by the legislators, who clearly did not give it as much importance. Had they felt it important, they would have passed a bill. But, they did not. It is undue to feature failed legislation in the lede. I am ok with it remaining in the legislative section, however. Some might think it undue even there, though. If so, they can speak up. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
ME, the only editor on RS that seemed to "lean" in the direction you're going was Capitalismojo, and they are technically not impartial. Again, it's not just about whether these bills passed or failed, it about the citations, and whether they are mostly about GSL or not. Do a word search and lets see how many, and or which, existing cites mention the bills that you want to just delete. I would do it but I don't know how (lol). If we can't replace them with more DUE cites I will back you up on removing them. Darknipples (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I am gathering even more information about this, and I have asked ME to stop adding unsourced material. If he is going to demand that we have to provide sources to use the word "ability," he surely shouldn't be adding whole POV sentences without source citations. Lightbreather (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes even V, RS sources are simply wrong. It happens. Shuffling bills off into committee early is considered by some to have been a non-existent bill. But, a published book that is V, RS and that meets Misplaced Pages standards, is not always right. Mea culpa. One thousand wet noodle strikes for me. It happens. (But, it was not intentional.) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Support and accompanying Senate bills

  • H.R.2377 - Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001 had 81 co-sponsors (74 Dem, 7 Republicans) and related bill S.890.
  • H.R.3832 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2004 had 6 co-sponsors (4 Rep, 2 Dem) and related bill S.1807
  • H.R.3540 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2005 had 6 co-sponsors (4 Dem, 2 Rep) but no related Senate bill
  • H.R.96 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007 had 18 co-sponsors (15 Dem, 3 Rep) but no related Senate bill
  • H.R.2324 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 had 113 co-sponsors (110 Dem, 3 rep) and related bill S.843
  • H.R.591 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2011 had 31 co-sponsors (Dems) and related bill S.35
  • H.R.141 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013 had 47 co-sponsors (Dems) but no related Senate bill (Manchin-Toomey had better support)

I am not suggesting that we add this detail to the article - that would be undue - but I would like to settle this dispute, considering the above, plus sources that have already been added to the article re this federal efforts issue, that these bills aren't relevant to the discussion. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I still do not think we should include bills that never made it out of committee in the lede. This is undue weight. There are multiple thousands of failed bills each year in the House and Senate. Putting such emphasis up in the lede still seems undue. I am OK with the details being kept in the Legislative Section, however. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This seems in line with what the impartial editors were talking about. It's only undue weight if these bills do not speak directly to the article's subject, and by looking at their titles, it's hard to figure out why we're still talking about it, no offense ME. If these bills have nothing to do with the article, then why are they titled as such? Are they completely unrelated? Seems unlikely. Darknipples (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't we just leave this thing alone until the requested peer review is done? Lightbreather (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Miguel Escopeta: Since you've added the tag let's kick-start the discussion. I take it you disagree will all the impartial editors that did not see a problem with mentioning bills related to the article, despite their views that it did not matter if the bills passed or failed. Can you cite a WP guideline or rule that states... "bills related to the article (that did not pass) are WP:UNDUE? Darknipples (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The major problem is WP:UNDUE. The lede should contain a summary of all the important points in the article. But, it is hard to make a case that failed bills, bills that never garnered enough support to get out of committee, and never went up for a vote, should be placed in the lede and given great prominence. In the article, fine. But, not in the summary. They were unimportant. After all, if the 4 Senate Bills and 7 House Bills had no importance in the Congresses to even go up for a vote, why should they be given great prominence in the lede? Seems simple to me. WP:UNDUE is the issue. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:44, 18 February 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.
  1. 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)

The author this statement is attributed to - in Misplaced Pages'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. It has a lengthy quote, right there in the intro, from a partisan and it repeats another partisan's opinion in Misplaced Pages'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: 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.

  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}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (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.
  5. 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)

--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)

RFC to rename article

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 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?
--Lightbreather (talk) 01:17, 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 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] editor renamed it - without discussion - on December 2, 2014.. 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. --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 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: 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.)

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 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 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.

  • 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 - 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)

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 04:01, 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 04:31, 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)
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)

  • I believe there are currently two sections devoted to renaming the article -- "RFC to rename article" and "Requested move 29 January 2015". — Mudwater 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 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)

@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)

Private sale loophole

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

--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."
  1. ^ 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)
--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 Misplaced Pages 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 @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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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: " 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)
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:
etc. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:12, 1 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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:
--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?

  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}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (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.
  1. "Records Required—Licenses". ATF.GOV. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
  2. "FFL Application Form" (PDF). ATF.GOV. ATF. Retrieved July 1, 2014.

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] 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.
  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}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  2. "History of Federal Firearms Laws in the United States Appendix C". justice.gov. Retrieved July 4, 2014.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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."
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 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 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 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.
  1. "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.

--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.
  1. 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)

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

After removing misstated and duplicated 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.
  1. Serrano, Richard (December 15, 2012). "Suspect in massacre tried to buy rifle days before, sources say". Retrieved February 5, 2015.

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: . Take a look. Or, we could always go back to the Breitbart source. It is as good, or more of a RS, than many sources that are used on Misplaced Pages. 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 - 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...
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. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Houston Gun Show at the George R. Brown Convention Center
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 Misplaced Pages: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 . Here is another one that is similar, but appears to be a candidate for WP Commons. . 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)
@Faceless Enemy, Lightbreather, and Scalhotrod: A friendly reminder that we still need an image. As I've stated earlier, I personally don't really care what we use, so I'm leaving it to everyone else to come to a consensus, which should make it a bit easier. Not to mention there's been no more discussion on this subject as of late. Let's get this done soon, otherwise, I think we'll have to put the one Cullen suggested back up until this gets sorted out. Best of luck. Darknipples (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should restore the one Cullen suggested. As you pointed out on February 10, FFLs can sell from private collections as well. Lightbreather (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
We don't "need" an image. A lot of the other wiki project law articles are imageless as well. We should wait until we can get an appropriate image, rather than using a misleading and irrelevant one. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The Houston Gun show one? Yes, still like that one too, but it needs a better caption. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree. How about:
Among the displays of licensed dealers (shown) are also found those of private sellers. Both may sell guns from their private collections to buyers without background checks.
--Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Even with the caption, that image is just not appropriate for the article. The image does not depict the subject of the article. Worse, it's *way* too likely to mislead the casual reader into thinking the term "gun show loophole" applies to the many, many guns shown in the picture, but of course that's not the case. This may be one of those articles where it would be hard to find an appropriate image. — Mudwater 04:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it's likely to mislead the reader. Since we've gone around about this three (?) times now - Is there an image noticeboard, or would that go to NPOVN, too? Lightbreather (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back! @Mudwater:. You are welcome to find a better image to replace the current one, but until then, the article needs an image, and this one is all we have to work with. As far as it not depicting the subject, the image suggests a table full of guns at a gun show. This discussion began about 10 days ago and stopped after the image was removed. I suggest it stays until we find a new one. Darknipples (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
A misleading picture is worse than none at all. Showing a picture of dealers, with large quantities of firearms, is intentionally misleading. It should not be used. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
ME, that may be your and FE's, and Mudwater's opinion, but it is not a consensus. As I said, you are welcome to find a replacement, but the article needs an image, and this one is available. How long do you suggest we go without an image until you find an acceptable one? Darknipples (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The image is simply wrong for this article, unless one wishes to mislead readers. Yaf (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yaf: How is this image "misleading"? Did you read the caption? This article is about the gun show loophole and the image displays commerce at a gun show. Reverting the image again, without a consensus is not AGF, Yaf. Darknipples (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Listed at WP:NPOVN

Since we have already talked about this extensively, and since someone has called in help (hi, Yaf), I have listed this at WP:NPOV. --Lightbreather (talk) 18:43, 18 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 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". Misplaced Pages 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 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 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing it simply because its clutter. We're all actively discussing the article and changes/updates will hopefully be eminent. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather, Faceless Enemy, and Scalhotrod: -- Since Mudwater has recused themselves of editing this article for the time being, I'd like to see if any of you feel that this portion of the lead is still necessary since it is actually already the majority of the legislation section...

  • "Seven gun show loophole bills were introduced in Congress between 2001 and 2013, but none passed. The U.S. capital and 17 states require background checks for some or all private firearm sales. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of used firearms between private individuals, whether at gun shows or elsewhere."

If not, I think it should be removed as it already exists in the body and, IMO, does not "define" GSL in any seemingly useful way. This is only a suggestion, and I am interested to know if there is a possible consensus for it. Darknipples (talk) 22:36, 16 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)

References

  1. Patrick, Brian Anse (2010). Rise of the Anti-media: Informing America's Concealed Weapon Carry Movement. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 65. Retrieved February 6, 2015.
  2. 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.
  3. "'Gun Show Loophole' bill defeated". Virginia Citizens Defense League. January 2013. Retrieved February 10, 2015.
  4. Pope, Michael Lee (January 10, 2013). "Northern Virginia Democrat Takes Aim at the Gun Show Loophole". Connection. Retrieved February 10, 2015.

Peer review

FYI: I have requested a peer review on the article. 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...
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." However, now that I've reworked it 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."
  • "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."
  • "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."
  • "A person who lawfully possesses a firearm may transport or ship the firearm interstate when changing his or her State of residence."
  • " District Judge Rules Federal Interstate Handgun Sales Ban Unconstitutional" & " Federal Judge Strikes Down Federal Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban & 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. 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)
I think I have found another cite that backs up the "interstate transfer" scope of GSL. Darknipples (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No, you found a source for arms trafficking again. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Faceless Enemy: Perhaps this cite will make it more "relevant" for you? "That’s the missing link – as Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy put it, the gun show loophole. He says a big reason why more than 3,000 confiscated guns from crimes have come from Indiana. McCarthy says of the loophole, you have a federal firearms licensee, a dealer, who does a quick background check at one table. Right next to him at another table is a private collector who is not, by law, forced to check a buyer’s background." Darknipples (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I get your point - plenty of sources say that the "GSL" leads to interstate trafficking. But it doesn't legally allow interstate trafficking, just as it does not legally permit sales to felons, persons adjudicated mentally ill, illegal aliens, or underage buyers. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

FE, as you have stated previously, it's not just about legality. It's also about the scope of the article. FE - "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."Darknipples (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing the lead to something like: "Gun show loophole is a U.S. political term referring to private sellers at gun shows not being required to perform a background check on or record the intrastate sale of firearms to private buyers. Gun control advocates say the loophole allows prohibited buyers to use gun shows to buy weapons without a background check, which can lead to increased interstate arms trafficking." (Bolded changes - obviously the language would need to be reworked.) I just don't think we want to put something in the article that implies that private interstate sales are legal. They aren't. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so sure this necessarily only concerns the view of gun control advocates as much as the general scope of GSL. Here's another cite for the sake of discussion. "The gang of six took advantage of the underground arms market made possible by the gun-show loophole and other systemic gun-tracking failures." -- Darknipples (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

(page 22 cite #125) "Furthermore, the report mentioned that secondary, or used, firearms are commonly trafficked to Mexico. Officials noted that, “while ATF may be able to trace a firearm to the first retail purchaser, it generally has no knowledge of any secondhand firearms purchases from gun shows or pawnshops ... without conducting further investigation” because federal law currently “permits the private transfer of certain firearms from one unlicensed individual to another in places such as at gun shows, without requiring any record ... be maintained by the unlicensed individuals, an FFL, or other law enforcement authority.” Related to private transactions, the GAO report highlighted that the lack of required background checks for private firearms sales may also be problematic in efforts to combat gun trafficking." Darknipples (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Feds: A Texas Man Waltzed Through the Gun Show Loophole and Bought Dozens of Mexico-Bound Assault Rifles" -- Darknipples (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(page 4-5) "Cook and colleagues point out that, as for other commodities, there are a legal market and an illegal market for firearms. The movement of firearms from the legal to the illegal market is the illegal market’s chief source of supply. Firearm trafficking is the intentional diversion of firearms from the legal to the illegal market. Finally, in considering how firearms become available for use in crime, it is useful to consider point sources and diffuse sources of those firearms. Point sources are the venues linked to many known crime-involved firearms, usually licensed retailers. Private-party sellers are generally among the diffuse sources that supply firearms for criminal use through many small-volume transactions between individuals, dispersed in time and place. Diffuse sources, taken together, are the leading proximate source of crime-involved firearms (more on this below)." -- Darknipples (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL & The Iron Pipeline

"In Virginia, the notorious “gun show loophole,” which allows private sales at gun shows without background checks, contributes to the “Iron Pipeline” of firearms to such places as New York." This citation also mentions something called a "Firesale Loophole" where, "Dealers who lose their licenses, usually after chronic violations, can transfer their inventory to their private collections and sell them without background checks or record-keeping." -- Darknipples (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"Americans for Gun Safety says a combination of weak gun laws and lax prosecution has created what it calls an iron pipeline of guns from Ohio to other states. 'There seems to be no enforcement strategy in Ohio and in many states to investigate and crack down on the illegal market in guns,' said Jim Kessler, the group's policy and research director. Kessler cited the so-called, gun show loophole, which allows private gun sales to occur without background checks. Joe Waldron, executive director of Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said only a small percentage of felons acquire their weapons at gun shows. He said most illegal guns are obtained by qualified buyers who give them to their friends or relatives who are not permitted to buy guns." -- Darknipples (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

""We already contend with the iron pipeline bringing guns into New York City. The last thing we need is an electronic pipeline," said Kelly, who noted that mailing guns was only banned after it was discovered that Lee Harvey Oswald bought his gun through the mail...The latest investigation follows a pair of undercover stings conducted by the administration at gun shows in 2009 and 2011 designed to uncover the so-called gun show loophole that allows sales without background checks." -- Darknipples (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"These effects at the individual level, taken together, would interfere with the operation of criminal firearm markets and disrupt firearm trafficking operations. 74,76 It would likely become more difficult to move firearms in bulk along the Iron Pipeline from the Southeast to the Middle Atlantic and New England, from Mississippi to the upper Midwest, and from the United States to Mexico and Canada." (page 34) Darknipples (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy: Are there any "recent" citations that specifically state FFLs must perform a background check during all interstate sales/transfers? What I think would be appropriate, in the body, would be something to this effect..."While interstate sales between non-licensed private individuals are illegal under federal law, law enforcement officials have found evidence that the gun show loophole has contributed to interstate and international gun trafficking, including what is known as The Iron Pipeline." Also, how do you feel about working the recent ruling regarding interstate sales into the body? If there are RS and DUE citations of GSL reffering to this ruling, then they could possibly be added in with this citation. What do you think? Darknipples (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, so it looks like we're establishing Categories of sales/transfers. Seems like we have two overall Categories of Legal and Illegal sales/transfers. Then within Legal we have Primary and Secondary markets. So something to the effect of:
  1. Legal Sales/Transfer
    1. Primary market - Licensed dealers (FFL holders)
      1. New - factory sourced firearms
        1. Complete firearms
        2. Incomplete (frames, etc.)
      2. Non-New (Used, pre-owned, etc.)
        1. Non-factory sourced firearms
        2. Collectible (antique, curio & relic, etc.)
        3. Incomplete (frames, etc.)
    2. Secondary market - Unlicensed private parties
      1. Non-factory sourced firearms
      2. Collectible
      3. Incomplete (frames, etc.)
  2. Illegal Sales/Transfer
    1. To Prohibited persons via Legal means
    2. To or between Prohibited persons without records or taxes/fees paid
Does that about cover what we are referring to in the article? There's more to the industry overall, but its entirely different licensing and not part of the GSL AFAIK. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa! Time out. Are we talking about adding all this material to this gun show loophole article? If so, I disagree. Honestly, we've about covered the scope of this article.
Darknipples, I see you've started a stub on the Iron pipeline. That's cool. What you're now talking about, if I understand this discussion, is expanding into trafficking. That information should go into a U.S. domestic firearms/gun trafficking article. (There are Arms trafficking and Small arms trade articles, but their scope is more international in scope.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:09, 17 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. 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)
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)

(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)

@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 ]. 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)
Quick tangent discussion, I don't want to derail the main one

@Scalhotrod: Do you believe, wholeheartedly, that using this Op-Ed, which doesn't explicitly say that GSL only refers to second hand guns, in the lead sentence, improves the quality of the article, despite LB, Felsic, and my objections? Shouldn't we at least try to compromise or discuss it first? Darknipples (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

DN, if any article Lead is an appropriate summary of the body of the article, it should not need any citations to back up its statements, as any claim made should have adequate sourcing in the body of the article. So in direct answer to your question, no, I do not believe that the linked Op-Ed should be used in the Lead.
It is correct about one thing, "nonprofessional used-gun traders are subject to none of those requirements", the Op-Ed just states it VERY badly. What they meant was "non-licensed gun traders..." The Op-Ed also confirms one of my earlier statements, "absence of regulation of second-hand sales is often referred to as the 'gun-show loophole'" whether the phrase "second-hand" or "secondary market" is used. The GSL is not just about background checks, its about tracking, accountability, AND background checks. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Faceless Enemy, Miguel Escopeta, and Lightbreather: Ah, I see your point now. This makes more sense to me. Thanks for your patience with me, as I now feel more confident that I can support this distinction in the lead. Especially now that Miguel has found another fairly RS cite. I would say now that unless we find conflicting RS cites that state otherwise, GSL generally refers to "second hand" or "used" firearm sales. Well done. (Correction needed) As it reads now..." Private party sales of used firearms are only allowed between residents of the same state." There is a standing issue that needs to be addressed with regard to interstate transfers (See intrastate TP section). I am removing this until we have finished the discussion there in effort to reach consensus or compromise. Please do not revert until this has been sorted out. Darknipples (talk) 00:41, 13 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)

Scalhotrod, I am not attempting to "butt-in" in any way, but this comment concerns me. Perhaps I'm just being "over-protective", and I'm not going to call it a threat at this point, but Scalhotrod said "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." My instinct was that if someone said something like that to me, I would want someone to notice...Lightbreather, what does Scalhotrod mean? Darknipples (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

DN, Given the contentious nature of this subject, it never hurts to have another set of uninvolved eyes on the situation. We're all way too enmeshed in this subject to be completely objective. It's something in the past that Lightbreather has requested several times that I now appreciate the benefit of using via either a Request for Comment (RfC) or a similar process. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, they are not spot-on. Rather, they both appear not to know US gun laws. I agree with Scalhotrod, that not taking into account that the GSL applies only to the secondary market, i.e., used, gun sales is a very important point. The average reader on Misplaced Pages needs to be told the truth, that the GSL does not allow dealers to sell new guns to individuals. To imply otherwise, through intentional omission of important points, is both factually inaccurate and, more importantly, appears to be pushing a pro gun control viewpoint, contrary to writing a balanced POV article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Another reference to secondary market, i.e., used, firearms and the GSL here. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Miguel Escopeta, could we get the relevant text and a page # please? This thing is like 30 pages long. You are sure this say, GSL only refers to "second hand firearms"? Darknipples (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Read the second and third paragraphs on p. 22, along with footnote 125 at the bottom of the page. Yes, the GSL pertains to secondary market, only, sales, between private individuals. Every primary market sale (new firearm) sold by a dealer can be sold to an individual only after a background check is performed. It is strictly for the secondary market, i.e., used guns, that the GSL applies. As an analogy, would you think it reasonable to have to sell a book from your private library to another individual only after paying an exorbitant fee to a Federal Bookseller Licensee (FBL) to make sure that the buyer was not a terrorist, who might use the contents of the book for ill? In the secondary market, within the boundaries of a state, there is no Federal jurisdiction to restrict private party sales of books, or most any other private property. On the other hand, a state can require you to purchase, say, a copy of the Bible or Koran, only if it were purchased through a Federal Bookseller Licensee (FBL) holder. It would be exactly the same thing, only applying to the First Amendment, instead of to the Second Amendment. But, both are rights contained in the Bill of Rights. The perspective matters here, of how the arcane ATF regulations work to restrict private commerce, that is conducted solely within states, for which the Tenth Amendment provides protection for the rights of the people. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Another interesting reference: On page 4, we find, ‘’In 1995, Philip Cook and colleagues published a study that has done much to shape and clarify our understanding of how firearm commerce operates. Buying and selling by licensed retailers is now referred to as the primary market for firearms; both new and used firearms are involved. The secondary market consists of transfers by unlicensed private parties such as the individual attendees at gun shows.’’ - And, by virtue of the arcane FFL laws, only guns previously purchased in the primary market largely exist in the secondary market. (For now, I will disregard the so-called 80% lower ghost gun firearms. They also can be sold in the secondary market, if not originally made for resale!) On page 7, we find, ‘’Private-party sellers are not required to ask for identification. They cannot initiate a background check, except in Delaware, Nevada, and Oregon, where they may do so voluntarily. There are no forms to fill out, and no records need be kept. And 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.”’’ On page 21, we find, ‘’Some private-party handgun sellers at gun shows make a point of checking the buyer’s driver’s license to be sure that they are not making an illegal transfer to an out-of-state resident.’’ Now, usually at gun shows, ATF agents watch to make sure that such checks are done. If they are not done, then the ATF agents usually interview the seller and the buyer. The usual trading mechanism followed is that each person in the transaction will show their driver’s license to the other party, and, the seller, especially if previously harassed by the ATF, will then hold their driver’s license up high to show that the check was done. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Miguel Escopeta, Nice find! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(page 22 cite #125) "Furthermore, the report mentioned that secondary, or used, firearms are commonly trafficked to Mexico. Officials noted that, “while ATF may be able to trace a firearm to the first retail purchaser, it generally has no knowledge of any secondhand firearms purchases from gun shows or pawnshops ... without conducting further investigation” because federal law currently “permits the private transfer of certain firearms from one unlicensed individual to another in places such as at gun shows, without requiring any record ... be maintained by the unlicensed individuals, an FFL, or other law enforcement authority.” Related to private transactions, the GAO report highlighted that the lack of required background checks for private firearms sales may also be problematic in efforts to combat gun trafficking." Darknipples (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. Editorial board (October 16, 2009). "Targeting gun shows". Los Angeles Times.
  2. Chu, Vivian S.; Krouse, William J. (September 21, 2009). "Gun Trafficking and the Southwest Border". Congressional Research Service.
  3. Wintemute, Garen (2013). "Background Checks for Firearms Transfers" (PDF). UC Davis Health System.

What is proposed

So from the above discussion and the sources given, what is being proposed to be added to the article? And where within the article is it being proposed to be placed? Lightbreather (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Darknipples I appreciate your trying to accommodate the guys' others' concerns, but the thing is, we need to get this straight in the article... and then add it to the lead. Otherwise, we discount the hard work we did - all of us - to get the article where it is today, which I think, barring a few additions, is in pretty good shape. (Why I've asked for a peer review.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"the guys' concerns", given your efforts of late, that was a fairly odd choice of words Lightbreather. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
What we have just accomplished is establishing a common understanding of the topic we are trying to describe. This enables all of us to choose sources and add content from a seemingly neutral standpoint. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed these two sentences from the lead paragraph until we introduce the material into the article.

Under federal law, only Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) gun dealers are required to perform background checks and maintain records for retail purchases of firearms. Private party sales of used firearms are only allowed between residents of the same state.

Again, what is proposed to be added to the article? Let's finish that, and then finish the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Have we appropriated updated the body content first??? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't read any meaning into "guys" that isn't there. You and FE and ME are men, that's all. Yes, we've accomplished a lot, through hard work. Let's not stumble this close to the finish by pressuring the lead. Which as of right now has nothing in it that is not in the article body. If there is unfinished business in the article body, let's finish it. Lightbreather (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a diplomatic effort, on LB's part, to sort things out as per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so I support this discussion as a precursor, to further consensus on the issues at hand. That being said, at this time I feel that GSL generally or typically refers to "used firearms" or "second hand sales", given Miguels AGF cites. Working this into the lead should be a matter of consensus. It should be, IMO, entered to the body at this time. I am comfortable with this diff, until an agreement or consensus is reached. Darknipples (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather, Faceless Enemy, and Scalhotrod: I suggest a Disambiguation Section in the article that includes all the little important details and aliases of GSL. Something to this effect..."AKA etc...etc...(There is already an entire TP Section full of them GSL Disambiguation AKA) GSL (generally?) refers to secondary market sales and transfers which the ATF believes has contributed to gun trafficking and purchases of firearms by prohibited buyers." & -- Darknipples (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey DN, if I understand your suggestion for a Disam section, would this be something like the "Terminology and context" section from the Gun control article? It's purpose is to narrow the scope of the subject as well as well to give context to terminology used across a variety of articles.
It's wording has been changed over time and even its usefulness has been questioned, but it's remained so I assume that it has some practicality. By the way, I'm not vested in that particular section title, its just what made sense to me at the time. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not particularly vested in "Disam", I just think it's important to create a new more appropriate section for these attributes. GSL isn't quite as complex or as broad as GC, IMO, and we've already got the cites for AKA mentions, we just need to determine which, if any, are notable. Darknipples (talk) 19:44, 16 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)
I agree with you too, but compromise is not for accuracy of information. I want as accurate of reporting of information as we can attain for the sake of the average Reader. As I have encountered in the past with some Editors, there are those that throw up a massive amount of content including some of which they are willing to remove if for no other reason than to "compromise" so that certain points are left in. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:54, 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)
LB, this seems like a relatively useful tool. Please explain more as to how it would help this article. Darknipples (talk) 01:17, 13 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)

I feel that "some" implies that it's a minority view - we definitely need to avoid that implication as well. And I don't think "gun control/rights advocates" implies "all gun control/rights advocates" - at most it implies broad support, which is pretty accurate for both sides. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Faceless Enemy: I'm fine with "many" where applicable, by citation or as a consensus. Darknipples (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't flow too well with "many gun control advocates / many gun rights advocates" - ideas on rephrasing? Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
What about "most"? I know it seems like I may be "knit-picking", but the inference that "all of said group feels X" certainly seems apparent, if not inappropriate to any "said advocates" that do not agree with that or feel that way. Not to mention, there's no citation there for either of them. Darknipples (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Current disputes boil down to scope

I woke up this morning realizing that the nub of the current dispute is SCOPE.

This article is about - whether you believe there is one or not, or whether you believe it's a problem - what is called the gun show loophole. It is not an overview of federal gun laws, or an article about what private parties may legally sell. If a large part of gun rights advocates' beef with the loophole is about these things, then that needs to be described, with proper weight, in the article and THEN summarized in the lead.

Where to put this material? Is it time to add a "Reception" section? If so, how big should it be in comparison to the rest of the article? Also, where should it be placed? Do sources already IN the article cover this? If not, which two or three of the many others on this page shall we use? Lightbreather (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

So go ahead and create a general BGC article? You had expressed concern about this earlier from a content forking perspective, so I held off. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No. That was already decided. GSL is notable for its own article. Universal background check is notable for its own article. Perhaps, if we ever get Gun politics in the United States under control, it can be the main article? I dunno. But let's not talk again so soon about changing the scope of this article. Lightbreather (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Create, not create and merge or create and move. Three articles (BGC, GSL, UBC). Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussions and attempts on merges, categorizations, change of scope, changing the lead, have all been relatively fruitless thus far, in terms of improving the article. It's simply just unnecessary at this point. "Cart before the horse" as Scalhotrod put it. I know FE means well, but I think it will be in the best interest of the article for FE to focus more time and energy on editing and finding or improving sources. It's only a friendly suggestion. Perhaps FE might agree? Darknipples (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
As LB said, the current article "is not an overview of federal gun laws, or an article about what private parties may legally sell." I think such an article is notable and verifiable, so I'm going to create it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you would be smarter - less likely to be seen as creating a possible POV fork - if you add a "Background check" section to Gun law in the United States, which already has a "Prohibited persons" section that is flagged as needing to be "harmonized" with the NICS article, and mentions background checks in the "Acquiring from dealers" section. (Oddly, GLUS never once mentions the gun show loophole or universal background checks. Hmmm.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we can refer to Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style, where it covers Scope..."In some cases the definition of the article topic in the opening paragraph may be insufficient to fully constrain the scope of the article. In particular, it may be necessary to identify material that is not within scope. For instance, the Fever article notes that elevated temperature due to hyperthermia is not within scope. These explanations may best be done at the end of the lead to avoid cluttering and confusing the first paragraph. This information and other meta material in the lead is not expected to appear in the body of the article." Or, we could just keep discussing everything but the article at hand ;-) Darknipples (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It's been an exhausting week for me IRL and here on WP. If I'm smart, I'll take a day or two off. But am I smart? ... Well, I'm going to try to be. Lightbreather (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples, Faceless Enemy, Felsic, and Scalhotrod: I really think we need to stop for a minute and agree on the SCOPE of this article. I think the scope should be from the time that the term started to be used (mid-90s) up to (not including, except to mention as a sort of segue) 2012, when the focus started to seriously shift from "gun show" loophole to "private sale" loophole and universal background checks. Honestly, I think with a little tweaking and polishing, this is ready for the peer review that I requested one week ago. Based on that, we could refine further and nominate for GA. Lightbreather (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If we are starting to move into that latter material - the private sale loophole and universal background checks - it's time to switch over to that article, I think. Lightbreather (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

LB, I think you and DN were correct all along, assuming it was this article (they start to blur a little), this article needs an "Overview" or "Background" or "Disam" or "Whatever" section that says what the GSL IS and IS NOT or at least what it applies to. Then describe the controversies related to GSL as well as background checks and the campaign for "universal background checks". By the way, with regard to the latter two, IMO they should not be split, it's the same subject just differentiated by geography and legislation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I think renaming "Context" as "Terminology" would be a good move. (I think you mentioned this somewhere, Scalhotrod.) I also think Mudwater should proceed with adding a "Background checks" section to Gun law in the United States, which should link to "Gun show loophole" and "Universal background checks" as the main articles about those parts of the Background checks discussion. The "Recent developments" section of this article should be brief and direct the reader to "Universal background checks". Lightbreather (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Terminology is fine by me. Darknipples (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I tried "Terminology," but ended up going with "Overview." However, great care must be taken that this section doesn't gain undue weight. Lightbreather (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Does GSL "Specifically" refer to "Prohibited" (Buyers) Private Sales and or Transfers?

This may be a very important distinction. Let's discuss it. I am currently looking at some citations, and I will add them as necessary. Please contribute any and all cites with relevant texts and links in this Talk Page. Darknipples (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say the opposite - that it only refers to legal private sales or transfers. Once they're prohibited, the "loophole" has already been "closed", so then they belong in arms trafficking. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
FE, perhaps we should just put it to a vote, as you did with the suggested merger with the UBC article? That way we can get that sorted out and perhaps begin focusing a bit more on improving the article's content rather than just it's category? Darknipples (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Prohibited people are not allowed to obtain firearms, period, legally or illegally.
  • If they use a licensed dealer, and the background check system fails, the prohibited person has committed a crime, but not the dealer.
  • If the dealer knows the person is prohibited and sells them a firearm anyway, both parties have committed a crime.
  • If a prohibited person buys a firearm from a private person (anywhere, gun show or otherwise), they have committed a crime, but not the private person, unless...
  • If a prohibited person wants to buy a firearm from a private person and they run a background check and find out that the buyer is prohibited, and sells it to them anyway, then both parties have committed a crime.
The moral of the story is that the GSL is not directly related to prohibited people trying to buy firearms, but it can be depending on the circumstances. Makes sense?
The GSL was originally about the government not getting its firearm transfer taxes and being able to track them than it is about background checks. That's what the BATFE focuses on during FFL audits. The horrific consequences of the combination of an inconsistent prohibited person database combined with no standard for background checks are what the media and gun control groups have latched onto. But even the NRA has campaigned for better tracking of the mentally ill and other prohibited purchasers. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, your "what ifs" notation is not very AGF. I'm asking a fair question in good faith. Please at least try to respect that. As far as your comment, please cite the sources that support your positions in their full original context. Specifically "the GSL is not directly related to prohibited people trying to buy firearms (but it can be?)" Darknipples (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"80% of criminal acquisitions now occur through private-party transactions." (page 33) Darknipples (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a mis-statement, it says "more than 95% of prohibited persons who commit firearm-related crimes", but this is lumping legal and illegal transactions together. I'm not sure how their sources can come to this conclusion if there's not some fairly vast assumptions taking place. Conversely, this means that less than 5% of firearm-related crimes by prohibited persons involved licensed dealers. We already know that the system isn't perfect, so how do we use this in a NPOV way? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Scal, I've already asked you to mind AGF in your notations. Responding with "OK...and?" is not very WP:CIVIL. I've decided to move this subject to your personal TP. As far as your response, this citation is already being used in the article and I'm under the impression that it is RS as far as the article is concerned. So, if you would like to question the validity of it's data, please refer to RS. The same with NPOV. In regard to "lumping legal and illegal transactions together", I created this talk section to discuss whether or not GSL refers to prohibited and non-prohibited private "transactions", and, prohibited & non-prohibited "individuals", fall in the scope of GSL. It is a fair question and in good faith. A simple "no" is fine, if you don't wish to provide RS citations to the contrary. Darknipples (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, since we cleared up the issue with the Edit Summaries, I must have missed that in the article and I can't seem to find it now. So I was under the impression that you were suggesting its inclusion.
As for the issue at hand, I'm starting to wonder if maybe just a well-laid out table might be able to clarify or clear up much of what we are discussing? There seem to be a fair number of variables and circumstances. It might even turn out to be a good table for other GP and firearm legal issue articles. What do you think? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, here is the original cite "In 2013, Garen J. Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis wrote, "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." (See Chapter 7 Title)- I was under the assumption the one I referenced was virtually identical. Miguel Escopeta also used it as a citation for introducing "second hand market" to the article at the bottom of the talk page section "Used Firearms". In regard to creating a "well-laid out table", I'm not sure what you mean by that, or, "other GP and firearm legal issue articles". I AGF, but I think the last thing we need to worry about in here are "other articles". Like I said, I AGF, so I would appreciate it if you would elaborate on what you meant. Respectfully -- Darknipples (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples:, you're conflating the private sale exemption with some of its alleged consequences. It's like going to the lighter article and trying to make it about wildfires. Are the two connected? Sometimes. But there isn't a 100% correlation either way. You can have wildfires without lighters, and lighters without wildfires. Likewise, you can have legal private sales without a background check without arms trafficking taking place, and you can have arms trafficking without using a legal private sale. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This comment doesn't seem very AGF, FE. If you wish to cite any RS sources that are to the contrary, please do so. Otherwise, can you simply let me know that you disagree and leave it at that without accusing me of "conflating" GSL with Arms Trafficking, as you seem to be doing this fairly regularly these days . Please read the SCOPE section of WP:MOS as I previously mentioned here. Perhaps WP:AGF may be appropriate, as well. Darknipples (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that the topic of this article is the aspect of current laws and regulations that make it possible for a private party to sell a firearm to a probibited buyer, without any violation on the part of the seller. It is not the sale that is prohibited, but the purchase. The "sale" is the act of the seller, and the "purchase" is the act of the buyer. A somewhat analogous situation is the purchase of alcoholic beverages by a 19 year old, using the driver's license of a 22 year old sibling of highly similar appearance. The seller is blameless but the buyer is guilty of a crime. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Cullen, while I think you have made a good point, it is also notable that if a bartender sells alcohol to a minor, that bartender faces fines or worse for breaking the law. If a person "knowingly" sells a gun to a "prohibited" person it is also illegal, however, this may be and essential aspect of GSL, as many citations have inferred. The ATF as stated that is nearly impossible to prosecute private sellers that may or may not be violating this aspect of federal law. Not to mention, the definition of "engaged in a business" also seems to be somewhat convoluted according to most citations regarding GSL, specifically citations mentioning FOPA in conjunction with GSL. Darknipples (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Darknipples, I do not claim that my analogy is perfect, but I think that most fair-minded people would oppose punishment of the seller of alcoholic beverages in the specific scenario I described. A seller of alcohol in the U.S. has an obligation to do an age check. The gun show loophole implies that a private seller is not obligated to do a background check, and is denied the tools to do so in any case. That is where my analogy comes together a bit, I hope. The underage buyer of alcohol with convincing fake ID is guilty of a crime, as is the convicted felon who buys a gun from a private seller. In neither case is the seller responsible, in the current situation. Of course, the definition of "engaged in a business" may also be problematic. The definition of that is critical, at least until the current "loophole" is closed. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Cullen328 I may be a bit confused by your analogy. Whether or not most people would oppose punishment of said establishment, or said bar-keep, is at issue, if I'm following your analogy correctly. There are checks in place, and it is at the very least, "debatable", as to whether or not these checks are effective or enforceable applicable. However, we have never understood there to be a "night-club loophole", or an "underaged-drinking loophole". The reason may or may not be that buying a gun does not even require an ID as far as private parties are concerned, but this is a variable that is only notable in the case of your drinking-age analogy. Supplying alcohol to minors by a private individual, is still quite punishable, even with (fake) ID. Over the many years of the GSL debate, at few things have stood out. The ability of "prohibited" people to "circumvent" what may be considered, at least by those on one side of the issue, a "double standard" in federal laws, and an inability of law enforcement to effectively execute it's duties because of said federal law. On the other side, there are those that believe there is no loophole because of the same federal laws that the opposite side believes creates the loophole in the first place. It is almost a Catch 22, in most respects. In summation, with regard to your analogy, the concept that establishments and service people that serve alcohol to minors (sellers) are "not responsible" as long as they have been presented with (fake) ID seems flawed because not even ID is even "required" for such transactions regarding firearms. Sellers are not necessarily what this TP section is referring to in terms of prohibited transactions. To clarify, the distinction I'm referring to is based more on prohibited buyers. Apples to oranges in my opinion, but I appreciate your insight. Darknipples (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen328: As a side note, serving alcohol to minors that present fake ID is punishable, but typically only if the fake ID in question is "obviously" a fake. How can one determine, or prosecute effectively, on the basis of whether or not someone is "obviously" a "bad" liar? According to the ATF and many law enforcement agencies, they cannot. The whole point of this TP section was really to determine whether the "the buyer" is typically a "prohibited person", not the seller, and if that is an important distinction relative to GSL, supported by RS and DUE. Please forgive me if this wasn't clear from the beginning. It has been a long day. Darknipples (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Darknipples, are you proposing something with this discussion? Are you trying to resolve one of your own concerns, or perhaps the concerns of another editor? Lightbreather (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice

OK, that tears it.

1. I am determining which noticeboard to take the photo to, and I'm taking it there.

2. I am asking Miguel Escopeta here to stop disruptively inserting his synthesis of the words of a Montana gun-rights group leader into the lead.

3. Since it was already decided at NPOVN, I am also asking anyone who might be tempted to stop disruptively removing the brief, failed legislation sentence from the lead.

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps WP:DRN is the appropriate forum? If so, should we include all three items in one request, or have three separate requests? --Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think DRN should look at everything concurrently. Save them some time and effort. Darknipples (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

POV-lead

A 2012 statement by "Joe Olsen," head of a Minnesota gun rights group, re the gun show loophole was added to the lead. I think it is probably WP:UNDUE for the body, and certainly undue for the lead.

This is the source: Whitney, Craig (2012). Living with Guns: A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment. PublicAffairs. p. 205., and what it says:

All that and the rest of the bill would do, they said in one of many denunciatory press releases, was "impose unnecessary deprivation of liberty, hassle, delay, and cost on Minnesota's 1.5 million legitimate gun owners," as straw-man buyers at gun shows accounted for only a small percentage of weapons acquired by gangs and criminals.

Here is where it was added to the lead paragraph (and as synth, IMO):

Others see the gun show loophole as providing liberty for "legitimate gun owners".

And here is what it looks like now: , at the end of the lead's "gun rights advocates say" paragraph.

The head of a Minnesota gun owners group said of a state legislator's effort to close the gun show loophole that doing so would only "impose unnecessary deprivation of liberty, hassle, delay, and cost on" the state's "legitimate gun owners."

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Before adding this undue Minnesota gun owner's opinion, these were the two advocacy paragraphs:

Gun control advocates want to extend the background check requirement to nonlicensed firearms sellers at gun shows.
Gun rights advocates say there is no loophole, and any federal law requiring background checks for sales of firearms between private unlicensed citizens, whether at gun shows or not, would exceed the government's authority, be a prelude to gun registration, and endanger gun owners' Second Amendment rights.

I can live with that for now. But adding the undue guy-from-Minnesota material makes the gun rights advocates paragraph... 90 words. Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this belongs in the lead, either. What one person from one side of the issue, thinks, does not seem DUE. Not to mention "cart before the horse" etc. If we are going to add it to the body we will need to balance it with a gun control advocates quote. Perhaps we should just count the references and try to restore WP:Balance by #'s in a more remedial fashion? Darknipples (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Scalhotrod has removed Minnesota-guy from the lead, so maybe that will be the end of it. Lightbreather (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Your edit summary says to look at the talk page and I am looking but aint seeing much. Does anyone aside from hoplophobes use the phrase "gun show loophole"? WeldNeck (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hoplophobe is actually more of a dysphemism. It is not really pejorative. The word is usually not considered uncivil, but as being more of a statement of fact, describing a condition of an irrational fear of weapons. Mostly, it is a common condition of people who have no history of gun culture in their personal lives. Yes, it is mostly only these people who use the term "gun show loophole", as this term, gun show loophole, is considered to be pejorative by members of the gun culture. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


@WeldNeck: I consider your question offensive, and off-topic. Darknipples (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Categories: