Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 1

Untitled

Is the Controversial Issues section neutral? It's confusing for sure.--82.15.46.131 05:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Arguably legally?

the text says that someone could end up selling almost a thousand guns at gun shows, and not have to go through background checks. Notice it says that such a person would be posing as a private seller. If he is posing, how can it be argued that he is doing so legally?! botom line, if you sell guns for a living, and are posing as a private party at a gun show, you are breaking the law. Period. there is no loop hole. Dullfig 20:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. But I think the idea of a loophole in this case is that it's so easy to get away with. If you say you're a private seller, who's going to say otherwise? Thernlund 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Why not merge this article into Gun show. They're both tagged as stubs. I see no reason for two articles on different aspects of the same topic.

If nobody says otherwise in a few days, I'll assume either folks are in agreement or nobody cares enough. Then I'll go ahead and do it. Thernlund 05:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems alright to me. Go ahead. Dullfig 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Opposed Greetings everyone. Please make sure you've read the top of the article ("This article is about a U.S. political concept. For information about U.S. gun shows themselves, see Gun shows in the United States.") and the recent revision history of this page and the one for Gun Shows in the United States to see why the split has been made. I look forward to working with everyone interested in improving the efficacy of this article. Thank you. - Respectfully Darknipples (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, DN. Check out the dates above. This was a separate article at first, then it was merged into the "Gun show" article, which was later renamed "Gun shows in the United States." Lightbreather (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Would it be prudent to delete, edit, or replace them? Darknipples (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the comments, they'll get archived some day, but it's unnecessary now. Lightbreather (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Back to being a stand-alone article

New editor Darknipples is going to be working on this article for a while. If you want to help me to help her/him, please do, but let's all remember how to treat a WP:NEWCOMER. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you LB. There is obviously a lot of work to do now. Focusing on the basic structure of sections in a comprehensive and balanced manner will be key to the first step in making this a quality article. Darknipples (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Controversy

With regard to the event Columbine High School massacre, it seems to be relevant to what made the term "gun show loophole" prolific in modern day American culture. However this reference is also still being used on the Gun shows in the United States page. Is there any foreseeable issue in using it here? Darknipples (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Lightbreather (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section to be designated for events cited in relation to GSL - Darknipples (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Controversy section as it exists now is pretty entirely WP:UNDUE. One statement that lasted about two days of the news cycle amounts to a curiosity. Anastrophe (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it qualifies as WP:undue? To improve this section, I suggest we expand it with notable events that cite the term GSL, such as Columbine. For example, this article by Rolling Stone cites GSL in relation to other controversial events that may or may not have made the term more prolific in U.S. culture. What I Saw at the Gun Show - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I explained why it qualifies as undue weight. It's a quote by Gadahn, which lasted about two days in the news cycle, it is not notable enough to garner prominance in this article unless it's been cited by many other sources as meaningful to the use of the term 'gun show loophole'. Expanding the section with details of other 'controversies' is fine, if they are notable. There's nothing in the Rolling Stone article that details controversial events - just a description of one gun show. Not notable. Anastrophe (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Please forgive me, as I am new, and still learning. "It's a quote by Gadahn, which lasted about two days in the news cycle, it is not notable enough to garner prominance in this article unless it's been cited by many other sources as meaningful to the use of the term 'gun show loophole'." How long does a controversy, such as Gadahn's well publicized statement, need, to be considered appropriate for this section? Should we create a different section for these types of GSL related articles? Or, is there a certain number of citations regarding Gadahn's statement required for inclusion?

"There's nothing in the Rolling Stone article that details controversial events - just a description of one gun show. Not notable." So, you are contending that this article's mention of Columbine has no relation to GSL, despite other citations, for example (from the RS article you referred to): "And three of the four firearms used in the Columbine High School massacre were bought at a gun show. Eighteen-year-old Robyn Anderson, who bought two shotguns and a rifle at Denver's Tanner Gun Show on behalf of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, later told the Denver Post that she wished it had been more difficult. 'I wouldn't have helped them buy the guns if I had faced a background check,' she said."Colorado After Columbine The Gun Debate If what you are saying is true, which events are worthy of inclusion to the GSL article by wiki standards? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Re Gadahn, if you can find multiple sources that are not just multiple copies of AP sources etc, that this was a meaningful and important event relating to the Gun show loophole, then it merits inclusion. We currently have a link to one article about Gadahn's quote, and another that describes how Bloomberg's group used it in political ads (and let stand Gadahn's false the assertion that automatic weapons are available at gun shows without a background check). Notable? Yes. Notable enough for inclusion in this article longer than perhaps a single sentence? Questionable.

Re the Rolling Stone article, the only part of the article that addresses the 'gun show loophole' is this:

"At the national level, President Clinton and his congressional allies are trying to close what they call "the gun-show loophole" that lets thousands of guns be sold without background checks, registration or any record keeping at all." Do the other events mentioned in the article play a role in the notability of the term "Gun show loophole"? Probably. What do the sources explicitly say? We do not synthesize! Anastrophe (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The controversy section is still almost entirely synthesis. The newly added material does not itself suggest what the controversy is, it only states bare information under the title "Controversy". The controversy section needs to cite sources that specifically call these things out as being controversial - we do not just throw information in it that we as editors think is controversial, the sources themselves must describe what controversy exists. Anastrophe (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm still fairly new to this, so I'm very open to suggestions to improve the section, whether it's changing the title or creating a new section for GSL related "events" that would be more appropriate. I think we all want to make this article better, but criticism only goes so far. What do you suggest? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"This week, what was once considered the least controversial gun control measure — closing the private-sale exception to the instant background check law — barely made it out of the Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 party-line vote, with all Republicans in favor of keeping the gun show loophole wide open. This is disappointing for anyone who hoped that responsible gun owners and other concerned citizens could come to agreement on what polls show most Americans consider good policy."Our View: U.S. Senate should back gun-show loophole bill

--Darknipples (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"Even if she had a criminal record, Tibbetts could have purchased one or multiple weapons from an unlicensed dealer at a gun show such as the one in Manchester. Only Federal Firearm Licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check to determine whether a person is on a list of people prohibited from buying guns. Reasons a person would be on the list include having been convicted of a felony, being under a domestic violence restraining order or being mentally incompetent."

"New Hampshire is one of 39 states that have a gun show "loophole," which means there is no federally mandated background check requirement for any weapon sold by an unlicensed dealer. The only identification required must show the purchaser is a state resident and over age 21. If FFL dealers sell at gun shows, they still must conduct a background check."N.H. gun law has controversial loophole

--Darknipples (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm unclear what these two quotes have to do with the controversy section - but they both only strengthen what I've covered elsewhere numerous times: that the gun show loophole is no more and no less than 'private sellers at gun shows don't run background checks'. That's what this article is about, and that's why diverging from it and suggesting that the FFL rules of FOPA are the gun show loophole is a back formation via synthesis. Indeed, lets stay on track. Controversy must be declared by the sources, not by what we consider controversial. Anastrophe (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Legislation

A list of all legislation bills that include the term "Gun Show Loophole"? Perhaps FOPA should have it's own section? Darknipples (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you let the events of the last couple of days rattle you. Just do what seems logical to you, referring to examples of other articles that seem good to you (especially if they've been recognized as good pages). Nothing you do is permanent, so if you mess up, it can be reversed. If you're still unsure, just show a little outline here of what you have in mind. Lightbreather (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2014

You are right about that. I'm very surprised that there was a consensus on the separation today. I need to get my head straight and hunker down. Darknipples (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't clear consensus, but neither was there consensus to keep it where it was. I thought we presented the better arguments for moving, that's all. And I think that if it went into some dispute resolution process, whomever was involved in deciding it would agree - IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

http://archive.bangordailynews.com/2004/04/02/closing-the-gun-show-loophole/ This article refers to "LD 917", which is legislation that seems to refer to the issue of GSL. Does anyone object to using it for this section? Here is a "quick read" link - http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_121st/billtexts/LD091701-1.asp Darknipples (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes and Deletions

Anastrophe - I see you have deleted most of my recent changes to the article. I realize that I am new, so, I am assuming you prefer I discuss my changes, additions, and deletions here first, before I add them to the article? Would you be willing to do the same? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You published commentary, bare links, etc - and signed them - in article space. Additions to the article proper are never signed, nor are bare links published. I'd recommend making a copy of the article, and save it to your sandbox, then test your edits there first. You're free to edit all you like, however, obviously inappropriate content is likely to be reverted or fixed by others (inappropriate not in a political sense, inappropriate to article space). The halmark of wikipedia is that whatever changes you make, you must be prepared to have them edited, changed, deleted, at any time, and without 'mercy'. It's a collaborative medium, and every editor has equal power. I think if you review the versions before my changes and compare with them after, you'll see what was wrong. Anastrophe (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

To simplify the process, open this: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gun_show_loophole&oldid=614450851

then open this in a separate tab, and switch between them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Anastrophe (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Anastrophe, thank you so much for your guidance. Your recent advice only confirms my instincts, and means very much to me. I truly believe that the separation of "GS" and "GSL" is going to simplify things for everyone. How are things going on the "GS" page? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

FOPA section

FOPA weakens FFL dealer's legal restrictions at Gun Shows, but which parts of the language in it are considered "ambiguous" and why? Darknipples (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

In what way did FOPA weaken FFL restrictions? Fopa mandated that they perform background checks at gun shows. Anastrophe (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

FFL's were no longer restricted to selling at their place of business, or, under the guise of an FFL dealer, in that they could sell from their personal collection as a private (correction: "seller"). (edit: without performing a BG check) Darknipples (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

FFL's could not and cannot sell inventory without complying with all federal/ATF restrictions, which includes mandated background checks. They cannot pose as private sellers if they are an FFL, and they cannot sell from their 'personal collection' as a private dealer; if they fail to disclose that they're an FFL, they're violating the law. A different wording would be that "FOPA expanded FFL dealer's legal right to include sales at Gun Shows". The regulations are very clear on this, there's no actual weakening of any restriction. http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/firearms/ATF_I_5300%2023A.pdf Anastrophe (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdf) Considering the original statutes under the GCA, and as they are relative to this article, the term "weaken" is more appropriate. The original question asked at the beginning of this section is "which parts of the language in it (FOPA) are considered "ambiguous" and why?" Do you have some relevant information or citations that help to answer this question? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the "gun show loophole" has nothing to do with FFL's, nor even particularly with FOPA, I'm not sure what any of this discussion actually has to do with this article. 06:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I do think a section designated specifically for criticisms of GSL should be created to ensure the article has balance of POV. - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

DN, I'm a little confused by your question. Does this go back to one of the earlier discussions you had with Cullen about how or why the term "gun show loophole" was created? [1] If so, don't worry about that. You might be struggling with what a lot of new WP editors go through. Very few of us have backgrounds in encyclopedia writing. You don't need or want to pose a question and formulate an answer. A lot of new writers don't know about these two policies: WP:OR (original research) and WP:SYNTH (synthesis). Read about those, and once you understand them editing here actually becomes a lot easier. What you want to do is research use of the term "gun show loophole" and what sources say about the topic, and then choose the highest quality and most relevant to put in the article. The hardest part then becomes presenting it in an WP:NPOV (neutral point of view). Once people get past the OR and SYNTH problems, I think the next biggest problem is WP:SOURCE QUALITY and achieving neutrality, so review those, too, please.

So, for now, don't worry about why it's called a loophole - that's just what it's called. Just find out what sources say about the loophole and - following the policies and guidelines I just gave - draft an article. May the force be with you. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The term "GSL" may have existed years before FOPA came to fruition. - http://books.google.com/books?id=yGXy5g7rMEsC&pg=PR30&lpg=PR30&dq=Armed+and+Considered+Dangerous:+gun+show+loophole&source=bl&ots=cswq36cVQL&sig=NaTPYLq3_E_z0Wl8ZYtCqKZmI3A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZC6qU4eBD9CPqAbvyYHQCw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Armed%20and%20Considered%20Dangerous%3A%20gun%20show%20loophole&f=false (Scroll down) - It was originally published in 1986, but the highlighted sections may have been added later? Darknipples (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It was added later.

The oldest reference I can find to guns with the term 'loophole' is this from 1991: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-09-15/news/1991258007_1_felons-exemptions-firearms

However, that's referring to ex-felons getting their firearms rights restored - not the gun show loophole.

The earliest reliable reference to a loophole in relation to private sales at gun shows was the VPC's report of 1996 - http://www.vpc.org/studies/tupeight.htm - although even in that report it's not specifically referred to as the GSL.

The term did not begin to see any widespread use until 1998/1999. Anastrophe (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"The term did not begin to see any widespread use until 1998/1999." In keeping with this line of thought, in 1999 this report (https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/treas/treas-gun-shows-brady-checks-and-crime-gun-traces.pdf) was submitted by the USDOJ and USDOT to then president Clinton, and seemingly became part of the basis for the bill that was submitted to Congress in April 1999 ("The Youth Crime Gun Enforcement Act") according to this citation (section IX) http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm#N_8_ - Coincidentally, the same month that the Columbine High School massacre happened. Correct? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Gun shows have proliferated in the United States since 1986, when Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. That law reversed a section in the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibited firearms dealers who hold a Federal Firearms License to sell guns anywhere but their registered address. After passage of the FOPA, dealers could take their "stores" on the road. The so-called "gun-show loophole" takes these shows--which numbered more than 5,000 in 2005--to a whole new level." http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2013/jan/16/gun-show-loophole/#_ Darknipples (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The Jackson Free Press can of course publish whatever they like, however this is simply incorrect. The term 'gun show loophole' has nothing to do with FFL's or FOPA. This has already been established by the numerous cites within the article. A single cite that incorrectly characterizes the term isn't meaningful or notable to the article. Anastrophe (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Which citations within the article explicitly state "The term 'gun show loophole' has nothing to do with FFL's or FOPA."? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"With all due respect to our friends on the other side of the aisle, let's look at what their position has been in terms of the proliferation of weapons. I was here when we passed the McClure-Volkmer Act. I voted in opposition to that bill, which opened up the whole gun show loophole. The McClure-Volkmer bill effectively facilitated the sale of guns to criminals and juveniles by turning gun shows into a booming business. It severely restricted the ability of the ATF to conduct inspections of the business premises of federally licensed firearms dealers. It raised the burden of proof for violations of federal gun laws. That is what the NRA has supported on the McClure-Volkmer bill." - MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued a speech in Congress by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), on May 17, 2000 - https://scout.sunlightfoundation.com/item/speech/CREC-2000-05-17-pt1-PgS4037.chunk9/sen-edward-kennedy-military-construction-appropriations-act-2001--continued - Darknipples (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

And? Again, this appears to be a desire to draw a synthetic relationship. You may be mistakenly inferring that what follows Mr. Kennedy's assertion about "the whole gun show loophole" is supportive of his assertion about "the whole gun show loophole". It isn't. We have a simple term that is widely understood to have a simple meaning, a meaning which is stated in the first sentence of this article. The whole point of the term 'gun show loophole' is that guns can be sold by non-FFL's without having to perform background checks. That's the whole of the matter. It's what legislation in support of 'closing' the gun show loophole has as its intent. If we are to provide an informative, balanced article, we have to treat the sources appropriately. Mr. Kennedy was always strongly in favor of any gun control that passed his desk. Would you suggest that the opening sentence of the article be written based on his inflammatory tone?:

The gun show loophole is a means by which sale of firearms to criminals is effectively facilitated.

Would that appropriately present the content of the article to readers? No, of course not. We need to stick to the facts, as presented by reliable sources. There's already a heavy reliance on primary sources in this article, for what is, fundamentally, a colloquial term, not a legal term. Too much pushing to widen the net of this article beyond its scope is not a wise path to take. Anastrophe (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"You may be mistakenly inferring that what follows Mr. Kennedy's assertion about "the whole gun show loophole" is supportive of his assertion about "the whole gun show loophole". It isn't." Could you please point out where he changed the subject, or "asserted" McClure Volkmer (FOPA) to be understood as mutually exclusive? Please note that later in his speech he states again..."We have a gun show loophole. We want to go back to where we were prior to the time of the McClure-Volkmer Act. That is where we basically want to go." http://capitolwords.org/date/2000/05/17/S4037_military-construction-appropriations-act-2001-cont/ - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I can certainly show where he changed subject from 'gun show loophole': "It severely restricted the ability of the ATF to conduct inspections of the business premises of federally licensed firearms dealers.", followed by "It raised the burden of proof for violations of federal gun laws." "It" refers to FOPA, not gun shows. Those were provisions of FOPA. They have nothing to do with 'gun show loophole', since those restrictions mentioned are specific to the FFL's place of business, not gun shows themselves, and the burden of proof restrictions are for any violations by FFLs - not of gun shows. Mr. Kennedy is speaking of FOPA in general, not 'gun show loophole' in general. That you see a connection is meaningless - it is, again, up to reliable sources to make connections and spell them out. But even there, it must be tempered by all the other rules - [[WP:UNDUE], WP:NOTABILITY, [[[WP:RS]], etc etc etc.. Simply cherry picking a handful of statements by politicians who have an iron in the fire and who aren't constrained to stating things accurately or factually, or one or two mentions in newspapers that get the facts obviously wrong when one looks at the majority or reliable sources, just won't fly.

Here's a fairly easy rule of thumb: If you have to spend a lot of time trying to find one or two sources that back up what you think something means, while the majority of what you find say something else - you're on the wrong track. You're trying to bolster your own perception, rather than writing a dispassionate encyclopedia article that gives a balanced representation of what the majority of reliable sources say. (I use 'you' in the general sense, not specific to user Darknipples). Anastrophe (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDYOU, Anastrophe. Keep it on content, please - or if you have specific, productive newbie advice, maybe take it to DN's talk page? Lightbreather (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Please reread this: "(I use 'you' in the general sense, not specific to user Darknipples). ". I provided specific productive newbie advice, which is entirely appropriate to article talk space. Please see your many comments on this talk page directed to user Darknipples if you need examples. Please avoid aggressively warning users. Anastrophe (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"The NRA-sponsored Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, also known as the McClure-Volkmer Act, is perhaps the most damning evidence of NRA hypocrisy on enforcement. With its passage, the NRA accomplished the following:-- Allowed unlicensed individuals to sell their personal firearms as a "hobby," allowing for the sale of massive numbers of firearms to criminals and juveniles without background checks. This provision not only created a vast secondary market, but also opened up the "gun show loophole" which Congress is now charged with closing;" (New Report Details NRA's Shameful Legacy of Weakening Our Gun Laws) - WASHINGTON - March 21 - The following was released today by Handgun Control Inc. - http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0321-03.htm Darknipples (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Which again is a false assertion, from a strongly biased source. Private individuals have *always* been able to sell firearms at gun shows without background checks. Anastrophe (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Gun owners won a big battle to ease restrictions on gun and ammo sales. Also known as the McClure-Volkmer Act, the law also allowed what would become known as the “gun show loophole.” http://interactivetimeline.com/1970/gun-debate/21.php - Darknipples (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Interactivetimeline.com is not a reliable source for any purpose on wikipedia. It has zero provenance.Anastrophe (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

Gun show loophole is a term that refers to an exception to United States law, under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), that allows individuals who are "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, to perform firearm sales without running a background check on potential buyers. 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 otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms.

I think it's important to note in this section that while GSL refers changes made by FOPA in regard to FFL's, it speaks to the issue of unregulated private sales held by GCAs. Would it help if there was some etymology on gun control advocacy, since it is likely that GSL originated as a term by GCAs?

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=wmborj - According to this it began with a "individual rights view" versus a "collective rights view".

I think this piece on gun control holds specific relevance to the term GSL. http://differentviewsonguncontrol.voices.wooster.edu/why-is-the-issue-of-gun-control-so-important/

Darknipples (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Blogs aren't usually considered good quality sources, especially for controversial topics like this. Unless the author is a recognized expert and cited by reliable sources. Sorry. Lightbreather (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As for the Hardy paper - the well-regulated militia and the subject of collective v. individual rights is way outside the scope of this article. See my advice from earlier today, above, in the outdent in the "FOPA section".[2] Lightbreather (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Last tip for today: Keep the lead simple, brief for now. Work on the body. See great essay snippet WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Lightbreather (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If we are now to start getting into expanding the definition of "gun show loophole" beyond what the term is actually used to designate, then we are moving into excruciatingly painful territory. Your statement that "GSL refers [to] changes made by FOPA in regard to FFL's" is simply not true, not supported by sources, and - as presented - is simply one editor's ruminations on how to expand the definition. Please read up on WP:OR. This discussion is not appropriate to the talk page, at all. The talk page is for discussion on improving the article - not how to synthesize new meanings and how to conflate and incorporate them. This article is about the term "gun show loophole" which is widely defined - by those who fancy it - to mean 'private sales of firearms at gun shows that do not require a background check'. It has nothing to do with FFL's, at all. Anastrophe (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the focus should remain on GSL, however, I disagree with your assertion that GSL has nothing to do with FFL's. One example of their connection can be cited in studies by the VPC:

"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.

"The study detailed how gun shows have become a readily available source of weapons and ammunition for a wide variety of criminals—including street gangs, white supremacists, would-be presidential assassins, and domestic terrorists. The utility of gun shows to such dangerous individuals stems primarily from the exemption enjoyed by private sellers from the sales criteria of the Brady law, including a background check. This, in turn, encourages licensed dealers (FFL holders) to sell weapons without following the sales criteria of the Brady law in order to compete with unlicensed sellers." https://www.vpc.org/studies/gunloop.htm - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the "Gun Show Loophole", the definition of which is found in reliable sources as 'the private sale of firearms at gun shows without background checks'. This article is not about FOPA. It is WP:SYNTH to try to expand the definition beyond that. The VPC's views of FOPA and gun shows are interesting, but they are not what the VPC themselves describe later in that article as 'the loophole'. Nowhere in what you quote are the words "gun show loophole". Synthesis by taking reliable sources and conflating them is not allowed on Wikipedia. Anastrophe (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not my intention to "try to expand the definition", it is merely to find relevant correlations that would improve the the efficacy and clarity of the article. It seems as though we keep debating as to whether FOPA is mutually exclusive from the term GSL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM), while there seems to be quite a few citations that suggest there is a correlation, including this one submitted by the USDOJ & USDOT (see section III & IX) (http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm#N_8_). I feel there needs to be some clarification on this issue in order for us to move forward and improve this page. - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"[...]there seems to be quite a few citations that suggest there is a correlation". "seems to be" and "suggest" are clear signs of synthesis at work. Either reliable sources say something, or they don't. We, the editors, don't interpret what the sources said - we can state what the sources said in encyclopedic terms, or we can quote them directly. We do not add multiple different concepts to the article, then synthesize a connection between them. Please, I again ask that you read WP:SYNTH if you have not done so yet. With that, feel free to edit the article. If problem arise, I or other editors will revert, fix, or advise; that's how wikipedia works. You're free also to publish here what you would like to publish in the article, for your peers to review. That said, I will return back to the statement that started this discussion:

Darknipples: "I think it's important to note in this section that while GSL refers changes made by FOPA in regard to FFL's,"

I'm unable to find any sources that define "Gun Show Loophole" that way. Find a reliable source that says that the term "Gun Show Loophole refers to changes made by FOPA in regard to FFL's", and we'll have a starting point for discussion. Anastrophe (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Find a reliable source that says that the term "Gun Show Loophole refers to changes made by FOPA in regard to FFL's", and we'll have a starting point for discussion." I suggested this. (section III & IX) http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm#N_8_ - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And? I scanned and searched through it, I didn't see anything that supports what you suggest. Please quote precisely (and briefly) the portion you believe makes this claim. Anastrophe (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Closing the GSL & Ongoing Controversy

This section is for article discussions that address the challenges associated with eliminating GSL. Darknipples (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, don't worry about this too much right now. Just read my advice from yesterday morning at the outdent in this talk page's "FOPA section." Scroll up or click this: [3].

As for the universal background check, that is a section that I am developing for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System - which is why I ended up on the Gun shows in the U.S. article, and now this one. I was digging around to see if UBC was a topic that was directly addressed anywhere.

You've got plenty of work cut out for you right now just developing the three sections you have in this article now: Legislation, Criticism, and Controversy. Lightbreather (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"United States Attorneys offered a wide range of proposals to address the gun show loophole. These include the following: (1) allowing only FFLs to sell guns at gun shows so that a background check and a firearms transaction record accompany every transaction; (2) strengthening the definition of “engaged in the business” by defining the terms with more precision, narrowing the exception for “hobbyists,” and lowering the intent requirement; (3) limiting the number of private sales permitted by an individual to a specified number per year; (4) requiring persons who sell guns in the secondary market to comply with the recordkeeping requirements that are applicable to FFLs; (5) requiring all transfers in the secondary market to go through an FFL; (6) establishing procedures for the orderly liquidation of inventory belonging to FFLs who surrender their license;(7) requiring registration of nonlicensed persons who sell guns; (8) increasing the punishment for transferring a firearm without a background check as required by the Brady Act; (9) requiring the gun show promoters to be licensed and maintain an inventory of all the firearms that are sold by FFLs and non-FFLs at a gun show;(10) requiring that one or more ATF agents be present at every gun show; and (11) insulating unlicensed vendors from criminal liability if they agree to have purchasers complete a firearms transaction form." https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/treas/treas-gun-shows-brady-checks-and-crime-gun-traces.pdf Darknipples (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Source suggestions

High-quality sources here, please - with a mix of "conservative," "liberal" and neutral sources:

• "Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces" (PDF). atf.gov. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). January 1999. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help) - This one is a backbone source for the topic.
• Kopel, David B. (January 10, 2000). "The Facts about Gun Shows". cato.org. Cato Institute. - An early, gun-rights/pro-gun position on the topic.
• Janofsky, Michael (November 15, 2000). "Both Sides See Momentum in Congress for Gun Control". New York Times. - 2000 report in The New York Times.
• Editorial board (April 23, 2007). "Close the gun control loophole". Los Angeles Times. - op-ed by the Los Angeles Times after Virginia Tech.
• Wintemute, Garen J.; Braga, Anthony A.; Kennedy, David M. (August 5, 2010). "Private-Party Gun Sales, Regulation, and Public Safety". The New England Journal of Medicine. 363 (6). Massachusetts Medical Society: 508–511. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1006326. Retrieved 26 June 2014. published online at nejm.org on June 30, 2010 - NEJM report saying gun show loophole accounts for only 3 to 8% of private sales; recommends subjecting all private gun sales to "screening and record-keeping requirements that apply to sales by licensed retailers."
• Dinan, Stephen (December 17, 2012). "Gun bills face tough sailing on Capitol Hill". Washington Times. - a Washington Times report after Sandy Hook.
• Kesling, Ben (December 24, 2012). "Fear of New Restrictions Drives Crowds to Gun Shows". Wall Street Journal. Contributions to article by Jess Bravin. Dow Jones & Company.
• 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. JHU Press. pp. 95–107. ISBN 9781421411101. OCLC 823897002. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In addition to simply googling "gun show loophole" try these sources, too:

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

--Lightbreather (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I will begin working these sources into the body tomorrow. I've been very busy speaking with Anastrophe over FOPA and Columbine in relation to GSL. There seems to be some contention as to how relative these topics are to GSL, and we've been trying to resolve the issue. -Respectfully- Darknipples (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

SOURCES CONTINUED

Overly broad citation

This:

"Opponents of gun control say there is no gun show loophole, only a long-standing tradition of free commerce between private parties that heretofore has not been restricted in the context of secondary, intrastate firearm sales."

with this cite: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1438 pages 837–891

is way, way too broad. I've no specific objection to the statement - though it should be characterized to a specific entity, rather than the vague 'opponents of gun control' - but the reference cites fifty-four pages in support of the statement! That's way way too broad. It needs to be narrowed down specifically to the page(s) there that actually posit this. I'd fix it myself - but honestly, I don't really feel like slogging through all that just to find the one supportive statement. Anastrophe (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If you ask me, the entire article needs to be reworked. 54 pages is excessive to the point where it doesn't count as a citation at all in my humble opinion. Citations such as the one mentioned above are not really citations. It's like holding up the Bible and saying "We'll it's in here!" There are a lot of other issues as well, really, with the entire article. Some of it is just grammatical, etc., but there is also unencyclopedic content. I will make a more comprehensive list when I have a chance to go over it all. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I did some legwork - Beginning on page 874 - "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. (see citation 166 in the article) - "The secondary sales dynamic is complicated by disparate state regulations. In some jurisdictions, state law requires that secondary sales go through an FFL or that the buyer show something like a firearms owners identification card, which verifies he has been deemed trustworthy by the state to own a firearm. See, e.g., N.J. ADMIN. CODE §13.54-1.3 (2007)(requiring purchasers to show a valid firearms purchaser identification card). In other jurisdictions, private or secondary sales or transfers between individuals are like buying and selling any other personal property, at least as a legal matter. It is this category of sales that seem really to be the focus of control proposals that focus nominally on "the gun show loophole." (cite 173) http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1438&context=faculty_scholarship - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm working from my phone using the Wikipedia app, so I'm not sure how this will turn out, but an observation: The statement in question appears to have migrated over from the Gun shows in the United States article. I think it was in that article for quite some time. FWIW. Lightbreather (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder, Miguel Escopeta if you can shine some light on Anastrophe's comments above. I noticed on one of the edits that you just made,[4] you wrote "longstanding practice of private commerce in the United States." That's very similar to what A. asked about. Lightbreather (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Miguel Escopeta Some of these edits seem to have been covered in the criticism section, so, I'm not sure they necessarily belong in the lead section. GSL, in essence, refers to background checks, or the lack thereof. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gun_show_loophole&diff=615997380&oldid=615995985

Closing the gun show loophole

This section seems to be a bit POV. Now I know there's a GSL, and I think that most people here also agree, but a gun-toter will read this section and become outraged. Content that outrages mainstream readers is not very encyclopedic. Wikipedia content should be dry and boring. Our gun-toting friends will argue vehemently that the GSL does not even exist, let alone need to be closed. I have wikified the section, but it still needs to be re-written for NPOV, or at the very least, balanced out a bit. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sue - "Now I know there's a GSL, and I think that most people here also agree, but a gun-toter will read this section and become outraged." What specifically are you referring to? Seeing as though this topic is very controversial for both gun control advocates and those against gun control, it is important not to "outrage" anyone on either side, either by omission or POV. So, your suggestions for improving the balance are quite welcome. I would also like to get your opinion on how to incorporate citations that link FOPA and GSL (see "FOPA and the gun show loophole" section)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_show_loophole#FOPA_and_the_gun_show_loophole - Respectfully - (DN) Darknipples (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

POV-title

(I can't find a previous discussion. If this has already been resolved, please remove the tag.)

The title (Gun show loophole) is accurate (in a sense), commonly used, but a strong WP:NPOV violation. However, I can't think of a neutral name. "(US) Gun show background check exemption." Calling it a "loophole" is pejorative, as is referring to the mortgage interest deduction as a tax loophole. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is the previous discussion -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_shows_in_the_United_States -- The term is presented as a controversial political concept that meets every one of the WP:NOTE guidelines. The title stands on it's own and has not been edited by anyone, as to violate WP:NPOV. Remember, there is no such thing as objectivity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity . Please feel welcome to discuss ways in which we can improve the content of the article to represent the term in the spirit of WP:NPOV. Respectfully (DN) Darknipples (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is not correct to state that everyone discussing the topic uses the term "loophole", nor considers the term "loophole" appropriate. It seems likely that most who do not use the term do not see it as a problem, and do not have a specific name for the concept. For me to come up with a term would be WP:OR, but we are permitted to use a descriptive term, rather than the most common term actually used, such as ClimateGate. In fact, there are few differences, except for the identity of the people objecting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"we are permitted to use a descriptive term" - What exactly do you suggest? What other notable terms (citations) are commonly being used to describe GSL? The content, including the heading, seem to clearly express that "not everyone" considers current gun laws to contain a "loophole". Your example ClimateGate may be construed as "other-stuff" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF#What_about_article_x.3F -Respectfully (DN) Darknipples (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The title is POV as hell, but unfortunately when people with an agenda write the news, that's what you get.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The arguments against using Climategate are the same arguments against using "loophole" in this title. All of them. We are not permitted to use 'non-NPOV descriptive titles — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If criticism of the term is mentioned by the second sentence, it would avoid some of the problems with the article. At the present, the first "criticism" is relegated to the third section. The title would still be POV, but so is nannygate. As for a NPOV title, there are two aspects, which might need different articles. The private-seller exemption from most firearm sale laws, and FOPA's declaration FFL holders may make private sales. The latter might reasonably be considered something that might be used as a "loophole", although there is little evidence that it has been. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Arthur: May I suggest you familiarize yourself a bit more with WP:POVTITLE? GSL is derived from multiple reliable sources. It is not derived from any other notable or common terms, or editorialized by anyone here, that I am aware of. "Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors." - "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Darknipples (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That might (although, IMO, does not) support the title. "GSL" is used only by those who support closing the "loophole". That is a large group, but probably not a majority, and certainly not a consensus of mainstream sources. There is no present objection (as far as I know) to Boston Massacre or Teapot Dome scandal, while there is an (at least extremely vocal) objection to this name. I was amused, when I researched one of my posts above, that nannygate is not considered even a controversial name. In regard WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I argued, a few years back, for climategate, rather than the present "descriptive" title which is actually not an accurate description of the subject. See the quote usually misattributed to Emerson in wikiquote.

However, the lead gives inadequate weight to the existing criticism section, which is, in turn, probably inadequate weight in the article. That is a separate issue than the title. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, an appropriate neutral name would be "Gun show loophole controversy". It would seem to me to be more reasonable to have an article about the "controversy", as I do not think it possible to have an NPOV article with this title. Certainly, the Justice Department proposals are of WP:UNDUE weight, although they possibly could be somewhere on Wikipedia (see WP:NOTNEWS for reasons why they might not be appropriate on Wikipedia). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"Gun show loophole controversy" would also be acceptable in my opinion. Darknipples (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Pejorative

Does anyone doubt the term is pejorative, whether or not we have a source for it? The fact is the term is only used by those who think the "loophole" should be closed needs to be indicated in the lead, somehow. I also dispute the claim that it's a "term-of-art". Propaganda (note: that is not a pejorative term) may be appropriate, but not "term-of-art". Never mind: the definition of "term of art" (redirects to jargon) does not require that it not be a propaganda term.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

There is no dispute that the term "Gun show loophole" is only used by those who think it should be "closed", and used to convince people that it should be closed. Why does that not make it propaganda? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The "gun show loophole" term is used more as a way to disparage buying guns, and to disparage both gun owners and guns shows, since there is no loophole in the law that permits individuals to sell private firearms to other individuals at a gunshow in private commerce within a state that is also not permitted under law at any other location in the same state between the same two private individuals. Hence, "gun show loophole" is a pejorative term-of-art, since it is used to disparage. Federal law only regulates interstate commerce, not private commerce within a state, through the Commerce Clause. Only state laws apply, whether or not private sales must be processed through an FFL license-holder. Propaganda is a much more strongly worded term-of-art, carrying with it the intent to deceive, instead of merely to disparage. Everyone knows that there is really not a loophole in the law. Yet the term "gun show loophole" is used to disparage, to advance the agenda of reducing the private ownership of firearms. Hence, it would seem that the descriptor "pejorative" is more applicable than "propaganda". -- Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

{Collapsed section}

This is not a useful discussion to have on this talk page. If you wish to continue discussing please do on at another venue (such as the user's talk page. Collapsing done as an uninvolved admin; not AE action at this stage, though I'd appreciate it if people left collapsed and moved on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Have you ever actually been to a gunshow, and/or purchased a gun from a licensed dealer or a private party? It seems evident that you do not know just what is involved, so far as background checks, record-keeping, or enforcement of the laws. You keep throwing around terms that it is quite clear you do not really understand. There is no such thing as a "private dealer" or an "unlicensed dealer" under federal law. Someone is either "engaged in the business" --- to use the BATF's terminology --- in which case they must have a Federal Firearms License; or they are not "engaged in the business" and are merely a private party making a perfectly legal "occasional sale" of a firearm to another private party. If they are a licensed dealer, they must comply with ALL of the background check and record-keeping requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Act. It makes absolutely no difference if they are at a gun show or at their brick-and-mortar gun shop. If they are a private party, they are prohibited from accessing the NCIC system in order to run a background check. This was an intentional prohibition, pushed by Senator Kennedy among others, supposedly for the "protection of privacy" of the public. The BATF has kept the definition of "engaged in the business" intentionally vague and undefined. This was not for the benefit of the NRA or gun sellers; it was to allow the maximum amount of prosecutorial discretion, for the benefit of the BATF. They have consistently refused to go on record as to a specific number or amount of money that would constitute "engaging in the business," despite repeated attempts by the NRA and collectors' organizations to get an unambiguous definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.117.19 (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Actually, although no rational person would think of it as a "loophole", there is a provision allowing licensed dealers to make a private sale if the firearm in question was in the dealer's personal collection for a year, rather than as inventory of a business. Hence, such a dealer could request a "background check", but isn't required to do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC) See the top of the "talk page". This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Darknipples (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC) So that can be taken s a "no" to the original question.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Mike This entire section should probably be deleted, as the title suggests, it is treading the line against Wikipedia's conduct policies. WP:HA FYI - The fact that I am a gun owner and attend gun shows is irrelevant. Darknipples (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Probably.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I've renamed it per WP:TALKNEW. I'd just as soon see it deleted as I don't think it was meant as a good-faith discussion. If it was, it should have been toned-down and presented on DN's talk page - not here. Lightbreather (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC) If no one objects to deleting it within a reasonable time, it should be done. It's taking up valuable space on the talk page. I will notify the person that posted it, now. Darknipples (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC) I Object' even though I do not have any ponies in this race. I got here by reading further down on a noticeboard. It appears that Lightbreather and Darknipples are tag-teaming the discussion here to delete material that is inconsistent with their POV (anti-gun) they are pushing in this article. I would warn against deleting this talk page material now that you have been warned as it could result in a ban, topic ban or block in an arbcom report. That's my advice and I have no further interest other than eliminating behavior that is outside of wikiguidelines. 172.56.9.123 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC) I too object to the proposed removal of this talk page section. The post in question does not seem to me to be in bad faith, nor is there a space issue with the talk page. As far as the section being renamed, here, I could go either way. — Mudwater (Talk) 05:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC) The anonymous OP originally headed[5] this discussion: Simple question for Darknipples, since it insists on the existence of the "Gunshow Loophole" The discussion opens with an obviously rhetorical question, since the poster follows it with his/her own answer. Then they wrote four paragraphs about their opinion on the topic (no sources). Then another editor (now topic banned[6]) commented with his opinion (no sources). DN reminded them about the purpose of an article talk page. Then another editor jumped in with a snarky comment, to which DN correctly replied that it (the discussion) was bordering on harassment. So, two questions: What is this discussion about? If it doesn't help to improve this article, why keep it? If we are going to keep it, I suggest we collapse or "hab" it (or whatever that's called). PS: I renamed it "Question" because the original header was against WP:TPG, but I am going to improve the header since "Question," too, doesn't really meet TPG. --Lightbreather (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Lightbreather please do not make a false accusation on a talk page. You are simply trying to taint the well with your lie about me. A simple check of my editing history would reveal I was involved in a issue on the RSN noticeboard and your post was right below me. It seemed interesting so I checked out the article here and the talk page. I found your tag teaming to suppress other editors to be very disconcerting and I acted. Further investigating revealed a suspicious history of tag teaming with darknipples over a long period and your topic ban and temporary block for Sock puppetry so I posted my concerns at the WP:SPI noticeboard as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lightbreather Thanks for considering better behavior here. 172.56.9.123 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC) IP editor 172.56.9.123, I think you might be confused, or maybe your comment is misplaced? None of my comments in this discussion are directed at you. My last post was about the original poster, IP editor 63.152.117.19, so I have not lied about you. I might add, if you're here to help improve this article, please stay and do so. If you're not here to help improve the article, please leave. Lightbreather (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC) To be clear, Special:Contributions/63.152.117.19 was the first one to taint the well with the way they titled this section. 172.56.9.123 appears to care nothing about this article, but may be using it as an opportunity to harass other editors. As stated earlier "I Object' even though I do not have any ponies in this race." "I have no further interest other than eliminating behavior...". Darknipples (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC) (edited for content and clarity) Darknipples (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Actually, DN, IP 172 didn't start this section, another IP editor started it. I do believe that IP 172 was drawn here by the Reliable sources noticeboard, but I think his/her participation here has been not AGF. Lightbreather (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC) To reiterate, this talk page section should not be removed. The original post directly relates to the contents of the article, and, while it is not particularly friendly or even polite, it certainly does not qualify as harassment. Some editors may not like what it says, or find it unhelpful, but it doesn't come close to qualifying for removal. Feel free to review WP:TPO which is the guideline for this type of thing. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Darknipples has asked IP editor 63.152.117.19 to move this discussion to her (DN's) talk page.[7] Since the IP has not edited since posting this discussion last October, I doubt that they'll move it. I have habbed the first few sentence of the post, since they were the uncivil part, I hope that will help to put an end to this dispute. I also propose that we re-rename the discussion consistent with WP:TALKNEW, or at least so that DN's name isn't in it. It ain't cool as is, and I absolutely sympathize with DN's complaint and her request. Darknipples, Mudwater, is this solution agreeable to you? Lightbreather (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC) I would appreciate it if you would not edit or hide other editors remarks, even if you consider them uncivil, per WP:TPO. I'm going to un-hide that part of the post now. Thank you. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Mudwater, this is a collaboration page, where we're supposed to treat each other with respect, per WP:CIVILITY - one of the file pillars of Wikipedia. TPO is a guideline. Is it really important to you that the personal comments of an IP address who hasn't contributed since last October stand against the reasonable request of an editor who is registered and editing in good faith, and who has made more contributions - and way more effort to collaborate? If so, why? How does the OP's snarky, personal commentary contribute toward improving this article? Lightbreather (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC) @Lightbreather:It's not about who is a more valuable contributor to Wikipedia. It's about the important principle of not editing, or obscuring, another editor's comments unless there's a compelling reason to do so, which in this case there is not, or unless they're truly irrelevant to writing the article, which again does not apply this case. There are multiple reasons to refrain from editing the comments of others, one of which is to avoid the temptation to modify other editors' comments when we don't find them agreeable. Per WP:TPO, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection," and another editor and I have objected, multiple times in my case. I suggest that we move on from here and focus on improving the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Train station loophole

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

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

;-)

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

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

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

With regard to this edit [8], how is the opinion of a professor of emergency medicine at U.C. Davis relevant to gun shows? Obviously Garen J. Wintemute had something to say about it, but why is it included in this article? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 09:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wintemute's actual words were:

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

and:

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

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

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

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

Discuss this paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the relative sections:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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