Talk:Gun show loophole

EXPERT from POLITIFACT deleted: Wikipedia Bias Caught Red-Handed Once Again
If the purpose of Wikipedia were actually to be informative -- rather than to be a dishonest, biased tool of left-wing activism -- an informative quote published by POLITIFACT would be a jewel of an addition to an article on public discussion about the "Gun Show Loophole"

But the biased activist censoring Wikipedia removed the expert opinion provided:

"There is a huge loophole in federal law, but it isn't for gun shows," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said. "What is called the gun-show loophole is misnamed. It should be the ‘private sale loophole’ or the ‘background check loophole.’ ... The reason people talk about gun shows is that they are easily accessible marketplaces for people who don't want to be subject to a background check to find non-licensed gun sellers."

When people hear about the gun show loophole they want to look it up and find out more.

It should not matter what your position is on the topic.

Wikipedia should leave the reader more informed -- not radicalized -- about the topic of the gun show loophole.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.74.179 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

'Provenance' section
Can we rename the 'Provenance' section to 'History,' which is both a much more common term and also used extremely commonly as a title for such sections in Wikipedia articles?
 * I'm fairly indifferent on that, as long as WP:MOS is followed. DN (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, the wording of the contents of this section is outdated. Specifically, all of the bills mentioned as having been introduced by former Representative Maloney have expired. Bills that have not been passed expire at the end of a Congressional session. And Maloney is no longer even a member of Congress, as of Jan 3, 2023 (the end of the previous Congressional session,) so no bill she introduced is still active. As none of these bills passed or are still active, it would probably be good to replace everything from "In May 2015 Carolyn Maloney introduced..." through the end of the paragraph with something like "Former Representative Carolyn Maloney introduced bills in 2015, 2017, and 2019, but these also did not pass." Alternatively, the first sentence of the paragraph could just be updated to say ten consecutive Congresses instead of 7 with Maloney's bills added to the existing list. Vbscript2 (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection here. DN (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Excessive trivia and advocacy (clean-up banner)
Hi,, please discuss your specific recommendations or desired changes here, or per WP:BRD, feel free to make the desired edits and wait to see if any of them are reverted in which case we can circle back to this section to try and find some consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you,. Three of the sections amount to restatements of what could be one History section, but with divergent and excessive detail. I'll do my best to make the edits. Will also be adding relevant sources on latest effort by Biden Administration to change the definition of "in the business," which relates to the topic. User:Kamenev (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting back to the previous version with consensus per WP:BRD. So far, I'm not seeing much in the way of improvements here. It's been a few days and there hasn't been any additional changes to address the alleged "advocacy and trivia". For example, how does adding a non-neutral descriptor, such as "controversial", to the lead somehow "Neutralize the obvious advocacy"? This is not suitable for the lead, as it provides no informative value and is purely an opinion. Writing that the term is "meant to convey" advocacy for universal background checks instead of simply saying what the higher quality sources say, also seems to utilize SYNTH. You have seemingly increased advocacy for a non-neutral tone by writing... "Because the term is one of advocacy, it is often used in ignorance of the current state of federal gun law". The italicized portion you added is clearly not reliably sourced. I will leave the banner to encourage ongoing participation. DN (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding citations for "ghost gun loophole" - possibly for See Also and or spin off article
NYT Biden admin considering regulations on gun-parts, similar to finished products.

Guardian US implements new rule to close loophole on untraceable ‘ghost guns’

The Hill New Biden administration guidance closes ‘ghost guns’ loophole in federal rule...DN (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

bipartisan safer communities act updates
Some recent citations that may be DUE...I'm still not clear on what specific changes are made under this new law, if anyone is interested in helping to clarify that.

WaPo April 2024 " the Justice Department has finalized rules to close a loophole that allowed people to sell firearms online, at gun shows and at other informal venues without conducting background checks on those who purchase them." "The rules clarify who is required to conduct background checks and aims to close what is known as the “gun show loophole” — which refers to the reality that gun-show sellers and online vendors are subject to much looser federal regulations than vendors who sell at bricks-and-mortar stores."

ABC News April 2024 " It requires that anyone who sells guns for profit to have a license and that buyers be subject to a background check, including at firearms shows and flea markets. The administration had been working on the rule since last spring. Once publicized, it will take effect in 30 days

I've only gleaned a few notable bits here, but if anyone has sources with more detailed info as to how this relates to GSL, this would be a good place to discuss them.

Cheers. DN (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello! As you know, and as discussed in the article, under federal law, gun dealers are required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL).  When an FFL holder sells a firearm, they're required to do a background check of the buyer, using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).  By contrast, private sales, i.e. sales between individuals, do not require a background check under federal law (though some states do require it).  This is the so-called "gun show loophole".


 * Under the new rule, more people than before will be required to have an FFL if they want to sell any guns. Therefore the effect will be that there will be fewer gun sales conducted without background checks, thus significantly reducing -- some would say closing -- the "gun show loophole".  As the New York Times explained, "Dealers have previously been required to join the federal system only if they derived their chief livelihood from selling weapons. The bar is much lower now — the government has to prove only that they sold guns to "predominantly derive a profit" from their actions."  And as The Guardian noted, "Intra-family transfers of firearms, or occasional sales to enhance a collection, will not be presumed business transactions, a White House spokesperson said."


 * This is a very significant development and it definitely should be added to the article. If you look at the "Legislation" section you'll see that there's a paragraph about this from last year, when it was still in the planning stages, but now it's been implemented, and will take effect in less that 30 more days, apparently.  So that section could be updated, but, that's a subsection of the "Government studies and positions" section.  This has now moved well beyond studies and positions, so it should have a more prominent place in the article, in my view -- maybe in the "Provenance" section, maybe somewhere else.  I would also think it should be mentioned in the lead section.


 * — Mudwater (Talk) 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)