Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 5

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.), 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)

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


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


 * Which RS citation states that it's "dead wrong"? Did you find one? How and why did you come to the conclusion that "we should just go ahead and merge the page with Arms trafficking and be done with it."? Not that I think it's feasible at this point, but what purpose would that serve? I did find these...
 * Page 30 - http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/final.pdf - "The ATF's Phoenix Field Division reported that "many gun shows attracted large numbers of gang members from Mexico and California. They often bought large quantities of assault weapons and smuggled them into Mexico or transported them to California."
 * The Relationship Between Gun Laws and Gun Trafficking - http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100927-guns-report.pdf
 * "It is illegal for a gun trafficker to purchase guns from a private seller in a state that does not regulate such sales and sell them in another state. However, because private gun sellers have no obligation to assure that purchasers have passed a background check or to maintain records of the sale of their firearms, it would be incredibly hard to prosecute that trafficker for a gun later used in a crime, because there’s no evidence he transferred the gun to the criminal." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/03/why-expanding-background-checks-would-in-fact-reduce-gun-crime/
 * Floor Statement of sen. John McCain on Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - - page 2988
 * | Keeping guns out of the wrong hands
 * I think we should see what the other editors say, and see if we can find a consensus as to whether mention of intrastate sales has WP:Weight for the lead. I'm pretty sure one or more of these might already be in the body. Darknipples (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


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


 * With all due respect I find this a little confusing. You originally added it to the lead stating..."Added 'intrastate' - very important distinction. Adding it made the lead awkward, so I rephrased. Please feel free to rerework, but I feel it's important to keep 'intrastate' somewhere in the lead." 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
 * Let's see what everyone else thinks...Darknipples (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You didn't correct it. You made it go from correct to absolutely, 100% incorrect (in good faith), unless I'm completely misreading the point of the article.  The article is about legal sales without a background check or records, not about various kinds of illegal sales (e.g. straw purchases, arms trafficking, etc.).  Private interstate sales are illegal under federal law.  As to your examples: #1 - either intrastate or going through an FFL.  #2 - not a transfer.  #3 - Not a transfer.  #4 - Will be appealed, does not apply to private party sales.  Again, interstate sales of firearms legally require an FFL to be involved, keep records, and conduct background checks, and are therefore not part of the "gun show loophole."  Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, it looks like all we're disagreeing about is the scope of the term, rather than whether or not certain sales are illegal. Does the term "gun show loophole" apply to activity that is already illegal under federal law? Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This quote is taken from the Early Efforts Section of the article, and it may help to clarify why this is an important topic we should all discuss. "On November 6, 1998, U.S. president Bill Clinton issued a memorandum for the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General expressing concern about sellers at gun shows not being required to run background checks on potential buyers.[11] He called this a "loophole" and said that it made gun shows prime targets for criminals and gun traffickers." - Darknipples (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm only here cause you asked. You guys seem to like to argue more than edit. It ain't necessary to get into the definition to just explain the law briefly. I added "Private sales are only allowed between residents of the same state" to the intro. Do with it what you like. Anyone who reads the sources knows that private sellers don't put much effort into confirming the residency status of someone offering them cash. (Or their mental status, past convictions, discharge status, etc.) That's the whole point of closing the loophole. Felsic (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


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

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)
 * 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)


 * 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 [also described as “secondary transactions”] 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)

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
 * 2) Primary market - Licensed dealers (FFL holders)
 * 3) New - factory sourced firearms
 * 4) Complete firearms
 * 5) Incomplete (frames, etc.)
 * 6) Non-New (Used, pre-owned, etc.)
 * 7) Non-factory sourced firearms
 * 8) Collectible (antique, curio & relic, etc.)
 * 9) Incomplete (frames, etc.)
 * 10) Secondary market - Unlicensed private parties
 * 11) Non-factory sourced firearms
 * 12) Collectible
 * 13) Incomplete (frames, etc.)
 * 14) Illegal Sales/Transfer
 * 15) To Prohibited persons via Legal means
 * 16) 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)


 * Yes, federal law has not changed on the issue. See here.Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:03, 24 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 Wikipedia'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)

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)


 * , I think you and 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 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)


 * So this article and the UBC article are one and the same except for the time period covered? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. This article is about the gun show loophole and efforts to make all gun show sales - whether through a dealer or a private seller - go through a background check. In recent years, notably since the series of mass shootings in 2012, there has been less focus on the gun show loophole and more focus on making background checks universal - apply to all gun sales - whether through a dealer or a private seller - independent of venue. Universal background checks would apply to all sales, with a few exceptions. (As I understand it, for instance, it wouldn't apply to things like Dad giving Granddad's hunting rifle to his son. That kind of thing.) Although related, GSL and UBC are each notable topics in their own right. Kinda like assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Lightbreather (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've removed "and elsewhere" from the lead then.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:24, 24 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. 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)

, 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)


 * , having read up on the word "conflate," I don't see anything about it that would be uncivil or not AGF. I don't see any definitions that imply that it is deliberate, and I certainly did not mean to imply that.  However, going forward, I will try to stick to "confuse" instead.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I am merely going off of citations, specifically ones referring to ATF and law enforcement agency's comments concerning GSL. That being said, what is your position on GSL referring specifically to "prohibited buyers" as an "important distinction" in defining GSL? Darknipples (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think "prohibited buyers" has anything to do with the actual definition of the term. Not doing a BGC may lead to selling to a prohibited buyer, and is probably worth mentioning, but to me "GSL" refers to the seller's obligations or lack thereof.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:29, 24 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. Cullen328  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)
 * , 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. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * LB, the purpose of this TP is to determine if there is a NOTABLE distinction between buyers and sellers in regard to GSL. My theory is GSL refers to an issue with private buyers, more so, than private sellers. It is an attempt to help diffuse some of the issues by looking more closely at the citations. However, this topic seems to have been derailed by my failure to make this distinction in the title. Darknipples (talk) 03:07, 19 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. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * 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 (Talk) 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! . 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)

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)


 * (forgive me if I've left anyone out) See - - If you do not approve, and have not liked any of the suggested images so far, I ask that you please provide at least a single suggested image from Wikimedia Commons so that we can move forward towards a consensus. Darknipples (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the image in concept, but the fact that its entirely about illegal possession of firearms makes it unsuitable. Anything newer? Post 9/11 at least? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Scalhotrod, I encourage you to look through The Commons and present some possible alternatives. I don't mind the criticism, I want this to be a neutral image, so we need more of a group effort on this. Darknipples (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm too tired to keep dickering over an image. Let's go without an image for now and I will re-request a peer review. If the reviewer thinks it's essential that we find an image for the article, we can keep trying to find one. Lightbreather (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that image is appropriate for the article either. We should have an image of a private sale taking place at a gun show.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * FE, I don't want to read too much into what you're saying, so I'll just ask, are you saying you won't accept any image except one of "a private sale taking place at a gun show"? If so, please consider the logistics of obtaining such an image. I also ask that you go through Wikimedia Commons and see if you can find at least one acceptable image. Darknipples (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have a one-person veto, but yes, right now that's the only image I can imagine would accurately convey what we're talking about here. A photo of a private seller at a gun show (e.g. a man or woman with a gun slung over their back with a "for sale" sign on it) would also be appropriate.  The logistics would involve going to a gun show and taking a photo.  Apparently gun shows often prohibit photography, but I imagine someone would be able to go to one that doesn't, and get an image there.  I don't know whether there would be additional complications of getting the person to consent to having their picture taken - not sure what the relevant laws or Wikipedia policies would be.  And I've gone through the Commons.  Heck, I've gone through Google.  I agree that an image would be nice, but no image at all is better than an image that is inaccurate or misleading.   A good image would be something like the one here.  Might be better to have a gun legal in all 50 states (or at least all of the states where private sales at gun shows are legal), but I feel it would be a "good enough" image.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering that obtaining a person's permission to use their image (at a gun show) in a photo for use in a article about GSL is extremely unlikely, I think we will have to settle for one of a private seller's inventory. Could we all agree that something like this or this  is acceptable? The text in the image certainly helps to clarify, but it all depends on what is available, and what the sellers agree to. Keep in mind, I am doing this on my own time and at my own expense. Darknipples (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The first one seems of better quality. But on both, not sure about copyright issues. I've wondered if we couldn't email the Brady Campaign or some other group and see if they have any images they'd be willing to share. Lightbreather (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of any image that would be appropriate for this article. It therefore seems to me that it will be necessary to proceed without an image. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you are not aware of any image suitable for this article, would you be willing to try and find or agree on one? Please elaborate, as we are currently trying to come to a consensus on the current disputed image by specifying the context of the caption as per MOS...


 * "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals."
 * Darknipples (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As I've already said several times, it very much seems that the article will need to go forward without an image. As for coming to a consensus on the current disputed image, we already have, as many editors have agreed that the current disputed image is definitely not acceptable.  That's here in this talk page section, and also at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.  — Mudwater (Talk) 06:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As much as I hate to admit this, I'm not sure a suitable image may exist and the above suggestions don't seem terribly polished or encyclopedic. What if we use something more broad base like which is a very generic display of a gun show. We could include a caption like, "A typical U.S. gun show where licensed dealers and private buyers/sellers engage in firearms sales and transfers". Yes, no, or I'm still off my nut? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with trying to ask for permission, still, it seems easier and more likely for someone to obtain usable photos and use them under the guise of original content. Unless there are any similar photos like the one Scalhotrod is suggesting already in the Commons (I haven't found any) it's going to take some extra effort. Darknipples (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel bad about this image issue since I suggested one but later became convinced that it was not appropriate for this article since it portrayed the inventory of a federally licensed dealer and that is not the topic of this article. So, I apologize to any editor who was sidetracked by my suggestion.


 * Looking to the future rather than the past, it seems of little use to me to waste time talking about any hypothetical image on the internet which is not freely licensed. We can't use such images on Wikipedia, so why bother?


 * It is always nice to have images to illustrate articles, but they must either be properly licensed, or used under a proper fair use rationale (not applicable here). And they must illustrate the topic of article properly, not in a misleading way. So, in the end, it is better to have no image than a misleading image, or one that violates copyright. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Scalhotrod

Don't feel bad, you were making a good faith suggestion. Darknipples (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity's sake, is it the general agreement now that we don't currently have a usable image to use?(Hence the removal of the old image?) Capitalismojo (talk)
 * I don't know exactly how WP:NPOVN works, I'm only personally conceding the point that this image may be inappropriate, and therefore, it would seem we currently don't in my view. Darknipples (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, but doesn't Fair Use cover us using something like I suggested that does not identify individuals or any unique attribute if we can't find something already in Commons? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good question, Scal, I think it could be worth asking the community on Wikimedia Commons. From what I read, pre-existing internet images are generally unacceptable, though. Darknipples (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant sentence from the applicable guideline is "Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia." We all know that in theory soneone could take a good photo and freely license it. There are ten clearly defined cases where non-free images are permitted and this is not one of them. You can read that list of ten and the complete guideline at WP:NFCI. This is not a matter for Wikimedia Commons in any way since they deal only with freely licensed and copyright free images and media files. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:32, 27 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)

"Recent developments" section
This stuff is mislabeled. Most of it ain't "developments" - just opinions. Get rid of all the points of view and instead of that say what has actually happened recently - proposal voted down, changes in laws, criminal cases, whatever, but give us a break from the opinions of advocates. Felsic (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Put it this way, what should we get rid of, and or add to it, without losing balance from both sides or perspectives on the issue? Be specific and it will help further this discussion. Darknipples (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's meant to segue into Universal background checks, which deals more with the topic of private sale loophole (as opposed to gun show loophole). Maybe develop that article and then come back here and tweak "Recent developments"... possibly even rename "Recent developments" as "Universal background checks"? Lightbreather (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why change the title "recent developments" to "UBC"? It's too narrow and doesn't seem to allow for any current events that may be important to GSL such as  which is similar to what happened with FOPA in terms of changing how licensed and private sellers operate. See -  Darknipples (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion. The header should reflect the focus of the section. The point I was trying to make is, it might be time to work on UBC, and then finish this section. However, that's only a suggestion, too. But at this point in the article, we're kinda leaving the GSL focus, and moving into UBC/private sale loophole territory. This article should only touch on that, as UBC is the "main" article for it. Darknipples - please feel free to work on that article if you have material that is appropriate to it. Or the FOPA article, if you have material for that. You're as ready as you're going to be to spread your wings here. Lightbreather (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)