Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 6

Do interstate sales require FFLs to do a background check?
Please discuss and provide appropriate citations. Thanks. Darknipples (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you ask? Do you have any reason to doubt it? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the question in the title of this TP section may or may not depend on the individual state's laws, but I haven't found the relevant citation yet. FE did give us this . Darknipples (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I was saying to LB in the Recent Developments Talk Section, this may end up being NOTABLE, and or, DUE...  Darknipples (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to contribute to this discussion, but I'm trying to make sense of it first and to pinpoint exactly what the dispute is, so first step: I'm citing DN's may-end-up-being-notable-or-due links here:
 * So, same story. (I like the second better, if we cite it in the article.)
 * --Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, same story. (I like the second better, if we cite it in the article.)
 * --Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I don't feel any of these cites are fit for the article since they do not mention GSL, I was only referencing them as a means to help determine the "intrastate" issue, and as an example regarding the appropriateness of changing the title of the Recent Development Section to UBC. Darknipples (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

✅ This source may not be very encyclopedic, but it's good enough for me. Yes, all interstate sales require an FFL to preform a background check. The only possible exception is a "transfer" "Another exception is provided for transfers of firearms to nonresidents to carry out a lawful bequest or acquisition by intestate succession. This exception would authorize the transfer of a firearm to a nonresident who inherits a firearm under the will of a decedent. See 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5)." Darknipples (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Overview Section
With regard to scope on GSL I haven't found any citations stating it only refers to "intrastate" sales, only some that "imply" that it "generally" does. We do know that it applies to private sales, but this includes FFLs private inventories as well. If you look at the ref in the Overview section there is a citation for it, but it doesn't explicitly confirm this particular aspect. Darknipples (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it even more valid to ask you to provide a reliable source that says that the "gun show loophole" somehow applies to interstate sales? I have never read anything that even hints at that. Have you? But I admit that I am nowhere near as conversant with the literature as you are. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In regard to GSL's scope of intrastate VS interstate, while so far citations say it contributes to arms trafficking or small arms trade, which technically includes "illegal" interstate or international sales, it seems better just to remove the mention of "intrastate" for the time being, since there's nothing solid either way, rather than tagging it . I don't mean to go over "old ground", it's just that there didn't seem to be any consensus over it. I added intrastate in good faith, as per FE's request, and not on the basis of the citation that is referenced. Darknipples (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrase "gun show loophole" refers to the fact that, under federal law, a private seller does not have to do a background check of the buyer (although such a check is required by the laws of some states) -- right? Yes, therefore, "gun show loophole" only applies to intrastate sales.  Here's why.  (1) Under federal law, a private seller can only sell a firearm to a resident of their own state. See ATF - Firearms FAQ - Unlicensed Persons.  (2) An FFL is allowed to sell a rifle or shotgun, but not a handgun, to a resident of another state.  But, an FFL is required to do a background check (and keep a record of the sale) for any firearm sale.  See ATF - Brady Law. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that your use of the word "therefore" in relation to defining GSL (as only referring to INTRASTATE sales) seems to be WP:SYNTH or possibly WP:OR. As I stated previously, it does not matter whether a transaction is "legal" with regards to the SCOPE of GSL, since it is already established by RS citations that GSL contributes to "trafficking". Show me the citation that says it doesn't refer to interstate sales, or, a citation that says it only refers to intrastate sales, because we cannot just assume it. Darknipples (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is "gun show loophole"? Is it the fact that, under federal law, a private seller does not have to do a background check of the buyer?  If yes, then it only refers to intrastate sales, since those are the only sales that can be done by a private seller.  If you think that reliable sources show that the so-called loophole contributes to interstate trafficking, then go ahead and include that in the article, but that's what it contributes to, not what it is. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mudwater, this is already in the article. Private sales (without a background check) across state lines, from one unlicensed party to another, is trafficking in most, if not all, cases. When you find some citations that explicitly state your case, I'll be more inclined to agree with you. Darknipples (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mudwater, I forgot to point this out for you in my last comment. - "Judge rules federal interstate handgun transfer ban unconstitutional" Darknipples (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Reuters article is about sales by FFL holders, who are required to do a background check in any event. Private parties are still allowed to sell firearms only to residents of their own state, as referenced by the link I provided to the ATF website.  And that's my understanding of what "gun show loophole" refers to -- private sales, which, under federal law, do not require a background check.  — Mudwater (Talk) 01:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I see your point,, but let's look at a different citation...
 * "My research has shown that failure to require background checks for firearms sales by private gun owners is associated with significantly higher levels of guns diverted to criminals both in-state and out of state. See the research cited above on state universal background check laws, diversion to the illegal market, and trafficking."
 * "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." Darknipples (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me,, that this source conflates private sellers (innocent under current law) with traffickers (consciously aware that they are violating laws) and that calls the reliability of the source into question. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We can WP:RSN washingtonpost.com or "Daniel Webster, a leading expert on gun violence who is the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research"...if you feel their research is "conflating" private sellers with traffickers, if you like. Until then, I prefer to stand by this citation and the others like it (see article). All I did was remove "INTRASTATE" from the article, as per WP:SYNTH. In my (WP:AGF) view, most citations, already within the article, infer that trafficking and unlicensed private sales are NOT mutually exclusive. (added) In addition, I am also keeping WP:BALANCE in mind...Darknipples (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are the original citations I found in regard to the judge's decision to lift the interstate handgun sales/transfer ban. They didn't mention it only concerned FFLs.
 * Well, I certainly do not consider Breitbart a reliable source but even that crappy source uses the phrase "from a retail gun store" which certainly indicates an FFL as opposed to a private seller. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL!!! "crappy source"? While I tend to agree, many "pro gun rights advocates" I've had the pleasure of debating with, cite that source. Thanks for the heads up on that, though. I honestly did not put that "indication" together, as you so insightfully pointed out. It's all part of not trying to analyze the text as to avoid SYNTH. Duly noted though, I won't use that source again. As far as the other 2, can you see how and why I might have perceived it was not just about FFLs? Darknipples (talk)
 * Wading through the ads and surveys at the Washington Times website to get to the actual text, I see that they refer to an "out-of-state gun store", later referred to "a federally licensed firearm dealer." So, please explain how this ruling refers in any way to private sellers? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Ruling"? I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you want to RSN let's just do it, otherwise, I'm not in any position to try and "explain" their advertising methods or their "later" reference to an FFL. However, there are are still multiple cites, including ones already in the article, that infer (interstate & international) trafficking and GSL are "associated". If I may be blunt, what is it the objective you seek here, ? This talk page section is about "Overview" as it relates to the question "Do interstate sales require FFLs to do a background check?" Darknipples (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When I referred to a "ruling" I thought it was clear that I was referring to the judge's ruling in this specific case. Reviewing the Reason piece, the third source you cited, I see that it uses the word "interstate" at least five times. This federal court decision has to do with whether or not FFLs can sell handguns across state lines, like they are allowed to sell other firearms across state lines. It seems that this ruling has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic, the "gun show loophole". Except to the extent that, as John Muir said, "Everything in the universe is hitched to everything else." That observation, though profound, offers no guidance in building an encyclopedia.


 * My objective is simple, to keep the focus of this particular article on the topic of this specific article, the political term called the "gun show loophole". I will oppose attempts to expand this article to cover other topics like the interstate sales of handguns by FFLs, which in my opinion, does not fall under the purview of the "gun show loophole". To me, this whole discussion is indicative of the very sort of POV pushing that I dislike so much in this topic area.Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 [[User talk:Cullen328| ''Let's discuss

it'' ]] 07:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC) With regard to this single statement... On the contrary, I was under the impression that our opinions should be guided only by the relative, notable, RS citations as per WP guidelines. Everything else is seemingly WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I have provided a few cites here, but there are plenty more. I will have much more to say regarding your intentions and focus,, but I feel that this particular TP section may not be the appropriate place to encompass all of it. Not to mention, I am a bit intimidated, due to your status within the community and our considerable history. I will gather my thoughts and respond appropriately, ASAP. Darknipples (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ''"I will oppose attempts to expand this article to cover other topics like the interstate sales of handguns by FFLs, which in my opinion, does not fall under the purview of the "gun show loophole".
 * The talk page of an article is, it seems to me, the best and most appropriate place to discuss possible changes to the content of that article. I have expressed opinions regarding the sources you have furnished, informed by my understanding of policies and guidelines, as opposed to random, uninformed opinions. You can refer to synthesis and original research all you want, but I very much doubt that an experienced, uninivolved editor would criticize my interpretation on those grounds. As for my "status", I am just another moderately experienced editor here, not even an administrator, and as for our "considerable history", we have discussed a few things a few times, but I discuss things in much greater depth with many other editors. So I am not sure what you mean. My goal is the neutral point of view at all times, and therefore, I will oppose what I perceive to be POV pushers of any stripe, in any article, at any time. And I would expect no less of any editor who strives for respect here. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When you say...
 * "You can refer to synthesis and original research all you want, but I very much doubt that an experienced, uninivolved editor would criticize my interpretation on those grounds."
 * Do you mean that "experienced, uninvolved editors" should not use these guidelines to question yours, or any other editor's, interpretation "on those grounds"? If so, I feel I may have extremely misconstrued, or was extremely mislead, by WP guidelines, fundamentally speaking. I am extremely confused by this... I don't really consider myself an "experienced" editor, but I am a bit discouraged by your opinion of my "perceived" intentions. With regard to being "uninvolved" I am (what I consider to be) only one of the founders of this article. How "uninvolved" should I be? As far as POV pushing, I'll refer to WP:AGF and our personal TP's, . Darknipples (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a relative cite, from the Early Efforts section already in the article, that speaks specifically to gun trafficking by unlicensed & licensed sellers.
 * "Those concerned about the shows believed they were a source of illegally trafficked firearms." Darknipples (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Cullen, if I made you feel uncomfortable for trying to participate I sincerely apologize. Your perspective is certainly as valid as anyone else's, and I'm very sorry if I gave the impression that it wasn't. Darknipples (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a very kind thing to say,, and on that level, I appreciate it very much. But it is really not necessary, because this is just a transitory disagreement about one article. I am sure that you have noticed that we have 4.7 million of them. I love editing a wide range of them, especially the biographies of artists. I am going to edit some of those articles in days to come, because that is my true love here. Take care. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Private individuals (non FFL holders) may only transfer a firearm to residents of their state. All interstate transfers require an FFL
 * Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?
 * A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector. [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]


 * Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?
 * A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes. [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30] WeldNeck (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * here is one more, about as explicit as I could find.

"Under Federal law, an unlicensed individual is prohibited from transferring a firearm to an individual who does not reside in the State where the transferee resides. Generally, for a person to lawfully transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person who resides out of State, the firearm must be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the recipient’s State of residence. He or she may then receive the firearm from the FFL upon completion of an ATF Form 4473 and a NICS background check. More information can be obtained on the ATF website at www.atf.gov and http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html. The GCA provides an exception from this prohibition for temporary loans or rentals of firearms for lawful sporting purposes. Thus, for example, a friend visiting you may borrow a firearm from you to go hunting. Another exception is provided for transfers of firearms to nonresidents to carry out a lawful bequest or acquisition by intestate succession. This exception would authorize the transfer of a firearm to a nonresident who inherits a firearm under the will of a decedent. See 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5)." WeldNeck (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

→ Neither of these cites are referring to GSL, that is to say, an unlicensed person may still unknowingly sell a firearm without a background check to an non-resident of their state without breaking the law, as long as they have no reason to believe the buyer is prohibited. So far, I find this conclusion is based on WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, even if I am being accused of WP:POVPUSH for it. I also find your decision to put this in the lead without a proper citation premature at best. See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. If you feel these citations back this up, I will request WP:RSN (added- and or a WP:RfC) to have the final word. Darknipples (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If any individual were to sell a firearm to another individual who was not a resident of the seller's state without performing a background check and filling out an ATF form 4473 they would be in violation of the law. Not asking to see identification would not be an excuse. WeldNeck (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If we are talking about unlicensed "individuals", your statements would appear to be incorrect. -- Darknipples (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, you're still not getting a basic point that's been made here repeatedly and by several different editors: A private individual is not allowed to sell a firearm to another private individual unless they are residents of the same state.  I previously posted this, with a reference.  Here it is again, from the ATF website: Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - Unlicensed Persons. From FAQ #1: "Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?  [A:] A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law...."  If you google this yourself you can find more references for this important fact. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again, thats not true. Any individual selling a firearm to a resident of another state has to do it through an FFL. See above  an unlicensed individual is prohibited from transferring a firearm to an individual who does not reside in the State where the transferee resides. WeldNeck (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * WeldNeck, the citations regarding these laws aren't referring to GSL. I don't know how else to put it. Darknipples (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Where is GSL even mentioned in any of these citations? Where do they explicitly say GSL doesn't pertain to "interstate" commerce or "trafficking"? Where do they explicitly say GSL only refers to "intrastate" trafficking or commerce? As I've said many times, find an RS citation that explicitly backs up your claims and opinions, and I will happily agree with you. Respectfully -- Darknipples (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that the phrase "gun show loophole" means that, under federal law, when a private individual sells a firearm, they are not required to perform a background check of the buyer. Do you agree that that's what it means, and if not, what would you say it does mean? — Mudwater (Talk) 00:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe I've already asked you to answer some relevantly important questions,, so how about we tackle those first? I'll be happy to answer your question after you've answered mine. I hope that seems fair to you. Darknipples (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, thanks. You go first.  What is "gun show loophole"?  Does it mean that, under federal law, when a private individual sells a firearm, they are not required to perform a background check of the buyer?  And if not, what does it mean?  — Mudwater (Talk) 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This all seems rather unnecessarily quid pro quo. Do I at least I have your assurance that you will answer my questions, too? Darknipples (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No assurances. But I hope you will answer my question anyway.  — Mudwater (Talk) 01:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well then, in terms of achieving a productive discussion, I'd say your intentions seem to have rather a "one-way" agenda, and therefore, it is a moot point. Darknipples (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way, and I hope you will reconsider. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted, I hope you will reconsider, as well. Darknipples (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC) In the spirit of civil discourse, avoiding | WP:TE, and as a token of appreciation for your sincere apology, I feel there's no harm in answering your question. What stands out to me as a distinctive answer to what I think GSL is, exists in the lead... The rest is seemingly a matter of personal perspective, opinions, and details. Personally, I don't agree that selling to an unprohibited buyer without a background check represents the definition of GSL. I feel GSL essentially applies mainly to prohibited buyers. I think background checks help, and that everyone who wants one should have access to them. Whether it be federal, state, or local laws, it still essentially refers to "the law". Whether it is a perception held by GCAs or GRAs, it is essentially just a perception. Whether it is an unprohibited unlicensed citizen at a gun show, or, a licensed dealer selling "off the books" in a parking lot to a mentally ill non-citizen that actually resides in a different state, as long as the seller considers it to be a "legal private sale", I think it technically falls within the current scope of GSL. My point is, it doesn't matter what we think or what our opinions are, unless they are based on the appropriate citations and context regarding GSL, because it's about the article, not us. Darknipples (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "The loophole refers to a perceived gap in the law with regard to sales or transfers of firearms"


 * Except for one instance in the penultimate paragraph of the Early efforts section, I have removed the word "intrastate" from the article, which was not supported by sources. I suggest that if it's re-added, it be done so with sources that explicitly support its use, or take it to WP:RSN. Lightbreather (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. I think it's fair to say that, at this point, we don't completely agree about what the reliable, published sources say the "gun show loophole" actually is.  To summarize what I've said before, I think the reliable, published sources are referring to the fact that, under federal law, a private seller is not required to do a background check of the buyer.   Many sources also say that this makes it easier for prohibited persons to acquire firearms.  Part of this situation is that some states already require background checks for private sales, at gun shows or elsewhere.  Also, private sellers are only allowed to sell guns to residents of their own state, and FFL holders are required to do a background check for any sale.  Furthermore, "gun show loophole" is a bit of a misnomer, since it's not really a loophole, nor is it confined to gun shows -- though that doesn't preclude it from being a legitimate source of concern.  In conclusion, I think I'm good for now.  I'll comment further, or edit the article, if and when I think that would be appropriate.  And certainly I would encourage other editors to do the same.  Thanks again for the discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Private sale loophole and Universal background checks
I think the problems we're running into here would be diminished if we focus our attention for the time being on the Universal background check article. The problem is scope here. The gun show loophole was the focus of debate from the late 1980s until 2010-2011. After that, it started to shift toward the private sale loophole and universal background checks.

After working on the UBC article, we could return here and wrap it up. That's my suggestion. Lightbreather (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review 2
I have re-requested a peer review, even if we're still lacking an image, I'd still like some feedback. Lightbreather (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Obviously, this needs to be addressed.


 * "The loophole refers to a perceived lack of federal regulation with regard to sales or transfers of firearms between private sellers.[who?][citation needed]"
 * Perhaps we should remove it from the lead for the time being, until it gets sorted? The perception is by those that support further gun control measures (judging by multiple citation inferences). Darknipples (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we consider counting the number of references on either side of the issue and use it as a measure for BALANCE? Darknipples (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Scalhotrod added that, so unless he can cite it to one of the existing article sources, it should probably be removed, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a solid citable reference. "The perceived gap in the law is the source of a commonly used, albeit somewhat flawed term — "the gun-show loophole"." It doesn't explicitly state "who" in the context of the statement, so I'll leave that up, but I feel the answer to this question is still fairly obvious. Darknipples (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This ref...


 * "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has said that this contributes to illegal activities, such as arms trafficking, purchases of firearms by prohibited buyers, and straw purchases."
 * Seems to be in the lead, the overview, and early efforts. I think taking it out of the lead or the overview would help clean up any unnecessary repetitiveness. Darknipples (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , it looks like we agreed. Ha.  I just did that and then came to the talk page and read this.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just trying to reflect our conversations here. But having the "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)..." sentence as the second is still WP:UNDUE and prejudicial. The GSL has to with private sales and transfers. It should not be inferred that many or most of this activity is illegal in nature when we do not have that data. Having a statement from the primary government entity that regulates the commerce that is almost entirely about illegal activities is just misleading. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * How is it inferred that "many or most of this activity is illegal in nature"? The reference and citation seem DUE according to pages 6,7,8, and 9 of . "Nevertheless, the information obtained from the ATF investigations demonstrates that criminals are able to obtain firearms with no background check and that crime guns are transferred at gun shows with no records kept of the transaction." are referring to GSL. Not to mention this "The report concluded that although most sellers at gun shows are upstanding people, a few corrupt sellers could move a large quantity of firearms into high-risk hands.[10]:17" is also the body. It seems relevant in defining GSL, along with all the stuff already in the lead from gun rights advocates. Darknipples (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying just look at the context of that sentence with regard to the rest of the Lead. We have no data on the total numbers of private sales or transfers, nor do we know how many are made to prohibited people, but yet it seems OK to the second sentence of the article declare that the GSL is responsible for "arms trafficking, purchases of firearms by prohibited buyers, and straw purchases" without ANY additional explanation. You're telling me that's not WP:UNDUE or biased or POV in any way? The use of the word "could" in that above statement alone makes it speculative, not definitive. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, where does it suggest "most" or "many"? Darknipples (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The placement of the sentence infers an emphasis (with regard to "most" or "many") that is no where else in the article. I tried to move it to another paragraph within the Lead, but it was reverted. I don't know how else to make the significance of the sentence and the WP:UNDUE impact of its placement any more clear. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I still don't see how placement infers, let alone implies, "most" or "many". Could you elaborate via WP guidelines? Not only that, the sentence clearly states "contributes to illegal activities". The cited ref is also in the Early Efforts section, as well as the Overview. If anything should be removed from the lead, I would say it's the opinions by both sides. Shouldn't they be limited to the body, first? They are only in the lead because of previous editor's demands, as per an alleged POV violation. Darknipples (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe this diff will help make this more clear. Darknipples (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think if the peer reviewer thinks it's undue, we should deal with that then. We've gone around about it enough that an outside pair of eyes is warranted. Lightbreather (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

you've asked me several things here and quite honestly I'm not sure where this discussion stands at this point. I think we've made progress here on the Talk page with the understanding we've all reached in what this topic "does" and "does not" apply to. So with that in mind, I'm going to step away for a bit because I feel that its become far more contentious of a subject that either Lightbreather or myself should be involved given our Topic ban and the discretionary sanctions in place on Gun Politics articles. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Results of the peer review
The peer review is complete. Thanks to for their time. Lightbreather (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The only part I'm not sure about is putting citations in the lead. Normally, I don't like to clutter up the lead. However, this is a controversial topic, so it might be advisable. We definitely need a citation for the "The loophole refers to a perceived gap..." sentence, which is currently in the lead, but not in the body. (Everything else currently in the lead is supported in the body.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - I added a citation for it. Darknipples (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that citation supports the statement without WP:SYNTH. Lightbreather (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "The perceived gap in the law is the source of a commonly used, albeit somewhat flawed term — “the gun-show loophole.”" - Doesn't look like WP:SYNTH to me. Am I missing something? Darknipples (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected! Lightbreather (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Where can we find the info on the peer review? Would this paragraph be more appropriate in the Overview? I am also wondering if this sentence.."The loophole refers to a perceived gap in the law with regard to sales or transfers of firearms between unlicensed private citizens"...may be a better a better candidate for the Overview Section as well. Aren't articles better with less stuff in the lead or is that just my personal delusion? ;-) Darknipples (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow your opening question? Did you follow the link and read the review? Lightbreather (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Gun control article leads are often longer than they should be, IMO, as advocates try to get their materials showing, or to keep the other side's material from showing, in search results... those precious few sentences that might be the only thing the reader reads. My observation? WP gun control articles often try to get the "right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment" language in the lead paragraph. :-(
 * Read WP:LEAD. Lightbreather (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as including "less stuff" in the lead,, there should be nothing in the lead which is not also in the body of the article. The lead should summarize all the main points (and exclude the minor details) in the body of the article. So, if the article as a whole summarizes what the range of reliable sources say about the topic, so too, the lead should summarize the article. A reader in a hurry should be able to read just the lead, and come away with a basic overview of the topic. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the Second Amendment, that is what it says and the courts have interpreted it as an individual right. No need to hammer those facts home, and no need to belittle them with frowning emoticons. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the 2A, but with the editorial push to place it in the lead, especially the lead paragraph, of every gun related article - against NPOV. Lightbreather (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

To do list
✅ The second sentence in the lede should have a citation; currently, the sentence says that the loophole refers to a perceived lack of federal regulation with regard to sales or transfers of firearms between unlicensed private citizens, but doesn't say from where that information was found.

✅ A citation is needed at the end of the sentence referencing the 1999 report by the ATF.

✅ Consider putting the information about what the gun control advocates and gun rights advocates want in one paragraph – I don't see a reason why these would need to be separate. I would strongly recommend citing those claims as well.


 * Can you name and/or cite the seven gun show loophole bills that were introduced in the U.S. House and Senate between 2001 and 2013?


 * Adding a citation after the claim that some states do require background checks while others don't would be good, too.

✅ The alternate names for the loophole (found in "Overview") should probably be mentioned in the lede.

✅ Consider breaking up the information under "Early efforts" into subsections so that it doesn't read as one large block of text.

"Great job linking to main articles throughout the text and in the "See also" section. Well-sourced in the main part of the article." "Overall, I think the article has some really good information. I would recommend you check out WP:MOS and MOS:ACCESS" - from peer review by MJ94

Darknipples (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Notable Events
, with regard to your recent | diff, what made you feel this cite was not relevant to GSL in the context of this paragraph and or section? I ask because removing cites that are DUE, only hurts the article.

Let's examine the cite here...
 * (title) "Virginia Ends a Loophole in Gun Laws"
 * (GSL mentions) "Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia closed a loophole Monday in the state’s gun laws that allowed a mentally disturbed Virginia Tech student to buy the guns used in a shooting rampage that left 33 dead at the university on April 16." "Efforts by Virginia lawmakers to close this gun-show loophole have been repeatedly blocked by gun-rights advocates."

The context in the reference you removed...
 * "Two weeks after the massacre, Virginia governor Tim Kaine signed a law to close the loophole at gun shows within the state."

Your edit summary...
 * "Citation describes addition of mental health records to background check database, not prohibition of private sales"

What does the irrelevant context have to do with removing the relevant content applied from the citation? Nowhere in the GSL article applied aspects of the reference or the citation is there a mention of "prohibition of private sales" or "addition of mental health records" in reference to this citation. Darknipples (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article talks about the addition of mental health records to the NICS database, not expanding the types of transactions that require background checks and/or records. Private sales are still legal in VA.  It's a good source for the NICS article, but not relevant here. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The article citation talks mainly about GSL (see title). Unless this cite does not talk about GSL, it belongs here regardless of it's relevance to NICS. Is there any reason it can't be relevant to both? Darknipples (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It does not talk about GSL. It's describing the addition of mental health records to the NICS database.  Paragraphs 1-9 describe the governor's actions.  Paragraphs 10 & 11 are the NYT adding additional background.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Darknipples (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Governor Kaine added additional mental health records to the database used when background checks are performed. He did not require that additional types of transactions require background checks/records.  Not all references to "loopholes" in gun laws relate to private sales.  The sentence "Two weeks after the massacre, Virginia governor Tim Kaine signed a law to close the [gun show] loophole at gun shows within the state." is false.  Private sales are still legal in Virginia.  See here (7th question down, "What are the laws concerning the private sale of a handgun?").  Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * FE, your definition of what is in the SCOPE of GSL is what I have an issue with...I need some time to collect myself. I suggest you examine the context without SYNTH while I do so. I will respond when I am more levelheaded. Darknipples (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If I understand the situation above correctly, it has been pointed out that Governor Kaine did not "sign a law to close the gun show loophole at gun shows within the state," which is how the disputed text in the article was phrased. What he did was sign an executive order that prohibited the sale of guns to anyone with mental health issues that had been found to be dangerous. The order had nothing to do with the gun show loophole per se, but that doesn't necessarily mean the information has to be excluded. Perhaps the solution here is to just rephrase the incorrect text to make it accurate? Would that be an acceptable compromise for those concerned? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's even more basic than that. Prior to the executive order (press release here), the state just wasn't asking for all of the information it should have been asking for.  They only asked for inpatient involuntary commitments, not outpatient as well.  His executive order just made sure that information was available when running the background check.  So the sales were already prohibited, it's just that a background check wouldn't have shown that.  So I don't feel it's notable in this article (though it's absolutely notable in the NICS article).  Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * FE, I still think the kind of logic you're using here is WP:SYNTH. We aren't supposed to analyze the context, we're just supposed to take it at face-value, for the most part. Not only that, the source you are referring to makes no mention of GSL. This is a pattern that suggests SYNTH. I suggest we take this to WP:RSN to see if it is a worthy cite reference, as I do not see us coming to an agreement here. We aren't supposed to "rephrase" as  suggested, because again, it encroaches the possibility of SYNTHESIS. Another possible solution is to find a better cite reference to replace it, instead of just removing RELEVANT information. I feel these are our only choices. Since, I think  is the one that added it, I'd like to know what she thinks. Darknipples (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , the loophole in the NYT reference you're talking about is not the same loophole that is defined in the article. Although the same language - "loophole" - is being used in this article and that reference, the meanings behind the word is different. In other words, this article and that reference define loophole differently. The article defines the loophole as involving private sellers not having to do background checks, while the reference defines loophole as any seller not selling to the mentally ill. They're completely different loopholes. By including the statement and this citation in this article, you're saying the loopholes are defined the same way and that's WP:OR since they are defined differently. I see you added the sentence back to the article and suggest you remove it pending further discussion. Ca2james (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * When you put it that way,, it makes sense. Sorry if I misunderstood your issue, . I guess the SYNTH was actually what you removed, and correctly so. Please accept my apologies. Darknipples (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad I could help clarify this. Sometimes it's easier for someone uninvolved to see the issue more clearlyclearly and I'm happy to help. Ca2james (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries, all's well that ends well. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * FE, this directly references GSL. As far as the other content, I still think it should go to RSN. Let me know if you still disagree that it's relevant and I'll do the rest. Darknipples (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

This was changed under FOPA, but I'll keep digging to find some better sources...
 * UNITED STATES CODE CONGRESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE NEWS - 99th Congress-Second Session 1986 Volume 4 - legislative history - public laws 99-272 Cont’d to 99-449 (page 11) - "Determining Who Needs A License" – A feature with major impact is the change in defining who is required to obtain a license as a dealer, manufacturer or importer. This is an area that has many who use firearms very upset. Persons who are “engaged in the business” of manufacturing, importing, or buying and selling firearms are required to obtain a license. S. 49 and H.R. 945 define “engaged in the business” in terms of “the principal objective of livelihood and profit” whose underlying intent is “predominantly one of obtaining a livelihood and pecuniary gain” (emphasis added) (S. 49, sec. 101(6), pages 3-5) and 102(1); H.R. 945, sec. 101(6)). This definition, which does not follow the case law, is likely to have a serious weakening effect on GCA. Current law permits ordinary firearms owners to sell their firearms but not to “engage in the business” of selling firearms without a license. These provisions expand the number of persons who can engage in firearms transaction or importation without needing a license or having to comply with the record keeping requirements of the law. http://harrislawoffice.com/content/areas_of_practice/federal_firearms/legislative_history/FOPA%20House%20Report%2099-495.pdf -- Darknipples (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

| National Rifle Ass'n v. Brady, 914 F.2d 475 (4th Cir. 1990) Section II - Sub-Section C
 * "Prior to the passage of FOPA, licensed firearms dealers were required to record the sale or other disposition of firearms held in both their business inventories and their personal collections. See United States v. Endicott, 803 F.2d 506, 510-11 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Currier, 621 F.2d 7, 9 (1st Cir.1980).  Initially, FOPA altered this scheme by providing that, with respect to their personal collections, licensees need only comply with those restrictions applicable to any other person who disposes of a firearm.  The statute read as follows:


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


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


 * So the paragraph I copied to the top of this discussion belongs in the "Background" section? (It's not a recent development?) Lightbreather (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, unless you consider 1986 "recent". ;-) Darknipples (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From since the dawn of time, yes, recent. In relation to the topic, no. I will try to work it into the "Background"section. Lightbreather (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest?;
 * "Their efforts included reversing a key feature of the Firearm Owners Protection Act by requiring criminal background checks and purchase records on private sales at gun shows. Since the law's passage in 1986, gun shows have become prolific in the United States. The enactment of FOPA also made it legal for FFLs to make "private sales" in the United States, provided the firearm was transferred to the licensee's private collection at least one year prior to the sale. Hence, when a personal firearm is sold by an individual who also happens to hold an FFL, no ATF Form 4473 is required." Darknipples (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


 * As I shared less than a week ago, WP:PRIMARY says: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.


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


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


 * Do you, in fact argue that these government publications are secondary? Because in Wikipedia's guide to identifying primary and secondary sources government proclamations are the example and pinnacle of primary sources. I have never seen them not described as primary. What is your theory that these are not primary? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The essay Identifying and using primary and secondary sources gives as an example a proclamation of victory as a primary government document. The sources in the background paragraph that was added to our article are 1) A joint report by two offices using data from a third office, and 2) A joint report by two offices with a 24-item bibliography. I am going to restore the paragraph that you removed. If you want to add material using equally RS, please feel free, but please make sure it's duly weighted. Lightbreather (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


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


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


 * Not only did Congress reject that three-step plan, but in 1986 it passed the NRA-supported Firearms Owners` Protection Act (FOPA). Among its many key reforms, FOPA amended the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 to reduce burdens on gun dealers and record-keeping on gun owners. First, FOPA allowed federally licensed firearm dealers to do business at gun shows. (Until then, a dealer could only operate at the address on his license.) Second, FOPA ended abusive prosecutions of gun collectors by making clear a person does not need a license to occasionally sell firearms to reduce or improve a personal gun collection. And third, FOPA eliminated the GCA`s record-keeping requirement on sales of handgun ammunition. (For more on that issue, see p. 50.) During the Clinton administration, however, two developments gave gun control supporters new hope of reducing gun sales...That`s why, in the 1990s, anti-gun groups and politicians began claiming a so-called "gun show loophole" gives criminals "easy access" to guns by letting people other than dealers sell guns at shows without running their transactions through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). To be sure, it`s not a "loophole," because FOPA made clear no license is required... https://www.nraila.org/articles/20100121/the-war-on-gun-shows -- Darknipples (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Who’s Behind The Table? At shows, you’ll find guns on the tables of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and private individuals. Before 1986, most with guns at their tables at shows were collectors, selling a few items from their personal collections, as FFLs were prohibited from conducting business at shows. The 1986 McClure-Volkmer Firearms Owner Protection Act allowed FFLs to conduct business at other locations, and FFLs started attending shows--the vast majority of tables with guns on them at major shows are run by FFLs--all following the same laws by which they abide at their licensed places of business....'What “Loophole”? Anti-gunners call private individuals who sell a few guns from their personal collections--their personal property--the so-called “gun show loophole.” What some refer to as a “loophole” is actually federal law.'" - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20091001/the-truth-about-gun-shows-1


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * The Gun Show Loophole - The term “gun show loophole” is often used to describe the fact that federal law allows private sellers to sell firearms without background checks or record-keeping....In its 1999 report, ATF concluded that 30 percent of guns involving federal illegal trafficking investigations are connected to gun shows. ATF reported that the gun show loophole creates an environment where criminals can easily and anonymously purchase firearms from private sellers:... ATF has also observed illegal activity by licensed dealers at gun shows: “unscrupulous gun dealers can use these free-flowing markets to hide their off-the-book sales. While most gun show sellers are honest and law-abiding, it only takes a few to transfer large numbers of firearms into dangerous hands.” Research has suggested that certain FFLs may be more likely to violate background check requirements and participate in straw sales at gun shows than in retail stores, in part because of the competition they face from private sellers. According to ATF, 34 percent of trafficking investigations connected to gun shows involved licensed dealers that participated in straw sales, sold guns without a background check, and sold to out-of-state residents, among other illegal business practices. -- Darknipples (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Using non-primary source refs is excellent! Well done. As I had indicated, there is no need to do research in government online archives to reference information in an active policy area. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

- Please discuss your issue with this | diff here, please. Darknipples (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. You falsely claimed that private sales required background checks due to FOPA.  No. Not true. Even the cites you give do not say this. The first cite says, -- Gun-control advocates campaigns in Colorado and Congress to close the gun-show loophole, begun in response to Columbine, aim to reverse a key feature of the 1986 law by requiring criminal background checks and purchase records on private sales at gun shows. -- But, the campaigns were not successful. Their aim was to require private sales background checks.  But, they failed.  Stating they were successful, when they were not, is a false statement.  I was simply removing the false statement and the two cites that do not support the false statement that was made.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


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

3.6.15
Let's talk it out here, where there's are already some discussion. Darknipples (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

1. In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), which permitted licensed firearm dealers to conduct business at gun shows.According to the Council on Foreign Relations and a news report posted on the National Center for Policy Analysis' website, gun control advocates maintain that the gun show loophole appeared and was codified in FOPA. 

(Removes) (Added) - "permitted licensed firearm dealers to conduct business at gun shows"
 * "relaxed controls in the GCA."
 * "Licensed firearm dealers were allowed to sell at gun shows."

2. An unlicensed person is prohibited by federal law from transferring, selling, trading, giving, transporting, or delivering a firearm to any other unlicensed person who they know or have reasonable cause to believe does not reside in their State or is prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms. 

(Added) - "or is prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms."

So far, I think adding and removing *"Licensed firearm dealers were allowed to sell at gun shows." "permitted licensed firearm dealers to conduct business at gun shows" kind of cancels each other out. Adding ""or is prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms." is correct.

I'll have to look at the cites, but so far the only issue I have is with removing "relaxed controls in the GCA." - I'll revert my diff and just leave that part out re-add that part for now, so we can discuss it and the cites. Darknipples (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

the only issue with this cite [ is that it does not mention GSL. I don't have a problem with what it says, but can we find one that at least mentions GSL? The other thing we need to look at is this cite . The reference regarding GSL and FOPA is here...
 * "In 1986, Congress loosened several controls it had established in the GCA. The stated purpose of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) was to ensure that the GCA did not "place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law abiding citizens,"but it opened many loopholes through which illegal gun traffickers can slip." Darknipples (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the word "relaxed" is preferable to "loosened". It does not infer or imply "across the board" but will try to specify, bu. I've added the second sentence, as it is relevant to GSL, and states a balanced interpretation of the DUE information. Darknipples (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel the Cornell law link is about as good as it gets for references - the section is about the current state of federal law, after all. I'm going to add it back in.  And I'm fine with "certain" controls.  I just didn't want to imply that FOPA relaxed controls across the board - it did contain the machine gun ban.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * you are right, it is an excellent looking source. The only problem, that I can see, is that it doesn't mention GSL. I doubt it will hurt our next peer review, but please keep in mind that it could be an issue because of this. I won't remove it, because I understand and agree with the nature and context of the reference, and I AGF, but someone else might remove it on those grounds alone. In this context, I will back you up on it, but chances are there's already a more relative cite, possibly already in the article, that states it's connection to GSL explicitly. No worries, we'll cross this bridge when we come to it. Darknipples (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

3.9.15 Vote for image
I have added images to Wikimedia Commons in the "gun show" category. Feel free to look them over. There are about nine in total, of private seller's inventories. Each seller gave their permission for the photo. I feel this one is probably the best choice, but a consensus would be ideal. Please Support or Reject. I will wait a few days to give everyone some time to have a look. Also, I've never uploaded an image to the article on my own, except to cut and paste, so feel free to add instruction with your comments. Darknipples (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support (Desert Eagle 44 mag. private sale glass case 1) Lightbreather (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to all the images DN uploaded: . Lightbreather (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks DN. They're all great. So far, I like this one best:

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I like your "Rifles 3 and a half".Rifles 3 & half.JPG This one, "Desert Eagle", raises more questions than I can answer. First question, this private dealer seems to be advertising full auto AK-47s. That certainly doesn't fall into the category of "gun show loophole". I am surprised the ATF hasn't arrested the guy, actually. If we use it here we visually imply people can buy machineguns via the gunshow loophole. FWIW. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's an issue we can also crop or alter the image. Specifically, it says "drill plate", so I'm not sure how it implies they are advertising a "fully automatic AK-47"? Let's just try and take the image at face value, please. it looks like they're advertising a "trigger set" as opposed to an actual "Fully Automatic AK-47". Darknipples (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am adding Felsic to the pinged editors as he has been involved in editing this article in the last month or two, too. Lightbreather (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Lightbreather (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My most sincere commendations to for adding this group of photos to Commons. Well done. All are worthy of a view and most could illustrate this article well. I oppose use of the image of the sale of AK-47 fully-automatic conversion parts, as that may show some sort of violation rather than a loophole. But it is a powerful image. I will back the consensus that emerges from this discusssion.Thanks again. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  06:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a cropped version that eliminates and obscures the background issues. . Darknipples (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seller holding rifle.JPG This is the one that I consider the best. It has motion as if a sales presentation is in process, a variety of weapons, and the human element. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the cropped pistol one, but I'd prefer if it was cropped a little more to remove as much of that "full auto" ad as possible. I like the Rifles 3 & half one as well, but prefer the pistol one if its cropped more. Wow, I haven't seen a Calico in ages, the rifle on the far right.


 * I'm glad you like the pics, as it was no easy task in obtaining and tweaking them. I feel that the cropped picture obscures enough of the "AK" material and puts the focus on article's intended content without losing quality of composition. Feel free to tweak them further, however. I recommend Windows Photo Gallery, as it is free and has a capable cropping utility, among other abilities. I think we should also consider 's suggestion. It has the elements of an actual private sale, as they suggested. Darknipples (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm partial to Cullen's take on the picture showing the seller holding out the AK rifle, as if offering it to a potential buyer. The human element is valuable in framing the context of a person-to-person sale. The Desert Eagle photo is also a very close runner-up since it contains the words "private sale" in the bottom left hand corner of the post-it note in the image. The concern over the "AK-47 Full Auto" is probably justified, hence we should either 1) crop it or 2) blur that portion (just the red text at the top of the paper, as the black text at the bottom is fine in its full context). Another idea that strikes me is that we don't necessarily have to settle on a single image. In the same way that assault weapon has multiple images, maybe we should consider putting more than one image into the GSL article? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the cropped DE photo (cropped beyond where it is now to remove all mention of "full auto") or the AK photo. I'm a little weirded out though - a lot of the images appear to be of the inventory of one or two sellers, both of whom appear to be "engaged in the business" of firearm sales, and should therefore have FFLs... However, both the DE photo and the AK photo are narrow enough to avoid the issue.  DN, thanks for procuring these.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - I decided to try and re-crop as per your specifications. I was worried it would hurt the clarity and composition, but I think it's OK. What do you think? Darknipples (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * FE, the way the tables were set up, many of the different sellers were side-by-side, to maximize space. FFLs typically had their own sections for the most part, but many of them were also selling personal firearms in addition to retail weapons etc. I don't feel the need to go into it too much here, but I can tell you ATF and local law enforcement were present, and all federal, local, and state laws were followed to the letter in the state the show was held. For that matter, a private unlicensed person selling "fully auto AK-47 trigger parts" is perfectly legal there, though it may not be appropriate for the article's image. Darknipples (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes a lot more sense now, thank you! In that case, I'd be okay with the "3.5 rifles" picture too, if the caption was able to convey that. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm still partial to the pistol pic, although I would have just cropped the right side and left the rest of the image. Personally I wouldn't worry about keeping it "square" or "uniform" in shape. The 3.5 Rifle image works too. What worries me is the 3rd image with the AK style rifle, I'm not an expert in the area, but there are a few too many items resembling those from the WW2 Nazi era like the helmet and the boot knife. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If it helps, that helmet isn't from the Wehrmacht, nor are the knives connected to Nazi Germany. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, good, thanks! It took a while to apply Godwin's law, but it happened... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * it's cool that we've gone from having no picture to having two or three that are suitable. Let's pick one for the top plus one or two others for elsewhere in the article. Again, good job DN. Lightbreather (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think one of them should be good for Universal background check, as well. I'm not totally against using the same one(s) for both articles but I think we should talk about it (at UBC) with the editors here that are involved there. There are certainly other articles (present and future) that could use them as well. Just a thought for everyone involved to consider. Darknipples (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with all of the images. The revised pistol is fine now. I appreciate the idea of having seller holding out a rifle, but... meh. They are all good. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Once we pick an image, we should include Editors notes in the article and here on the Talk page for future Editors so they understand how and why we arrived at this image. I'm sure somebody might not like it or disagree with its selection in the future, but we should do what we can to provide the background on the selection. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

3.13.15
So, now that I have obtained the images, and tweaked, and so on, I'd still like to try and find a consensus, or, at least a "majority vote" on which image best represents the "whole" of the article (pun intended). I realize it may be a tough choice, in which case, you may abstain from voting...My point is, we need to come to an agreement to some extent. I suggest you list your Support under one of the three images suggested thus far.

I think it best to let whichever image receives the majority of votes be the flag-ship GSL image. Then, we can focus on finishing the "To Do List" and hopefully submit for a final peer review and obtain "Good Article" status. Something we can all be proud of. (Aside from that) If we want to include a second image, I suggest that it should be for the "Recent Developments" section, so that Universal background check can use that for their flag-ship image, and create some kind of continuity and flow between "gun politics" articles. However, we can vote on that in the next Talk Page Section, so to keep things orderly and focus on progress here, let's get this done in the next few days.


 * 1. DE "Private Seller Note"
 * Second choice - Was my first choice, but it's fuzzier cropped. Lightbreather (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - To me, based on my personal experiences at gun shows (granted in California where its far more restrictive), this is the best representation since it involves the most "neutral firearm" of the set. Plus before the whole assault weapon thing came into prominence in the media, pistols were the focus. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 2. Private Seller "Holding Rifle for Sale"
 * Support - Darknipples (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First choice - Lightbreather (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 3. 3.5 Rifles "Pre-Owned"
 * Second choice - It's generic to all but the most firearms knowledgeable. In short, it looks "non-professional" (meaning private person versus a licensed dealer) so its an acceptable choice for this article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination, and thanks to all
I have nominated the article for GA status. I want to thank everyone who worked so hard on this -, , , , and especially , whom I believe worked the hardest. (Thanks especially for procuring good images for us, DN.) This really was hard, but I'd like to see more gun politics articles get GA status, so that Wikipedia readers can feel confident that they truly are reading properly balanced, NPOV articles on the subject. Lightbreather (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate the sentiment, but it certainly was a team effort. With this nomination in mind, we still have 2 things left on the "To Do List"...
 * Can you name and/or cite the seven gun show loophole bills that were introduced in the U.S. House and Senate between 2001 and 2013?


 * Adding a citation after the claim that some states do require background checks while others don't would be good, too.
 * Darknipples (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe that although everything that's in a review should be considered, not everything needs to be acted upon. The bills are a good example. Considering how hard it was to get some editors to even mention that there were seven congresses that tried to pass gun show loophole bills, I don't think adding more details would be a good idea. Also, perhaps the review missed it, but there are links to the bills in the "Legislation" section. The other item, we can see what we can find, but it's not a controversial claim, so I don't think WP:V is critical in this case. Lightbreather (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why not go ahead and source it? The only problem is that it would look a bit strange adding 7 cites at the end of a single sentence - is it okay to make it all one "ref" and have 7 links off of that ref?  Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: I don't think necessary citations are missing from the article body, so the question is whether or not they're needed in the lead. I don't believe they're required in the lead if they're in the body. Some like to add citations to the lead, others don't because it clutters it up. I'm divided, myself. When it's a controversial subject, citations in the lead are probably more advisable, since someone might come along later and delete something later if it's not obvious that the citation is in the body. Lightbreather (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Older RFC now closed
The older RFC in the archives has now been closed. AlbinoFerret 13:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)