Talk:Gun shows in the United States/Archive 1

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

If nobody says otherwise in a few days, I'll assume either folks are in agreement or nobody cares enough. Then I'll go ahead and do it. Thernlund 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Thernlund 06:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Loophole verbage
Not wanting an edit war. I just thought some restructureing was in order. Some of it was a tad weird to read. Even now, I think one or two sentences are a bit run-on. Gotta think on that.

The whole adult thing... seems to me non-adults fall into the prohibited possesor category. Does the word "adult" really need to be mentioned? Maybe even the word citizen is a bit wrong. Non-citizen can buy firearms legally. Might change it in a minute.

In the second paragraph I put the "However" back. I do so because the paragraph is in a point/counter-point sort of format. I also saw you removed "yet". Proabably a good call. It's presumptuous, I suppose, to assume that it will one day be tested. I instead put in "to date". Thernlund 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Made some refinements. I added the law box.  Too much?  Seems like it belongs as the section is sort of pointed at a perceived loophole in the law (even thought, arguably, one doesn't exist).  Thernlund 19:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Gun show "loophole" question - Copied from User talk:Yaf
Copied from User talk:Yaf.


 * I don't get this: Another concern is the possibility that a gun dealer could pose as a private seller to circumvent federal law requiring dealer licensing and mandating background checks of firearms purchasers. However, the threshold (number of guns) that differentiates a dealer from a private seller has to date not been tested in U.S. courts.


 * Determining who's a dealer and who's not is trivial--if they're a dealer, they have an FFL and make you fill out a 4473 for a purchase; if they do not, then they aren't a dealer. The grey area I think you're referring to is what constitutes in the business, which is the condidtion that requires an FFL.  You could sell off a hundred guns at a gun show and not be in the business if, for example, you were liquidating a collection.  You could buy and sell dozens of guns a year, for a profit, and still not be in the business if the profits were not a significant part of your income.  You are in the business if you have the principal objective of obtaining livelihood through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.  There is no settable limit for that, as it depends on the intent of the individual, which must be individually determined.  Source: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=70  scot 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a good point I suppose. So the determining factor is not, and likely never will be, quantity.  So how to word it?  I think it's a valid concern (dealers circuventing the FFL requirment), and as such think the paragraph should stay.  But as you point out, the acid test won't be quantity of sales.  Let me see if I can think of something.  Ideas?   Thernlund (Talk 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

See here for the original. Thernlund (Talk 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording. It's rough I think, and that first sentence is long. See what you think. Thernlund (Talk 20:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Quantity is irrelevant and so is Federal Firearms Status. The US Government does not have the power to regulate INTRASTATE transactions in firearms that do not go through the US mail.  Selling a gun at a gun show in your state of residence can only be constitutionally regulated by that State. See the Interstate Commerce Clause--Asams10 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree with you, the Federal government does NOT. If I were to build a machine gun from scratch, never intending it to leave the boundaries of Oklahoma, and complied with Oklahoma law when doing so (I don't think the state has any laws touching the subject) then should I not be legal?  That's what United States v. Stewart was all about, and they weaseled out of it and pointed to Gonzales v. Raich, from which:  The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption.  In effect, it means the Feds can use the Commerce Clause to regulate ANYTHING.  scot 21:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I get that.  The question at hand is what is it the seperates a dealer from a private seller?  Is it...


 * Quantity? (Already decided not)
 * For profit vs. not for profit? (Scot alluded to this)
 * Operating as a business? (it's own gray area)
 * Sale of used vs. new firearms?
 * Sale of personal vs. "for resale" firearms? (again, it's own gray area)
 * Accepting credit cards?
 * The type of bank account you have?
 * Having a name you operate under vs. your own name?


 * The way I'm reading you is that you're saying the ONLY reasons to have an FFL are a) to conduct interstate commerce in the firearms business; and b) to be able to buy firearms from manufactures at dealer pricing. If this is truely the case, I find myself wondering why I don't just go buy 20 retail Glocks the next time I find a sale price and sell them at the swap meet.  Screw the background check hassle.  I'm certainly morally obligated, but they can regulate my morals can they?  That, I think, DEFINES the perceived "loophole", and the law has yet to test it.
 * However, the criteria that would differentiate a person "in the business of firearms dealing" from a "private seller" has not been clearly defined under U.S. law. As well, such cases have yet to be tested in U.S. courts.
 * Does this verbage not covney that? Thernlund (Talk 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Used to be that FFLs were cheap, and a lot of gun nuts would get FFLs simply as a way to avoid the hassles of dealing with mail-order purchases. But the BATF decided, back in the Clinton Administration, that there were way too many gun dealers, and has been trying to drive as many out of business as possible.


 * Most of the "unlicensed" dealers, selling at gun shows, used to be licensed, and had their licenses revoked because they either didn't sell enough guns, or because they didn't have a store front.


 * It seems a bit ridiculous, then, to accuse them of dealing without a license.


 * --jdege (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul
Hello, I just did an overhaul of the page. All new changes are cited (using government reports). I invite the admins to look at the neturality of this page and I urge them to prevent Yaf from continuing his unsubstantiated partisan attack. There is no reason to delete facts with government citations, just because you do not agree with them. I am asking for an admin to intervene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timjohnscsgv (talk • contribs) 20:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your government graphic is fine, but when you put it up please don't delete ATF and DoJ studies concerning gun shows.

Blocks
I blocked both User:Timjohnscsgv and User:Yaf for being well over the three-revert rule. When these users come back, we should pursue resolution on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 20:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Have attempted to clean up this article and present a more neutral point of view. Reinserted the previously cited information that had been deleted en masse. Also edited out the inflammatory tone and tried to make a more balanced article. (Not everyone agrees that "guns are inherently evil".) Yaf 23:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible issues with the article
I'm somewhat knowledgeable in the subject, but have no strong biases, so here are some thoughts I have about the article now:


 * Crossroads of the West link. I'm a Salt Laker, so am sort of proud that this is apparently now the largest gun show company in the country, but it seems a little promotional for an external link.
 * "Loophole." One of the things that both versions of the article did poorly, in my view, is explain this bit of politics. Its something like "pro-choice" and "pro-life"; the term is politically potent, but it's not (as the pro-gun show version said) a neologism, and it's not a "loophole" as a flat matter of fact (as the anti-gun show version implies).
 * US-centric. No comment on the existence of gun shows elsewhere in the world. Do they even exist?
 * Criticism. We should cite criticism and avoid weasel words. This is to insure that the criticism is an accurate portrayal of legitimate positions, to avoid fringe views (see WP:WEIGHT), and avoid inserting our own original research.
 * Prices. This is totally uncited. Unless pricing is consistent across the nation (and I doubt it is), we should just remove this paragraph. If prices really are consistent, we should get a source for it. See also WP:NOT.

Cool Hand Luke 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the loophole. The word "loophole" is mentioned only in the title and not in the text. After all, it sounds like a poor choice of words.


 * The prices section is really weird. It cites an average price for renting a table at a gun show (don't know what relevance does it bear, nor where it came from). Nothing is said about the price of the guns themselves possibly related to prices when buying at an "official" gun shop. Admiral Norton 18:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Both the "neologism" and the "gun show loophole" viewpoints are widespread, and are mainstream. I personally don't agree with the term "gun show loophole", and even question that it is a true neologism. However, both of these views are common. Have edited the article to include both, with what I think is a balanced approach. Certainly, we can discuss this in more detail. Nonetheless, I do have problems accepting Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) talking points in this article verbatim, and also feel that "crime guns" and similar inflammatory language clearly doesn't belong in a neutral point of view treatment. Also, have attempted to present a balanced treatment of the 2% research, and restored the graphic, while also putting in the criticisms of the 2% number. Cited information is fine, whether it is pro or con, but to delete all of one viewpoint while inserting just the other is not a neutral presentation. Hopefully, the current version addresses these concerns adequately. Yaf 23:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Cho purchased one of his two handguns (the Walther P22) from an Internet gun show venue." in the last graph of the Legislation section is possibly inaccurate or not well worded. Although Tscom Inc. may sell guns/accessories/parts at gun shows, I can find no evidence that they operate gun shows. They look to be just another internet gun dealer. There are gun shows that have an online presence, but there is no such thing as an actual "Internet gun show". Though the .22 handgun was purchased from Tscom inc. online, Cho would have had to go through a background check at the Federal Firearm licensed dealer, as required by national law, to be transferred the gun locally. Hereward777 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Reworded this section to address these issues (hopefully). If any issues are perceived to remain, these can be addressed, too. Yaf (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Positive changes. Thanks. I disagree, however, with the characterization of the auction sites and online gun dealers as gun shows, but I can understand why some would characterize them that way. I'll try to compile a list of referenced gun show aspects and subtleties, not mentioned, to add to the entry that may help differentiate them.

Having attended several gun shows, I can't find evidence to support the "with some actually organized much like the table-type format of the traditional shows", especially in the cited sites, in graph five of the Overview section. Also the only site I can find for Internet Gunshow on all the major search engines is an Ebay gun accessory and survival preparedness products merchant. It really really doesn't support the description, lagging well behind the referenced auction sites in that regard. Maybe the Internet Gun Show mentioned site has expired? Hereward777 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the article refers to sites like Auction Arms and GunBroker as "Internet gun shows", which is absurd. They're eBay-style auction sites. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Department of Justice Survey/Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports
I wanted to let everyone know that the answers for each question posed to an inmate has been publicly released: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cgi-bin/SDA/NACJD/hsda?nacjd+02598-0001

Hopefully this will encourage discussion based on the raw numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.144.114 (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis for gun show controversy statement
The citation given to support the statement that all gun shows are controversial does not mention this controversy in the body of the article and in the title it only mentions that there is a controversy surrounding Oregon Gun Shows. That there is currently a controversy surrounding Oregon does not support the statement that gun shows, as an idea, are controversial. It is therefore synthesis and will require a better source if it is allowed to remain in the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazi items at gun shows
I'm gonna make a case against including this in the article, at least in the state that it's in now. As it stands, the gun show article looks as if it was written by a member of the Brady Campaign. Despite some microscopic number of the total annual attendees of gun shows being Nazis, the article prominently features a large section on "Nazi" merchandise. I've been to a couple dozen gun shows and have never once seen scores of white supremacists gathering to peddle their wares.

I HAVE seen World War II memoribilia, with flags and merchandise geared towards a large number of nations that served in that (and other) conflicts, but nothing evne close to a "Nazi" table. This feels to me like if one were to go to an article about bars and insert a big section on how skinsheads are sometimes known to frequent bars. It might be technically true, but someone not familiar with them would (legitimately) think that every other bar in the country was full of skinheads. I'm not saying that there aren't gun shows where Nazis show up and try to sell things, but that is not indicative of all gun shows, and certainly not their patrons.

This is but one contention I have with this article. There's plenty of criticism of gun shows but no counter-arguments. But hey, I'll settle for one grievance at a time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrangelove57 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've moved the sentences here until we determine how (if at all) they are relevant to the topic. --Hamitr (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

These items sometimes include Nazi paraphernalia as well of replicas of Nazi material, commonly flags. Media have reported the presence of Nazi paraphernalia at gun shows, including events in Florida, Virginia, New York, Nebraska, Oklahoma, California, Montana, and Washington (state). In 2005, Federal Agents arrested a man who supplied automatic weapons to members of a neo-Nazi group at gun shows.


 * Most military souvenirs come from the losing side as war trophies. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything on the subject beside opinion-editorial advocacy pieces?
The only empirical academic study of gunshows I have seen is Mark Duggan, Randi Hjalmarsson and Brian A. Jacob, The Effect of Gun Shows on Gun-Related Deaths: Evidence from California and Texas, June 2005, rev. September 2008.

"Abstract: Thousands of gun shows take place in the U.S. each year. Gun control advocates argue that because sales at gun shows are much less regulated than other sales, such shows make it easier for potential criminals to obtain a gun. Similarly, one might be concerned that gun shows would exacerbate suicide rates by providing individuals considering suicide with a more lethal means of ending their lives. On the other hand, proponents argue that gun shows are innocuous since potential criminals can acquire guns quite easily through other black market sales or theft. In this paper, we use data from Gun and Knife Show Calendar combined with vital statistics data to examine the effect of gun shows. We find no evidence that gun shows lead to substantial increases in either gun homicides or suicides. In addition, tighter regulation of gun shows does not appear to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths."

I would also note: Gun lobbyists often cite a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey that finds that only 0.7% of state prison inmates who had ever owned a gun reported that they obtained it at a gun show (Harlow, 2001). citing C. Harlow,  Firearm Use by Offenders. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice (November 2001). If, as some claim, gun shows represent about 10% of all legal gun traffic but undewr 1% of criminal gun traffic, gun shows are one of the least sources of crime guns.

If individuals do not trade or sell unwanted guns at gun shows, where would they sell or trade them? I have bought used guns from private individuals at flea markets, classified ads in newspapers, estate auction, through social networking, and even at a stateline bar from a New York gambler in need of gas money. If private individuals are barred from gun show transactions (often selling to licensed dealers or collectors), then the transactions go back to the "grey market". Gun shows are actually a more controlled venue than the alternative. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

between 25% and 50% of the sellers of firearms
The page states: "The ATF has reported that between 25% and 50% of the sellers (i.e., for the private individual to private individual sale) of firearms at these venues do not possess a Federal Firearms License, and therefore are not required to perform background checks on their customers at gun shows.[3]"

This is false. The report cited states that between 50 and 75% of vendors at gun shows had FFLs. It does not state between 50 and 75% of vendors selling guns. A great many vendors at gun shows sell books, knives, collectables, etc. What percentage of sellers of firearms at gun shows do not have FFLs cannot be determined by the source cited.

--jdege (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but I don't believe the introductory sentence needs a comprehensive list of each and every retail item that might be sold at a gun show. Jerky? Then why not tee shirts, hats, MREs, posters, flags, bumper stickers, coins, jewelry, fireworks, handcuffs, pepper spray, tasers, survival gear, etc., etc.? Some of this could be included in the "Overview" section, but it seems a tad gratuitous in the lead. — Satori Son 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is important, if we're trying to get across what gun shows are, to convey the idea that gun shows are more than places where guns are sold. We don't need an exhaustive list, but we do need to communicate the great variety of products offered for sale. (Rubber-band Gatling guns?) --jdege (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it was unimportant, just misplaced. I agree that we need to be as accurate as possible in our description of gun shows and what is sold there. But it just seems logical to me for such a list to be included in the "Overview" section, not the very first sentence in the article. Do you object to moving "Jerky" specifically? — Satori Son 20:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jerky is probably the most common item after guns and guns accessories at gun shows. It is at every gun show.  Hence, I would favor leaving it in the lead.  On the other hand, militaria, clothing, t-shirts, boots, coins, jewelry, dolls, beads, and an assortment of other items is not at all as common for most gun shows.  The less-seen items should all be moved down into the body of the article.  Jerky, though, is a major part of the gun show culture, more so than even reloading supplies.  (Many municipalities ban the sale of smokeless powder inside city-owned buildings.)  Yaf (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jerky is "probably the most common item after guns and guns accessories at gun shows"? If you can find a reliable source supporting that assertion, I would support leaving it in the lead sentence. Personally, I seriously doubt that. — Satori Son 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Finding a reliable source is probably going to be impossible. That said, there is a survey that indicates jerkey is #3, ahead even of shotguns, at gun shows.  Of course, this is not a reliable source :-)  Yaf (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I object to "jerky"? No. And you may well be right that a list would be more appropriate, elsewhere. We don't need a list in the opening sentence, but we do need some sort of verbiage that expresses the variety that are gun shows. --jdege (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is accurate to say that gun show vendors carry an extremely wide variety of merchandise, and that information should definitely be included somewhere. — Satori Son 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I do object to the term "jerky". Many of the venues (buildings that are being rented) control the concessions and do NOT allow food vendors at the shows. In fact it is becoming downright difficult to find any jerky at the shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.17.171 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Broken Links
So I went through the different links for the sources and found that several of them were broken:

The footnotes for: 1, 3, 8, 14, 21, and 22.

The question now is how do we proceed? This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed immediately. If these sources can no longer be accessed, they are no longer credible and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink fuzzy slippers (talk • contribs) 14:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, particularly for 21 and 22. I also thought the accusations against ATF were never proven, they logged a significant amount of criminal activity that resulted in at least 19 successful prosecutions. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

With the move around of citation numbers because of added references, the broken link citation numbers are 1, 3, 8, 12, 24, and 25.

The ATF harassment section that Forward Thinkers mentioned is only cited through 24 and 25. Unless someone is able to properly cite this section, I will have to take it down. I will do this Friday (24)Pink Fuzzy Slippers(talk) 13:40, 23 July 2009.

So I took it down, but I think it would be helpful to have verifiable information about the ATF's interactions at gun shows since they do regulate some of the vendors there.Pink Fuzzy Slippers(talk) 12:02, 28 July 2009.

Gun show firearms and Mexico drug-related killings
While I certainly have no desire to get involved with what is doubtless a highly contentious article about a subject in which I have no expertise, I noticed the line in "ATF Criminal Investigations at Gun Shows" that said "Mexican police claim that 100% of guns used in "drug-related killings" in Mexico, which has strict gun laws, are smuggled from the United States". That struck me as extremely odd - even down in Chiapas, no drug dealer has ever been shot by a gun from Central America? When I followed the cited link to a Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801654.html), I saw what may be the problem.

The story was apparently filed from Tijuana, Mexico. It discusses a couple of gun-related crimes in Tijuana that occurred on the same day, then says "The high-powered guns used in both incidents on the evening of Sept. 24 undoubtedly came from the United States, say police here, who estimate that 100 percent of drug-related killings are committed with smuggled U.S. weapons." I read that as saying that "police here", that is in Tijuana, are certain that "[t]he high-powered guns used in both incidents on the evening of Sept. 24" came from the US because "100 percent of drug-related killings" in Tijuana "are committed with smuggled U.S. weapons". Whoever added that section seems to have read it as referring to "100 percent of drug-related killings" in all of Mexico.

Unfortunately, the sentence is somewhat ambiguous. I think that the Tijuana context and immense unlikeliness of every drug related killing (that involved guns) everywhere in Mexico being committed by guns from the US argue in favor of editing that factoid to refer to Tijuana specifically. But as I said at the top, I have no expertise in gun control and the subject is way to contentious for me to just dive in and make changes. I'd like to hear from other folks who've worked on this subject before I get all bold and whatnot. George (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 100% ?! I'd take this with a big grain of salt even with Washington Post and considering Tijuana only. If the official police website or the local newspapers in Tijuana don't have anything to say about this, I'm for striking the sentence altogether. It also has absolutely nothing to do with gun shows. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This article had been one-sided in its description of gun trafficking from the U.S. into Mexico, presenting the case of skeptics without even mentioning the most basic data available from ATF, DOJ and GAO. I have added that basic information in two paragraphs in this section with proper primary source citations. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Gun Show Loophole Section
I'm a little confused about this section of the article. While the article is able to cite laws as of 2009, the following Department of Justice survey occurred in 1997. Are there any more current articles? It just seemed strange that something 12 years old was placed in conjunction with a citation from the calendar year. There generally were not that many citations on this page either, which is a concern for me.PFS (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)pink fuzzy slippers, July 13, 2009


 * I agree that this study is a bit dated. Here are two more recent studies that could be referenced:


 * A 2006 FBI study of criminals who attacked law enforcement officers found that within their sample “None of the [attackers’] rifles, shotguns, or handguns … were obtained from gun shows or related activities.” Ninety-seven percent of guns in the study were obtained illegally, and the assailants interviewed had nothing but contempt for gun laws. As one offender put it, “[T]he 8,000 new gun laws would have made absolutely [no difference], whatsoever, about me getting a gun. … I never went into a gun store or to a gun show or to a pawn shop or anyplace else where firearms are legally bought and sold." Ref:  Anthony J. Pinizzotto, et al., Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers  (August 2006).


 * A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that fewer than 1% of U.S. “crime guns” came from gun shows, with repeat offenders even less likely than first-timers to buy guns from any retail source. This 2001 study was based on interviews with 18,000 state prison inmates and was the largest such study ever conducted by the US government. Ref: Caroline Wolf Harlow, Firearm Use by Offenders  (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Nov. 6, 2001).


 * Unless something to refute this posted, I plan to add these references to the article. Trasel (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked up the studies that you mentioned. I was not sure if the first one that you cited was the same one that I looked at - could you be a little more specific about your source?


 * I looked at the second study and have to admit that I have the same issue with it as the study currently up on the article: the survey was conducted in 1997.


 * Maybe by tomorrow I will be able to look up what is the most recent information out there.PFS (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)PFS July 13, 2009


 * I continued to look for the first article that you referenced and was still unable to find it anywhere. I do not think that it is properly cited and therefopre will remove it from the page. PFS (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)PFS July 13, 2009

Am I mistaken, or isn't that 2001 BJS study simply restating data from the 1997 survey? I don't believe a new survey was conducted in 2001. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Made some minor edits and additions to this section today. I am assuming that two different articles were previously merged in this section, because the same point about private sellers being exempt from background checks had been made at least three times in three different paragraphs. There was no need for the redundancy. On the other hand, no one had noted that the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act had created the federal language described in this article, so I added that. Finally, those advocating to close the Gun Show Loophole do not oppose private firearms commerce. The recommendation here is not to federally license every individual seller of ban these sales, just to require background checks on the part of private sellers. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I found another problem with this section today. There is a paragraph that was inserted regarding waiting periods that private sellers supposedly have to observe when making private sales at gun shows. The problem is that the Florida statute cited here as the source for this claim does not apply to private sellers. The statute reads:

790.0655 Purchase and delivery of handguns; mandatory waiting period; exceptions; penalties.--

There shall be a mandatory 3-day waiting period, which shall be 3 days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and the delivery at retail of any handgun. "Purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer. "Handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. "Retailer" means and includes every person engaged in the business of making sales at retail or for distribution...

As mentioned in this article, under the definition of current federal law, private sellers are individuals NOT "engaged in the business" of retailing firearms.

I am therefore deleting this section. The issue of waiting periods has never been relevant to the debate over the gun show loophole in any case. The issue is that private sellers do not conduct background checks or maintain records of sale. Forward Thinkers (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your deletion, but then reverted myself. I couldn't verify the information from the source provided, so we should leave it out pending better sourcing. — Satori Son 16:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Checked the source (Brady Campaign) for the number of states that regulate private sales at gun shows and found it to be 17 states, not 11 as previously cited here. I provided an additional current source from Brady to confirm that figure, and a bit more detail on exactly how these states regulate these sales. Forward Thinkers (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Trasel, while I feel it is entirely relevant to cite existing gun show loophole legislation in the U.S. Congress, there are some problems with the closing paragraph you’ve added in the “Gun Show Loophole” section. For starters, the characterization of H.R. 2324/S. 843 as “gun ownership restriction legislation” clearly violates the WP:NPOV rules. Secondly, your sources do not bear out the claim that this legislation’s “prospects for passage appear slim.” The first source you provided is an article that is more than two years old dated April 23, 2007. It comments on a previous session of Congress, not the current one. The second source you provide is an article about the defeat of the Thune Amendment in the Senate, and it does not even mention the gun show loophole issue. These sources clearly fail the standard set out in the WP:Verifiability rules. Finally, you make two subjective judgments in the statement, “As of August 2009, the House version of the bill had only 23 co-sponsors, nearly all from the liberal wing of the Democrat party.” Why is it “only” 23 co-sponsors? What standard are you applying here? And how are you defining the “liberal wing” of the Democrat party? [Which should be “Democratic” in any case.] I’d request that you review these comments and make the necessary changes. Thanks very much. I did make one small technical change here, the House and Senate bills have different names. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your point. I just made the changes that you suggested.  Regards, Trasel (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

One additional thing. The assertion that all the co-sponsors of HR 2324 are Democrats is incorrect. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Research and Studies on Gun Shows Section
I created a "Research and Studies on Gun Shows" section here (the BJS Survey paragraph was just standing in the middle of a description of how gun shows generally operate and seemed totally out of place), and added some high-profile studies on both sides of the issue. This section can definitely be improved with some additional research. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I just confirmed that the 2001 study by Dr. Caroline Wolf Harlow cited in this section contains no original survey data. It comments on the 1997 survey data by BJS also referred to in this section. The wording here seems to imply, however, that BJS conducted two independent, original surveys that yielded a particular result. They did not. I therefore will make minor changes to this section to reflect that fact. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the reference for the study about gun shows from professors Duggan, Hjalmarsson, and Jacob links to a working paper. I looked it up online to see if there is a published version yet, and instead I found an interesting critique of it signed by several prominent researchers. It makes sense to me to post the critique alongside the working paper. I will do that tomorrow. --PFS (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Be sure that you use WP:Reliable Sources. We should stay away from using blogs as sources.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, I agree wholeheartedly that blogs are not reliable sources. However, the blog that was linked to in this case published a letter from a group of researchers verbatim that is relevant to the Maryland/Michigan gun show study. I think that is the content that is being referred to specifically, not the editorial comments in the blog. Forward Thinkers (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SaltyBoatr as well in re: blogs. I will link to the blog only as a publishing mechanism for the researchers' verbatim letter.--PFS (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Per policy we must use publishing sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and blogs don't meet this standard.  So, unless the researchers' letter is published elsewhere than in that blog, it does not qualify as under WP:V.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, blog-referenced material should be removed, unless the SUBJECT of a wiki article is itself a blog. Trasel (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the policy more carefully. The issue is whether the publishing source, either online or paper, has a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight.  Some of the larger blogs run as adjunct to major newspapers qualify as reliable sources per Wikipedia policy, including the New York Times blog which you just deleted from the article.  I should have been clearer in my earlier warning about blogs.  Blogs which are extremist or which do not have a reputation for fact-checking, or which do not have editorial oversight; should not be used.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Question About Citation to Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial
I have a question about the source for this particular comment in the gun show loophole section:

"Remaining vendors may sell a variety of firearm and non-firearm items. Private sales between attendees or between attendees and non-dealer vendors are not uncommon at gun shows, though they make up a small fraction of the guns sold.[11]"

This citation appears to be an editorial in a newspaper instead of academic research. Is there a more credible source out there saying the number of private sales at gun shows? Pink Fuzzy Slippers (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to request a more definitive source for the following claim in this section: "Private sales between attendees or between attendees and non-dealer vendors are not uncommon at gun shows, though they make up a small fraction of the guns sold." The source provided for this claim is a 2000 editorial by the Colorado Springs Gazette, which was published after state residents voted to close the gun show loophole through a referendum. Here is what the editorial said:


 * "...The vast majority of firearms sales at gun shows are at present subject to background checks. That's because most of those who exhibit arms at shows, at least in Colorado, are dealers, who must be licensed under federal law. And those same licenses require them to conduct background checks on customers ... How many such private transactions take place at gun shows? A recent tally by one state gun-owners group at one of the state's largest guns shows, in Denver, turned up a half dozen out of hundreds of gun exhibitors. The rest were licensed firearms dealers."


 * So the sole evidence for the claim that only a "small fraction" of the guns sold at gun shows are sold through unregulated private sales is an un-cited study by an unnamed Colorado gun owners group that looked at a single gun show in Denver. How did they come to this conclusion? We don't know; no methodology is described.  More importantly, there are approximately 5,000 gun shows in the country every year, making one gun show an infinitesimal sample from which to draw such a broad conclusion.


 * Can a better citation be provided? Forward Thinkers (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The standard to apply here is WP:Verifiability. An opinion editorial published in a medium sized town newspaper like this can at most be used to state an opinion, but not to state a fact.  For instance: "It was the opinion of an unknown editorialist in Colorado Springs that only a small fraction of guns sold at gun shows are sold through..." would be OK.  But to state flat out that only a small fraction would require a better, more verifiable, source than that anonymous opinion editorial piece.  With that logic, I am taking out that sentence now.  If better more verifiable sourcing of the "a small fraction" statistic can be found, I would welcome the restoration of the sentence based on that better sourcing.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization of Page
I recently made some edits to this page, as a large section entitled "Recent History" had been added to the page despite the fact that it had several problems. For starters, it contained a great deal no content that was "recent history," and instead referred to 1968 and 1986 laws that had been addressed elsewhere in the article. Also, this section contained several broad claims that were unsupported by sources (such as a vague claim that most gun show attendees prefer to buy guns from licensed dealers). I incorporated the content in this section into the Overview and Gun Show Loophole sections. I don't believe any salient points have been lost. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Those improvements look good and I agree that removal of material unsupported by sources is a good thing for this article, and for Wikipedia in general. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

US specific topic
The global tag does not apply, as gun shows are distinctly US-only type events. Gun shows, as they are held in the US, with private sellers selling their personal handguns, rifles, and shotguns to other private individuals in a public venue, with no involvement by government agents whatsoever, occur no where else. Perhaps a title change, to reflect a US-only topic is needed. Calling the US Constitution protected right to keep and bear arms a "hobby" is also distinctly insulting to US wikipedians. Hence, I have removed the world wide view tag for a distinctly US cultural issue article. Discussions? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is this article only about the United States. There is a terrible bias that needs to be addressed.  America is not the only country that has gun shows. I suggest changing the name to something like Gun Shows in the United States, or we fix the problem.--Dmol (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Trade shows involving guns are held throughout the world; some of these are called gun shows. But, this article is not about such trade shows.  Rather, it is about private individuals buying and selling guns among themselves at an event called a gun show, with little to no involvement by the government.  Specifically, I am not aware of this type of activity still being legal for buying and selling handguns anywhere in the English-speaking world but in the US.   As I understand it, modern handguns are entirely banned for private ownership in the UK, and in much, if not all of, Australia, save for limited numbers of professionals licensed by the state for varmint control. As for long guns, such as modern semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, aren't these banned in the UK and Australia for private ownership?  Some shotguns, and some bolt-action rifles, perhaps, can be owned by private individuals, in the UK, Canada, and Australia, but aren't licenses required in the UK, Canada, and Australia to purchase even such permitted shotguns and bolt-action rifles?  I find it hard to believe that US-style gun shows,  where private individuals can buy and sell numerous types of firearms legally among themselves without any government intervention, occur anywhere outside the US in the English-speaking world.  That said, perhaps we need but change the title of the present article to Gun shows in the United States, with a further disambiguation page with content appropriate for other usages of the phrase "gun show" applicable for the broader sense of the phrase.  There is a "terrible bias", too, to conflate the phrase "gun culture" with only criminal activity.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We do have gun shows in Australia, and I am sure they also exist in New Zealand, South Africa, and several other countries. It is for this reason that I object to the article being entirely about the US and nowhere else.  I'm not sure why you think that the licensing issue makes a difference to the arguements being discussed. The US seems to have a different meaning to the term.  Here, (not sure about other countries) we can't just walk in with cash and come out with a gun.  You can purchase if you have the right permits arranged beforehand.  That said, I agree with moving this article to Gun shows in the United States, and leave the present article as a redirect until I or someone else has started another worldwide article.  If no-one objects, I'll move it tomorrow.--Dmol (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Laws on Private Handgun Sales
Read the Law: What are Virginia laws concerning the private sale of a handgun? (http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms.shtm) To privately sell a firearm, it is RECOMMENDED that the seller safeguard information pertaining to the transaction such as the date the firearm was sold, the complete name and address of the buyer, and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. The seller and buyer of a handgun MUST BE A RESIDENT OF THE STATE in which the transfer occurs. Additionally, Virginia’s handgun purchase LIMITATION applies in private transactions. Refer to http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_MultiplePurchase.shtm for additional information on multiple handgun purchases. Should the firearm ever be located at a crime scene, trace of the firearm will determine the licensed dealer who last sold the firearm and will identify the last buyer of the firearm. To have your name removed from this process, you may consider placing your firearm on consignment with a licensed dealer. This will also ensure that the firearm is transferred only to a lawfully eligible individual.

It is the responsibility of the seller to ensure adherence to this policy. Selling a firearm to certain "prohibited" persons is a felony.

Multiple purchases of handguns within a 30 day period by one buyer, is a felony. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.2C2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.68.146 (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

CODE OF VIRGINIA 18.2-308.2:2 L1. Any person who attempts to solicit, persuade, encourage, or entice any DEALER to transfer or otherwise convey a firearm other than to the actual buyer, as well as any other person who willfully and intentionally aids or abets such person, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. This subsection shall not apply to a federal law-enforcement officer or a law-enforcement officer as defined in § 9.1-101, in the performance of his official duties, or other person under his direct supervision.

M. ANY PERSON who purchases a firearm with the intent to (i) RESELL or otherwise PROVIDE such firearm to ANY person who he knows or has reason to believe is INELIGIBLE to purchase or otherwise receive from a DEALER a firearm FOR WHATEVER REASON or (ii) transport such firearm out of the Commonwealth to be resold or otherwise provided to another person who the transferor knows is ineligible to purchase or otherwise receive a firearm, shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if the violation of this subsection involves such a transfer of more than one firearm, the person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years.

N. Any person who is ineligible to purchase or otherwise receive or possess a firearm in the Commonwealth who solicits, employs or assists any person in violating subsection M shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony and shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years.

Neutral Point of View
This article has a very anti-gun slant. It makes it sound like gun shows are nothing but places for unlicensed people to trade illegal arms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.173.227 (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. All I see are "studies" from anti-gun organizations, and bits of ATF reports cited out of context.  Case in point - the ATF says that 50-75% of vendors have FFL is clearly intended to create the false impression that 25-50% of gun dealers at gun shows are unlicensed, which is anything but the truth. 25-50% of vendors at gun shows aren't selling guns, they're selling books, tshirts, military memorabilia, etc.
 * jdege (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article reads like a propaganda piece. The entire article needs to be overhauled.--74.167.7.205 (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Gun shows outside of the United States?
Should we have a section on gun shows in other countries as well?--24.240.187.254 (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening paragraph of gun show loophole section
Trasel recently reverted my edit to the opening paragraph of the gunshow loophole section, with the edit summary "Too much POV inference, based on the cited source. The facts are plainly stated.)". Can we talk about this? The version favored by Trasel says "a term created by those who seek to regulate transfers of firearms between private individuals ", which is starkly at odds with what the cited source says: "...an unfortunate loophole that has since been exploited to allow convicted felons and other people who shouldn't own  guns to evade the background check requirement by buying their guns at gun shows. ... This situation is dangerous not only because it allows convicted felons and other prohibited persons to buy guns" 

Clearly, the source states this loophole is relative to convicted felons and other prohibited persons to buy guns, and not relative to 'private individuals'. The POV push appears to be to try to extend the intent of the source away from criminals towards all private individuals, and this push violates both WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. We should stick with the source which describes attempts to close the loophole which is being exploited by criminals. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the cited source is a political speech by a stridently anti-gun politician, and is laced with inflammatory rhetoric. The term "gun show loophole" is in fact a term of art that was invented by those who seek to restrict private, legal commerce.  They may *claim* that their goal is  to stop felons from buying guns, but the ACTUAL effect of this proposed legislation would be to restrict ALL private intrastate commerce at gun shows.  To be fair and balanced, the wiki article should cite references representing a variety of points of view--not just Senator Liberman's.  Trasel (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here, for example, is alternative point of view, from a conservative think tank: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba349  Trasel (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I take it that you now accept that the cited source describes "convicted felons" and not "private individuals". Your earlier edit summary comment "...at odds with what the cited source says" was incorrect.  In light of that, please self revert.  Which passage in your new cite are you looking at?  I see "mandatory checks will be a step towards banning private firearms sales between individuals", is that the passage?  That seems to be describing something as fact that may happen in the future, and would be not appropriate per WP:NOTCRYSTAL.  Though I would support a statement that critics of the proposed legislation fear that it would lead to a future path towards banning private firearms sales.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I trust that you'll fine the revised wording acceptably balanced and NPOV. I included two cites for the counterpoint view.Trasel (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is a big improvement, I really appreciate it. Though, to describe one side as 'gun control advocates' and by name 'Joe Liberman' and the other side as simply "others" (with no mention of their advocacy and no mention of the name H. Sterling Burnett).  Especially considering that the declared advocacy of one side is crime control/child safety and the declared advocacy of the other side is gun rights.  Using the opponents frame of reference, calling crime control and child safety to be gun control, is an unnecessary framing bias.  Not declaring that H. Sterling Burnett is an award winning gun rights advocate also fails to inform the reader of the POV advocacy of that author.  Would you continue to work with me to fix this problem?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Using the opponents frame of reference, calling crime control and child safety to be gun control, is an unnecessary framing bias."
 * That might be true, if the gun control proponents were actually focused on crime control and child safety, and were advocating measures that had a record of reducing crime or increasing child safety. The reason that it's hard to discuss this subject in a balanced manner is that the gun control proponents have been lying about pretty much their intentions, their goals, their motivations, pretty much everything else, for the last 40 years or more.
 * --jdege (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I could not agree more that 40 years of more of distrust makes our task here extremely difficult. The controlling policy here is to set aside anger over the decades of lying.  I am sure that both sides here feel the other side has been lying.  It might be helpful to re-read the WP:NPOV policy for guidance of how to navigate this heated topic.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns expressed here. I don't see why it is necessary to mention Senator Lieberman at all. Furthermore, the opening statement, "The 'gun show loophole' is a term created by gun control advocates to describe the current commerce in firearms that exists within many states," is misleading, making the issue sound far broader than it really is. Why not state exactly what the loophole refers to right off the top? That said, I do like Trasel's addition of the current effort in Montana to evade federal regulation, that is a relevant point here. I am going to make one small change for now. The issue is not stopping people who "should" be prohibited from owning guns from getting them, but those WHO ARE PROHIBITED UNDER FEDERAL LAW from getting them. That needs to be clarified. Forward Thinkers (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I welcome the back and forth collaboration of the opening sentence of this article section. Still, reading the description of the proposed legislation in the cited source I see no indication that this was a term coined by "gun control advocates".  Rather, it is described as a crime control issue.  It appears that the opponents to the law seek to 'frame' the issue by painting their opponents with a "gun control" label.  We should avoid doing that in this article.  Making that change to the article now, plus some streamlining of the grammar of the sentence which has grown too awkward to be readable.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The "framing" of this issue began with the inception of the term. From the beginning, it was a political construct and a term of art. Calling this solely a "crime control" issue is laughable. We are discussing a contentious term. And it is contentious because it originated within the Brady Campaign political apparatus, with a political goal. To consciously avoid describing the origin of the term in this article would be historical revisionism. Trasel (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your recent edit is much improved. Perhaps I don't understand you, are you saying that everything from the Brady Campaign is contentious?  For something to be contended, there needs to be camps in opposition, and you focus on just one.  Two hands are needed for clapping.  For this article to be neutral we need to face that, remove ourselves from the contention and write neutrally fairly describing both camps.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You asked:

"...are you saying that everything from the Brady Campaign is contentious? " No! My assertion is that the very use of their term of art at face value represents a bone of contention. By creating a hobgoblin, the the Brady Campaign, VPC, et al, have attempted to implement the Hegelian dialectic, to meet their political end, This is a classic political ploy: They create a false "crisis", and their "solution" is the implementation of their originally desired political goal. The loser, at the end of the day, is liberty. By incrementally destroying constitutional liberty, statists hope to accomplish over the course of a century something that they could never do overnight.

And, BTW, you've neatly sidestepped an open issue, so I'll re-state it.: To consciously avoid describing the origin of the term in this article would be historical revisionism. Trasel (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is best to avoid everything which we do not verify in reliable sourcing. I see none of your sourcing about the origin of this term, so your claim of historical originalism has no disclosed basis. Is your source reliable?  Or is your assertion original research?  When I look to reliable sourcing(DeConde ISBN 1555534864 pg 277) I see that felons purchase about 30% of their firearms from the underground markets which operate at gun shows, so on its face it appears that the 'crime control' rational given by the Senator seems plausible.


 * This discussion started after your revert with the explanation "Too much POV inference, based on the cited source. The facts are plainly stated." I then re-checked the cited source (presently footnote 9) to confirm your explanation, I found your explanation to be wrong. Please be more transparent here.  It appears that you may be using other undisclosed sourcing or using your own original research while editing this article to advance your personal point of view and agenda to use Wikipedia to protect 'liberty' as you see it.  I respect your sincerely held belief about protecting 'liberty', I object to you improperly using Wikipedia to do so.   Especially with contentious articles like this one, we must strictly stick with reliable sources and represent them neutrally.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I find i laughable that you are accusing me of attempting to push this article, when you have clearly been SHOVING it in another direction. Take a minute to compare my editing history as a whole, to yours. (We both only have a few hundred edits each, and it doesn't take long to do a quick scan.  Go all the way back to when you and I first created user names,and scan forward.)   You will see that my main interest has been in biographies of survivalists and hard money economists.  I only rarely make edits on articles related to firearms politics.  Your edit history, in contrast, has been one-man crusade against constitutionalist, militia, and right to keep and bear topics. You have few edits in any other area.  I don't mean this as a personal attack, it is merely an observation of the public record of your edits.  I invite other editors to take a look, and see who it is that might be pushing an agenda or an axe to grind.  Hint: It isn't me.

Apparently, you misunderstood this edit comment:''"Too much POV inference, based on the cited source. The facts are plainly stated."' So let me expand on it, and spell it out. By it, I meant that your edits inferred to much from the cited source, and that THE WIKI ARTICLE, AS IT STOOD HENCE had the facts plainly stated, and you saw fit to rip them out, leaving behind only narrative that matched your personal political agenda. There are two sides to this issue, but apparently you prefer to see only one (yours) fully represented.

Now lets get back to the real issue at hand, and that is the etymology of the term "gun show loophole". It is a purely political construct that came from the pen of Josh Sugarman, the executive director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, DC. (formerly called Handgun Control, Inc.) The term was quickly embraced by the Brady campaign and other gun control lobbying groups. By calling free and legal commerce a "loophole"--which creates subconscious links to people that cheat on their taxes--they sought to demonize one of the cornerstones of American life--the ability to buy or sell household goods, at will, with or without profit, in INTRAstate commerce, without government regulation, and without paying homage to any entrenched guild, or fill out any "paperwork", or get "permission" from a bureau or agency or government. This same commerce is the last bastion of free, undocumented firearms ownership, which is anathema to gun controllers. They want to see the advent universal registration of firearms, and the very thought of private citizens buying and selling firearms freely amongst themselves does not fit with their world view, and their agenda for civilian disarmament. (After all, there can not be effective eventual confiscation of firearms, if some of them are not registered.)

I'll do my best to document when and where the term was first used, and cite sources. Once again: To ignore the issue of who created the term, and why, would be intellectually dishonest and manipulative. Removing such references on the term's etymology is nothing short of historical revisionism, and reprehensible editing. Trasel (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have offended you. My record is perfectly clear that I strictly adhere to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies.  I object to your smear on my character written above, using innuendo.  It would be better going forward if we stick to what we read in reliable sources and I will wait to hear about your sources as to your 'historical revisionism' assertion.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cites. The earliest one speaks of 'loophole' but not 'gunshow loophole'.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This section presently starts "The term "loophole" relative to gunshows was originated in 1996 by the Violence Policy Center...". I see from the cite that the word loophole was used in that year, but no indication that it was originated in that year, or that it was originated by anyone. It could easily have originated earlier by someone else, no? This looks like WP:OR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When they started using this term (in the context of gun shows) in 1996, they did not issue a press release announcing "Gee, look at the wonderful term that we just invented!"  They just started using it. Mentioning that fact does not constitute original research, as long a link to their dated document with the first use is included.  If we can find an *earlier* use of that term in the context of gun shows (than the VPC's mentioned first use in 1996), then let's document it, with the appropriate cite.  This is just simple, tried and true wiki editing based on published sources, NOT original research. Trasel (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe there is some compromise wording, they used the term in 1996, or something. I see no sourcing that the originated the term.  We should not create an unverified illusion that they coined the term.  We see no sourcing of who actually originated the term.  Can you suggest some better wording?  You seem to believe that they invented the term "gun show loophole" ("Gee, look at the wonderful term that we just invented!"), yet you have provided zero sourcing that they actually invented it, only that they used it as early as 1996.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with SaltyBoatr's point above. If the article is going to state that VPC "invented" the term "gun show loophole," then a source should be provided to verify that claim. Another small issue I see is the mention of "proposed legislation" here. Is that supposed to refer to the bills that have been introduced over the years to close the Gun Show Loophole? It's a bit vague. Forward Thinkers (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is quoted ? I noticed ever instance of the term gun show loophole is in quotation marks. It seems to be an attempt to make it look snarky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.182.27 (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Adam Gadahn
The following excerpt about Adam Gadahn has, "He also correctly claimed that, 'You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card,'"

How is it possible to say he was "correct" when two sentences later it states, "Subsequent news analysis indicated that individuals could not actually buy a fully automatic assault rifle at gun shows"? Backward (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There were lots of incorrect statements here; have now corrected the content. Thanks!  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerky
What is the objection to including jerky in the list of items sold at gun shows? It is universally present at all the gun shows that I have ever attended. Or, it is strictly a problem with the purists that think only "guns" should be sold at gunshows? (See: possible jerky reference for more on this cultural divide.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We build the encyclopedia based upon what reliable sources say, not personal experience. It's definitely not notable enough for inclusion in the lede. Anastrophe (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources for "gun show loophole"
--Lightbreather (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In the effort to help clarify things, the use of the word "loophole" in describing F.O.P.A. does seem to at least go back all the way to the point of origin. http://armsandthelaw.com/gunlaw/FOPA/house_floor_debates.html Darknipples (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm unable to find a mention of 'loophole' in relation to gun shows. Can you please provide a quote? Anastrophe (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As previously stated, it is only in reference to F.O.P.A. - I was more or less referring to Mike's objection as to the term "loophole" and it's use in relation to the etymology of the term with regard to FOPA. The "gun show loophole controversy" did not come into the picture as a "controversy" until after the Columbine High School massacre, which seems appropriate in regards to when the "controversy" surrounding "gun show loophole" begins to become prolific in American culture. - Respectfully Darknipples (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"critics maintain that a so-called “gun show loophole,” codified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, effectively allows anyone, including convicted felons, to purchase firearms without a background check." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gun-policy/ - This source seems to make no mention of the word "controversy" in regards to the term "gun show loophole" as it relates to FOPA. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gun-policy/ - Please share your thoughts. Thank you. Darknipples (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's all well and good, but this article is not about FOPA. FOPA has its own article, and I'd suggest moving this content to the talk page for that article. Anastrophe (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it still mentions gun shows, specifically, even if it is in reference to how they relate to FOPA. You do make an interesting point, though. I'm afraid that is it for me tonight. I look forward to reviewing additional discussions and questions tomorrow. Good night all. Darknipples (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ANANSTROPHE - I find the section titled RESTRICTIONS somewhat vague, and similar to CONTROVERSIES in terms of detail and efficacy. This section certainly seems to be lacking content, as well. The term "Gun Show Loophole" and FOPA do seem somewhat synonymous with each other in most of the recent articles and sources I've seen. Would it be prudent to consider RESTRICTIONS as an alternative section regarding the "Gun Show Loophole" Controversy? Darknipples (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The term "The Gun Show Loophole" is used by United States Department of the Treasury and United States Department of Justice. "In January 1999, the Departments of the Treasury and Justice responded with a report describing the gaps in current law and recommending by extending the Brady Law to "close the gun show loophole."" [APPENDIX C HISTORY OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES | GUN VIOLENCE REDUCTION:NATIONAL INTEGRATED FIREARMS VIOLENCE REDUCTION STRATEGY] - http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm - Don't these count as credible sources? Darknipples (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Controversies section heading
See also related 2009 discussion Opening paragraph of gun show loophole section

Hello everyone. I have been advised by Cullen328 to come here to introduce myself and let everyone know that I have been working to help improve the page. Specifically the section entitled "Controversies". My changes included fixing broken links, replacing and adding citations with more relevant ones, as well as some additional dialogue, all of which I felt was necessary to improve the efficacy of this section. Please feel free to take a look and let me know if you have any objections, questions, or concerns. Finally, I would also like to ask if anyone knows why this section is entitled "Controversies" instead of "The Gun Show Loophole", since this seems to be the main topic of discussion in this section. Thanks. Darknipples (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that "Controversies" is probably the best wording to use at this time, since "Gun show loophole" is terminology used by advocates on one side, who argue in favor of legal restrictions on gun show purchases. Accordingly, using that term advances that particular point of view. What one side of the controversy sees as a loophole, the other side sees as liberty. The article should balance both sides. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Cullen328. I hope you don't mind if I inquire further, and by all means, feel free to direct me to any section of wiki that explains the process in which these types of decisions are made or agreed upon, whether it is by seniority or majority etc... I know that you are a "senior editor", so of course this leads me to assume your opinions and control over what edits are made are likely final. In any case, you have been very polite and helpful to me, so regardless of your title, you certainly have my respect.

So, back to the question at hand. As I had previously mentioned, this seems to be the main topic of discussion within this section, and it would seem prudent for anyone searching this particular page for content concerning "the gun show loophole" to find this language in the heading, at least as an indicator to content that is being sought after. Perhaps "Gun Show Loophole Controversy" or "Loophole Controversy" would be a more appropriate compromise? The argument that "there is no such thing as a "loophole" is also only used by one side of the debate. It is still entirely debatable whether or not the term "loophole" applies to (FOPA), is it not? The definition of the word loophole implies ambiguous, inadequate, or omissive in nature, and by "the other side's" standards it meets the definition of the term in that it "contravenes the intent of the law (Gun Control Act of 1968) without technically breaking it". The term "loophole" has also been used by the United States Department of Justice and the United States Department of the Treasury in describing the law (FOPA), and even stated the suggestion of "(extending the Brady Law to "close the gun show loophole.")" http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm . Forgive me for saying this, but, by excluding this term from the heading of the section that is almost entirely about said "loophole", it seems somewhat disingenuous and biased towards only one side of the debate, as well (no offense intended). To put this in another perspective, consider also the debate over whether or not global warming exists. There is definitely a comparable number of those on one particular side of the issue that definitely find that term "controversial", if not, an affront to their "reality" or "liberty". Granted, there are certainly some major differences, and I may seem like I'm comparing apples to oranges (so to speak), but we are also talking about a page title compared to a section heading. By that measure, would it be better for this term to have it's own page, respectively? By simply referring to "it" as nothing more than a "controversy" would seem to leave little doubt as to whether or not it is anything more... I certainly agree that the article should balance both sides, and I hope that my questions and suggestions don't offend anyone, as this is not my intention. Feel free to correct me, I take criticism well, although I can be a bit tenacious in the absence of cited credible sources... User:Darknipples (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope you clean up that controversies section it is horribly written and not very encyclopedic. I've read Craigslist ads that were better written.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The existing section title is adequate. The term is politically charged, and since a large faction disagree with the characterization, there's no value in naming it based on what one side prefers to call it. It doesn't add any clarity by changing it. Renaming it to something like "Controversies related to the so-called 'gun show loophole'" would spell it out, but it wouldn't improve the article. The term and the allegation are controversial. Thus, 'controversies' is adequate. Anastrophe (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Anastrophe. I appreciate your input, however I am confused by your explanation and reasoning for leaving the current section title the same. "The term is politically charged" - Would you please explain what bearing this has on the section header? Aren't politically charged terms and articles allowed on Wiki? "since a large faction disagree with the characterization, there's no value in naming it based on what one side prefers to call it." Conversely, another "large faction" does agree with this characterization. This is why I suggested a compromise. Since one side believes the loophole exists, and the other does not, how is leaving it out completely and just having "controversies" provide balance to both sides, let alone clarity, or an accurate description of section title's content? "The term and the allegation are controversial. Thus, 'controversies' is adequate." Except, the term "loophole" isn't mentioned, and it is only "controversial" to one side. - Respectfully, Darknipples (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think DN brings up very valid points, and we should not dismiss his suggestion too quickly. Coincidentally, I've been working on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System article. Just yesterday, one of the sources I was reading on the subject mentioned the "gun show loophole," and I wondered what we had here on WP on the topic. So I searched it, and that's how I ended up here. "Gun show loophole" is the term a preponderence of WP:V, WP:RS use. The fact that some don't use it is not a reason to not use it. We just need to make it clear in the opening paragraph of the section what it means and that it is disliked by some. See WP:BALANCE. Lightbreather (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Use of the term dates back to 1999 - by at least two U.S. government agencies.
 * 18 U.S.C. § 922(t) prohibits only a licensee from transferring a firearm to a nonlicensee before contacting the national criminal background check system and does not apply to transfers by nonlicensees. According to a 1999 report by the Department of the Treasury and DOJ, this is known as the 'gun show loophole.' Source:
 * --Lightbreather (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The term actually dates back to 1996, when the former incarnation of the Violence Policy Center invented it. As long as the very first sentence acknowledges that it's a term made up by pro-gun-control forces, I'm fine with the change. Anastrophe (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I provided my source, and a high-quality one, too. Would you provide yours, please? My thinking was that the first paragraph needs to explain that the term is disliked by gun-rights advocates - but to say it was "made up" by gun-control advocates is a stretch - without at least a couple of high-quality sources. Lightbreather (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Anastrophe - "The term actually dates back to 1996, when the former incarnation of the Violence Policy Center invented it. As long as the very first sentence acknowledges that it's a term made up by pro-gun-control forces, I'm fine with the change." I believe this discussion has already been resolved in the original section listed on the talk page - The source and citation you are using seems to have been used by User:Trasel and determined to be WP:OR by User:SaltyBoatr and User:Forward Thinkers. Lightbreather - This is one reason why I did not want to move this topic to a new talk page. Can we move it back so we can more easily reference what has obviously already been discussed? - Respectfully All Darknipples (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * DN, it's OK, really. I will add a link to that older discussion to the top of this discussion. (Again, we haven't started a new page - just a new discussion on the same page.) Also, I will try to find the diffs (edit records) for the points you're referring to and add those here, too. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * DN, here is the diff of SaltyBoatr starting the 2009 discussion:
 * And here is the diff of Forward Thinkers support:
 * Hope that helps. You're doing fine. Lightbreather (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll withdraw the claim that they invented it. I will stand by this as the first use of the term: http://www.vpc.org/studies/tupeight.htm . The argument is not that gun-rights advocates "dislike" it, it is that the contention that it is a "loophole" is false. The sales are fully within the law, and interfering in interpersonal sales violates virtually all commerce clause restrictions. The section needs to properly characterize the issue. The term "gun show loophole" is a propaganda term, and it's been as successful as the term "assault weapons" in its acceptance. Anastrophe (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Anastrophe, we posted on top of each other. So what I write here might repeat some of what you've written.
 * I did a little searching myself, and found this: "http://www.vpc.org/studies/tupcont.htm" and the final section "https://www.vpc.org/studies/tupeight.htm" of that ("Recommendations") says:
 * Amend the definition of 'engaged in the business' to close the loophole that allows sales from a personal collection in supposed 'pursuit of a hobby.' One option could be to disallow such sales at gun shows altogether.
 * So I see that the VPC used the word "loophole" in its report, but not that it created the term "gun show loophole." Neither the press release or the executive summary from that report say "gun show loophole," either, though the executive summary does repeat the recommendation quoted above. Perhaps someone involved with the 1999 report I mentioned above took that VPC report seriously and created the term? Who knows? Without a high-quality, definitive source it's a moot point. The important thing is to tell the reader that some dislike the term. It's a regularly used but controversial term to describe what some see as a problem. Then describe the problem, using reliable, verifiable sources, and including reliable, verifiable counter arguments.
 * (added) So what we need to describe, is the dispute about use of the word "loophole." That is what you're saying, right A.? Lightbreather (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Anastrophe Would you say that your POV is possibly biased towards gun rights or that your are anti-gun control? Darknipples (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The talk page for discussing the article, not individual editor's personal points of view. My POV is irrelevant. The POV of the article is what is relevant. Anastrophe (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose that we let DN rename this section "Gun show loophole" and guide him, kindly and assuming good faith, as he reworks it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I reject a blanket rename to "Gun show loophole". We don't use one side's pet name to describe a controversy that surrounds the notion, the meaning, the intent, and the outcome of the the term. A section name of
 * "Gun show loophole" controversy
 * would be closer. Unfortunately the section does not discuss the "gun show loophole" exclusively. Confining the section to that name misrepresents the section. Thus the broader term 'controversies' is the appropriate heading. Anastrophe (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We already have a redirect for Gun show loophole that brings any interested reader to this section. I continue to oppose using a term favored by one side of a controversy in.a section name, and will always recommend neutral language in such cases. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Cullen, I have great respect for you and your take on these kinds of issues, but I disagree on this. The problem - setting aside for now that gun-control and gun-rights advocates see and describe the problem differently - is called the gun show loophole by a preponderance of high-quality WP:V - and not just by one side or the other, but by a majority of neutral sources as well. The MOS:HEADINGS guidline says provisions in Article titles generally apply to section headings as well. That guideline directs us to the WP:TITLE policy. And that policy tells us: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." At least 9 of the 15 sources cited in the section under discussion talk about or mention the gun show loophole. (A couple of those 15 sources no longer work.) WP:POVNAME says, "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title...." (or, in this case, section heading). To not use the common term is to give undue weight to the viewpoint that there is something wrong or devious about the term. Lightbreather (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately "Controversies" is vague. Perhaps "Private sales controversy" would be a good sub-heading? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC).


 * I think "Gun show loophole controversy" is a good compromise. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I could live with that, or "Gun show loophole debate." Lightbreather (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't. Loophole is a politically contrived term, by the anti-freedom crowd in an attempt to use the federal government to overreach its authority and meddle in the affairs of individual states. "Private sales" or "lack of background checks" at certain venues may be more appropriate and may garner you more support from the pro-freedom crowd. If I started selling guns in a McDonald's parking lot without background checks would you refer to that as the "McDonald's Loophole"? There is enough politicizing on here without this derogatory term, do not lose NPOV and alienate positive contributors.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mike, I know you have strong feelings about these things. Many who edit these gun-control related articles do, but our opinions about the terms used do not matter. What matters is that the sources - a preponderance of sources pro, con, and neutral - use the term. What we do to make it NPOV is to explain the viewpoints in a balanced way using an impartial tone. Lightbreather (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, like that's going to happen, but it is interesting that an article about "Gun shows" only has external links to the antis POV and propoganda and not a single link to an actual gun show; well not really interesting but a main reason why people think this site has become a joke instead of an actual encyclopedia. That is like littering the abortion articles with links to Pro-life sites; only that would probably lead to a site ban.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mike, it can happen, and it should. I was going to put an external link to a gun show or two, but wouldn't that be WP:LINKSPAM?
 * And all those links to antigunners is not linkspam? --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I withdraw support for changing the name of the section. It is not limited only to the so-called 'gun show loophole'. It is entirely neutral, unbiased, and common for an article to have a section labeled simply "controversy" or "controversies". Changing this does not improve the article in any way that I can think of. A person searching on the term "gun show loophole" will be directed to this article; The article is short in relative terms, and a person of normal reading comprehension can read it from top to bottom in just a few minutes. If they are short on time, they can use their browser's built in search facility to find the term they are looking for. Mislabeling the section to conform to one side's chosen name for a portion of the content is not neutral. Absent a compelling argument that the existing section name is not neutral, or is misleading, or is confusing, I can't support a change from what is clear and concise already. Anastrophe (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If the user does not associate the term with controversy, wouldn't there be a possible "disconnect" there? Darknipples (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit other user's comments, I'm not sure why you changed "misleading" to "misleadi ng" in my response (I've restored the original). I see no disconnect. If they are directed to this article in search of the term, they'll find it in due course. And they will be educated in the process as to what the nature of the controversy is. The very first result in a google search of the term "gun show loophole" brings them to this page. Anastrophe (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies Anastrophe, I must not have noticed. It was purely accidental. Darknipples (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the argument that "The Gun Show Loophole" doesn't exist, or, that it is merely a political ploy, and should therefore not receive a section title (let alone it's own page), I find it flawed. There are plenty of WP pages on so-called "controversial" subjects ranging from God to Welfare queen. Further evidence that use of the term on WP already exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Show_Loophole_Closing_Act_of_2009 Darknipples (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Gun show differences by state section
Good idea, but not adequately sourced and very OR. Suggest removal. 173.22.180.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

✅ Agreed, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Missing information
This article is far less informative than it could be and is missing quite a bit of information. For example, there is nothing about the law suits (successful or not) to stop certain show and the gun shows that have been shut down and subsequent lawsuits to allow them to be held again. There is nothing regarding the industry such as the worlds largest gun show, the annual SHOT Show that is open to people in the industry only, or the NRA Annual Meeting which is one of the largest traveling gun shows in the U.S. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have a good grasp on this. How about you try to find some reliable sources and incorporate them into the article? Cheers! Johnny338 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I will when I have more time to devote to the effort, I just wanted to announce my intentions. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What's next? How to improve this article?
So, what are your suggestions for improving this article? Lightbreather (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say trim the hell out of that investigation section and take a crash course in how to write in Summary Style.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to what I stated above, Mike's suggestions are excellent. We need to come up with a practical outline before any overhaul of this article can make sense. Here's my first attempt on one...


 * Lead
 * History
 * Types - guns and everything else offered for sale
 * Public - they are called "gun shows", "sportsman shows", or "outdoorsmen shows" around the country, plus there are dedicated antique gun (pre-1899) shows
 * Industry (Trade) - Shot Show, etc.
 * Operation
 * Venues and attendance
 * Legal restrictions
 * Politics, legislation, and legal activities - including canceled shows, attempted cancellations through court case, etc.
 * Research studies
 * 1st Amendment cases
 * Law enforcement investigation
 * See also
 * References
 * External links

--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 14:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)