Is the Controversial Issues section neutral? It's confusing for sure.-- 82.15.46.131 05:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
the text says that someone could end up selling almost a thousand guns at gun shows, and not have to go through background checks. Notice it says that such a person would be posing as a private seller. If he is posing, how can it be argued that he is doing so legally?! botom line, if you sell guns for a living, and are posing as a private party at a gun show, you are breaking the law. Period. there is no loop hole. Dullfig 20:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Why not merge this article into Gun show. They're both tagged as stubs. I see no reason for two articles on different aspects of the same topic.
If nobody says otherwise in a few days, I'll assume either folks are in agreement or nobody cares enough. Then I'll go ahead and do it. Thernlund 05:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
New editor Darknipples is going to be working on this article for a while. If you want to help me to help her/him, please do, but let's all remember how to treat a WP:NEWCOMER. Thanks. Lightbreather ( talk) 19:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the event Columbine High School massacre, it seems to be relevant to what made the term "gun show loophole" prolific in modern day American culture. However this reference is also still being used on the Gun shows in the United States page. Is there any foreseeable issue in using it here? Darknipples ( talk) 22:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The Controversy section as it exists now is pretty entirely WP:UNDUE. One statement that lasted about two days of the news cycle amounts to a curiosity. Anastrophe ( talk) 16:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The controversy section is still almost entirely synthesis. The newly added material does not itself suggest what the controversy is, it only states bare information under the title "Controversy". The controversy section needs to cite sources that specifically call these things out as being controversial - we do not just throw information in it that we as editors think is controversial, the sources themselves must describe what controversy exists. Anastrophe ( talk) 19:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
A list of all legislation bills that include the term "Gun Show Loophole"? Perhaps FOPA should have it's own section? Darknipples ( talk) 23:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
http://archive.bangordailynews.com/2004/04/02/closing-the-gun-show-loophole/ This article refers to "LD 917", which is legislation that seems to refer to the issue of GSL. Does anyone object to using it for this section? Here is a "quick read" link - http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_121st/billtexts/LD091701-1.asp Darknipples ( talk) 08:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Anastrophe - I see you have deleted most of my recent changes to the article. I realize that I am new, so, I am assuming you prefer I discuss my changes, additions, and deletions here first, before I add them to the article? Would you be willing to do the same? - Respectfully - Darknipples ( talk) 02:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
FOPA weakens FFL dealer's legal restrictions at Gun Shows, but which parts of the language in it are considered "ambiguous" and why? Darknipples ( talk) 04:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
DN, I'm a little confused by your question. Does this go back to one of the earlier discussions you had with Cullen about how or why the term "gun show loophole" was created? [1] If so, don't worry about that. You might be struggling with what a lot of new WP editors go through. Very few of us have backgrounds in encyclopedia writing. You don't need or want to pose a question and formulate an answer. A lot of new writers don't know about these two policies: WP:OR (original research) and WP:SYNTH (synthesis). Read about those, and once you understand them editing here actually becomes a lot easier. What you want to do is research use of the term "gun show loophole" and what sources say about the topic, and then choose the highest quality and most relevant to put in the article. The hardest part then becomes presenting it in an WP:NPOV (neutral point of view). Once people get past the OR and SYNTH problems, I think the next biggest problem is WP:SOURCE QUALITY and achieving neutrality, so review those, too, please.
So, for now, don't worry about why it's called a loophole - that's just what it's called. Just find out what sources say about the loophole and - following the policies and guidelines I just gave - draft an article. May the force be with you. ;-) Lightbreather ( talk) 14:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The term "GSL" may have existed years before FOPA came to fruition. - http://books.google.com/books?id=yGXy5g7rMEsC&pg=PR30&lpg=PR30&dq=Armed+and+Considered+Dangerous:+gun+show+loophole&source=bl&ots=cswq36cVQL&sig=NaTPYLq3_E_z0Wl8ZYtCqKZmI3A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZC6qU4eBD9CPqAbvyYHQCw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Armed%20and%20Considered%20Dangerous%3A%20gun%20show%20loophole&f=false (Scroll down) - It was originally published in 1986, but the highlighted sections may have been added later? Darknipples ( talk) 04:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
"Gun shows have proliferated in the United States since 1986, when Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. That law reversed a section in the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibited firearms dealers who hold a Federal Firearms License to sell guns anywhere but their registered address. After passage of the FOPA, dealers could take their "stores" on the road. The so-called "gun-show loophole" takes these shows--which numbered more than 5,000 in 2005--to a whole new level." http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2013/jan/16/gun-show-loophole/#_ Darknipples ( talk) 03:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"With all due respect to our friends on the other side of the aisle, let's look at what their position has been in terms of the proliferation of weapons. I was here when we passed the McClure-Volkmer Act. I voted in opposition to that bill, which opened up the whole gun show loophole. The McClure-Volkmer bill effectively facilitated the sale of guns to criminals and juveniles by turning gun shows into a booming business. It severely restricted the ability of the ATF to conduct inspections of the business premises of federally licensed firearms dealers. It raised the burden of proof for violations of federal gun laws. That is what the NRA has supported on the McClure-Volkmer bill." - MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued a speech in Congress by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), on May 17, 2000 - https://scout.sunlightfoundation.com/item/speech/CREC-2000-05-17-pt1-PgS4037.chunk9/sen-edward-kennedy-military-construction-appropriations-act-2001--continued - Darknipples ( talk) 05:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"The NRA-sponsored Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, also known as the McClure-Volkmer Act, is perhaps the most damning evidence of NRA hypocrisy on enforcement. With its passage, the NRA accomplished the following:-- Allowed unlicensed individuals to sell their personal firearms as a "hobby," allowing for the sale of massive numbers of firearms to criminals and juveniles without background checks. This provision not only created a vast secondary market, but also opened up the "gun show loophole" which Congress is now charged with closing;" (New Report Details NRA's Shameful Legacy of Weakening Our Gun Laws) - WASHINGTON - March 21 - The following was released today by Handgun Control Inc. - http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0321-03.htm Darknipples ( talk) 06:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Gun owners won a big battle to ease restrictions on gun and ammo sales. Also known as the McClure-Volkmer Act, the law also allowed what would become known as the “gun show loophole.” http://interactivetimeline.com/1970/gun-debate/21.php - Darknipples ( talk) 06:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Gun show loophole is a term that refers to an exception to United States law, under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), that allows individuals who are "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, to perform firearm sales without running a background check on potential buyers. [1] Private sellers are however forbidden under federal law from selling firearms or ammunition to persons they know or have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms. [2]
I think it's important to note in this section that while GSL refers changes made by FOPA in regard to FFL's, it speaks to the issue of unregulated private sales held by GCAs. Would it help if there was some etymology on gun control advocacy, since it is likely that GSL originated as a term by GCAs?
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=wmborj - According to this it began with a "individual rights view" versus a "collective rights view".
I think this piece on gun control holds specific relevance to the term GSL. http://differentviewsonguncontrol.voices.wooster.edu/why-is-the-issue-of-gun-control-so-important/
Darknipples ( talk) 22:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This section is for article discussions that address the challenges associated with eliminating GSL. Darknipples ( talk) 03:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
"United States Attorneys offered a wide range of proposals to address the gun show loophole. These include the following: (1) allowing only FFLs to sell guns at gun shows so that a background check and a firearms transaction record accompany every transaction; (2) strengthening the definition of “engaged in the business” by defining the terms with more precision, narrowing the exception for “hobbyists,” and lowering the intent requirement; (3) limiting the number of private sales permitted by an individual to a specified number per year; (4) requiring persons who sell guns in the secondary market to comply with the recordkeeping requirements that are applicable to FFLs; (5) requiring all transfers in the secondary market to go through an FFL; (6) establishing procedures for the orderly liquidation of inventory belonging to FFLs who surrender their license;(7) requiring registration of nonlicensed persons who sell guns; (8) increasing the punishment for transferring a firearm without a background check as required by the Brady Act; (9) requiring the gun show promoters to be licensed and maintain an inventory of all the firearms that are sold by FFLs and non-FFLs at a gun show;(10) requiring that one or more ATF agents be present at every gun show; and (11) insulating unlicensed vendors from criminal liability if they agree to have purchasers complete a firearms transaction form." https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/treas/treas-gun-shows-brady-checks-and-crime-gun-traces.pdf Darknipples ( talk) 21:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
High-quality sources here, please - with a mix of "conservative," "liberal" and neutral sources:
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help) - This one is a backbone source for the topic.{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)-- Lightbreather ( talk) 17:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
In addition to simply googling "gun show loophole" try these sources, too:
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 14:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
SOURCES CONTINUED
This:
"Opponents of gun control say there is no gun show loophole, only a long-standing tradition of free commerce between private parties that heretofore has not been restricted in the context of secondary, intrastate firearm sales."
with this cite: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1438 pages 837–891
is way, way too broad. I've no specific objection to the statement - though it should be characterized to a specific entity, rather than the vague 'opponents of gun control' - but the reference cites fifty-four pages in support of the statement! That's way way too broad. It needs to be narrowed down specifically to the page(s) there that actually posit this. I'd fix it myself - but honestly, I don't really feel like slogging through all that just to find the one supportive statement. Anastrophe ( talk) 21:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Miguel Escopeta Some of these edits seem to have been covered in the criticism section, so, I'm not sure they necessarily belong in the lead section. GSL, in essence, refers to background checks, or the lack thereof. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gun_show_loophole&diff=615997380&oldid=615995985
This section seems to be a bit POV. Now I know there's a GSL, and I think that most people here also agree, but a gun-toter will read this section and become outraged. Content that outrages mainstream readers is not very encyclopedic. Wikipedia content should be dry and boring. Our gun-toting friends will argue vehemently that the GSL does not even exist, let alone need to be closed. I have wikified the section, but it still needs to be re-written for NPOV, or at the very least, balanced out a bit. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
(I can't find a previous discussion. If this has already been resolved, please remove the tag.)
The title (Gun show loophole) is accurate (in a sense), commonly used, but a strong WP:NPOV violation. However, I can't think of a neutral name. "(US) Gun show background check exemption." Calling it a "loophole" is pejorative, as is referring to the mortgage interest deduction as a tax loophole. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
"we are permitted to use a descriptive term" - What exactly do you suggest? What other notable terms (citations) are commonly being used to describe GSL? The content, including the heading, seem to clearly express that "not everyone" considers current gun laws to contain a "loophole". Your example ClimateGate may be construed as "other-stuff" /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF#What_about_article_x.3F -Respectfully (DN) Darknipples ( talk) 19:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Arthur: May I suggest you familiarize yourself a bit more with WP:POVTITLE? GSL is derived from multiple reliable sources. It is not derived from any other notable or common terms, or editorialized by anyone here, that I am aware of. "Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors." - "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Darknipples ( talk) 23:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
"Gun show loophole controversy" would also be acceptable in my opinion. Darknipples ( talk) 19:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone doubt the term is pejorative, whether or not we have a source for it? The fact is the term is only used by those who think the "loophole" should be closed needs to be indicated in the lead, somehow. I also dispute the claim that it's a "term-of-art".
Propaganda (note: that is not a pejorative term) may be appropriate, but not "term-of-art". Never mind: the definition of "term of art" (redirects to
jargon) does not require that it not be a propaganda term.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Arthur Rubin (
talk •
contribs)
The "gun show loophole" term is used more as a way to disparage buying guns, and to disparage both gun owners and guns shows, since there is no loophole in the law that permits individuals to sell private firearms to other individuals at a gunshow in private commerce within a state that is also not permitted under law at any other location in the same state between the same two private individuals. Hence, "gun show loophole" is a pejorative term-of-art, since it is used to disparage. Federal law only regulates interstate commerce, not private commerce within a state, through the Commerce Clause. Only state laws apply, whether or not private sales must be processed through an FFL license-holder. Propaganda is a much more strongly worded term-of-art, carrying with it the intent to deceive, instead of merely to disparage. Everyone knows that there is really not a loophole in the law. Yet the term "gun show loophole" is used to disparage, to advance the agenda of reducing the private ownership of firearms. Hence, it would seem that the descriptor "pejorative" is more applicable than "propaganda". -- Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 18:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not a useful discussion to have on this talk page. If you wish to continue discussing please do on at another venue (such as the user's talk page. Collapsing done as an uninvolved admin; not AE action at this stage, though I'd appreciate it if people left collapsed and moved on. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Have you ever actually been to a gunshow, and/or purchased a gun from a licensed dealer or a private party? It seems evident that you do not know just what is involved, so far as background checks, record-keeping, or enforcement of the laws. You keep throwing around terms that it is quite clear you do not really understand. There is no such thing as a "private dealer" or an "unlicensed dealer" under federal law. Someone is either "engaged in the business" --- to use the BATF's terminology --- in which case they must have a Federal Firearms License; or they are not "engaged in the business" and are merely a private party making a perfectly legal "occasional sale" of a firearm to another private party. If they are a licensed dealer, they must comply with ALL of the background check and record-keeping requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Act. It makes absolutely no difference if they are at a gun show or at their brick-and-mortar gun shop. If they are a private party, they are prohibited from accessing the NCIC system in order to run a background check. This was an intentional prohibition, pushed by Senator Kennedy among others, supposedly for the "protection of privacy" of the public. The BATF has kept the definition of "engaged in the business" intentionally vague and undefined. This was not for the benefit of the NRA or gun sellers; it was to allow the maximum amount of prosecutorial discretion, for the benefit of the BATF. They have consistently refused to go on record as to a specific number or amount of money that would constitute "engaging in the business," despite repeated attempts by the NRA and collectors' organizations to get an unambiguous definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.117.19 ( talk) 04:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
See the top of the "talk page". This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Darknipples ( talk) 04:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If no one objects to deleting it within a reasonable time, it should be done. It's taking up valuable space on the talk page. I will notify the person that posted it, now. Darknipples ( talk) 00:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion opens with an obviously rhetorical question, since the poster follows it with his/her own answer. Then they wrote four paragraphs about their opinion on the topic (no sources). Then another editor (now topic banned [6]) commented with his opinion (no sources). DN reminded them about the purpose of an article talk page. Then another editor jumped in with a snarky comment, to which DN correctly replied that it (the discussion) was bordering on harassment. So, two questions: What is this discussion about? If it doesn't help to improve this article, why keep it? If we are going to keep it, I suggest we collapse or "hab" it (or whatever that's called). PS: I renamed it "Question" because the original header was against WP:TPG, but I am going to improve the header since "Question," too, doesn't really meet TPG. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 16:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
To reiterate, this talk page section should not be removed. The original post directly relates to the contents of the article, and, while it is not particularly friendly or even polite, it certainly does not qualify as harassment. Some editors may not like what it says, or find it unhelpful, but it doesn't come close to qualifying for removal. Feel free to review WP:TPO which is the guideline for this type of thing. — Mudwater ( Talk) 00:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Darknipples has asked IP editor 63.152.117.19 to move this discussion to her (DN's) talk page. [7] Since the IP has not edited since posting this discussion last October, I doubt that they'll move it. I have habbed the first few sentence of the post, since they were the uncivil part, I hope that will help to put an end to this dispute. I also propose that we re-rename the discussion consistent with WP:TALKNEW, or at least so that DN's name isn't in it. It ain't cool as is, and I absolutely sympathize with DN's complaint and her request. Darknipples, Mudwater, is this solution agreeable to you? Lightbreather ( talk) 15:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
|
I read that the terrorists in Paris bought their weapons at a train station and no bg check was conducted. Should we address the "Train Station Loophole" to make the article less US-centric?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
With regard to this edit [8], how is the opinion of a professor of emergency medicine at U.C. Davis relevant to gun shows? Obviously Garen J. Wintemute had something to say about it, but why is it included in this article? -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 09:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph from the top of the "Legislation" section. I am preserving it here for discussion.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 20:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The first source especially concerns me. First off, it's very poor quality, it's unclear what it's supporting or where within the source the supporting information is found. (When I print-preview it, it takes up hundreds of pages.) I think it should be droppped completely.
The second source, although published on a law firm's website, is at least better quality in that it is a PDF that appears to be a true facsimile of the original document. However, like the first source, it's unclear what it's supporting or where within the source the supporting information is found.
The third source is a single sheet from the Consumer Federation of America: according to its website, "an association of non-profit consumer organizations that was established in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, advocacy, and education." I'm still figuring out if/how it might be used in the article. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I feel that in order to maintain balance and satisfy both sides of this argument, it would be a good idea to create a section(s) that appeal to each side. To start, why not begin a section focused on the "pro-gun" stance on GSL? Then, a section on "anti-gun" and so forth? The point is to improve the article by allowing both sides of the argument to represent and cite their sides of the argument, equally. For example we could create a section that focuses on the NRA's stance and a section that focuses on VPC's stance and so forth. Darknipples ( talk) 05:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Is the Controversial Issues section neutral? It's confusing for sure.-- 82.15.46.131 05:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
the text says that someone could end up selling almost a thousand guns at gun shows, and not have to go through background checks. Notice it says that such a person would be posing as a private seller. If he is posing, how can it be argued that he is doing so legally?! botom line, if you sell guns for a living, and are posing as a private party at a gun show, you are breaking the law. Period. there is no loop hole. Dullfig 20:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Why not merge this article into Gun show. They're both tagged as stubs. I see no reason for two articles on different aspects of the same topic.
If nobody says otherwise in a few days, I'll assume either folks are in agreement or nobody cares enough. Then I'll go ahead and do it. Thernlund 05:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
New editor Darknipples is going to be working on this article for a while. If you want to help me to help her/him, please do, but let's all remember how to treat a WP:NEWCOMER. Thanks. Lightbreather ( talk) 19:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the event Columbine High School massacre, it seems to be relevant to what made the term "gun show loophole" prolific in modern day American culture. However this reference is also still being used on the Gun shows in the United States page. Is there any foreseeable issue in using it here? Darknipples ( talk) 22:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The Controversy section as it exists now is pretty entirely WP:UNDUE. One statement that lasted about two days of the news cycle amounts to a curiosity. Anastrophe ( talk) 16:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The controversy section is still almost entirely synthesis. The newly added material does not itself suggest what the controversy is, it only states bare information under the title "Controversy". The controversy section needs to cite sources that specifically call these things out as being controversial - we do not just throw information in it that we as editors think is controversial, the sources themselves must describe what controversy exists. Anastrophe ( talk) 19:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
A list of all legislation bills that include the term "Gun Show Loophole"? Perhaps FOPA should have it's own section? Darknipples ( talk) 23:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
http://archive.bangordailynews.com/2004/04/02/closing-the-gun-show-loophole/ This article refers to "LD 917", which is legislation that seems to refer to the issue of GSL. Does anyone object to using it for this section? Here is a "quick read" link - http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_121st/billtexts/LD091701-1.asp Darknipples ( talk) 08:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Anastrophe - I see you have deleted most of my recent changes to the article. I realize that I am new, so, I am assuming you prefer I discuss my changes, additions, and deletions here first, before I add them to the article? Would you be willing to do the same? - Respectfully - Darknipples ( talk) 02:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
FOPA weakens FFL dealer's legal restrictions at Gun Shows, but which parts of the language in it are considered "ambiguous" and why? Darknipples ( talk) 04:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
DN, I'm a little confused by your question. Does this go back to one of the earlier discussions you had with Cullen about how or why the term "gun show loophole" was created? [1] If so, don't worry about that. You might be struggling with what a lot of new WP editors go through. Very few of us have backgrounds in encyclopedia writing. You don't need or want to pose a question and formulate an answer. A lot of new writers don't know about these two policies: WP:OR (original research) and WP:SYNTH (synthesis). Read about those, and once you understand them editing here actually becomes a lot easier. What you want to do is research use of the term "gun show loophole" and what sources say about the topic, and then choose the highest quality and most relevant to put in the article. The hardest part then becomes presenting it in an WP:NPOV (neutral point of view). Once people get past the OR and SYNTH problems, I think the next biggest problem is WP:SOURCE QUALITY and achieving neutrality, so review those, too, please.
So, for now, don't worry about why it's called a loophole - that's just what it's called. Just find out what sources say about the loophole and - following the policies and guidelines I just gave - draft an article. May the force be with you. ;-) Lightbreather ( talk) 14:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The term "GSL" may have existed years before FOPA came to fruition. - http://books.google.com/books?id=yGXy5g7rMEsC&pg=PR30&lpg=PR30&dq=Armed+and+Considered+Dangerous:+gun+show+loophole&source=bl&ots=cswq36cVQL&sig=NaTPYLq3_E_z0Wl8ZYtCqKZmI3A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZC6qU4eBD9CPqAbvyYHQCw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Armed%20and%20Considered%20Dangerous%3A%20gun%20show%20loophole&f=false (Scroll down) - It was originally published in 1986, but the highlighted sections may have been added later? Darknipples ( talk) 04:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
"Gun shows have proliferated in the United States since 1986, when Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. That law reversed a section in the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibited firearms dealers who hold a Federal Firearms License to sell guns anywhere but their registered address. After passage of the FOPA, dealers could take their "stores" on the road. The so-called "gun-show loophole" takes these shows--which numbered more than 5,000 in 2005--to a whole new level." http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2013/jan/16/gun-show-loophole/#_ Darknipples ( talk) 03:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"With all due respect to our friends on the other side of the aisle, let's look at what their position has been in terms of the proliferation of weapons. I was here when we passed the McClure-Volkmer Act. I voted in opposition to that bill, which opened up the whole gun show loophole. The McClure-Volkmer bill effectively facilitated the sale of guns to criminals and juveniles by turning gun shows into a booming business. It severely restricted the ability of the ATF to conduct inspections of the business premises of federally licensed firearms dealers. It raised the burden of proof for violations of federal gun laws. That is what the NRA has supported on the McClure-Volkmer bill." - MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued a speech in Congress by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), on May 17, 2000 - https://scout.sunlightfoundation.com/item/speech/CREC-2000-05-17-pt1-PgS4037.chunk9/sen-edward-kennedy-military-construction-appropriations-act-2001--continued - Darknipples ( talk) 05:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"The NRA-sponsored Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, also known as the McClure-Volkmer Act, is perhaps the most damning evidence of NRA hypocrisy on enforcement. With its passage, the NRA accomplished the following:-- Allowed unlicensed individuals to sell their personal firearms as a "hobby," allowing for the sale of massive numbers of firearms to criminals and juveniles without background checks. This provision not only created a vast secondary market, but also opened up the "gun show loophole" which Congress is now charged with closing;" (New Report Details NRA's Shameful Legacy of Weakening Our Gun Laws) - WASHINGTON - March 21 - The following was released today by Handgun Control Inc. - http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0321-03.htm Darknipples ( talk) 06:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Gun owners won a big battle to ease restrictions on gun and ammo sales. Also known as the McClure-Volkmer Act, the law also allowed what would become known as the “gun show loophole.” http://interactivetimeline.com/1970/gun-debate/21.php - Darknipples ( talk) 06:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Gun show loophole is a term that refers to an exception to United States law, under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), that allows individuals who are "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, to perform firearm sales without running a background check on potential buyers. [1] Private sellers are however forbidden under federal law from selling firearms or ammunition to persons they know or have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms. [2]
I think it's important to note in this section that while GSL refers changes made by FOPA in regard to FFL's, it speaks to the issue of unregulated private sales held by GCAs. Would it help if there was some etymology on gun control advocacy, since it is likely that GSL originated as a term by GCAs?
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=wmborj - According to this it began with a "individual rights view" versus a "collective rights view".
I think this piece on gun control holds specific relevance to the term GSL. http://differentviewsonguncontrol.voices.wooster.edu/why-is-the-issue-of-gun-control-so-important/
Darknipples ( talk) 22:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This section is for article discussions that address the challenges associated with eliminating GSL. Darknipples ( talk) 03:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
"United States Attorneys offered a wide range of proposals to address the gun show loophole. These include the following: (1) allowing only FFLs to sell guns at gun shows so that a background check and a firearms transaction record accompany every transaction; (2) strengthening the definition of “engaged in the business” by defining the terms with more precision, narrowing the exception for “hobbyists,” and lowering the intent requirement; (3) limiting the number of private sales permitted by an individual to a specified number per year; (4) requiring persons who sell guns in the secondary market to comply with the recordkeeping requirements that are applicable to FFLs; (5) requiring all transfers in the secondary market to go through an FFL; (6) establishing procedures for the orderly liquidation of inventory belonging to FFLs who surrender their license;(7) requiring registration of nonlicensed persons who sell guns; (8) increasing the punishment for transferring a firearm without a background check as required by the Brady Act; (9) requiring the gun show promoters to be licensed and maintain an inventory of all the firearms that are sold by FFLs and non-FFLs at a gun show;(10) requiring that one or more ATF agents be present at every gun show; and (11) insulating unlicensed vendors from criminal liability if they agree to have purchasers complete a firearms transaction form." https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/treas/treas-gun-shows-brady-checks-and-crime-gun-traces.pdf Darknipples ( talk) 21:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
High-quality sources here, please - with a mix of "conservative," "liberal" and neutral sources:
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help) - This one is a backbone source for the topic.{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)-- Lightbreather ( talk) 17:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
In addition to simply googling "gun show loophole" try these sources, too:
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 14:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
SOURCES CONTINUED
This:
"Opponents of gun control say there is no gun show loophole, only a long-standing tradition of free commerce between private parties that heretofore has not been restricted in the context of secondary, intrastate firearm sales."
with this cite: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1438 pages 837–891
is way, way too broad. I've no specific objection to the statement - though it should be characterized to a specific entity, rather than the vague 'opponents of gun control' - but the reference cites fifty-four pages in support of the statement! That's way way too broad. It needs to be narrowed down specifically to the page(s) there that actually posit this. I'd fix it myself - but honestly, I don't really feel like slogging through all that just to find the one supportive statement. Anastrophe ( talk) 21:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Miguel Escopeta Some of these edits seem to have been covered in the criticism section, so, I'm not sure they necessarily belong in the lead section. GSL, in essence, refers to background checks, or the lack thereof. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gun_show_loophole&diff=615997380&oldid=615995985
This section seems to be a bit POV. Now I know there's a GSL, and I think that most people here also agree, but a gun-toter will read this section and become outraged. Content that outrages mainstream readers is not very encyclopedic. Wikipedia content should be dry and boring. Our gun-toting friends will argue vehemently that the GSL does not even exist, let alone need to be closed. I have wikified the section, but it still needs to be re-written for NPOV, or at the very least, balanced out a bit. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
(I can't find a previous discussion. If this has already been resolved, please remove the tag.)
The title (Gun show loophole) is accurate (in a sense), commonly used, but a strong WP:NPOV violation. However, I can't think of a neutral name. "(US) Gun show background check exemption." Calling it a "loophole" is pejorative, as is referring to the mortgage interest deduction as a tax loophole. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
"we are permitted to use a descriptive term" - What exactly do you suggest? What other notable terms (citations) are commonly being used to describe GSL? The content, including the heading, seem to clearly express that "not everyone" considers current gun laws to contain a "loophole". Your example ClimateGate may be construed as "other-stuff" /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF#What_about_article_x.3F -Respectfully (DN) Darknipples ( talk) 19:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Arthur: May I suggest you familiarize yourself a bit more with WP:POVTITLE? GSL is derived from multiple reliable sources. It is not derived from any other notable or common terms, or editorialized by anyone here, that I am aware of. "Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors." - "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Darknipples ( talk) 23:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
"Gun show loophole controversy" would also be acceptable in my opinion. Darknipples ( talk) 19:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone doubt the term is pejorative, whether or not we have a source for it? The fact is the term is only used by those who think the "loophole" should be closed needs to be indicated in the lead, somehow. I also dispute the claim that it's a "term-of-art".
Propaganda (note: that is not a pejorative term) may be appropriate, but not "term-of-art". Never mind: the definition of "term of art" (redirects to
jargon) does not require that it not be a propaganda term.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Arthur Rubin (
talk •
contribs)
The "gun show loophole" term is used more as a way to disparage buying guns, and to disparage both gun owners and guns shows, since there is no loophole in the law that permits individuals to sell private firearms to other individuals at a gunshow in private commerce within a state that is also not permitted under law at any other location in the same state between the same two private individuals. Hence, "gun show loophole" is a pejorative term-of-art, since it is used to disparage. Federal law only regulates interstate commerce, not private commerce within a state, through the Commerce Clause. Only state laws apply, whether or not private sales must be processed through an FFL license-holder. Propaganda is a much more strongly worded term-of-art, carrying with it the intent to deceive, instead of merely to disparage. Everyone knows that there is really not a loophole in the law. Yet the term "gun show loophole" is used to disparage, to advance the agenda of reducing the private ownership of firearms. Hence, it would seem that the descriptor "pejorative" is more applicable than "propaganda". -- Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 18:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not a useful discussion to have on this talk page. If you wish to continue discussing please do on at another venue (such as the user's talk page. Collapsing done as an uninvolved admin; not AE action at this stage, though I'd appreciate it if people left collapsed and moved on. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Have you ever actually been to a gunshow, and/or purchased a gun from a licensed dealer or a private party? It seems evident that you do not know just what is involved, so far as background checks, record-keeping, or enforcement of the laws. You keep throwing around terms that it is quite clear you do not really understand. There is no such thing as a "private dealer" or an "unlicensed dealer" under federal law. Someone is either "engaged in the business" --- to use the BATF's terminology --- in which case they must have a Federal Firearms License; or they are not "engaged in the business" and are merely a private party making a perfectly legal "occasional sale" of a firearm to another private party. If they are a licensed dealer, they must comply with ALL of the background check and record-keeping requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Act. It makes absolutely no difference if they are at a gun show or at their brick-and-mortar gun shop. If they are a private party, they are prohibited from accessing the NCIC system in order to run a background check. This was an intentional prohibition, pushed by Senator Kennedy among others, supposedly for the "protection of privacy" of the public. The BATF has kept the definition of "engaged in the business" intentionally vague and undefined. This was not for the benefit of the NRA or gun sellers; it was to allow the maximum amount of prosecutorial discretion, for the benefit of the BATF. They have consistently refused to go on record as to a specific number or amount of money that would constitute "engaging in the business," despite repeated attempts by the NRA and collectors' organizations to get an unambiguous definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.117.19 ( talk) 04:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
See the top of the "talk page". This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Darknipples ( talk) 04:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If no one objects to deleting it within a reasonable time, it should be done. It's taking up valuable space on the talk page. I will notify the person that posted it, now. Darknipples ( talk) 00:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion opens with an obviously rhetorical question, since the poster follows it with his/her own answer. Then they wrote four paragraphs about their opinion on the topic (no sources). Then another editor (now topic banned [6]) commented with his opinion (no sources). DN reminded them about the purpose of an article talk page. Then another editor jumped in with a snarky comment, to which DN correctly replied that it (the discussion) was bordering on harassment. So, two questions: What is this discussion about? If it doesn't help to improve this article, why keep it? If we are going to keep it, I suggest we collapse or "hab" it (or whatever that's called). PS: I renamed it "Question" because the original header was against WP:TPG, but I am going to improve the header since "Question," too, doesn't really meet TPG. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 16:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
To reiterate, this talk page section should not be removed. The original post directly relates to the contents of the article, and, while it is not particularly friendly or even polite, it certainly does not qualify as harassment. Some editors may not like what it says, or find it unhelpful, but it doesn't come close to qualifying for removal. Feel free to review WP:TPO which is the guideline for this type of thing. — Mudwater ( Talk) 00:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Darknipples has asked IP editor 63.152.117.19 to move this discussion to her (DN's) talk page. [7] Since the IP has not edited since posting this discussion last October, I doubt that they'll move it. I have habbed the first few sentence of the post, since they were the uncivil part, I hope that will help to put an end to this dispute. I also propose that we re-rename the discussion consistent with WP:TALKNEW, or at least so that DN's name isn't in it. It ain't cool as is, and I absolutely sympathize with DN's complaint and her request. Darknipples, Mudwater, is this solution agreeable to you? Lightbreather ( talk) 15:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
|
I read that the terrorists in Paris bought their weapons at a train station and no bg check was conducted. Should we address the "Train Station Loophole" to make the article less US-centric?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
With regard to this edit [8], how is the opinion of a professor of emergency medicine at U.C. Davis relevant to gun shows? Obviously Garen J. Wintemute had something to say about it, but why is it included in this article? -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 09:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph from the top of the "Legislation" section. I am preserving it here for discussion.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 20:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The first source especially concerns me. First off, it's very poor quality, it's unclear what it's supporting or where within the source the supporting information is found. (When I print-preview it, it takes up hundreds of pages.) I think it should be droppped completely.
The second source, although published on a law firm's website, is at least better quality in that it is a PDF that appears to be a true facsimile of the original document. However, like the first source, it's unclear what it's supporting or where within the source the supporting information is found.
The third source is a single sheet from the Consumer Federation of America: according to its website, "an association of non-profit consumer organizations that was established in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, advocacy, and education." I'm still figuring out if/how it might be used in the article. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I feel that in order to maintain balance and satisfy both sides of this argument, it would be a good idea to create a section(s) that appeal to each side. To start, why not begin a section focused on the "pro-gun" stance on GSL? Then, a section on "anti-gun" and so forth? The point is to improve the article by allowing both sides of the argument to represent and cite their sides of the argument, equally. For example we could create a section that focuses on the NRA's stance and a section that focuses on VPC's stance and so forth. Darknipples ( talk) 05:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)