Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Revisiting the image

@Anastrophe, Herr Gruber, Cullen, Darknipples, SchroCat, and Chaheel Riens: Recently there has been a lot of discussion about the image in the article. Some of that involved disruptive editing and miscellaneous noise by IP editors, and some of it was about the provenance and reliability of the image. If we ignore all that, there are still several editors who think that the image should be removed, purely on the basis that it does not illustrate what a gun show loophole is. Here are posts saying that, by Anastrophe, Herr Gruber, and myself. Although there were previous discussions about the image, I would still propose that it be removed, for the reasons explained in those posts. "P.S." Someone mentioned the Good Article rating. I definitely think that removing the image would not be a reason to reassess the article, i.e. since it was assessed as Good, removing the image would not change that. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. The photo shows a firearm being offered for sale at a gun show. The image is relevant, germane and illustrative. If someone contributes a better freely licensed image, then I will reconsider. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Canvassed Commentator here: [1]
• Support removal. It does not improve the ability of a reader to understand the topic. Therefore, it does not improve the article. Anastrophe (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply Our Manual of style for images says, "When possible, find better images and improve captions rather than simply remove poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals." The caption has been improved. I do not believe that the image is either poor or inappropriate, since none of those concerns were raised in the Good article review. I see it as just fine. As for "few visuals", the only other image in the article is the Great Seal of the United States, which clearly does far less to improve the ability of a reader to understand the topic. Those who dislike this image should find a better image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

How about we just state our opposition or support, and our rationale, and reserve commentary from others for elsewhere? You've already made those points. They do not address my reason for supporting removal. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I definitely will not accept any restrictions on my ability to comment (as long as I do not violate behavioral guidelines), or to refute or reply to other editor's comments. The Manual of style is indisputably on point, and I hereby request that you address its substance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment To be clear, I'd also like to hear what Cullen has to say, even if it doesn't address Anastrophe's particular issues. Darknipples (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - For all the reasons Cullen and I have previously stated. Darknipples (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment I think this image addresses most, if not all, of the concerns that are currently being raised. I originally hoped to use it for the UBC article, but maybe it could put opposing editor's issues to bed. Darknipples (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Desert Eagle 44 mag. private sale 3

In the context of the ongoing onslaught against an image in this article, I happily support either image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

In this discussion thread, there's only one concern being raised. It's that a picture of a gun being offered for sale by a private seller at a gun show does not illustrate the gun show loophole, and therefore makes the article worse, not better. To show the gun show loophole, the private seller would have to be (A) selling a gun (B) without performing a background check (C) to someone who was not allowed to possess firearms, because of their criminal or mental health record, who (D) went out and committed a crime with that gun. The concept is just not amenable to being shown in a photo. The argument that having any photo is better than none at all doesn't hold up, and finding a different picture of a gun for sale also doesn't address the issue. There are a number of law-related Good articles without images, and this ought to be one of them. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 08:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"The argument that having any photo is better than none at all doesn't hold up" Please point out where the argument for "ANY" picture over none at all was made in this thread. I'm worried this is turning into a straw-man. Darknipples (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Mudwater's list of requirements also seem to move the goal-posts a bit too much. In case anyone forgot, this is what the article actually says.

"Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, and private sale exemption are political terms in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market". The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms"Darknipples (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal per the above arguements. I could be persuaded to move it down the article a shade, but I'm not overly convinced on that score either—it would only be as a compromise. – SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• Agree that Mudwater's requirement that the buyer be prohibited and use the gun illegally is too much of a restriction. Prefer the pistol picture as being unambiguous about not requiring background check, vs rifle pic which if it is or isn't a private sale the pic would work either way. ResultingConstant (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support for removal of image from article. If anything, the size of the magazine, the non-notation of what kind of firearm it is (unsavvy, non-gun owners will think it's a fully automatic weapon), - these things on sight alone make it WP:POV, leading a reader by the hand and giving the prejudicial impression that the photo is wholly representative of the political term "loophole" in regard to firearms sales. I'm not convinced that the photo is genuine in the way of a "loophole" being used as a way to sell the firearm, neither am I convinced the firearm is for sale. For all we know, the firearm is there to be displayed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion. This is not an abstract concept. It's an artifact of legislation which has real-world applications. It's no different than illustrating "Dance" with a picture of people dancing. Some of those who favor deletion seem to be disputing that the picture actually illustrates a gun being sold betwen private parties. That's like arguing that the people shown dancing aren't really dancing, they're just holding each other and moving. Further, there seems to be an inappropriate failure to assume good faith with an implication that the uploader is fraudulently mis-labeling the picture. If that's the case then it's a contributor problem which should be resolved elsewhere. Meanwhile, the picture is not misleading or harmful to the article. Felsic2 (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Remove Image Dancing analogy is flawed logic. A more applicable analogy would be using two fully clothed ball room dancers in an exotic dancing article. That is how absurd this image is here. We have a semi-auto WASR-10 being displayed in front of some replica knives and a helmet, nothing more. Likely a licensed dealer being fraudently misrepresented as a private seller exploiting a so called loophole. The agenda driven gun grabbers will stop at nothing to promote their lies and deception here. 2607:FB90:A247:EBBC:0:30:E5A4:6301 (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)— 2607:FB90:A247:EBBC:0:30:E5A4:6301 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• All Wikipedia editors (including you) are expected to Assume good faith of other editors, so your "agenda driven driven gun grabbers will stop at nothing to promote their lies and deception" slur discredits your own comment, which will be ignored by all experienced editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hypocrite I hope we can have a higher level of AGF than above IP hating, maligning editor.172.56.13.7 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Does not matter what the picture really is. It is being used to illustrate weapons that are possible to be purchased. Any picture will do. Breathe of Light (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Another nasty IP making accusations. I really do not have time for this. I have my friend in the hospital. Breathe of Light (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Those tags by IP 172.56.13.28 are removed. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead Section

(second paragraph)

This statement is not supported or quoted anywhere in the article that I can see. Please cite RS within the article before reverting, as the material is presumably WP:OR.

• "even though there is common misconception that licensed dealers are not required to perform background checks if the transaction occurs at a gun show."

Darknipples (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I have tabled this from the lead until further discussion regarding RS of this "cited context"...

• [2] Darknipples (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The second paragraph contains the statement "FFLs are not issued to persons that only sell firearms at gun shows". However that seems to be contradicted by several statement in https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download . That is really a minor point, but (1) this is a controversial topic, and (2) people might consider it to be guidance of how to behave. In this case, I suggest removing this clause completely, as it isn't significant to the paragraph. DWorley (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a bit of a catch-22 in that someone could certainly be required to get an FFL if they are "in the business" but the ATF will not issue them one. In this particular use case, a "gun show only" dealer will be refused an FFL by the ATF, because they do not have a fixed place of business. From the federal perspective, I believe this is merely an ATF policy, not law. [3]. One could try to list their home as the fixed place of business, but the ATF also requires proper zoning before they will issue the license, and someone's home is very unlikely to be zoned appropriately. Many states/cities explicitly have laws that any FFLs must have a fixed place of business. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Also see question 18a here. https://www.atf.gov/file/61506/download ResultingConstant (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Article is Owned

This article is being owned by a few editors and in no way represents community consensus.06:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.159.141.76 (talk)

Which editors? What's the community consensus and where was it determined? Felsic2 (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Notable opinions

@Everymorning: This recent addition says, "In 2016, a study published in the Lancet reported that state laws requiring background checks or permits to purchase a gun at a gun show in states without universal background checks were associated with higher rates of gun-related deaths. It described these laws as requiring "closure of the gun show loophole."" I think that sentence is very hard to understand. Looking at the reference, they're saying that "Implementation of universal background checks for the purchase of firearms or ammunition, and firearm identification nationally could substantially reduce firearm mortality in the USA." I suggest either quoting the reference directly, or rewriting the paraphrasing. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I see what you mean. I have reworded the addition so it will (hopefully) be easier to understand. The study does say that laws requiring background checks for guns purchased at gun shows (but not everywhere, so they are not universal background check laws) were associated with higher rates of gun-related deaths: "The nine laws associated with an increase in the risk of firearm-related deaths were a requirement for the dealer to report records to the state for retention, allowing police inspection of stores, limiting the number of firearms purchased, a 3-day limit for a background-checks extension, background checks or permits during gun shows in states without universal background-check requirement (ie, closure of the gun show loophole), integrated or external or standard locks on firearms, a ban or restrictions placed on assault weapons, law enforcement discretion permitted when issuing concealed-carry permits, and stand-your-ground." This is from the Results section, so you could only see it if, as I do, you have access to ScienceDirect. Everymorning (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Everymorning: Thanks for the edit, and for the explanation. The new paragraph is much clearer now. But, I'm not sure it gives a balanced summary of the reference. Wouldn't it be more complete to say something like this? -- "In 2016, a study published in The Lancet reported that requiring universal background checks was associated with lower firearm mortality rates, but requiring background checks at gun shows without requiring universal background checks was associated with higher firearm mortality rates." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Provenance

I'm considering removing this text "The term "loophole" itself is a misnomer, since the Brady bill explicitly excluded private sales from its domain." until a decent NPOV cite is produced. [4] Darknipples (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the context, as it refers to the term "loophole" instead of the article. In any case, even if the context is actually referring to GSL, as opposed to just the term "loophole", it would be more appropriately placed in the NOTABLE OPINIONS section, but, only if a proper citation is produced for it as well. Darknipples (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Reason why the gun show loophole exists

The article does not currently discuss why the gun show loophole exists, i.e., why federal law does not regulate the private sale of firearms between residents of the same state.

The main reason the loophole exists is because Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress has no authority to regulate commercial activity occurring within a single state that does not substantially relate to interstate commerce. Congress might arguably have the authority to regulate private gun sales (as a "class of activity" that undercuts a broader regulatory scheme -- see Gonzales v. Raich), but has chosen not to do so for a variety of policy reasons. The article should address these arguments as well as the interstate commerce issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.95.41 (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

"The main reason the loophole exists is because Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce."

Before we can discuss making these additions to the article, we first need some reliable sources for this claim in order to avoid WP:OR - Darknipples (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Factandmyth.com and shooting of Jocques Clemmons

The opinion by Factandmyth.com doesn't seem notable and the shooting of Jocques Clemmons seems like a non-sequitur. @Darknipples: I noticed that you've worked on this a bit as of late, and we've both worked on this in the past, so I thought I'd get your opinion before removing them per BRD. I don't believe you added either of those things, but I know we often have diverse views regarding what should be included in this article. What do you think? Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Godsy:I agree on both. I have removed them from the article [5]. Nice catch! DN (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Government studies and positions

The opening and closing claims about "Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces" are not really true, and definitely misleading.

Opening claim: "According to a 1999 report by the ATF, legal private party transactions contribute to illegal activities, such as arms trafficking, purchases of firearms by prohibited buyers, and straw purchases.[47]" [47] is the exact same report and link as [39]. The report doesn't say this. These are crimes the ATF has investigated at gun shows. The report makes no attempt to link "legal private party transactions" to these already illegal activities. Since imposing background checks on private sales at gun shows is major part of the Presidential request that motivated this report, the report did not expend any effort to justify the President's request.

Closing claim: "They stated that there were gaps in current law and recommended "extending the Brady Law to 'close the gun show loophole.'"[40]" This is a circular reference to [39]. It quotes: "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."(8)" which is quoting one of the following: "On November 6, 1998, President Clinton determined that all gun show vendors should have access to the same information about firearms purchasers. He directed the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to close the gun show loophole." "These recommendations close the gun show loophole by adding reasonable restrictions and conditions on firearms transfers at gun shows." "In short, as requested by President Clinton, the proposals will close the gun show loophole." Two of these refer to President Clinton's request to "close the gun show loophole." One of them says the recommendations in the report would "close the gun show loophole." That was the entire purpose of the report from the beginning, not the conclusion. The conclusions were about how to achieve the original request.

None of the actual recommendations of the report involved universal background checks, as could be easily inferred from the misleading claim that closing the "gun show loophole" was a recommendation of the report rather than the original purpose of the report. The report recommended requiring background checks for all sales at gun shows, but not for all sales everywhere. Some, but not all, surveyed United States Attorneys proposed "requiring all transfers in the secondary market to go through an FFL." The only mention of background checks for all private sales in the recommendations was that the recommended definition of "gun show" "ensures that private sales of a small number of firearms can continue to take place without being subject to the new requirements." i.e. the report's recommendations exclude full universal background checks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFB2:240:197:FC60:9AE9:90F7 (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia error - 'Gun show loophole' article

The federal government provides a specific definition of what a firearm dealer is. Under Chapter 18 Section 921(a)(11), a dealer is anyone "engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail [THIS SENTENCE NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED.]

Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, whether at a gun show or other venue. They also are not required to record the sale, or ask for identification. This requirement is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who are required to record all sales and perform background checks on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show. Access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is limited to FFL holders and FFLs are not issued to persons that only sell firearms at gun shows.[ Wikiuser55555 (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The sentence is ended with a block-quote, I added an ellipses...

• The federal government provides a specific definition of what a firearm dealer is. Under Chapter 18 Section 921(a)(11), a dealer is...

(A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker.

DN (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

References

nashvillecitypaper.com is a dead link

The link in the third reference (Hale, Steven (January 13, 2013). "Gun shows, Internet keep weapons flowing around background checks". Retrieved 2 August 2015.) does not lead anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgollenz (talk • contribs) 12:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Drmies: can you explain your objections to the recent edits? I don't mind reverting the changes done to the opening paragraph that list the different names, but what are your objections to adding that are exempt from federal background check requirements in the opening sentence, the changes in the second and third paragraphs, as I thought my edits improved the clarity of the article? Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought the recent edits were somewhat of an improvement. And I don't think it's helpful for the lead sentence to have a long list of synonyms for "gun show loophole". But the lead section is still problematic, in my view. For one thing, it says that "A loophole in federal law exists...", but in fact it's not a loophole at all -- despite the fact that "gun show loophole" is the common name for this situation. For another, it says that "background checks for private sales can only be conducted through an FFL". That's incorrect, there are other ways of doing background checks for private sales -- for example, the system in force in Illinois, where the background check is done online, via the state police, without going through an FFL. If I find the time I might write a new version of the lead that fixes those issues -- which, this being Wikipedia, would then be open for further editorial review. For now though I'd say there's plenty of room for improvement here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines a loophole as "a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded". That's not what we have here. The law in question was intended to regulate the sale of firearms by licensed gun dealers, not by private citizens. Furthermore, as the lead already points out, federal law doesn't require background checks for private sales regardless of their location, so this is not specific to gun shows. In short, the term "gun show loophole" is a complete misnomer. But, it's the commonly used term, so it makes sense for this article to call it by that name -- but not to say, in Wikiepdia's voice, that a loophole exists. Of course, a reasonable person could still argue that background checks should be required, at a federal level, for private sales. That's addressed in the article, as it should be. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Well, my prime objection was with that first paragraph, yes--I'm actually fine, on the whole, with the other changes. "Private-party sellers" does need a hyphen, I think, but my revert actually re-introduced an erroneous semi-colon (before "whether"). Drmies (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. I've made a few edits with this in mind. Thoughts?Terrorist96 (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Well I think it needs some cleaning up, and we now have four or five names in the lead; that alone is enough to disqualify it from GA status, it seems to me. Here's the GA version: "Gun show loophole is a political term in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows". Adding more disclaimers and alternate terms doesn't make it better; it was good enough when it passed GA. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edit had the names, that's why I restored them. Like I said above, I'm ok with trimming some of it.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Provenance Section - Semi-Protection requested

With regard to recent edits [6] I reverted by IP 68.33.74.179 - the issue I have is with the added commentary more so than the politifact source, which was cherrypicked as not to include the full context of the section that was added. This gave a POV tilt that was inappropriate. DN (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE: There is no cherry-picking and -- as with everyone of these highly biased dishonest changes -- you are flat-out lying.

Do you want to insert an entire article for another site? No of course not. That is absurd. That is completely dishonest.

One can only cite to a source for a particular point at a time.

That is not "cherry picking." What a dishonest lie.

As if anyone cannot see the howling bias.

POLITIFACT addressed the very point being cited to.

Now, you are going to reject POLITIFACT? Seriously?

An expert on the topic gave his analysis that Federal law does not say anything about gun shows, but focuses on private sellers who do not qualify as dealers.

So what are you doing? Dumbing down Wikipedia?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.74.179 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article is defective re: "Private party"

The article is just flat wrong.

A "private party" or "private seller" can be a dealer required to comply with the full range of gun seller regulations.

The issue is not whether they are a "private seller" or a "private party" but whether their sales of guns in quantity and circumstance rises to the threshold criteria of being a dealer.

It has nothing to do with how private they are.

They can conduct all of their gun sales in a cemetery at midnight wearing a mask and trench coat.

The critical issue is whether the quantity of sales and the circumstances (e.g., not among family members) meets the standard for making the person a dealer in firearms.

The changes that the outrageously biased activist deleted from the article made that important point clear.

The biased and abusive removal of these points from the article should get the offending activist banned for life from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.74.179 (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of "Cherry Picking" scam

The bias screams through Wikipedia, based on standard, routine logical fallacies.

For example the false charge of "cherry picking"

WHAT?

Every source covers a lot of ground.

You cannot include the entire source article inside of a Wikipedia article.

You can only cite to a particular point in a larger article that supports a particular proposition, one at a time.

NOW..... Let's turn to the dishonest, abusive bias here.

WHERE in the POLITIFACT article

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/07/politifact-sheet-3-things-know-about-gun-show-loop/

is there anything that makes the quote from the UCLA Law professor "cherry picking?"

GO AHEAD, WE'LL WAIT ....

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/07/politifact-sheet-3-things-know-about-gun-show-loop/

Let's see. Let's read through the article, all the other quotes I could have cited to:

Supporters of gun rights say President Barack Obama and others are confusing the issue of gun selling by talking about a "gun show loophole." Some go so far as to say such a loophole doesn’t exist.

"Well, because you don't know the details of it, but the so-called gun show loophole -- which I think is what he’s talking about -- doesn't exist. People that want to occasionally sell guns ought to have the right to do so without being impaired by the federal government. If states want to create specific rules around that kind of behavior -- fine."

Our findings show that there is, in fact, an exemption in the law. But the exemption pertains to who sells the guns rather than where they sell them.

But private sellers without a federal license don’t have to meet the same requirement. Though this exception is often referred to as the "gun show loophole," it actually applies more broadly to unlicensed individuals, whether they are selling at a gun show or somewhere else

Bush’s argument centers on the fact that the loophole doesn’t single out gun shows.

"Existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold," he wrote. "If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority."

Kopel, a law professor at Denver University, told PolitiFact that his own research was based on gun shows in Colorado in the 1980s and 1990s.

3. Experts warn that the phrase "gun show loophole" is imprecise at best. But people do buy guns without having to undergo background checks.

Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, said the term "gun show loophole" is misleading if it implies that the law didn’t intend to exempt some sellers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.74.179 (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

So dishonesty caught red-handed: NO Cherry-picking, not even a trace

How can Wikipedia continue with this charade?

A point that the biased activist doesn't want the world to know is deleted on a false charge of "cherry picking"

The article makes clear that that is a lie.

The biased activist needs to be removed and banned from Wikipedia forever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.74.179 (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I assume I am the "biased activist" you are attacking and accusing here. Lucky for you, I can tell that you are new. I move that this entire section be hatted as WP:Disruptive editing and other involved editors give their opinion here soon if they disagree...DN (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

IP editor, I will assume that you are new to Wikipedia and are unfamiliar with our behavioral standards, such as assuming good faith of your fellow editors. You are in violation of that behavioral guideline. Ranting and making demands is a counterproductive strategy here on Wikipedia, which is an encylopedia, not another version of Reddit, Gab or 8Chan. Either turn to logical arguments based on summarizing the full range of reliable sources, or you will no longer be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Consider this a formal warning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. If you do want to try to persuade other editors about changing this article, try to focus on evidence and reason, not emotion or accusations. Also, try to summarize your ideas in one talk page post at a time. It's better not to start multiple talk page sections about the same topic, instead the discussion can stay in one section. Also, please sign your talk page posts with four tildes, i.e. ~~~~. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional cites from BATFE and PolitiFact

I did my best to keep the context and exclude the POV. [7] DN (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk Page Sections 1-5 in violation of the 5 pillars WP:POINT

Asking for Admin to please hat these sections so we may keep this Talk Page productive...DN (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Lede (recent cn tag)

Hello wonderful people. First, thank you all for keeping this article in such great shape. I would like to see if anyone cares to address the most recent tag in the lead section [8]. I have not been able to find the diff where it was originally added, and the material is seemingly vague and ambiguous in nature (also in parenthesis for some reason?), I have no personal objection to it's removal at this time. Please share your thoughts and opinions if any. Cheers! DN (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@DN: Hello! That text was part of a series of edits by an IP editor in April 2021. Here's a consolidated diff. In my opinion it would be okay to remove the tagged sentence, i.e. the one in parentheses. I'm not sure what federal securities law it's talking about, but if someone can provide a reference they can put it back, I would say. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Notable Opinions - Pro Gun Lobbies don't like the term GSL

Regarding this edit [9], I'm not sure this is notable as it doesn't seem to reveal anything new or substantive. The source doesn't seem very reliable either. Any thoughts? DN (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Gov studies and positions - executive branch

This section of the article could certainly use some more recent positions...lets keep it simple and succinct. I've added an assortment of citations below to start going through. Personally I prefer AP as they tend to be less opinionated, but, that's just me. DN (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Trump AP POLITICO CBS CNN

Biden ABC CBS AP Guardian ....DN (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Bare URL for CFR cite

[10]...It seems we have a blank link. I have a few possible substitutions from other sources Jacksonfreepress.com, Richmond Journal of Law, and this one which may or may not be the better option as it appears to be a PDF of the CFR piece originally referenced CFR PDF...Or we could just remove it I suppose? Any thoughts? DN (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed, here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Mud! For some reason my eyes apparently went to the wrong bare link, but you nailed it. The CFR cite is still "missing", so I'll get that taken care of. If there is any issue with using the PDF I mentioned above just ping me and I'll self-revert, and we can discuss it from there. Thanks again. DN (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Riverbend21 suggested edits

With regards to recent changes by Riverbend21...[11]

First off, adding the term "controversial" to the lead is seemingly WP:UNDUE. See Controversial... As well as Wikipedia:Lead dos and don'ts

Then you appear to have added MOS:WEASEL wording "According to some sources"...

I'll stop here for now...DN (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

- The term "controversial" was well supported by many of the sources from a variety of political and cultural viewpoints, as seen here and here. Nearly all reliable sources used the prefix of "so called" regarding this term, we could instead use that term (so called) if you'd like, but I felt that merely labeling the term "controversial" was more in keeping with the source message. WP:DUE does not come in to play here in that we are merely using a single word that aids in characterizing the understanding of the word by almost all reliable sources.

- I don't agree that the phrasing "According to some sources" is weasel wording as the edit was made in line with the reliable sources I had cited. In order to clarify the edit, I can restore it with attribution.

- The rest of my edits were simply removing a redundancy of text.

Hope this helps. Thank you. Riverbend21 (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I do appreciate trying to improve the lead, just keep in mind there was already a WP:CONSENSUS on the lead in order to achieve GA status (see archive). We have been told academic sources are better, as they don't editorialize and add as much unnecessary POV. News sources are fine, especially in the body in the right context, but adding those terms, in the lead no less, tends to destabilize WP:NPOV. Cheers. DN (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead - Gun rights advocates using Commerce Clause argument

This doesn't belong in the lead...let alone in the body.

"Advocates for gun rights have stated that there is no loophole, that current laws provide a single, uniform set of rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and that the United States Constitution, specifically the Commerce Clause, does not empower the federal government to regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens".

Also, it doesn't even apply in this context...

"The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

There doesn't seem to be any mention of Gun rights or Gun politics in the United States on the Commerce Clause article, and vice versa.

This is only attributed to the CATO institute as far as I'm aware and I don't even see it mentioned in the citation.

Removing bold per WP:RS...DN (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The argument is not that the Commerce Clause bans the government from regulating private sales of firearms, but rather that it does not permit it. All federal government powers must be enumerated in the Constitution in order to be valid powers that may be exercised by the federal government. The U.S. Constitution generally says what the government can do, then provides exceptions (such as contained in the Bill of Rights) for what it cannot do, notwithstanding the enumeration of powers. While it was always the intent that the federal government could only discharge powers that were explicitly granted to it in the Constitution, this limitation was made explicit by the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which was ratified alongside the Constitution itself.

In general, the Commerce Clause authorizes the federal government to regulate interstate commerce (i.e. "Commerce... among the several States,") as well as foreign commerce. The argument being made is that private transfers that do not cross state lines simply do not constitute intrastate commerce and, therefore, the Commerce Clause does not authorize the creation of any federal law regulating such a transfer. It is precisely for this reason that you will see language along the lines of "when engaging in interstate commerce," "for the purpose of interstate commerce," "affecting interstate commerce," etc. in federal laws on all kinds of different subjects in order to claim legal power to actually enact that law.

As far as I know, there hasn't been a court ruling on whether a private, intrastate gun sale is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause, but, in order for such a law to survive a court challenge, it would have to be ruled to do so (or else be ruled to be a valid exercise of some other enumerated federal power.) Vbscript2 (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

'Provenance' section

Can we rename the 'Provenance' section to 'History,' which is both a much more common term and also used extremely commonly as a title for such sections in Wikipedia articles?

I'm fairly indifferent on that, as long as WP:MOS is followed. DN (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

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

No objection here. DN (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Excessive trivia and advocacy (clean-up banner)

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

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

I'm reverting back to the previous version with consensus per WP:BRD. So far, I'm not seeing much in the way of improvements here. It's been a few days and there hasn't been any additional changes to address the alleged "advocacy and trivia". [12] For example, how does adding a non-neutral descriptor, such as "controversial", to the lead somehow "Neutralize the obvious advocacy"? This is not suitable for the lead, as it provides no informative value and is purely an opinion. Writing that the term is "meant to convey" advocacy for universal background checks instead of simply saying what the higher quality sources say, also seems to utilize SYNTH. You have seemingly increased advocacy for a non-neutral tone by writing... "Because the term is one of advocacy, it is often used in ignorance of the current state of federal gun law". The italicized portion you added is clearly not reliably sourced. I will leave the banner to encourage ongoing participation. DN (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding citations for "ghost gun loophole" - possibly for See Also and or spin off article

NYT Biden admin considering regulations on gun-parts, similar to finished products.

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

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

bipartisan safer communities act updates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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