Talk:Gun show loophole

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 [1]. 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)

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?

---

Provenance Section - Semi-Protection requested

With regard to recent edits [2] 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)