Talk:Gun show loophole
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun show loophole article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
Q1: Does the article title "Gun show loophole" violate the neutral point of view policy?
A1: There have been a number of discussions about this matter, but there has not been a consensus to rename the article:
|
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions
|
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Gun shows in the United States was copied or moved into Gun show loophole with this edit on 12:09, 25 June 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | Gun show loophole was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Neutrality and weasel word tags
 | This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:
Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This recent edit gave me some incentive to reexamine the lead a bit. If anyone is interested to work on these issues, it would be nice to make some improvements if possible. There appears to be some duplicative context and conflation with gun-trafficking, straw-purchases and prohibited-persons that may be given some UNDUE WEIGHT in the lead language.
This is the current version...
- In the United States, the absence of a federal requirement for background checks for private sales of firearms is sometimes referred to as the gun show loophole or the private sale exemption. Federal law requires that, for commercial sales of firearms – sales conducted by someone "engaged in the business" of selling guns – the seller conduct a background check of the buyer. For firearm sales or transfers by private individuals, federal law does not require background checks, although some states and localities do require them.
- The term "gun show loophole" primarily refers to "a situation in which many sellers dealing in firearms offer them for sale at gun shows without becoming licensed or subjecting purchasers to background checks". Regardless of the context of a sale, private sales to buyers known or suspected of being prohibited from possessing firearms and "straw purchases" by others on behalf of prohibited purchasers are illegal. The background check system and the private sale exemption were established by the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, commonly known as the Brady Bill. Under the Brady Bill anyone not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms is not required to obtain a background check on buyers seeking to purchase firearms from a seller's private collection. Along with federal laws for firearms purchases, there are also local and state laws regulating background check requirements for the purchase of firearms.
- Advocates for gun rights find the "gun show loophole" terminology dubious, since the applicable law says nothing that is specifically about gun shows. They argue that current laws provide rules for commercial gun sellers more broadly, and intentionally do not regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens, regardless of whether the transactions occur at gun shows or somewhere else. In 1999 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reported that the definition of who is "engaged in the business" of firearms sales is overly narrow and that the Brady law did not help private sellers identify prohibited persons seeking to purchase firearms, while also allowing habitual arms traders to claim that they fall within the private sales exemption. Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have campaigned for requiring universal background checks. Implementing universal background checks would affect all private sales, not just those at gun shows.
- Federal law requires the holders of a federal firearms license (FFL), such as gun stores, pawn shops, outdoors stores and other licensees, to perform a background check of the buyer and keep a record of the sale for any commercial sale, regardless of whether the sale takes place at the seller's regular place of business or at a gun show. Firearm sales between private individuals who reside in the same state – that is, sales in the "secondary market" and with an unlicensed seller – are exempt from these federal requirements. According to a statement by the United States Department of Justice in 2024, unlicensed dealers are a significant source of firearms that are illegally trafficked into communities.
- Twenty-two U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories have laws that require background checks for some or all private sales, including sales at gun shows. In most of these cases, such non-commercial sales also must be facilitated through a federally licensed dealer, who performs the background check and records the sale. In other states, gun buyers must first obtain a license or permit from the state, which performs a background check before issuing the license (thus typically not requiring a duplicative background check from a gun dealer).
This version uses less weasel wording (with notes as to what was changed and why)...
- In the United States, the absence of a federal requirement for background checks for private sales of firearms is also known as the gun show loophole or the private sale exemption. Federal law requires that commercial sales of firearms conducted by anyone "engaged in the business" of selling guns, such as those with a federal firearms license (FFL), the seller must first conduct a background check of the buyer. (moved following context closer to the top due to relevance and WEIGHT) Twenty-two U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories have laws that require background checks for some or all private sales, including sales at gun shows. For non-commercial firearm sales or transfers by private individuals, federal law does not require background checks, while certain state and local laws may still require them.
- (Remove WP:REFERS) (remove TRIVIA NOTDICTIONARY SYNTH explanation for the etymology behind GSL over other terminology and expressions)
For non-commercial firearm transfers or sales, federal law does not require background checks.(Remove "Straw purchase" info which seems UNDUE for the lead) (moved the following context closer to the top) The background check system and the private sale exemption were established by the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, a federal law commonly known as the Brady Bill. Under the Brady Bill anyone not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms is not required to obtain a background check on buyers seeking to purchase firearms from a seller's private collection. In 1999 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reported that the definition of who is "engaged in the business" of firearms sales is overly narrow and that the Brady law did not help private sellers identify prohibited persons seeking to purchase firearms, while also allowing habitual arms traders to claim that they fall within the private sales exemption. Firearm sales between private individuals who reside in the same state – that is, sales in the "secondary market" (removed weasel words; Licensed sellers may also conduct personal and private firearm sales and transfers without a BGC) – are exempt from these federal requirements. - (add new context from article previously not included) Mass shooting events in the US have garnered attention and contributed to increased studies and discussions over background checks for firearms by political organizations as well as government and health agencies. (moved following context closer to the top) Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have campaigned for requiring universal background checks. Implementing universal background checks would affect all private sales, not just those at gun shows. (trim weasel details "in most of these cases") Advocates for gun rights find the "gun show loophole" terminology dubious and contend (better wording in VOICE) that the applicable law says nothing that is specifically about gun shows. They argue that current laws provide rules for commercial gun sellers more broadly, and intentionally do not regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens, regardless of whether the transactions occur at gun shows or somewhere else. (removed 2024 opinion by DoJ on gun trafficking as it seems UNDUE)
I am open to reasonable suggestions based on policy and guidelines.
Cheers. DN (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! I would strongly advocate for keeping the lead paragraph exactly the way it is now. It explains what the gun show loophole is in a way that is very direct and descriptive, and easy to understand. It would be difficult to improve on the current wording. Additionally, that wording was worked out over a series of lengthy discussions among multiple editors. You can see that above, on this talk page, along with some previous, archived discussions. Yes, let's not mess with the first paragraph. As to your other suggestions for improving the lead, I would need to study them further before forming an opinion. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- If you aren't willing to discuss the first paragraph let's look at the issues with the "Government studies and positions" section...
- "Firearm tracing starts at the manufacturer or importer and typically ends at the first private sale regardless if the private seller later sells to an FFL or uses an FFL for background checks."
- How much of this article is about "firearms tracing"?
- "Firearms tracing is the systematic tracking of the movement of a firearms recovered by law enforcement officials from its first sale by the manufacturer or importer through the distribution chain (wholesaler/retailer) to the first retail purchaser."
- To my knowledge this is off topic from performing a BGC on a person buying a firearm.
- The citation doesn't make it clear either, as it's simply a link to the ATF website... DN (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- If you aren't willing to discuss the first paragraph let's look at the issues with the "Government studies and positions" section...
As for the lead, I'm inclined to agree with @Mudwater. No changes to it at this moment. I will go through the other suggestions to decide how I feel about them. Fenharrow (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
issues with the lead
The Legislation section, the History section and the Contributing Events section are also under-represented in the lead, meanwhile it is 5 paragraphs long, with almost a full paragraph dedicated to opinions from gun rights advocates. DN (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
In the lead, the examples given for FFL holders in this sentence comes across as MOS:TRIVIA. That might be fine for the Gun Show article, but it carries zero WEIGHT for this article because it is UNDUE and not discussed in the body. See WP:LEADFOLLOWS.
- "Federal law requires the holders of a federal firearms license (FFL), such as gun stores, pawn shops, outdoors stores and other licensees, to perform a background check of the buyer and keep a record of the sale for any commercial sale, regardless of whether the sale takes place at the seller's regular place of business or at a gun show."
There's a similar issue here with this sentence.
- "Regardless of the context of a sale, private sales to buyers known or suspected of being prohibited from possessing firearms and "straw purchases" by others on behalf of prohibited purchasers are illegal"
It clearly should explain the mandates by the GCA and FOPA that directly relate to the subject, neither of which are even mentioned in the lead, instead of explaining details about what constitutes prohibited private sale. Such detail are better left in the body. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just as a note, Fenharrow and Iljhgtn were both recently blocked as ban-evading sockpuppets of PapaTarako. While there was an RFC for the previous lead, it was never formally closed; Fenharrow simply asserted that their preferred version had consensus. I think that that was dubious already, but disregarding their contributions and the IP who expressed the exact same opinion of them with no rationale (for reasons I think is obvious), it is clear that the RFC didn't support their position. If someone wants to disagree we can ask for a formal closure but I don't see how anyone could argue that version had consensus. In any case, since the RFC was never closed and the relevant edits were all made by sockpuppets, and since (more generally) their preferred version was a sloppy poorly-worded mess, I've reverted it for now per WP:BANREVERT. If someone disagrees the more likely solution is to go back to another RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: Hello. Can you please provide a link to the RFC you're referring to? — Mudwater (Talk) 11:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Here - actually, looking at it, it was never a formal RFC, which is why it was never closed. Fenharrow just declared that it they obviously had a consensus for E (your proposal, I think?) and implemented it, and it seems nobody objected. But that was based on support from Fenharrow, Iljhgtn, and the IP (I think it's reasonable to suspect that the IP was also the same person, and since they didn't provide a rationale a closer would disregard them anyway.) Without them there's, at least, definitely not a consensus for E (it was weak even before, and there wasn't much participation in the first place, which is why removing the sockpuppet makes it so obvious.) That doesn't mean we have a consensus for any other formulation, of course, so if we still can't parse something out of that we may need to run an actual formal RFC, but at the very least I feel we can't just go with E anymore without that. --Aquillion (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: Hello. Can you please provide a link to the RFC you're referring to? — Mudwater (Talk) 11:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: Thanks for the link. Yes, a version of the lead section that I thought was really good ended up being implemented. That was in December 2024, sixteen months ago, and there have been few or no objections to the article since that time. I understand what you're saying about the sock accounts having participated in that discussion, along with me and several other editors, but your objection, it seems to me, is a procedural one. So, I'm going to go ahead and put the lead back the way it was. Again, no one's objected to it this way, and in my opinion it's way better than what was there before, so from my perspective we've taken a tainted path but arrived at a good destination, so to speak. But if you want to open an RFC about it, I would see your line of reasoning. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Mudwater: To be clear, my objection is not only procedural; I feel that your proposed version is clumsy, awkward wording that obscures the topic more than it explains. I'm strenuously opposed to it and do not believe it has, or has ever had, consensus. Many other people objected to it in the RFC as well. Per WP:STABLE, the fact that it was the stable version carries no weight unless you can argue that it has consensus, which it clearly never did. Given that it represents a radical departure from all other proposals and all prior versions, I won't accept it as a starting place and will revert it if you attempt to revert-war it back in on this basis without first demonstrating an actual consensus for it; we can discuss other tweaks or alternative versions, and try to reach a more reasonable compromise version based on the other proposals, but the idea that you could privilege your version based on the sockpuppet's misconduct is not acceptable, especially given its self-evident low quality and clumsy, awkward wording, and I therefore won't accept any version based on it until / unless a clear consensus is produced. I wouldn't normally be so aggressive in opposing a version, but I want to be crystal-clear that the sockpuppet's edits (and edits based on their participation) are gone as if they didn't occur; the version you are adding is therefore treated as your own WP:BOLD edit, and your treatment of it as the the starting point is not acceptable. Even beyond that, just a quick nose-count in this discussion shows enough opposition that it cannot be considered to enjoy consensus (again, it never did.) Even if you didn't intend it, your argument amounts to "you didn't catch them in time, therefore the outcome they cheated in remains the default!" which isn't a reasonable one to make. --Aquillion (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: Thanks for the link. Yes, a version of the lead section that I thought was really good ended up being implemented. That was in December 2024, sixteen months ago, and there have been few or no objections to the article since that time. I understand what you're saying about the sock accounts having participated in that discussion, along with me and several other editors, but your objection, it seems to me, is a procedural one. So, I'm going to go ahead and put the lead back the way it was. Again, no one's objected to it this way, and in my opinion it's way better than what was there before, so from my perspective we've taken a tainted path but arrived at a good destination, so to speak. But if you want to open an RFC about it, I would see your line of reasoning. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: Thanks for the additional clarifications on what you're thinking about this. So, the version of the lead that was there before -- also known as my proposed version -- which can be seen here -- "is clumsy, awkward wording that obscures the topic more than it explains", you say, and per your edit summary, "is an ugly mess". Could you please explain that in more detail? Like I said, I think it's quite good, so the more detailed you can be, the better. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- (See archives) I've stepped away from this article multiple times because I was simply tired of arguing with mostly bad actors. When noticeboards submitted their opinions, they were often (now unsurprisingly) ignored, and eventually I simply had to step away again. We went from a GA status article, to the mess we see now. Frankly, I'm still not sure I still want to work on this article any further, since dealing with the same "arguments" will likely lead to more of the same frustrations. DN (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
RSN Notice
I have taken a specific concern I have to WP:RSN here is the link...Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Comments to US DoJ, and WaPo?
Jurisdiction section
- "All populated territories of the United States require purchasers to have a territory-issued license to purchase or take possession of a firearm, and the only firearms permitted in American Samoa are shotguns and .22 caliber rifles."
This sentence also appears to contain some form of MOS:TRIVIA. DN (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Darknipples: Following up on this: were your neutrality concerns resolved? If not, would you like to bring this to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
Gun show loophole
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Issues have not been resolved within a reasonable amount of time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Two orange banners, the "neutrality" and "weasel words" banners, were added to the article in 2024. Although the editor posted their concerns on the talk page, the issue was not resolved. In April 2025 an orange "undue weight" banner was added to the "Government studies and positions" section. These issues should be resolved for this article to keep its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Speaking as the editor that added these banners, I have tried to reconcile those issues on the talk page, but as one can clearly see, the editors that made these changes have either not responded or refused to discuss them. If the only issues found by the reviewer(s) here are the banners themselves, and they do not share any concerns for the issues I have brought up, do we simply remove the banners? DN (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Darknipples: Well, the banners describe issues that would cause the article to not meet the GA criteria: I would only remove the banners if the issues are resolved or there is a consensus that they should be removed as they are not problems in the article. Perhaps we can wait to additional comments below before determining what to do. Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I made a recent attempt at improving one of the issues and took some time to reassess my original concerns. While I think parts of the article could still be trimmed and improved, the issues I see aren't on a hill I'm interested in dying on, especially if there is no consensus. DN (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Darknipples: Well, the banners describe issues that would cause the article to not meet the GA criteria: I would only remove the banners if the issues are resolved or there is a consensus that they should be removed as they are not problems in the article. Perhaps we can wait to additional comments below before determining what to do. Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IMO this article is about a term and should be written as such
"Gun Show Loophole" is a term designed to assert the idea that some common transfer types are a "loop hole" or some type of uncommon exception. Other than as a term, it really isn't a distinct topic. IMO the article should cover it as such, with examples of this being the structure of the Homosexual agenda and Anchor baby articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Here we go again... DN (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- ??North8000 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- You've pitched this change multiple times and in multiple forums, including at NPOVN which led us to an RM, at which time it was closed as NOT MOVED per COMMONNAME...So I say to you...Here we go again... DN (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- I never advocated moving it; I advised against it. And so a "not moved" result is not relevant to the points raised. North8000 (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- You've pitched this change multiple times and in multiple forums, including at NPOVN which led us to an RM, at which time it was closed as NOT MOVED per COMMONNAME...So I say to you...Here we go again... DN (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- ??North8000 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Is this in respect to Aquillion's recent changes to the lead? While I understand the sock concern, I also agree with Mudwater's restoration of the lead that has been stable for over a year. Looking back at archives 11 and 12 it appears that this isn't an example of a sock quietly making a change with no other editors noticing. It appears there was quite a bit of dialog around this topic about the time the sock edits were made. Springee (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- The article has been patrolled by SOCKS for the past year, and being one of the few that saw through their civil POV pushing, I was forced to walk away while others actually took their side. DN (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- Are you saying everyone who participated in those discussions was a sock? Are the people who took their side wrong or socks themselves? Springee (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, but there is obviously a question of POV pushing DN (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm only aware of one sock in any of these discussions. Are there others? If we are dealing with a single sock but also editors in good standing agree then how is this a POV issue? Why are the others that feel the same way not sufficient? Springee (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Springee: Both Iljhgtn (talk · contribs) and Fenharrow (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of the previously blocked account PapaTakaro (talk · contribs). Iljhgtn's and Fenharrow's edits do not count toward consensus. This means all of Iljhgtn's and Fenharrow's 107 combined edits totalling 54,165 characters on this talk page (including all of their comments in Archives 10–13) and all of their changes to the article are effectively invalidated, and the status quo of the article now excludes any input from these sockpuppets. Any editor that reinstates any part of Iljhgtn's and Fenharrow's edits is deviating from the status quo and needs to provide independent reasoning for their edits; WP:STABLE is not a valid reason to retain disputed sockpuppet edits. — Newslinger talk 01:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Newslinger, leaving aside the STABLE argument, I’m not sure it would be possible (or a good use of time) to go back through the multifarious discussions in which the socks participated, and try to conduct a 'but for' analysis. Wouldn't it be better just to run an RfC without the participation of the socks?
- Riposte97 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, judging from the comments here, a new RfC (or series of RfCs) would likely be the most effective way to resolve this content dispute. — Newslinger talk 01:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Springee: Both Iljhgtn (talk · contribs) and Fenharrow (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of the previously blocked account PapaTakaro (talk · contribs). Iljhgtn's and Fenharrow's edits do not count toward consensus. This means all of Iljhgtn's and Fenharrow's 107 combined edits totalling 54,165 characters on this talk page (including all of their comments in Archives 10–13) and all of their changes to the article are effectively invalidated, and the status quo of the article now excludes any input from these sockpuppets. Any editor that reinstates any part of Iljhgtn's and Fenharrow's edits is deviating from the status quo and needs to provide independent reasoning for their edits; WP:STABLE is not a valid reason to retain disputed sockpuppet edits. — Newslinger talk 01:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm only aware of one sock in any of these discussions. Are there others? If we are dealing with a single sock but also editors in good standing agree then how is this a POV issue? Why are the others that feel the same way not sufficient? Springee (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, but there is obviously a question of POV pushing DN (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- Are you saying everyone who participated in those discussions was a sock? Are the people who took their side wrong or socks themselves? Springee (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- The article has been patrolled by SOCKS for the past year, and being one of the few that saw through their civil POV pushing, I was forced to walk away while others actually took their side. DN (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- I have restored the previous version, which I also think is superior (if not perfect). If changes are to be made, they should be discussed here first. Riposte97 (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- No consensus. You are returning the article to the state is was put in under false consensus by SOCKS. DN (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- That damage is simply impossible to undo, and claiming to do so will inevitably be used as an avenue to advance the long running content dispute at this page (by both sides). We should therefore set aside procedural objections, and workshop a consensus here and now. Riposte97 (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- How is it "impossible"? DN (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've seen this a number of times at various articles. A sock editor comes in and suggests some change. They are able to gain a consensus among editors. I don't think I've seen a case where the consensus is reversed just because a sock asked the original question/started a now completed RfC/was able to persuade editors to their perspective/etc. If we had a RfC that was decided purely on numbers (say 12:5 for a new consensus) then we found out half of the 12 were socks, yeah, I would say we would review that "consensus" close. However, if just one of those is a sock, well then it's 11:5 and we likely would still say the new consensus stands. In this case, since a POV tag was just added, what is POV about this article being about the term "gun show loophole"? Springee (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm attempting to rectify some of these issues at the moment. DN (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think the article need to be updated to reflect new rules and definitions under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- That damage is simply impossible to undo, and claiming to do so will inevitably be used as an avenue to advance the long running content dispute at this page (by both sides). We should therefore set aside procedural objections, and workshop a consensus here and now. Riposte97 (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- You didn't provide a substantive reason for the revert. What was the basis? Katzrockso (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think the existing content is better, that's all. It is in particular necessary context that the term is primarily a political, rather than a legal, one. Riposte97 (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- Looks like they have decided we need an RfC DN (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, if you have a better idea, I'm all ears. Riposte97 (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- I had several, and you just reverted them all and decided we're doing an RfC, but if you genuinely want to discuss each of my changes over policy based objections and keep the SOCK's preferred version, I'm also all ears. DN (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant a better idea for finding consensus. I certainly don't think unilaterally seeking to change the status quo, and accusing me of sockpuppetry as you have done several times now, is the way to do it. Riposte97 (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- Wow, I never explicitly accused you of SOCKing. I do find it strange you keep reverting any attempts to move away from the SOCK's preferred version, but I did not make any such accusation. Nor have I made any false statements here about other editors like yourself, so I'll kindly ask you to strike that falsehood. DN (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think hiding behind word games and insinuation is going to do you any favours, and I'll leave it at that. Riposte97 (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- Don't leave, you still have to do the RfC, but why are you still unfamiliar with WP:CIVIL? I suppose pinging an admin to keep an eye on things is about all I can do, as there is no other recourse for me aside from just putting up with your smears on an article talk page instead of my personal talk page. Pinging Toadspike via Recently Active Users. Would you mind making sure things stay civil around here? Cheers. DN (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- Calling another editors words "smears" isn't helpful either. I suggest you tone down your language as well. I don't have much context on the history of this situation, but generally an RfC is not a bad option when two or more editors disagree on the content of an article. I don't think you should take that suggestion as an affront. Toadspike [Talk] 09:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- The thing I took offense to was them accusing me of casting aspersions that I have accused them of being a SOCK when I haven't, then refusing to strike it adter I asked nicely and then continuing on with describing my response as "word games and insinuation", not so much the RfC part. Oh well, case closed I guess. DN (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- A RfC takes up a lot of community time, we should at least atrempt to resolve the issue before then. "The version before is better" is about as much of a non-reason you could have provided. @Riposte97 Katzrockso (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- An RfC does indeed take time, but we do them anyway, because they are the best way to gauge consensus on important issues. Riposte97 (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- They are not always the best or only way to do something, that's why WP:RFCBEFORE gives some good advice to say:
Katzrockso (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)editor time is valuable. If you are considering an RfC to resolve a dispute between editors, you should try first to resolve your issues other ways. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC
- An RfC does indeed take time, but we do them anyway, because they are the best way to gauge consensus on important issues. Riposte97 (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- Calling another editors words "smears" isn't helpful either. I suggest you tone down your language as well. I don't have much context on the history of this situation, but generally an RfC is not a bad option when two or more editors disagree on the content of an article. I don't think you should take that suggestion as an affront. Toadspike [Talk] 09:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- Don't leave, you still have to do the RfC, but why are you still unfamiliar with WP:CIVIL? I suppose pinging an admin to keep an eye on things is about all I can do, as there is no other recourse for me aside from just putting up with your smears on an article talk page instead of my personal talk page. Pinging Toadspike via Recently Active Users. Would you mind making sure things stay civil around here? Cheers. DN (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think hiding behind word games and insinuation is going to do you any favours, and I'll leave it at that. Riposte97 (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- Wow, I never explicitly accused you of SOCKing. I do find it strange you keep reverting any attempts to move away from the SOCK's preferred version, but I did not make any such accusation. Nor have I made any false statements here about other editors like yourself, so I'll kindly ask you to strike that falsehood. DN (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant a better idea for finding consensus. I certainly don't think unilaterally seeking to change the status quo, and accusing me of sockpuppetry as you have done several times now, is the way to do it. Riposte97 (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- I had several, and you just reverted them all and decided we're doing an RfC, but if you genuinely want to discuss each of my changes over policy based objections and keep the SOCK's preferred version, I'm also all ears. DN (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, if you have a better idea, I'm all ears. Riposte97 (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- No consensus. You are returning the article to the state is was put in under false consensus by SOCKS. DN (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
I don't plan to go deep in on the history, but I think that the wording that covers it as a term is more informative on the reality of the situation. Rather than positing on an imaginary subject created by the lens of the term. North8000 (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Pre-RfC: Lead Proposals
Editors are invited to propose their preferred lead wording. The consensus version can then be determined in an RfC. Riposte97 (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- My proposal:
- In the United States, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993) requires that commercial sellers of firearms conduct a background check on any prospective buyer. The law does not apply to sale between private individuals, a situation which some commentators refer to as the gun show loophole to federal background check requirements.
- A gun show is a kind of event common in parts of America, in which large numbers of private sellers may congregate to buy and sell firearms, from which the term "gun show loophole" is derived. However, private sales to not require a background check no matter where they take place, and commercial sellers of firearms must still complete a background check, even if they are selling at a gun show. Despite being under no obligation to conduct a background check, it is illegal for a private seller to sell a firearm to a person that they know or suspect is prohibited from owning a firearm, such as convicted felons.
- Twenty-two U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories have laws that require background checks for some or all private sales, including sales at gun shows. In most of these cases, such non-commercial sales must also be facilitated through a federally licensed dealer, who performs the background check and records the sale. In other states, gun buyers must first obtain a license or permit from the state, which performs a background check before issuing the license. Riposte97 (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- Not a bad start. I would suggest trying to get the term in the first vs second sentence of the lead. I also don't know if you should use "common" in the opening of the second paragraph. That they exist is sufficient. Common is a perspective. The same with the "large numbers of private sellers". Reports I've seen suggest few sellers are private individuals. Again, absent clear numbers it's probably best just to state the clear facts that gun shows exist and in at least some shows there are private gun sellers. If I get more time I'll try to draft something as an alternative suggestion.
- BTW, I think it's perhaps a good idea for us to work on a copy of the lead here so we can make changes/suggestions without affecting the live article. Hats off for starting the discussion. Springee (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- There is already an article about Gun shows in the United States, so including it here as well seems UNDUE per WP:COAT.
- My suggestions for the lead (including brief edit summaries) will be listed here...
- Cheers. DN (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- Do you mean you are proposing the version(s) of the lead at the time of each of those edits? Springee (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- These are all changes that seem to address separate issues in the lead. I prefer the clarity and efficiency in addressing each issue individually through discussion, rather than writing out several versions of the lead for an RfC that requires a month long voting process and still does not guarantee consensus, let alone improvements. For example, this mistake seems like a relatively minor duplication issue that everyone might agree on. DN (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- Do you mean you are proposing the version(s) of the lead at the time of each of those edits? Springee (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't plan to participate (or monitor) regularly here so please don't interpret absence of comment as meaning anything. But you can always count me in on any changes which make it a more straightforward factual article, and provide additional coverage of "Gun show loophole" as a term. And of course feel free to ping me. I just read the article for the first time. IMO besides my previously-made comment, the bigger problems are in the body of the article. Parts of it looking just handing the "mike" over to groups seeking more restrictions. And one section lists shootings that are irrelevant to this, where the shooter did get a background check. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
3 weeks later
What is the status on this WP:RFCBEFORE? I don't see any more proposals besides Riposte97's and Aquillion's, here. Aquillion and I have already tried to make improvements to try and get us back on track for GA status before it was reverted by Riposte97 and I was accused of casting aspersions. I'm willing to move past it and to try to fix this mess, but if there's going to be an RfC can we please get on with it? Cheers. DN (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Executive branch sub-section
Updates for this section to be reviewed.
DN (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- The first two articles are the same AP story. I can see these being useful in that they talk about some recent changes to rules that define what a dealer is ("Engaged in the business"). However, the recent reverted rules were contested by gun rights advocates as overly broad (a claim that would need ideally include a source that explained the legislative concerns in detail). Springee (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)