# Talk:Gun show loophole

We can figure out the details here. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's what I propose...
Version A: The gun show loophole is a controversial political term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.
Or
Version B: The gun show loophole is the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.
Cheers. DN (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that, as an alternative to either of those, we reword the lead so that we're not calling it the gun show loophole in Wikivoice.  So, the article would start something like this: In the United States, 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 a background check, although the laws of some states and localities do require one.  The absence of a federal requirement for background checks for private sales is sometimes referred to as the gun show loophole or the private sale exemption....  As currently, the article would be about the legal situation, not the term, but would include discussion about the term.  ... Advocates for gun rights often object to the term "gun show loophole", because... — Mudwater (Talk) 11:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I find that @Mudwater's suggestion is both accurate and articulated in a neutral manner. However, I believe that DN's "Version A" offers considerable merit and could serve as a viable alternative.  Fenharrow (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
This is good. I need to give it some thought before giving it my full endorsement. This does a much better job accomplishing what I have imagined than the versions I came up with. I strongly favor an approach that reorganizes the entire lead section. The opening sentence (and article title) are important but they can't do all the work. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep in mind, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.
Mudwater's suggestion isn't why this discussion was started. This month and a half long debate began with trying to insert "controversial" into the lead sentence with no exceptions or compromises, including adding it in the second paragraph in the lead and using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
Mudwater's changes seem to introduce a whole new host of possible WP:MOS issues.
The RfC needs to be simple and deal with one proposal at a time, otherwise the RfC will be too confusing and become a waste of time. See WP:RFCBRIEF
After a month and a half (for some of us) of going back and forth on this one request, including via NPOVN and 2 RMs, I think we need we need a break and some uninvolved opinions.
Cheers. DN (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm conflicted about this. I understand the desire to resolve the controversial question and need to frame the RfC simply and reign in the scope of the discussion. Our continued focus on "prime real estate" like the opening sentence and article title hasn't resolved big picture disputes about the rest of the article. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
This isn't meant to resolve any other debate other than the one stated. Why would we purposefully conflate this with any other issues? What purpose does that serve? DN (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I Support a lead rework along the lines of the comment by @Mudwater. I think he hits the nail on the head by addressing the problem thusly, "we reword the lead so that we're not calling it the gun show loophole in Wikivoice..." Others, including (apologies if I missed anyone): @Springee, @Fenharrow and @Myceteae have also all added helpful perspective. @Darknipples I think we should be in the home stretch now. Thank you for your patience, I think we can probably put this discussion to rest soon if we implement something as close to @Mudwater's comment as possible, separately, I Support Version A if procedurally we need to address only one point at a time. I know you (DN) are a stickler for procedure, and I respect you for it, despite any apparent difference of opinion we may have on interpreting the consensus or reliable sources thus far. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Secondary RS of high quality have discussed the subject, so the wording can simply reflect the best available secondary sources' wording about the subject.  A few citations with refquotes could be included at the end of the first sentence to settle the argument, as per WP:LEADCITE: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations." Llll5032 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
This suggestion is reasonable, however there are 30 years worth of secondary sources to sort through. DN (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good binary.  I don't agree with using "controversial" to describe what is clearly a political term.  In general I think calling it a political term is neutral as it factually describes how the term is used etc.  "Controversial" is harder as it could mean the term is controversial or the laws it implies are controversial etc.  However, option B treats the term as a literal thing and ignores the issues with literal vs understood meanings.  To be clear I think many people who are not OK with mandatory background checks would be completely fine with a law that all sales at a gun show must include a background check.  Over the years much of the debate and objections from the firearms community has been related to laws that do more than just close the "GSL".  I think Mudwater's suggestion is a good direction and would support using it. Springee (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm open to amending to...
Version A: The gun show loophole is a controversial political term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.
Version B: The gun show loophole is the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.
Version C: The gun show loophole is a political term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.
Cheers DN (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I suggest adding Mudwater's suggestion as an option. Springee (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
That's not following WP:RFCBEFORE...They can start their own RfC for their requested changes and go through the same processes that were required for us to get to this point. DN (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Their suggestions are not why we are at this point. DN (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
We can discuss and add their suggestion before opening a RfC without it.  Given the support thus far it would be a bad RfC if that option was excluded. Springee (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Their suggestion requires a new discussion over different MOS issues that are separate from the debate regarding inserting MOS:CONTROVERSIAL into the lead sentence that has been over a month and a half long process.
If their suggestion was simply for an alternative lead sentence, that would be reasonable, but they are suggesting changing the whole paragraph, which is not a reasonable request at this point.
It certainly does not seem to meet the standards for WP:RFCBRIEF.
An RfC is not a means to "Trojan Horse" in multiple changes that haven't gone through any dispute resolution process, or even been thoroughly discussed here yet.
Cheers. DN (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
We can discuss it now.  Given the support it has, any RfC that excludes it would be, by default, a bad RfC unless we agree before hand it should be excluded.  Currently it looks like the best option to me.  I know you felt there would be issues with it, what are the potential issues? Springee (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
DN, you have mentioned the "month and a half" that this discussion has taken a couple of times now. I would just like to remind you of WP:THEREISNORUSH when it comes to resolving and establishing clear consensus, especially around controversial subject matter like GSL. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Read There is no deadline#View three: Don't postpone dispute resolution
... DN (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)


### Poll
This is only a pre RFC discussion. No official WP:RFC link is in place. This may simply serve as a poll to gauge current local consensus on inserting "controversial" and or "political term" into the lead sentence. DN (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Version A: The gun show loophole is a controversial political term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.
Version B: The gun show loophole is the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.
Version C: The gun show loophole is a political term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.
Version D: The gun show loophole is a controversial term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.

Option E: Reword the lead so that we're not calling it the gun show loophole in Wikivoice.
Strong oppose Version A. The double label (controversial political term) is of little value to readers and no clear basis has been established to include controversial in the opening sentence, against the guidance at MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. We have had similar issues with alleged.[1][2] Adding buzzwords to the opening sentence does not resolve overarching questions about how best to define gun show loophole and address issues surrounding its usage. Moderate support labeling it a political term (without controversial) as a modification of Version A. While not an ideal solution, this is less weasely than controversial and aligns with a previously stable version that achieved GA status. Moderate support Version B. This is a straightforward statement with no buzzy labels. Neither version I support resolves the issues of defining gun show loophole and describing its usage but they don't introduce new problems in the way that controversial does. Prefer rewording entire lead but in the interest of moving forward, I shall constrain my comments to the RfC at hand. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
For simplicity and per updated versions: Strong support E. Moderate support C & B.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
The addition of Version E may be a WP:TPO violation. This poll was simply intended to resolve the "controversial" dispute which Iljhgtn started. They have now inserted an off-topic choice into an otherwise focused dispute resolution process. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Version B or C. DN (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Version A or D. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I have since added Version D (removing the combination of controversial & political) DN (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Given the suggestion from Mudwater I think any RfC is going to be an issue since it implies the only acceptable opening sentences are those in this pole.  Springee (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
You have already made your opinion clear, no need to keep repeating yourself. DN (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if you explained why you oppose it.  Otherwise I suggest it is added as an alternative. Springee (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I have already done so (see above)....Editors are welcome to discuss Mudwater's suggestion elsewhere. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Are you talking about your 22:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC) or 23:35, 16 November 2024 edit or someplace else?  Perhaps I missed it but I don't see a clear problem with Mudwater's suggestion. Springee (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support version B: It is the only version that discusses the situation as a situation, rather than as a term. It also does that plainly, adding no editorializing. I think that a second or later sentence can handle the discussion of the term adequately without it being the focus of the first sentence. I also don't think it's necessary or desirable to add controversial. I don't think calling it controversial really accomplishes anything. I also haven't noticed many reliable sources calling it a controversial term, although I haven't looked very hard for that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
A loophole can be defined as a means of circumventing established regulations. It is a tool for exercise within a given system. It should not merely be interpreted as a notion, as suggested by version B.
In light of this,
I strongly oppose version B due to its lack of clarity.
I offer strong support for versions A and D, as they present a more precise  understanding of the concept.
I find version C to be inadequate, as it insufficiently articulates the notion, leading me to oppose it as well. Fenharrow (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Alternatively:
Strong support for working on @Mudwater's suggestion as well. I do not see why it should be excluded. Fenharrow (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the definition comment, Collins defines a loophole as "an ambiguity, omission, etc, as in a law, by which one can avoid a penalty or responsibility" ([3]). This topic fits that characterization. Regarding the concept of a means, the gap in the firearms law is something that can certainly be used as a means to avoid a background check requirement. Penguin Random House has "a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc", providing the example "There are a number of loopholes in the tax laws whereby corporations can save money." This topic is about that. Someone may not like characterizing the gun show market as an opportunity to take advantage of a loophole whereby buyers can find sellers while avoiding background check requirements, but the term is arguably applicable. The ambiguity aspect mentioned by Collins can also apply, as there has been ambiguity in terms of who is "engaged in the business" of selling firearms (which has been the focus of recent federal action to narrow the definition). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Version E – Reword the lead so that we're not calling it the gun show loophole in Wikivoice, as I suggested here. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Strongest of Strong support for Version E. Though Versions A or D are both reasonable. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
No specific "version E" has been provided as a candidate for consideration, other than one from Mudwater that seems to fail MOS:LEADSENTENCE. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's the "version E" we're talking about.  And if it's strict adherence to MOS:LEADSENTENCE that's desired, here's an alternate 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 a background check, although the laws of some states and localities do require one.... — Mudwater (Talk) 18:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
That's not bad, although it ignores the more narrow definition of gun show loophole. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
There is no "narrow definition of gun show loophole", that is why we have such a problem as we have. If there was, there would be no issue and every conversation over the past 1-2 months would have been entirely unnecessary. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
So, why do you still disagree that private gun sales/transfers that do not require a background check constitute the narrow definition of GSL? DN (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
The narrow definition of gun show loophole is the one given by the DoJ as "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". A definition narrower than the entire "private sale exemption" has clearly been used by those who have proposed legislative changes that would be specific to gun shows or who have focused their attention specifically on gun shows rather than all "private sales", such as George W. Bush. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
This phrasing... "is sometimes referred"...in the lead sentence, brings in a new MOS:WHATPLACE issue, as well as bringing back the old WP:REFERS issue, which was previously identified and removed while at NPOVN. This is on top of the original dispute over MOS:CONTROVERSIAL which this discussion was supposed to be about, and has since been lost in the soup over the new "Option E" that was inserted into my poll without permission.
Editors are welcome to discuss "Option E", but per WP:RFCBEFORE it will need to go through the discussion/resolution process before it goes into an RfC, let alone this one.
In order for us to move forward, this RfC should cover all of the following issues, as they relate to previous discussions/disputes here and at NPOVN over the WP:LEAD.
WP:REFERS
MOS:LABEL
MOS:WEASEL
MOS:ALLEGED
DN (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, this RfC shouldn't go forward without something like option E. Springee (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Explain why that doesn't completely ignore everything I just said. DN (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
We are discussing option E.  I'm not sure E has all the issues you have outlined nor that any issues it does have can't be addressed.  Your comment, "discussion/resolution process before it goes into an RfC, let alone this one." suggests you would launch a RfC without including something like E.  I think that would result in a bad RfC. Springee (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Ignoring WP:RFCBEFORE is also bad. Option E introduces new MOS issues, and ignores resolving current disputes that have been going on for almost two months. DN (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Option E was inappropriately inserted into the poll I created and it now seems to be interfering with the ongoing dispute resolution process involving the list of issues I stated above. While it may be relative to the subject of the LEAD, it should be treated as a separate topic that has nothing to do with resolving these existing issues. DN (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any reason to have a narrow RfC given that a number of editors see E as a good was to side step the issues with the other options.  This gets to a general issue with RfCs.  A hypothetical RfC gives options A and B.  Editors might not like either but they pick and the RfC is closed deciding on one of the 2.  If a better options comes up shortly after the RfC is closed then ideally we would ignore the RfC closing and consider the new option since, in fact, the RfC only decided between A and B, it never excluded other options.  However, this can get mucked up if an editor takes the A/B choice as a clear consensus the winner (A) now has a consensus over any other option.  In this case we have 4 similar choices in that they all follow a similar structure but we are changing out labels within the sentences.  Option E is an alternative structure. Sometimes we have to have a long discussion about changes that are similar to the starting point before someone steps in and points out we don't have to use that starting point.  That is what we have here.  That said, another concern, one that has been raised and one that this RfC wouldn't decide (and might even imply an answer that isn't reflective of group consensus) is what this topic really should be.  Is it the term?  Is it the way the current laws are structured?  Is it about the laws that have been proposed to close the GSL (and typically extend beyond gun shows)?  If we can't decide that why worry about this RfC? Springee (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
It seems much simpler than all of that. Simply put, the pre-existing disputes seem to be over whether the LEAD of this article should ignore WP:REFERS or WP:MOS. DN (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I suggest a new poll format asking this question, perhaps with a few examples "such as 'so-called', 'controversial', and 'sometimes referred to'..." DN (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Consensus in support of "Option E" is frankly pretty apparent, regardless of "how it was inserted", isn't just forming consensus what matters? Also "Version D" looks like it has the second strongest "consensus" in the interim of a full fledged "Option E". I think we may be getting to a point of WP:WIKILAWYERING and are losing sight of actually taking the emerging or clear consensus and now implementing it in the lead. The "rules" of Wikipedia are designed to serve the encyclopedia and not the other way around. We are not here to serve the rules. After all, it is core policy that WP:IAR is to be respected "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.", perhaps in instances such as this, though frankly I have never invoked it before. Regardless, we cannot continue to get bogged down by persistent minority views over nothing but procedure if it is keeping an article in a state of poor quality and a complete misread of the reliable sources (by speaking of GSL as a genuine phenomenon and not as it really is, a derogatory term or pejorative term meant by gun control advocates to entice a "closing" of a presumed or supposed "loophole"). Iljhgtn (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't normally over-ride policy (or guidelines like MOS), which is why an RfC is being prepared.
" I think we may be getting to a point of WP:WIKILAWYERING and are losing sight of actually taking the emerging or clear consensus and now implementing it in the lead."
"The word wikilawyering typically has negative connotations, sometimes mild, sometimes more severe. Those utilizing the term should take care that they are not violating behavioral guidelines such as WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility.  Most important is to use it to discuss specific actions and not editors."
Either (take) it to WP:ANI or don't, either way, stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS here on the article talk page. DN (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
"Narrow definition" as defined by one source is completely meaningless @BarrelProof and absolutely not enough to define how this deeply controversial term is written about in the lead. It has no such "narrow definition" no matter how many times you repeat the claim, that does not make it true. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Are you implying or accusing us of WP:OR as well?...There are countless sources going back decades that describe the subject as being an absence of regulation requiring background checks on private firearms sales. DN (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Most often with qualifiers. Never in such clear language as to make it a "narrow definition". That is a stretch to put it mildly. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
"Most often" is a debateable as well, and doesn't adhere to MOS guidelines anyway. DN (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
A, C, D and E are all fine.  B has many big problems....strongly oppose B.  Of the OK ones,  Best is A, followed by C, the D then E.  Reasoning:Most important is that it is covered as a term. "B" fails this miserably and "E" is weak on that.  I'm also more concerned about including the informative adjective "political" than the characterization one "controversial" although "controversial" is also informative.    North8000 (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Version D or E. A is not good according to WP:LEADCRUFT and it uses too much redundant language, neither are B or C good options. D or E. 170.170.200.175 (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: A lot of people who have commented in this section seem to be treating this as mere voting –  expressing support or opposition to some choice or choices without saying why, or without saying anything clear about why. That doesn't seem to be aligned with the way Wikipedia's supposed to work. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The current lead "The gun show loophole is the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States. The term gun show loophole, in some cases, 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" does not impart any useful information. Certain private sales? a (random) situation? Version D seems to achieved adequate support amongst the participating editors. "Controversial" at this juncture will serve as an exception that will not refer to the GSL notion in Wikivoice, as aptly suggested by one of the other editors. Fenharrow (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
As a rough idea, if you subtract opposes from supports, I think it comes out:  A:1  B:0  C:1 D:5  E:4.  Maybe we should draft something along the lines of D / E. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I think that is a sound suggestion @North8000. We can always continue to revise as needed, but we need to make progress from here. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Sticking with the structure of options A-D for a moment, what about just calling it "a term".  Later it can be described as political, controversial etc but initially we make it clear that this is a term rather than a thing in fact.  That makes it easier to explain why some object to the term or feel it's used in a misleading way to justify/persuade in favor of laws that impact far more than just gun shows. Springee (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Springee. Fenharrow (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Strongly agree.   That is the point I've been most emphasizing. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
The article isn't about a term; it's about the way background check laws don't cover private sales. There are several names for this exception, the most common of which is "gun show loophole". Oppose all "term" first sentences, though objections to the term should certainly be in the lead. I still like something like "The gun show loophole is a legal exception in the United States that allows the private sale of firearms without requiring a background check for the buyer." The problem with The gun show loophole is the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States. is that it leaves out the context -- that background checks are required for other kinds of sales. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
This is probably apparent from my prior remark of 11 days ago, but I am opposed to a "term" first sentence as well, since the topic is a real gap of coverage and a real clarity issue in the law, not just a term used to describe it and the evolution of the terminology. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I disagree.  Other than it as a term, there is no distinct topic because of the widely varying uses of the term. One use is the emblematic one...private-to-private transfers at gun shows that don't have the same requirements as retail sale transfers.   But it's widely variable uses include inclusion of all private transfers, gifts, sales, inheritances etc..  And it is certainly not the common name for those. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
That's not "widely varying". It's about private sales, and the far-and-away most frequently cited example is a gun show for how it accomplishes exactly the same thing as a "public" sale, but doesn't require a background check. Our readers are capable of understanding that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
The majority of those are not gun shows. So you are saying that "gun show loophole" is largely not about gun shows.  And that most readers will know that what's mostly covered in the "Gun Show Loophole" article is nothing about gun shows? North8000 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Point is, I find the "it's so complicated -- gun shows being the most commonly cited example, but regarding a legal situation that's broader than gun shows -- that it's just impossible for us to explain it to readers under this name" to be without merit. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. DN (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
"The gun show loophole is a legal exception in the United States that allows the private sale of firearms without requiring a background check for the buyer."
I think "legal exception" is accurate and acceptable, especially if "absence of laws" seems to ambiguous to everyone...
Originally, I think the lead paragraph made it much clearer that background checks are required for other kinds of sales ie "commercial FFL". While some states require a BGC on private sales, other states also allow FFLs to sell their private collections without a background check.
IMO, we were closer to a GA status article before things like WP:MOS, WP:REFERS, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:LEAD started getting tossed out the window.
Cheers. DN (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
"legal exception" and "absence of laws" seem nearly synonymous to me, so in the interest of moving the discussion even marginally forward I went ahead and inserted "legal exception" over "absence of laws"...
There remain other issues with the lead related to how this term is used and applied, but it is slowly improving. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
The new second sentence is currently...
"In some cases, it 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", while in others it refers more generally to the broader private sale exemption in U.S. federal gun law, which allows non-commercial gun sales by private parties without a background check (regardless of whether these sales are at gun shows or not)"
...which seems like a run-on sentence to me. It also introduces more MOS issues, and is focused primarily on quoting sources from one particular WaPo citation instead of summarizing the body.
Prior to that, it was changed to...
"The term gun show loophole is used in political contexts without a single well-accepted definition[failed verification] and is also described as the private sale exemption in U.S. federal gun law, which allows non-commercial gun sales by private parties without a background check."
Which introduced... "without a single well-accepted definition"... without any explicit citations for WP:V, raising WP:OR concerns.
Before that, the second sentence read...
"Along with federal requirements for firearms purchases, there are also state laws regulating the purchase of firearms. The term gun show loophole is often used to refer to legal measures that do not apply exclusively to gun shows and is sometimes used synonymously with the private sale exemption in U.S. federal gun law."
This seems to more succinctly describe the subject and summarize the body, though it also could use some tweaks to meet MOS guidelines.
It seems certain context is missing at the start, explaining that the Gun show loophole arose from legislation to increase firearms sales restrictions at gun shows. AFAICT, only later on did it become synonymous with secondary market / private sales, that do not require background checks.
This is somewhat covered at the end of the lead paragraph instead of at the beginning.
"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."
Cheers. DN (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
At this juncture, it appears that the page is ready for revisions. We have engaged in extensive discussions regarding the necessary modifications to the lead section, and there has been a consensus towards version D thus far. Since option E remains somewhat amorphous at this point, I believe it is prudent to address the issues concerning the tags. I am open to implementing changes to the lead once, or if, version E becomes more clearly articulated. Fenharrow (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
It's not an article about a term. There isn't even very much discussion of the term in the article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Some RS describe the loophole as controversial, but they don't commonly seem to describe the term as controversial. Llll5032 (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
CommentA good test on whether it is a term or a topic is ask the question:   If the term did not exist, is it still a distinct topic.   Which requires answering the question:  What exactly is that distinct topic? North8000 (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
North8000, the word "controversial" was not in the stable language but was added today. It does not appear to be supported by talk page consensus, sources, or policy. Will you consider your reversion, per those considerations and WP:ROWN? Llll5032 (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't realize that.    I think that it's "sky is blue" that it's controversial, but from a process side the basis I gave with my revert is not correct. IMO we should still put "controversial" in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, North8000. I can support some revisions if they are clearly cited to high quality RS. Llll5032 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I think we can drop "controversial" since, between editors, it's controversial :D.  If we just say it's a "term" then we can show vs tell the controversy part (is it a loophole vs how the law is meant to work etc, is the term used as a way to sugar coat laws that might not get support if their full scope is understood etc).  That said, the article was spun out of the gun show article and for about a decade the lead said it was about the various things the term is used to describe. Springee (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
"Version D: The gun show loophole is a controversial term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States."
This "Version" had the largest consensus support behind it, with "Option E" being the second most widely supported, though there was some contention around my later insertion of that "Option" into the Poll.
Now leaving off "controversial term" from the lead would require yet another new poll to determine that we should now reverse course from the just established consensus and now not include "controversial" in the lead after all @North8000 said, "I think that it's "sky is blue" that it's controversial", but then only appeared to self-revert out of a procedural comment, which I think may have been confused to be honest.. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Iljhgtn, by head count, supporters of the first-sentence options with the word "controversial" did not exceed the number of editors who objected to "controversial" in these discussions. So your revert, to add the one word "controversial", does not appear to have followed consensus. Will you consider self-reverting? Llll5032 (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
@Fenharrow: Option E -- to reword the lead so that we're not calling it the gun show loophole in Wikivoice -- is not spelled out at the beginning of the poll, but it was clearly articulated, though that's buried in the discussion above. Here it is again: 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 a background check, although the laws of some states and localities do require one....  — Mudwater (Talk) 14:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
My apologies. I will work this in instead. Fenharrow (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The last few sentences in this section may be UNDUE since there is no longer any such restriction. 
Those who sold only at gun shows and wanted to obtain an FFL, which would allow them to conduct background checks, were prohibited from doing so through an instruction provided on the application form – question 18 on the ATF Form 7 application form gave a direct instruction to anyone who answered 'yes' as to whether they intended to sell only at gun shows to "not submit [an] application". The April 2019 revision of the Form 7 removed this restriction, allowing them to obtain licenses.
Currently, they appear to be unsourced, with only links to application forms on the BATFE site.... DN (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I support removal given this is both unsourced and no longer relevant. There is also some superfluous detail – does Wikipedia need to tell us it was question 18? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I have removed the content with a referral to this discussion section. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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...[4] DN (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
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)


#### 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?
Cheers. DN (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)


### 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)

Now, i know that this has been quite heavily disputed throughout this article's lifespan, but it doesn't exactly end the conversation.
First off: The title "gun show loophole" seems a bit ambiguous and even somewhat biased. Even taking the fact that the term isn't actually a thing out the window, it's common use is almost entirely by the left-wing media/gun control advocates. This would surely bring up some concern about WP:NPOV.  
Secondly: It's clear that the WP:NPOVNAME states that common terms can be used to name articles despite the perceived neutrality issue (Teapot Dome Scandal, Alexander the Great), yet sometimes when the article name seems too biased, it can be changed. Not saying that it IS too biased, but when only one side is using this sort of title, it would surely bring up some concern?
Since this is quite a disputed topic, consensus would probably be better first before changing something (especially something this important). Cambam3291 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

"when only one side is using this sort of title"...GSL has gone by many names, the use of which are not exclusively limited to any side, but this is covered in the third paragraph in the lead which discusses some opinions about the term. Please feel free to see the FAQ above and past discussions per the archive on this topic. DN (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
What other names, exactly? Also, having that covered in the third paragraph is fine, but at least half of the article is about private sales exceptions, which are a completely different thing. Like I said, it's great for it to have it as a redirect, but in keeping in tone with NPOV and article contents, it could be better to have it as a different title (maybe just "private sales exemption?") Maybe split the article? They are talking about two different topics, after all. Cambam3291 (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)