Talk:Gun show

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms.

If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun show article.

[edit] Merge

Why not merge Gun show loophole into this article. They're both tagged as stubs. I see no reason for two articles on different aspects of the same topic.

If nobody says otherwise in a few days, I'll assume either folks are in agreement or nobody cares enough. Then I'll go ahead and do it. Thernlund 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thernlund 06:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loophole verbage

Not wanting an edit war. I just thought some restructureing was in order. Some of it was a tad weird to read. Even now, I think one or two sentences are a bit run-on. Gotta think on that.

The whole adult thing... seems to me non-adults fall into the prohibited possesor category. Does the word "adult" really need to be mentioned? Maybe even the word citizen is a bit wrong. Non-citizen can buy firearms legally. Might change it in a minute.

In the second paragraph I put the "However" back. I do so because the paragraph is in a point/counter-point sort of format. I also saw you removed "yet". Proabably a good call. It's presumptuous, I suppose, to assume that it will one day be tested. I instead put in "to date". Thernlund 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Made some refinements. I added the law box. Too much? Seems like it belongs as the section is sort of pointed at a perceived loophole in the law (even thought, arguably, one doesn't exist). Thernlund 19:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun show "loophole" question - Copied from User talk:Yaf

Copied from User talk:Yaf.

I don't get this: Another concern is the possibility that a gun dealer could pose as a private seller to circumvent federal law requiring dealer licensing and mandating background checks of firearms purchasers. However, the threshold (number of guns) that differentiates a dealer from a private seller has to date not been tested in U.S. courts.
Determining who's a dealer and who's not is trivial--if they're a dealer, they have an FFL and make you fill out a 4473 for a purchase; if they do not, then they aren't a dealer. The grey area I think you're referring to is what constitutes in the business, which is the condidtion that requires an FFL. You could sell off a hundred guns at a gun show and not be in the business if, for example, you were liquidating a collection. You could buy and sell dozens of guns a year, for a profit, and still not be in the business if the profits were not a significant part of your income. You are in the business if you have the principal objective of obtaining livelihood through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. There is no settable limit for that, as it depends on the intent of the individual, which must be individually determined. Source: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=70 scot 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a good point I suppose. So the determining factor is not, and likely never will be, quantity. So how to word it? I think it's a valid concern (dealers circuventing the FFL requirment), and as such think the paragraph should stay. But as you point out, the acid test won't be quantity of sales. Let me see if I can think of something. Ideas? Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

See here for the original. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording. It's rough I think, and that first sentence is long. See what you think. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 20:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Quantity is irrelevant and so is Federal Firearms Status. The US Government does not have the power to regulate INTRASTATE transactions in firearms that do not go through the US mail. Selling a gun at a gun show in your state of residence can only be constitutionally regulated by that State. See the Interstate Commerce Clause--Asams10 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with you, the Federal government does NOT. If I were to build a machine gun from scratch, never intending it to leave the boundaries of Oklahoma, and complied with Oklahoma law when doing so (I don't think the state has any laws touching the subject) then should I not be legal? That's what United States v. Stewart was all about, and they weaseled out of it and pointed to Gonzales v. Raich, from which: The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption. In effect, it means the Feds can use the Commerce Clause to regulate ANYTHING. scot 21:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I get that. The question at hand is what is it the seperates a dealer from a private seller? Is it...
  • Quantity? (Already decided not)
  • For profit vs. not for profit? (Scot alluded to this)
  • Operating as a business? (it's own gray area)
  • Sale of used vs. new firearms?
  • Sale of personal vs. "for resale" firearms? (again, it's own gray area)
  • Accepting credit cards?
  • The type of bank account you have?
  • Having a name you operate under vs. your own name?
The way I'm reading you is that you're saying the ONLY reasons to have an FFL are a) to conduct interstate commerce in the firearms business; and b) to be able to buy firearms from manufactures at dealer pricing. If this is truely the case, I find myself wondering why I don't just go buy 20 retail Glocks the next time I find a sale price and sell them at the swap meet. Screw the background check hassle. I'm certainly morally obligated, but they can regulate my morals can they? That, I think, DEFINES the perceived "loophole", and the law has yet to test it.
However, the criteria that would differentiate a person "in the business of firearms dealing" from a "private seller" has not been clearly defined under U.S. law. As well, such cases have yet to be tested in U.S. courts.
Does this verbage not covney that? Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/n/Talk%7EGun_show_f16e.html"