Talk:Gun Control Act of 1968

"Old School"

At the very beginning of this article, there is both a p.c. interpretation of facts, as well as no citation to support the material fact stated. "The 1968 Gun Control Act was supported by America’s old school manufacturers (Colt, S&W, etc.) in an effort to forestall even greater restrictions which were feared in response to recent domestic violence." - To whomever wrote this, your tone is too new-school and you have no citations here. The opinion part of this needs removing.69.108.103.227 (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Have removed uncited claim. Yaf (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

POV Vandalism

Firebug: Please do not vandalize wikipages based on your non-NPOV.Mlorrey 01:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Once again, please do not vandalize wikipages based on your POV. You may think the JPFO is a fringe group but their documentation has stood up against independent scrutiny and is accepted history. I will have to report you in an RFC if you keep up this revisionistic vandalism.Mlorrey 20:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please do not accuse me or other users of "vandalism" for making legitimate edits you disagree with. It is considered a personal attack. Secondly, it is utterly inappropriate to include fringe theories such as "Nazi origins" so prominently in the introduction. I will include a small section at the end, if you insist, although frankly I don't think these crackpot allegations from a tiny crackpot group deserve even that level of prominence. But I'm not going to allow you to turn this article into a soapbox. Firebug 02:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Allow you"? WTF? Are you the king of wikiland? Who the hell do you think you are? You are so obviously ignorant of the gun rights movement and second amendment issues you shouldn't have any editing authority whatsoever with any issues related to this. You are clearly a vandal here. That you continue to vandalize after I have requested mediation demonstrates clear bad faith on your part and further evidence of your vandalistic motives. It is a true personal attack to destroy the work of others because of your personal political agenda. Mlorrey 03:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue to discuss this issue with you, since you are so clearly unable to distinguish opinion from fact in regards to this issue. I strongly suggest that you edit other articles not related to gun issues instead, and leave gun articles alone. All that you are doing here is creating unnecessary work for myself and other editors who have been reverting your repeated POV insertions. Firebug 05:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't deal in opinion. I have been hip deep in the shooting sports since childhood. I know what is fact and fiction, and frankly, you don't know what you are talking about. The only persons here inserting opinion is you and Meelar who are injection your left-wing anti-gun opinions by editing out facts which contradict or bring discredit upon your sides propaganda. I strongly suggest you back off and stop trying to edit reality out of existence. Mlorrey 13:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh...ok, glad that got sorted out. Anyway, does the GCA also bar transfer of NFA weapons that were imported after its passage? I read that here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt where it says

On top of the FOPA machine gun restrictions, any NFA weapon imported into the U.S. after the Gun Control Act took effect (end of 1968) cannot be transferred to an individual. See 26 U.S.C. sec. 5844. They can be transferred to SOT's, although without any written police demonstration request, and kept by the SOT after surrendering his SOT. These are sometimes called "pre-86 samples", or "dealer samples", although dealer sample can be used to refer to either a post-86 machine gun or to any NFA weapon imported after 1968.

...but that's the only discussion of that I've found. If that's the case, it would be good for the article to mention that, as well as any other restrictions.

importation vs transfer and other things

Yes, it is legal to make transfers of machine guns imported between 68 and 86. It is even legal to import MGs to this day. However, post-86 guns cant be transferred to civilians, so the importation becomes a moot point. In all cases where "weapon x is legal for transfer, but only legal to import by person Y" you can buy the weapons off Y after he imports them. See U.S. v. Vollmer, 1 F.3d 1511 (7th Cir. 1993) for an illustration of a dealer arranging for national guardsmen to purchase semiauto steyr-augs (banned as "unsporting" by the 89 ban under authority granted by the 68 GCA) and then resell them to him. He was found not guilty, but the guardsmen were convicted of lying during importation.

The 68 GCA is really the root of all the evil that the ATF has visited upon gun dealers and owners for the past 40 years. Without the FFL system, you could purchase firearms through the mail and the ATF would not be able to attack a very small number of registered dealers. Remember that the requirements for being an FFL is that the ATF can make warrantless administrative searches (no 4th amendment) and be open during regular business hours so they can be entrapped at any time into a violation.

The idea is basically to limit the number of people that can legally transact in firearms. In 1968, it was probably about 200 million (adults not including felons). Thanks to ATF harassment and raising of the FFL fees, the number is now down to 50k nationwide.

Also, without the 68 GCA there would be no sporting purposes bans (89 and 94). Beerslurpy 18:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

FFL

The FFL section needs some work. Example: ” A person who does not have a Federal Firearms License may not sell and buy guns from other people for the purpose of making a profit” Is not correct because type 3 FFL’s are not suppose to be in business of making a profit.

It also list states that don’t have privet sells which is not part of the GCA. Maybe just a small note and link to state laws or something is needed.

About FFL and "selling for profit"

The problem is that the FFL thing is very vague and the ATF has long interpreted it BOTH ways. IE, if you apply for an FFL, they will turn you down as saying you dont have enough likely sales volume to justify it. But if you go ahead and start selling off your collection, they arrest you for selling firearms without an FFL. Happened many times since 68.

Many gun owners responded by simply sending in the paperwork and becoming FFLs, even if they werent actually gun dealers. They would call their kitchen or living room the "shop" and keep bound books and all the ATF paperwork. It was an inconvenience but at 10 dollars a year, it was a pretty good deal for someone who would otherwise have to pay for transfers, so there were about a quarter million people were FFLs at any given time. During the Clinton years, a bunch of gun dealers and the anti-gunners got together and decided it would be good (for different reasons) to restrict the FFL system and make it more difficult to become an FFL- so they upped the fee to 200 dollars and required that they actually be a) businesses b) have inspectable public areas and a storefront c) regular business hours d) comply with all state and local laws. And "state and local laws" didnt mean just gun laws, it meant zoning laws and business regulations. If you live in a residential area (as most people do), obviously you cant operate a business. This cut the numbers down (I beleive) about 90 percent as all the non-dealers and the small dealers closed up shop. Thus creating business for the gun dealers and restricting the avenues of gun supply for the average person.

Since then I dont know what the ATF deal is with buying and selling guns for profit. I heard somewhere that the number is 4 per year, but that isnt legally binding and the FFL might prosecute you for less or decline to prosecute you for far more. Administrative law is different from ordinary civil cases, but in my shallow understanding, you could probably use FOIA requests to get the ATF to separately justify what qualifies someone for FFL licensing and what qualifies someone for prosecution of selling without one. If there is a considerable gap between the two, you sue seeking some sort of remedy (since the crime is selling without an FFL and their rules deny you one), showing proof you fit in that gap. I strongly suspect that this has already been done at some point, but I dont get to take admin law until next year, so I have no idea. Beerslurpy 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

FFLs are not vague it is ATF interpretations that are vague so I think we should try to stay away from those for the most part. There is more information need for the article though that is not ATF interpretations like the different types of FFLs outlined by the GCA. How the atf actually hands the new FFL system with the various forms and required keeping requirements. (Which are already in the actual but could be re written)

Some of the history on the way things worked before the GCA and after. Maybe even add some of the ATF interpretation stuff that is historical and documented about the changes to the FFL system since 68. (Even all the other silly requirements that the ATF requires now to get a FFL)

By the way there is no number of firearms that you can or can’t sell until the atf calls you a dealer. The profit thing would be a good thing to work in with the FOPA changes to the FFL system maybe in a history section. --65.219.181.82 19:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

FFL System -- Private Sales

In the section "FFL System" I deleted "Illinois" from the sentence "States that do not allow private sales: California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York." Illinois does allow private sales, i.e. firearm sales where neither the seller nor the buyer has an FFL. This is explained on the Illinois State Police web site, in the document Acquiring or Transferring Firearms in Illinois. Mudwater 03:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

JPFO/Nazis

Please stop removing the JPFO/Nazi paragraph. It was at weaselly at one time, but at current the only weasel remaining is "disputed by some" which hardly justifies the removal of the entire paragraph. -- Scott e^iπ 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, perhaps "disputed by some" ought to be removed. The only source for this that I can find online is some history professor on a mailing list [1][2] who refers to the findings as a "piece of lunacy" with no further elaboration. -- Scott e^iπ 06:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It may not be "weaselly," but the section is poorly written and its claims are stated as facts and unattributed. The argument isn't based on "JPFO's findings," it's based on their allegations. The article says that Dodd asked the LoC to translate the Nazi act and "adapt its language to the American legal system." That isn't supported by the reference. Since this is a "controversy," you should attribute the "side-by-side comparison of the two laws" to its source: "JPFO says that a side-by-side comparison etc."

On its site, JPFO says that "[t]he framers of GCA 68 apparently borrowed even the idea of classifying weapons according to their 'sporting purpose' from the Nazi Law's 'hunting weapons' terminology." In order to take an allegation like that seriously, one would have to know that there was no precedent in American law — or other law of more recent vintage than the Nazi law — of "classifying weapons according to their 'sporting purpose'" before this act.

Finally, are you serious? JPFO says things like "[I]deas about race underlay GCA 68. And ideas about race underlay the 1938 Nazi Weapons Law." That's innuendo, not proof, and it really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Malik Shabazz. These are allegations made by the JPFO. This is kind of thing does not belong in a Wikipedia article. I'm going to remove it. There is absolutely no proof that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was modeled after or inspired by a Nazi laws. MiFeinberg 15:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. I get the feeling you'd remove the moon landing hoax article because "there is absolutely no proof that the Apollo missions were staged". -- Scott e^iπ 23:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, unless this can be cited it is POV and violates WP:NPOV. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There were two cites in the removed material. Why are we removing cited information? WP is not supposed to be censored. Yaf 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to engage in scholarship, the first question you have to ask yourself is, "Is this source reliable?" And if anything discounts a source's reliability, it's a source's having a political agenda. The JPFO is a shrill, propogandistic group incapable of making an objective opinion. If you think the group's being Jewish somehow gives its opinion on this matter authority, think again. Including this paragraph in this article really demeans Wikipedia as an objective, reliable source for information. I'm removing. Hashaw 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That sections citations violate Links normally to be avoided Sections, 1,2,4,6 and 13 In order for this section to be readded it must follow WP:NPOV and the citation links must adhere to the Links policy. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 16:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I favor leaving the JPFO content in the article, as it represents one of the major points of view within the US. Other major points of view that represent other views should also be included for balance. Yaf 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Come on Yaf. That this bill is based on one devised by the Nazis is a "major point of view" is preposterous. I think the confusion has arisen here because Dodd was on the Nuremburg commission. He was one of the people who prosecuted the Nazis for war crimes in Nuremburg. See the discussions above. An encyclopedia or any scholarly article is only as good as its sources. This is a very bad source. MiFeinberg 19:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source that claims the JPFO is a very bad source? Or is this original research (OR)? Yaf 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A source for a bad source? Any group with an overt political agenda that draws upon shrill Nazi comparisons is a bad source. MiFeinberg 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Gary North [www.lewrockwell.com/north/north165.html] (and presumably Lew Rockwell) believes it. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "major point of view", but this is hardly something dreamed up by some guy in his parents' basement. I would also remind you the the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. -- Scott e^iπ 09:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely verifiable. Have reverted the (rv vandalism) removal, as it is not vandalism, but is instead a POV fork. Lets work to balance the verifiable statement, rather than engage in edit warring back and forth. Yaf 17:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

YOu demean Wikipedia when you include this Nazi stuff on it. I'm reverting. MiFeinberg 18:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep on topic, and do not resort to personal attacks. This is a cited section, and meets WP:ATT. You are not going to achieve your goal by edit warring to establish your POV. Please work with other editors on this to achieve a mutually-acceptable balance. Thank you. Yaf 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I happen to think that JPFO sound like a bunch of nuts, but their opinion seems to carry some weight (as Scott's link indicates). My earlier concerns — that allegations were being stated as facts — have been addressed, and I don't see a problem leaving the language. This is a "Controversy" section, where the usual concerns about NPOV and RS are a little weaker (obviously one party or another in a controversy has a POV, and that will have to be expressed in this section).

For those people who think this paragraph doesn't belong here, I offer a suggestion: Find a reasonably credible source that debunks the JPFO argument and write a paragraph about it, or integrate both parties' arguments into a single paragraph. (Or, as an alternative, find a source that convincingly argues that JPFO is a fringe opinion that doesn't merit mention in a Wikipedia article, although Scott's article suggests otherwise.) An edit war isn't the right way to deal with this. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 02:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You have got be kidding me. This is the old "Do you still beat your wife?" logic. The person being asked hasn't beaten his wife, but he is in the position of having to prove it. Look, by any standards, this is just a very, very poor source. I'm certain if I bring this to mediation others will agree with me, and I'm going to do that if you keep this up. MiFeinberg 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Have restored the deletion once again. For the record, I don't agree with everything JPFO says. However, I do believe that the best method of working this is to work with other editors on this to achieve a mutually-acceptable balance. Yaf 04:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The quality of the source is certainly worth balancing in the article, through appropriately cited sources. However, just because you feel that the source is "very, very poor", this is not a reason to remove a major viewpoint that is commonly held by a group that, by some beliefs, is creditable. (As I have stated before, I don't subscribe to all their beliefs, either.) Nonetheless, I do believe that a NPOV-section tagline is certainly warranted on this section until there is balance established. Will insert this. Yaf 03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that none of us clicked through to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. The bottom of that article describes the group's Nazi theory and cites a law professor who refutes it. The article is 27 pages long, so it'll take some time to read it and digest it, but — contrary to MiFeinberg — I think we found a credible source that debunks JPFO's argument. I hope somebody can summarize the professor's arguments so we can include two sides of this controversy. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good find! Good job, Malik Shabazz! Now, we just have to figure out a way to get it to balance the article. Yaf 04:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read through the article and it does not, in fact, debunk the JPFO's claim, or even address it. What it says is basically this:

A) The Nazis did not have strong opinions on guns. Gun ownership was already restricted when the Nazis took power. If anything, the 1938 law actually loosened restrictions for ordinary Germans. Jews were disarmed, but only as necessary to effectively contain, control, and kill them.

B) This, like other arguments tying gun control to Nazis, is just a Godwin. It doesn't matter whether GCA68 was based on the old German Law.

Now, I think the section still ought to be rewritten somewhat in light of this article. -- Scott e^iπ 08:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC

I disagrew with Scott. I have read the professor's article, and it does debunk the JPFO's claims. However, I don't care to dignify the JPFO's claims be "debunking" them in this article. The claims are preposterous to begin with. Refuting the claims gives them dignity they don't deserve. Griot 16:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it absolutely does not debunk this specific claim. It doesn't even mention Senator Dodd or the GCA68. It only says that the JPFO has mischaracterized the motives behind the Nazi NFA. Furthermore, the accuracy of the claim is not in question with regards to its inclusion in this article. -- Scott e^iπ 07:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The JPFO claim that the Gun Control Act of 1968 is founded on the Nazi lawsis based on two very tenuous claims: 1)The 1968 Act, like the Nazi act, made a distinction between guns used for sporting purposes and guns used for other purposes; 2) Senator Christopher Dodd asked for a translation into English of the Nazi gun control act. (Dodd was a prosecutor at the Nuremburg Trial; can you imagine him, after viewing the trail first hand, wanting to emulate the Nazis in anything?) It is absolutely beyond me how anyone with even the smallest pretense to scholarship can give any credence to such narrow criteria as the JPFO's. In debates, everyone should be wary of comparisons to the Nazis under any context. The JPFO is a shrill, extremist group. It's claims should not be considered in this article. Griot 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the JPFO's pamphlet, so I don't know what similarities are claimed. But I do know that both laws contain a "prohibited persons" list, in addition to "sporting purposes" clauses. I also don't find it unbelievable that Dodd would want to copy the Nazis in this respect. For example, Dwight Eisenhower spent four years fighting the Nazis, and then copied their highway system in the US. -- Scott e^iπ 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The making of a distinction of "sporting purposes" had no precedent in prior US law, especially in light of U.S. vs. Miller where the NFA was upheld because the USSC determined a sawed off shotgun as not being a "militia weapon" aka a military weapon. Thus the only similar test established by precedent was for the exact opposite. A side-by-side comparison of the German law and the GCA of 68 yields too many parallels. If anything it does warrant mention as it cannot be disproven, and there is ample evidence supporting the assertation, as well as the evidence present by comparison of the two. NPOV is NPOV, anything less is pushing propaganda, not providing useful information for a public discourse. HiroProX 01:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the distinction between sporting purposes and military purposes as regards to guns had not precedent in pior US law is somewhat misleading. The distinction between sporting guns and military guns is longstanding. The Act of 1968 merely made this distinction a part of the law. I would like everyone in this discussion to take note of Godwin's Law. It's just plain to me that JFPO is making comparisons between this law and Nazi laws for propaganda purposes. No encyclopedia should be used this way. Griot 17:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading the paragraph, I feel it is properly written. It states an claim made by a group. There is nothing wrong with listing an opinion of a group that is active in the relevant topic as long as it is clearly read as just an opinion of that group. I'm only vaguely familiar with JPFO, but I am aware of the parallels they claim between US gun control and that of numerous disarmament movements that preceded atrocities including the actions of the Nazi party. The claims to parallels between the US/Nazi laws I have read did not imply direct copying, but rather a pattern of history repeating itself. Perhaps a less volatile approach would be to remove the Nazi reference and cite their general claim that governments in the past have disarmed the populous in order to abuse them afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.26.41 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the link to the jpfo.org site was 404 not found. So, I substituted a related link from their site that does work. Another possible URL, with the title "common sense" is http://www.jpfo.org/common-sense/cs34.htm However, reverting to the earlier URL would be a bad move, since it is a broken link. I realise that there are people involved in the above dispute who would just as soon see the link broken. Have we really been reduced to the point where scholarly discussion of issues devolves to breaking links to each other's sites? C'mon guys. Have some arguments, or rhetoric, or evidence. With regard to the "less volatile" approach, I think that defeats the whole purpose of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership in making the argument. They are not just saying that some governments have disarmed the populace to abuse them somewhat, but that particular governments like that of Hitler (and they mention elsewhere Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) have disarmed people specifically to enable massacring people. In various instances millions or tens of millions of people. This argument is made by JPFO's Aaron Zelman precisely because it is volatile, because it is incendiary, because it is a sensitive topic. He's upset about it. You can make the legitimate argument that his sensitivity to the issue of disarmament and Jewish extermination by Hitler has colored his view of the Gun Control Act of 1968, though I still find his scholarship to be convincing. However, you can't just swap in a dull, watered down version of his argument and say that you are doing it justice. "Oh, yeah, and some whiny Jews who are a bit too caught up in millions of their lives being obliterated a few decades back have made this argument that governments sometimes disarm a populace in order to abuse it just a bit," is not his argument, and to substitute it for his argument is a disservice to everyone. Planetaryjim (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to include JPFO's link to Harcourt as refuting their argument, why not include a link to Halbrook's reply to Harcourt as supporting their argument?

• Bernard E. Harcourt, On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians), 73 Fordham L. Rev. 653 (2004) http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/harcourt/harcourt_fordham.pdf
• Deborah Homsher, Response to Bernard E. Harcourt's "On Gun Registration", 73 Fordham L. Rev. 715 (2004)
• Robert J. Spitzer, Don't Know Much About History, Politics, or Theory: A Comment, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 721 (2004).

Reply:

• Stephen P. Halbrook, Nazism, the Second Amendment, and the NRA: A Reply to Professor Harcourt, 11 Texas Rev L. & Pol 113 (2006) http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/nazism.nra.pdf

Halbrook: "The Fordham Law Review recently published a provocative Second Amendment Symposium issue which included three articles suggesting that Nazi Germany had liberal policies toward firearm owners and that the National Rifle Association (NRA) promotes a myth of Nazi repression of firearms owners as part of a cultural war." (That was Fordham Law Review, November, 2004, Symposium: The Second Amendment and the Future of Gun Regulation: Historical, Legal, Policy, and Cultural Perspectives)

Harcourt quoted William Pierce, author of the Turner Diaries and leader of the neo-Nazi National Alliance and National Vanguard, as a reliable source on the assertion that "German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens..." (Harcourt at page 668) which is true if you don't count German Jews as citizens of the Third Reich and Harcourt did not deny "The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population" (Harcourt at page 671). However, Harcourt does claim that Stephen Halbrook, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) and National Rifle Association (NRA) promote a myth of Nazi repression of firearms owners. Obviously the Nazis repressed only certain firearms owners. This is like comparing Virginia's Racial Integrity Act to the Nazi laws on racial purity. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Age to own? Age to purchase?

A recent edit added a point to the prohibited persons list...

"Any person who is under 21 (handgun) or 18 (other firearm)."

I read the GCA and an 18-year-old is not a prohibited prosessor of handguns as near as I can tell. My initial though was to change the bullet point to "Any person who is under the age of 18". Then I reads the section intro...

"The original GCA prohibits firearms purchase and ownership by certain broad categories of individuals..."

The GCA under § 922(x) says...

(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile --

(A) a handgun; or

(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess --

(A) a handgun; or

(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

...and then goes on in the same section to say...

(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term "juvenile" means a person who is less than 18 years of age.

So 18-year-olds are allowed to own handguns obtained via a gift or through private sale, both of which are legal. But I think an FFL, as per the terms of their license to sell firearms, is not allowed to sell to under 21 (not totally sure). So purchase may not be legal under certain circumstances, but ownership certainly is. 18USC922 as it reads today is the same as I described above, so it doesn't look like FOPA changed it.

Thoughts on how to change? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

One more bit, with respect to those under 18:

(3) This subsection does not apply to--

(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the juvenile--

(ii) with the prior written consent of the juvenile's parent or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm,

I don't think the age restrictions belong under the "Prohibited Persons" section.

--jdege 04:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. With respect to purchase and ownership, age restrictions certainly do belong. Removal of the point is certainly more acceptable than having it read incorrectly, but leaving it out is less than desirable. I'm going to take a stab at it I think. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have revised the article to more accurately reflect federal law pertaining to juveniles.

The juvenile ban applies only to handguns (not shotguns and rifles), and has several exceptions-neither of these are true for the other categories. Felons, etc. are prohibited from all firearms and ammo under nearly all circumstances

Because juvenile possession is not entirely proscribed, I didn't feel it belonged in the same list as persons prohibited from all firearms in nearly all circumstances.

This distinction is also reflected in the law itself-each of those enumerated categories of prohibited person are contained under 18 USC 922(d) and the ban on juvenile possession and its exceptions are part of 18 USC 922(x).—Bfperez (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Prohibited Persons

As respects items #2 and #3 on the list of prohibited persons, it would be helpful to point out that the exemptions for business practices and certain state misdemeanors are contained not in 18 USC sec. 921 et seq., but in the corresponding CFR. It is the definition of "Crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year" in 27 CFR 478.11 that states that "The term shall not include (a) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices or (b) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of 2 years or less." It is confusing to persons who read the text of sec. 922 (g)(1) (which states simply that persons convicted in any court of a crime with 1-year imprisonment are prohibited), who would not know where these exemptions exist. This raises a larger point that the article should state that 27 CFR contains many of the details of how the GCA is implemented, with a link to the applicable rules.--Ana Nim (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How are guns serialized?

Does each gun bear a unique serial number or just a unique serial number for that specific type of gun/manufacturer? Additionally, are the serial numbers sequential? - Could you tell if a gun is older/newer than another one by comparing serial numbers? Thanks! --24.15.235.157 (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Each "make and model" has its own list of serial numbers, meaning that you could theoretically own, say, Springfield GI 1911 #471175 and Beretta 92 #471175. Serial numbers are generally sequential, but the law requires only trhat they be unique; at least one manufacturer (North American Arms) offers "vanity" serial numbers. Many guns can be dated by their serial numbers--it's best to check with the manufacturer or with a community of collectors (the internet makes this pretty easy). Elmo iscariot (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Serial numbers have been usually assigned within models. Many manufacturers have made many different models, some of which have been quite similar. The result has been that multiple guns, that were very similar in design and appearance, have been manufactured with the same serial number. And after a number of decades of firearms being reworked, rebarreled, restocked, etc., it's anyone's guess what the original model was. Serial numbers are not a reliably unique identifier for a firearm.--jdege (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• To uniquely identify a firearm, you must have Make, Model AND Serial Number. Ser Nums may be repeated between different models, and Model numbers may be repaeted between manufacturers. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sporting Purposes

The "sporting purposes" requirement is mentioned in the controversy section, but not in the main article. For as much as I have heard about it, it seems like something that should be discussed. Can it be explained within the article? Jmclark56 (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

removing the Alleged Nazi connections section

The "Alleged Nazi connections" section is poorly-sourced and inflammatory. We should not be citing Wayne LaPierre's "The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the UN Plan To Destroy the Bill of Rights" as a source of facts. We should also not be basing our coverage of an issue on WP:PRIMARY source quotes from Congressional testimony without any secondary sourcing that explains these quotes. The claim in the first sentence of the paragraph - that "the bill was copied directly from German laws" is not supported by the rest of the paragraph. We're describing a letter to Senator Dodd that refers to Nazi gun laws, but we don't say who wrote the letter or what their purpose was (was it a pro-gun group that wanted to make a point about how terrible gun legislation is?) and we don't bother to state whether the letter had any impact on Dodd or anyone else. Dingell's statement about Nazi gun laws being used to disarm Jews and Tydings' reply do not indicate that the bill's authors made any reference to Nazi gun laws - just that the rhetoric about the bill happened to include this particular argument. There's no secondary source that puts this quote into context. Similarly, the unsourced claim that Tydings put documents into the record "concerning the history of Nazism and gun confiscation" means nothing unless a reliable secondary source explains Tydings' purpose and the impact of these documents. GabrielF (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• http://books.google.com/books?id=dA3pGSYG2yIC&pg=PA286&dq=gca+1968+nazi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9Z-wUvbWDZSqyQG2tYDgDg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=gca%201968%20nazi&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=H_RrLyV9rDUC&pg=PA549&dq=gca+1968+nazi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9Z-wUvbWDZSqyQG2tYDgDg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=gca%201968%20nazi&f=false

WP:NPOV "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."

reverted. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not just neutrality, it is that the sourcing itself is unacceptable. This falls within WP:BRD. GabrielF (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've tweaked and trimmed the passage to leave in what I think is acceptable (but even that might be too much--it's little more than a tiny bit of "controversy" that in later NRA literature is blown up into a conspiracy). Dodd and his letter are out: our article doesn't draw a conclusion, but leaves it up to the reader to make the easy leap, "Ah, Dodd copied the Nazi law!". That is not acceptable. Gaijin, I read your source, and what it says, and I am telling you that you cannot (well, you can, but we can't) accept that particular interpretation of the historical record to be stated as a fact--in this case, that the record somehow proves Tydings copied the German law. That is the opinion of Neal Knox, and you know who he is; it is not a verified historical truth: "No one noticed...that he [Tydings] and President Johnson were, indeed, trying to emulate the Nazi registration laws". It's interpretation from someone who is so obviously not neutral that we cannot accept that--at the most, we can say "according to longtime NRA officer and career gun activist Neal Knox", but that's giving undue weight to one particular opinion. And you could cite LaPierre as well, with a similar introduction, making it even more undue. Here's again where RS has no bearing on what should be in an article; it's NPOV. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

drmies it is an uncontested fact that they had the original german document, and during the time they were debating the GCA, asked for a translation, and inserted that translation into the congressional record. The implication and allegation of copying however should be attributed to Knox and the JPFO of course. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

So? It may also be that they had hot dogs with sauerkraut for lunch. Who knows what else they put in that congressional record? Are you saying that reading a Nazi law makes one a Nazi? Are you saying that reading a Nazi law makes one write Nazi laws? This may be a surprise, but I think any legal scholar will tell you that lawyers read voraciously and sometimes indiscriminately--at least in terms of politics. It is simply good practice to read jurisprudence, and from many different sources, in order to know what has been done and how things should and should not be written. We still don't know what was supposed to be borrowed anyway. The exemption for Nazi party members? No, this is OR bordering on conspiracy theory. Perhaps we should call in the big guns, like Newyorkbrad. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

drmies The source you just updated the cite tag for in fact does directly allege copying (p 285)(both hearsay allegation (commenting on JPFO), and then directly by the author). "[...] which charges that the 1968 GCA was a direct copy of the Nazi gun laws of 1938" ... "did the authors [...] copy the nazi law and translate it into amendment 90 to s.1? Not likley. Well, it appears I was wrong". This same source additionally is a reliable secondary source directly referencing the primary sources cited in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• If you don't see the huge chasm between "reliably stating primary data" and "making broad interpretations from primary data" then I probably can't explain it at all. I don't doubt that there are a letter, documents, etc. What I doubt is Knox's interpretation, given without any further evidence, that the documents somehow prove that Tydings was introducing legislature copied from the Nazis. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed several sentences. Given that the bill did not include registration, the comment from Dingell, which specifically references registration, is irrelevant to the claim that some critics "[say] that the bill was comparable to German laws". I read the testimony and Gaijin42's summary of what Dingell says is inaccurate. Dingell never mentions Jews. It's not clear exactly what Dingell means when he makes the Nazi reference - Tydings challenges him by asking Dingell explicitly whether he's suggesting that Nazi gun control laws helped Hitler come to power, and Dingell says that's not his inference, but he never actually states explicitly what he believes the consequence of these laws was, other than that he believes they made gun ownership prohibitively expensive. The sources used at Talk:Gun control demonstrate that Dingell is completely wrong since the Nazis did not strengthen gun laws across the board. The quote from Tydings is from a primary source with no reliable secondary source demonstrating its significance. It's downright tendencious to cite Tydings asking Dingell to clarify his remark or Dodd putting a document in the record, but not to cite either of these Senators' actual arguments. GabrielF (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the claim that a translation of the bill was placed in the congressional record. It's completely disingenuous. if you actually read the record it clearly states that Tydings inserted the translation, along with some reports from the Library of Congress to refute the claim that the bill was equivalent to Nazi laws. Here is the exact quote from Tydings that precedes the insertion into the record (page 480) "This is the argument that extremists use. When I hear a Congressman of the United States using this type of argument I find it unacceptable in view of the facts as I know them to be. I will insert at this point in the record appropriate documents concerning the history of Naziism and gun confiscation." GabrielF (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to editors of this page. Lightbreather (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Controversy

North8000GabrielF Although certainly the accusation of nazi relationship is notable, in this particular case, the argument may be factually wrong. On the ArbCom page, someone provided a link to the full pdf of the hearings, and dingell does not make an argument that the Jews were disarmed (but he does make a comparison to Nazi registration). Tydings reply is there, but in context it is clear that his inclusion of the Nazi laws was to rebut Dingell's argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin42. Here is the link[3] (70MB). See page 478 of the text (487 of the PDF file). The text I deleted makes a clear factual error (Dingell does not refer to Jews) and it makes implications about Tydings and Dodd that are unreasonable and unsubstantiated.GabrielF (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not following, but if you both agree I'm cool with that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

TLDR :The debate happened, but its being significantly mischaracterized by knox and the JPFO, in an objectively factual way. Its not just a disagreement of opinion. They are attributing words to Dingel that he did not say, and presenting some of the other info in an obviously misleading manner. I think it should probably still have the 1 line mention, because the accusation is somewhat notable, but we should not go into the specific details that are known to be wrong. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

History section

I attempted to remove the following which is fairly well sourced, but appears at first glance to be unnecessary detail with regard to such a short section, "President Kennedy was shot and killed by an Italian military surplus rifle purchased by mail-order from an ad in American Rifleman magazine." Forget the bad grammar for the moment, since rifles can't do anything on their own.

The sources go into considerable detail describing the catalog number for it, when the rifle was shipped, the store that ordered it, etc., but the piece of information that the User chooses to include (and defensively revert) only pertains to the NRA's "American Rifleman" magazine. Does this seems POV and WP:UNDUE to anyone else? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone is in the middle of expanding the section and is working from 1963 forward? Lightbreather (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So you're admitting to POV editing and adding content that is WP:UNDUE, anyone else agree? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I am admitting to developing the background/history section, using good- and high-quality sources. Lightbreather (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, not all of the sources give the store name, catalog number, rifle specifics and other details, so it might be undue to use those in the article... but a detail that all of the sources do give in common is that the rifle was mail-ordered from an ad in American Rifleman. Lightbreather (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

And my reply to your observation regarding these specific details is "So what?". In an article about federal legislation from almost 50 years ago, why is it relevant that the origin of the rifle used in one assassination out of several cited be included? Did you bother to check and see if any of your 5 sources cross reference each other? That's the easiest explanation for the prevalence of certain details. Its not an indication of importance, it just means one author copied another. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the legislation was 50 years ago or 5 years ago. The article is about the legislation, so how and why it came about is relevant. And are you saying that John Kennedy's assassination wasn't more significant than the others? First, it was the first in a string of assassinations. But more importantly, it was the assassination of the President of the United States. If you want to go compare who is citing whom, knock yourself out. I'm off to gather up more sources who think these two details are relevant. Lightbreather (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Scalhotrod is removing this information again. When he first removed it, three days ago, he said it was undue.[4] Today, he said, first, that it was bad grammar and spurious detail.[5] So I restored it, because it's relevant, though I fixed what I believe was the grammar error that he hinted at.[6] Then he deleted it again, this time saying that I must "justify that this detail is relavant."[7]

Why is it relevant? Because a preponderance of WP:V, WP:RS say it is. This is the sentence that immediately follows the removed one:

Congressional hearings followed, and a ban on mail-order gun sales were discussed, with support from the National Rifle Association (NRA), but no law was passed.

The first source, by Bugliosi, is a play-by-play that goes into great detail, including that Kennedy's assassin ordered his rifle by mail-order from an ad in American Rifleman. The second, by Michaud (quoting Lepore) gives not quite as much detail, but includes that the assassin ordered his rifle by mail-order from an ad in American Rifleman. The third, by Rosenfeld, gives less detail, but includes that the assassin ordered his rifle by mail-order from an ad in American Rifleman. The fourth, by CBS, gives even less detail, but includes that the assassin ordered his rifle by mail-order from an ad in American Rifleman. The fifth, from ABC, gives a few details, but includes the ones that are common to the other sources: that the assassin ordered his rifle by mail-order from an ad in American Rifleman.

So, according to the sources (and I can provide many more), the fact that the rifle was mail-ordered from American Rifleman is relevant. It explains why, in the hearings that followed Kennedy's assassination, banning mail-order gun sales was discussed - with support from the NRA. Lightbreather (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I get the relevance of it being "mail ordered" just not through "American Riflemen" when the sources clearly say that there were ads in a number of periodicals and/or why its necessary to say that it was Italian made? It could just as easily been the "Saturday Evening Post", but you keep focusing on one publication when it doesn't matter in the context of this section. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

More sources: some books and a couple more news sources.

• Josh Sugarmann (1992). "National Rifle Association: Money, Firepower & Fear - Chapter One: Soldiers to Lobbyists". vpc.org. Violence Policy Center.
• Larson, Erik (1995). Lethal Passage: The Story of a Gun. Vintage Books. OCLC 775356495.
• O'Connor, K.; Barron, G. (1998). "Madison's Mistake: Judicial Construction of the Second Amendment". In Wilcox, C.; Bruce, J. (eds.). The Changing Politics of Gun Control. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 80. OCLC 858230003. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Doeden, Matt (2011). Gun Control: Preventing Violence or Crushing Constitutional Rights?. Twenty-First Century Books. p. 109. OCLC 760196921.
• "Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle ignited national gun control debate of 1960s". KENS 5. March 23, 2013.

• Smyth, Frank (September 13, 2013). "How the NRA became the fringe". NBC Universal.

If you want to drop the "Italian made," I don't have a problem with that, since it wasn't a detail common to all the sources that I gave. FWIW, if a preponderance of sources said it was an ad in the Saturday Evening Post, I would have written that. The sources made the publication relevant, not me. I think I should ask: Do you have a conflict of interest when it comes to the NRA?

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Other than I'm a member, like you, not that I'm aware of. But you have a POV that you're pushing, you've stated it here where you state "my observation is that I am the only "pro-control" editor here" as well as made evidence of it in article summaries and WP formal processes that are too numerous to mention.

And the preponderance of any detail still is not enough to warrant its inclusion except maybe in the article about the Kennedy assassination. The salient fact is that the rifle was mail ordered, anything else is extraneous and subject to question. If you aren't on a POV mission, then you should be OK with leaving it out. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please keep it on content, not character. You're "If you aren't on a POV mission" applies to you or anyone editing on Wikipedia. All Wikipedians have POVs, but mine, yours, and theirs make no difference. If someone has a COI - that does matter. I do not. And you say you do not, so WP:DTS and quit bringing up that tired, uncivil argument. If you really think it's an issue, gather up your evidence and take it to the appropriate forum - please. I mean it. I am fully prepared to respond to any specific diffs you want to bring up in the appropriate place. Otherwise, quit whining about it every time we have a dispute. Lightbreather (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter now, looks like we're both about to be Topic Banned... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Compromise

I just made an edit that I hope will bring this dispute to an end. The fact that the NRA supported the mail-order ban proposals following Kennedy's assassination is relevant. The NRA is the nation's #1 gun group/lobby. Why did they support it? As its executive VP, Franklin L. Orth, testified at the hearings: "We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States." The content I restored leaves off the publication name, but makes it clear that it was an NRA publication. This is all supported by numerous good- to high-quality reliable sources. Lightbreather (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Although I still consider the mention of the publication name irrelevant, I can accept the edit. You do understand that back in 1968, the NRA was nothing like it is today, right?

Where did the Orth quote come from, that seems like a good addition to the section which seems light on its progress and development as a bill? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I do understand. Though the late 60s and 70s were pivotal times in the orgs development. But that is neither here nor there here. The thing is, the sources find the information about the NRA's connection to the GCA relevant.

As for the quote, I've seen it in many places, but in this case I pulled it from the Michaud source. I almost added it, but I figured you would remove it. Lightbreather (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead in the time we have before the topic ban goes into effect. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Texas Federal Court case

A fairly significant ruling was handed down per this reference and it should be included in the article, but it needs to be explained and stated properly and within the context of its circumstances. Twice now there has been the attempt to insert a broad, far reaching statement into the Lead without any addition to the main body of the article which is against WP:LEAD. Anyone want to help craft the paragraph or section explaining what this case applies to? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Mention of American Rifleman magazine as source of rifle that shot that JFK

I have removed this as WP:UNDUE several times and its been added claiming that it is WP:DUE because there are five sources that cite this factoid. There are likely many more that cite this, but it still makes it no more relevant.

In 1963, there were a scant few firearm related publications in addition to American Rifleman such as Shooting Times started in 1882, Gun Digest (1944), Guns (magazine) (1955), and Guns & Ammo (1958). So the add that Oswald responded to could have just as easily been from one of these or the Saturday Evening Post for that matter, but it just happened to be an NRA publication at the time.

The key issue in the article is that the rifle was order via the mail regardless of how the add was found or what it was for. And that is what the legislation described in the article addresses. The inclusion of the magazine is a tangent that takes away from this main point. Two sources cited state how much the rifle was purchased for (although they conflict) and one even goes so far as to cite the money order number used. Its all trivia and none of it relevant to the fact that the 1968 GCA addressed mail order gun sales.

The editor that added this material and repeatedly reverts and defends it has yet to state why its inclusion is WP:DUE with anything other than The sources say so... In controversial articles and subjects, that has never been an acceptable explanation.

Hide off topic discussion

This same editor has personally made over 350 edits to the National Rifle Association article[8] with the explanation behind much of it that its for the sake of "balance" and "weight", but I don't buy it when someone complains that a criticism section is too small[9] and then proceeds to make and defend edits elsewhere around the site like the one being discussed here.

As you can see above, we tried to hash this out almost 10 months ago just before a topic ban went into effect, but I still do not see the relevance of this detail in this article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Everything I had to say about this, I said last July, not only about the content (including the Saturday Evening Post), but about your ruminations on my character and motives. If you have problem with those, gather your evidence and take it to the appropriate forum, otherwise, knock it off. (My arm is back in a cast/split thingy and I don't want to type the same stuff all over again.)

Just out of curiosity, setting aside for now what the sources say are due (decided to publish in their reports), do YOU believe that the facts that 1. The ad used to order the weapon used to assassinate a sitting president was in NRA publication American Rifleman and that 2. The NRA had a lot to say about this law is simply coincidental? If you had been editor of these sources at the time, would you have left out that the ad came from American Rifleman - that was inconsequential? Lightbreather (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

What you have just stated is speculative nonsense that you have contradicted in other discussions. I'm requesting a WP:Third Opinion. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, warning about the 3RR being approached and request both experienced editors to focus on content. I assume that this section has fully highlighted both sides of the parties involved in this content dispute. This is the disputed edit. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I conclude that the magazine can be mentioned although dispute about its relevance still seems trivial irrespective of whether you want to add it or not. I got convinced by the preceding statement which talks about the NRA supporting the ban. If replaced by "a magazine", then the statement mentioning the NRA has lesser context, given that they sponsored the magazine. If replaced by "a NRA-sponsored magazine" then it's rather silly, since you might as well mention the magazine's name. So, yes, I think it should be mentioned because it does have some relevance and not to mention, it is sourced too. Hope this helps, -Joel Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ugog Nizdast, so what you're saying is that a coincidental circumstance makes it OK to link the two? If it was any other publication, would it have mattered that the NRA was involved at all? Furthermore, and this topic has been discussed and acknowledged previously, the NRA was not the politically motivated organization in the early 60s that it is today. That transformation did not start until over a decade later. One of the references cited in the article actually says this. The link these subjects and characterize the organization in this way via one of the most polarizing events of the 20th century might seem trivial to discuss, but the material is still WP:UNDUE IMO. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

References

The NRA's transformation (contemporary, political focus on "gun rights") didn't start in the 70s - it was completed in the 70s with the "The Cincinnati Revolution." Nonetheless, the org wasn't apolitical before this.

Thank you, Ugog Nizdast, for your 3O. I do not wish to overstate the NRA's influence in these things, but to give it its due consideration. To hide the significant influence the NRA has had and still has on U.S. gun laws, or to pretend its influence is marginal, is not NPOV. Lightbreather (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Unaccounted for removal of information

Scalhotrod: Regarding this edit - [10] - you removed information from the article (that has been in the article since at least July 2014, if not earlier) without explaining why. Could you please explain what you deleted, and why? Lightbreather (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing was removed that was directly attributed to the sources used. It was edited and paraphrased, but all of the references were kept and applied to the sentence that they directly supported. The only content not retained was the mention of the Malcom X assassination and the University of Texas shooting, neither of which were found in any of the 5 non-subscription based sources. The intermediate legislation efforts were moved in line chronologically with when they happened, in the middle of the efforts for the GCA to be passed. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gun Control Act of 1968. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140707222435/http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/asc/research/gun_control.htm to http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/asc/research/gun_control.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

6.5 mm Carcano?

The gun that killed Kennedy was never forensically proven. No bullets recovered that could be proven without a doubt. A 6.5 mm casing was found on the gurney with JFK, but an a obvious plant. A 6.5 mm Carcano was shown to press and had been mail-ordered, yes, but whether Oswald's or even used cannot be proven. There were two photos of Oswald ; one with a rifle, one exactly like it but without. The angle of his hand to hold it is incorrect. It isn't clear if same rifle as no serial number, of course, visible. By US Treasuyr: "Firearms shall be identified my serial number". I move word Alleged inserted, or Popularly believed. 174.18.29.200 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Capstone Course in American Politics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2022 and 13 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jsdorsey (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dmar24, Nharkdivad.

— Assignment last updated by Nharkdivad (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)