Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jimmy the one

(2,717 posts)
26. spinning the same top on M/T
Wed May 29, 2013, 05:45 AM
May 2013

johnston: Do you support the provision of Manchin Toomey that would have allowed interstate handgun purchases that was completely banned without FFL under the 1968 Gun Control Act?

Johnston said the same on RKBA board, with a thread he started called 'a provision in Manchin-Toomey that isn't mentioned': "IOW, it would amend the 1968 Gun Control Act to allow interstate handgun sales without an FFL. Personally, I'm opposed to the idea,"

Even your own side shot you down on this, on your own thread, johnston, so why'd you stop posting on your own thread after you got hit with your own flak? You didn't answer any of these counters, why not? Now you're on here spinning the same top.

kudzu: I think it would make handguns follow the same rules as long guns.. You'd still have to buy through an FFL in the other state, but you wouldn't have to have it shipped to an FFL in your state to do the transfer. At least that's how I read it

lurks often: I think you are interpreting it incorrectly. Any firearms sale of a non antique firearm that crosses state lines requires an FFL and I do not believe that Manchin-Toomey would have changed that.
Current Federal law allows you to buy a long gun from any FFL.. What Manchin-Toomey would have done is change the handgun purchase law to match the current law how long guns are handled.


travis: 9. I'm fine with this change.http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1172121948

In my ideal world, NO private citizen EXCEPT city/state/fed law enforcer ONLY while on duty graham4anything May 2013 #1
I understand that. gejohnston May 2013 #2
They keep changing this law... bobclark86 May 2013 #3
pop quiz jimmy the one May 2013 #4
my reply gejohnston May 2013 #5
pop quiz results jimmy the one May 2013 #6
my "teacher" feedback gejohnston May 2013 #7
eagerly awaiting the whole truth, & nothing but jimmy the one May 2013 #8
last time gejohnston May 2013 #10
guncontrol & firearm suicide rates jimmy the one May 2013 #9
I was hoping gejohnston May 2013 #11
devil's advocate outed jimmy the one May 2013 #12
Why am I here? gejohnston May 2013 #13
Nice try, but you billh58 May 2013 #14
let me get this straight gejohnston May 2013 #15
Well the first billh58 May 2013 #18
+1 CreekDog May 2013 #25
fair & square jimmy the one May 2013 #16
actually no gejohnston May 2013 #17
copblock, such the reputable source jimmy the one May 2013 #19
which reminds me gejohnston May 2013 #20
Ahh, gejohnston. Long time, man. DanTex May 2013 #21
When I saw this gejohnston May 2013 #22
A common theme among anti gun control posters is that the laws should apply to law enforcement CreekDog May 2013 #23
perhaps, but gejohnston May 2013 #24
spinning the same top on M/T jimmy the one May 2013 #26
without an FFL in your own state gejohnston May 2013 #27
suddenly jimmy the one May 2013 #28
Thanks for the billh58 May 2013 #29
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»A loosening of NY SAFE Ac...»Reply #26