a provision in Manchin-Toomey that isn't mentioned

[gejohnston]

I actually learned about it here.
http://www.independentfirearmowners.org/2013/

It would allow Americans to buy handguns from out-of-state sellers, which is not allowed currently.

IOW, it would amend the 1968 Gun Control Act to allow interstate handgun sales without an FFL. Personally, I'm opposed to the idea, and I would not support that as part of a compramise.
Was it intended as a poison pill or inducements for more pro gun politicians to vote for it?
Can anyone shed some light?
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

[upaloopa]

1. You seem to have all the info how can more light

be shed. What page of the bill is it?

[gejohnston]

2. not being a lawyer,

and have never stayed in a Holiday Inn Express, I'm going to guess this section

SEC. 124. FIREARMS DISPOSITIONS.
Section 922(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking "located" and inserting "located or temporarily located"; and
(2) in subparagraph (A)-
(A) by striking "rifle or shotgun" and inserting "firearm";
(B) by striking "located" and inserting "located or temporarily located"; and
(C) by striking "both such States" and inserting "the State in which the transfer is conducted and the State of residence of the transferee".

[upaloopa]

4. Well you'd have to have the original version

to compare to.

[petronius]

3. This excerpt from Toomey:

SEC. 124. FIREARMS DISPOSITIONS.
Section 922(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking "located" and inserting "located or temporarily located"; and
(2) in subparagraph (A)-
(A) by striking "rifle or shotgun" and inserting "firearm";
(B) by striking "located" and inserting "located or temporarily located"; and
(C) by striking "both such States" and inserting "the State in which the transfer is conducted and the State of residence of the transferee".

seems to modify this excerpt from 18 USC 922:

(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or
deliver -
...

(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has
reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person
is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a
place of business in) the State in which the licensee's place of
business is located located or temporarily located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not
apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun firearm to a
resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee's
place of business is located located or temporarily located if the transferee meets in person
with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale,
delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of
sale in both such States the State in which the transfer is conducted and the State of residence of the transferee (and any licensed manufacturer, importer
or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual
knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both
States),...

It does sound like it's allowing a buyer to travel out of state and purchase (in person) any firearm that would be legal in both states...

[kudzu22]

5. 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.

[ileus]

6. That would make life easier here on the boarder.

I'll buy long guns from friends (dealers FFL) that own businesses in WV. While I have to travel. 1 hour West or East to pickup handguns.

[Eleanors38]

7. I assume, since I saw no language to the contrary,

there is no 2-track data storage time limit that the ACLU originally objected to. I hope to see the ACLU weigh in on this. I am unsure about the handgun change also.

[Lurks Often]

8. 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. So if you live in RI and are on vacation in OH and see a long gun that you have always wanted, you can buy it from that FFL presuming it is legal for you to own in the state you reside in. What Manchin-Toomey would have done is change the handgun purchase law to match the current law how long guns are handled.*

Current Federal law ONLY allows you to buy a handgun from a FFL in the state you reside in. Any purchase of a handgun from an out of state FFL dealer requires you to have the out of state FFL dealer ship the handgun to a FFL dealer in the state you reside in and then you have to complete the paperwork to transfer the handgun to you.

Federal Law: Any firearms sale of a non antique firearm that crosses state lines requires an FFL

State Law: A private sale between residents of a state are governed by the state laws the people reside in.

*Internet sales would still require a in state FFL to transfer the firearm.

[Travis_0004]

9. I'm fine with this change.

Why does it matter what state somebody buys a gun in? I live in Ohio, does it really matter if I buy a handgun in Ohio or Kentucky.

I saw a handgun I wanted in Kentucky one time, so I agreed to buy it. They drove it to another dealer in Ohio, while I followed them, and I bought it of the Ohio FFL dealer. Eliminating the middleman would have made things a lot easier.

[jimmy the one]

10. slight misinterpretation by laymen?

GEJohnston has offered some subsequent remarks ~may26+ about what kudzu & lurkso have posted here early may, on another thread, & I thought I'd cross post it here to update:

approx may26: johnston, to me: Do you support the provision of Manchin Toomey that would have allowed interstate handgun purchases that was completely banned without FFL under 1968 Gun Control Act?

{jimmytheone wrote} 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?

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.

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.

johnston, next post: without an FFL in your own state right now there are no interstate sales period. Slight misinterpretation of the law by a layman. The fact remains, MT would allow someone from Ohio to buy a handgun from an FFL in Wisconsin without it being shipped an FFL in Ohio. The 1968 Gun Control Act allows it for long guns but not handguns. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12623170#post28

So kudzu & lurkso are laymen, & you're the expert johnston?

[gejohnston]

12. talk about a new low

r

ight now there are no interstate sales period. Slight misinterpretation of the law by a layman. The fact remains, MT would allow someone from Ohio to buy a handgun from an FFL in Wisconsin without it being shipped an FFL in Ohio. The 1968 Gun Control Act allows it for long guns but not handguns.
That misinterpretation of the law is quite different than asserting "cops are better trained than 90 percent of gun nuts" without offering a shred of evidence, but demanding proof of others. It is also a long ways from verbose misrepresentation of the conversation.

The "layman in question" I was of course, referring to myself. As anyone who reads the quoted post, they will see that I admitted my error and based my post on the correct interpretation. Kudzu and lurks often can obviously read that for themselves and and see the same thing.
Of course you did not refute the existence of that provision. Can't refute the facts, attack the person. That seems to play well in a echo chamber where intellectual laziness seems to be a virtue. It doesn't play well here.


Which begs the question, why did you cross post it here? For some strange reason, I actually thought you had more class than that. It is quite clear I was wrong.

[jimmy the one]

13. he can't stop spinning

johnston: The "layman in question" I was of course, referring to myself. As anyone who reads the quoted post, they will see that I admitted my error and based my post on the correct interpretation. Kudzu and lurks often can obviously read that for themselves and and see the same thing.

You admitted your 'error' on the other board, not this one your very own OP, 'they' likely wouldn't have even seen your 'error', had I not put it here.

Also, you apparently didn't alter your contention nor your OP link's contention, you added addendum to your OP by noting 'without an FFL in your own state right now there are no interstate sales period'. And you're using that as a phony pretext that you 'admitted" your "error" so as to try to slip it past your progun buddies (which I don't expect any help from).

You didn't reply nor rebut kudzu or lurkso who disputed you & OP.
You apparently now stand by your OP, where you said this:
1 johnston, OP, may3: IOW, it would amend the 1968 Gun Control Act to allow interstate handgun sales without an FFL . ----- your 'error'?
2 johnston may29: The fact remains, MT would allow someone from Ohio to buy a handgun from an FFL in Wisconsin without it being shipped an FFL in Ohio. The 1968 Gun Control Act allows it for long guns but not handguns .
3 lurksoften: What Manchin-Toomey would have done is change the handgun purchase law to match the current law how long guns are handled... Any purchase of a handgun from an out of state FFL dealer requires you to have the out of state FFL dealer ship the handgun to a FFL dealer in the state you reside in and then you have to complete the paperwork to transfer the handgun to you.

So, stop spinning & reply to or rebut lurkso.

johnston: Of course you did not refute the existence of that provision. Can't refute the facts, attack the person. That seems to play well in a echo chamber where intellectual laziness seems to be a virtue. It doesn't play well here.

Haha, I couldn't care less about the spin you put on some 'provision' in M/Toomey, which from what you've shown so far has been adequately rebutted by lurkso, & perhaps kudzu.
And my asking if you are an expert, is ad hominem to you? can't stop laughing.

[gejohnston]

14. spinning

Haha, I couldn't care less about the spin you put on some 'provision' in M/Toomey, which from what you've shown so far has been adequately rebutted by lurkso, & perhaps kudzu.

Rebutted isn't accurate. Explained would be a better term. They did not rebut but clarified. As petronius explained, correcting misinterpretation, but confirming the fact that MT would have loosened that provision, just not to that degree.

And my asking if you are an expert, is ad hominem to you?

You are the master. Unless you have something of substance to say, which would be a shock, I'll ignore your intellectually bankrupt nonsense.