That press release sounds wonderful! I think I've switched sides!! I completely trust all those involved in looking out for my best interest now!
What a relief!
What a relief!
Exactly what I was thinking. So from what I understand they are wanting to expand the definitions of what counts as a "commercial" sale, thus forcing more transactions to go through FFLs, while abandoning the "transfers" language we've been hearing about. Still unacceptable, but not sure how it was "worse" that what we thought.
By what I've read today, if you advertise to sell a gun on the Internet - (OSA Classifieds), the sale would have to go thru an FFL.
Sent from HT's iPad using Tapatalk HD
Sent from HT's iPad using Tapatalk HD
This legislation reminds me of the old government paperwork reduction act. It seemed like a good idea but never worked.
The devil is in the details and there are a lot of details proposed in this legislation. It gives the govt more power and opportunity to do harm to second amendment rights. Hard to say whether it is just well intentioned incompetence or crafty malevolence.
The devil is in the details and there are a lot of details proposed in this legislation. It gives the govt more power and opportunity to do harm to second amendment rights. Hard to say whether it is just well intentioned incompetence or crafty malevolence.
I wonder if sales over the Internet includes email...?
If I email a friend about selling him a firearm, etc.
If I email a friend about selling him a firearm, etc.
Yup...but that principle went out the window awhile ago.
from Dennishoddy: "Coburn wants to bring this up for debate in the Senate. I agree.
Let them get up there and spew their half-truths, and outright lies, and let the voters see what they are voting for".
Coburn is right more often than not. In the end he might get tarred for compromising over SOME expansion of BCs but like so many other conservative or Constitutionalist issues this is but one more rear-guard battle.
Compromise is always a bad idea when the original objective is a BAD IDEA. But when you don't have the votes, you compromise and scramble for your best position. And you lose a little ground every time they go to the well demanding all the water. You meet them there just trying to make sure they don't get what they came for. Problem is they almost always get SOME.
Let them get up there and spew their half-truths, and outright lies, and let the voters see what they are voting for".
Coburn is right more often than not. In the end he might get tarred for compromising over SOME expansion of BCs but like so many other conservative or Constitutionalist issues this is but one more rear-guard battle.
Compromise is always a bad idea when the original objective is a BAD IDEA. But when you don't have the votes, you compromise and scramble for your best position. And you lose a little ground every time they go to the well demanding all the water. You meet them there just trying to make sure they don't get what they came for. Problem is they almost always get SOME.
Similar threads
