NRA comes out against H.R. 3999

[middlefinger]

.

NRA Opposes Bills That Would Ban Bump Stocks


The NRA said Thursday it opposes two pieces of legislation that would ban devices that turn semi-automatic firearms into weapons that work more like automatic ones.

"The NRA opposes the Feinstein and Curbelo legislation," Jennifer Baker, a spokesperson for the NRA's lobbying arm, told The Hill.

Bills in the House and Senate would make it illegal to possess bump stocks, a dozen of which were found in the hotel room from which the Las Vegas shooter killed 58 people and wounded hundreds more.

According to The Washington Free Beacon, Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R, Fla., introduced a bill that would both ban bump stocks and require people who currently own them to surrender them or risk confiscation by authorities.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D, Calif., has introduced similar legislation in recent years.

The Las Vegas shooting massacre has injected new life into the gun control debate across America, with many calling for stricter regulations on firearms and accessories such as bump stocks.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/NRA-.../12/id/819364/

[Smilez226]

Wow. They actually do listen to the 2A community at times.

[tacticalreload]

Wow... look at the pedals spinning backward now.

[tacticalreload]

Wow. They actually do listen to the 2A community at times.

What choice did they have. They are at least partially responsible for this mess. The options were to not say anything more at this point, support this legislation and risk even more backlash, or do an about-face and start fighting the monster they help give birth to.

[Didnotcomply89]

What choice did they have. They are at least partially responsible for this mess. The options were to not say anything more at this point, support this legislation and risk even more backlash, or do an about-face and start fighting the monster they help give birth to.

I don't know about that- if the monster you are referring to is the creation of these recent pieces of legislation. It certainly did not help any. HR 3999 is more insidious than it lets on.

[tacticalreload]

The NRA comes out with a statement that says "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations." So, yes, I firmly believe that that statement took the leash off RINOs in Congress who have been afraid to side with antigun legislation.

[archie19]

The NRA comes out with a statement that says "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations." So, yes, I firmly believe that that statement took the leash off RINOs in Congress who have been afraid to side with antigun legislation.

^^^^ THIS! This is why I am pissed with the NRA!!! Hopefully their strateegery will become apparent and win us all back

[tacticalreload]

^^^^ THIS! This is why I am pissed with the NRA!!! Hopefully their strateegery will become apparent and win us all back

It would be nice. However, I'm not holding my breath. The fact is that politics, while shady and duplicitous and corrupt, isn't that complicated. Damage has been done. That statement has breathed life into an anti-gun movement that was back on its heals. Now they have something to latch onto. Full auto has been demonized so the Hughes Amendment certainly isn't going anywhere. And now stuff that looks like something that it's not should apparently be banned because it is "scary". Correctly me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like the exactly same logic that the Left uses with "assault weapons".

They have now come out and said that they don't support a ban. This seems like a lot of backpeddling after a bunch of angry people threatened to take their membership dues and hit the bricks. Hopefully it gets them back on the right track, but the genie is out of the bottle now. I'm guessing that they figure that the best case scenario is probably that nothing happens with the legislation, people forget about what the NRA said, and we all go back to the way it was.

[truecrimson]

They're not backpeddling. This is part of their strategy. They still support REGULATORY changes by BATFE instead of LEGISLATIVE changes by congress.

Remember earlier in 2017 when news came out that ATF was thinking of revising it's regulations on suppressors and a few other things? Some of us warned not to support that because a regulatory change in easier to change again in the future than a law enacted by congress and signed the president. That's their game here. Let ATF change it and later on when this fades from memory and something else dominates the news cycle it can be quietly changed back. But if congress passes a law, well, when was the last time we actually got a gun law repealed?

Don't say the AWB. It had a built in sunset provision. If we had been forced to repeal it it would still be the law of the land.

[KCJones]

They're not backpeddling. This is part of their strategy. They still support REGULATORY changes by BATFE instead of LEGISLATIVE changes by congress.

Remember earlier in 2017 when news came out that ATF was thinking of revising it's regulations on suppressors and a few other things? Some of us warned not to support that because a regulatory change in easier to change again in the future than a law enacted by congress and signed the president. That's their game here. Let ATF change it and later on when this fades from memory and something else dominates the news cycle it can be quietly changed back. But if congress passes a law, well, when was the last time we actually got a gun law repealed?

Don't say the AWB. It had a built in sunset provision. If we had been forced to repeal it it would still be the law of the land.

I tend to agree, though their original statement suffered from vagueness. Better to have said something like "NRA believes the issue of bump-stocks should be examined by BATFE and would be willing to consider the merit of additional regulations they may propose on the topic."