The question is better presented to yourself, rather than on the part of yourself. The interpretation of the statement on the part of the NRA does not state what is being claimed on the part of yourself, due to basic grammatical structure. This has been pointed out repeatedly, yet the mistaken interpretation on the part of yourself remains. So why, precisely, do you intentionally choose to be wrong?
Two questions for you. Try not to prevaricate. 1. Did the NRA ask the ATF to review their decisions that said bump stocks were legal? 2. Has the NRA filed a lawsuit to challenge this new ban?
The NRA already knew the ATF ruled bump stocks were a legal device that did not, in any way, shape, or form, modify a semi-automatic firearm in a manner that converted it into a fully-automatic firearm, therefore whatever request was presented was to simply remind the public of its previous ruling and determination on the matter. The NRA released a statement condemning the ruling for its illegal and useless nature, as well as stating that it did not in any way, shape, or form advocate such a position, thus meaning ultimately the filing of a lawsuit is indeed coming. Simply because it has not happened with the same speed as the other organizations, does not mean anything of actual significance. Now then. Does the answering of the two questions above do anything to change the fact that the issue of misunderstanding the statement of the NRA lays solely on the part of yourself?
They did so at the direction of Trump which the NRA supported. Why isn't the NRA filing a lawsuit like every other gun right org has?
Trump. That's it. Why did Trump make ATF revisit the previous ruling? And why can't you understand that the NRA didn't expect the change in the ATF decision? It made absolutely no sense for them to change their minds. https://www.nraila.org/contact-nra-ila/
What doesn't make any sense is the NRA, a gun rights org, asking the ATF to revisit their decision about bump stocks being legal. Can't answer the question? Let me ask you this then. Do you think the NRA should be suing over this ban? Or do you agree with their decision to simply beg the administration for an amnesty period?
Absolutely the NRA should be suing over this ban. For any gun rights organization to fail to react and fight against this ban is an outrage.
From Xenamnes above: "The NRA already knew the ATF ruled bump stocks were a legal device that did not, in any way, shape, or form, modify a semi-automatic firearm in a manner that converted it into a fully-automatic firearm, therefore whatever request was presented was to simply remind the public of its previous ruling and determination on the matter." How could I possibly answer the question? I'm not part of the decision making team at the NRA. Anyone who says that they know is only guessing. And yes, the NRA should sue, unless their participation would hurt the case against the government.
Your argument to that effect - a fallacious non seq - refuted itself, with no effort on my part. Well done.
If the NRA was doing the job they claim to do when they take donations, they'd have tried to fight Hughes by now. Or NFA. Etc.
The previous administrations were not friendly, accepting, or receptive to such ideas, especially prior to the Heller ruling. Now, however, it is an entirely different matter.
O? Tell me what theyve done post Heller on that issue then Xen. Dont worry we all wont hold our breath. Wouldn't want to die or anything.
Pray tell, how many lower courts in the united states have actually abided by the legally binding precedent that was set in place by not only Heller but also McDonald and most recently Caetano? How many have issued rulings that completely ignore, violate and outright undermine this legally binding precedent?
Am I a member of an ineffectual organization which seems to mainly exist now to hoover up donations and act tough then bitch out? No, I am not.
Hughes is constitutionally unsound in the extreme, not simply in the substance but in how it was passed and and its arbitrary date selection. Tell me what lawsuits theyve even tried on it, Mr member.
As an intelligent individual I am sure you are already well aware of the information you are asking me about. So, rather than explaining it I will make a few comments. The NRA was founded in 1871, it was over one hundred years before the organization decided to seriously get into legislative issues. Prior to 1975 the NRA actually favored gun control, supporting the NFA of 1934, the FFA of 1938 and the GCA of 1968. So as you can see (and likely already knew) the NRA is an organization which has evolved over its 147 years of existence. My personal opinion on why the NRA is not looking at legal action in the bump stock issue is because it is a very touchy subject. Back when the first prototype was sent to the ATF it looked like they gave it the OK. In 2005 under Bush the ATF said bump stocks were illegal. In 2010 under Obama the ATF said bump stocks were legal. Now under Trump the AFT is once again saying bump stocks are illegal. I know not everyone agrees but by some calculations a bump stock turns a semi into a machine gun. As machine guns have been regulated since the NFA of 1934 which was supported by the NRA maybe they just don't want to get into a legal battle about it. As the saying goes: Choose your battles... Maybe this isn't it.
Jesus man. Do you see what you've written here? You want me to support a "guns rights organization" that cant or wont fight NFA GCA Hughes or even the executive simply re defining entire sections of law at a whim creating felons with the stroke of a pen without the input of Congress? You been hitting the 'nog a little hard this Christmas or something? I mean, you DO understand what the bump stock ban is doing right? You understand it's not simply about banning bump stocks but about the executive rewriting the definition section entirely by whim? THAT is what's at stake here, not ****ing bump stocks.
