TexasCHLforum.com

I just received an email from TSRA which contained a statement from national NRA headquarters. It says that the NRA is encouraging the federal government to examine the legality of bump fire stocks. It appears that NRA is going back to its old "go along to get along" status.

RossA wrote:I just received an email from TSRA which contained a statement from national NRA headquarters. It says that the NRA is encouraging the federal government to examine the legality of bump fire stocks. It appears that NRA is going back to its old "go along to get along" status.

This is a brilliant strategy to make the government admit that bump fire stocks are OK as determined by ATF in 2010 so all the anti-gun folks will admit they are wrong and give up.

ScottDLS wrote:

RossA wrote:I just received an email from TSRA which contained a statement from national NRA headquarters. It says that the NRA is encouraging the federal government to examine the legality of bump fire stocks. It appears that NRA is going back to its old "go along to get along" status.

This is a brilliant strategy to make the government admit that bump fire stocks are OK as determined by ATF in 2010 so all the anti-gun folks will admit they are wrong and give up.

It is just pure genius! Wow.

I am so disappointed to see the NRA once again side with those who seek to remove citizens rights to bear arms.

Where do I request refund of my Life Membership?

I was disappointed by this as well. Maybe it is some sort of chess move statement, but it came out sounding like ‘even the NRA doesn’t support bump fire stocks’ - emboldening anti gun forces at exactly the wrong time. We don’t even have a full investigation yet. I could care less about the stocks, I think they are dumb - but giving into the left at all is a horrible idea. It also fractures the NRA support (wow what a win for the left!!!!)

what they just said on FOX is that the NRA isn't saying they are ok with making them illegal, but they seem ok with "more restrictions"

SewTexas wrote:what they just said on FOX is that the NRA isn't saying they are ok with making them illegal, but they seem ok with "more restrictions"

“More restrictions” on the 2nd Amendment- yeah, that’s what I send money to the NRA to support.

bblhd672 wrote: “More restrictions” on the 2nd Amendment- yeah, that’s what I send money to the NRA to support.

Yep, you can get that for free!!

I would be perfectly fine with requiring that rifles with bump stocks be registered as machine guns if silencers were removed from the NFA. But to do that we would have to open up the NFA registry to new machine guns and limiting the new registrations to bump-fire stocks would be unacceptable.

I think agreeing to regulation of bump fire stocks in exchange for deregulation of suppressors and passage of national reciprocity might not be a bad deal at all.

Excaliber wrote:I think agreeing to regulation of bump fire stocks in exchange for deregulation of suppressors and passage of national reciprocity might not be a bad deal at all.

With a caveat that our legislation gets passed and enacted first and foremost, which I fear will not be the case.

After the past 8 years of success under siege, I'm gobsmacked to read all this dissing on the NRA.

GOBSMACKED.


The NRA is playing



And all you can see is

Excaliber wrote:I think agreeing to regulation of bump fire stocks in exchange for deregulation of suppressors and passage of national reciprocity might not be a bad deal at all.

It's never going to work that way. Diane Feinstein is working on a proposal to ban any part or component that will increase the rate of fire of a gun. This can be interpreted to include triggers, light bolt carrier groups, buffers, and adjustable gas blocks to name a few. If we cave on anything, it will not end well.

Excaliber wrote:I think agreeing to regulation of bump fire stocks in exchange for deregulation of suppressors and passage of national reciprocity might not be a bad deal at all.

I agree.