With all that said though, I don't think the 1986 NRA and the current NRA are the same thing. I think the debate has changed in the last 20 years, as has the organization leadership and general direction, and the current leadership is in step with the current membership who are totally unwilling to give up ground when it's battle that we are winning.
Clearly we're both on the same side of this issue, so our discussion is really about tactics not goals. And as it stands right now I don't think the tactics of the NRA call for compromising on anything because the membership won't allow them to. If they come back supporting any new firearms law the membership will have their heads.
But there is a lot of ground to be made by gun banners by doing all they can to make it seem like the NRA is supporting legislation even if they aren't. And in this case I think the GOA is allowing themselves to be exploited toward that end.
I'm going to wait till I hear a statement from the NRA, and not just the people who they are fighting against.
Well, I really hope you’re right about the NRA. I’ll say that I agree with about 90% of what the NRA does, but I’m really very troubled by that 10%, mostly not because I care about armour piercing ammunition, but because if we admit the Second Amendment is open to regulation, I think it’s tough to hold our ground down the road.
I also agree that we’re winning the battle in the legislatures and even Congress. I think even as little as ten years ago, this proposed law would have been passed without much resistance, so that’s a nice change.
I hope that you’re also right that the NRA isn’t supporting a change, but given the NRA’s support of the NICS, it doesn’t seem out of character to me.