TruthTellers said:
The NRA is are the ones who wanted the ATF and thus the DOJ to reclassify bump stocks.
You said that the NRA wants more guns added to the NFA. But the NRA never once advocated adding bump stocks to the NFA since that would require new legislation that revised the language of the NFA, which is not what the NRA advocated for.
No, the NRA simply advised that the DoJ look into whether bump stocks actually count as machine guns under the current language of the NFA. Which is actually a good strategic move for gun rights in my opinion. Here's why:
The writing is on the wall for bump stocks. A large majority of the public seems to think they're a huge threat and wants them banned. And at the same time, most gun owners don't have any interest in bump stocks and wouldn't be affected by a ban. So a ban on bump stocks is inevitable. (I want to make it clear I don't -- and won't -- support a ban on bump stocks, I just recognize when we're losing on an issue.)
But, as we all know, any legislation that bans bump stocks can easily be too broad. Every proposed ban on bump stocks I've seen could easily be interpreted as banning anything that can increase a semi-auto's fire rate; things like lighter triggers.
So if bump stocks are simply banned by being considered machine guns under current law, that means congress is far less likely to pass anti-bump stock legislation that is likely to be overly-broad and could negatively affect all sorts of other things.
Here's the problem as I see it: bump stocks simply aren't machine guns under current law, which is why the ATF has ruled that they're legal. An attempt to reclassify them as machine guns under current law will be a sham that probably won't hold up in court. But I think the NRA knows this and is simply using it as a distraction. Which is why I think their call for the DoJ to revisit bump stocks was a good move strategically.
