Understanding the NRA's Role in Gun Control and Its Stance on Bump Stocks

When discussing gun control, many questions arise, particularly concerning the National Rifle Association (NRA). Often, one wonders why the NRA does not condemn the manufacture and ownership of bump stocks, a device widely seen as problematic due to its potential to increase the rate of fire to near-full automatic. This article delves into the reasons behind the NRA's stance and the broader context of gun control in the United States.

The NRA and the Industry

The NRA serves as the lobbying arm for the gun manufacturing industry. They are vested in protecting the Second Amendment and ensuring that companies and individuals can continue to freely own, use, and manufacture firearms. Considering this, their role is not just about defending individual rights but also about sustaining the economic interests of the gun industry.

Unlike consumer electronics like VCRs and cell phones, which become obsolete and are replaced with new models, firearms remain durable and enduring. This means that once a person buys a gun, they will not be motivated to purchase a new one every few years. Therefore, to maintain a steady flow of customers and revenue, the industry relies on fear campaigns to encourage individuals to buy guns for personal safety and to continuously sell them accessories and ammunition.

The NRA's Opposition to Gun Control

Given their belief that providing even a small concession to gun control advocates could lead to further infringements on the Second Amendment, the NRA staunchly fights against any proposals to restrict the sale or ownership of firearms and their accessories. This stance extends to devices like bump stocks, which can significantly enhance the rate of fire of semi-automatic weapons.

Understanding Bump Stocks

A bump stock is an accessory designed to mimic the rate of fire of a fully automatic weapon without actually converting a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic one. This makes it a federal felony, punishable by substantial imprisonment. Despite this, it was initially approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFE) under the condition that it did not modify the internal mechanics of the firearm.

Some individuals, like the author, see the potential of having a bump stock as a way to enjoy the efficiency and control of fully automatic fire in a legal and safer manner, such as at a shooting range. However, the cost and legal hurdles involved (e.g., purchasing an HK MP5 for $47,900 and paying $400 in tax stamps, with awaiting period of about 240 days) discourage many potential buyers.

Bump stocks are not necessary for enjoyable firearm use, as illustrated by the author's observation that simpler and standard firearms often serve the purpose perfectly well.

The NRA's Position and Compromises

The NRA has expressed concerns about reevaluating bump stocks and submitted to Congress to ban them but faced significant opposition, particularly from those opposed to civilian gun ownership in general. The author acknowledges that while banning bump stocks could be a reasonable goal for some, genuine solutions should involve comprehensive compromises.

These compromises might include:

Fensualizing the NFA registry for machine guns and allowing imports of certain firearms. Improving concealed carry reciprocity, with state-specific laws applying when traveling. Lowering the difficulty of obtaining suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBR), and short-barreled shotguns (SBS) from the NFA.

The NRA's stance reflects the collective frustration of law-abiding citizens who are tired of incremental measures that gradually erode their Second Amendment rights. The organization believes it is crucial to address the issue holistically and seeks meaningful changes rather than superficial or ineffective measures.

Conclusion

While the NRA's reluctance to condemn bump stocks may be seen as controversial, it stems from a deeper commitment to the integrity of the gun industry and the defense of the Second Amendment. The challenge now lies in finding a balanced approach that satisfies both legal and ethical requirements while preserving the rights of law-abiding citizens.