The Battle That Never Was:

Surprising NRA Stance on Bump Stocks

Within hours of the crime, it was determined that mass murderer Stephen Paddock had used Bump Stocks to make his semi-auto AR-15 rifles shoot as fast as fully automatic weapons. 

The anti-gun lobby fully expected the NRA to oppose any law or regulation banning or limiting access to these accessory stocks.

Except, the NRA didn't. Instead, the organization issued this statement:

"In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.

The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."

Just like that, the NRA threw an unhittable curveball at anti-gun advocates. They didn't even attempt to swing at it... They just stood there with their bat on their shoulder. That wasn't the pitch they were looking for.

It was simply brilliant politics... It stalled any kneejerk bills. Let BATFE review the bump stocks and determine if they, a) Have the authority to regulate them, and b) How to regulate them. 

It will take weeks, maybe months for this monolithic agency to study this and make any determinations.

In the meantime, momentum needed by anti-gun politicians and advocates will rapidly decrease as short attention span America moves on to something else. Meanwhile, the NRA has several other, far more important legislative efforts on the front burners.

Besides, why waste effort and influence on these foolish "range toys"? Fight battles worth fighting.

I’m a firm believer in fire and maneuver…. Digging in gives up the ability to maneuver. Give ground in the valley if you can take the overseeing hill.

Fire and maneuver isn’t retreating. It’s repositioning to gain the enemy’s flank. Once on their flank, the enemy must withdraw and reposition or risk the whole line collapsing.

Anti-gun politicians expected the NRA to dig in. Instead, they yielded ground while out-maneuvering the anti-gun mob. Except for the usual anti-gun zealots, most politicians will have tempered their emotional zeal with the reality of American gun politics.

Consider what some 2A advocates are digging in for. A bump stock is not a firearm. It’s not an essential component, such as a magazine or sight. It is, at best, an accessory. A range toy for most who own or want one. How much of their limited political capital should the NRA expend on defending an accessory that very few gun owners want and none actually require? Consider that there are bigger fights that can be won with that capital.

Dig in or fire and maneuver. You can’t do both, and you must do one or the other… What would YOU do?