🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ockk0INNl5o@sol.tis.com> mjr@tis.com (Marcus J Ranum) writes:
>>Just out of curiosity, what does this mean?  What laws has the NRA
>>rewritten?
>
>	My mistake. "re-written" was a poor choice of words. I was
>attempting to convey that NRA's lobbying efforts have not been
>unsuccessful. I guess it'd be more accurate to have said that NRA
>has been successful in keeping laws from being re-written. A
>difference, but when you're dealing with a mutable legal system,
>there's no moral advantage to a law's already being in place.

I think they've been relatively succesful on the national level, up to
now.  I worry a bit about laws that Clinton may have before him soon,
although I voted for him as the lesser of two evils.

I do think that the NRA has gotten an undeserved black eyes from very
biased media.  For example, the "Cop killer bullet" fiasco.  As I
understand it, the original (poorly written) law proposed by Congress
would have prohibited any ammunition capable of penetrating a bulletproof
vest...criminalizing something like 85% of all hunting rifle cartridges.
The NRA lobbied successfully to restrict the legislation to handgun
ammunition designed to be armor-piercing.  Yet, they're slammed for
defending "cop-killer" bullets all over.  Feh.

Did you know that the NRA proposed an instant background check, the
Staggers bill, as a better (for legitimate firearms owners) alternative
to Brady (which doesn't require a check and has a useless waiting period)?

People outside the firearms field slam the NRA for not comromising enough,
while people inside say it compromises too much.  Personally, I give it
credit for opposing/modifying ill considered legislation and playing a
major part in reducing the 2400 firearms accidents in 1970 to 1200 in 1990.

   don