Friday, for the first time since 1983, a sitting president will address the National Rifle Association at the group's annual convention — when President Trump, along with a who's who of gun rights advocates, is scheduled to talk at the NRA Leadership Forum in Atlanta, Ga.
NRA spokesperson Jason Brown says the group is hoping to hear a clear message from Trump.
"Protecting gun rights, expanding gun rights and getting rid of legislation and gun rights restrictions in this country to make the Second Amendment more powerful than it ever has been before," Brown said of the group's hopes for the president's speech.
The 86 fopa was signed by reagan, and yes it did basically stop adding machineguns to the registry, BUT, it was a last minut addition to the bill, and it gave us far more than it removed.
HTRN, I would tell you that you are an evil fucker, but you probably get that a lot ~ Netpackrat
Describing what HTRN does as "antics" is like describing the wreck of the Titanic as "a minor boating incident" ~ First Shirt
HTRN wrote:The 86 fopa was signed by reagan, and yes it did basically stop adding machineguns to the registry, BUT, it was a last minut addition to the bill, and it gave us far more than it removed.
Given that the Hughes Amendment is the only part of it that any agency is interested in enforcing, not really.
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati
"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report. Among the reforms intended to loosen restrictions on gun sales were the reopening of interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, legalization of ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), removal of the requirement for record keeping on sales of non-armor-piercing ammunition, and federal protection of transportation of firearms through states where possession of those firearms would otherwise be illegal
The most important part of the 1986 act was that it got the ball rolling in our direction. The fact that it was pushed through a Dem controlled congress is amazing.
......and federal protection of transportation of firearms through states where possession of those firearms would otherwise be illegal
Except that NYFC has a nasty habit of refusing to honor that part of the Act. They are so bad, numerous Safari companies will not book flights for their clients thru La Guardia or JFK.
"Life is a bitch. Shit happens. Adapt, improvise, and overcome. Acknowledge it, and move on."
......and federal protection of transportation of firearms through states where possession of those firearms would otherwise be illegal
Except that NYFC has a nasty habit of refusing to honor that part of the Act. They are so bad, numerous Safari companies will not book flights for their clients thru La Guardia or JFK.
This is not a problem with the law. This is a problem with the idiots who are supposed to be enforcing it.
......and federal protection of transportation of firearms through states where possession of those firearms would otherwise be illegal
Except that NYFC has a nasty habit of refusing to honor that part of the Act. They are so bad, numerous Safari companies will not book flights for their clients thru La Guardia or JFK.
This is not a problem with the law. This is a problem with the idiots who are supposed to be enforcing it.
No, it's a problem with the law, too. It illustrates the futility of any "compromise" with our enemies, since any concessions we make will always be enforced vigorously, while those we receive will tend to be ignored.
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati
"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
Termite wrote:
Except that NYFC has a nasty habit of refusing to honor that part of the Act. They are so bad, numerous Safari companies will not book flights for their clients thru La Guardia or JFK.
This is not a problem with the law. This is a problem with the idiots who are supposed to be enforcing it.
No, it's a problem with the law, too. It illustrates the futility of any "compromise" with our enemies, since any concessions we make will always be enforced vigorously, while those we receive will tend to be ignored.
You take too short of a view. The '86 legislation was not perfect, but it got the ball rolling in our direction. Do not discount momentum in politics. (The corresponding idea would be the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which did not actually do much, but it made the other progress of the 60's possible.)