(clip)
SG>Don't know whether they took a position on the '34 law at the time. They
SG>did back the '68 law when it came up, but quickly changed their minds on
SG>some of it. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of '86 was the usual
SG>example of a compromise. It had things they liked, and they were willing
SG>to accept the machine gun ban to get the other stuff they wanted. I can't
SG>say whether the current leadership would accept that or not.
        The 1986 law had a lot of good things in it. The NRA decided to
        back the law, despite the bad stuff. That's one of the reasons
        the folks in charge *then* aren't in charge *now*. EP
SG>At one point - early on - they supported the Anti-Terrorism bill. Once
SG>they found out what was in it, they moved to have parts changed. And
SG>then of course supported the changed bill. They have this idea that
SG>anything which is "tough on crime" without directly affecting guns is
SG>good. I think that's mostly a PR thing, they don't want to be criticized
SG>that since they're opposed to gun control they are soft on crime. Bad
SG>reasoning, IMHO. Either they stick to their one issue or they take a
SG>libertarian view.
        The bad part about attempting to communicate your position on
        legislation is the legislation it'self changes radically and
        rapidly. You don't often get the finished bill and sufficient
        time to examine it closely. Amendments are often added almost as
        the votes are being taken. EP
SG>But for the time being, I still support them. Any stance they took before
SG>the current leadership took over doesn't really matter, you're not
SG>talking about the current NRA then.
SG>Steve
        Thanks for the support, Steve. We're doing the best we can.
        Ernie P.
___
 X SLMR 2.1a X I was born free; I WILL die free.
--- Maximus/2 2.02
---------------