How about because those laws are blatantly unconstitutional? The NFA Act of 1934 is unconstitutional. The Gun Control Act of 1968 is unconstitutional. The Firearm Owners Protection Act (what a misnomer) of 1986 is unconstitutional. All federal gun control laws are unconstitutional. I don't get why the NRA takes the position that we should be enforcing the laws that we already have when those laws are an affront to the Constitution and our God-given right to defend ourselves. When they appease socialist gun-grabbers, they weaken their arguments.
the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
“How about because those laws are blatantly unconstitutional? The NFA Act of 1934 is unconstitutional. The Gun Control Act of 1968 is unconstitutional. The Firearm Owners Protection Act (what a misnomer) of 1986 is unconstitutional. All federal gun control laws are unconstitutional. I don’t get why the NRA takes the position that we should be enforcing the laws that we already have when those laws are an affront to the Constitution and our God-given right to defend ourselves. When they appease socialist gun-grabbers, they weaken their arguments...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Not quite yet. According to the SCOTUS, evidently the Founders meant to add “unless you’re a felon, or a court says you’re crazy, or you are carrying in places we feel particularly worried about, or you’re carrying a lot of guns to sell.” Can’t you see the red marks on the side of the Constitution there where the SCOTUS has “corrected” those omissions? Because, after all, it’s impossible to imagine that the 5 vote majority that allowed those reasonable ‘corrections’ will ever become a 4-vote minority when the left finds a bunch more of those ‘corrections’ to the plain language.