I think I may have put my foot in my mouth on this one, given that the few articles I read on the subject at the time of it being originally implemented all cited legal regulations and I cannot seem to uncover any reference to what legal regulations. In fairness, it would take a little time to do such research given the sheer number of rabblers who have posted their own up in arms blogs about this without themselves citing anything more than the actual absence of such search results. Also in my own defense, it's not that much of a push to believe that there are legal obligations on this front, given the sheer number of varying, restrictive, and downright stupid laws in each and every state governing firearms.
Nevertheless I'm willing to eat my own words on this given that I called you out on not doing research that I was myself lacking in.
I may have been wrong, but the more you get involved in constitutional based forums and other such, you start to see the tin foil hat people everywhere, constantly crying that every little action and reaction is somehow an "out to get us" motion. In this case, despite not having the ability to cite, I still think it is (without clumping anyone in this thread in to the tin foil hat category). I don't think it was a political statement, I think they had some reason to believe it was in their best interests. That also doesn't mean I believe everything I read, that just means that in this case I think it was blown out of proportion.