NRA requesting to divide Gura’s time in McDonald v. Chicago case

As reported by Josh Blackman:

The NRA Respondents-Supporting-Petitioners, in McDonald v. Chicago, have filed a Motion for Divided Argument to request time at oral arguments. Petitioner opposed this motion.

In short, the NRA, represented by Paul Clement at King & Spalding, is asking to divide Gura’s time, and to get 10 minutes to argue. The NRA argues that Gura’s brief spent primarily focused on arguing in favor of extending the right to keep and bear arms through the Privileges or Immunities Clause, rather than the Due Process Clause. The NRA argues that the Court needs to hear an argument in favor of the Due Process Clause…

Maybe I’m missing something here, but why is the NRA attempting to split valuable time for a guy who kept repeating the mantra to SCOTUS about “this will lead to machine guns being re-legalized”?  The same Paul Clement who was Bush’s solicitor General who argued against us in the Heller case?