GUN OWNERS AND HUNTERS WARMING UP ON NEW GROUP
NRA Competitor Gaining Ground
By Bill Schneider, 6-17-07
 | |
|
Last year at the annual conference of the Outdoor Writers Association of America (OWAA), I caused a little ripple in the Force when I reported on a news event sponsored by the American Hunters & Shooters Association (AHSA), a new group that bills itself as an alternative gun-rights organization with “a real agenda to preserve our Second Amendment.” By ‘alternative,” the group means--and are not shy about saying it--they plan to compete head-on with the four-million-member National Rifle Association (NRA).
You can review the articles, here and here, but in brief, the NRA does not welcome the competition, and some snipers sent in some pointy comments following the articles.
Well, it’s June again, and I’m back at OWAA, in Roanoke, Virginia, and on the second hectic day of the conference, I ran into the AHSA gang again and asked them how the battle was going.
“When we went to OWAA last year,” AHSA executive director Bob Ricker answered, “we had several articles come out, yours being the first, including one in New Republic.”
After that, things started to happen for the new group, Ricker said. At that point, they had basically no members; now, they have “more than 5,000.” And they might have made the difference in changing the color of the U.S. Senate.
He explained that his group became “very involved” in the Senate race where Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill barely defeated long-time Republican and NRA stalwart Jim Talent. That race, along with Jon Tester’s squeaker over Conrad Burns in Montana and George Allen’s surprise loss to James Webb in Virginia, tipped the Senate over to the Democrats and changed a lot of things in this country.
“The NRA was pissed,” Ricker said, “and they said we made the difference in Missouri.”
In the race, McCaskill opposed a Bush Administration plan to sell off parts of the Mark Twain National Forest, and Talent supported it. The AHHA opposed the public land sales and supported McCaskill’s position and appealed to hunters and gun owners to elect her to keep the Bush administration and the NRA from disposing of public lands valuable to hunting and other outdoor activities. The voters agreed, it seems, and the NRA ended up with another black eye.
Later, in January, AHSA supported the effort led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which was intended to keep illegal firearms away from criminals. The two groups faced off again on this issue, with the AHSA supporting the mayors and the NRA claiming it was “gun control.”
The mayors are still working on the issue, but Ricker told me. “This was not gun control. It was intended to stop criminals, and it had nothing to do with the Second Amendment.”
The NRA, though, strongly disagrees, and has heavily criticized Bloomberg, a republican, for the effort.
Not intimated by the Gun Giant, AHSA leaders took its message to St. Louis in April, and it was no accident that they set up their news conference in the hotel across the street from where the NRA was holding it’s annual convention.
“The night before our news conference, Wayne LaPierre himself (NRA executive director) called our hotel manager and tried to get us thrown out, but he wouldn’t do it,” Ricker claimed.
Then, the next day the NRA showed up with a film crew at the AHSA press event, and the ASHA made the same mistake and tried to throw out the NRA.
No blows were landed, though.
Not yet.
Stay tuned for more progress reports. And keep in mind that America has about 80 million gun owners, but only 4 million belong to the NRA, so it will be interesting to see if AHSA can actually develop itself as a true national alternative to the NRA--and provide the other 76 million gun owners a place to go.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Perhaps there is room for two, and perhaps there are common goals. If the NRA largely represents R's and the AHSA represents D's, having both R's And D's support the individual right to keep and bear arms is a good thing.
Unfortunately, they are funded (at least in part) by the deep pocketed, vehemently anti-gun Joyce Foundation...the same group that funds the Brady's and the MMM and used to fund the VPC before they (apparently) folded their tents.
When you have anti-freedom foundations with literally billions of dollars at their beck and call funding your operations...who needs public support or a minor detail like "members"?
It's funny how the NRA's 4 million common everyday citizen members are always portrayed by the (unbiased?) media as some huge, faceless, "corporate" leviathan whereas anti-gun shills like the Brady's and AHSA, who can't get enough popular support to stay in business without a few notable deep pocketed "supporters", are always portrayed as "grass roots".
I love the new term that has come about on the net for it..."astroturf" or "astroturfing"...which, of course, indicates groups or activities that lend the appearance of "grass roots" movements or activities without having to actually bother with minor details like...you know...the "roots" part of it...i.e. popular public support and all that.
The second amendment is good, but it is not for everyone.
"The second amendment is good, but the NRA is not for everyone."
My bad on the typo...and I'll keep my guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Gun reform with NRA blessing
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 06/17/2007 08:32:13 PM MDT
Don't faint, but the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have joined forces behind a bill regulating the sale of firearms.
The unusual coalition won easy House approval last week to close a loophole in the 1993 Brady law that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to buy the handguns with which he killed 32 people at Virginia Tech - even though a judge had declared him mentally ill. The Senate is likely to follow suit, marking the first time since 1996 that Congress has strengthened gun-control laws.
The bill is sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat who has long sought to tighten gun-control laws, and two pro-gun rights lawmakers, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.
The NRA is the nation's largest gun-rights group. But its support for the new bill actually reflects the NRA's long-standing belief that existing gun laws should be enforced before new ones are written. That's exactly what the McCarthy/ Smith/Dingell bill would do.
The Brady gun-control law required states to submit information to a national database about people who are banned from buying firearms under federal law - including convicted felons, those involuntarily committed to mental health facilities, and those whom courts have deemed "a mental defective," meaning they are a danger to themselves or to others...
<<<<<<<<<<
I'm not an "enthusiastic supporter" of the NRA myself but obviously not for the same reasons as you. I've gotten way tired of the willingness of the NRA to compromise away certain aspects of our rights for political expediency.
...(with an emphasis on sports and gun safety)...
The NRA places way too much emphasis on "sports" and ignores the Second Amendment. It's only been in the past few years, as a direct result of a rise in popularity, that the NRA has even ATTEMPTED to give any credence to the actual purpose of the Second Amendment. Please point out any place in the Second Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution) that guarantees a right to sporting goods.
The Second Amendment doesn't protect the right to hunt or shoot skeet. It protects the right to be armed in defense of our country from all enemies both foreign and domestic...hey...that sounds familiar. Very similar to an oath that I have taken many times...and from which I have never been released.
The second amendment is good, but the NRA is not for everyone.
Thank you for clarifying that. The previous version was ridiculous (and scary).
With all that said...I am not a strong supporter of the NRA per se. But that doesn't mean that I'm stupid enough to accept an obvious anti-gun front organization as a viable substitute.
The AHSA is the manifestation of a political strategy by the anti-gun forces financed by the Joyce Foundation to "divide and conquer". Their entire purpose is to force a wedge between hunters and sport shooters and those who support the Second Amendment. By your post, they are apparently (and sadly) meeting with some success.
Once my black rifle and defensive sidearm have been taken away, don't expect me to rally behind you when they come after your "high powered, hyper accurate sniper rifle" or your "street sweeper shotgun". I'll either be dead or in jail at that point and you'll be on your own.
Oh, and if you truly believe that the NRA and/or the Homeland Security Rifle/Defensive Handgun crowd aren't about "safety" you need to get out more.
Founding President Ray Schoenke:
An HCI contributor ... and his family trust also contributed to HCI.
Executive Director Bob Ricker:
An attorney for two other gun control groups.
President of the AHSA Foundation John E. Rosenthal:
Head of a Massachusetts group called Stop Handgun Violence,
and a former HCI board member.
Member of the ASHA Board of Directors Joseph J. Vince, Jr.:
Former BATFE member.
Co-Chairman of the AHSA Advisory Board Jody Powell:
Former President Jimmy Carter's press secretary ...
Gee ... quite the collection of pro-second amendment folks at the helm there .... not.
I certainly hope that not many "outdoor writers" are as easily conned as Bill Schnieder!
AHSA is a front for the anti-gun establishment.
The NRA certainly isn't perfect, but at least they ARE on the side of the Second Amendment.
Which - emphatically - is NOT about hunting!
And those who are happy to see the mental health (read: medical) records of a bunch of citizens turned over to the government should consider what the Soviets used their mental health establishment for: to lock up political dissidents. Kindly don't argue this couldn't happen here. Remember the Fourth Amendment?
But the AHSA is a bunch of lying, gutless gun grabbers. Complete hypocritical whimps. I'd be glad to meet any of them mano a mano, but, frankly, they lack the stones.
As for Bill Schnieder. . .he should consider the justified fate Jim Zumbo bought and paid for.
My, my, my....
Hey, only 24,000 to go and they'll equal the Council on American-Islamic Relations!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oooooooh........5000 members.........
As has been pointed out the group represents no hunters or gun owners who believe in gun rights. They are as avid as the Brady Bunch in their goal of eliminating guns from law-abiding citizens. (So is another falsely named group -- Gun Guys) They are not supporters of the 2nd Amendment, which makes them traitors in my book. If someone is directly campaigning to repeal the 2A, while I would disagree with them, I would not label them traitors. But people who intentionally push for unconstitutional legislation, particularly those sworn to uphold the Constitution, are simple traitors. There used to be a simple manner of dealing with them. Too bad we've gotten civilized.
Is our school system so poor these days that people don't even understand what censorship is? It is a sad day when private citizens exercising their First Amendment rights are accused of censorship in an attempt to shut them up.
Jim Zumbo's right to print or speak freely was not infringed...in fact, he has spoken out several times in various forums since the affair to which you refer. He was not censored...his employment was terminated by his employers for (prudent in my opinion) business reasons as a direct result of their customers exercising THEIR First Amendment rights and complaining when Jim Zumbo called them "terrorists". The government did not tell Jim Zumbo that he couldn't say what he said, or force him to edit his work or force him to not speak. Jim Zumbo simply was forced to face the consequences of some ill considered remarks. Free Speech does not exempt one from the consequences of stupid speech.
I would recommend revisiting 8th grade civics class before throwing around accusations of affronts of which you obviously do not have a basic understanding.
Am having difficulty determining whether the author of this is as ignorant as he sounds,
His intelligence may be called into question but ignorance about the AHSA is not a claim he can credibly make. Every time he shills for them the facts surrounding this "organization" are brought to his attention. He even alluded to that fact in paragraph two of this puff piece...of course he implied that it was just the evil, faceless leviathan NRA that can't handle the competition of a (dubious) 5000 member group and sends him personal emails in order to cow him out of bringing them to our attention (because they are so AFRAID of them, you know) ((Holy run-on sentence Batman)).
The NRA is not some huge faceless monolith. It is made up of a board of directors, some staff and FOUR MILLION everyday, ordinary gun owners.
I would imagine that he's referring to (and trying to disguise the nature of) emails from people like me who aren't stupid enough to be fooled by his pimping for an anti-gun organization in sheepdog's clothing and hold him accountable for it. We can't have that, now can we? Holding someone accountable for what they say is (GASP!) CENSORSHIP!!!!!
I don't consider anything I wrote as a threat, and I certainly did not encourage censorship of Bill Schnieder. I did honestly imply a strong wish that his employment be terminated because he evidently supports stalking horse gun grabbers. A bad thing, in my opinion. The equivalent of biting the hand that feeds you.
Research into the abuses of psychiatry under the Soviets is both easy and, if you think at all, chilling.
Ahh, the true colors begin to show. That's the strategy: divide and conquer.
You take the typical anti-gunner track: "Why, I own guns but I don't see any reason for people to own those SCAAAAWWWWY weapons that that big bully NRA is trying to force into the hands of kindergarteners."
Of course, by pretending to be a "hunter" who suggests that the Second Amendment only applies to sporting goods, you can incite the ire of the large and growing Homeland defense rifle community and Second Amendment supporters across the country. If you're lucky, you can get us angry enough at hunters to make us say things that will alienate THEM from US and, thus, the wedge is driven in deeper.
Unfortunately for you, we are onto your little schemes and it won't work. True supporters of rights...any rights, not just gun rights...support those rights for EVERYONE, not just the people who choose to exercise them in "approved" ways. I will not rise to the bait and bash hunters in response to your comments. What I will do is bash you. You, sir, are a traitor to our Constitution and a despicable excuse for an American.
I've followed the NRA's positions for over 30 years. It's all about freedom, safety and marksmanship.
However, constant attempts to eliminate the second amendment and legal firearms ownership necessitated formation of the Institute for Legislative Action. The ILA analyzes proposed legislation for its impact upon gun owners. They do not "insist on maintaining" "exotic weaponry."
Anti-gun activists keep pushing their agenda to ban and confiscate our legal firearms, primarily by lying about their intent. They claim to only target so-called "exotic weaponry" only "needed" by the military, but the bills' actual language bans "items such as bullets or firearms made of metal or other materials." Anti-gunners routinely use bullying and scare tactics to avoid exposing their lies. The NRA does not.
You are exactly on point: the ignorant sheep do not understand guns, really wish nobody but the government had them, will not be responsible for their own safety under any circumstances and will stamp their little feet and INSIST that somebody do something to protect them.
They know that thugs with weapons are a bad thing; they do not grasp that sometimes the thugs are the government. As in Germany in the mid to late 30's. A number of genocides could be cited to show how very dangerous government monopoly of deadly force is. It was a thing the founding fathers understood very well and wrote the Second Amendment specifically to avoid.
So the sheep work to demonize the NRA and offer a "reasonable" alternative like the AHSA - founded, financed and beholden to a bunch of gun-grabbing emotion-driven left-wing whack jobs.
Give us a break. As has been often noted before, that bloated drunk, Teddy Kennedy, has killed more innocent people with his car than any responsible gun owner has with a whole collection of deadly weapons.
Every citizen should have a military firearm with 1,000 rounds of ammunition, and be required to qualify with same each year.
As a side benefit, crime would virtually disappear.
Poster kocrime ought to take a few minutes to check out projection in some psychology books. The article did a great job of describing Mr. ??s thoughts about carrying a gun. He’s in his late 50’s, disabled physically, and potentially has vision problems. He’d be a fool to try to prove his manhood with his fists against younger, faster, stronger, meaner adversaries. Check out your own panties if you’re worried about finding cats down there.
Poster Fatty_McButterpants is just plain wrong. Canada has more than double the violent crimes that the US has. England is approaching triple the numbers. Yes, the US is high in murders with guns, but not nearly so high as the Brady Bunch make it sound, because they always throw in the suicides – which always outnumber the homicides. The Us is actually somewhere near the middle of the pack for violent crime in 1st world nations.
Atreides is more full of bunk than any other poster I read. But, what he/she had to say has been said many times by the anti-gun crowd. There have been about 80 scholarly research efforts into the 2nd Amendment. About 70 of them have come down on the side of the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. Of those remaining studies which have the opposite result – tho the Brady Bunch has repeatedly lied and said that the ‘vast majority’ of such studies came down on the side of a collective right – all of them appeared to have been done by staffers of the Brady outfit, or paid for by them.
Atreides has a simple misunderstanding of how the Supreme Court functions. One has to have a case to go to the Supremes. The case of Parker vs. District of Columbia might be such a case. It is up to the mayor (and maybe city/district counsel) to decide whether to appeal the appellate court’s decision.
You’re flat wrong about the Supremes ever having set down a decision stating that the 2nd Amendment applies to the collective rights of all citizens. The case that the grabbers love to misuse – I think maybe it was Webber, or something like that – occurred in the 30’s. The issue at hand was whether it was appropriate that he had a constitutional right to possess a sawed off shotgun. The plaintiff was dead by the time the case got to the SC. His attorney said basically nothing. The court held that the sawed-off shotgun was not an appropriate gun for the militia. They did this, in fact, in total error. In WW1, the shotgun was used to great effect – even got the nickname ‘trench broom’ or something of the sort.
The research of John Lott has demonstrated that violent crime has gone down in the years following adoption of a ‘shall-issue’ concealed carry permit law. That is in every state that has adopted such a law. Statistics show that the people with a concealed carry license are 800 times less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen. License holders are 300 times less likely to commit a gun crime than the average citizen.
One future prediction. If Kansas does not now have a ‘castle doctrine’ law, which removes any duty to retreat for a person, if they have a legal right to be where they are, they may meet deadly force with deadly force. Most such laws prevent prosecution for such self-defense shootings, and prevent civil suits by the perpetrator or his/her family. When such laws are debated and implemented, the gun-grabbers go through the similar wails and moans as do the implementations of concealed carry laws. In this case, though, the leftists like to call such laws ‘Make My Day’ laws. Again blood in the streets is predicted. Of course, that never happens either. Those determined to ban guns never stop using the same tactics to scare the public, and some people go on listening to them and obtain the majority of their knowledge of the subject from such sources. Unfortunately, the major media – with the exception of John Stossel at ABC – excepting Fox News, are the worst of the professional moaners and wailers society.
Enjoy your new-found freedom!