AHSA JOINS WITH NRA IN OPPOSING D.C. GUN BAN
NRA Nemesis Alive and Well, and Supporting Obama
By Bill Schneider, 6-24-08
 | |
|
Even when you’re the biggest and toughest of them all there’s always somebody there to challenge you, as the National Rifle Association (NRA) has learned. The NRA’s two-year-old nemesis, the American Hunters and Shooters Association (ASHA) just won’t go away.
“I’m here to tell you we’re alive and well and plan to continue being a viable alternative to the NRA,” announced AHSA President Ray Schoenke at a news conference at the annual conference of the Outdoor Writers Association of America currently being held in Bismarck, North Dakota.
Ninety percent of new nonprofit organizations fail in the first two years, Schoenke noted, but AHSA just celebrated its second anniversary. “I wish I could tell you we had hundreds of thousands of members, but I can tell you our message is resonating with hundreds of thousands of hunters and shooters.”
Pushed hard by skeptical writers in the audience, Schoenke declined to say how many members AHSA had, but said that more than a thousand members paid membership dues in the past year.
He also declined to give the three biggest donors when asked by the same skeptic, but noted that the NRA and most other nonprofits also decline to name its largest donors.
The main purpose of the news conference was to tell outdoor writers that AHSA has endorsed Barack Obama for President and plans to raise millions of dollars to aggressively work to help him win several key states, including some western states. “We think hunters and shooters could make the difference in some of these states,” he said.
He declined to name the states ASHA plans to target, but promised to do so in the near future.
Most people expect the NRA to endorse John McCain, even though he had gone directly against the gun lobby’s passionate stand on gun shows. In March 2004, McCain spoke on the Senate floor and pushed hard to close the “gun show loophole,” which allows transfers of guns without background checks. This position puts him in line with that of Obama who also believes gun show sales should be subject to background checks.
Soon after it became clear McCain would be the republican nominee, he flip-flopped and started opposing gun show background checks, now taking the NRA position that America does not need any new gun laws.
To read the details of the sudden flip flop, click here.
Interestingly, though, AHSA sided with the NRA in opposing the Washington, D.C ban on handguns, which is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. A decision is expected in the next few weeks.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
In fact it was the NRA's refusal to discuss the other amendments and their importance to personal privacy that finally pissed me off. After Waco, how could any gun owner think that his hunting rifle was going to protect him for the blood thirsty Hostage Rescue Teams?
When the ACLU and the NRA began working together a few years ago, I finally saw that the ACLU might understand the constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment and could, maybe, shed some light on the other amendments for the benefit of gun owners. I couldn't see how two pro Bill of Rights organizations could miss helping restore the balance of personal rights with national safety.
Then Charlton Heston came along and ditched the ACLU and now, the NRA is back to being Nuts, Radicals and Axxholes.
I am a gun owner and have been since I was nine years old. But, the proliferation of automatic weapons has made some parts of the US 'dicey.' Remember, the Treasury department made Thompson sub machine guns illegal during Prohibition and they did it for public safety as well as their Agents protection. 'Collateral damage' is coming home to roost.
As for ACLU, Boris mine kamerad, the trouble with them is they refuse to support those hunks of the Bill of Rights they don't like. The NRA, to its credit, has a much better record of at least not ATTACKING certain uncivil liberties. And they do in fact support the First and Fourth and Fifth and Sixth and Ninth and Tenth and Fourteenth.....
As for privacy, WhyTF do you think the NRA opposes registries and permanent databases at ATF?
Go back and read your Constitution.
And Bill, regarding the DC ban, I sort of wish they were in fact stupid enough to endorse the Brady position. It would kill them dead politically.
For the ASHA to support a democrat is rather non news to me. A real hunters and firearms group, in my opinion, would take strict policy positions and assess each candidate against those positions. What does the ASHA stand for and why, and which candidatest reflect those stands? I guess when Obama had that form filled out in Chicago saying he would ban handguns must be one of those ASHA stands.
*******
In his opinion in Parker Judge Silberman arrived at these conclusions:
"Reasonable restrictions also might be thought
consistent with a "well regulated Militia." The
registration of firearms gives the government
information as to how many people would be
armed for militia service if called up.
Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would
both promote public safety and produce better
candidates for military service. Personal
characteristics, such as insanity or felonious
conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous
to society also make someone unsuitable for
service in the militia."
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
p. 54
These are the makings of a firearms policy. Do you accept and support Judge Silberman's conclusions? Will you work towards a policy based on these conclusions?
*******
They are also a devastating repudiation of the gun lobby's core doctrine that the purpose of all those guns in private hands, outside of the knowledge and reach of law, is to maintain an anarchic balance of power between a privately armed populace and any and all government. The gun lobby, led by the NRA, would fight viciously to defeat any attempts to implement Judge Silberman's conclusions.
Relying on state court precedents, the Miller Court argued that all citizens are members of the unorganized militia (and therefore have an individual right to keep and bear arms), but the law only applies to weapons that could be useful to a militia (but if we can have those rifles and pistols, there's not much point to banning the rest). Since then, lower courts have maliciously misinterpreted Miller as saying that only _people_ who belong to the National Guard have a right to keep and bear arms.
So how does the AHSA explain its desire to ban military-style rifles (even non-machine guns of military style) with the Miller decision? Is it taking the approach that we DON'T have a Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms? Or are they ignorantly (or mischievously) ignoring the implications of the Miller decision?
"I used to think I was unique; I was a member of the NRA and the ACLU at the same time. I never could understand why the NRA only thought the 2d Amendment was important and not the other 10 or 20."
Actually, both the NRA and the ACLU joined to challenge the McCain Feingold campaign finance "reform" law, as an abridgement of free speech. Speaking for myself as an NRA Life mmber, that is the main issue we have with McCain, not his position on gun show sales by private individuals.
Boris is unbelieveably misinformed on the provisions of the NFA. He wrote:
"But, the proliferation of automatic weapons has made some parts of the US 'dicey.' Remember, the Treasury department made Thompson sub machine guns illegal during Prohibition and they did it for public safety as well as their Agents protection."
Wrong on all counts. Production of new fully automatic weapons for sale to citizens was ended in 1986, as part of the deal that got the GOPA passed. Hardly an enabling factor for proliferation.
The NFA of the '30's did not make possession of fully automatic weapons like the Thompson illegal, but instead imposed a $200 tax on transfer of these weapons. There is at least some evidence that that was done in order to avoid a Constitutional argument that a flat-out ban would be illegal. Under the current state of the law, one can legally own a pre-1986 full auto weapon, but they are scarce and the asking price for one is always in the thousands of dollars range. I know one Class 3 owner: he's a surgeon and can afford the $10,000 price tag for his weapons.
Again, it is no surprise to me that ASHA saluted and then declared support for Obama who has earned an "F" from the NRA.
I guess he'd be safe to hunt with, he's obviously not very good at hitting the target.
There is no proliferation of automatic weaponns. To legally purchase an automatic weapon requires a Federal Firearms Liscense and is very expensive. I actually blame the ACLU for making parts of the country dicey. They have tied the hands of law enforcement and the Border Patrol. They have left our borders wide open and made it impossible to crack down on gang bangers and other thugs. I disagree with the NRA on their opposition of the roadless rule and some other environmental issues, but they are the best friend of the 2nd amendment in this country has. And just because Heston had differing values than much of Hollywood does nto make him nuts, it just means he did not fall in step with the rest of Hollywood.
That way it's a win-win situation, as they waste money that could otherwise be used more effectively against US citizens' Right to keep & bear arms, whilst being ignored by those who matter.
“We think hunters and shooters could make the difference in some of these states,”
We're hoping to, Ray!
We'll beat anti-liberty Obama if it's up to us. :)
Ya know, if NRA got caught in this sort of blatant deception and falsehood, it would A1 in the Washington Post, as "NRA Lies." For AHSA and AGS, it's doe eyed innocence and limp-wrists from otherwise hard-bitten crusaders for the truth.
Lastly, One Who Knew, AHSA has nothing to offer sportsmen except those Fudds and sellouts and useful idiots that feel all warm and fuzzy when a reporter quotes them in the paper.