Support the 2nd Amendment and not the NRA

[safeinOhio]

You can now do it with this group.

http://www.huntersandshooters.org/about
The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) is a national grassroots organization committed to safe and responsible gun ownership. We are a mainstream group of hunters who are looking to belong to a gun owners association that doesn't have a radical agenda.

Our Values
AHSA is committed to supporting the right to keep and bear arms, protecting our homes, and preserving our liberties.

Hunting and sport shooting are American values AHSA will vigorously defend.
AHSA is dedicated to protecting and maintaining our nation's valuable wilderness resources for the preservation and use of all Americans.

AHSA is committed to safety in all aspects of the shooting sports including the recognition that adults are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of children.

AHSA is committed to supporting our nation’s law enforcement officers in their fight against easy access to guns by criminals, terrorists and others.

AHSA is a non-partisan organization that advocates and advances sensible public policies. We will never support unfettered access to all types of weapons.

[47of74]

1. Weren't they on Ed Schultz's show one time?

In any event, they sound more responsible about guns than the NRA.

[baldguy]

2. The NRA is nothing but a GOP front group.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. The NRA does give A rating to Democrats that earn it.

And the NRA has endorsed some Democrats, and does so now. The NRA has opposed some Republicans.

It is all about where they stand on guns.

[TheWraith]

47. Howard Dean is on that list. He was NRA endorsed something like 8 times I think.

I've got no love for the NRA, because their lobbying arm is largely a propaganda outfit, but the larger organization supporting Dems isn't as uncommon as you might think. I believe around 25 or 30% of their cash in 2008 went to support Dems.

[russ1943]

76. There's cash and there's recorded political contributions.

Over the past 10 and a fraction election cycles OPEN SECRETS shows records on its site, http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082&cycle=A that the NRA alone has averaged contributing 83% of its known reported political contributions to Repubs and 17% to Dems.


As to your mistaken belief that in 2008 25 or 30% of their "cash" went to support Dems. Well er um ah..., not exactly. 80% went to Repubs and 20% to Dems. For the 2010 election cycle which obviously isn’t yet complete, so far those not yet final figures do show 75% to Repubs and 25% to Dems figures. A safe wager could be made that when the recorded figures for the 2010 election cycle are finalized that 25% will be much smaller.
Also from that OPEN SECRETS site;
The National Rifle Association (NRA) isn’t just the most powerful pro-gun lobby in Washington. It is the most powerful lobby of all, at least according to Fortune magazine, which put the NRA at the top of its list of “Power 25” lobbying groups in 2002. The NRA goes to great lengths (and spends a huge sum of money) to defend the right to bear arms. …………… NRA’s influence is felt not only through campaign contributions, but through millions of dollars in off-the-books spending on issue ads and the like. (The NRA spent $20 million on such activities during the 2000 elections alone, estimates the Annenberg Public Policy Center.)

(OpenSecrets.org is a nonpartisan guide to money’s influence on U.S. elections and public policy.)

[PavePusher]

77. You know the easy fix for that, Right??

Get some more Democrats behind the Second Amendment. Take the issue away from the ReDumbocans and beat them about the head and shoulders with it. OWN the issue.

I'll be holding my breath....

[Kaleva]

63. My Dem Representative has an A rating from the NRA

He's gotten as low as a C in past years.

[tularetom]

3. There needs to be an alternative to the NRA

For all their noise and bullshit, you never hear them say jack shit about the loss of habitat to privatization and development. I was a life member but got sick of the crap and gave it up about 20 years ago.

Fuck 'em, I'm gonna look into AHSA.

Thanks for posting this.

[safeinOhio]

4. I like their free bumper sticker

Pro-Gun Pro-Obama

I'm getting one to piss off all the jihadist at the local gun shop.

[Ter]

72. There is an alternative

It's called the Gun Owners Of America.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. They've advoctated incorporation in re McDonald v. Chicago

http://www.huntersandshooters.org/taxonomy/term/173

[aikoaiko]

6. A lot of folks in the Guns forum have been watching AHSA and were delighted when

they changed their tune just before the election and actually became rkba friendly. I believe there were some changes in leadership that corresponded. Of course there were many, including me, who were skeptical of the change but it is good to see a pro-gun group support Obama.

I still need to do more research on them. For example, they are woefully silent on the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, but have much to say about hunting and recreation. Also, in their endorsement of Obama they are once again woefully silent about his support for reauthorizing the AWB. They could have at least addressed it as a flaw in Obama's gun rights stance, but they didn't. The silence does not make sense from a gun owners' rights advocacy group.

I'm happy to see that they support Obama, but I need to see more before i can trust them as a protector of the 2nd Amendment.

Maybe a little more research will win me over.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Sorry, but AHSA is too weak on 2nd Amendment rights for me to support them.

First, on 20% of gun owners hunt. I am in the 80%. My main interest is in self-defense, including concealed carry.

Also, AHSA posts misleading information. From their website:

http://www.huntersandshooters.org/issues/gunrights/legal
The study also found that 25 to 50 percent of the vendors at gun shows are not federally licensed gun dealers.

At any gun show there a lots of tables with nothing but leather goods, food, books, jewelry, etc on them. Why should someone who doesn't sell guns get an FFL license. In fact, it is illegal for such a person to have an FFL.

Further, private sales take place other places as well as gun shows. Flea markets often have a private seller of gun. BTW - I support the idea of opening the NICS system to private sales, although some of the details need to worked out to ensure privacy against ID theft.

And the NRA does NOT support unfettered access to any form of firearm by any person.

[baldguy]

9. Take another drink.

[Euromutt]

14. And what the fuck do *you* know about it?

You're a consistently anti-RKBA poster; where exactly do you get the expertise to distinguish between the finer points of different gun organizations' agendas?

[safeinOhio]

18. I have always supported the 2nd Amendenment

I understand it differently than the NRA does. I've owned guns for over 50 years. Have CCWs in 2 states. I have read and agree with the Mission Statements of the AHSA. I stopped my membership in the NRA in 1973. Find one posting from me that is against reasonable rights for gun ownership.

[Euromutt]

26. I was responding to baldguy

No reflection on you, safeinOhio.

[safeinOhio]

28. I try to follow the lines

to post. Not always good at it. My bad.

[aikoaiko]

35. How do you understand the 2nd Amendment differently than the NRA?

Are their certain laws that you would like to see adopted or repealed that are different from the laws NRA support or oppose? Which ones?

Maybe your answers will help me see what I should support the AHSA and not the NRA.

[pipoman]

30. If you like the AHSA, I consider that another huge red

flag..which joins one already in place because of previous positions of AHSA.

[safeinOhio]

10. NRA goes after AHSA, good reason to support AHSA

Of course "your" research will include NRA being against the AHSA. Here is what Ray Schoenke, founding member has to say.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ray-schoenke/oh-what-a-mighty-web-the-_b_89646.html

I, like many progressive hunters and shooters, have supported many leading Democrats who the NRA has tried to demonized and defeat. I have also supported Democrats that the NRA has supported. That doesn't mean I am anti-gun, it means I spend my political dollars wisely to support those progressive candidates that I believe, on balance, will make America a better place to live. NRA has a hard time accepting the fact that the overwhelming number of candidates the NRA supports, mostly Republicans, may be good on gun rights, but universally are the worst of the worst on preserving our precious resources and protecting our hunting heritage.
NRA lackeys go after Bob Ricker, AHSA co-founder and Executive Director who has a reputation as one of the nation's top gun policy experts. A former assistant NRA general counsel and top lobbyist for the gun industry, Bob stepped forward a few years ago and went public about the NRA/gun industry conspiracy of silence and their refusal to address the problem of corrupt gun dealers who sell guns to criminals. NRA has long had it out for Bob after he was quoted in the New York Times as saying someone in the gun industry needed to speak up about bad dealers because ''we've got a bunch of right-wing wackos at the N.R.A. controlling everything.''
The final absurdity of NRA's new attack involves the accusation that somehow the friend of the court brief AHSA filed in the landmark US Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, is nothing more than an "opportunity to create false pro-gun credentials" for AHSA.
The AHSA brief was co-signed 11 senior military leaders and was written by the national powerhouse law firm Greenberg Taurig. We argue that that the District of Columbia's Gun Law directly interferes with various Acts of Congress that are aimed at ensuring the national defense by promoting firearm training amongst the citizenry. AHSA believes the D.C. Gun Law's categorical prohibition on pistol ownership by D.C. residents not only conflicts with the Second Amendment and the Defense, Raise and Support Clauses of the Constitution, but also with the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.
Using tortured logic, NRA claims in its hit piece that AHSA's argument, if adopted by the Court is an under handed attempt to make it easier for states to pass more restrictive gun laws. How absurd.
NRA, as usual, fails to mention that several other amicus briefs filed in support of the lower court decision rely on arguments similar to AHSA's. Including the briefs signed by Dick Cheney and members of congress and a brief filed by a number of state rifle and pistol associations. Most importantly, Wayne LaPierre's attack dogs failed to mention NRA's devious attempt to scuttle the Heller case in its early stages.

There is a good reason why NRA is not leading the fight in the most important 2nd Amendment case to reach the US Supreme Court in over 70 years. According to Robert Levy, the millionaire Cato Institute Scholar that is bankrolling Heller, NRA interference almost killed the case. Levy's assertion were confirmed when LaPierre acknowledged NRA backhanded efforts in the New York Times on December 3, 2007:
There was a real dispute on our side among constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the constitution as written.
In other words, Wayne was worried that the NRA might win in the appellate court but it could become a "problem" if the DC gun ban case reached the Supreme Court. My question is: A problem for whom? DC gun owners or future NRA fundraising appeals?


People who know me know that I do not tolerate bullies. In my day, there were plenty of players in the NFL that tried to play the role of bully and more times than not when challenged with a quick, solid counter punch, their true nature as cowards would show through. The current NRA is run by bullies and I've laid down the challenge. Come on Wayne, are you man enough to meet me in the duck blind to prove who is a real hunter and shooter?

[PavePusher]

11. And once again...

"...are you man enough to meet me in the duck blind to prove who is a real hunter and shooter?"

The Second Amendment has little to nothing to do with hunting. Shooting, as in target shooting and training at the bearing of arms, I'll give you a pass on.

[safeinOhio]

13. There seem to be way more hunters and target shooters than

NRA members and as an earlier post shows most NRA members don't agree with it on no restrictions on guns. Then the NRA doesn't even try on Heller. Then gets all pissy at the work another group does. Read it all. Views that refuse to look at any compromise are more suited to free republic, along with unwavering loyalty to the NRA.

[eqfan592]

16. A couple of points....

...it's not entirely fair to criticize the NRA for endorsing people based only on that candidates position on firearms. They are, after all, a single issue organization.

There may be more hunters than NRA members, but there are far more non-hunting gun owners than there are hunters, and I think that's ultimately the point that was trying to be made.

With all that said, I do find this organization to be interesting, and I think you (and they) make some very valid points about the NRA. But I'm curious to see where they stand on issues such as the assault weapons ban and concealed carry. These are two very important issues for a lot of gun owners, and most of us will not tolerate ambiguity on these issues if an organization is attempting to gain our support away from organizations like the NRA.

If you have information that would clear up where this organization stands on these issues (and if I agree with their stance) I would be far more inclined to through my support behind them

EDIT: I have found at least one page pointing to pages that have sense been removed on the AHSA's website that point to them having been in favor of the so called ".50 cal sniper rifle" ban, as well as being against concealed carry. Now like I said, these pages are no longer on their page, but those do strike me as counterproductive positions for a organization claiming to be a supporter and defender of our 2a rights to hold, and it makes their now apparent ambiguity on the issues somewhat more damning.

[PavePusher]

17. "Views that refuse to look at any compromise are more suited to free republic"

Refusing to compromise on Civil Rights does not make me a "freeper".

How much are you willing to compromise on your First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendment Rights? As much as on the Second?

[safeinOhio]

20. Lots, like you I hope

I don't think the 1st allows yelling fire in a crowded theater. Police should have the right to search an arrested felon. Once I have spoke in court about what I have or haven't done, I can no longer claim the 5th. I think the death penalty is both cruel and inhumane.
When you list your criticisms of the NRA, that'll make you not a freeper in my book.

[eqfan592]

23. safe, I hate to say it....

...but the AHSA is looking pretty shady to me. There's plenty of info out there pointing to pieces of information that were formally on the AHSA's showing that the AHSA may have been pro-assault weapons ban and against concealed carry. This information no longer appears on their site, and as I pointed out earlier, they are very ambiguous now on this issues.

Also, not helping them is that Ray Schoenke, President of AHSA, was a financial supporter of Handgun Control Inc., which became the Brady Campaign. That by itself is pretty damning.

[safeinOhio]

27. And the NRA is looking kind of shady to AHSA

for not supporting the Heller case. I don't think anyone is pure on any issue. I would give money to fight for 2nd Amend help from a group that would not take my money and spend it on a Sarah Palin run against Obama or any other progressive. There is lots of damning things about the NRA. You know they would support and spend, while licking their lips, for a Palin run for the President.

bottom line is everyone has to draw a line some where.

[eqfan592]

29. But "They're not the NRA" isn't in and of itself good enough for me.

I'm an NRA member, but that's only because I got it for free, so I've never actually given money to them. And just as I would have to question giving money to an org that would support Sarah Palin, I would have to do the same thing when it comes to supporting an org that gives money to the Brady Campaign.

And the reality is that when the NRA supports somebody like Palin, it's an endorsement of her stand on a single issue, and the reality is that if they don't endorse the Democratic candidate, it's more because that person has a bad track record on the 2nd Amendment and less because they are a Democrat. As I stated earlier, the NRA is a single issue organization, and they base their endorsements on that one single issue. In this regard, I actually view the AHSA as being even shadier than the NRA, in that they are now intentionally ambiguous on the issues which they were the most criticized on, and are now attempting to recruit support as a "solid" pro-2a rights organization alternative to the NRA, when their history says otherwise.

My biggest criticism of the NRA is that they tend to sensationalize too much, and this can cost the entire pro-2a movement, not just them, credibility.

Personally, I'd rather support Amendment II Democrats (http://a2dems.net/) than either the NRA or the ASHA.

[safeinOhio]

33. sounds good from their web-site.

[eqfan592]

36. The founder of their org...

...actually posts here on the DU I believe. I think his name is Derby, or something along those lines :)

[derby378]

44. You rang?

I truly appreciate the support. We're a small, informal, yet determined bunch. And our main website will soon be posting responses to our Campaign 2010 questionnaire from Democratic Candidates for the US House, so I'm excited about that.

As for AHSA, I think their position has been evolving for some time now. They've managed to ditch some dead weight in the past, and they've brought Zakariah Johnson (formerly of the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon) on board as their new media director. I've spoken with Zak numerous times as well as a couple of phone calls with Ray Schoenke himself, and I think AHSA's current trajectory is very encouraging. AHSA is dead-set against any ban on semi-automatics, which is wonderful.

And me, I'm also organizing a Gun Owners Caucus within the Texas Democratic Party (separate from Amendment II), so I hope the Texas caucus will make its presence felt as well for years to come.

:hi:

[eqfan592]

46. Thanks for checking in derby :)

Was hoping you'd see this and pop in to give us your input!

Also, I'm glad to hear that the AHSA seems to be going on the right track. Suffice it to say I trust hearing that from you than from most other folks.

[Xela]

59. Zakariah Johnson

If that's the same Zak posting comments on Facebook with Amendment II Democrats, then AHSA is probably on the right path and I look forward for them to continue supporting RKBA issues (like saying no to more gun laws, and no to AWB, and limits on magazine capacity, etc.).

Thanks for posting that Daniel.

Take care,

Xela

[SteveM]

49. Is Schoenke still with AHSA? I thought he was out, hence the group's "improved" image. (nt)

[derby378]

50. Schoenke's still there...

...but folks like John Rosenthal are being replaced by folks like Zak Johnson in the AHSA ranks, which is a good thing.

[SteveM]

51. Ah, got the two mixed up. Thanks.

[greennina]

71. What about my civil right to safety?

What about my civil right to not be dead? The NRA fights against those rights.

[Euromutt]

73. Fully intact

Anyone who uses a firearm, whether intentionally or not, to inflict physical injury up to and including death on you can be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law. In fact, someone who so much as flashes a holstered handgun in an attempt to intimidate you is committing an offense in every state I know of.

Your chances of being injured or killed with a firearm not wielded by yourself are significantly lower than your chances of being killed in a motor vehicle collision. Would you describe the AAA and the Teamsters as "fighting against your civil right to not be dead"?

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. safe, you are misrepresenting an NRA position

NRA members and as an earlier post shows most NRA members don't agree with it on no restrictions on guns.

That is not their position. They believe that is lawful to terminate the Second Amendment rights of convicted felons
and those adjudicated to be mentally incompetent by a court of law.

AFAIK, they also have no problem with the current age restrictions on handgun ownership (18+, I beleive it is)

[russ1943]

22. Who is misleading?

GreenStormCloud posts; Also, AHSA posts misleading information. "The study also found that 25 to 50 percent of the vendors at gun shows are not federally licensed gun dealers".
http://www.huntersandshooters.org/issues/gunrights/legal

There is nothing misleading to quote accurately what the study, referenced and linked, actually states. That “study” includes the statement; “FFLs make up 50 to 75 percent of the vendors at most gun shows”. (see Page 4, 2nd sentence in the last paragraph). Misleading information would be to make an inaccurate statement, wouldn’t it?

GSC Also posted: At any gun show there a lots of tables with nothing but leather goods, food, books, jewelry, etc on them.

Again, the study doesn't say otherwise: ‘GUN SHOWS: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces’ goes on to state;
“Both FFLs and nonlicensees sell firearms at these shows. FFLs make up 50 to 75 percent
of the vendors at most gun shows. The majority of vendors who attend shows sell
firearms and associated accessories and other paraphernalia. Examples of accessories
and paraphernalia include holsters, tactical gear, knives, ammunition, clothing, food, military artifacts, books, and other literature. Some of the vendors offer accessories and paraphernalia only and do not sell firearms”.
http://www.huntersandshooters.org/files/atfgunshowstudy.pdf

GSC queried; Why should someone who doesn't sell guns get an FFL license?
No one is suggesting or implying that someone who doesn’t sell guns should get an FFL license. Why would you wonder such an abstract?

GSC stated "In fact, it is illegal for such a person to have an FFL".
It is?
That is a FACT?
What makes you think so?
If you or me or anybody who has an FFL, decides they want to sell holsters, tactical gear, knives, ammunition, clothing, food, military artifacts, books, and other literature at a gun show it would be illegal for us to do that?
What would the penalty be?
Is that a federal offense, what section code?
Where can I find a law or statute that states it is illegal for someone who has (or even doesn’t have) an FFL to sell anything (besides guns?)at a gun show?
You made this one up, didn't you?

[eqfan592]

24. Actually....

....assuming we are speaking of a "dealers" FFL, and not a C&R FFL, and given that the law defines a dealer as "any person who is engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, repairing firearms, or making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or who is a pawnbroker. As applied to a dealer, the term engaged in the business refers to a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of obtaining livelihood through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms," then it may be illegal for somebody who isn't actually selling firearms to keep and hold a dealer FFL, or at the very least I can see why somebody may think it would be.

[russ1943]

40. FACTS

u posted; ..........."it may be illegal for somebody who isn't actually selling firearms to keep and hold a dealer FFL"
That isn’t what the poster wrote!
You can see why, you really can?
You can see why somebody may think it would be .
The poster didn’t write they THINK it would be illegal. They are informing us of the FACT that “"it is illegal for such a person to have an FFL".
The post I commented on contained the sentence:
“At any gun show there a lots of tables with nothing but leather goods, food, books, jewelry, etc on them. Why should someone who doesn't sell guns get an FFL license. In fact, it is illegal for such a person to have an FFL”.
I commented on each sentence separately but if you consider that the poster prefaced his statement with “AT any gun show” they are referring to person with FFL’s not selling firearms at the gun show but associated accessories and other paraphernalia. FFL’s don’t have to sell firearms at any gun shows, (I don’t think they are even obligated to sell any minimum number of firearms.) Your definition of “any person who is engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, repairing firearms, or making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or who is a pawnbroker” IMO is a loose definition of who BATFE can prosecute for engaging in that activity without an FFL.


Don't know where the strike thru lines came from.

[eqfan592]

41. Wow, russ....

...calm down, alright? I wasn't trying to piss in your pond or anything, I was just putting out there what I had come across in my little bit of research.

[iverglas]

67. maybe we could see the primary source?

This looks like yours:

http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=70

so let's look at what you posted IN CONTEXT, with my emphasis for your assistance:

The Gun Control Act, as amended by The Firearms Owners` Protection Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-308), requires that persons engaged in the business of dealing in, manufacturing, or importing firearms, or manufacturing or importing ammunition, obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). The federal firearms licensing system is administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Under the Gun Control Act, a "dealer" is defined as any person ...

It doesn't say that you may have a licence if and only if you are a dealer.

It says that if you are a dealer you must have a licence.

A licence is a permit to do something. Not an order to do something.

I have a driver's licence. I haven't driven in nearly three years. Am I in illegal possession of a driver's licence??

[eqfan592]

70. That would depend on the law in your area.

As for the FFL, I was simply pointing to the language that defines what a dealer is under the law, as well as how these could be read to limit FFL's to those only actively engaged in the various practices that require an FFL for business purposes. I did not say this was any sort of definitive thing, as I was unable to find a source that answers the question definitively one way or another.

[GreenStormCloud]

42. Because the AHSA website doesn't distinquish between gun vendors and other vendors.

It just says "vendors". Therefore I conclude that they mean all vendors, including those who don't sell guns but do sell other stuff.

A person who has an FFL is required to actually be in the business, and has to file reports with the BATFE. The penalty for having and FFL and not engaging is the business is usually just simply losing the license.

What sense would it make to get an FFL if one were only going to sell beef jerky at a gun show?

[Euromutt]

52. GSC may have overstated it, but he didn't make anything up

That is, while there is no statute that explicitly states that you have to make a living trading in firearms to possess a Type 01 FFL, the ATF most assuredly does choose to interpret the law as such, and enforces it accordingly; and thus far, the judiciary has supported their interpretation. This is why the number of Type 01 FFLs shrank dramatically during the 1990s: a large number of "kitchen table dealers"--guys who didn't run a storefront or keep firearms in stock, but who would act as recipients for an interstate transfer and formally be the person to sell it to the end user--had that particular activity curtailed when the ATF refused to renew their FFLs on the grounds that they weren't making a living trading firearms, but were doing it as a sideline.

[russ1943]

69. He made it up!

You say; there is no statute that explicitly states that you have to make a living trading in firearms to possess a Type 01 FFL…
GSC posted; In fact, it is illegal for such a person to have an FFL. I asked for his statute, code, whatever. I’d say that ‘s making shit up.
You post; the ATF most assuredly does choose to interpret the law as such, and enforces it accordingly”and thus far, the judiciary has supported their interpretation”
The only case I’m aware of is 715 F.2d 632 (1983) NATIONAL COALITION TO BAN HANDGUNS, et al., Appellants, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO & FIREARMS, et al. No. 82-1624. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued February 22, 1983. Decided August 23, 1983 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17776774459674559203&q=related:44IjiS_Ks_YJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=2000
Right wing Scalia wrote that opinion which IMO is completely opposite of your claim.
You say; This is why the number of Type 01 FFLs shrank dramatically during the 1990s”
I know of one guy, and I’ve read about others that the first reason they shrank dramatically was the simple fact that the dealer fee was raised from $30 for three years to $200 for three years ($90 for three years for renewals). Secondarily but also importantly the violent crime control and law enforcement act of 1994 required applicants to submit photographs and fingerprints and to certify their business was not prohibited by state and local laws. Zoning restrictions and state and city licensing also were factors.
For your information; although the intent of the Clinton administration legislation was that dealers meet a certain level of business activity in order to be eligible for a license, this provision had never been enforced. In the last 3 or 4 budget appropriations acts.there has actually been a restraint on enforcing anything like that.
An amendment attached to the ATF appropriations bill at the behest of the NRA late last year, Congress forbid the ATF from suspending a firearms license because of lack of legitimate "business activity." http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0314/p02s01-ussc.html
TIAHRT AMENDMENT
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives SALARIES AND EXPENSES ; Provided further, That no funds authorized or made available under this or any other Act may be used to deny any application for a license under section 923 of title 18, United States Code, or renewal of such a license due to a lack of business activity, provided that the applicant is otherwise eligible to receive such a license, and is eligible to report business income or to claim an income tax deduction for business expenses under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/fy08_tiahrt_text.pdf

[russ1943]

74. U S Code

The “language” that defines what a dealer is, under the Federal law is called the US Code or USC. In this instance we’re discussing Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 921 (a)(11)(A). One of the sites that it is available on is; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html

[Euromutt]

75. Cripes, could you learn to do some formatting?

I have a really hard time reading your post. Could you at least learn to use proper punctuation?

Okay, let's get clear what each of us means by "making it up."
I use the term to mean that the person making the assertion is knowingly fabricating his claim out of whole cloth.
You seem to be using it to mean that the claim is factually incorrect in whole or in part, regardless of whether it's the person uttering the claim who created the error in the first place.

Now, I will grant you that GSC's claim was incorrect. As I've already stated there, is no statute that explicitly states that you have to make a living trading firearms to be eligible for a Type 01 FFL, so GSC's statement was factually incorrect. Whether he was fabricating a statement he knew to be untrue--what I understand under the term "making it up"--is a different matter. There are a lot of misapprehensions about FFLs, much of which is due to various ATF field offices wielding different (sometimes wrong) interpretations of the laws and regulations; the INS used to be that way (and believe me, as an immigrant I know). GSC's claim may well have been something he had been given to believe by someone else, or been based on a misunderstanding of something he'd heard or read. If you want to call that "making it up," that's your lookout, but it's not what I call "making it up."

Thanks for providing that detail about last year's edition of the Tiahrt Amendment prohibiting the ATF from denying the issuance or renewal of FFLs "due to a lack of business activity." It strikes me that it's quite strong evidence that it was indeed the ATF's policy to deny FFLs on that basis if a majority of Congress felt it was necessary to tell them not to.

Fine, again, this is also evidence that GSC's claim (and indeed, mine) is incorrect because it is outdated (assuming the ATF is actually complying with the law, which I'm not taking for granted). But the fact that we're wrong now doesn't mean we were always wrong. Rather, our understanding of the situation is out of date. That's not the same thing as having fabricated it in the first place.

[lazer47]

12. Try this,, I have belonged to them for awhile,,

Second Amendment Foundation

www.saf.org/default.asp?p=mission

[safeinOhio]

15. They co-host events with the NRA

how do they differ?

[Euromutt]

54. Not by much, frankly

The SAF/CCRKBA (they're essentially two arms of the same entity) does a fair bit of good, especially when it comes to filing suit against unreasonable regulations at the state and local level. However, the organization is inextricably bound up with one person, and that's Alan Gottlieb, who is unfortunately an arch-conservative. The upshot of that is that the SAF's books, e-mail, et al. show a distinct disdain for "liberals" in general, and seems to take position that "liberals" (or at least, Gottlieb's idea of same) are inherently anti-gun and by extension anti-freedom. The outfit rather tends towards self-aggrandizement of Gottlieb as well.

If you are a liberal, the combined effect starts to grate fairly quickly, which is why I don't intend to renew my contribution in the coming year.

[X_Digger]

19. Meh.. AHSA = Fudds, United

'Fudd' in this context being the duck & deer crowd.

As I see it, here's the 'family' breakdown of the top three gun orgs:

GOA (Gun Owners of America / http://gunowners.org/) - the crazy uncle at family reunions that corners relatives and spews vitriol about any and every subject, as long as they can relate it to their particular hobby horse.
NRA (National Rifle Association / http://nra.org/) - the normally sane cousin who occasionally yells 'Hells yah!' at the crazy uncle's rant.
AHSA (American Hunter and Shooter Association / http://www.huntersandshooters.com/) - The great aunt who sits with compressed lips watching everyone else's antics. When someone asks her opinion, her response is "Please pass the gravy." or "Can't we all just get along?"

GOA is waaay too far out there, seeing anti-gun bias in things like health care reform. NRA is who I support most of the time, some of the stuff coming out of some of their talking heads is silly, but the main org does a _lot_ of good. The AHSA seems too ready to compromise, just to 'make things go away.'

[safeinOhio]

21. I like that.

[Euromutt]

25. Whatever the NRA's flaws, they are not a positive reason to join the AHSA

I will freely admit that the NRA has some pretty glaring flaws, and I say as a member (albeit one who owns an autographed copy of Richard Feldman's Ricochet). But it remains the 400-pound gorilla of gun rights organizations, so I'd need some damn good reasons for the AHSA. And I'm more than a little leery, because what little there actually is on their website with regard to their stated positions contains some stuff that indicates they've bought into some bullshit that certain antis have promulgated.

GreenStormCloud's already mentioned some arrant nonsense on the subject of gun shows (http://www.huntersandshooters.org/issues/gunrights/legal), and I'm pretty certain I don't like the opening passage of this page: http://www.huntersandshooters.org/issues/gunrights/fbi Anything that advocates taking rights away from people on mere suspicion and without due process is something that I don't like. At least the NRA took the correct stance on that issue: if the government has probable cause, they should arrest and try the suspect, and if there's no probable cause, they need to leave everybody the fuck alone.

[PavePusher]

43. I beleive they were also in favor of the proposed .50cal ban.

Stupid is as stupid does.

[derby378]

45. That's one area where I still have disagreements with AHSA

I see no reason for a .50-caliber ban on the Federal or state level. Just don't point that darned Model 82A1 at me and we'll get along swimmingly. :rofl:

As I mentioned earlier, I talk with ASHA reps at times, and their new media director (Zak Johnson) and I converse a lot on gun topics. We have much in agreement, and I am encouraged by the evolution of AHSA's policies. The work continues.

[Euromutt]

53. Well, that's good to know; thanks, Derby

The impression I had of the AHSA (at least, until recently) was that the organization had the tendency to approach proposed gun control measures with an attitude of "why not?" rather than "why?" (as in "why is this measure needed?" with a side order of "what guarantees are there that this measure will not be used for something other than its advertised purpose?") That impression was somewhat alleviated by reading Zak Johnson's posts on the blog recently, and I'm glad to hear that the AHSA is developing its policies to be of interest to more than the hunting and trap/skeet crowd. Given your observations--and you can let them know I said so--I will definitely be keeping an eye on them, and if I like what I see, I may very well become a member at some future date.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. I've got to go with you on this, euromutt. No reason for me (yet) to join AHSA

They need to get waaaay less equivocal in their stance on the Second Amendment, and not so much the
'kinder, gentler' version of GunGuys.

[pipoman]

31. Until AHSA puts their money where

their mouth is instead of speaking from both sides of their mouth they will never get a red cent. I will believe, until AHSA does something pretty dramatic, that they are in fact not a 2nd Amendment advocacy group at all, but posers/charlatans.

[safeinOhio]

32. Pretty damn dramatic

any other gun groups support the Democratic candidate

AHSA supports candidates that stand up for our values and are committed to protecting our right to hunt.

For President: Barack Obama

Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated his commitment to the 2nd Amendment.

His support of the Vitter amendment to HR 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill of 2007, is particularly telling. This amendment prevents the Government from confiscating guns in a time of crisis or emergency. Senator Obama's vote demonstrated a fundamental understanding of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment which means he recognizes the individual right of all citizens to keep and bear arms.

In addition, Senator Obama's commitment to conservation and protection of our natural resources and access to public lands demonstrates to us his commitment to America's hunting and shooting heritage.

Senator Obama will be a strong and authentic voice for America's hunters and shooters and it is with great pleasure that we endorse his candidacy.

[eqfan592]

34. Obama is also against concealed carry...

...is for making the AWB permanent and perpetuates the myth of a "gun show loophole." These are three major strikes against Obama from a 2a rights advocate perspective, which go unmentioned in the AHSA's endorsement. Honestly, there's no way in hell a real 2a rights advocate can give Obama any sort of major endorsement. That's not to say that Obama is completely off base on the issue, and it is worth noting his stance on protection of natural resources, but the these do not entirely make up for his being off base on the other issues.

And this is coming from somebody who not only voted for Obama, but volunteered for his campaign.

[X_Digger]

38. 'right to hunt'?

Really? Not sure where that one is codified in the BoR. Sure, it comes as a consequence of firearms ownership and having private (or public) property on which to hunt, along with established seasons, but I wouldn't call it a 'right' like privacy or free speech.

True, some states' constitutions mention hunting, or did at one time, but my interpretation of the second amendment is more in line with defense against tyranny, invasion, or for self-defense.

[pipoman]

39. This is not now, nor has it ever been

about hunting rights or, for that matter, access to public lands. I am no fan of some of the rhetoric from the NRA, but I have almost always agreed with their interpretation of the 2nd and their positions on it's limitations. They have in the past and continue to support and endorse 2nd Amendment Dems. They necessarily do not support any candidate who is at odds with their cause. Every political lobbying group endorses candidates who are friendly to their cause. NRA supported Bill Richardson in the last primaries and Bill may have had the highest approval rating of both serious Dem candidates and Reps alike.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. Obama also supported the DC gun ban, before Heller.

Obama has said that he would support federal legislation to outlaw CCW.

Obama voted for the Kennedy Amendment in 2005.

Obama voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Obama supports a new AWB.

Obama supported a ban on any gun shop withing five miles of a school or park. (That would have the practical effect of banning gun shops almost completely.)

Obama wrote that he would favor a ban on handguns. 2003 Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization Questionnaire.

Obama supports one-gun-a-month laws.

Obama supported a complete ban on handguns. 1996 Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization Questionnaire.

SB-2165 From the Illinois Legislature site:

"Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that it is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another. Effective immediately."

Obama voted against this bill twice. It passed anyway. The governor vetoed and the legislature overrode the veto.

With a record like that, I cannot accept that Obama supports gun rights. He is solidly anti-gun.

[DonP]

66. Sorry to disappoint you but ...

... having watched Obama, his POV and voting record here in Illinois for his entire career, he is a lot of very positive things for us, but he is not a "strong and authentic" voice for gun owners. In the Illinois legislature he was a typical reliable vote for gun control for all of Daley's gun ban schemes.

For all the positive reasons I've supported him over the years, he (and his speech writers) still make all the typical non-shooter errors by confusing hunting with gun ownership, not understanding the difference between semi-automatic and select fire weapons and starting from the assumption that there is no discernible difference, from a legislative point of view, between legal gun owners and criminal thugs on the street.

E.G. Pass "feel good" laws to try and solve a crime problem and ignore the impact they may have on the law abiding. The sad part is it's not that hard to get it right and take the issue off the table completely!

The AHSA people are changing their tune from their early HCI talking points but still have a long way to go before they have any real clout in DC and that's all that really matters.

Good intentions are nice and will keep you warm and fuzzy in your snuggie, but if you can't demonstrate you have control or influence of a lot of grass roots votes, nobody really cares what you think in DC. Like it or not, the NRA has over 4 million (closer to 5 million now) dues paying members, not including their families and extended influence. They remain the only "Gorilla" legislators listen to on the issue.

[X_Digger]

37. Ex-astroturf wannabe..

.. and I'm being generous on the 'Ex-' part.

[TheWraith]

48. Or you could join The Liberal Gun Club, like I did.

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com

[Xela]

58. Hard pill to swallow...

Sorry, I know there are a lot of good folks there, but I still haven't bought into this position:

"We believe that LCM magazines (in our definition, magazines that are capable of holding greater than 20 rounds) should be sold in the same manner as any handgun – through an FFL after a NICS check."

Xela

[benEzra]

60. They also repeat the canard that 25% of gun crimes pre-'94 involved "assault weapons"...

which, given that most "assault weapons" are rifles and all rifles put together accounted then and now for ~3-4% of murders and 0.5-1% of violent crimes, seems a wee bit exaggerated. I know the figures would be increased some if you added in some of the now-defunct pistols with subgun-ish styling features (the Intratecs come to mind), but still to get 25% of gun crimes, I think you'd have to be throwing in a whole bunch of traditional-looking guns as well.

Where I suspect that figure came from is trace data, not gun crime data. Rare, unusual, and expensive guns, particularly those the media paint as "badass", are far more likely to be traced (particularly in a politicized environment) than more commonly misused but more generic looking revolvers and pistols, so you might have 5% of guns accounting for 25% of traces due to Von Restorff bias. The media then transmogrify that from "guns submitted to the BATFE for tracing" to "guns traced to crime" to "guns used in violent crimes". They are not the same thing.

[Euromutt]

62. Actually, it says "assault weapons" *and/or* "large-capacity" magazines

In other words, a comparatively large percentage of gun crimes were carried out using 9mm handguns, which commonly have mags with a capacity over 10 rounds. I can believe that, but it's hardly a revelation. It's simply indicative of what was available. It's a safe bet that prior to the "Wondernine Wars," the overwhelming majority of gun crimes were carried out using handguns with an ammunition capacity of under ten rounds, namely revolvers and 1911s.

[benEzra]

65. That also makes me wonder whether they tracked mag capacities after the "ban"...

or whether they merely made the assumption that guns manufactured after 9/1994 used magazines of 10 rounds or less, even though availability of full-capacity magazines was not significantly changed by the law. I am not sure where they would have gotten actual capacity data, since neither the FBI UCR nor the BATFE trace data tracks magazines, just firearms.

[Euromutt]

68. It would seem that they did

Since the statistics reportedly indicate that post-ban, use of "assault weapons" in gun crimes dropped, while use of "high-capacity" magazines increased.

Oh, wait, here's the executive summary of the actual report (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_exec2004.pdf):

• AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles.

• LCMs are used in crime much more often than AWs and accounted for 14% to 26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban.

<...>

• Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.

• The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.

• However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs in jurisdictions studied (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage).

Emphasis in bold mine. So to determine "LCM" use, they relied on a sample of four cities. With the kind of sample size, it's lot more feasible to plow through the local PD's records to determine mag capacity, rather than having to rely on the FBI or ATF data. Of course, with a sample that small, the confidence interval gets pretty wide, i.e. there's a wide margin of potential error.

[PavePusher]

61. They lost me here:

"1) Private sellers need to be clearly labeled as such. 2) Restrict private sellers to less than thirty items for sale in any one show. 3) Any seller who has more than thirty items for sale at any one show must operate as an FFL."

And here:
"1.The banned guns (assault weapons {AW}) and magazines (large capacity magazines {LCM}) were used in up to a quarter of gun crimes prior to the ban.
2.The ban”s success in reducing the use of AWs and LCMs was mixed
- AW usage dropped
- LCM usage increased, the researchers argue that this is because of a huge stockpile of exempted pre-ban LCMs
3.While they don’t think continuing the ban would have resulted in significant drops in crime, they do argue that it would result in fewer victims
- attacks with LCMs and AWs result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms"

And here:
"The LGC supports the idea of gun control. It is our belief that while we have the right to keep and bear arms responsibly, when that right begins to encroach on the rights of others it needs to be held in check. Our positions represent small ways we can help to minimize how our right to bear arms affects others. An individual is still allowed to buy arms as part of our ideal collective Militia but they might have to wait a little bit while we make sure they are not already wanted for a deadly crime. For more on this topic see our section “On the Second Amendment”.

None of our proposed regulations would impede legal ownership of guns in any significant way."


And here:
" There is a Constitutional right to "free speech" but we have laws against slander. Similarly, one has the "right to keep and bear arms" but when that right infringes on the rights of others, limits must be drawn."

[Francis Marion]

64. More information and policy specifics

The AHSA website is lean on policy specifics.
To further my understanding, does this organization support the right of the people to own AR15s and standard capacity (thirty round) magazines?

Reading the website didn't help, and highly qualified statements such as "... We will never support unfettered access to all types of weapons" suggest that AHSA may be more of a gun privilege than a gun rights organization. Is this accurate? I'd like to get a sense about what type of organization this is, and their AR15 and 30-round magazine position will furnish a proper understanding of AHSA's stance on the American people's right to keep and bear arms.