American Hunters and Shooters Association, Obama, and some second thoughts

[derby378]

Since Ray Schoenke, President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, endorsed Obama in an April 16 editorial for the Huffington Post, a lot of folks have offered negative commentary on various aspects of the AHSA. I've taken a couple of jabs at them, myself, but I at least tried to be humorous about it. But I've been taking a second look at the AHSA recently, trying to let Schoenke and its other officials speak for themselves as much as possible.

Schoenke himself seems like a good guy who's eager to get some real work done. Has he supported legislation that I have problems with? Absolutely - Schoenke has voiced dismay with the NRA for opposing use of the dubious and unreliable "Terror Watch Lists" to deny people the right to purchase guns, and we know that some innocent folks have been stuck on those lists. Has Schoenke made donations to anti-gun organizations? It appears so - the Brady Campaign, back when it was still HCI, got some money out of him. But at the same time, I have yet to find where he has explicity supported banning semi-automatic firearms, and Schoenke appears to support a few things that I'm all in favor of, including expanded education programs in gun safety and handling. It may be that Schoenke and the AHSA are in fact "good guys" who just need a little gentle encouragement and feedback from pro-RKBA Democrats in order to solidify their message and erase any doubts that we might have about them.

Having said that, I intend to give AHSA a fair shake from now on. Of course, if they wind up repeating the talking points of the Brady Campaign and VPC, that's a different story, but until then, I want to treat Schoenke & Co. the way that I would want to be treated.

But that's just me.

[sandnsea]

1. Maybe you need to put your NRA talking points down

and listen to these reasonable gun owners - the ones I've been telling you about for years. This is the voice of most rural gun owners I talk to - not the NRA 2nd Amendment whackos.

[benEzra]

4. If they'd drop their support for banning half my guns, I'd join in a heartbeat.

They did ditch John Rosenthal, which is a step in the right direction. But if they want to be taken seriously as advocates of gun owners, they should stop trying to ban the guns of those they claim to represent.

I would like to see them evolve into a progressive alternative to the NRA, but to do so, they need to become a legitimate alternative to the NRA, instead of merely an alternative to the Brady Campaign.

[sandnsea]

6. AWB banned 19 guns

Get real. Stop being an NRA stooge.

[derby378]

7. You really think so?

Reread the ban. It banned 19 types of firearms - and those just the ones it banned by name. Then it goes into a list of guns with certain safety features.

The devil's in the details...

[sandnsea]

8. And as you have all pointed out numerous times

You just switch around the features, and voila, no more banned gun. Hysteria over absolutely nothing. Nobody was prevented from protecting themselves, target shooting, or hunting, when the AWB was law. Great big DISTRACTION. Just like illegal immigrants and gay marriage and flag pins.

[benEzra]

10. I'm not talking about the 1994 AWB, I'm talking about the 2004, 2006, and 2007 AWB proposals.

AWB banned 19 guns

Get real. Stop being an NRA stooge.

I'm not talking about the 1994 AWB, I'm talking about the 2004, 2006, and 2007 AWB proposals like the AHSA supports. The most recent version was H.R.1022, but it's the same every year.

All models and variants of the Ruger Mini-14 (photo below) would be banned by name by Section 3.(a)(30)(A)(xviii).


(Ruger Mini-14)

Section 3.(a)(30)(A) also bans, by name, the M1 Carbine, AR-15's (the most popular centerfire target rifle in America), AR-10's, FAL's and variants, Kel-Tecs, and a bunch of other civilian autoloading rifles and carbines.



3.(a)(30)(D)(iii) and 3.(a)(30)(H)(ii) bans all civilian autoloading rifles and shotguns with protruding handgrips or thumbhole target stocks, and rifles with threaded muzzles. That nails a lot of popular autoloading guns that aren't banned by name, a lot of defensive-style shotguns, some hunting guns, etc. That would include the Remington 7400 with a thumbhole target stock and the Browning BAR with a BOSS harmonic damper.


(Benelli turkey hunting shotgun, 12-gauge)


Browning BAR Mk II Safari Grade, .300 WSSM

3.(a)(30)(H)(iii) bans all civilian autoloading shotguns with detachable magazines.

3.(a)(30)(H)(iv) bans all civilian autoloading shotguns that hold more than 5 shells of any length.

3.(a)(30)(L) bans the SKS, M1 Garand, and other autoloaders that started out as military weapons, unless exempted from the ban by the Attorney General--unlikely, since the VPC labels them "assault weapons," and they are absolutely no different from the M1 carbine, the AR-15, Saigas, etc. that are banned by name. It also bans any autoloading rifle or shotgun that has ever been adopted by any Federal law enforcement agency, unless specifically exempted by the Attorney General. That would also nail a bunch of civilian autoloading shotguns, including a lot of Benellis.

The "assault weapons ban" bans what it says it bans.

FWIW, the 1994 AWB banned zero guns; it banned marketing of new civilian guns under 19 banned names, big difference. The guns in question were still perfectly legal as long as they met the features limit, which was done primarily by eliminating muzzle threads, and were not called a banned name. Current proposals would not allow that.

If AHSA dropped support for new gun bans and for the Bush administration's secret watchlists, and evolved into a true progressive alternative to the NRA, I'd join. But that, unfortunately, does not seem to be their goal at this point, though as I said the canning of John Rosenthal may free them to move in that direction.

[sandnsea]

11. Same principle, BIG Distraction

You will still be able to have a gun to protect yourself, target practice, or hunt, or take out the nuclear missile silos if you think you can.

[benEzra]

12. Which makes AHSA no different from the Brady Campaign.

Sarah Brady herself doesn't want to ban all guns, any more than Operation Rescue wants to ban all abortions or the Religious Right wants to ban all books. They just want to ban the ones they disapprove of--modern-looking rifles, elective abortions, books with sexual content.

If the only guns I am allowed to own are the shrinking subset of guns the Brady Campaign/AHSA approve of, I'm screwed, as are the majority of U.S. gun owners. I don't own any $5000 skeet guns or Mauser style deer rifles, and have little interest in doing so.

[sandnsea]

13. And there are regulations on speech

and abortion, and there always will be. Just as weapons are regulated because most people don't want their neighbor having a nuke in the front yard. And most people understand that the needs of city security is different than rural, and are willing to work towards gun regulation to save lives.

Stop being an NRA stooge.

[virginia mountainman]

15. Yes, but the regulations on Speech..

....Does not sew your mouth shut, because YOU MIGHT, yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater....

But the regulations on speech, PUNISH you after, you commit the crime, not before it..

That is an important distinction..

I have no trouble penalizing ILLEGAL ACTS, with guns, but don't punish ME, I have a spotless record.

And YOU, stop being a republicans mouth peace, you sound just like Republican Sara Brady, and Paul Hemicky...

[sandnsea]

16. You have to get a permit BEFORE the parade

Seriously, please, nobody is going to take your damn guns. Would you stop hurting the country with this NRA idiocy.

[benEzra]

18. If you want to ban "assault weapons," you want to ban MY guns.

Seriously, please, nobody is going to take your damn guns.

My guns, and my wife's guns, and those of 20-30 million others, are what you call "assault weapons." And if you want to ban them, you want to ban ours. How about you don't, OK?

Would you stop hurting the country with this NRA idiocy.

This idiocy is hurting this country, all right. And it will keep hurting this country until people like you stop trying to make people choose between their civil rights and their economic and social well being, and stop alienating people who want to keep their guns even if you disapprove of the way the stock is shaped.

How about DROP THE GUN BANS and let's work together on what we do agree on, OK?

[sandnsea]

19. Then drop all the laws on any ban

No permits for parades or protests. No reservations for campgrounds or picnics. No laws about what anybody says, anywhere they say it, regardless of the consequences. Let's just have a free for all out there.

Funny thing is, when the debate turns to something else, and the NRA disagrees with it, you still don't want to "work together".

You're a bunch of NRA stooges. No different than the anti-gay or anti-abortion or any other group that let's the right get them all hopped up over nothing.

[benEzra]

20. I didn't say to drop the background check law, or the ban on automatic weapons,

Then drop all the laws on any ban No permits for parades or protests. No reservations for campgrounds or picnics. No laws about what anybody says, anywhere they say it, regardless of the consequences. Let's just have a free for all out there.

I didn't say to drop the background check law, or the ban on automatic weapons, or the ban on Kevlar-piercing handgun ammo, or the requirement for a license to carry a gun in public, or the requirement for a hunting license in order to hunt, or the restrictions on the use of force in self-defense, or the laws preventing criminals and the mentally incompetent from buying or possessing guns.

I said drop the misguided attempt to outlaw the MOST POPULAR CIVILIAN RIFLES IN AMERICA. Not "repeal all existing restrictions", or "drop attempts to identify and prosecute gun-using criminals," but stop trying to ban lawful and responsible people's favorite guns.

You're a bunch of NRA stooges.

You are hiding behind the "stooge" comment because you are stuck with ad hoc rationalizations of a nonsensical position, and since you can't defend that policy, you have to resort to name-calling--because you can't defend rifle bans on any rational basis whatsoever.

Fact: Rifles are the least misused of all firearms. Fact: small-caliber rifles with modern styling are the most popular target rifles and defensive carbines in the nation. Hence, banning the most popular rifles not only makes ZERO sense from an anti-violence standpoint, it is supremely idiotic from a pragmatic political standpoint. And it is asinine for an organization that wants to be seen as representing gun owners (AHSA) to make throwing most gun owners under the bus its #1 political goal.

No different than the anti-gay or anti-abortion or any other group that let's the right get them all hopped up over nothing.

Except gay-bashing or outlawing of abortion is NOT "nothing" if you are gay or need an abortion. In those cases, it's an egregious denial of the affected individual's civil rights.

Neither is banning people's gun's "nothing." It is an egregious denial of the civil rights of those who own them, and for no social benefit whatsoever.

FWIW, I'm pro-civil-unions and pro-choice. Are you?

[benEzra]

17. I am OK with reasonable regulations on guns,

I am OK with reasonable regulations on guns, and penalties for the misuse thereof, just as with speech. I have previously listed the whole litany of gun control I do support, but I suppose that doesn't count unless I want to take rarely-misused guns away from 20 or 30 million gun owners.

Banning the most popular civilian rifles in America, which as a class are the LEAST MISUSED of all firearms, is not reasonable regulation by any reasonable definition.

And there are regulations on speech and abortion, and there always will be.

And all such regulations must be as unintrusive as possible, under a strict scrutiny test. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is like proposing a ban on "infanticide" and then, in the fine print, banning all abortions after the first trimester. Or announcing a ban on "child porn," and then in the fine print banning all magazines with color photos.

Just as weapons are regulated because most people don't want their neighbor having a nuke in the front yard.

Restrictions on nukes are reasonable. Restrictions on small-caliber, non-automatic civilian rifles because their handgrips stick out is not reasonable.

If my low-velocity .30-caliber rifle could destroy an entire city with a single shot, you might have a point.

And most people understand that the needs of city security is different than rural, and are willing to work towards gun regulation to save lives.

Rifles aren't any more commonly misused in cities than in rural areas (in fact, they are even less misused in cities).

But rifle bans aren't about saving lives. Example, Illinois in 2006 had 487 murders; all rifles put together accounted for 4, or eight tenths of one percent. Banning rifle handgrips that stick out would do absolutely nothing to save lives.

Stop being an NRA stooge.

Stop parroting what you've been told to think by the MSM, and think about the reality of rifle use and misuse in America.

Banning the most popular lawfully owned civilian rifles in this country, which as a class are the LEAST MISUSED of all firearms, is not reasonable regulation.

[virginia mountainman]

2. AHSA is suspect from the start...

To endorse Obama, with his "Ban ALL semi-automatics" legislation.....

With the ties to Brady, looks like another rethug operation to take support away from Democrats.

[derby378]

3. They don't have to stay that way forever...

I would like to think that maybe, with a little gentle persuasion, we can cut any ties they have with the Bradys and pull them to safety. So they represent hunters and outdoorsmen. That's okay. As long as they can be convinced that non-sportsmen also have rights, we may be on to something.

[benEzra]

5. They did ditch John Rosenthal, which is a step in the right direction.

If they would drop their support for new bans and evolve into a legitimate alternative to the NRA, I'd join.

I wonder if they even realize that most gun owners aren't skeet shooters and "sportsmen." :eyes:

[virginia mountainman]

9. That's right Ben

Drop the talk of "bans" and THEN we talk....Until then, they are not worth scrubbing the grime of my work boots.

Any talk of "bans" automatically makes you well outside the bounds of sensible.

[derby378]

14. We could start by whittling away at their .50-caliber rifle policy

AHSA wants .50-cal rifles restricted by the National Firearms Act. Just like MP5s and Street Sweepers. That doesn't set well with me, but there are a lot of gun owners who wouldn't mind it at all, despite the lack of crimes involving such rifles.

So yes, we'll have some work ahead of us.