AHSA - Change 50 BMG Policy?

[GregGry]

Any pro gun organization that has to be convinced that they should support the legal ownership of a 50bmg rifle without extra loopholes (Such as NFA) is not a pro-gun org. They obviously made up their mind that people shouldn't own .50s without hoops you have to jump through (For what reason?). Its no stretch of the imagination that they will think the same when it comes to any firearm that they deem to be dangerous to own, such as "assault rifles" "sniper rifles" and even certain ammo.

Whe you get a group of people together to form a org, and the main people involved all have questionable histories when it comes to being pro gun, you can't remotely believe what they say unless it matches their past. Its easy to see there are a lot of things they don't think people should own. I don't know how your going to convince them to change their minds. I have spent hours of my time talking with people that are anti gun, and no matter what stats, personal experiances, etc I try to bring to the table I am always encountered by the person not listening to a word I have said. Dare I bring up 50bmg rifles, I always get "nobody needs that much fire power, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to own it". There is no convincing such a person they are wrong, since they are basing their opinion on emotion. Unless you change their negative emotional opinion on guns that is (And thats near impossible).

I think the point of this thread and organization is this: They have so few members, and they have anti-gun tendencies. There is no point in e-mailing them asking them to change, because your going to just have to babysit them on anything else they decide to be anti on (which is going to be a lot in the future more then likely). If they were a pro gun group they would have spent the 5 minutes of time to look into 50s to find out they aren't remotely a threat to anyone, and that there isn't anything to be afraid of. The fact they were talking about no sporting purpose for a .50bmg tells you right there that they believe firearms should be used to hunt with, and firearms that aren't normally used for hunting shouldn't be owned.

 

[caseypj]

Hey Mike, how did Ray get your number to call you? Are you just making this up or did he actually call you?
How would he know your number, even if he really did call you? I assume he could look at his membership list, it's probably something along the lines of: Sarah Brady, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Adrian Fenty, and you.

I assume he'd be able to realize who you were in that case and contact you. Have him actually post his policies on his website, you keep bringing up the AHSA here, I am convinced now more than ever that you are either a paid employee or related to a director of it.

After seeing his actions towards a particular NRA spokeswoman, I am completely convinced he is nothing but a scumbag, maybe he should go for a ride with Ted Kennedy and discuss new gun laws, I'm sure he's a member of the AHSA as well.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Hey Mike, how did Ray get your number to call you?

When I signed up, I gave it as a contact number. I was pretty surprised by the call. I don't know any other members, except through the facebook AHSA group.

Mike

 

[Fburgtx]

Yeah, I saw that Facebook page. A whole whopping 76 friends.......

Sorry, but on one hand they try to get folks to believe they care about the 2nd Amendment, then they talk about banning the 50 BMG because it "has no use for hunting". Maybe Mr. Schoenke can show us where the 2 nd Amendment refers to "hunting" or "legitimate sporting purpose".......

 

[benEzra]

RPCVYemen,

I applaud you for trying to educate the AHSA and Mr. Schoenke on this. I hope you are successful.

 

[GregGry]

It seems pretty clear to me that they are people that support hunting and the firearms most commonly used for hunting. That makes them part pro-gun. However they don't seem to be much for rights to own other non sporting firearms. If a AWB, 50bmg ban, or the like would be passed, they wouldn't be bothered to much since thats really not something that they are into.

 

[rbernie]

It seems pretty clear to me that they are people that support hunting and the firearms most commonly used for hunting.

How do they do this? In other words, what actions have they taken to actively support hunting and firearms most commonly used for hunting?

Have they done anything on this subject but issue press releases?

 

[RPCVYemen]

If I were making the argument to AHSA that's exactly how I would approach it.

Shoot, I think I just lost a long post. I hope this isn't a repeat.

The fundamental weakness in the argument that "Classification of weapons as NFA Destructive Devices violates the 2nd Amendment!" is Heller. Heller asserted that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right, but it allowed the NFA to stand.

If in the opinion of the SCOTUS, arbitrarily classifying weapons with bores larger than .50" as Destructive Devices does not violate the 2nd Amendment, then I cant make a rational argument that arbitrarily classifying a 50 BMG as a Destructive Device violates the 2nd Amendment.

Can you? I can't and that makes the argument you propose very hard to defend.

That's not a rhetorical question - the NFA seems to classify weapons pretty arbitrarily based on categories not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment - caliber, barrel length, rate of fire, etc. None of those concepts are mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.

But Heller specifically made it clear that it was leaving the NFA alone. From the SCOTUS point of view, apparently the NFA is reasonable regulation.

That didn't make sense to me.

I thought that once Scalia argued that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, he would declare the NFA unconstitutional, and maybe even bust open the machine gun registry. But he didn't - making an argument that NFA classification as a Destructive Device violates the 2nd Amendment impossible to make, or at least very weak.

The apparently constitutional NFS did exempt shotguns with bores greater than .50" bores, because they had "legitimate sporting use." But if shotguns are exempt from classification as Destructive Devices for that reason, why not 50 BMG weapons?

The second class contains any non-sporting firearm with a bore over 0.50" (many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, which are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a legitimate sporting use).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

In short, given Heller's reluctance to overturn the NFA's arbitrary classifications, arguing that classification of 50 BMG weapons somehow contradicts the 2nd Amendment looks like a very weak argument.

But the argument that 50 BMG weapons, like shotguns, have a legitimate sporting use seems like a strong argument.

Mike

 

[rbernie]

But Heller specifically made it clear that it was leaving the NFA alone. From the SCOTUS point of view, apparently the NFA is reasonable regulation.

Actually, Heller said nothing that was legally useful about the NFA because it wasn't part of the case.

Addressing the issue from the angle of 'sporting purposes', I believe, caters to the notion that 'sporting purposes' is a reasonable test for legitimacy of manufacture/sale/ownership. I believe that is the wrong litmus test. Certainly, it is not a test that has withstood court review.

In my opinion, the issue needs to be driven back to the root of the matter - what is the problem that is being solved? Every legal restriction on firearms ownership has to solve a problem, or it has no legitimacy other than to incrementally decrease the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

In the case of 50BMG, I believe that arguing sporting purposes plays into the hands of those who would seek to incrementally neuter the 2nd Amendment based upon 'need' or 'utility'. I believe that we must force the dialogue to define what, if any, is the actual PROBLEM with 50BMG weapons.

 

[Zoogster]

Are you an anti yourself or just naive?

The AHSA is an anti-gun organization, founded from the start as an anti group in order to get gun owners as members who it could then persuade to adopt increasing levels of gun control!
Sure some of them may even shoot, but the reason it was founded was specificly to remove freedom!


They are one branch of of the anti gun movement. To soften up the front lines, and make some gun owners "compromise".
They pretend to be against all the measures except the one they really want passed next. They have other organizations to do the more extensive lists.


Your argument to defend the BMG on "sporting" grounds couldn't be better designed by an anti-rights lawyer.
Target shooting and plinking is not a recognized sporting purpose as "sporting" is defined by the ATF.
Aiming to argue in favor of it by claiming it is "sporting" instead of many other much better arguments would be stacking the deck on that issue in favor of losing.
The 2nd is not about sports, most handguns are not about sports, most rifles were not designed for sports, and the vast majority of weapon designs were never for hunting. They were for fighting.


"Destructive Devices" were one of the compromises in 1968, essentialy outlawing many cartridges much more powerful than the BMG, some in various rifles bolt action and semi-auto.
The .50 BMG had long existed at the time of that legislation. Yet it was nothing by comparison to then currently legal calibers (like various 20mm rifles.)

They set limits where none had existed before. Suddenly civilians had to stick with .50 caliber or less. We now work within those limitations.
It is of course no surprise that now they wish to reduce capability even further, reducing power levels even more.
The saddest part is when gun owners even would debate even further erosion.

The AHSA as an anti group catering to gun owners is not stupid. They work one angle at a time. Thier other organizations can work on multiple.




There is absolutely no doubt that the AHSA is anti gun.

In fact it was so obvious and over the top they clearly realized members like John Rosenthal as a founding member (previously Board member of the Brady Campaign!) was too obvious and he has left.

The organization was founded by some Brady Campaign people who felt not enough was being accomplished (anti gun laws and restrictions not being adopted quickly enough) quickly. They felt a better way to accomplish rapid restrictions was to weaken gun rights from within the ranks of the gun owning community, not openly fight it as an anti organization.
If they could be viewed as something like the NRA, they could give all the "pro-gun" soundbytes.
Imagine the brilliance of that! You could have the Brady Campaign on one side arguing for restrictions, and the AHSA on the other, agreeing to compromise or giving poor defenses intentionaly.
Journalists and antis could appear to be giving both sides of any issue, while really given two of the same, one toned up and broad with the other one toned down and focused on compromising on the next immediate ban.


So quite frankly I find postings of what thier pretend views are here at THR sickening.
At least the Brady Campaign is openly known for non stop increases in gun control as thier prime objective.
The AHSA pretends to be about whatever it needs to make a few more suckers.
They will always be officialy against gun control, except what the antis are aiming to pass next.
Once that passes they will then ease gun owners into the next "compromise". That is thier intended role they were founded to accomplish.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Actually, Heller said nothing that was legally useful about the NFA because it wasn't part of the case.

Pages 54-56 directly addresses the NFA and Miller, and specifically states that the limitations of the NFA are acceptable.

Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase ‘part of ordinary military equipment’ could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

Are you an anti yourself or just naive?

Please read the 1st post in this thread.

Mike

 

[rbernie]

Pages 54-56 directly addresses the NFA and Miller, and specifically states that the limitations of the NFA are acceptable.

My point was, and is, that Heller was not about the NFA and therefore nothing in the case itself directly codifies the legal validity of the NFA. Mentioning the NFA in the majority opinion has no legal force of standing, other than to provide fodder for debates.

Heller did not argue for/against the NFA. He argued against the DC gun ban. The mention of NFA in the opinion is of interest but is not relevant since it was not argued as a point of law.

The NFA is legally sound when, and only when, a case clearly and unambiguously argues its existence before the SCOTUS.

Using the Heller opinion's mention of the NFA as the bedrock of an Activism approach that capitulates the high ground in favor of a 'sporting uses' test seems, well, like A Really Bad Idea That Ought Not Be Encouraged.

 

[TexasRifleman]

So again, after 5 pages of this, we are back where we started.

We have spent these pages and this time trying to argue why a supposedly pro gun group should not be calling for a gun ban.

I think that says it all and I just can't see why it should continue at this point.

AHSA is anti gun. They admit it, Yemen has admitted it by even posting the thread, and every argument about why they should stop gets shot down by their spokesperson here. The call for a ban of the .50BMG makes them anti-gun, by definition.

It also makes them anti sportsman since many .50 shooters use the rifles in long distance competitions.

The final argument was Heller, which the AHSA spokesman is now picking apart. So, AHSA doesn't support the fundamentals of Heller either? I'm not surprised by that.

As long as everyone now realizes these things I think the thread has served a good purpose.

 

[RPCVYemen]

My point was, and is, that Heller was not about the NFA and therefore nothing in the case itself directly codifies the legal validity of the NFA. Mentioning the NFA in the majority opinion has no legal force of standing, other than to provide fodder for debates.

So the fact that Heller specifically permits the limitations imposed by the NFA in the first full paragraph on page 55 of the decision is legally meaningless?

Section III of the decision starting on page 54 argues that two categories of limitation are acceptable - the section begins with

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

The first permitted limitation is about people (mostly) - the Court accepts legislation that denies weapons to felons and the mentally ill.

The second limitation is about types of weapons - it accepts a test of "in common use at the time". It specifically accepts limitations that regulate M-16s in the bottom paragraph on page 55. I don't understand the rationale - the paragraph that argues for allowing the limitation is opaque.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of smallarms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

It appears to me that arguing that classification of a weapon as a Destructive Device violates the 2nd Amendment is a weak argument when an opponent can quite Scalia in Heller specifically stating that the limitations imposed by the NFA are constitutional.

Imagine this conversation:

• Advocate: Classification of BMG weapons as Destructive Devices violates the Second Amendment.
• Opponent: Why then, on page 55 of the Heller decision does Scalia declare the limitations imposed by legislation like the NFA are constitutional?
• Advocate: ???

Mike

 

[rbernie]

OK - how's this:

Advocate: Classification of BMG weapons as Destructive Devices violates the Second Amendment.

Opponent: Why then, on page 55 of the Heller decision does Scalia declare the limitations imposed by legislation like the NFA are constitutional?

Advocate: He did not, and cannot, declare such things to be constitutional because that decision is not within the context or scope of Heller. The mention of the NFA was a nod to the upcoming battle of restrictions, but it was not a decision WRT those restrictions.

You are attempting to given each word or phrase in the Heller decision the full weight of law, and that's NOT how it works.

 

[rbernie]

This was the Question presented by Heller:

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Second Amendment guarantees lawabiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes.

This is the ruling of the SCOTUS in "District of Columbia, et al. vs Heller"::

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physicallycapable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediatelyfollowed the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru-tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in thehome be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossiblefor citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi-trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Everything after this holding is the opinion, i.e. the thoughts and meanderings that were used to derive the ruling. The opinions are of legal interest but THEY ARE NOT LAW.

You must stop trying to argue that the opinion represents settled law.

It does not.

Trying to argue for the acceptability of 50BMG weapons based upon concerns that they might not fall under a 'sporting purposes' scrutiny is not Activism. It's more akin to handing over the keys to the city to the raiding barbarians and hoping for mercy.

ETA - it should be noted that Miller does not present a 'sporting purposes' test to justify the NFA; it actually presents a 'in common use for militias' test WRT the NFA. Declaring the Second Amendment to be a collective right makes Miller useful in one direction, but when the Second Amendment declares an individual right, suddenly the 'for militia use' test would appear to become somewhat different from what it was previously. If anything, I would wonder if the Heller ruling provides the vehicle by which Miller suddenly can be used to argue support for things like reopening the NFA registry. After all, if the NFA is valid (via Miller) and the 'suitable for common use via a militia' test of Miller continues to be an accepted position, then the closure of the registry would seem to be illegal (at least to my layman's eyes).

I do know that arguing in support of a 'sporting purposes' test is not necessary, is not driven by Heller, and is not desirable in any way from the perspective of the RKBA.

Anyone that argues for a 'sporting purposes' test to determine the legitimacy of a firearm is no friend of the RKBA.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Does the second amendment protect .50 caliber guns? I don't know. Should we try to outlaw them? No way! They pose almost no threat to anyone, but are used for sporting purposes a lot.

I believe a good way to determine whether a group is pro or anti gun is to determine whether it pushes less gun restrictions(or fights new gun restrictions) or pushes for more gun restrictions. So, what anti-gun laws has AHSA opposes? And what new pro-gun laws do they want? I can't think of any. However, we know they want more restrictions on guns. Therefore, logic shows they are anti-gun.

BTW, if they are pro-gun, why would the NRA attack them, but not attack GOA? I'd like for you to answer this question, but I assume you can't

 

[RPCVYemen]

You must stop trying to argue that the opinion represents settled law.

I am not arguing that the opinion is the settled law.

I understand your point that Heller was really specifically concerned with whether or not the DC regulation was constitutional.

I am arguing that making a statement contrary to a Scalia'a "thoughts and meanderings" makes a weak argument.

The point has nothing to do with legal details of what is and is not settled law - its about strength of argument. If I argue that the NFA regulations violate the 2nd Amendment, then I have to argue that Scalia is wrong in his "thoughts and meanderings" - even though they may not be settled law - and that looks like a tough sell to me.

Mike

 

[TexasRifleman]

The point has nothing to do with legal details of what is and is not settled law -

The point is why are you having to argue against a gun ban to a "pro gun" group that wants to ban a gun whose purpose is almost 100% sporting?

 

[RPCVYemen]

If anything, I would wonder if the Heller ruling provides the vehicle by which Miller suddenly can be used to argue support for things like reopening the NFA registry, if not absolute dissolution of the NFA itself.

Doesn't Scalia apparently slam the door on that argument in the opaque paragraph quoted above - even though the paragraph does not represent settled law?

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

The point is why are you having to argue against a gun ban to a "pro gun" group that wants to ban a gun whose purpose is almost 100% sporting?

I am arguing with their position because I think it is wrong.

Mike

 

[TexasRifleman]

I am arguing with their position because I think it is wrong.

I'm glad you do, but why is a pro gun group against any class of guns?

By definition that makes them anti gun would you not agree?

So, the AHSA is an anti gun group, which is what we've been saying for months here.

This is not complicated.

They have chosen a firearm type arbitrarily, with statistically no use in crime, but statistically a VERY high use in competition and other sporting events, and called for it to be banned.

That is not "pro gun".

 

[rbernie]

Doesn't Scalia apparently slam the door on that argument in the opaque paragraph quoted above - even though the paragraph does not represent settled law?

I don't think so, although my opinion doesn't much count for much in that area.

But I will reiterate - never negotiate from a position of defeat until you are defeated. A 'sporting purposes' metric is too capricous, too narrow and too narrowly defined to be useful to the RKBA. We should never ASK for it.

"Argue for a limitation, and it's yours."

 

[RPCVYemen]

I'm glad you do, but why is a pro gun group against any class of guns?

As has been pointed out several times, discussion of whether or not the AHSA is pro gun has been declared off limits for this thread by a moderator - in fact, if this thread were about that issue, it would have been closed.

The focus of this thread is not your opinion (or mine ) of the AHSA, but persuading the AHSA that their policy with regard to 50 BMG weapons is wrong.

As per agreement with the mods, if you want to argue about whether or not the AHSA is pro gun, PM me. You should know by now that I am not at all averse to arguing strenuously for my point.

Mike