AHSA Makes Their Stance Known

[Coronach]

I judge most organizations buy their stated official policies. I don't buy much into conspiracy theories ...

With the exception of the .50 BMG policy, which is silly, nothing in their official policies contradicts their claim to support the 2nd Amendment.

Again, please join my pro-gun organziation. We've stated nothing to contradict our support of the second amendment. I'll remind you what our positions are:See? The mere fact that we've said nothing at all should not stop you from sending me money.

Seriously, as Justin asks: what use is a pro-RKBA organization that takes anti-RKBA positions on 'minor, fringe issues', remains silent on major issues, supports anti-RKBA candidates, and only takes strong, pro-RKBA positions on decided caselaw? What's the point, besides doing and saying nothing of import but looking like a pro-RKBA group?

Mike

 

[Kim]

One of your problems is you seem to accept the background NICS checks prevent gun crime. There is no evidence that they do. This was investigated by the great Clinton order when he left office to have the National Academy of Science do a study. There is a whole boring book published (I bought it and read it) that says no gun control laws to date can clamin to have done anything to deter crime with firearms. Except one little Gun court for those below 18 I believe in MA. So there. I do not support NICS because it does no good. What it did was put small gun sellers out of business as designed. Another episode of collusion of BIG GUN business putting out of competiton the little guy with the help of the .gov. It did not take long for the general public and alot of gun owners to come to the false conculsion that NICS helps deter crime. It is a falsehood. Just another little cut in the long road in gun control.

 

[RPCVYemen]

THAT is your economic disadvantage? C'mon. That doesn't even hold water.

I think that if you search for NICS on THR, you will find a lot of folks object strongly to the NICS check, and much prefer to buy weapons without a NICS check over buying the same weapon with a NICS check.

QED

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

One of your problems is you seem to accept the background NICS checks prevent gun crime.

Where did I say that?

Mike

 

[Justin]

If they don't prevent crime, then what's the point of having them in the first place?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Fundamental Flaw

I see a lot of argument about who should be obliged to use NICS and when it should be used and why or why not it should be compulsory.

The entire concept of NICS is flawed*. To the point where, since it doesn't achieve its stated aims, and yet is still enthusiastically enforced by the government, I have to believe that its actual purpose is not its stated purpose.

It is utterly ineffective at keeping arms out of the hands of criminals.

It increases cost and inconvenience for dealers and customers alike.

Arguing the nuance of a failed system validates the idea that if you do something wrong in just the right way, with enough funding and effort and with equal application, that it will somehow no longer be the wrong thing.

There were no problems solved by enacting NICS, other than providing "something substantial" for the guy who thought it up, so he could have it on his resume as an "accomplishment" so as to further his career.

There was no dramatic reduction in crime when firearms dealer licensing became mandatory.

What has been accomplished by ever more onerous licensing and paperwork and record keeping requirements is the creation of criminals by fiat.

Arresting and convicting someone of a clerical crime, that's a crime simply because you declared it so, is not being "tough on crime," it simply creates more traffic in the courts and feathers the nests of lawyers while the actual practitioners of mens rea are out there doing violence to individuals and communities.

So I propose that we quit bickering about the proper application of a wrong idea. NICS is a wrong idea. Its elimination will spur commerce and allow more people to be properly armed.

(*flawed: Given that the system assumes the guilt of anyone wishing to purchase firearm. In essence: "only criminals want to have guns, you want a gun, ergo you are -- by default -- a criminal, and we must therefore verify that you are not a criminal." Prior restraint is not consistent with liberty, no matter the excuse.)​

 

[Coronach]

I think that if you search for NICS on THR, you will find a lot of folks object strongly to the NICS check, and much prefer to buy weapons without a NICS check over buying the same weapon with a NICS check.

Which has nothing to do with inconvenience, and has more to do with the honest answer to why the government (and, incidentally, AHSA) wants NICS checks when they do nothing to prevent crime.

And, while you have addressed one issue in my post, you failed to address the fact that dealers at gun shows are doing just fine without your "help", and the fact (inferred, I will admit, but I'm quite confident that it would be borne out in actuality) that the supposed beneficiaries of your munificence would not want your "help".

Mike

 

[Justin]

"No one needs an assault weapon"

As quoted in the Columbus Dispatch December 24, 2006

Of course, Schoenke has recently flip-flopped on the issue, claiming he opposes reinstating the AWB. However, if you look for what actions the AHSA has undertaken to keep this from happening, to educate the public on the AWB and what effect it had on crime, all you see is a whole lot of nothing.

I mean, you'd think they'd at least post a clarification of their stance on the issue over on their official website or something. Failure to do so could certainly be indicative of a couple of things.

 

[Coronach]

Here's another way to look at this:

Show me a position of the AHSA that is diametrically opposed to the position of the Brady Bunch, on an issue that is not decided law (read: DC gun ban).

Mike

 

[yeti]

I don't expect any contention - because I don't expect Obama to do anything about an AWB.

You are assuming that a pro-fun organization like AHSA support the AWB unless they have have explicit statements otherwise.

I can play, too: Really? Really? Really?

REALLY! Really! Really! They endorse candidates that have demonstrated rabid support for an AWB, and are silent on the issue themselves? With no clear position on an AWB, you are measured by the company you keep. The silence by AHSA is deafening!

Besides, being pro-fun shows no support for gun rights what so ever. The 2nd amendment isn't about fun! (I know it was a typo, but it was just to easy not to take advantage of it)

 

[Coronach]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Schoenke
"No one needs an assault weapon"

As quoted in the Columbus Dispatch December 24, 2006

Oops. I don't understand how he could be at the helm of a pro gun organization. I really don't.

He's either highly conflicted, with himself as well as his wife, or the AHSA is not as pro-gun as they seem. Hmm. I wonder which it is?

That, or they're willing to throw certain types of gun owners under the bus (and, incidentally, allow their wives to drive the bus...)

Mike

PS I'm sure that his world-view is private and does not influence how the AHSA operates, though. I'm sure they're against an AWB. I'm sure of this because they've said nothing about the issue, despite it being the current RKBA issue. I mean, they say they're pro gun, so they must be opposed to this. Right? Right? We'll just assume that silence means that they are, because...uh...because there are pictures of sportsmen holding hunting guns on their website, fer cryinoutloud.

PPS I'll reiterate my previous question: Name one position on which the AHSA disagrees with the Brady Bunch, that has not been made moot by recent court action.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I read that the ATF doesn't follow up on denied NICS checks.

 

[rbernie]

I read that the ATF doesn't follow up on denied NICS checks.

Based upon their own statistics, the Feds follow up on virtually NONE of them. I have heard of local/state disqualifications that did earn an immediate response from the local gendarme.

 

[RPCVYemen]

As quoted in the Columbus Dispatch December 24, 2006

Do you have an URL for that quote?

Mike

 

[Justin]

No, Mike. Plainly I don't.

 

[Coronach]

Denial: not just a river in Egypt.

 

[Coronach]

No, Mike. Plainly I don't.

BTW, this might be in the running for Best Response Ever on THR. I don't care if it was made by a fellow moderator. That's just plain funny.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

As quoted in the Columbus Dispatch December 24, 2006

How odd - when Mr. Schoenke writes for himself, he asserts a different policy, one that I support:

On assault weapons ban (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
maxomai, Robobagpiper

We're opposed to reinstating the semi-auto assault weapons ban. There's a lot of confusion about this legislation. Most people believe an assault weapon is a full-auto. Those fully automatic guns are already regulated. The best way to deal with this issue is to make sure that criminals don't get guns in the first place.

Bush was wrong for supporting reinstating the ban in 2000 and 2004. McCain was wrong for voting for it back in 2004 (it was an amendment to S. 1805 for which McCain voted yes.) The NRA still endorsed both of them. We don't agree with the call for renewing the ban. Also, the Heller case should have settled this. What's important is that hunters and sportsmen will have a seat at the table when the Obama administration deals with guns.

Ray Schoenke

by Schoenke on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:56:09 AM PST

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/14/132131/43/273/630261


Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

No, Mike. Plainly I don't.

I apologize deeply for seeing Coronach's quote of your before your post. How can I ever dig myself out of that hole. I was deeply, utterly, absolutely, and incorrigibly wrong.

Mike

 

[Coronach]

Well, this is excellent news. Ray is opposed to the AWB in the comments section of Daily Kos, despite being quoted as being in favor in the Chicago Tribune and Columbus Dispatch (looks like it was an AP or UPI story). OK, that's genuinely good news, assuming that it was not done as damage control to cover his previous quote. <--Not sarcasm (though I suspect it was damage control, but it doesn't matter). However, he's being mildly outspoken in little-trafficked areas, but is, at best, not addressing the issue in places where people actually go for information. Like AHSA's website.

So...where is the AHSA's position on this? Ray says "we" are opposed to the AWB. AHSA's website saysabout it.

If they are honestly opposed to the AWB, let's hear it.

I'll repeat my previous question: cite me where the AHSA differs from the Brady Campaign on areas that are not moot, like the DC gun ban.

Mike

 

[Justin]

Mike, I addressed Schoenke's claim of a change of heart earlier.

If he well and truly opposes the ban on so-called "assault weapons" would you please care to explain why they not only endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket, but why all of the candidates they supported are Democrats with, at best, a lukewarm record on gun rights?

Heck, would you care to explain why there is no mention of their opposition to the ban on their official website?

 

[Coronach]

from the same thread on DailyKos:

Before it got changed, the AHSA 'Who we are' page stated this:

"According to a 2003 Field & Stream National Hunting Survey, sportsmen overwhelmingly support reasonable gun safety proposals. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of hunters support proposals like background checks to purchase guns, keeping military style assault weapons off our streets and the elimination of cop killer bullets."

So you've changed your organizations stance?

See, this is where the concern is coming from. They were in favor of the AWB before, assuming the quote from DK is accurate (it dovetails with previous quotes I have heard re: AHSA). Someone asked him, oh, you've changed your stance? A fair question. Ben's response?Which, of course, does not differ significantly from AHSA's stance on its website:This is not some obscure issue that got drummed up recently. People have been asking for AHSA to take a stand on it for some time. Their response is somewhat lacking. It's almost like they're trying to get away without answering the question.

I'll repeat my previous question: cite me where the AHSA differs from the Brady Campaign on areas that are not moot, like the DC gun ban.


Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

If he well and truly opposes the ban on so-called "assault weapons" would you please care to explain why they not only endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket, but why all of the candidates they supported are Democrats with, at best, a lukewarm record on gun rights?

Here is quote from their web page on the Obama endorsement:

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.

http://www.huntersandshooters.org/about/obamaendorsement

I imagine they endorsed the other Democrats because Ray is a pro-gun Democratic activist.

Mike

 

[Justin]

As a gun owner who is arguably looking for organizations to donate money to, why would I want to support an organization that claims to support my rights, but doesn't even see fit to address them on their own official website?

I mean, if I'm going to donate money to you, not only do I expect you to take a stand online via your website, Facebook page, YouTube account, etc, but I also expect you to actually go meet face-to-face with a few legislators and bend their ear on my behalf.

Would someone care to point out an instance when Ray Schoenke sat down with a legislator and articulated a position against reinstatment of the AWB on behalf of mainstream American gun owners?

 

[RPCVYemen]

Mike, I addressed Schoenke's claim of a change of heart earlier.

I missed that. Do you have a post number? This thread is getting pretty long.

Mike