AHSA - Change 50 BMG Policy?


PDA






RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 12:52 AM
I had a pretty surprising phone call this evening. Ray Schoenke, the president of the AHSA called me. In an an earlier thread a couple of days ago, someone suggested that I must work for the AHSA (given my support), but I am in fact a software developer in RTP (NC), and I don't have much contact with political sorts.

Mr. Schoenke wanted to talk to me about my suggestion that we give a Shiloh Sharps rifle to President Obama - my suggestion to him by email had been that we present an all American rifle like Shiloh Sharps in an all American caliber like 45-70 to President Obama.

In the course of the conversation, we talked a little bit about AHSA policy. That part of the phone call focused on two issues: assault weapons bans, and the AHSA support for making 50 BMG weapons regulated like NFA weapons.

I am happy to report that he expressed strong opposition to an assault weapons ban. He did argue that when used for hunting, AR-15s would have the same magazine limitations as other hunting weapons. I actually don't know how that works for hunting rifles - I am not a hunter. I assume that you must be able to buy "hunting capacity" magazines for Mini-14s, but I don't know how the Fish and Game people make sure you only hunt with the "hunting capacity" magazines. Maybe some of you hunters know how all of that works.

At any rate, Mr. Schoenke is very clear on the fact that the AWB is a silly law the regulates the looks of some kinds of semi-automatic weapons. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but if I understood home correctly, he did not want AR-15s regulated any differently than any other of what he would call "semi-automatic hunting rifles".

On the second issue, I did express my objections to the AHSA suggestion that 50 BMG weapons as NFA weapons. His argument was that there wasn't a legitimate hunting use for a 50 BMG weapon, unless you are hunting elephants. I argued that there are legitimate non-hunting uses for 50 BMG weapons - the example I used was long range target shooting - and that I hadn't seen any stats indicating any criminal use of 50 BMG weapons. I think that criminal use of full auto weapons was the basis of the 1934 NFA. Mr. Schoenke agreed that the evidence for criminal use of the 50 BMG was "minuscule".

Unfortunately, the cell phone connection was very bad at that point and I couldn't really understand his response. I think it was pretty clear that he understood my point. I wish that I had followed up a little more strenuously on that point, but the connection was bad, and I was a little flabbergasted to be speaking to him.

I will follow up that point in subsequent e-mail. That is my only objection to AHSA pubic policy, so I would be very happy to see that change of policy. I will work to change that policy, and if the policy is changed, then I will appraise THR members of that change.

I do not want to repeat the debate we had two days ago about the AHSA - if you have any overall objections to the AHSA, please see the following two threads:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=419569

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=405427

I will not repeat any arguments in either of those threads. If you want to raise some new objection to the AHSA, please PM me. If it's truly new, we may have a private discussion. If it's a re-hash of anything in those threads, I will probably ignore it.

Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "AHSA - Change 50 BMG Policy?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Golden Hound
January 15, 2009, 01:13 AM
On the second issue, I did express my objections to the AHSA suggestion that 50 BMG weapons as NFA weapons. His argument was that there wasn't a legitimate hunting use for a 50 BMG weapon, unless you are hunting elephants.

Why does there need to be a legitimate hunting use for a weapon?

Not every shooter is a hunter. As you yourself have pointed out. There is a "sporting" use for the .50 - as you have said - which is...target shooting. Which is a sport.

The AHSA is the American Hunters and Shooters Association. Not the American Hunters Association.

That's the argument I would use.

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 01:15 AM
His argument was that there wasn't a legitimate hunting use for a 50 BMG weapon, unless you are hunting elephants.

So basically you posted to tell us that nothing has changed.

Noted.

WoofersInc
January 15, 2009, 01:31 AM
Sorry to say RPCVYemen but most of us, no matter how hard you try are not going to believe or trust that the AHSA is looking out for our interests

GregGry
January 15, 2009, 01:47 AM
I just don't get it. You are spending hours trying to convince us that this organization is pro gun like the NRA but the facts of the people involved in the organization, the information posted on their website, and the track record completly points that they have many anti-gun tendencies. If you were suggesting the NRA is pro gun it would be believeable, since there is more then enough evidence to prove it. However this organization you speak so highly of falls into the very questionable end.

Dravur
January 15, 2009, 02:03 AM
Awww yes...

The Ole Square is round, Round is Square....

Don't believe what we do, believe what we say. AHSA has sold out to the Bamster, so gets no support from me.

I never did, but there ya go.

HeavenlySword
January 15, 2009, 02:19 AM
The OP specifically asked for any objections to AHSA to be routed through his Private Message box, as I have done.

I will, of course, post my challenge publicly if he does not respond.

GregGry
January 15, 2009, 02:26 AM
The 50BMG argument is very critical. A persons opinion on the legality of 50bmg is very telling when it comes to firearms rights. 50bmg rifles have been recovered in a almost non existant amount of cases. I am not aware of one being used for a crime, only ones that were recovered from places criminals lived. Anyone who says they are a danger to the public are either basing their opinion on a incomplete story (AKA they never looked into it) or their fears. Such a person should not be incharge of anything to do with gun rights because they are likely to make judgements that are completely against the facts for other things, not just 50bmg rifles.

I agree there really isn't much of a pratical use for a 50BMG outside of long distance target shooting. However since there is no real evidence showing that such a firearm is a danger to the public (Not that there is evidence like that for any firearm since firearms don't have a brain, and can't do things on their own) there isn't any legitmate reason the restrict the sales. Its an heavy, expensive, long range, cumbersome rifle, words no criminal is looking for in the description of the firearm they want.

A person that sees no use in a 50bmg rifle, is going to easily see "assault rifles" as being even worse. Since assault rifles have been used in crimes (way more then 50bmg rifles) it will be by far easier to use not just fear, but inflated statistics to change peoples minds. Again "assault rifles" represent the latest technology, and really aren't that different then other rifles except in looks and in magazine capacity. Even so they are used in a small amount of crimes, and the restriction on them isn't going to do any good for the crime rate.

If a person thinks people shouldn't own "assault rifles" (Which is such a broad term that people can add almost any firearm to the list) and .50bmg rifles, they are no friend to gun rights. They are likely to be against any newer firearm that comes out, because they think they are "to dangerous/deadly". That means as firearms change, your ability to own them will diminish.

This AHSA organization might be pro gun rights when it comes ot select things, however their mindset is going to do more harm then good. Based on all of the information I have read, they flat out can't be trusted. Its likely a group of people that has opinions drenched with fear, a lack of common sense, and false ideas. I sure as hell don't know how you can be pro gun yet feel its ok to ban firearms that don't even remotely play a role in the criminal underworld (which is the biggest/most common agrument as to why something shouldn't be legal).

Maelstrom
January 15, 2009, 02:43 AM
They're right, you know. There's no reason to own a .50 caliber.

Of course the .475 isn't that mush smaller, less than three hundredths of and inch, so there can't possibly be a reason for that either.

Now that I think of it, the .45 really isn't much smaller than the .475, so we should ban those, too.

Of course what's the real difference between the .45 and the .44? Those will have to go.

Then, of course is the .41, again only three hundredths of an inch smaller.

And if you're going to get rid of the .41 then the .40 can't still be allowed.

From there it's the .357 and then the new .327, then the .32, the .25, the .22, the .204, and lastly the .17.

Any questions?

Justin
January 15, 2009, 02:50 AM
AHSA supports Obama. Obama supports reinstating the ban on so-called "assault weapons" on a permanent basis.

Basic logic tells us that therefore, AHSA supports renewal of the AWB regardless of what they claim.

I will not repeat any arguments in either of those threads. If you want to raise some new objection to the AHSA, please PM me. If it's truly new, we may have a private discussion. If it's a re-hash of anything in those threads, I will probably ignore it.

Then there's fundamentally no point in leaving this thread open, as you're plainly not interested in the boatloads of evidence demonstrating that AHSA is, has been, and will continue to be funded and run by those who are, at best, milquetoast in their views.

hso
January 15, 2009, 09:30 AM
I've moved this to AD because of the remote chance that the discussion can bear some wholesome fruit.

I'll point out that not every state excludes .223 ammunition or limits magazine capacity for hunting. I would not have expected Mike to know this, but Mr. Schoneke should have known that as the leader of a so-called national hunter's organization. (A bit of advice for Mike is that it would be good to get better informed on points like this if you're going to be active in the debate.)

It's good that you pointed out that the whole controversy with the .50 is empty. As said, AHSA stands for American Hunters and SHOOTERs Association and there are plenty of people participating in recreational and competitive shooting with firearms that fire this round. Attacking them is hypocritical.

So, now that you have Mr. Schoneke's ear, how can you get AHSA to make a statement supporting ALL shooters?

rbernie
January 15, 2009, 09:51 AM
At any rate, Mr. Schoenke is very clear on the fact that the AWB is a silly law the regulates the looks of some kinds of semi-automatic weapons. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but if I understood home correctly, he did not want AR-15s regulated any differently than any other of what he would call "semi-automatic hunting rifles".
Being the cynic that I am, here is what I just read:

"I intend to prep the playing field for restrictions on ALL semi-auto rifles regardless of color or other cosmetic features. We sure learned how silly our last AWB effort was, and how easy it was to keep buying AR-15s. We don't intend on making that mistake again! The success path forward lays in lumping all semi-auto rifles together into one big bannable lump.".

Well, ok. Thanks, I guess.

You might want to ask him what restrictions he wants on 'hunting' semi auto rifles, to get to the meat of the matter.

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 09:56 AM
'll point out that not every state excludes .223 ammunition or limits magazine capacity for hunting. I would not have expected Mike to know this, but Mr. Schoneke should have known that as the leader of a so-called national hunter's organization.

If my comments indicated that Mr. Schoenke said that every state excludes .223 ammunition, or limits magazine capacity for hunting, then the mistake is mine, not his - he did not say that. I didn't think I said that either, but if my words can be construed that way, then my words were incorrect.

So, now that you have Mr. Schoneke's ear, how can you get AHSA to make a statement supporting ALL shooters?

I'd like to start by persuading the AHSA not to lobby to move the 50 BMG to NFA category.

Mike

Prion
January 15, 2009, 10:07 AM
When I bought my FNAR the other day a hunter asked me "what are you going to do with that? Assault deer?" I explained the accuracy, what I use it for, the 2A, that you certainly could take a deer with and he did warm up to it. I get looks of disdain from hunters at the range fairly regularly. Like I'm a bad person for owning AR's etc. Some frown on handguns but that's rare. Many are quite surprised at their accuracy and to learn I'm just a law-abiding family man. Hunters are not as pro-gun as many seem to think.

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 10:21 AM
I'd like to start by persuading the AHSA not to lobby to move the 50 BMG to NFA category.

Since you are answering questions, I'll ask a few

1) Since when does AHSA employ a lobbyist and what firm/person are they using?

2) What is the name of the AHSA group doing the lobbying? AHSA itself is a 501(c)(3) organization and prohibited by law from engaging in lobbying.

From the IRS regardng 501c3's

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

3) Where did the money come from to pay said lobbyist given the membership numbers publicly released by this group?

Or are you now suggesting that the board members are doing it themselves? That would be illegal by the way, in case you were not aware.

This is why the NRA has a group called NRA-ILA, Institute for Legislative Action, and they are NOT a charitable organization and membership dues CANNOT be used to finance lobbying.

This is why Second Amendment Foundation does not lobby, they only engage in legal cases and public opinion shifting.

Care to address any of this? These are not small matters.

You come here claiming that AHSA supports Presidntial candidates and lobbies for gun rights, both of which are illegal activities.

So, what do they REALLY do?

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 10:34 AM
Of course the .475 isn't that mush smaller, less than three hundredths of and inch, so there can't possibly be a reason for that either.

I think that the weakness of this argument - as a persuasive tactic - can be understood by extending it in the other direction. Note that I am not objecting to the logic, but I doubt it's persuasive power because it can be demonstrated that any caliber restriction - even those measure in inches - is ridiculous.

Treating 18" guns as NFA weapons may in fact be ridiculous, but I think that you'll find persuading the American people that 18" guns should be treated as non-NFA weapons to be a hard sell.

Mike

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 10:37 AM
Care to address any of this? These are not small matters.

I withdraw the word "lobby", and amend my sentence to read:

I'd like to start by persuading the AHSA not to support the classification of the 50 BMG as an NFA weapon.


Mike

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 10:40 AM
I withdraw the word "lobby", and amend my sentence to read:

That's nice, but since you are effectively admitting that AHSA has no lobbying arm then what exactly do you expect them to accomplish?

Since it would be illegal for them to even TALK TO ANY POLITICIAN about this, what exactly are they doing?

If they DO have a lobbying arm what is it called?

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 10:41 AM
Not every shooter is a hunter. As you yourself have pointed out. There is a "sporting" use for the .50 - as you have said - which is...target shooting. Which is a sport.

I think that you are agreeing with what I said. Am I miss-reading your post?

Mike

rbernie
January 15, 2009, 10:42 AM
If RPCVYemen is gonna have a dialogue with anyone at AHSA, I really want to know why the following would not be part of that dialogue:

You might want to ask him what restrictions he wants on 'hunting' semi auto rifles, to get to the meat of the matter.

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 10:45 AM
That's nice, but since you are effectively admitting that AHSA has no lobbying arm then what exactly do you expect them to accomplish?

Are you suggesting that no non-profit organization may take a public policy position on any any issue?

That has to be wrong - I see lots of non-profit organizations issue public policy positions every day.

Mike

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 10:51 AM
Are you suggesting that no non-profit organization may take a public policy position on any any issue?

That has to be wrong - I see lots of non-profit organizations issue public policy positions every day.

I am saying that it is against the law to talk to ANY politician about these issues, in any manner.

It is illegal to represent to politicians, even indirectly, that you influence voters that might go one way or the other.

That is called lobbying.

SAF for example spends their money on legal challenges, that's not lobbying.

And, if AHSA does not engage in lobbying then what effect do you believe they will have? How are they planning to get anything done?

More from the IRS:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

Did AHSA support Obama publicly? Your previous posts indicate this. This would be illegal, so I question your knowledge of the group.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Basically all a 501c3 is allowed to do is:

involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.


I have seen none of this from AHSA, and we just came out of a big election cycle. Can you cite examples of this?

So where are the activities from that last group as regards AHSA and how do you expect that to actually do any good?

This is why, again, the big groups that get things done have formed separate entities for lobbying.

AHSA can't "get anything done" so what is their reason for existence?

If AHSA has engaged in any limited "lobbying" allowed by law they must file must file Form 5768, Election/Revocation of Election by an Eligible IRC Section 501(c)(3) Organization to Make Expenditures to Influence Legislation, at any time during the tax year for which it is to be effective.

Where can I find a copy of that from AHSA?

Churches are exempt from a large portion of these laws, but they are about the only exception.

That has to be wrong - I see lots of non-profit organizations issue public policy positions every day.

Yes, and you will notice the very careful wording of these things too. And not all non-profits are 501c3's, there are other parts of the tax code in use.

MikePGS
January 15, 2009, 10:58 AM
His argument was that there wasn't a legitimate hunting use for a 50 BMG weapon, unless you are hunting elephants.

Yeah I seem to recall something in the 2nd amendment about hunting :rolleyes:

THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Geneseo1911
January 15, 2009, 11:10 AM
The Ole Square is round, Round is Square....

Just keeps hammerin' away, trying to get that square peg in the round hole.

FYI, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting OR target shooting. Those are just fun side benefits of RKBA.

What we need is an American Keep the Government in Check Association.

rbernie
January 15, 2009, 11:26 AM
I seem to recall something in the 2nd amendment about huntingIn fairness, the name of the organization clearly denotes that they have a focus on the hunting aspects of the gun community. I think that it's fair to expect them to use hunting as their rationale for firearms ownership.

Of course, I believe that's because they're trying to drive a wedge between the hunting community and the SD/HD/RKBA communities, but that's just me being cynical again.

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 11:44 AM
I am saying that it is against the law to talk to ANY politician about these issues, in any manner.

That seems odd - are you claiming that no non-profit organization may speak to any politician in any manner?

So for example, it is illegal for the Red Cross to ever speak to any politician - to express thanks or to ask for help? That doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I don't know exactly where the tax laws draw the line between eduction/lobbying/expressing the views of members for non-profit organizations. If you are correct, then I would expect AHSA to lose tax exempt status - if they are chartered that way. That would prove your point to be true.

In either case, that doesn't make a lot of difference to me. I joined because I supported their policies (with the exception of their 50 BMG policy). I don't really care about the profit/non-profit status.

Mike

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 11:48 AM
Of course, I believe that's because they're trying to drive a wedge between the hunting community and the SD/HD/RKBA communities, but that's just me being cynical again.

I guess calling hunters "Fudd" and deriding their choice of weapons and hobbies is just way of spreading brotherly love. :)

Mike

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 11:53 AM
That seems odd - are you claiming that no non-profit organization may speak to any politician in any manner?

So for example, it is illegal for the Red Cross to ever speak to any politician - to express thanks or to ask for help? That doesn't seem to make sense to me.


You are doing that thing you do in these threads, where you avoid the actual questions by playing games.

What I said was you cannot speak to politicians about the ISSUES as a 501c3.

Look, it's clearly written in the IRS code and you can look it up if you want.

The point is the AHSA has no influence, and doesn't plan on having any, which as usual shows that their only purpose is to be a wedge group.

Unless the AHSA has a separate division organized as a for profit to engage in lobbying there is simply no pressure that they can legally exert to make any changes to gun laws in any manner.

You're welcome to read the tax codes yourself, I'm not simply making this stuff up.

I don't know exactly where the tax laws draw the line between eduction/lobbying/expressing the views of members for non-profit organizations. If you are correct, then I would expect AHSA to lose tax exempt status - if they are chartered that way. That would prove your point to be true.

Their tax status is publicly available information.

In either case, that doesn't make a lot of difference to me. I joined because I supported their policies (with the exception of their 50 BMG policy). I don't really care about the profit/non-profit status.

Which gets us back to where we always start. If you don't care about their tax exempt status then you don't care whether or not they can influence changes, which means you

a) don't really understand what it is they do and
b) have no idea how they would get done the things you claim to want

It matters VERY much, the tax status of groups like this. They can't get anything done otherwise.

And if they can't get anything done, what is their purpose?

And of course you still refuse to answer the question I posted numerous times in your other threads:

Can you explain why all the board members of AHSA were/are also involved in Handgun Control Inc, and Americans to Stop Gun Violence?

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 11:59 AM
You can't show where they publicly endorsed any candidate for office either.

AHSA Obama Endorsement (http://www.huntersandshooters.org/about/obamaendorsement)

Mike

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 12:07 PM
Well then they will, or already may have, lose/lost their 501c3 (or maybe 4) status.

They show to still have it in the IRS records. 4 would allow some lobbying. We'll see if they file a status change in this tax year.

If that's the case we'll see what they do next. I see no information regarding actual legislation on their website.

rbernie
January 15, 2009, 12:08 PM
I guess this means you won't be asking Ray whether AHSA would/does support or recommend any additional restriction on the sale/ownership/use of semi-automatic hunting rifles.

Pity. That would have actually been useful.

mljdeckard
January 15, 2009, 12:32 PM
I'm not any closer to believing in the Great Pumpkin than I was a couple of days ago.

30 cal slob
January 15, 2009, 12:35 PM
to the OP ...

FWIW, although I don't trust AHSA as far as I can fling a watery turd without my hands ...

...thanks for at least speaking to them and voicing your concerns.

rfurtkamp
January 15, 2009, 12:44 PM
I am happy to report that he expressed strong opposition to an assault weapons ban. He did argue that when used for hunting, AR-15s would have the same magazine limitations as other hunting weapons. I actually don't know how that works for hunting rifles - I am not a hunter. I assume that you must be able to buy "hunting capacity" magazines for Mini-14s, but I don't know how the Fish and Game people make sure you only hunt with the "hunting capacity" magazines. Maybe some of you hunters know how all of that works.

Yep.

That means they'll support my right to 100 round Beta drums, because they're legal for hunting here.

There is no magazine restriction in this state for hunting.

Glad to see they'll be supporting us.

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 12:47 PM
I guess this means you won't be asking Ray whether AHSA would/does support or recommend any additional restriction on the sale/ownership/use of semi-automatic hunting rifles.

I don't see any indication on their gun policy web site that they have intention of supporting or recommending any additional restrictions on semi-automatic hunting rifles. I feel very confident that the AHSA does not recommend any additional restrictions on any semi-automatic rifles (hunting or sporting) - so asking the question is a bit like asking "When did you stop beating your wife"?

However, I would encourage you to contact the AHSA directly with a question if you are concerned. Relying on what the NRA-ILA says about AHSA is a bit like relying on what Sarah Palin says about Barack Obama. It might be better to get it from the directly from horse's mouth. Here is a link to their "Contact Us" page. Note that it takes a long time to get a response back (or it did in the past when I contacted them). I made the suggestion about presenting a Sharps Shiloh to Obama in September or October, and only heard back recently.

AHSA Contact (http://www.huntersandshooters.org/contact)

Mike

Carl N. Brown
January 15, 2009, 12:47 PM
What's the "sporting purpose" test for a Civil War musket or rifle? For that matter, what is "sporting purpose" as applied to the ATF Curio and Relic list?

Gun owners own guns for different puposes: hunting, target shooting, self-defense, historical relic, and some I have probably missed.

I use muzzleloading rifle, cap'n'ball pistol, vintage and modern military rifles and .22 rimfire in target shooting, and I really don't want to limited because someone else sees no need for this or that for hunting.

Robert Sherrill pointed out in The Saturday Night Special (1975) that after all at the most, crime use represents 1 of every 400 guns. The NSPOF 1994 survey (Cook & Ludwig 1997) showed that only about one-third of gunowners cited self-defense as their primary reason for having a gun. Yet all the gun law discussion centers on (a) crime and (b) self-defense.

Any thing you can do wrong with a gun is already against the law (malum per se); the malum prohibitum--bad because banned--gun laws don't really affect criminal behaviour, but can criminalize gun owners who have no malum per se criminal intent. If Wright & Rossi (1983), Lott (2000), CDC (2003) and NAS (2004) are correct, there is no measurable benefit from any of these gun control laws, which means billions of dollars and millions of police man hours have been wasted for no benefit.

Besides, the founders of AHSA were gun control supporters, not gun sportsmen, and AHSA existed as a website before it had any membership. Feels like Astroturf to me.

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 12:48 PM
They show to still have it in the IRS records. 4 would allow some lobbying. We'll see if they file a status change in this tax year.

How do you get to those IRS records? I'd like to read them.

Thanks,

Mike

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 01:01 PM
I am happy to report that he expressed strong opposition to an assault weapons ban. He did argue that when used for hunting, AR-15s would have the same magazine limitations as other hunting weapons.

he did not want AR-15s regulated any differently than any other of what he would call "semi-automatic hunting rifles
So as long as my AR-15 doesn't have 2 or more of the following features:, a pistol grip, a bayonet, a flash hider, a threaded bbl, or bbl shroud, a detachable magazine that accepts more than 10 rounds, I should be okay? And I can have those if it's manufactured prior to 1994, right?

Yep, that's really against a '94 ban right there, uh-hu! :rolleyes:

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 01:02 PM
How do you get to those IRS records? I'd like to read them.

I found an old reference on Google a while back to the tax status of AHSA. Not sure how you go about getting them directly, though it's said to be available.

That's why I do say they may have changed to 501c4. The NRA is now a 501c4 and there are differences in the amount and techniques of lobbying but I don't know exactly how all that works.

Or they might not be a 501 anything, maybe just a simple corporation. The tax status I saw was before they had any members, when they first "opened" with the private donations from their board of directors.

Look, I would love to be 100% wrong about everything I've posted on AHSA.

But at the end of the day most of the board members at one time or another were associated with Handgun Control Inc and there's no way you can spin that as a pro gun organization.

If they are only about hunting, and say "screw handguns and assault weapons" then fine, be up front and honest about it.

But, they continue to try to tie every use of firearms back to hunting in some way, yet claim to be proponents of the Second Amendment. That piece of writing doesn't use the word "hunting" anywhere in it.

So, AHSA is made up of all the former Handgun Control Inc people and that tells me all I need to know until I see real action taken otherwise.

Til then its just talk.

Whether they endorse Obama or not doesn't really bother me, many people believe Obama will not be an enemy of guns, and that remains to be seen as well. NRA has supported candidates that came back to bite them, wouldn't be anything new in the lobbying world.

My anti AHSA feeliings have nothing to do with Obama, they are based on the attachment of the board to HCI and Americans for Gun Safety in their past.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 01:03 PM
I guess calling hunters "Fudd" and deriding their choice of weapons and hobbies is just way of spreading brotherly love.
We don't hunters in general "fudds", a fudd is a name for a hunter who wants to ban all "not sporting enough" guns. The AHSA is the brady campaign pretending to be fudds.

deriding their choice of weapons and hobbies
Again, that's not true. I don't even like weapons with pistol grips or that are "tacticool",(But strongly oppose banning them) and prefer hunting-type guns.

Jorg Nysgerrig
January 15, 2009, 01:06 PM
How do you get to those IRS records? I'd like to read them.
You can get their 990 filings online, search for them here: http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/

There you find all kinds of interesting information.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 01:15 PM
I don't see any indication on their gun policy web site that they have intention of supporting or recommending any additional restrictions on semi-automatic hunting rifles. I feel very confident that the AHSA does not recommend any additional restrictions on any semi-automatic rifles (hunting or sporting) - so asking the question is a bit like asking "When did you stop beating your wife"?
They used to have on their website, as pointed out in the other thread, support for another AWB. That would regulate all semi-auto rifles, including hunting rifles. The AR-15 could still be purchased, but it would have to be in "sporting" configuration. (no non-Hillary-approved features, magazine capacity 10 rounds or less.)

BHP FAN
January 15, 2009, 01:18 PM
''I guess calling hunters "Fudd" and deriding their choice of weapons and hobbies is just way of spreading brotherly love... ''
I just read the whole thing,and didn't see the Fudd calling you referenced?

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 01:24 PM
What's the "sporting purpose" test for a Civil War musket or rifle? For that matter, what is "sporting purpose" as applied to the ATF Curio and Relic list?

As a "legal test" we are in complete agreement.

As a persuasive tactic, demonstrating that a weapon has a legitimate hunting/sporting purpose helps to persuade people who disagree with you.

I have seen your name on THR ever since I have been around here. I think that we might both charitably conclude the most THR posters are possessed of a deep mastery in creating arguments that convince people who already agree with them - what we in the south call "preaching to the choir".

I understand that phenomenon - it's a lot easier to persuade someone that you are correct if they already agree with you before you start. For me, it's not as intellectually interesting as trying to persuade someone who disagrees with you, but different strokes for different folks ...

The reason that I brought up "sporting purpose" is because that's the common argument folks who are opposed to a particular weapon cite, "I don't know why you want a xxx. What will you use it for?"

One answer that question is "None of your business". While I think that's probably a correct answer, I would suggest that its persuasive power is zilch - at least with regard to persuading people who disagree with you.

Another answer is "It used in yyy by sportsmen." That is generally, I think more persuasive to people who may disagree with you.

Mike

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 01:26 PM
Thanks for the link Jorg.

This goes back to what I was saying.

Here is the list of executives from the latest filings there:

Ronald Schuman - Former ATF agent who works for Crime Gun Solutions. This company testifies against gun manufacturers in lawsuits, and has worked extensively for the Brady Campaign.

Joseph Vince, Jr. - President of Crime Gun Solutions and former ATF agent who helped write the Clinton AWB from a technical perspective.

Ray Shoenke - The "Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation" is listed as a high dollar donor to Handgun Control Inc and both Ray and his wife have attended HCI fundraising dinners in the past. Not just his wife as some have argued.

Dave Evans - Never heard of this one :) He's treasurer, maybe just an accountant, dunno.

Robert Ricker - previously employed as lobbyist for HCI and I believe Brady Campaign. Ricker also testified on behalf of the City of New York in at least one of Bloombergs lawsuits. He reports his other work is with "Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence" and "Virginians for Public Safety". You can look those up for yourself and see what they are.


So that is the makeup and the financial backing of AHSA. According to the 2007 tax records right at 20% of their money came from members, the rest donated by these men right here.

These are pro gun?

You just can't make that argument in any way at all no matter what they might put on their website.

Again, for at least the 10th time, maybe more, I will ask you to explain this and why you believe these men are pro gun.

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 01:26 PM
I just read the whole thing,and didn't see the Fudd calling you referenced?

I was joking about a general proclivity on THR for calling hunters "Fudd". Search will show lots of instances. I tjhink that calling someone names and making fun of their abilities - as a group - drives a wedge.

Mike

ServiceSoon
January 15, 2009, 01:29 PM
Mr. Schoenke wanted to talk to me about my suggestion that we give a Shiloh Sharps rifle to President Obama - my suggestion to him by email had been that we present an all American rifle like Shiloh Sharps in an all American caliber like 45-70 to President Obama. Sounds like a political stunt to garner support for the AHSA organization. I can see the news headline now, “Obama accepts all American firearm from gun rights group AHSA.” “I believe Americans have a second amendment right, and the AHSA is a group I support,” says the newly elected president Obama :barf:

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 01:32 PM
There you find all kinds of interesting information.

I can look at the 990, how do I tell what kind of corp they are?

Mike

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 01:33 PM
I can look at the 990, how do I tell what kind of corp they are?

The 990 is required for non-profit organizations of all types except churches I think.

Form 990 and Form 990-EZ are used by tax-exempt political organizations and nonexempt charitable trusts. Parts
organizations, nonexempt charitable trusts, and section 527 I through XI of the form must be completed by all filing
political organizations to provide the IRS with the information organizations and require reporting on the organization’s
required by section 6033.

Pretty vague. Covers lots of stuff; 501 and 527. Could be c3, c4 of 527. c4 and 527 can lobby so I suspect they have changed to one of those. The board members are smart enough to know how this stuff goes, they have years of experience doing it.

527's are, as I understand it, what you'd traditionally call this stuff and I think that's what the NRA-ILA is.

Not that it changes things much.

SuperNaut
January 15, 2009, 01:38 PM
I was joking about a general proclivity on THR for calling hunters "Fudd". Search will show lots of instances.

A search showed me no such thing.

I did find many examples of people using Fudd as a term to describe hunters who only support the 2a when it is framed as a hunting issue. IOW it is a very specific term. Based on my searching, there is no "general proclivity on THR for calling hunters 'Fudd'."

I tjhink that calling someone names and making fun of their abilities - as a group - drives a wedge.

I'd agree; that is, if what you wrote were accurate.

rbernie
January 15, 2009, 01:39 PM
I don't see any indication on their gun policy web site that they have intention of supporting or recommending any additional restrictions on semi-automatic hunting rifles. I feel very confident that the AHSA does not recommend any additional restrictions on any semi-automatic rifles (hunting or sporting) - so asking the question is a bit like asking "When did you stop beating your wife"?That is a ludicrous statement. Given that their web site does not contain this data, asking for their position is absolutely relevant and appropriate.

"When did you stop beating your wife"? is a question for which there is no correct answer, and that is designed to entrap the answerer. I am posing no such question. I am asking if the AHSA supports any restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or use of semiautomatic 'hunting' rifles other than those restrictions that currently exist.

I do not know how much more linear or fair a question can get.

Relying on what the NRA-ILA says about AHSA is a bit like relying on what Sarah Palin says about Barack ObamaI am not. I am relying upon your original post, and asking a good faith question to continue one of the topics in that post.

At any rate, Mr. Schoenke is very clear on the fact that the AWB is a silly law the regulates the looks of some kinds of semi-automatic weapons. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but if I understood home correctly, he did not want AR-15s regulated any differently than any other of what he would call "semi-automatic hunting rifles".Are you not willing to defend and/or elaborate upon your own statements?

The logic extrapolation of your conversation with Ray is the question of whether the AHSA supports any Federal or state restrictions on the manufacture or sale or ownership of semiautomatic 'hunting' rifles other than those restrictions that currently exist. Since he lumped AR15 restrictions into the same camp as other semiautomatic hunting rifles, it stands to reason that we should ask AHSA their position WRT that broader class of rifles.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 01:40 PM
I was joking about a general proclivity on THR for calling hunters "Fudd". Search will show lots of instances. I tjhink that calling someone names and making fun of their abilities - as a group - drives a wedge.
No, a "fudd" is someone like Zumbo, who opposes weapons that "aren't sporting enough".

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 01:52 PM
Again, for at least the 10th time, maybe more, I will ask you to explain this and why you believe these men are pro gun.

If you have raises your objection 9 previous times, then there is - by definition - nothing new there.

To repeat myself:

I do not want to repeat the debate we had two days ago about the AHSA - if you have any overall objections to the AHSA, please see the following two threads:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=419569

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=405427

I will not repeat any arguments in either of those threads. If you want to raise some new objection to the AHSA, please PM me. If it's truly new, we may have a private discussion. If it's a re-hash of anything in those threads, I will probably ignore it.

For folks who were not on the previous two threads, I don't want to appear to be dismissing TexasRifleman's questions out of hand. We have had two very long exhaustive discussions about the theory that the AHSA has a secret agenda, is really a "front" for anti's, etc. I believe that I answered all of TexasRiflelman's objections, he thinks that I did not. That's OK.

When the last thread was closed the moderator suggested that the thread was getting long and repetitive, and that any future threads on the same tactic would be closed, and posters would be referred to the previous threads.

I am inclined to think that the mod was correct - and doesn't really matter whether I think the mod was correct or not - the mods are the RSO's here. So I will not enter into any long debates about AHSA here.

I opened this thread because of my conversation with Ray Schoenke about AWBs and the SHSA policy about 50 BMG weapons. Other stuff is for PM.

This is the last time I will respond to postings about AHSA diabolical conspiracies, etc. on this thread.

Mike

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 01:58 PM
Nevermind, I'm done. The board members actions speak for themselves.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 02:01 PM
If they don't support an AWB now, why would they support one a while ago?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070311003726/www.huntersandshooters.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=22&Itemid=43

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. What this means is no private sales, another "it's a crime, Bill"!, and no hollowpoints. (How are you supposed to hunt without softpoints or hollowpoints, anyway?)

SuperNaut
January 15, 2009, 02:14 PM
For some reason this is still up on the AHSA website:

AHSA supports legislative efforts to regulate .50 caliber BMG sniper rifles in the same manner as machine guns are regulated under the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

There's a lot more, follow this link (http://www.huntersandshooters.org/issues/gunrights/50caliber). The link contains contradictory statements about the AHSA's concern about criminal use and Mr. Shoenke's admission of the "miniscule" use of the .50 by criminals. This is odd.

Wouldn't it be amazing if Mike were able to change AHSA policy? Given Mr. Shoenke's statements to Mike on the phone it is obvious that he isn't as against the .50 as the AHSA website would have you believe. If Mr. Shoenke has any influence as president/chairman/whatever I'd expect a change in the AHSA's position. I mean it seems that there is a philosophical split between what Mr. Schoenke has said to Mike and the official position of the AHSA.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 02:16 PM
Given Mr. Shoenke's statements to Mike on the phone it is obvious that he isn't as against the .50 as the AHSA website would have you believe.
He said he was against them, I believe he just didn't want to make Mike mad and ruin his political stunt.

Mr. Schoenke agreed that the evidence for criminal use of the 50 BMG was "minuscule".

Unfortunately, the cell phone connection was very bad at that point and I couldn't really understand his response
If he did say he was against it, Mike wouldn't have been able to undestand him anyway.

Remember this:
Ray Shoenke - The "Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation" is listed as a high dollar donor to Handgun Control Inc and both Ray and his wife have attended HCI fundraising dinners in the past. Not just his wife as some have argued.

SuperNaut
January 15, 2009, 02:24 PM
I'm speaking directly to the OP's implication that the AHSA might change their policy. I'm curious about how much influence Mr. Shoenke has upon "his" organization. You'd think that the president/chairman/whatever would want "his" organization to be in line with his own beliefs.

You'd think...

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 02:28 PM
I'm speaking directly to the OP's implication that the AHSA might change their policy. I'm curious about how much influence Mr. Shoenke has upon "his" organization. You'd think that the president/chairman/whatever would want "his" organization to be in line with his own beliefs.

You'd think...
I think it already is.

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 02:31 PM
Wouldn't it be amazing if Mike were able to change AHSA policy? Given Mr. Shoenke's statements to Mike on the phone it is obvious that he isn't as against the .50 as the AHSA website would have you believe. If Mr. Shoenke has any influence as president/chairman/whatever I'd expect a change in the AHSA's position. I mean it seems that there is a philosophical split between what Mr. Schoenke has said to Mike and the official position of the AHSA.

I don't know about "amazing", but I do hope to change AHSA policy this regard.

I do need to read the GAO report referenced on the link you cite. I have not yet done so.

Mike

hso
January 15, 2009, 02:31 PM
Folks, this is supposed to be an Activism Discussion thread on how to get the AHSA to drop their .50 opposition.

Can we focus on that?

What do folks propose to change their position? How should we put this new contact with the AHSA leadership to help change that position? Picking at the AHSA isn't the objective here. Making a change on this issue is. What are the ideas on making that happen?

SuperNaut
January 15, 2009, 02:33 PM
Mike is also testing his own theory about the amount of influence that the AHSA's membership wields. Mike obviously disagrees with the positions held by the organization to which he belongs; I wonder how long he will remain a member of an organization that doesn't represent his beliefs?

To follow Hso's advice, I think a THR email campaign vigorously endorsed by Mike that is critical of the AHSA's position on the .50 would be effective.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 02:41 PM
This is what they say about them on the website:
Issue: Modern semiautomatic .50 caliber BMG sniper rifles are weapons designed for military use that combine long range, accuracy, and massive power. Intended for use in combat situations, these weapons can penetrate structures and destroy or disable light armored vehicles, radar dishes, helicopters, stationary airplanes, and other “high-value” military targets. The Branch Davidian cult in Waco, Texas, Al Qaeda, the Irish Republican Army, street and motorcycle gangs in California, Missouri and Indiana, and various militia groups and criminals across the United States are all documented as having possessed or used modern .50 caliber BMG sniper rifles
Apparently motorcycle gangs are using the .50 BMG for drive-by shootings. :rolleyes:
And I'd be more concerned with Al-Queda's RPGs than their 50's. (Which they probably got from a supplier like Iran.)

I think someone's being fooled.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 02:48 PM
The "I use it for target shooting" argument won't work.
The .50 caliber BMG’s popularity lies not just with target shooters, but criminals, gangs and terrorists as well.
This statement is false of course, as .50 BMGs have been used in only 5 or so crimes ever, in the history of the U.S. Ferraris have probably been used more than that.

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 02:55 PM
Folks, this is supposed to be an Activism Discussion thread on how to get the AHSA to drop their .50 opposition.

It seems like place to start is with the GAO report cited on the AHSA web page. Here it is:

http://archive.gao.gov/paprpdf2/162397.pdf

I can guarantee you'll know one name on that report! :)

At least they talked with the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association.

It appears to me that only the last two paragraphs on page 6 raise any issues relevant to the criminal use of 50 BMG weapons.Most of the previous 6 pages are about availability.

This report was from 1999 - does anyone know of any more recent reports from agencies/organizations with credibility similar to the GAO?

Mike

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 03:00 PM
They aren't going to change their minds just because of statistics, or facts. You'll have to find some other way.

In my opinion this is more pointless than trying to get their fellow anti-gun organization, the Brady campaign, to change their view of handguns.

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 03:07 PM
This statement is false of course, as .50 BMGs have been used in only 5 or so crimes ever, in the history of the U.S.

If that is true, that is a powerful argument against re-classifying 50 BMG weapons as NFA weapons. Do you have a cite for statement from a source likely to be convincing to folks who would accept the GAO report?

If not, then maybe the next step would be to lobby members of Congress to request another report. I don't know quite how the GAO decides what to investigate, and what not to investigate, but the cover letter for the report makes it appear that the report was at the request of five members of Congress. The report cited by the SHSA web page is almost 10 years old - presumably the investigations cited are somewhat older than that.

If the new report replicates the data from the old report - next to no use of 50 BMG weapons in criminal activity - then I think that would bolster the effort to change the AHSA policy.

Mike

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 03:39 PM
The "Violence policy center" was, last time I checked, only able to document 4 uses of the cartridge in a crime.

Also, the General Accounting Office prepared a report in 1999, in which it stated that the ATF had only received a total of 18 "traces" for 50 BMG rifles related to criminal activity for rifles made by the largest of 50 BMG manufacturers, Barrett. I believe only one was actually used in a crime.

If the new report replicates the data from the old report - next to no use of 50 BMG weapons in criminal activity - then I think that would bolster the effort to change the AHSA policy.
No, it wouldn't. The AHSA is handgun control inc. disguised as fuds(I already posted the definition.) international inc.

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 03:40 PM
This statement is false of course, as .50 BMGs have been used in only 5 or so crimes ever, in the history of the U.S.

This is where groups that are pro gun and anti gun diverge.

Groups like AHSA and Brady Campaign dispute those numbers. While the 5 or so uses of the rifle are well known, and any pro gun group knows where to find these statistics, the anti groups like these skew the numbers.

They do this by including crimes where a .50 caliber was PRESENT at the crime scene, even if it wasn't used.

An example of .50 caliber "crime":

On April 1, 2008, police in Hanover Maryland found a cache of firearms including a 50 caliber Barrett sniper rifle, an Uzi, and several other rifles and handguns in a hotel room after a man was evicted from the room. When police searched the man's car they found Oxycontin.

On February 17, 2008 police in Newbury, Massachusetts charged a man with 26 counts of failing to safely store weapons after officers responding to a domestic violence call found 20 firearms including a 50 caliber Armalite sniper rifle.

They continue to argue that the POTENTIAL for criminal use is there.

And they are right.

The POTENTIAL exists for my wife's Yorkie to kill everyone in the neighborhood, even though there is no historical data to show that it's ever happened.

But since it's POSSIBLE, you cannot refute the argument.

And that's where the anti gun groups thrive, on that fear that it COULD happen.

Even VPC, for the years 1989-2007 could only come up with 22 instances, most of these as described above, the 50 caliber was just on site, not actually fired. A good number of these were not in the US so they don't apply anyway.

http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm

This argument is illegitimate on the face. 50 calbers are not statistically relevant in crime, and never have been and any group that calls itself pro gun would know this and not have to be shown "the error of their ways".

For actual sources, the CDC and FBI both track this kind of thing.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 03:42 PM
and any group that calls itself pro gun would know this and not have to be shown "the error of their ways".
+1.

But this is AHSA, also known as handgun control inc. with a mask on.

rbernie
January 15, 2009, 03:46 PM
Making a change on this issue is. What are the ideas on making that happen?This is the necessary question to ask, and I'm afraid that the answer seems to be, "Can't be done, because AHSA already knows the data we'd like them to consider and they simply won't internalize it."

On the second issue, I did express my objections to the AHSA suggestion that 50 BMG weapons as NFA weapons. His argument was that there wasn't a legitimate hunting use for a 50 BMG weapon, unless you are hunting elephants. I argued that there are legitimate non-hunting uses for 50 BMG weapons - the example I used was long range target shooting - and that I hadn't seen any stats indicating any criminal use of 50 BMG weapons. I think that criminal use of full auto weapons was the basis of the 1934 NFA. Mr. Schoenke agreed that the evidence for criminal use of the 50 BMG was "minuscule".
How do you argue with somebody who concedes your points but still opposes you? It's irrational, and it cannot be directly addressed.

As an Activism Planning thread, this one is (IMO, of course) a loss unless you move out of the area of the 50cal arena and into the area of the AWB and semi-auto hunting rifles. In that area, the AHSA position is far less clear and not terribly linear.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 04:00 PM
His argument was that there wasn't a legitimate hunting use for a 50 BMG weapon, unless you are hunting elephants
You can hunt deer at really long range, but that requires some really good shooting.

Also, are "elephant guns" suddenly non-sporting? Shall we ban the .375 H&H?(Also used for hunting bigger North American game by those who can stand the recoil.)

SuperNaut
January 15, 2009, 04:12 PM
Also, are "elephant guns" suddenly non-sporting?

Good catch. Apparently in addition to certain shooters there are also certain hunters that the American Hunters and Shooters Association do not support. LOL! Who do they support besides Obama?

Mike there's another stance that needs illumination.

Jim K
January 15, 2009, 04:28 PM
AHSA, no matter what they say now, has never considered anything but hunting as a "sporting use" of any firearm. They have said that guns with no legitimate "sporting" (i.e. hunting) use should be banned.

Further, they have made it clear that only single and double barrel shotguns are "sporting guns" and that everything else can and should be banned. (Same laws as Australia and England.)

Jim

hso
January 15, 2009, 04:30 PM
The largest dangerous game in the US is the grizzly and polar bear. Both of these are hunted. The largest non-dangerous game in the US is the elk and moose. Many shots on elk are taken at long range and a heavy flat trajectory bullet is well suited to this sort of hunting. The moose is can be dangerous game due to size and temperament. The .50 is suitable for any of these and therefore a suitable hunting round.

Add long range competition shooting as well as recreational shooting and the fact that there's no statistically significant crimes committed with these firearms and there's little point in restricting or banning them.

Not recognizing the use of these firearms in hunting, competition and recreational shooting is as hypocritical as those "hunting authorities" who said AR type rifles weren't in use in hunting.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 04:55 PM
So let's get this all in to one: They support a ban on hollowpoints, .50 BMGs, they want another AWB(This would affect semi-auto hunting rifles, so AR's would be subject to it like he said.), they want to outlaw private sales of guns, and apparently now they consider guns for hunting the biggest animals "un-sporting".

BTW, he should know that a .50 BMG would probably not be a good choice for elephants, due to it's weight and size. But nonetheless, by his logic, .375 H&H should be outlawed, regardless of the fact it can be a good caliber for stopping bears.

CoRoMo
January 15, 2009, 05:09 PM
His argument was that there wasn't a legitimate hunting use for a 50 BMG weapon, unless you are hunting elephants.

He doesn't seem to have a complete grasp of the hunting community then.
I've come across people who do in fact hunt, at very long ranges mind you, with their .50 BMG rifles. They are actually competition shooters who also hunt elk, and found a way to combine the two. Finding and taking elk beyond 1,000 yards is extremely challenging as you could imagine. Maybe Mr. Schoenke just doesn't consider this 'legitimate' and would prefer to continue his efforts to remove that freedom from this type hunter/shooter.

rbernie
January 15, 2009, 05:16 PM
His argument was that there wasn't a legitimate hunting use for a 50 BMG weapon, unless you are hunting elephants.Of course, the Makah tribe (http://www.makah.com/whaling.htm) would disagree with Ray, but I doubt that he cares much:

In 1999 and 2000, we had a crew of 8 whalers in a 36 foot long canoe which was carved from a single cedar log. The harpooner was in the bow of the canoe and used a stainless steel harpoon mounted on a wooden shaft approximately seven feet long, connected by ropes to buoys and to the canoe. The rifleman was stationed on a chaseboat and fired a specially designed .50 caliber rifle soon after the harpoon was thrown to dispatch the whale. The configuration of this rifle achieves immediate unconsciousness and death of the whale when fired at the target area near the base of the skull. It is the most humane method that can be employed.
After the death of the whale, a Makah diver went into the water to lash the whale's jaws shut to prevent it from sinking. He also attached lines to enable the whale to be towed back to shore. The carcass was beached at one of the Makah's traditional beaches and whaling family representatives carved the blubber and meat and distributed it in accordance with traditional Makah practice.

alsaqr
January 15, 2009, 05:21 PM
I totally detest any so called hunting organization that wants more gun control. Do not drink the AHSA poisoned Kool Aid. How are we going to get the AHSA to change their position on gun control? We are not going to be able to persuade this bunch on anti-gunners to change their position.

Look at the founders of the AHSA:

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=AHSA&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.nssf.org/share/pdf/AHSA_Fact_Sheet.pdf&w=ahsa+%22ah+sa%22&d=LcqMqUfiSEb2&icp=1&.intl=us

Founders / Executives
While AHSA purports to be a pro-hunting, pro-conservation and pro-gun organization, its leadership and board would qualify
as a blue ribbon committee of activists who are anything but friends to the hunting, shooting sports and firearms community.
Let’s take a look at who runs this “hunters and shooters” organization:

Robert Ricker (Executive Director, AHSA) • Paid witness against the firearms industry for cases where plaintiffs attempted to hold gun manufacturers liable for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties. • Monthly salary of $3000; AHSA claims no more than 150 members who pay $25 dues. The rest of the money comes from “individual contributions” with the largest contributors on the AHSA board of directors.iv• Paid an hourly fee of $225 to $250 dollars for testimony, depositions, and meetings with the Brady Campaign.v• Consults for the Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence (the “educational” arm of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence).vi(http://www.csgv.org/) • Consults with Virginians for Public Safety (http://www.vapublicsafety.com/) (lobbying for additional restrictions on law abiding gun owners).vii

Ray Schoenke (President, AHSA) • Mr. Schoenke, his wife, his daughter and son have been generous donors of anti-gun candidates including: Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Carolyn McCarthy and John Kerry.viii• Mr. Schoenke and his wife donated $10,000 to Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) in 2000.ix• Mr. Schoenke’s daughter and son each contributed $5000 to HCI in 2000.x

John Rosenthal (President, AHSA Foundation) • Rosenthal is the leader of Stop Handgun Violence, the principal anti-gun group in the state of Massachusetts (credited with being the “political force behind the strict gun control laws of Massachusetts”xi) • Rosenthal is a former member of the HCI board of directors, now known as the Brady Campaign. • Rosenthal has most recently focused his energy on voicing opposition to firearms’ advertisements during sporting events < http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=154057>

Jody Powell (Co-Chairman, AHSA Advisory Board) • Press Secretary for one of the most anti-gun U.S. administrations, President Jimmy Carter.

Joe Vince (Board Member, AHSA) • Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) architect of the Clinton-Gore regulatory assault on the Second Amendment. • His company Crime Gun Solutions (CGS) employs a number of other ex-ATF officials including Gerard Nunziato, who told the Houston Chronicle that “If it wasn’t for criminals, there wouldn’t be a gun industry in this country.” • Crime Gun Solutions provides consulting services for the lawyers at the Brady Campaign, frequently appearing as paid expert witnesses in lawsuits against the firearms industry. i“NRA Doesn’t Represent Both Hunters and Gun Owners” (Bill Schneider, NewWest, July 21, 2006) iihttp://www.huntersandshooters.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=130&Itemid=32 (The American Hunters and Shooters Association website)

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 05:33 PM
I've come across people who do in fact hunt, at very long ranges mind you, with their .50 BMG rifles.

Many shots on elk are taken at long range and a heavy flat trajectory bullet is well suited to this sort of hunting. The moose is can be dangerous game due to size and temperament. The .50 is suitable for any of these and therefore a suitable hunting round.

Do you know of any stats on the use of 50 BMG in hunting. While the AHSA's name is Hunters and Shooters, my perspective is that they lean towards hunters - so stats on 50 BMG's used in hunting would carry a lot of wieght.

Mike

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 05:45 PM
so stats on 50 BMG's used in hunting would carry a lot of wieght.

Why? You posted in the other threads, multiple times, the AHSA statement that :

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"

These 27 words protect the rights of Americans to own and use guns. The American Hunters and Shooters Association is committed to these words and the ideas and principals behind them.

Seriously, which is it? Only hunting or does the Second Amendment matter? The word hunting makes no appearance in the Second Amendment.

You are arguing it both ways and it can't work that way.

You are now discussing engaging in a debate with the guy that wrote both that statement on the Second Amendment, and the AHSA position on .50 BMG, Ray Schoenke.

Do you not have a hard time reconciling these viewpoints that run completely counter to each other?

That's what I have been asking you all along, how to you reconcile these 2 types of statements?

Even if AHSA is just about hunting, is there harm done to the environment or hunting by the continued sale of .50 BMG rifles? Of course not.

So where is the connection between being pro Second Amendment yet calling for the ban of a rifle that poses no threat to hunting or conservation yet embodies the very purpose of the Second Amendment as reaffirmed in Heller?

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 05:50 PM
As an Activism Planning thread, this one is (IMO, of course) a loss unless you move out of the area of the 50cal arena and into the area of the AWB and semi-auto hunting rifles. In that area, the AHSA position is far less clear and not terribly linear.

Since the AHSA page says absolutely nothing about support for an AWB or new regulations on semi-auto hunting rifles, and Mr. Schoenke expressed his opposition to an AWB, I don't see much to advocate for. He already agrees with me on this one.

Note that it is not the AHSA that says they are for a AWB - it's folks who are opposed the AHSA.

So am I supposed to ask, "You told me that you are opposed to an AWB, but some NRA advocates I know say you are lying. Are you sure that you are not lying? Are you really, really sure you're not lying?"

I would prefer to focus my efforts on overturning a publicly stated policy with which I disagree.

Mike

Fburgtx
January 15, 2009, 05:55 PM
Hey Mike,
I'll ask you for some stats! Any stats on how many gun ranges the AHSA has donated money to in order to help build/maintain facilities??? Any stats on how many youth education shooting programs the AHSA has??? Any stats on how many pro-gun bills have been introduced by Obama (AHSA has an offer of a "Pro-gun/Pro-Obama" bumper sticker on their website) during his time as a state or U.S. Senator (or for that matter, how many pro-gun bills has he voted in favor of??)???

Any idea where I can get an AHSA magazine??? (Oh, they don't have one???)Any chance you could show us what an AHSA membership card looks like???

You can talk all you want, but you're going to have a hard time convincing most folks that an organization made up of members/former members of HCI/Brady/etc. are anything more than a "media front" attempting to betray the rights of gun owners.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 05:55 PM
Since the AHSA page says absolutely nothing about support for an AWB or new regulations on semi-auto hunting rifles,
It did on July 1st, 2006.

Mr. Schoenke expressed his opposition to an AWB,
No, he didn't. He said he didn't want AR-15s regulated more than semi-auto hunting rifles. Under an AWB, semi-auto hunting rifles also have to obey the rules about no bayonets, pistol grips, or magazines holding more than 10 rounds, just like AR-15s. He didn't voice any opposition at all.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 05:56 PM
for that matter, how many pro-gun bills has he voted in favor of??)???
I believe it's one, and only one. He once showed his support for a complete hnadgun ban.

rbernie
January 15, 2009, 05:57 PM
So am I supposed to ask, "You told me that you are opposed to an AWB, but some NRA advocates I know say you are lying. Are you sure that you are not lying? Are you really, really sure you're not lying?"Now you're being silly to the point of rudeness.

I am not an NRA advocate, first and foremost. I am a gun owner. If you wish to paint me with what you consider perjorative labels, at least pick the correct brush and palette.

You stated that Ray's position equated 'assault weapons' with semi auto hunting rifles. I accept that. What is unstated in that is Ray's position on potential limitations WRT semi auto hunting rifles.

I did not ask:You told me that you are opposed to an AWB, but some NRA advocates I know say you are lying. Are you sure that you are not lying? Are you really, really sure you're not lying?

I asked:

whether the AHSA supports any Federal or state restrictions on the manufacture or sale or ownership of semiautomatic 'hunting' rifles other than those restrictions that currently exist

No reasonable person can intuit the former from the latter. Your tap dancing around a basic simple and non-leading question is bordering on intellectual fraud.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 05:59 PM
is bordering on intellectual fraud.
AHSA's already crossed that border, he's here to defend them.

As said before, an "assault weapons" ban would also regulate semi-automatic hunting rifles just like AR-15s, by not allowing them pistol grips and bayonets, or magazines with more than 10 round capacity.

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 06:01 PM
is bordering on intellectual fraud.

Yes, and it's repeated in these threads, which is why I have questioned the nature of the relationship between the OP and AHSA.

This doublespeak is familiar.

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 06:03 PM
So where is the connection between being pro Second Amendment yet calling for the ban of a rifle that poses no threat to hunting or conservation yet embodies the very purpose of the Second Amendment as reaffirmed in Heller?

Is this line of argument in any way related to a discussion of how to get AHSA to drop their support for a policy to classify 50 BMG weapons as NFA weapons?

Mike

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 06:04 PM
Yes, and it's repeated in these threads, which is why I have questioned the nature of the relationship between the OP and AHSA.

This doublespeak is familiar

He won't answer simple questions and keeps ignoring facts. I believe that his real goal is to convince us that anti-gun Brady campaign endorsed liberals are better than pro-gun NRA endorsed conservatives.

Is this line of argument in any way related to a discussion of how to get AHSA to drop their support for a policy to classify 50 BMG weapons as NFA weapons?
Yes it is, you could point out to them their faulty logic. (Although I'm not sure I agree that the .50 rifle "embodies the second amendment's purpose as confirmed by the Heller case." )

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 06:05 PM
Is this line of argument in any way related to a discussion of how to get AHSA to drop their support for a policy to classify 50 BMG weapons as NFA weapons?


Of course it is. It's to question AHSA on why their position exists in the first place.

Do you know WHY the current position is as stated or does that not matter to you?

If you don't know WHY they are against the .50 in the first place how exactly do you expect to change any opinions?

That you don't want to answer the question is irrelevant.

Would you not think it important to learn why someone thinks the way they do if you want to change their mind?

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

All you seem to be looking for is crime statistics or other random facts about the .50. That's not how any opinions will change, since those facts are already known by pretty much everyone.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 06:07 PM
If you don't know WHY they are against the .50 in the first place how exactly do you expect to change any opinions?
I don't think he wants to admit why.

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 06:08 PM
whether the AHSA supports any Federal or state restrictions on the manufacture or sale or ownership of semiautomatic 'hunting' rifles other than those restrictions that currently exist

Since the public web site does not express any such support, and Mr. Schoenke has told me that he is opposed to an AWB, exactly what are you asking me to advocate?

Am I supposed to advocate for a position that he (and presumably the AHSA) already support?

Mike

rbernie
January 15, 2009, 06:09 PM
Is this line of argument in any way related to a discussion of how to get AHSA to drop their support for a policy to classify 50 BMG weapons as NFA weapons?I tried that, by giving you an example of a valid hunting use of a 50BMG, and you ignored it in favor of ridiculing my questions WRT the AHSA stance on semiautomatic hunting rifles in general.

Your call, homie, but you're not doing a particularly good job of picking a subject and sticking to it and all the while fussing at us for not sticking to your chosen subject.

Since the public web site does not express any such support, and Mr. Schoenke has told me that he is opposed to an AWB, exactly what are you asking me to advocate?
You can read the words I wrote and glean the intended message, if you want to. If you do not want to, nothing I say will help you. The fact that you choose not to accept them renders my effort irrelevant no matter how many times I try.

You have demonstrated a complete inability to discuss and debate in good faith or with any intellectual honesty. You have no agenda for positive RKBA activism. You wish only to hold up AHSA, and proclaim their utility and goodness.

It doesn't pass the sniff test.

RPCVYemen
January 15, 2009, 06:11 PM
I don't think he wants to admit why.

The reason stated on the AHSA website is the GOA report - that's why I would like more info.

Mike

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 06:25 PM
What is AHSA's position on the .510 DTC EUROP or "50 DTC" as it's commonly known?

What is it about the .50BMG that is special?

The .510 DTC EUROP is a fraction of an inch shorter but has almost exactly the same ballistic characteristics. It would remain legal under a .50 BMG ban.

It was introduced in Europe after several countries there banned the .50BMG. It's moving into California now that that state has banned .50BMG as well.
Serbu is making one, others will follow.

What will the new AHSA position be on that? Banning of all rifle calibers of .50 or larger? If you do that you get the .600 Nitro and others which are the epitome of hunting rounds, in the great tradition of the double rifle.

It's this kind of thing that is the problem. Calling for bans on certain classes of firearms just causes the shooting industry to become creative and come up with alternatives. Then these groups try to ban the alternatives and the next thing you know you are back to only allowing .38 specials and 20 gauge shotguns.

It is for this reason, not any argument of hunting etc, that any organization that holds itself out to be pro Second Amendment cannot call for any ban on any class of firearm and remain true to their supposed goal of protecting the Second Amendment.

feedthehogs
January 15, 2009, 06:35 PM
AHSA is a front for gun control by people who have no concept of the second amendment.

Why expend one ounce of breath trying to convince their supporters otherwise?

Its like trying to get a 3 year old kid to make their bed, take out the trash and put their toys away. It ain't gonna happen no matter how much you talk.

Watch for political activities and report them to the IRS.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 06:39 PM
Since the public web site does not express any such support
It did in 2006. Remember the website is archived.


Mr. Schoenke has told me that he is opposed to an AWB
Your tap dancing is almost as good as Sammy Davis jr.'s.

He did not say he was opposed to one, unless he did so while the signal was breaking up. He said he wouldn't want the AR-15 regulated in a way that wouldn't also regulate other semi-automatic rifles. By what he said, another AWB would be fine, since the AR-15 wouldn't be regulated beyond the 10 round magazine limit, etc, that other semi-automatics would have to conform to. Remember, during the last AWB there were AR-15s made that were ban-legal, they didn't have too many non-Hillary-approved features and didn't have magazines with more than 10 round capacity.

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2009, 06:41 PM
Why expend one ounce of breath trying to convince their supporters otherwise?

Because someone needs to make sure their story is countered otherwise other people may start to believe this nonsense.

If AHSA and other groups can't answer the relatively softball questions like those here in this thread can they really be taken seriously?

ETA: Make no mistake, these guys have learned well through trial and error about what works and what doesn't. The AHSA makes a very compelling arument to the uninformed gun owner. It all sounds warm and fuzzy on the surface.

JImbothefiveth
January 15, 2009, 06:45 PM
If Mr. Schoenke and the AHSA oppose an AWB, why wouldn't they say that on their website, and why did they support one in 2006. (You know, before presidential campaigning started.)

Why expend one ounce of breath trying to convince their supporters otherwise?

Because someone needs to make sure their story is countered otherwise other people may start to believe this nonsense
+1

Oh, and another question from the previous thread that he didn't answer: If the AHSA is so pro-gun, why would the NRA attack them, but not the GOA, etc?

GregGry
January 15, 2009, 08:31 PM
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
January 15, 2009, 08:35 PM
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
January 15, 2009, 10:36 PM
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
January 15, 2009, 11:22 PM
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
January 15, 2009, 11:26 PM
RPCVYemen,

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

GregGry
January 15, 2009, 11:57 PM
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
January 16, 2009, 12:16 AM
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
January 16, 2009, 12:35 AM
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
January 16, 2009, 12:40 AM
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
January 16, 2009, 07:32 AM
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
January 16, 2009, 09:49 AM
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
January 16, 2009, 09:50 AM
Are you an anti yourself or just naive?

Please read the 1st post in this thread.

Mike

rbernie
January 16, 2009, 10:27 AM
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
January 16, 2009, 10:32 AM
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
January 16, 2009, 10:57 AM
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
January 16, 2009, 11:03 AM
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
January 16, 2009, 11:23 AM
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
January 16, 2009, 11:59 AM
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
January 16, 2009, 12:06 PM
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
January 16, 2009, 12:08 PM
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
January 16, 2009, 12:09 PM
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
January 16, 2009, 12:10 PM
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
January 16, 2009, 12:11 PM
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
January 16, 2009, 12:15 PM
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
January 16, 2009, 12:23 PM
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

JImbothefiveth
January 16, 2009, 12:25 PM
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. You have not been able to so far. That's because the answer involves AHSA being anti-gun.

I don't think you will be able to change their mind. That would be like convincing their predecessor(spelling?), handgun control incorporated, that handguns shouldn't be banned. If you convince them of this, that means they have to drop part of their anti-gun agenda, so they won't be convinced.

TexasRifleman
January 16, 2009, 12:33 PM
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.

And again, over and over, if you want to change a groups mind on something you need to understand THEIR MOTIVES for having an opinion in the first place. That is extremely relevant to this topic.

I will not PM you on anything. There is nothing I have to say that I am not willing to post publicly.

So again, your argument is to somehow change AHSA's position on the .50BMG and I am asking you WHY that position exists in the first place if they are a pro gun group.

I also asked you what you thought AHSA would think of the .50 DTC and other alternatives. The argument that the .50BMG has been used in crimes can't apply at all to the .50DTC since it is brand new.

It does however have the exact same ballistics characteristics of the .50BMG which is why approaching the issue from NFA, Heller, or Crime statistics is pointless; there will just be another caliber tomorrow and then you are into the Creeping Incrementalism of gun banning.

What then?

The fundamental argument to AHSA should be that "If you are a pro gun group you have to be a pro gun group all the way"

Having to argue specifically around the .50 BMG will not work for that reason. Today the .50BMG, tomorrow the .50DTC, then the .600 Nitro, then the 7mm Mag, then the .30-06, then the .308... 308? That's a military calber! Can't have that. .223? Military also. Rifle ammo? Some of that rifle ammp can pierce kevlar so it's "cop killer".

This isn't fantasty, this is how the creeping incrementalism has worked in other countries, and with many other organizations.

The AHSA must be completely pro gun or completely anti gun. There is no middle ground on this. If AHSA wants to focus on hunting, as their name implies, then do that, stay completely out of the .50 stuff to begin with.

If you cannot successfully make that simple argument to AHSA then they will remain, as they are now, an anti gun group.

It's VERY relevant to your thread, you just don't want to discuss it.

Here is an example of how this works. This is taken from the AHSA position statement on .50BMG:

The Branch Davidian cult in Waco, Texas, Al Qaeda, the Irish Republican Army, street and motorcycle gangs in California, Missouri and Indiana, and various militia groups and criminals across the United States are all documented as having possessed or used modern .50 caliber BMG sniper rifles.

The 9mm handgun round has also been possessed or used by all of these groups. Should it be banned? Shockingly enough there are laws also against hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings. I wonder how many of these same groups have possessed or used televisions, cell phones, and cars? This kind of data doesn't really mean anything at all and is only included to ramp up the irrational fear factor. A sign that your argument is very weak.

The modern .50 caliber BMG rifle is one of the most powerful and destructive weapons legally available to civilians in the United States. A modern .50 caliber BMG rifle can hit a target accurately from distances of 1,000 to 2,000 yards, depending on the skill of the shooter, and can reach targets at a longer range with less accuracy. At significantly closer distances, these rifles are much more destructive and able to blast through solid concrete at 200 yards or penetrate an inch of armor plate at 300 yards.

So can .50 DTC, and it's never been used in a single crime. It's California legal and more makers are coming to market with it. Since 50BMG is not the only round capable of this, why is only the 50BMG being called out for banning? Again, the fear mongering, irrational panic inducing stuff that these kinds of descriptions of weapons brings to mind.

The destructive power of the modern .50 caliber rifle can be intensified by the use of various types of ammunition that is available commercially. In addition to the standard "ball" round of .50 caliber ammunition, armor-piercing, incendiary, and combination armor-piercing and incendiary ammunition for the modern .50 caliber rifles can significantly enhance the destructive capacity, particularly against chemical and industrial facilities and civil aviation targets.

The .50BMG arrmor piercing that is legal to buy is 1930's and 1940's vintage. Modern AP round, incendiary rounds, and combo rounds are ILLEGAL ALREADY. Why is this in the AHSA position statement at all? This stuff is already illegal. Tracer rounds are NOT incendiary.

Despite their deadly power, or possibly because of it, .50 caliber rifles in various configurations are proliferating on the civilian firearms market and in many states are subject to less regulation than handguns. Because .50 caliber rifles are classified as long guns under federal law, they can legally be purchased by an 18 year old (unless state law restricts such purchases). 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), (c)(1).

The .50 BMG is proliferating at a miniscule level compared to all other rifle calibers. This doesn't even make any sense here.

Modern .50 caliber BMG sniper rifles possess no reasonable utility for hunting or self-defense.

Neither does the .22 Colibri. Why does this matter? And who is going to define "reasonable", AHSA?

The .50 caliber BMG’s popularity lies not just with target shooters, but criminals, gangs and terrorists as well.

So does every other firearm. Most firearms used by these groups are handguns. AHSA want to ban those next? And of course the crime statistics show that, while these groups might think the 50BMG "popular" they don't see it as "practical" since they don't use them in crimes.

Under federal law, firearms sellers who do not possess a federal firearm license can sell 50 caliber rifles to individuals at gun shows and elsewhere without performing a background check on the purchaser. Although some states (such as California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey) regulate private sales and prohibit all sales of firearms without a background check on the purchaser, in most states terrorists and other criminals can easily acquire a .50 caliber BMG sniper rifle.

Same with every other Title 1 firearm, which gets to the AHSA's position on gun shows, another anti gun position. Where does AHSA stand on this so called "gun show loophole"?

Currently, .50 caliber BMG sniper rifles are not regulated at the federal level.

Of course they are. All firearms are regulated at the Federal level by Title 1. This is just flat dishonesty here. Again, it's this kind of language that is used to create fear of the unknown in uninformed and uneducated gun owners and the general public. It's dishonest.

In September 2004, California became the first state to regulate .50 caliber BMG rifles. Effective January 1, 2005, .50 caliber BMG rifles will fall under California’s Assault Weapons Control Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 12275-12277, 12280 et seq., which will generally prohibit the weapons' manufacture, sale, importation and possession without registration.

2 weeks later Serbu announced the .50DTC would be available in their product line. It is now shipping and legal to own in California. It has identical ballistics characteristics to the .50 BMG. This shows that banning specific types of firearms is wasteful of taxpayers money and only serves to allow politicians to say they are "doing something". It's the same reason groups like AHSA call for these bans, to show they "care". It's not really meaningful legislation since it "cured" a problem that didn't really exist. Note the part I put in bold about registration, we'll come back to that later.

Because of the potential for criminal misuse, the immense “fire power” and the potential for terrorist use, AHSA believes the .50 caliber BMG sniper rifles should be regulated in the same manner as the federal government regulates machine guns under the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

And here we are, at the crux of the issue. So far the arguments AHSA makes against the .50 BMG could apply to hundreds of other firearm types.
POTENTIAL for use in crimes. Thought crimes next? So the closing argument is that since the 50BMG MIGHT be used someday for bad things, we better get it banned now. Even though many other guns can do the same thing.

So, why is just .50 BMG being singled out here? The motivation for that would answer the question: How, if at all, do you change the AHSA position on .50 BMG.

And of course the AHSA and other groups will counter and say "It's not a ban, we just want them put under NFA rules". Knowing full well that since many states don't allow NFA weapons, and that LE officials can at their leisure approve or deny signing the forms, you have a defacto ban. You also have defacto gun registration.

Which by the way the AHSA appears to be in favor of since they also want all NICS searches open for access. We'll save that argument for another time, wouldn't want to go off topic here :)

http://www.huntersandshooters.org/issues/gunrights/fbi

Hawk
January 16, 2009, 12:37 PM
Still going, enh?

I like speculating on wildly improbable stuff as much as the next guy. A couple of tangential notes:

The folks behind AHSA reads like a who’s who of grabbers. Ray Schoenke is a spokesman. As unlikely as it would appear, wouldn’t it be great fun if the spokesman could be "turned"?

Picture the OP as Emperor Palpatine and Schoenke as Luke Skywalker – except it works. What a hoot. It'd be like Wayne LaPierre being turned by Rebecca Peters. Chaos and confusion would ensue. Congress would pass an AWB and the spokesman for AHSA would call for Obama to veto the misguided legislation in the strongest possible terms – Schoenke's righteously indignant face plastered across Daily Kos, HuffPo and Facebook declaring he'd been betrayed, BETRAYED I say, by those he helped into office.

About as likely as my 58 year old white male paunchy wrinkled self getting hired by the Bolshoi as a prima ballerina but it doesn't cost us anything to take a stab – the OP is doing all the work.

If that means the OP's continued efforts to get the anti-AWB stuff posted on AHSA's site and casting the .50 BMG in terms of sporting, what the hey? I’d prefer the .50 not have to dangle on a sporting use defense but we can hardly be any worse off by assisting the OP to put that aspect front and center.

It's not like old Ray hasn't found himself on diametrically opposing sides before – after all, he played for both the Cowboys and the Redskins. Bob Ricker seems to have a talent for switching sides as well.

But, first things first. FCSA can provide plenty on sporting use info but we should probably start with AHSA posting, for all the world to see, their staunch opposition to an AWB. If they wish to cast the issue in a hunting context they need go no further than this:
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/Model_R-25.asp
or this
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/Model_R-15_VTR.asp
Put a pic of the R-25 up with a happy face and a big old "Yummy" from the spokesman and I'll immediately acknowledge that further effort is justified.

I'll personally pledge time to the .50BMG issue in precisely the context the OP feels comfortable working with if we could get some reading on when we may expect an anti-AWB (or pro-R25) blurb to be added to the AHSA site. It'd be a demonstration of good faith.

An unfortunate (or fortunate depending on one's outlook) aspect of the information age is that a lot of stuff is suddenly "forever". This specifically includes the Wayback Machine's cached versions of AHSA's site showing no appreciable difference between them and the VPC. Surely, adding opposition to an AWB to the current site is as trivial as removing the support for one was - and that little thing would mean a great deal to some few of us skeptics.

JImbothefiveth
January 16, 2009, 12:38 PM
Why not have them show us how opposed to another '94 ban they really are. Tell them to post it on their website.

After that, get them to remove the
.50 from their agenda, maybe by finding someone who hunts with it.

Of course, they won't care, because they are not a hunter's group, they are the brady campaign dressed up as fudds.

JImbothefiveth
January 16, 2009, 12:42 PM
If they wish to cast the issue in a hunting context they need go no further than this:
The R-25 and R-15 would still be legal if AR-15s were "regulated no different than other semi-auto rifles" and another AWB was passed. They don't have too many non-Hillary-approved features, and they use low-capacity magazines. No, we need to show someone hunting with an AR-15 that falls under the ban, maybe an R-25 with a flash suppressor.(Not to be confused with a regular suppressor.) Also, where it's legal to hunt with,(Not in a lot of states) a hi-capacity magazine.

Hawk
January 16, 2009, 01:05 PM
The R-25 and R-15 would still be legal if AR-15s were "regulated no different than other semi-auto rifles" and another AWB was passed. They don't have too many non-Hillary-approved features, and they use low-capacity magazines. No, we need to show someone hunting with an AR-15 that falls under the ban, maybe an R-25 with a flash suppressor.(Not to be confused with a regular suppressor.) Also, where it's legal to hunt with,(Not in a lot of states) a hi-capacity magazine.

Actually, it wouldn't have passed muster under HR1022. Pistol grip plus removable magazine kills it (it didn't need to be a >10 mag). It would have been hunky dorey under the '94 version but likely not under what's next up to bat.

I'm generally as absolutist as any but, in this case, I'd be pleased to see the R25 endorsed on AHSA's site. I shant be holding my breath anyway.

ServiceSoon
January 16, 2009, 01:33 PM
There are plenty of proven pro-gun organizations that I can support before I will take a chance of supporting a suspect organization such as the AHSA. Sorry RPCVYemen. You only have to look at the site gunguys.com to realize the tactic of deceit or presenting a wolf in sheep's clothing isn't beneath the anti's.

Now, if you would be so kind to tell me where else you are posing this information about AHSA I would very appreciate it so I can go set the record straight there. The first is just as important as the second.

BullpupBen
January 16, 2009, 01:38 PM
I think that if the AHSA would change their position on these two important topics I could actually throw my support behind them. The lack of environmental conservation in politicians backed by the NRA really disturbs me and caused me to join the AHSA for about a week. I quit when I saw their rediculous policy on the AWB and .50 calibers and their support for Obama. They need to understand that while hunting is an awesome tradition, saying the 2nd amendment is about hunting is like saying the 1st amendment is about the sports page in the newspaper. I, like most other gun owners, intend to own all sorts of liberal-scaring black rifles, but I will probably never shoot a deer with anything other than a bolt action rifle with a nice wooden stock.

EDIT: Besides, Obama is going to be president whether we like it or not and I think we're gonna need all the help we can get.. these guys probably have some influence within the administration.

RPCVYemen
January 16, 2009, 02:19 PM
Now, if you would be so kind to tell me where else you are posing this information about AHSA I would very appreciate it so I can go set the record straight there.

I am not sure that I understand the question being asked. If you are asking for my previous posts on AHSA related issues, the 1st post on this thread has URLs for the threads.

Mike

RPCVYemen
January 16, 2009, 02:35 PM
There are plenty of proven pro-gun organizations that I can support before I will take a chance of supporting a suspect organization such as the AHSA.

My support for the AHSA in addition to the NRA has nothing to do with the NRA's gun policies. I agreed hso not to discuss those issues on the previous THR thread and will honor that agreement on this thread.

If you want to understand my unhappiness with the NRA, PM me. You should be able to tell from this thread that I am not bashful about expressing my opinion.

Mike

TexasRifleman
January 16, 2009, 02:41 PM
I will probably never shoot a deer with anything other than a bolt action rifle with a nice wooden stock.

I've never shot a deer with a bolt action rifle with a wooden stock. I don't even OWN a bolt action rifle with a wooden stock.

Yet I hunt deer every season and have since I was very young.

The thing is, that does not make me less of a hunter. I still buy a license, contribute to conservation efforts, obey all the hunting laws in my state etc.

Why does a "pro hunting" group care HOW I hunt. Either they really don't understand hunters, or they are an anti gun group in disguise.

I am having a hard time believing it's the former based on their arbitrarily picking some guns to lobby for banning, and some not.

Until that policy changes there is no question AHSA is an anti gun organization. I hope Yemen gets them to change their minds, but I'm not betting on it.

RPCVYemen
January 16, 2009, 02:41 PM
I think that if the AHSA would change their position on these two important topics I could actually throw my support behind them.

If the two topics you refer to are their historical support for the AWB, and their position on 50 BMG weapons, we are in complete agreement.

They dropped their support for the AWB long before I joined the organization, or I would not have joined. The phone conversation I had with Mr. Schoenke confirmed that view of the matter - as far as I am concerned, that's a done deal.

That leaves one position I'd like them to change. If I can persuade them to change their position with regard to 50 BMG weapons, I would be much happier with them.

Mike

RPCVYemen
January 16, 2009, 03:08 PM
So, why is just .50 BMG being singled out here? The motivation for that would answer the question: How, if at all, do you change the AHSA position on .50 BMG.

I think we are in agreement that singling out the 50 BMG is an incorrect policy position. That's precisely why I am arguing - or trying out to figure out a winning argument - to change the AHSA position on this topic.

I accept the AHSA takes the position it does for the reasons it says it does - the GAO report, but I also believe that the AHSA would be ready to drop the position if it could be shown that 50 BMG was used widely for hunting/sporting purposes.

While I do believe that the AHSA supports the 2nd Amendment as they say the do, and understand that you do not believe that, I also believe that the core of AHSA support is in the hunter/conservationist realm.

All of that leads me to believe that a two prong attack might be most successful:


Lobby my congressman for a new GAO study - hopefully it will demonstrate that as in 1999, 50 BMGs are used in a negligible number of criminal contexts.
Find hard data on 50 BMG usage in hunting/sporting arena.

#2 will win their hearts, #1 will win their minds ...

Mike

Megistopoda
January 16, 2009, 03:45 PM
Yemen:

What is AHSA's membership, and what kind of influence will they have in congress? They seem to have arisen about the time that Barack Obama did, so I wonder whether they have much of a membership ... in other words, are they even worth engaging on these issues?

At any rate, I'd love for them to retract their support for restrictions on .50s.

In fact, I've love for them to acknowledge (intellectually and then in deed) that the 2A has little to do with hunting, and FAR more to do with protecting the ownership of firearms like .50s, "assault weapons", and the like. That the 2A helps protect hunting is nice, but scarcely mentioned relative to the fulfillment of the militia clauses ("defense" in it's broadest sense). Without this understanding and acknowledgement, the AHSA approaches this issue from a fundamentally flawed context ... building 2A protections around "sporting purposes" is simply flawed fundamentally. It's like trying to build a brick house on the sand ... it will fall eventually.

rbernie
January 16, 2009, 04:09 PM
building 2A protections around "sporting purposes" is simply flawed fundamentally. It's like trying to build a brick house on the sand ... it will fall eventually.Yemen will not address or concede this point no matter how many times you repeat it. His inputs always go back to "We must convince them that they are wrong on the 50BMG", and completely sidesteps addressing why they might have their worldview that the 50BMG is bad or how the approach itself that he's taking to convince them is bad.

This whole thread is EPIC FAIL insofar as Activism Planning is concerned.

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/fail-owned-elephant-slide-f.jpg

Zoogster
January 16, 2009, 04:27 PM
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.
So essentialy "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", just what the machine he is controlling has to say?


The AHSA was founded by Brady Campaign members who were unsatisfied with the speed of anti gun progress!
Nothing except the name was even subtle, you could look up most of the founders and find thousands of dollars in donations to the Brady Campaign, prior membership as a board member in the Brady campaign. They recieve finances from many of the same sources...

It is a very dangerous game you are so eager to play.
If the AHSA becomes a "credible" voice for gun owners the antis who made it to begin with have one of the most powerful tools.
They can file briefs in court on behalf of gun owners, intentionaly giving up rights and losing important cases.
In fact thier position on Heller was essentialy to accomplish that. They tried to steer the result in a way that would enable DC to enact any regulations afterwards, so it would set as few pro-gun precedents as possible.


How can you not discuss the background of an organization designed to remove rights, yet discuss why trying to work with them to reach "reasonable compromises" is a good idea?

It is like wolves and lambs voting whether lamb should continue to be eaten.
A few of the smart wolves even create a pro lamb protection group to speak on behalf of the lambs. They will do everything to convince the lambs to join and vote with them, let them be thier voice of reason.
"No lamb really needs 4 legs, surely they can spare a few in a reasonable common sense compromise". Some lambs may counter "But over the last century we have already agreed to give up our first born, our second born, let the wolves oversee the licensing of the slaughter houses..."
But you see those lambs are just being unreasonable. They should "compromise" (give up more freedoms) at least a few major times every 10 years, the wolves are hungry after all.

http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/ahsawolfx200.jpg

RPCVYemen
January 16, 2009, 04:32 PM
and completely sidesteps addressing why they might have their worldview that the 50BMG is bad or how the approach itself that he's taking to convince them is bad

What approach do you think would be most likely to persuade them that their policy is incorrect?

Most folks seem to want to tell me how to convince who people already think the AHSA is wrong that the AHSA is wrong. That strikes me as not very much of a challenge, and not very helpful.

So I will put an two honest question to you:


How would you try to persuade the AHSA that they are wrong in their stated policy about 50 BMG weapons?
Why do you expect the approach outlined in #1 to persuade the AHSA that their stated policy is wrong?


Mike

rbernie
January 16, 2009, 04:39 PM
As stated innumerous time above - I would ask AHSA to state the nature of the social ills/problem(s) with the 50BMG, and then rebutt each of those objections with data.

You have yet to obtain from them a clear understanding of WHY they feel the 50BMG must be restricted. How can you address their concerns if they can't articulate them?



ETA - saying that something has no 'sporting legitimacy' is not identifying a PROBLEM - it's a value statement. In order to restrict something, I should have some greater burden than just to say, "I do not value it myself.".

I do not value beef liver, but that doesn't mean that folk shouldn't be able to eat it.

To 'solve a problem', one must first be able to point to a statistically significant number of occurances of some perceived negative behavior/occurrance, quantify the cost of the perceived problem, and THEN AND ONLY THEN present a solution (i.e. restriction) along with provide a cost estimate for remediating the problem and other possible alternatives.

RPCVYemen
January 16, 2009, 04:44 PM
So essentially "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", just what the machine he is controlling has to say?

Here is the final post from the previous AHSA thread - which was mostly about whether or not the AHSA was a "front" for anti's:

Ok, we've wasted enough bandwidth on this topic. This is two long threads in the past couple months on this subject. As usual everyone is free to make up their own mind on this issue. But here at THR this topic is closed. We don't need any more threads on this subject. Any new threads will be closed with a link to the two previous threads.

This thread is focused on how to persuade the AHSA to change their policy vis-a-vis 50 BMG weapons.

Mike

hso
January 16, 2009, 04:45 PM
RPCVYemen,

It looks like there are numerous ideas presented to get the AHSA to change their position on .50BMG. One thing that hasn't been suggested is to write the position you'd like to see them take for them and send it in as a member.

You could refute each claim of the old position line by line in an argument against .50 bans, patterning it after their current published position supporting .50 bans.

Put up a draft for comment here and then submit it to them to see if they adopt it.

TexasRifleman
January 16, 2009, 04:48 PM
You could refute each claim of the old position line by line in an argument against .50 bans, patterning it after their current published position supporting .50 bans.


I did that for him, he says the things I bring up "are not relevant to the thread":rolleyes: (post #127)

RPCVYemen
January 16, 2009, 06:14 PM
Put up a draft for comment here and then submit it to them to see if they adopt it.

Good idea, thanks.

I don't have enough info yet to complete the draft, but here's the rough outline.

It's pretty rough right now, and I need more data to back up several of the assertions, but here is a quick sketch:


Sirs:

I would like to respectfully disagree with your policy suggesting that 50 BMG rifles be regulated as NFA Title 2 weapons.

I have read your policy, and the accompanying GAO report of 1999. I agree that that the 50 BMG round in modern rifles is a very powerful round capable of hitting targets accurately at long distances.

Your policy, if I understand it correctly, makes an analogy between the regulation of the Thompson .45 "Tommy Gun" by the 1936 NFA, and your proposal to regulate 50 BMG rifles. However, there are several important differences between the regulation of Tommy Guns and the proposed regulation of modern 50 BMG rifles.

The most important difference is that the Tommy Gun was placed under NFA regulation in 1936, due to "an increase in organized crime, which involved the use of submachine guns, especially the Thompson .45 caliber". The 1999 report cited by your policy does not show an increase in the use of 50 BMG rifles by organized crime, or any other criminals. The GAO report cites a number of "traces", but also notes that the existence of a trace does not imply the criminal use - or any use - of a weapon. The final examples in the 19910 GAO report describe several instances in which people who committed crimes were found to have 50 BMG rifles in their possession, or at some other location under their control. They do not cite examples of 50 BMG rifles used to commit crimes.

A more recent GAO study /* this is where I need the new study */ confirms this trend. ...

I think that we can conclude that although the Tommy Gun was evidently associated with and used by organized crime during prohibition, there is currently no commensurate trend of adoption by or use of 50 BMG rifles by organized crime.

It may also interest you to know that long range target shooting by civilians using modern 50 BMG rifles. One body that organizes matches, the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association, claims more than xxxx members, and organizes yyyy matches a year. At these matches, competitors shoot targets at distance up to zzz yards, a contest to which modern 50 BMG rifles are particularly well suited. As far as I know, there was no similar sport involving the use of Tommy Guns in the 1930s.

In addition, Tommy Guns were not generally used for hunting. However, /* this is where I need stats on the use of 50 BMG rifles for hunting, if they exist */

I think that we can agree that due to these differences, modern 50 BMG rifles are not analogous to Tommy Guns. In fact given their legitimate uses, I would think that a better analogy to shotguns, as both have relatively large bores, and are capable of quite a bit of destruction. As I am sure that you are well aware, shotguns were specifically exempted from NFA due to their many legitmate uses I need to find the actual legal verbiage about this exemption.

I agree the availability of incendiary and armor piercing rounds for modern 50 BMG rilfles is troubling. I would note in passing that the GAO investigators did not attempt to purchase illegal ammo - the investigators were reporting advertisements on the Internet. Everything that is claimed to be for sale on the Internet is not in fact for sale on the Internet. Even had they been able to purchase such ammo, the sale/possession of such ammunition is already illegal, so it is not clear that any further legal regulation of 50 BMG ammunition is necessary.

Given the lack of criminal activity associated with modern 50 BMG rifles, and the legitimate uses of these rifles, I would like to suggest that classification of these rifles as NFA Destructive Devices is not warranted.

Therefore, I respectfully request that the AHSA change its policy with regard to these weapons.

Sincerely,



Mike

JImbothefiveth
January 16, 2009, 06:34 PM
these guys probably have some influence within the administration.
That's a bad thing, they will just push for .50 bans, AWBs, and bans on private sales.

Actually, any anti-gun group having influence is a bad thing. A good way to tell whether or not it's anti-gun is whether or not the NRA attacks it. FOr instance, the NRA doesn't attack the GOA, because they are pro-gun. However, they do attack this organization, becuase it's anti-gun.

Justin
January 16, 2009, 06:41 PM
Even if AHSA changes their public stance on .50 BMG rifles and so-called "assault weapons" it will only be so much lip-service so long as they support the likes of Obama.


Actions.

Not words.

ServiceSoon
January 16, 2009, 06:47 PM
Lobby my congressman for a new GAO study - hopefully it will demonstrate that as in 1999, 50 BMGs are used in a negligible number of criminal contexts.This is dangerous ground to stand on. What happens if criminals start to use such a weapon? Then what will your argument be? We use the same logic when discussing "assault weapons."

these guys probably have some influence within the administration.As mentioned by JImbothefiveth, this could be good and/or bad. We would have to discuss the different avenues.

RPCVYemen
January 16, 2009, 06:55 PM
I did that for him, he says the things I bring up "are not relevant to the thread"

I was responding to your assertions about AHSA.

May I am not doing your "refutations" justice, but they didn't seem very strong to me. Each as a gambit has serious pitfalls, and I wouldn't use them.

Introducing a new round I have never heard of, the .50 DTC, - though I do believe you that it exists - does not appear to accomplish much. I didn't see the point you were trying to make. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that the the 50 BMG couldn't be regulated without regulating the ballistically equivalent .50 DTC. Wouldn't an opponent just agree with you?

In addition, the argument "but these other weapons aren't regulated either" doesn't seem very strong to me. That might be a big point on a playground, but if you claim that 9mm are also found with drug dealers, can't the opponent respond, "We aren't talking about classifying 9mm weapons, what does that have to do with it?"

Creeping incrementalism also strikes me as an argument that only persuades people who already agree with you. Incrementalism means that you are arguing against a proposal is not being made - which makes it very easy to refute. The opponent merely has to assert that they are not making a proposal that they are not making, and your argument evaporates.

My understanding of the rationale for their policy is that the modern 50 BMG rifle is analogous to the Tommy Gun in the 1920's. I chose to attempt to refute their assertion directly - without casting any aspersions on the motivation of the opponent, which is almost always the weakest imaginable argument.

Mike

RPCVYemen
January 16, 2009, 07:07 PM
This is dangerous ground to stand on. What happens if criminals start to use such a weapon?

Agreed. If criminals start using 50 BMG weapons in significant numbers, then the AHSA analogy to 1920s Tommy Guns will be harder to reject.

Unfortunately, the language Heller that I cited earlier makes it appear extremely unlikely that the SCOTUS will overturn the NFA, which suggests that the classification of a Tommy Gun as a NFA Title 2 weapon will remain the law of the land.

That makes the analogy to the Tommy Gun powerful. If I can demonstrate that 50 BMG rifles are not analogous to Tommy Guns, my strategy may succeed. If I cannot demonstrate that, my strategy will likely not succeed.

That's why I'd like to see a new study before asserting that 50 BMG rifles are not associated with crime. I would hate to make that claim, and read the next day in the paper that a GAO study found that they were - that would really cook my goose.

Mike

rbernie
January 16, 2009, 07:54 PM
It seemed to me that you were suggesting that the the 50 BMG couldn't be regulated without regulating the ballistically equivalent .50 DTC. Wouldn't an opponent just agree with you?
Yes, they absolutely would. And they should.

And then you use that lesson to point out that this is what happens when you restrict a specific type of firearm instead of addressing some actual problem.

That makes the analogy to the Tommy Gun powerful. If I can demonstrate that 50 BMG rifles are not analogous to Tommy Guns, my strategy may succeed. If I cannot demonstrate that, my strategy will likely not succeed.
Why wouldn't it be better to simply force them to TELL YOU why they think that the two are analagous, instead of you trying to make that case in the dark?

I do not grasp why you ignore that avenue.

geekWithA.45
January 16, 2009, 08:10 PM
Before you get too wrapped up in Tommy Gun analogies, you have to remember that Tommy guns weren't the real motivation for the NFA, they were the political fig leaf used to get public buy in.

The NFA was entirely about congress setting their pants to condition brown after the 1932 bonus march, after using the army to route the veterans who came unarmed, and who might not be so peacable next time around.


Buying into that is just like buying into the false BS spewed in the early 90's about "gang members easily converting semi to full autos" that were allegedly filling the evidence rooms to bursting. (Meanwhile, back in reality, very few weapons met that description...)

Arguing by analogy over a bit that is at best a chunk of smoke and mirrors isn't a promising venue.

RPCVYemen
January 16, 2009, 08:22 PM
And then you use that lesson to point out that this is what happens when you restrict a specific type of firearm instead of addressing some actual problem.

Be careful of "teaching lessons" when you are trying to persuades someone - unless you are their teacher or parent. I (almost) never seen it work. "I taught him a lesson!" may be a good brag to your buddies afterward, but it usually fails as a persuasive tactic.

Why wouldn't it be better to simply force them to TELL YOU why they think that the two are analogous, instead of you trying to make that case in the dark?

They make the analogy on the Policy page - no need to "force" anything.

In general, I find trying to "force" someone to say something a weak argumentative style - they can either say whatever they want to say in such a way that it's inconvenient for you, or not say anything at all - and you end up in a silly "Say it!" "No I won't" "Say it!" "No I won't" argument.

In general, it seems like you want to make them say something and then you'll "trap" them - I find that a weak tactic. It may work if your opponent is an idiot, but if they are not, you are hosed.

If you adopt a superior attitude, ie, "You must answer the questions I ask!", unless you can in fact force people to answer the questions you ask, you look like an idiot, and persuade no one.

In my experience, reasoning about what someone has already said is more powerful than trying to get them to say something that you, in your superior wisdom, will handily defeat.

YMMV, just my thoughts.

Mike

Zoogster
January 16, 2009, 08:43 PM
The NFA was entirely about congress setting their pants to condition brown after the 1932 bonus march, after using the army to route the veterans who came unarmed, and who might not be so peacable next time around.
History is modified by those who determine the curriculum. After enough time goes past the new version of history becomes the official "correct" one.

The Bonus Army started because a lot of war veterans from the biggest war in history (at that point) The Great War (World war 1) were screwed over at the end. Many things promised were not delivered and they were essentialy told to get lost.
These Veterans, representing numerous veterans across the nation, many maimed or permanently disabled wanted what was promised at sign up.

The government screwed them over for a long time, but eventualy paid them years later. The trick of course was that the payment was in the form of bonds that wouldn't be redeemable until 1945, 20 years later and almost 30 years after they enlisted!

They marched on Washington peacefully, and camped some distance away. After some time they were attacked by the Army. The police had tried to evacuate them earlier, and shot and killed two of them, but there were no shots from the protestors.

Knowing these were veterans of of war in a time period when trench warfare was still the name of the game not far from Washington D.C. scared many. After being crushed by the military in essentialy an American Tiananmen Square incident they feared the danger those men could pose of they took up arms.
Effective arms had to be outlawed immediately to insure the military could crush anyone at will and prevail.

The veteran soldiers actualy cheered the arrival of the military, thinking the troops had come to support them in a parade. Imagine thier surprise when the tanks turned on them.

ohgrady
January 16, 2009, 08:45 PM
Below is the email response I received from the AHSA. I wonder why they didn't answer all my questions?

[QUOTE]
We do not support the assault weapons ban.

---------- Forwarded message ----------


First Name : ******

Last Name : ******

Email Address : ********@***.***

Phone : ***-***-****
Comment or Question : Is it this associations intention to oppose another Assault Weapons ban. Do you intend to oppose legislation for the proposed micro-stamping/registration of ammunition. Do you intend to oppose legislation regarding the restriction on the capacity of magazines?[QUOTE]

rbernie
January 16, 2009, 10:17 PM
In general, I find trying to "force" someone to say something a weak argumentative style - they can either say whatever they want to say in such a way that it's inconvenient for you, or not say anything at all - and you end up in a silly "Say it!" "No I won't" "Say it!" "No I won't" argument.
You focused on my inappropriate use of the word 'force' instead of 'ask', and bypassed the meat of my suggestion.

Good wicket, and about par for form.

7.62X25mm
January 17, 2009, 12:00 AM
His argument was that there wasn't a legitimate hunting use for a 50 BMG weapon, unless you are hunting elephants.

First of all, the 50 BMG is NOT an "elephant gun" -- It's too big and heavy for the hunt.

Second, the criteria is "sporting purposes" not "hunting."

BHP FAN
January 17, 2009, 05:51 AM
''The NFA was entirely about congress setting their pants to condition brown...''
LOL!

TexasRifleman
January 17, 2009, 12:28 PM
Introducing a new round I have never heard of, the .50 DTC, - though I do believe you that it exists - does not appear to accomplish much. I didn't see the point you were trying to make. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that the the 50 BMG couldn't be regulated without regulating the ballistically equivalent .50 DTC. Wouldn't an opponent just agree with you?

Yes, they would likely agree that both should be banned. That you don't get the point is why you should not be "negotiating" with AHSA.

In 7 pages here you've hearrd arguments from very many folks, most of us have been in the pro gun movement for many years, several of us for decades.
Now you come with the AHSA and tell us we don't know how this works, we don't understand, we just don't get it.

If you had been doing this a while you would know what the rest of us already know, that the AHSA is nothing but a front for Handgun Control Inc and a clear anti gun organization.

If creeping incrementalism does not bother THEM, it should bother YOU. That it doesn't bother YOU either tells plenty as well.

It is a waste of YOUR time and possibly dangerous to the pro gun movement to attempt "negotiations" with these anti gun people.

My arguments against their .50BMG position paper is written to an audience made of people who are pro gun but don't see the big picture.
Your insistence that you have an IRREFUTABLE argument to present to a "pro gun" group about why they should not call for a ban of certain classes of firearms confirms tall of this.

But you keep saying what we have all been telling you all along, that AHSA is NOT a pro gun group so any argument to them has to be written in the same way you'd try to persuade Brady Campaign. You specifically state above that AHSA would likely be on board with creeping incrementalism in gun laws by advocating the .50DTC be banned as well, if they just knew about it.

Their argument, and yours, that NFA was about guns and crime is also the standard anti-gun argument.

Crime reduction has NEVER been the reason for any anti gun legislation, and crime statistics show that anti gun laws have never had any impact.

Yemen, you are wasting our time and I am going to ask the other folks in this thread to join me in requesting the mods to close this thread.

I am asking this thread be closed since it is a clear attempt by an anti-gun group to achieve it's goal as a wedge organization by confusing unknowing gun owners with these fanciful claims of "terrorist weapons", "armor piercing incendiary combo ammo" and how this class of firearm serves no purpose since it's not used often in hunting, as though hunting matters at all here. Even if the group was dedicated to hunters, the .50BMG poses no THREAT to hunters so why call for more regulation? That's as anti gun as you can get.

We're told that they do not favor an "assault weapon" ban because they took it down from their website. The same line of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt fear mongering that they are currently using against the .50BMG has been used by other groups to advocate "AWBs" in the past. Same words, different target. Today anyway. If they are successful in their march against the .50BMG where will they stop next? Their advocate here has said that creeping incrementalism of gun control is not their, or his, concern and not seen as a valid argument.

That is and has always been the purpose of AHSA and one more thread here, 7 pages long, has proven it to be true.

Fburgtx
January 17, 2009, 12:52 PM
I second the nomination for a lock.

An effective pro-gun organization should be fighting on our behalf to prevent more anti-gun laws.

What does it tell you about an organization (AHSA) when someone comes on this forum requesting us to ask/demand they do just that. If they were truly a pro-gun organization, they would not require this sort of "activism".

The NRA has 4 million members. AHSA has 76 "Facebook friends", a former member of Handgun Control as president, and a website with a blog that does nothing but proclaim its' support for the most anti-gun president (based on voting record), ever.

You do the math..........

JImbothefiveth
January 17, 2009, 03:16 PM
What happens if criminals start to use such a weapon?
I think the risk of that is very miniscule. Remember, these rifles weigh about 20 pounds at the lightest if I'm not mistaken, and some weigh over 40 pounds.

JImbothefiveth
January 17, 2009, 03:24 PM
Crime reduction has NEVER been the reason for any anti gun legislation, and crime statistics show that anti gun laws have never had any impact.
Not true, it sometimes increases crime!

I am asking this thread be closed
I'm not sure that's a good idea, this thread is rather entertaining.

bensdad
January 17, 2009, 04:09 PM
this thread is rather entertaining.

I'm sorry, but no, it's not. The OP knows perfectly well what the organization in question stands for. You guys keep giving his threads BTT attention, assuring that many hunters see the thread title. I think he's here to skim support off the top of the gun crowd. The longer this silliness goes on, the more reads it gets. His arguments are circular and nonsensical. He doesn't want resolution - he wants air-time. You give it to him. His wedge group is loving this.

Carl N. Brown
January 17, 2009, 04:16 PM
The Astroturf Hoodwinking Shooters Association was founded in Apr 2005 mostly as a website operation and press release generating "Association" of people noted for supporting restrictions on firearms. John E. Rosenthal, first President of AHSA worked with Handgun Control to lobby Congress for Massachusett-style gun laws for the USA as a whole.
Although Hunters and Shooters is in the early stages of a soft launch, they're drawing all kinds of heat from the Commie-hating gun show crowd; they've already been labeled gun-grabbers in camouflage and a front for the Democratic Leadership Council.

"They're very, very concerned," Rosenthal says. "Our policies are so reasonable to the average gun owner, that they're threatened; until now, it's been a one-sided debate. The NRA is the terrorist's best friend. They're the criminal's best friend. They're the total enemy to common sense and safe parenting, frankly--yet they control Congress."

I am NRA. How many shooting ranges has AHSA helped set up? Hunter safety courses? Gun Safety courses? Law enforcement courses? What has AHSA done except pretend for four years to be a Hunter and Shooter association while mainly just generating press releases and steering Google searches on gun subjects to AHSA before NRA? AHSA is a Potemkin gun club.

Should I waste my time dreaming up an argument for my gun rights that would be acceptable to AHSA? I'll answer that with a question: do you think I would waste my time trying to convince Aryan Nations that a quad-racial mongrel like me has a soul and a right to exist?

JImbothefiveth
January 17, 2009, 04:24 PM
I'm sorry, but no, it's not. The OP knows perfectly well what the organization in question stands for. You guys keep giving his threads BTT attention, assuring that many hunters see the thread title. I think he's here to skim support off the top of the gun crowd. The longer this silliness goes on, the more reads it gets. His arguments are circular and nonsensical. He doesn't want resolution - he wants air-time. You give it to him. His wedge group is loving this.
Well, I've been trying to make sure more people see what this organization is up to, such as trying to ban private sales, ban .50 calibers, and in 2006(read: before election campaigning started) they wanted to ban hollowpoints, and they wanted another "assault weapon" ban. (Actual asault rifles, per the ATF's definition, are already illegal to manufacture for civilian sale.)

However, I think your argument has convinced me, it's time to close this thread. AHSA is an anti-gun group who will not change their mind about this matter, ever. The best way to get them to change their mind would be to threaten to drop your membership and donate the money to an actual pro-gun organization if they don't chagne their mind. (I bet you they still won't.)

They're very, very concerned," Rosenthal says. "Our policies are so reasonable to the average gun owner, that they're threatened; until now, it's been a one-sided debate. The NRA is the terrorist's best friend. They're the criminal's best friend. They're the total enemy to common sense and safe parenting, frankly--yet they control Congress."
The NRA is not a friend to terrorists or an enemy to good parenting. They teach proper gun safety(good parenting) and want people to be able to own guns(bad for terrorists). They are perhaps the criminal's worst foe after law enforcement, because the NRA arms their victims. The AHSA's policies are not reasonable at all, they want to ban something because it could be dangerous in theory. I believe RPCVYemen would be just fine with them banning (firearm type here) so long as more gun owners vote for gun-grabbing liberals, like he does.

If the prison systems release drug dealers after a year's probation and then prevent people from defending themselves, you can thank AHSA!

hso
January 17, 2009, 05:33 PM
Ok, this thing has whipsawed back and forth enough AND there's a course of action that can be followed for anyone that wants to try to change AHSA's policies. No point in keeping it open.

If you enjoyed reading about "AHSA - Change 50 BMG Policy?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!