AHSA Makes Their Stance Known

[ServiceSoon]

I'll debunk number one, now somebody else debunk number two...

#1 Mandatory criminal background checks for all gun sales
Current Federal law only requires Licensed gun dealers to perform criminal background checks. Consequently in 32 States "private dealers"/individuals can legally sell guns at thousands of annual gun shows, countless flea markets and yard sales, and out of homes, backpacks, car trunks or on street corners without running a background check or asking to see an ID. Only the first gun sale from a "Federally Licensed" gun dealer requires documentation and all "secondary" gun sales are legally allowed to take place without any paperwork or record keeping. As a result, convicted felons and suspected terrorists can and do buy guns simply because there is no background check required or conducted.

The majority of criminals obtain their guns through straw purchases, which is already illegal. That is all you have to know to discuss this topic.

For ATF data click here and go to Chapter 3 page 11.

There is also data from the FBI that says criminals don't follow the laws.

 

[Justin]

Can you provide a quote from the New West article that states this?

The AHSA openly calls for renewing the ban on so-called "assault weapons." In the article, the main attempts to shore up the pro-gun bona fides of those at the top of the organization are geared towards hunting and skeet shooting. Nowhere did I see mention of an interest in self defense, or serious competitive shooting such as High Power, Bullseye, IPSC, IDPA, or Multigun.

Also I have to admit to being rather shocked at a "pro-gun" organization that believes the transfer of a gun between friends or family members, that cannot be construed by any rational person as interstate commerce, is something that should requires federal oversight.

AHSA is basically advocating the stance that if you transfer a gun to someone without going through a NICS check, that you should be made a criminal. I have to say, I find that rather ridiculous on its face.

 

[Justin]

Oh, and hey, they don't believe I should be able to compete with a .50 BMG rifle, either.

Or rather, they believe that in order to buy a single-shot precision big-bore target rifle, I should have to submit the same sort of paperwork that is required for a belt-fed machine gun.

Wow, their pro-gun stance just keeps getting better and better. Where do I sign up?

 

[RPCVYemen]

Nowhere did I see mention of an interest in self defense, or serious competitive shooting such as High Power, Bullseye, IPSC, IDPA, or Multigun.

So you claim that becuase the New West article does not say anything about these subject, AHSA must be opposed to them, and they are willing to throw you under the bus?

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

Oh, and hey, they don't believe I should be able to compete with a .50 BMG rifle, either.

I guess you haven't read the whole thread - on this policy, I disagree with them. I have stated that a number of times in this thread.

I think it's a silly policy.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

The AHSA openly calls for renewing the ban on so-called "assault weapons."

I would like to see citation where AHSA calls for renewing the AWB. I am not arguing, I'd just like to see it, because a lot of people seem to think it exists, and I don't see any such thing on their web site.

Mike

 

[rbernie]

The tone of your article suggests that if we can't do everything, we can't do anything. I don't see the world that way.

No, I do not believe that we should do nothing because we can't do everything. I believe that doing anything is a sham and a ruse and a false pretense at making us safer.

The FBI will show you data that they blocked hundreds of thousands of gun sales via NICS checks. Hooray for that. And in all of that data is an unstated implication that somehow we are safer because of that. Yet what they do not, and cannot, tell me is how many actual CRIMES were prevented as a result of these NICS rejections. It may be ten. It may be ten thousand. There is no knowing.

The whole premise of NICS is that if we deny the object then the criminal behavior will be thwarted. That premise is faulty to even the most basic of logic, and yet you seem to want to ignore this line of reasoning. Why?

Look to England and their gun prohibitions, and look at the violent crime rates in that country. Tell me how prohibiting a class of object to the criminal element has improved public safety one iota.

No - the Washington, DC law disarmed all the good guys as well as the bad guys. That's why it was a bad law - it disarmed everyone, and denied their right to keep and bear arms.

Straw man. The DC gun ban should have kept guns from prohibited people (as well as non-prohibited people). It failed to do that. So how can you contend that the .gov is in a position to prevent The Bad People from arming themselves even in the face of mandatory NICS transactions for all gun sales? The .gov can't keep the guns from The Bad People when they don't even have to determine who's good or bad - all they have to do is declare the item as contraband. The point is not how broadly the DC gun ban was applied - it is how ineffective prohibiting the acquisition of guns is with regard to actually eliminating guns in the hands of criminals, much less reducing crime.

I asked you:

Why do we want to cede the responsibility for our safety to the .gov in exchange for .gov approval for even the most basic of human actions (namely, the transfer of durable property), especially in the face of tens of thousands of years of history proving that The State cannot keep the bargain that we make with it?

And you chose not to answer.

Why?

 

[ZeroCool]

The gun industry makes, markets and sells inherently dangerous product (like automobiles, knives and drugs- all regulated) and they should be held accountable for their actions.

Beyond all of the other outright lies in this article, did anyone else laugh out loud when they read this part? Why are knives on this list and since when have they been regulated like cars and drugs?

I dont know too much about the author personally, but I bet he wouldnt be too happy if they re-classified 12 gauge skeet guns as Destructive Devices and banned them. I hate elitists, even gun elitists.

 

[Justin]

So you claim that becuase (sic) the New West article does not say anything about these subject, AHSA must be opposed to them, and they are willing to throw you under the bus?

No, this is based on statements by, as well as organizations funded and supported by those who hold the reins at AHSA. Of course, there's also the fact that the only candidates that they've supported are all Democrats who are, at best, lukewarm on the gun issue. And, hey, nevermind the fact that Joseph J. Vince, Jr. has made statements on behalf of the Brady Campaign in support of the ban of so-called "assault weapons." To say nothing of their outright endorsement of a Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate whose positions are positively toxic to the right to keep and bear arms. After all, Biden was one of the instrumental movers and shakers behind the drafting and passage of the ban.

Their actions very plainly speak louder than their lack of words on the subject. Of course, the fact that they expend more verbage attacking the NRA than speaking up in favor of advancing the Second Amendment rights of all US citizens says much, as well.

I guess you haven't read the whole thread - on this policy, I disagree with them. I have stated that a number of times in this thread.

I think it's a silly policy.

And this is evidence that we should support them...why? Perhaps you'd care to report to us regarding your attempts to get them to rescind such a plainly idiotic stance.

And while you're at it, perhaps you'd care to explain why AHSA wants to make a criminal out of every person who wants to sell a firearm to a friend/family member without jumping through a federally-mandated NICS check?


"Unfortunately for Schoenke, the Brady Campaign basically agrees with the NRA. "I see our issues as complementary to theirs," Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, says about Schoenke's association. "They're a positive group."

-The Washington Post, Tuesday, March 18, 2008

 

[stevelyn]

AHSA IS NOT pro-gun.

They are the propaganda/psyops/disinformation arm of the Brady/VPC pukes.

 

[RPCVYemen]

I must have misunderstood your earlier post:

Even in the New West article that was linked earlier, it's patently clear their board would happily throw me under the bus.

Even in the New West article that was linked earlier, it's patently clear their board would happily throw me under the bus.

So there was nothing in the New West article that suggests that they want to throw you under the path.

Evil

 

[RPCVYemen]

And you chose not to answer.

It was so full of unfounded (and incorrect) assumptions that I figured it was rhetorical. The following assumptions are incorrect:

• We want to cede the responsibility for our safety to the .gov
• In exchange for .gov approval for even the most basic of human actions (namely, the transfer of durable property)
• in the face of tens of thousands of years of history proving that The State cannot keep the bargain that we make with it?

If you can form your question without all of these assumptions, I can answer it.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

The point is not how broadly the DC gun ban was applied - it is how ineffective prohibiting the acquisition of guns is with regard to actually eliminating guns in the hands of criminals, much less reducing crime.

What made the DC law unconstitutional was precisely the breadth of application - it denied the right to keep and bear arms to law abiding citizens.

Mike

 

[Coronach]

OK.

Let's tally up the AHSA's pro-gun positions on key issues:

1. Gun show "loophole":

NICS required for all gun stransfers.

2. .50 Caliber weapons:

No .50 BMGs without onerous restrictions.

3. Renewing the federal AWB:

??? *crickets* *crickets*

OK, so...what would lead anyone to believe that the AHSA is a pro gun organization, beyond the fact that they claim they are? What positions have they taken to oppose gun control legislation? How have they acted upon that opposition?

Mike

ETA: And, their endorsed presidential candidate is on record as opposing gun rights in general (don't try to say he isn't) and supporting the renewal of the AWB in particular. But, they do have pictures of shotguns and hunting dogs on their site.

 

[RPCVYemen]

3. Renewing the federal AWB:

I keep running across this one. Can anyone cite an official AHSA call for this?

I searched the web site for "AWB" and "assault weapon", and didn't find anything.

Mike

 

[Coronach]

You are aware that this is the most contentious issue likely to come up in the near future, with the (AHSA-endorsed) president-elect on record as supporting a new AWB, the (AHSA-endorsed) vice-president-elect the author of the last AWB, right? And you, an AHSA member, cannot find the AHSA's "pro-gun" postition on this anywhere? Really?

Really?

A pro gun organization, eh?

Really?

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

You are aware that this is the most contentious issue likely to come up in the near future, with the (AHSA-endorsed) president-elect on record as supporting a new AWB, ...

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

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

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

Mike

 

[Coronach]

You are aware that this is the most contentious issue likely to come up in the near future, with the (AHSA-endorsed) president-elect on record as supporting a new AWB, ...

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

I hope you're right. I see no reason to believe that you are, but we'll see. He certainly has done nothing to support the idea that he won't, besides studiously avoiding comment in public.

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

I am. A pro-gun organization that supports RKBA will take up positions on likely legislation. There has been an AWB bill in every session of congress since the last AWB expired. The NRA, GOA, etc has taken up an issue position on all of them. Where's the AHSA's position on any of them?

Your best-case position is that the AHSA is completely inept as a political organization. Given that they have already taken up an anti-gun position on a more obscure issue (the 50 BMG ban), I don't find the ineptitude argument to be compelling. I am even more convinced that they are not opposed to the AWB when their endorsed candidates obviously support it.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

I am. A pro-gun organization that supports RKBA will take up positions on likely legislation. There has been an AWB bill in every session of congress since the last AWB expired. The NRA, GOA, etc has taken up an issue position on all of them. Where's the AHSA's position on any of them?

So you are really not arguing against anything the AHSA has said - you are arguing against what you assume the AHSA should have said and didn't, right?

Mike

 

[rbernie]

They're a free phone call to a toll free number. About the closest thing to a cost burden in the NICS call is the labor time lost to making the call. The whole 'cost of doing business' angle is just plain silly.

RPCVYemen - you seem to have gone radio silent on this issue. Do you still maintain that dealers incur an economic penalty for using NICS that private individuals do not incur? If I recall, your support for extending NICS to all sales, effectively banning private sales, was based upon a lack of leveling of the economic impact of the NICS check - no? After all, you said:

RPCVYemen posted:
I do not think that it's fair to require dealers at gun show to perform NICS checks but a guy outside in the parking lot not to perform NICS checks. That places law abiding dealers at a competitive disadvantage.

And:

RPCVYemen posted:
If some folks selling guns at a gun show have to bear the cost of the government mandated economic burden, then all should. It is not fair to require some people to bear that burden, and others not. That's what I mean by an economic disadvantage.

Can you quantify the nature and cost of this economic burden?

But back to the current topic between us - the actual benefit of NICS checks (since this seems to be one of the areas in which you and AHSA are in strong accord)....

RPCVYemen posted:
What made the DC law unconstitutional was precisely the breadth of application - it denied the right to keep and bear arms to law abiding citizens.

You're introducing a straw man. The legality of the law was not in question - the practical enforcability of gun prohibitions was. My question was, and remains:

rbernie posted:
how can you contend that the .gov is in a position to prevent The Bad People from arming themselves even in the face of mandatory NICS transactions for all gun sales? The .gov can't keep the guns from The Bad People when they don't even have to determine who's good or bad

 

[Coronach]

So you are really not arguing against anything the AHSA has said - you are arguing against what you assume the AHSA should have said and didn't, right?

So far as I know, the AHSA has no position on the AWB. Do they? If so, they should publish it. Their silence on the matter is deafening- or, rather, would be, if anyone listened to them. Painting this ommission as merely "something that they should have said" is disengenuous. A pro-gun organization that exists to protect RKBA should take a position on an obvious, impending issue that could have a serious impact on the future of RKBA in this nation. They've cast themselves as an RKBA watchdog. Where's their bark, let alone their bite? At best, they're inept. At worst, they're an organization of quislings.

The AHSA is doing a very poor job of painting itself as a pro-gun organization by cherry-picking a few "no-brainer" pro-rkba positions (overturn the already-overturned DC Gun Ban! Do it so washingtonians can hunt, too!), and mixing them into a slew of anti-RKBA compromises. When one major pick-a-side issue presents itself, they stand silent, but endorse candidates that are on the wrong side of the issue. Their supporters then cite a lack of position on the issue as a lack of evidence for their opposition for RKBA.

I can create a wonderful, pro-gun organization, too. Here's Coronach's Pro-Gun Organization's position on everything:See? We are very pro-gun. Why? Because we're pro gun. It even says so in our name. And, we'll have pictures of hunters and trap shooters on our website.

I return to my original question. You assume the AHSA is a pro-gun organization, why? Because they say they are?

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

RPCVYemen - you seem to have gone radio silent on this issue. Do you still maintain that dealers incur an economic penalty for using NICS that private individuals do not incur?

I didn't feel like going into a long discussion about the distinction between monetary and non-monetary costs. Most of the economic disadvantage or requiring one group to do an additional check is in the extra hassle, or perceived hassle of getting the check.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

You assume the AHSA is a pro-gun organization, why? Because they say they are?

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

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

Mike

 

[Justin]

So you are really not arguing against anything the AHSA has said - you are arguing against what you assume the AHSA should have said and didn't, right?

If an organization claiming to be "pro-gun" does not publicly take a stance against something like the ban on so-called "assault weapons" then can you tell me what purpose they could possibly serve?

After all, they claim to speak on behalf of gun owners. If they aren't publicly taking a stand on one of the most contentious public policy debates in which I have a stake, why shouldn't I be suspicious of their motives?

I will also note that they seem extremely quiet on the issue of concealed carry.

 

[Coronach]

RPCVYemen - you seem to have gone radio silent on this issue. Do you still maintain that dealers incur an economic penalty for using NICS that private individuals do not incur?

I didn't feel like going into a long discussion about the distinction between monetary and non-monetary costs. Most of the economic disadvantage or requiring one group to do an additional check is in the extra hassle, or perceived hassle of getting the check.

Mike

THAT is your economic disadvantage? C'mon. That doesn't even hold water. So, in order to eliminate this vanishingly small "advantage" given to the non FFL-holder, you advocate a position that would make a federal felon of anyone who transfers a gun to a relative without informing the government? Ever been to a gun show? The FFL-holders are not exactly going out of business due to all of the private sales going on. This is absurd.

I have news for you, I assure you that the FFL-holders at the gun show would suck up that "economic disadvantage" if it meant that they could give their WWII rifle collection to their grandchildren without making a record of the transaction with the ATF or being imprisoner in Club Fed. So, there, you can now drop the issue with a clean conscience. They don't want your "help".

Mike