BEWARE AHSA! Its use to Attack and Attempt to Weaken NRA & Divide 'Hunters' from 'Gun People"

NewWest and Travel Outdoors via keepandbeararms.com ^ | July 20, 2006 | Bill Schneider

[Oakleaf]

WILD BILL NRA Doesn't Represent Both Hunters and Gun Owners By Bill Schneider, 7-20-06

In June while at the annual conference of the Outdoor Writers Association of America, I went to a press conference held by an upstart conservation group called the American Hunters and Shooters Association, which has a pipedream goal of taking over representation of hunters and gun owners from the most powerful lobby in America, the National Rifle Association.

When I posted a report, Saving Hunters from the NRA, on what AHSA had to say at the press briefing, several devoted NRA members made some uncomplimentary comments about me and my article. They said I'd been duped by AHSA and should not give the group any creditability.

For the record, I really don't know if the AHSA truly represents the rights of gun owners, but that wasn't the point of the article. The point was: Imagine a little group like this trying to take on the goliath of politics. To this, I say dream on!

But all this made me think about the role of the NRA plays in preserving the future of hunting. In looking at today's political landscape, it seems like we might need another group to step up and save hunting before the NRA destroys it.

NRA worrying about AHSA is about like Google worrying about Lycos. But for some reason, the NRA, or at least factions within, views AHSA as a threat and employs its patented bullying style to comes after anybody who writes about it. Could it be that the NRA is worried that the gig is up and hunters will start to figure out they have been the ones who have been duped?

Again, for the record, I own lots of guns; I've hunted all my life (which is a long time); and I believe the Second Amendment is one of our basic freedoms we enjoy here in America, but I don't fret about the federal government breaking down my door to confiscate my battle worn 870 or my late grandfather's octagon-barrel 30-30, nor do I think all gun control laws, such as the ban on automatic assault rifles, are bad. Given that, here are a few thoughts on the NRA.

First (surprise to some of you who sent in comments), I was a NRA member for many years, but I left the flock when the gun rights group began to regularly support politicians making the Dirty Dozen lists for their views and votes on conservation issues such as protection of wildlife habitat. The politicians NRA supports are probably the worst enemies hunters have, which makes the NRA, regardless of its claims to the contrary, a contributor to the demise of hunting.

It doesn't take too much research to see the giant conflict among the NRA's mission. It's trying to represent both gun owners and hunters, but it can't do both because politicians the NRA puts into office and keeps in office do not represent both. They only represent gun owners.

One would have a hard time arguing the NRA has not done a good job of protecting the rights of gun owners, but in the process, the NRA is sacrificing the future of hunting. Bow hunters aside, all hunters are, of course, gun owners, and I have no problem with hunters belonging to the NRA to support the right to bear arms, but they shouldn't be naïve enough to believe the current management of the NRA represents the best interests of hunting. This may have been true thirty years ago, but not today.

By putting and keeping the enemies of hunters in high political places, the NRA supports unbridled development and reduction of access to prime hunting lands. Hunters need guns to hunt, of course, but they also need game animals and accessible hunting land.

ASHA, incidentally, has no qualms about stepping up to the podium and saying, without weasel words, that it supports keeping roadless lands roadless and designating prime hunting lands as Wilderness. I'll go out on a limb and say you'll never hear such straight talk from the NRA.

Many hunters who belong to the NRA tend to believe the endless barrage of political messages coming out of NRA lobbying efforts. When the NRA says vote for somebody, hunters often do it, incorrectly believing NRA supports the best interests of hunting when, in fact, the preferred politicos only support the best interests of gun owners and manufacturers.

It's a shame, actually, that politicians can't represent both hunters and gun owners. That's another long story for another time, but today, it rarely works that way.

This isn't breaking news. The NRA has been taking some lumps for months on this issue. Fellow outdoor writer Pat Wray of Corvallis, Oregon, sort of blew the lid off the issue of the NRA's conflicting mission last January with two articles on the subject, What’s the NRA’s beef with roadless areas? and NRA No Friend of Hunters.

Here's how Wray put it: "I know a man who raises snakes. His snakes are important to him, so he raises mice to feed to the snakes. He takes good care of the mice, because he needs lots of them to support his snakes. We hunters are the NRA’s mice. They want lots of us, too, but they worry because there’s always the outside chance we might start thinking for ourselves. So they keep us scared of enemies, or people they want us to think are enemies. Then we dutifully cough up money to help fight those enemies. Think about it: When was the last time you heard of a snake actually helping a mouse? We’re being tricked."

In response to Wray's original articles, the Gun Guys website where "everybody is a straight shooter," agreed: "One of the reasons we exist is simply to set the record straight on gun issues. For years the NRA has fed lies to the American people because it advances their agenda. And they’ve claimed to be the protectors of the American tradition of hunting. The problem is that they mislead hunters into thinking their actions will benefit hunting. All too often, hunters are foolish enough to believe them. In effect, the NRA is running one of the most effective scams in the country. They are promoting activities sure to decrease future hunting opportunities and convincing hunters to help pay for their efforts."

Last May, another outdoor writer Robert Chappell followed Wray's lead with a well-researched article, Missing the Mark, in the Milwaukee Shepard Express, which was published on the eve of the NRA annual convention in Milwaukee.

In his article, Chappell pointed out that "the NRA has supported conservative legislators intent on opening up wilderness areas, probably the most pristine hunting lands we have, to mining and drilling and the building of roads. In an attempt to justify the contradictory positions, NRA leaders have repeatedly asserted that building roads into natural, pristine habitat is actually good for hunters."

In support of this statement, Chappel quotes NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam as saying “Our dues-paying members are hard-working people who are unable to take large amounts of time off to enjoy the time-honored tradition of hunting.”

Arulanadam also claimed, according to Chappel, that modern-day hunters simply don’t have time to hike; they need to drive right up to the tree stand. The NRA spokesman also repeated, again according to Chappel, the "NRA dogma" that more motorized access benefits the elderly, young and disabled hunters unable to trek through the Wilderness. This is, of course, the same old line used thousands of times by industry groups fighting Wilderness designation.

"This would seem to go against the wishes of NRA members who hunt within those areas and fear the continued loss of habitat," concludes Chapel, "and many of those hunters aren’t buying it."

Chappel quotes John See, a lifelong gun owner and hunter in northern Wisconsin--and one of those hunters no longer buys the NRA line, “They (the NRA hierarchy) are concerned about guns, but I don’t know where they’re going to use those guns,”

See lives in Menominee, Wis., which he calls “NRA country,” but says he has no use for the NRA, nor does he worry about losing his guns. “I think that’s the biggest hoax the NRA perpetrates. I don’t think there’s any chance our guns will be taken away.”

Finally, Chappel goes back to talk to Wray, who originally blew the lid off the NRA scam of blurring the lines between interests of gun owners and hunters. “Right now, the NRA is actively working against the best interests of hunters,” Wray blasted. “It’s never been quite so obvious, quite so insidious, quite so dangerous as it is now. The NRA is using hunters, misleading hunters, and using their money in ways that will work against their best interests.”

After Wray's articles came out, he had to suffer the wrath of NRA criticism, but his point went unrefuted. I suppose this could happen to me, too, but as a hunter concerned about the future of hunting, it's impossible to avoid the same conclusion. The NRA does a great job protecting the best interests of gun owners, but it should come clean with its members and admit that it does not represent the best interests of hunters.

[Oakleaf]

This article is an example of how AHSA is and will continue to be used to drive a wedge between the 'hunters' and 'conservationists' and the 'gun people'. Some of the points made by the writer and some of the issues discussed have merit but that is not the focus of this post. Please focus on how the AHSA is used as an introduction to 1. an attack on the NRA and 2. the setting up the interests of 'hunters' vs. 'gun people'. As we enter another political season the last thing we need is guys like this trying to peel off membership (he resigned) or support (money or Grassroots activities) from the NRA.

N.B. Article found on keepandbeararms.com to give credite where it is due

[Oakleaf]

Also, scroll down at the end of the article in the original source, there are a lot of comments from readers.

[SampleMan]

I've heard this spiel from some hunters in the past, "Its not guns, but hunting (legitimate uses) that must be preserved."

Pointing out to them that hunting is not a right, nor is it the primary legitimate reason for owning a gun, has always been very effective.

As in most of Europe, if hunting is made to be the only legitimate reason for owning a gun, then there is no reason left when hunting is made illegal.

[Dixie Yooper]

"ASHA, incidentally, has no qualms about stepping up to the podium and saying, without weasel words, that it supports keeping roadless lands roadless and designating prime hunting lands as Wilderness."

That's all I needed to read. This ASHA group is a front for another Sierra Club bunch of environs. The National Forests are for the government to manage for all, not just those that want to close them to everyone but backpackers with access permits. Clinton and his cronies closed off millions of acres to us. Bush has been doing his best to open them back up.

[sittnick]

The article's main point seems to be that pro 2A pols are also pro-develpment, while gun control advocates are more likely pro conservation. What the article misses however, is that the current breed of "conservationist" politicians usually like to set aside land from ANY use, including hunting. It is not business interests versus hunting interests, it's business inetersts versus environmentalist fruitake-ism.

I'm waiting for the article about how the National Organization for Women doesn't help women, but is mainly about abortion rights.

[snowsislander]

It's the first time in a while that I have seen anything even resembling clever behavior from the gungrabbers. Trying to do a bit of divide-and-conquer on their part on wilderness issues certainly is an improvement over their usual nitwittery such as their labeling Florida the "Gunshine State" due to its move to more reasonable gunlaws over the years.

However, they are still very clumsy, such as this portion of their tripe:

... but I don't fret about the federal government breaking down my door to confiscate my battle worn 870 or my late grandfather's octagon-barrel 30-30, nor do I think all gun control laws, such as the ban on automatic assault rifles, are bad.

Notice how carefully they slimily babble on about how they are gunowners, too, and they have no worries about anyone taking their good guns --- just those evil semi-automatics in the assault weapons ban. That bit wasn't so clever on their part, since it is such a blatant line of blarney that most gunowners will pick up on it immediately.

I hope no one is taken in by these folks, but I imagine that there will be some good folks who don't pay a lot of attention to the issues who will be fooled by the AHSA.

[prion]

They're going to have a mighty tough sell, getting hunters to dislike the NRA.

[Smokin' Joe]

...but says he has no use for the NRA, nor does he worry about losing his guns. “I think that’s the biggest hoax the NRA perpetrates. I don’t think there’s any chance our guns will be taken away.”

Pretty close to comments I heard back when the AWB was being considered the first time from some hunters I know. They didn't like, own, or consider semi-automatic rifles in military calibers to be particularly useful of necessary, so they were willing to see them sacrificed on the altar of appeasement to the anti-gunners, figuring their rifles, designed 'for sporting purposes' were safe.

No application of logic, including the concept that Mauser-based bolt-action rifles are fundamentally a military design, seemed to get through. Not even the discussion of semi-automatic shotguns made a dent.

This becomes especially relevant when one considers that the AWB is still lurking in the wings, updated, more potent, etc, with no 'sunset' date, just waiting with the 100 odd co-sponsors for the 'right' incident or 'right' moment.

Unfortunately, there are 'exceptional' gun owners, who, like 'exceptional' conservatives, believe in Rights 'except...' (add whatever they don't personally care for), and this is targeted at taking them out of the fight for the RKBA.

[I_Like_Spam]

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, the liberals just don't get it.

Both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore deflected to talking about hunting when asked about gun rights and I think they thought they could bamboozle the people.

[Jack Hammer]

Just as a point of order, the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

[mr_hammer]

"nor do I think all gun control laws, such as the ban on automatic assault rifles, are bad."

Spoken like a true "Lib" Gave away his cover right there!

[Shooter 2.5]

So where is the barf alert or is it self evident?

So who is bankrolling this American Hunters and Shooters Association?
Are there any antigun politicians or celebrities on their board of directors?

[Sal]

I completely agree with your comments in #6. It scared me to see the gungrabbers using some intellect and strategy in their attacks on RKBA.

Fortunately they just can't quite help themselves from letting the mask slip and exposing who and what they are. Let's hope they don't figure that one out and find the discipline to stay hidden.

[Shooter 2.5]

N.B. Article found on keepandbeararms.com to give credite where it is due

The original owner of Keepandbeararms is a known NRA hater.

[Oakleaf]

AHSA is a DNC front controlled and funded by the DNC and all kinds of antigunners. Their specific mission is to pretend to be pro-gun and to peel off voters from the Republicans and the NRA in the 06 and 08 elections. They changed their ISP registration to conceal their Democratic masters after John Lott blew the whistle on them. Their members include the "traitor Bob Ricker" as Triggerfinger puts it. Make no mistake, their mission is to split a part of the 'gun vote', however small, to the antigun Democrats. In this age of razor-thin electoral victories every vote they can peel off coupled with the votes of the 'graveyard Democrats' is crucial. BEWARE AHSA!:

http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/entry/6695.jsp be sure to check out his hotlinks to John Lott's website and his links about how they changed their domain registration to hide their true nature as a Democratic front http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2005/08/...n-of-fake.html. For triggerfinger you have to keep clicking on the hotlinks and read them through to get to all the details. I've put much of his original post below, when you go to his site many of the phrases will open up as hotlinks to source webpages.

http://www.gunlawnews.org/asha.html more on their website registration

http://www.nraila.org/HuntingAndCons...ost.aspx?ID=23

Triggerfingers Post: Make no mistake, we have existing pro-gun organizations working very effectively on training, safety, hunting and range regulations, and so on. We don't need another organization doing this... especially if we can't trust it.

And we can't trust these folks. How do I know?

Their President is Ray Schoenke, who seems clean at first glance... but in 1996 his firm donated $1000 to the campaign of Torricelli (D-NJ). New Jersey is a gun control paradise and Torricelli has voted consistently in favor of gun control. Ray himself ran for the Democratic nomination for governor of Maryland.

Their executive director is Bob Ricker, infamous traitor to the gun industry. He used to lobby for us, before he decided that the role of Brutus was better suited to his temperment. He's provided testimony in prominent firearms-liability lawsuits -- testimony against the gun industry.

Their president is John E Rosenthal, who has worked with the "gun violence prevention efforts" of Boston, Massachussetts. He co-founded the gun-control group "Stop Handgun Violence", and suggests that the gun laws of Massachusetts should be the model for the country. He's spent a great deal of money on anti-gun advertising, including a national billboard campaign in collaboration with Handgun Control president Michael Barnes.

Their co-chairman is Jody Powell, Washington lawyer, whose experience includes service in the administration of Jimmy Carter, and whose tenure as White House press secretary immediately preceded that of James Brady. He lobbied against the impeachment of Bill Clinton. He doesn't seem attached to the truth; "now [the truth] almost doesn't seem to get attention paid to it anymore."

Their board of directors includes Joseph J Vince, whose career in law enforcement includes time as an ATF "special agent" whose experience includes undercover work in the "intelligence division". That means infiltration, folks. And here he is heading up a supposedly pro-gun organization... well, never mind the tinfoil hat theories, here's some good juicy stuff. He's also the president of Crime Gun Solutions, a gun control consultency business that has done work for the infamous Violence Policy Center. He describes America as "absolutely the best place for a terrorist to equip himself with guns" and claims assault weapons are more powerful than rocket launchers in a 60-minutes hit piece.

The credit for this story goes to reader Jay, who wrote in with a tip about them, saying he was suspicious of their real stance. He did some research, picked up on the Bob Ricker connection, and wrote them email asking which firearms regulation measures their group opposes, since they support the "assault weapons ban" and bans on "cop-killer bullets". No response to the email yet, but I'll pass one along if he gets one.

Thanks, Jay. These folks are definitely not on our side.

UPDATE: More details on DHS, a Democratic consultancy that owns the domain name, from Countertop Chronicles; and more on Crime Gun Solutions from The War On Guns.

UPDATE: GunLawNews has more details on the organization, particularly the financial angle.

UPDATE: John Lott has still more.

UPDATE: The War on Guns was there first... but he used the Mainstream Media to get the message out, so his column will be several months in the pipeline.

UPDATE: Welcome, Outdoors Unlimited visitors. That's an impressive amount of traffic for one tiny-print link in the middle of a very busy page. I hope you'll feel free to look around the blog, and bookmark it to come back later; I cover firearms and liberty issues regularly, with an emphasis on ways that individuals can make a difference in the political process. You may also be interested in my coverage of the Seegars and Parker cases, one or both of which may well put the 2nd Amendment before the Supreme Court in the near future. I've also asked for input on other cases that need that kind of coverage. Please feel free to leave a comment or two pointing out what you think I should be covering.

UPDATE: The NRA's Digger's Corner had this story on July 28th.

UPDATE: The group has changed their domain registration to conceal their connection to the Democratic consultant group.

As for the barf alert didn't think of it but on reflection seems self-evident.

[Oakleaf]

I have no knowledge of the beliefs of the owner of keepandbeararms.com. I just wanted to give credit for the source where I found the post. Also, my post is about the dangers of the AHSA.

[arthurus]

My immediate impression on reading the line about not being against the AWB was that he included that to reassure his colleagues that he wasn't really off the reservation, that he was mostly lying.

[Shooter 2.5]

Thanks for all the information. I think we can fight back by requesting material from the organization and hope that depletes their funds. I don't have a fireplace but I don't mind walking to the garbage can.

The original owner of the website has been posting antiNRA articles for sometime now. I think he sold the site to the GOA. Little tidbit, he moved to an antigun state and someone ratted him out for his unregistered guns. He spent the weekend in jail.

[rellimpank]

-bflr-

[Oakleaf]

The AHSA is just like 'Americans for Gun Safety' another Democratic front - they can't fight their battles in the open they always use surrogates and fly under 'false colors'!...Anyway, here is a post from AGS on the Democratic Leadership Council website about how the Democrats can finagle part of the 'gun vote': http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=119&subid=157&contentid=251918.

Similarly from '03 how the Democrats and AGS want to get the "God and Guns" vote: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200310%5CNAT20031017a.html.

Finally, from the AGS website itself, go to http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/default.asp then scroll down on the right click on "Guns and Politics" and download their "Seven Step Plan for Taking Back the Second Amendment" for the Democrats.

Taking Back the Second Amendment: Seven Steps Democrats Must Take To Close The Gun Gap

Democrats can close this gun gap and make significant inroads with gun owners by staking out an aggressive position on guns that reflects both the majority view of gun owners and non-gun owners, and responsible policy positions to keep America safe. This moderate view supports the Second Amendment, new laws like those designed to close the gun show loophole, the renewal of the ban on assault weapons, and the strenuous enforcement of existing gun laws. If Democrats want to close the gun gap, they need to jettison their existing strategy of silence and embrace these seven steps to improve their performance....(snip)

Step 3: Redefine the Issue from Gun Control to Gun Safety
Gun control has become a loaded term that leads voters to believe that the candidate supports the most restrictive laws, including a ban on handguns. Democrats would be foolish to continue using the term gun control – and to
accept the media’s imposition of such biased and negative terminology on Democrats – as foolish as a pro-choice oganization labeling itself anti-life.

Voters don’t define enforcement of existing gun laws, closing the gun show loophole or renewing the assault weapons ban as gun control. Neither should candidates or the Democratic party – nor should they encourage or tolerate such mislabeling by the national media....(snip)

Background: Why AGS Has Prepared A Blueprint For Democrats
Historically, the Democratic Party has been the more active party on issues concerning gun safety. But in recent years, the prevailing wisdom has been that the gun issue has hurt Democrats, possibly costing them the 2000
presidential election and control of the House and Senate. Whether this is true or not, the conventional wisdom has made it markedly more difficult to pass effective legislation to close gun law loopholes and to enforce the laws on the books to keep America safe. If this perception is not changed, the future of commonsense gun laws is in jeopardy.

Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) has worked extensively to build bipartisan support for federal gun legislation including closing the gun show loophole and fixing the instant background check system. We believe that this
issue does not have to be partisan, and that there are many common-sense solutions that respect gun rights and promote solid gun policy – solutions that both parties should be able to embrace. Moreover, we have offered to assist the GOP in addressing their gun vulnerabilities, specifically on gun shows and the renewal of the assault weapons ban, yet to date, many in the GOP though not all
remain opposed to what AGS, and most voters, consider sensible gun legislation.

We hope that situation will change and Republican leadership will move to the center on issues like gun shows and the assault weapons ban. Because Democrats are currently the party most likely to take the necessary steps to ensure a reduction in gun crime, AGS drafted this blueprint to help Democrats perform better among gun owners while maintaining and promoting the Party principle of supporting commonsense gun safety laws. It is often said that good policy is good politics. But in the case of the polarized gun issue, politics has too often stood in the way of good policy. We believe that this blueprint will encourage the Democratic Party to both actively promote sensible gun safety policies and allow them to make headway with gun owners.