Skip to main content

Last month, on behalf of my organization, the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), I sent a letter to Senator Leahy endorsing the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.  I maintained in the letter that "Some in the firearm community have leveled a number of charges against Judge Sotomayor that do not pass the truth test."

Unfortunately, that’s standard operating procedure for many in the entrenched pro-gun community.  Everything is a knee-jerk reaction that somehow morphs into all of our guns being taken away.  The bureaucrats in the old pro-gun lobby really need to grow up – and smarten up.  As I’ve said before, the rhetoric from the NRA leadership and others tarnishes all gun owners, not just their frustrated members.

Sotomayor is going to respect the precedent established by the D.C. v. Heller case, which established that the Second Amendment applies to individuals. That’s what Sotomayor told Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy during her confirmation hearings. I wrote down what she told Leahy "Like you, I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans...I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller."   The Second Amendment has not been incorporated into the states, per Justice Scalia in the Heller decision. She followed that precedent in the the Maloney nunchuckas case. And, she’s got an open mind on whether the Second Amendment should be incorporated.   Those are the words we’d want to hear from a Supreme Court justice during the hearings.  I don’t think anything Sotomayor said n response to questions from any Senator should warrant the alarmist screeching from some in the pro-gun crowd. Zak Johnson posted the Leahy-Sotomayor transcript in an excellent analysis of this issue at Blue Oregon titled, "Attacks on Sonia Sotomayor by Right-Wing Gun Rights Groups Don’t Hold Up." Zak is absolutely right. The attacks don't hold up.

This is a serious matter and deserves serious consideration. But, for the NRA, it’s another political game. In fact, expecting the NRA to be purely political, Politicoreported earlier this week that GOP Senator Jeff Sessions tried to goad the NRA into taking a position against Sotomayor. It’s just sad that the NRA is viewed primarily as a GOP political front group at the disposal of Jeff Sessions. But, no surprise, the NRA did what they were basically told to do by Sessions.

As if on cue, yesterday, the NRA leaders announced they’re opposed to Sotomayor:

The NRA criticized several of the positions Sotomayor had taken on Second Amendment rights. "It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states," two of the group’s leaders, Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, said in a statement.

"We believe that any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land," they added.

Funny how that happened. Actually, it’s not funny for the millions of gun owners who the NRA purports to represent.  In opposing Sotomayor, Cox and LaPierre deliberately misled their members. They intentionally misconstrued her testimony. And, imagine the uproar from conservatives if a potential Supreme Court nominee said history, not Supreme Court precedence, was his or her guiding principle.  Cox and LaPierre just can’t bring themselves to be upfront about anything.  With them, everything is the worst thing ever.  

Last week, before Sessions told them to act, the NRA, which is supposed to be so powerful, the leaders of the group couldn't even take "an official position" on Sotomayor.  Instead, the Executive Director of the 140-year old NRA, Chris Cox, also sent a letter to Senator Leahy to attack my three-year old progressive group, AHSA.  The point of Cox’s letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee was a swipe at AHSA.  That's actually pretty weak.

After the events of the past few weeks, the NRA’s rank and file members should really wonder what the high-paid leaders do with all those emergency contributions, which are always so desperately needed.  (And, the brewing scandal about the NRA’s DVD should only add to the concern of NRA members.)

What's becoming increasingly clear is that the NRA politburo doesn't speak for all gun owners -- despite the best efforts of the NRA's leaders to perpetuate that myth.

There are tens of millions of gun owners who don't belong to the NRA – and never will.  Most of us know that are gun rights are safe.  But not the NRA. That  would impact fundraising.  Those overpaid senior executives at the NRA are clearly rankled that over twenty million gun owners thumbed their noses at the NRA’s dire warnings that "Obama would take away your guns." Instead, 20 million gun owners, including me, voted for Obama last November.  Those gun owners deserve to have a voice in this legislative and political process.  Unlike the NRA, AHSA isn't afraid to take a position.  And, we can’t even imagine using a letter to the Senate, on an issue of critical importance to the nation, to launch an attack. That's beyond pathetic.  

I am going to keep speaking out on issues that affect gun owners.  That means protecting our gun rights. When we agree with NRA’s position, so be it, but I also want to protect our environment and public lands. And, I want safe communities. But, more than anything, I want to provide a rational voice for gun owners. That’s been missing.  And, every time I hear anything from the leaders of the NRA, I realize just how hysterical and out-of-touch some of the gun groups have become.  They really need to grow up.

Originally posted to Schoenke on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 12:11 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The NRA should change their name to the NWA. (3+ / 0-)

    That is the National Weapons Association.

    "Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodilla." E. Zapata

    by Mas Gaviota on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 12:18:45 PM PDT

  •  just an aside, but... (4+ / 0-)

    what do all those 2nd amendment absolutist senators, think about conducting business in front of a disarmed citizenry? shouldn't the spectators be allowed to "bear arms" at these hearings & every other hearing?

    "Michele Bachmann is like the demi glace of wingnuttia." - Chris Hayes, Countdown, 2/18/09

    by rasbobbo on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 12:34:33 PM PDT

  •  If they really believed in proper animal (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mas Gaviota, KVoimakas

    hunting/preservation rules they espouse, they would not have endorsed Palin.

    She helped eat the evidence that her brother in law shot ruminant illegally and failed to report it until she decided to go after him for personal reasons. That would make her guilty of wrong hunting after the fact and part of conspiracy to conceal illegal act.  There goes their conservationist credentials.

    Gun ownership requires responsibility. She fails. By endorsing her, they fail. I call BS.

    De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

    by Neon Mama on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 12:45:12 PM PDT

    •  The NRA outright lies (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neon Mama, Mas Gaviota

      If they really believed in proper animal hunting/preservation rules they espouse, they would not have endorsed Palin.

      On their website they claim the cougar population in California since 1990 has exploded (false - there is no evidence that the cougar population has not been stable since approximately 1980) when it was banned (false - it was banned in 1971 by executive order of Governor Ronald Reagan).  Their point behind these lies is to support reinstating cougar hunting in California, by first claiming that it is necessary and second by attempting to blame the ban on environmental groups that supported codifying the already-existing ban into California's constitution by proposition in 1990 (besides, it would be awkward to implicate the patron saint of all things Republican - Reagan - in banning cougar hunting).

      Groups that want to hunt cougars in California are part of the NRA's constituency, and the organization clearly has no compunctions against blatantly lying to advance the desires of (some of) their members.

      •  The NRA's national leadership (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duckhunter, Neon Mama, Mas Gaviota

        could give a shit about cougar hunting. This diary is right on the money, the NRA is a lobbying group for firearm manufacturers. They ceased looking out for sportsmen long ago.

        "All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason. -Abraham Lincoln

        by happy camper on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 01:23:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  NRA (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duckhunter, Neon Mama, Mas Gaviota

          The NRA's national leadership could give a shit about cougar hunting. This diary is right on the money, the NRA is a lobbying group for firearm manufacturers. They ceased looking out for sportsmen long ago.

          They care.  If they didn't, they wouldn't bother lying on their website about it.  The fact that the NRA is a lobbying group for firearms manufacturers, which is spot on, doesn't conflict with the fact that they're other things as well.  Four millions members represent a not-inconsequential source of revenue.  And supporting the desires of those members, through outright deceit if necessary, is part of the NRA's mission.

          The members of the NRA - especially the ones who march out and vote just as the NRA tells them to vote - are important to the organization.  They help keep it going.  They help keep its coffers full, so it can elect more Republicans.

          Hunters are going to hunt.  They're not going to sell their rifles if, say, Oregon bans cougar hunting.  But if Oregon tries to do so, watch the NRA go ballistic.  Watch the hysteria and the lies.  And it won't be because firearms manufacturers care.  NRA members will, and that will motivate the NRA.

  •  You know? (6+ / 0-)

    The NRA et.al. have forgotten one rather important point. US "Libs" are also armed and a hell of a lot smarter. Bring it on assholes. We have already seen that Cheney can't even kill an old lawyer from 50 feet.Is that your point man ??

  •  Wow! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas

    This many comments and no one has jumped into this diary to tell us gun owners that we shouldn't be allowed to enjoy our Second Amendment Rights?

  •  NRA leaders use same old, tired tactics on Sotoma (0+ / 0-)

    Sandra Froman is a graduate of Harvard Law School

    Former NRA President's Testimony in Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings
    07/16/2009

    Testimony of Sandra S. Froman, former NRA president, before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court:

    Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Judiciary Committee today to discuss the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, particularly as it relates to her views on the Second Amendment.

    Before I begin, let me state that the views I express today are my own and not those of any particular organization. Having said that, I believe my views are shared by Americans from all states and all walks of life who care about preserving our fundamental constitutional liberties for ourselves and future generations, especially the right to keep and bear arms.

    It is extremely important that a Supreme Court justice understand and appreciate the origin and meaning of the Second Amendment, a constitutional guarantee permanently enshrined in the Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. It is a right exercised and valued by almost 90 million American gun owners as well as by tens of millions more who value the right to choose to own a firearm in the future or to enjoy the shooting sports with a friend or family member who owns a gun. It may be considered the ultimate constitutional right because it exists to protect all the others.

    Yet Judge Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment together with her unwillingness or inability as an appellate judge to engage in any analysis of this enumerated right when twice given the opportunity to do so including most recently after the Supreme Courts landmark decision last year in District of Columbia v. Heller suggest either a lack of understanding of Second Amendment jurisprudence or hostility to the right. Either possibility should be of grave concern to this committee, as it is to me and millions of other gun owners.

    Last year, the Supreme Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees to all law-abiding, responsible citizens the individual right to keep and bear their private arms, particularly for self-defense. The Court was closely divided, however. Four of the nine justices dissented, arguing that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of an individual to use firearms for purely private, non-military purposes and endorsed the concept that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The same four justices joined in a separate dissent saying that even if the Second Amendment protects a purely private right to own firearms, the District of Columbias absolute ban on handguns within the home should be upheld as a "reasonable" restriction. If this had been the majority view, then any gun ban could be upheld, and the Second Amendment would be meaningless.

    While on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor revealed her views on the right to keep and bear arms in two cases. In the 2004 case, United States v. Sanchez-Villar, Judge Sotomayor and two colleagues dismissed a Second Amendment claim in a footnote holding that the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right. They cited an earlier Second Circuit case but provided no reasoning or analysis to support their one-sentence conclusion rejecting the constitutional claim. Imagine if such abrupt treatment was afforded other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, such as the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

    Judge Sotomayor's 2004 ruling might have been overlooked as having been issued before the Supreme Court in Heller announced its modern jurisprudence on the Second Amendment. But Judge Sotomayor reiterated her view of the Second Amendment after Heller. In Maloney v. Cuomo, decided earlier this year, she was on a panel that held that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right, that it does not apply to the states, and that if an object is designed primarily as a weapon that is a sufficient basis for total prohibition even within the home.

    The Maloney opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois as controlling precedent for the proposition that the Second Amendment limits only the federal government and does not limit the states. The panel stated that Heller does not invalidate this longstanding principle, and concluded without analysis that even if Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of Presser, the 1886 case had direct application to Maloney and must be followed.

    Presser and two other cases from the late 1800s, United States v. Cruikshank (1876) and Miller v. Texas (1894), held that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. Although the Cruikshank line of cases has never been overruled, they were decided before development of modern twentieth century incorporation jurisprudence. Thus, the cases are obsolete and mostly have been rejected by the Court. For example, Cruikshank also stated that the First Amendment right of assembly did not apply to the states, which the Court later repudiated. Otherwise, Americans would not have any assembly First Amendment rights against states and local governments, which would then be able to ban church attendance or make it a crime to gather on the steps of the statehouse to criticize government. Indeed, over the past 50 years, the Supreme Court has applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states.

    An individual's Second Amendment rights are no less deserving of protection against states and local governments. Although the Supreme Court did not have to decide the incorporation issue in Heller, because federal law applies directly in the District of Columbia, the Court warned in a footnote against the application of Cruikshank in future Second Amendment cases and specified the type of constitutional analysis that would be expected of lower federal courts presented with the incorporation issue: With respect to Cruikshanks continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.

    The Maloney panel was equally dismissive of the Fourteenth Amendment claim, concluding that laws that do not interfere with fundamental rights must be upheld if rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Judge Sotomayor and her panel members conducted no analysis to determine if the right at issue was fundamental but merely assumed it was not. They accepted that a rational basis existed for the statute because there had been testimony at the time the law was enacted that the weapon at issue, a nunchaku, was designed primarily as a weapon and has no purpose other than to maim or, in some instances, kill, and went on to uphold the statute.

    In light of the express warning in Heller about Cruikshank, Judge Sotomayors panel in Maloney was obligated at a minimum to conduct a proper Fourteenth Amendment due process analysis of Second Amendment incorporation before reaching a conclusion. By failing to do so, the Maloney court evaded its judicial responsibilities, offered no guidance to lower federal courts faced with this issue, and provided no assistance in framing the issue for eventual resolution by the Supreme Court of a conflict among the circuits.

    In addition, the Maloney courts use of the rational basis standard of review to uphold the New York statutes ban on possession of nunchakus in the home, is incorrect in light of Hellers' holding that the District of Columbias categorical ban on handguns in ones home would fail under any meaningful standard of review. After Heller, it is not proper to apply a rational basis standard to a Second Amendment claim without performing the requisite constitutional analysis to determine whether the right is fundamental, which the Maloney court did not do.

    While Second Amendment supporters disagree with Judge Sotomayor's substantive views of the Second Amendment, the manner in which she reached her conclusions is of equal or greater concern. When confronted with perhaps the most important question remaining after Heller about the right to keep and bear arms whether the right is fundamental and should be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to constrain the states, Judge Sotomayor dismissed the issue with no substantive analysis. Citing questionable precedent from the 1800s, she did nothing to note over a century of radical changes in constitutional law, nothing to consider the merits of the argument, nothing to comment on the issues importance.
    Whenever a federal appellate judge fails to provide any supporting analysis for his or her conclusion, or to address serious constitutional issues that are compelled by the case, it is legitimate to ask whether the judge reached that conclusion based on fair and impartial application of the Constitution and law to the facts or based on an unstated political or social agenda.

    Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated to states and local governments is important because, in addition to federal statutes and regulations, there are tens of thousands of state and local laws regulating firearms that affect American guns owners in their daily lives. Preventing an individual from effectively exercising what the Heller Court said was the Second Amendments core lawful purpose of self-defense is no less dangerous to the individual when accomplished by a state law than by a federal law. And to the extent that the Second Amendment was intended as a safeguard against tyranny, there is no reason why individuals should not be equally entitled to protection against tyranny by state governments as by the federal government.

    Although the Court in Heller did not decide whether the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, the opinion suggests as much, noting that the right to arms was one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen from whence our common law derives and that the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. Thus, the right in every sense satisfies the Supreme Courts test in Duncan v. Louisiana that to be fundamental, the right must be necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.

    Whether the Second Amendment is a fundamental right is important to deciding whether a meaningful level of scrutiny should be applied to any governmental burden placed on the exercise of the right. It is also critical to answering the incorporation question because the Supreme Court has only incorporated against the states those rights it deems fundamental.

    Judge Sotomayor's view that the right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental right deserving of protection against states and local governments would rob the Second Amendment of any real meaning and would trample on the individual rights of America's nearly 90 million gun owners. Under her view of the Second Amendment, states and local governments could pass any kind of gun prohibition they want, including outright bans on firearms. Under her view, the gun bans in New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago would be upheld under the Constitution. Under her view, it would not violate the Constitution if as implausible as it seems the states of Nebraska and Montana decided to ban all guns used for hunting based on environmental concerns, or if the cities of Anchorage and Little Rock decided to ban all handguns within the city limits as a public safety measure. The City of New Orleans door-to-door confiscation of firearms from law-abiding peaceable citizens that took place in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina would be constitutional under Judge Sotomayor's view of the Second Amendment.

    The lack of any serious constitutional analysis by Judge Sotomayor in the Maloney and Sanchez-Villar decisions is even more egregious when you compare them to the recent Ninth Circuit and Seventh Circuit cases that reached opposite views on Second Amendment incorporation.

    In Nordyke v. King, the Ninth Circuit engaged in a detailed analysis of this question, concluding that the Cruikshank line of cases only prevented incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Ninth Circuit held that it was free to consider incorporation through the Due Process Clause and did so, concluding that the Second Amendment does apply to the states.

    The Seventh Circuit, in NRA v. Chicago, reached the opposite conclusion on incorporation of the Second Amendment based on what it felt was controlling precedent of the Cruikshank line of cases from the 1800s, but not before discussing the question in depth, exploring the legal issues and explaining its conclusion in a nine-page opinion.

    Against the backdrop of Heller, NRA v. Chicago and Nordyke v. King, Judge Sotomayor's two Second Amendment decisions raise questions not only about her substantive views of this enumerated right but about her willingness to engage in the rigorous constitutional analysis expected of a Supreme Court justice.

    Today the Second Amendment survives by a single vote in the Supreme Court. Both its application to the states and whether there will be a meaningfully strict standard of review remain to be decided by the High Court. America has almost 90 million gun owners who value their Second Amendment rights. Those Americans deserve to have a justice who will interpret the Second Amendment in a fair and impartial manner consistent with the Amendments text and intent. Judge Sotomayor has already revealed her views on these issues, and they are contrary to the language and purpose of the Second Amendment.

    Regarding the Second Amendment, Judge Sotomayors supporters say she will follow precedent. But this is no answer. If that means Judge Sotomayor will adhere to the Cruikshank line of cases, as she did in Maloney, then she would join the side of those justices who would hold that the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government, leaving cities and states free to completely ban firearms for any reason, or that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right, which would allow cities and states to ban firearms if there is any rational basis for doing so. And in Maloney, Judge Sotomayor ignored precedent when she applied the rational basis test to uphold the New York statute banning nunchakus after the Supreme Court in Heller stated that rational basis is not a sufficiently rigorous standard of scrutiny to apply to enumerated constitutional rights, such as the Second Amendment.

    An appellate judgeand especially a Supreme Court justicemust write well-crafted opinions that fully and impartially explore the Constitution and statutes, and which are worthy of respect from those of us who must live by their decisions. While important in every case, this is particularly so in cases involving enumerated constitutional rights central to the freedom upon which this country was founded.

    In the aftermath of Heller, there will be many gun-rights cases over the next thirty years, and whoever becomes the newest Supreme Court Justice will likely have a hand in deciding them all. This formative period of developing Second Amendment jurisprudence is when the right to keep and bear arms is most vulnerable.

    The Second Amendment survives today by a single vote in the Supreme Court. But the next justice will have an impact beyond a single vote because his or her views will also affect the dynamic of the Court. The next justice will serve for life and that persons influence and legacy will affect us all for generations to come. American gun owners, together with all Americans who revere the Constitution, deserve to have a Supreme Court justice who will interpret the Second Amendment fully and fairly in a manner consistent with its text and meaning.

    A supermajority of Americans believe in an individual, private right to keep and bear arms. As a result, political candidates hostile to Second Amendment rights are often defeated at the ballot box. Gun prohibition activists are now looking to the courts and they support judges whom they believe will rule in favor of more limitations on firearms ownership and use. The President who nominated Judge Sotomayor has expressed support for the City of Chicagos gun ban, which is being challenged in NRA v. Chicago, a case that is headed toward the Supreme Court. Seating a justice on the Supreme Court who does not believe that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right deserving of protection against infringement by cities and states could do far more damage to the right to keep and bear arms than any legislation passed by Congress.

    Based on her record and her treatment of the Second Amendment, I respectfully urge the Senate not to confirm Judge Sotomayor.

  •  I'm still waiting on a response (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kestrel9000

    from you (Schoenke) on any of the comments I've made in any of the diaries I've responded to that you've written. (How's that for a convoluted sentence?)

    From your website:

    AHSA is committed to supporting the right to keep and bear arms, protecting our homes, and preserving our liberties.

    Hunting and sport shooting are American values AHSA will vigorously defend.
    AHSA is dedicated to protecting and maintaining our nation's valuable wilderness resources for the preservation and use of all Americans.

    AHSA is committed to safety in all aspects of the shooting sports including the recognition that adults are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of children.

    AHSA is committed to supporting our nation’s law enforcement officers in their fight against easy access to guns by criminals, terrorists and others.

    AHSA is a non-partisan organization that advocates and advances sensible public policies. We will never support unfettered access to all types of weapons.

    First of all, where in here do you discuss the main reason to own a firearm: defense? I don't see anything about support for concealed carry laws or open carry. I see 'protecting our homes' but that doesn't include the defense of oneself outside that home does it?

    Secondly, the Brady Campaign (BC) sees AHSA as 'complementary' to their aims and goals. It's my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you've donated over $10,000 to the BC. Is this correct?

    Thirdly, John Rosenthal (who is President of AHSA, correct?) is one of the founders of Stop Handgun Violence. This group has been a driving force behind restrictions on the ownership of firearms in the state of Massachusetts. How does this coincide with our constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

    I look forward to a response.

    Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.00, -3.79

    by KVoimakas on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 02:40:44 AM PDT

    •  Response to KV (0+ / 0-)

      Hi K:

      I had the same questions about AHSA myself.  I had the opportunity to speak directly w/ them at a political function and found the answers to be reassuring, and interesting.

      I had concerns about the Brady Campaign donations, I asked Ray and it turns out that Ray's wife was at one time very supportive of the Brady Campaign.  Ray and his wife had a foundation that donated money to a number of causes.  Ray informed me that these donations were made by Mrs. Schoenke through their foundation..

      On a lighter note, he said his wife is not a fan of guns, but she doesn't mind "cooking" up everything I've ever brought home from a hunt.

      I also asked about Rosenthal.  Ray said initially he was a friend and provided AHSA some advice on building an organization, but that they had such a huge difference in opinion on guns, and gun ownership he had to ask him to leave.   He also, said they had an executive director who they also asked to leave over similar issues.

      On concealed carry, I know many members of AHSA who have concealed caryy licenses (myself included).

      I know AHSA supports a federal concealed carry that would enable people to travel legally.

      I hope this is helpful

      •  Why don't they advertise that on the website? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kestrel9000

        (the federal CPL or carrying for self defense)

        Also, unless you're a sockpuppet of Schoenke, I have yet to have ANY feedback on comments I've left here on DKOS. I've read quite a few of his diaries and commented on some. No response. In this diary, I don't see any follow up comments but the TJ and that was probably automatic.

        I have more questions I'd like to ask Schoenke:

        Does he carry himself?

        Does HE support a federal CPL?

        How does he reconcile this quote from the President of Brady Campaign with AHSA stance on gun rights: "I see our issues as complementary to theirs"? The Brady Campaign is notoriously anti-gun.

        This last one's going to be quite long. From the AHSA's website:

        AHSA believes the FBI should be given reasonable access to National Instant Check System (NICS) purchase records to insure terrorists and other prohibited individuals do not have access to firearms.

        Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon and using it in an attack

        I find many things wrong with this stance:

        First, assault rifles aren't easily purchased in any gun store. They've been highly regulated since the 30s and require MONTHS of waiting time with the ATF works on a background check after you do your Form 4. They're also extremely expensive.  

        Secondly, why does the FBI need access to the NCIS system to put a suspected terrorist's name on it with the appropriate flags? Last time I checked, the FFL calls, the FBI returns a confirm/deny/wait (probably not the exact terms) and the FFL takes it from there. IF (and this is a big if) we were to put the 'watch list' individuals on the 'no-buy' list for firearms, they wouldn't need access to NCIS. They'd just need to put something in their files with that name and a deny. They don't need access to find out who's purchased firearms.

        Thirdly, with the blunders that have occurred with the no-fly list, I wouldn't want to deprive someone of their right to keep and bear arms because they have the same (or similar) names of a terrorist.

        Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.00, -3.79

        by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 11:58:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site