Oh, What a Mighty Web the NRA's Leaders Weave, When They Practice to Deceive

NRA's right wing attack dogs have been having quite a time this past week trying to weave a web of deception designed to discredit me and the leadership of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA). In my recent diaries at Daily Kos (here and here), I have carefully laid out how AHSA, a new progressive gun rights organization, tapped into the concern of rural hunters and shooters over NRA's failure to address access to public land and environmental issues resulting in a stunning NRA defeat in the hotly contested 2006 Missouri US Senate race. I'm sure many Kos readers were as surprised as I was that NRA, once again, acknowledged AHSA's campaign made the difference for Claire McCaskill in that key 2006 Senate race.

Now, in the second attempt in a week to deflect attention away from their own failures, NRA tries again to label AHSA as anti-gun. They use the tired old "guilt by association" game to argue that AHSA is not serious about gun rights or protecting our hunting and shooting heritage. Moreover, they feign surprise that some rational and reasonable gun owners would describe ultra-conservative NRA lapdogs as "whackos".

I, like many progressive hunters and shooters, have supported many leading Democrats who the NRA has tried to demonized and defeat. I have also supported Democrats that the NRA has supported. That doesn't mean I am anti-gun, it means I spend my political dollars wisely to support those progressive candidates that I believe, on balance, will make America a better place to live. NRA has a hard time accepting the fact that the overwhelming number of candidates the NRA supports, mostly Republicans, may be good on gun rights, but universally are the worst of the worst on preserving our precious resources and protecting our hunting heritage.

NRA lackeys go after Bob Ricker, AHSA co-founder and Executive Director who has a reputation as one of the nation's top gun policy experts. A former assistant NRA general counsel and top lobbyist for the gun industry, Bob stepped forward a few years ago and went public about the NRA/gun industry conspiracy of silence and their refusal to address the problem of corrupt gun dealers who sell guns to criminals. NRA has long had it out for Bob after he was quoted in the New York Times as saying someone in the gun industry needed to speak up about bad dealers because ''we've got a bunch of right-wing wackos at the N.R.A. controlling everything.''

I can remember when I got my first gun as a kid growing up in Texas. The NRA was a respected hunting and gun safety institution. Over the last twenty years however, the organization has changed dramatically. Their leaders call our first responders "jack booted thugs"; they fight efforts to restrict armor piercing handgun ammunition that threaten cops; they oppose background checks on all sales at gun shows; they opposed voluntary industry efforts to provide free child safety locks with all new guns sold; they oppose efforts to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists; they want to repeal restrictions on keeping guns out of bars and restaurants when liquor is served; they want to force employers to allow guns in the work place; they oppose efforts of our nation's big city mayor's to stop illegal gun traffickers; and, incredibly, they want to criminalize efforts by law enforcement to share crime gun trace information. This is just a short list that more than justifies labels like "right wing whackos."

The final absurdity of NRA's new attack involves the accusation that somehow the friend of the court brief AHSA filed in the landmark US Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, is nothing more than an "opportunity to create false pro-gun credentials" for AHSA.

The AHSA brief was co-signed 11 senior military leaders and was written by the national powerhouse law firm Greenberg Taurig. We argue that that the District of Columbia's Gun Law directly interferes with various Acts of Congress that are aimed at ensuring the national defense by promoting firearm training amongst the citizenry. AHSA believes the D.C. Gun Law's categorical prohibition on pistol ownership by D.C. residents not only conflicts with the Second Amendment and the Defense, Raise and Support Clauses of the Constitution, but also with the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.

Using tortured logic, NRA claims in its hit piece that AHSA's argument, if adopted by the Court is an under handed attempt to make it easier for states to pass more restrictive gun laws. How absurd.

NRA, as usual, fails to mention that several other amicus briefs filed in support of the lower court decision rely on arguments similar to AHSA's. Including the briefs signed by Dick Cheney and members of congress and a brief filed by a number of state rifle and pistol associations. Most importantly, Wayne LaPierre's attack dogs failed to mention NRA's devious attempt to scuttle the Heller case in its early stages.

There is a good reason why NRA is not leading the fight in the most important 2nd Amendment case to reach the US Supreme Court in over 70 years. According to Robert Levy, the millionaire Cato Institute Scholar that is bankrolling Heller, NRA interference almost killed the case. Levy's assertion were confirmed when LaPierre acknowledged NRA backhanded efforts in the New York Times on December 3, 2007:

There was a real dispute on our side among constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the constitution as written.

In other words, Wayne was worried that the NRA might win in the appellate court but it could become a "problem" if the DC gun ban case reached the Supreme Court. My question is: A problem for whom? DC gun owners or future NRA fundraising appeals?

People who know me know that I do not tolerate bullies. In my day, there were plenty of players in the NFL that tried to play the role of bully and more times than not when challenged with a quick, solid counter punch, their true nature as cowards would show through. The current NRA is run by bullies and I've laid down the challenge. Come on Wayne, are you man enough to meet me in the duck blind to prove who is a real hunter and shooter?

Comments

[Willbill]

Sorry Ray, you haven’t got us fooled. We know that AHSA is an Astroturf organization that was founded by some the biggest supporters and leaders of gun control groups. In fact, your entire commentary sounds like press from the Brady Campaign with all of its half truths and distortions. This is why the NRA will always have millions of members and have political clout, and AHSA will have only a few thousand at the most. The NRA truly speaks for the mainstream hunters and firearms owners, and you do not.

[gopindrag]

" Come on Wayne, are you man enough to meet me in the duck blind to prove who is a real hunter and shooter?"
Ray, he's a shooter, not a hunter.

[research]

Gandhi was against gun control.

Hitler was For Gun control.

[MajorKong]

Gun ownership was very common in Iraq. It didn't save them from dictatorship or invasion.

[Thirdpower]

Your evidence?

[RumiSouth]

Reductio ad Hitlerum -- you lose the argument just for bringing up Nazis. Worse, you look silly for presenting a falsehood as "truth:" the famous "quote" on that bumper sticker is a complete fabrication; Hitler never said anything about "full registration" of guns. In fact, he liberalized gun laws (and at the end, handed out free guns). Once again, the wingnuts base their entire identity on a LIE (and last time I checked, God still hated liars).

I'm a gun owner, BTW. CCW permit and everything. I think the DC law is ridiculous. But you are not helping the cause with these jingoistic comments.

Until this controversy, I had never heard of the AHSA; now, that organization has found a new member, thanks to Google:

http://www.huntersandshooters.com/index.php

Mr. Schoenke's point is quite valid: the greatest threat to our gun rights is not the Democratic Party, but the continued loss of hunting lands to unchecked development. Over the years, I've seen hunting grounds in my state diminish to the point I must drive an hour to set up a tree stand. All this thanks to my fellow gun-owners voting for development-happy wingnuts.

[GEErnst]

Gandhi was a pacific. Shall we say a rabid pacifist. His son joined the Indian Army and he never spoke to his son again. His much misquoted quote was a complaint that the British did not allow the Indians to participate in the military functions of the British Empire during the First World War. The full quote is at http://www.potowmack.org/gandhi.html.
It all gets down to a simple question. Do you accept and support Judge Silberman's conclusions in Parker?
http://www.potowmack.org/index.html#silb
Parker is now before the Supreme Court as Heller
http://www.potowmack.org/heller.html
The Supreme Court is not going to overturn Silberman's conclusions.

[Thirdpower]

You are now a supporter of MAIG, lawsuits against the firearm industry, fishing expeditions to sue even more, semi-auto bans, and the "laudable effort" that the AHSA described the DC handgun ban as.

Congratulations.

[writeaway]

Do I remember correctly that the Thompson Machine gun was restricted to certain law enforcement officers. Where was the NRA then? Is it still against the law to own one?

[hopeless277]

Everyone should be forced to carry loaded firearms in the open at all times. I'm sure that would end the 15,000 gun related deaths a year in this country. Just ask The Huckster who said that if a criminal had a gun to his head he would pull out his pistola and cap the MF. More guns has to be the answer, Joe Bubba Robby Bob wouldn't lie to us, would he? Anyway, if you're a christian and a REpublican, you can start your own private army ala Blackwater. Then you can mount a couple of 50 cals on your pickemup and literally blow everyone else off the road. Let's all get drunk and go shootin'!

[GritsJr]

Very well said, except now it's over 30,000 gun-related deaths every year in this country.

[NYCexile]

Actually, according to the latest DOJ figures, it's 12,000. Adding suicide to the figures in order to inflate the total is simply another disarmament lie, GritsJr.

Or is it shedances?

[RumiSouth]

Riiiiiight. And 90% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[Chinampas]

I live in Mexico where guns are highly restricted. There are additional restrictions on certain large caliber rifles as well as all handguns. All privately owned firearms have to be registered with the military, and transportation papers have to be submitted yearly. The transportation papers are only valid for the five states you request them for. If your paperwork is not correct, you go to jail. Period. On top of that, assault rifles are out of the question for all ordinary citizens.

Before you liberals start salivating, please take the following into consideration. Mexico has the second highest rate of kidnappings in the world next to Columbia. All of them are performed by armed criminals with unregistered guns against unarmed victims. My bet is that the kidnappings would drop drastically if Mexico adopted the gun laws in the US.

The Mexican gun laws have also been completely ineffective against the drug cartels. Have you read about all of the killings in Mexico over the last year? I think everyone can use Mexico as an example. The laws only impede honest citizens. Criminals have no problem finding weapons and killing people with them. And, believe me, they don't have any intention of registering a firearm.

[rich3324]

Many of the guns come in from the US. Maybe if your police and government were not so corrupt they could protect their citizens.

[Chinampas]

Sorry, pal. It's not my government. I'm from Mississippi. I came her because Clinton passed Nafta, and my job got moved here.

[UltraClassic]

Chin, I remember the good old days of whitewing hunting in Mexico, it was a trip, harmless and fun. No hassels and no problems.

Now days, you are damn straight, if all your t's are not crossed and i's not dotted, it's straight to the pokie for you. Drug runners rule northern Mexico and law biding Mexicans live under a constant state of paranoia. The fear level is beyond compare. Iraq? Hell, have you ever heard of Larado, Reynosa and Matamoris?

Our pasty white northeastern liberals have no idea what goes on down on this border. If they did, they would rethink a lot of things. They need to come down out of their ivory towers and get a real good dose of reality. Nothing like a few gangland killings in your back yard to make you snap out of it.

[MajorKong]

And yes, I've been to Laredo and even across the river into Nuevo Laredo.

[MajorKong]

Let's see, Mexican drug cartel with pretty much unlimited firepower versus you or me with a legally concealed handgun. I don't think the drug cartel is going to be all that worried.

[Thirdpower]

So your solution is to disarm the victims MORE?

[GritsJr]

You forgot to point out that those criminals in Mexico get more than 90% of their crime guns from the U.S. You read that right. They get them from gun show in states like Texas, Arizona, New Mexico. Either straw purchases through licensed dealers or, even easier, private sales with no background checks whatsoever. God Bless America! And don't worry, we're not discriminating against Canada - we supply more than 50% of their crime guns as well!

[Thirdpower]

And your evidence for this? Would it be those same articles claiming that fully auto weapons and explosives are being bought at these same gun shows?

Just remember, it's the Brady law that stops private sales for accessing NICS.

[1will]

Maybe they need to increase their border securtiy.

[MajorKong]

Have you given thought that your crime problem in Mexico may stem more from having a corrupt and ineffective government, military and police force than from strict gun laws?

[rich3324]

You have the right to own a gun. But in 20 years of law enforcement the only people I have seen killed by a gun in the house are the owners. In 2007 55 police officers were killed due to criminal actions. Of this number 53 were killed by guns. Eat me NRA.

[Thirdpower]

And ten of those by their own guns.

[Mormondude]

Ah the old "I love guns, I just hate everything about them" spiel...

You love guns, but you don't want people to carry them. You think creating "killing zones" where people can't protect themselves should some wackjob decide to go on a shooting spree.

Look at what happened in Trolley Square. This crazy guy comes in and just starts blowing people away in the Hallmark store shopping for Get Well cards. The only reason 20 or 30 more people weren't killed was because an off-duty policeman decided to carry his gun with him to dinner that night. He single-handedly held off this shooter until more police arrived and killed the guy.

This mall was a "place of business". Apparently you think the off-duty cop is the one that needs to be arrested. Apparently you think he was the one putting people in danger. And gee, what if the restaurant he was going to served alcohol? Another felony if you had your way.

Creating more and more of these 'gun-free' killing zones isn't protecting people. And it's not upholding the Constitution. How many more innocent, helpless students, churchgoers, and business patrons have to die before people like you wise up?

God forbid one of my family ever gets murdered in one of these killing zones. Any parent of loved on should sue the pants off these entities for preventing people from defending themselves without supplanting the gun ban by providing adequate protection.

[eyecon]

Rather hyperbolic. Airplanes and elementary schools are gun-free zones. There are MANY other examples.

With respect to Trolley square, the real problem is that an 18 year old kid with a troubled history was able to walk around with a shotgun, a handgun and a backpack full of ammunition. Moreover, the fact that an off duty police officer was a PARTICIPANT - along with a cadre of police officers - in finally killing the gunman is somewhat irrelevant. Five people were killed and four wounded before the police killed the assailant. The potential of an armed citizenry (this was in Utah after all) did not serve as a deterent.

Frankly, I would be more scared of being injured by an untrained civilian in a similar situation. In my case, I could have been carrying an RPG launcher and I still would have been shot and almost killed.

[Matango]

"Frankly, I would be more scared of being injured by an untrained civilian in a similar situation"

If you only knew how little training cops actually receive, you'd think differently. I've been at the range and watched officers miss the targets 50% of the time.

[Mormondude]

"Moreover, the fact that an off duty police officer was a PARTICIPANT - along with a cadre of police officers - in finally killing the gunman is somewhat irrelevant."

This off-duty cop bought precious time for all the patrons there. Just after the guy reloaded his gun, this off duty cop engaged the shooter by himself. Once the cop started returning fire, the shooter was forced to take cover. Then they both took turns firing shots at each other for several minutes.

He had already shot 9 people in the previous 3 minutes and killed 4 of them, and he had a freshly loaded weapon. People were trapped in shops and restaurants. They were sitting ducks. All he had to do was waltz in a blast away like shooting fish in a barrel. This off-duty cop saved many lives. Without his gun, we would have been just another cowering potential victim.

Trying to downplay the role of this man carrying a concealed handgun when the story is so black and white only makes you look foolish.

This is not the only example where regular citizens having access to a firearm saved lives, there are others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14808321/detail.html

Could the Virgina Tech killings have been stopped sooner? Could the Northern Illinois killings have been stopped sooner?

We'll never know.

[MajorKong]

It must be tough going through life in such a state of fear that you might walk into a "killing zone" without your concealed handgun to protect you.

[1will]

I read the occaisonal hunting and gun magazine. I have yet to hear anyone in the gun community say anything good about the AHSA. Perhaps that's why the author blogs on the Huffpost and KOS. While some gun owners may enjoy those sites I wouldn't say they get a large gun owning demographic.

It has been an anti gunner policy to split the gun owning community and attack certain types of firearms. I believe the AHSA is just an attempt to split hunters from the rest of gun owners. There are tens of millions of hunters in the US and while alot of them love their guns, shooting and the sport of hunting, many are not political. Start an organization that claims to be pro gun and put hunting in the title and they'll take it at face value.

I'd like to see the author address some of the claims by other comment posters about the AHSA or Schoenke donating money to the Brady Campaign.

[jessica23667]

I don't think the press has so much a bias towards one candidate or the other. They simply go for the big story. Hillary was the front-runner coming into the primaries and she was treated as such by the press. Now that Obama has come front behind he is the big story so they are following him. The media is biased toward whoever is the big thing at the moment.

I don't know that most voters pay too much attention to the media really and the number who actually watch cable news is actually very small. Case in point: John McCain was given up as dead by the press before NH. There was certainly a bias against him but the voters pushed him forward. Once he won NH, he was the golden boy again.

[eyecon]

DC's gun restrictions make perfect sense as do NYC's. I was shot at close range with a .45 and seriously injured. While NYC's laws failed to protect me from attempted murder, this incident highlights just how many handguns are illegally in the hands of people seeking to do harm. This, the result of just how preposterously easy it is to acquire a weapon in some locales and for that weapon to circulate through our society without accountability.

We have gun control regulations in place that nobody challenges. I would suggest that these affirm that the right to bear arms is collective in contrast to individual. For example, we fully accept the notion that we cannot carry handguns onto an airplane or into a court. Moreover, were we to accept the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment, there is no exception for those convicted of violent crimes.

Underlying all of the NRA's kookiness is the notion that we need guns to protect us from out government; Registration will allow the government to confiscate weapons.

Every day, the carnage continues. As a society, we desperately need sane gun laws. We need the ammunition identification system that the manufacturers are fighting tooth and nail.

Statistically, a gun in the home is 20 to 40 times as likely to kill a family member or friend as it is to kill in self-defense. For every self-defense use of a firearm in the home, there are 11 suicides, 7 homicides and 4 unintentional shootings.

[1will]

I doubt your statistics on guns in the home. Do you have a link that is not Brady Campaign Junk Science?

[MajorKong]

You prefer NRA junk science?

[Thirdpower]

Of course you'll be able to support your assertions about what the NRA does, right? Maybe the serialization is being opposed because it won't stop anything, will drive up the price of ammo, is being lobbied by the patent holders who are paying off politicians, and will criminalize the entire reloading industry.

[GritsJr]

LaPierre couldn't hit the side of a barn with a bazooka. He's a classic Suit who takes $1 million in salary per year to gut America's gun laws and further an array of right-wing causes, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

[Berettasskeeter]

I take it from your remark that you are an acquaintance of Mr. LaPierre's. Wayne is a shooter, and an occasional hunter. And, the military no longer uses bazooka's!
Semper fi

[GritsJr]

LaPierre is a policy wonk, not a shooter. That's well known in and outside of Washington. He's in this game to make a buck, no matter how many lives are being lost.

[GEErnst]

It all gets down to asking a pair of very simple questions to the NRA and candidates for president especially Republicans who pander to the gun vote: Do you accept and support Judge Silberman's conclusions in his Parker opinion? To candidates: Will your administration work towards a national firearms policy based on Silberman's conclusions?
http://www.potowmack.org/index.html#silb
See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/will-the-us-supreme-cou_b_87656.html
Despite all the true believers in its ranks, the NRA is not a gun rights organization. The gun vote is a point of leverage to control political outcomes in a much larger struggle over the modern state and the political economy of capitalism. It brings with it a malignant, cynical vision of social and political life where law and government are creeping Stalinism and we are all at war against each other. Government does not secure rights. We secure our own rights in the State of Nature which is the state of anarchy. We return to working 70 hours a week in coal mines and sweat shops. But, we will all be as free from government regulations as our capitalist employers.

[qdemn7]

Wow Ray, very impressive.... except for one thing.

How many members does your organization have? 25,000 or so.

How many members does the NRA have? 4,000,000 or so

So your organization' size is less than ONE PERCENT of the NRA.

[GEErnst]

Albert Einstein said, It only takes ONE to be right.

[Brainspore]

I would think that 25,000 would be more than enough to successfully argue litigation. How many of the NRA's four million members actually file court briefs?

[Thirdpower]

25K would probably be about 10X to large.

[1will]

Who subsidizes the AHSA? They can't have enough members to pay the utilities much less lobby politicians. Is this another George Soros pet project?

[Berettasskeeter]

Mr Shoenke, your rant is demonstrably false, and you know it. Your website leaves blanks about who you think should be developing firearms policy. You give no idea as to whose ideas of "reasonable restrictions" should be adopted. As you support Democrats, I would assume you would give this authority to them. You assert that children should not have access to firearms. How then will we teach our children to love and respect our way of life?? You don't, ever, answer that question.
I also have a few problems with your bulleted points.
"their refusal to address the problem of corrupt gun dealers who sell guns to criminals.." What would you have them do? They are not prosecutors or judges. And the premise is false. I've been a NRA members my entire adult life (57 last month). The NRA has never supported corrupt dealers. They have insisted that guilt must be proven, which Democrats do not.
"Their leaders call our first responders "jack booted thugs"." This came in the wake of the Ruby Ridge and Waco fiasco's, and follows a long string of incidents where the ATF kicks doors in where it is not necessary, resulting in the loss of several innocent lives. Please be accurate.
"they fight efforts to restrict armor piercing handgun ammunition that threaten cops.." Practically all center-fire rifle ammo will defeat body armor, and you know it. Thus, another reason why gun owners should disavow your stated defense of hunting. If this ammo is restricted, hunting dies, period.
"they oppose background checks on all sales at gun shows.." Another untruth. The NRA does not oppose background checks on all sales at gun shows, performed by licensed dealers. Get your facts straight.
"they oppose efforts to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists.." Check your link. You made a mistake here. It has been proven that the Watch List has a lot of people on it that merely have common names. The NRA sincerely wants to keep guns out of terrorist hands. You are not being honest, again.
Your dishonest approach should have any thinking person reaching out to the NRA for support. The NRA, like any membership organization, occasionally disappoints its membership. But, in general, we support the efforts of the NRA to preserve and protect our firearms heritage.
You folks at AHSA are just too squishy for my taste.
Semper fi

[drumz]

Wow, sounds like you've been chugging the kool-aid. Ray is right and you are wrong, plain and simple.

[1will]

The NRA is not the only gun rights organization out there. They are also not the only organization claiming the AHSA is more anti gun than pro gun. You did nothing to refute that.
The anti gunners have long tried to split the gun owning community. Split the hunters from those that keep a gun for protection. Split the 'Assault Weapon' crowd (if you can define Assault Weapon' from the handgun owning crowd or hunters. Split those that own $500-$700 handguns from those that can only afford $100 guns for protection. Throw in a few BS stories of .50 cal Sniper Rifles knocking jets out of the air and you have the anti gun propaganda agenda.
I read nothing in the column that refuted the NRA's claims that the AHSA is not a pro gun organization.

[CelticMajic]

what a well reasoned and exhaustive reply

[Thirdpower]

Right about what? Everything he said? That's already shown to be inaccurate.

[Berettasskeeter]

Drumz, where is Ray right, while, as you say, I am wrong. I laid out quite a few detailed objections. You counter with, "nah, nah, nah"???
Semper fi

[Thirdpower]

And some more fisking of Ray's not entirely honest statements"

http://tractioncontrol.well-regulatedmilitia.org/?p=977