I think you need a little education on the definition of "Right" and "License". As per our learned founding fathers and authors of the Bill of Rights that proclaim and recognize those unalienable rights, a Right can not be regulated or licensed by the state. It is absolute and any regulation is just wrong. Think about it......If the state requires you to have license to exercise a right or freedom, then it is NOT a right or freedom but a priveledge granted by the state.

Hi,
I have tried to post a comment several weeks ago, but nothing ever appeared here. I am also wondering why there are NOT any comments on the letter written by Ray Schoenke to AG Holder.

As I joined AHSA last fall, I hoped to be part of a forum of enlightened hunters and shooters who are fed up with NRA propaganda. I encouraged several friends and family members to look into joining AHSA also. Unfortunately, I have to wonder if AHSA is not just a political organization. Election over, end of discussion??

RCH

If the reports below are true, when will Obama's actions begin to square with his rhetoric? In his book, THE CASE AGAINST BARRACK OBAMA http://www.ebook-search-queen.com/ebook/THE/THE+CASE+AGAINST+BARRACK+OBA... , David Freddoso reports that Obama demonstrated his commitment to old-style politics by his repeated endorsements of Chicago's machine politicians, and refused to support reformers from both parties in the 2006 election who were committed to ending corruption in Chicago's Cook County government.

Thank you for this letter to AG Holder. Your comments to him on the AWB are accurate, factual, and show that the AHSA supports sport shooters who often use these firearms for competition in USPSA, IPSC, and Long Range Rifle competitions.

Guiding well meaning folks away from the equipment argument and getting focused on stopping all violence can make our communities safer. Political and cultural battles over equipment divide us and serve no purpose except to block reasonable action.

Allow me to urge families to keep their firearms secure from unsupervised access by children or any person in the family that should not have access. Project ChildSafe www.projectchildsafe.org will guide families to free gun locks to take appropriate and voluntary action to make homes safer for our children and secure our firearms.

A CDC study in the late '90's found that almost 60% of the firearms taken on to school campuses came from student's homes or the home of a family member or friend. 80% of the firearms used in student suicide come from that same source. We don't need new laws to make a huge difference. We need action we can undertake voluntarily and we don't need silly arguments about firearms cosmetics. So I challenge all firearms owners - make a difference now and secure firearms in your home. If you have a firearm out for home protection remember YOU are the security for that firearm.

See what we are doing in Nevada at www.NODC.us and be safe out there!

John Cahill
jjcahill@cox.net

I believe that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is not a good idea. I agree with you that its all about making sure the criminals committing the crimes do not end up with these weapons in their hands. If only they were taught good child behavior at a young age they wouldn't be criminals in the first place.

I read your article on the letter to eric Holder. I hope your letter works, but I have my doubts. In any case have you studied Obama's support for the International Gun Treaty with Mexico? Here is a little of what's going on....

AP quote......

After a meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon last month, Barack Obama announced his support for the “Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking in Firearms” treaty, also known by its Spanish acronym CIFTA. The gun-control treaty was signed in 1997 by former President Bill Clinton, but was not ratified by the Senate as required by the Constitution.

Supporters of the Second Amendment have blasted the agreement as a dangerous infringement on the right to keep and bear arms and another attack on U.S. sovereignty. The agreement would create a national database of gun owners in America that could then be accessed by other signatory nations. It would even provide for the extradition of people found to be in violation of the terms.

“It would clear the way for imposing a national gun registry [and] would overturn the current prohibition on keeping centralized firearms records by the federal government,” explained Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America. “It reflects a deep distrust that the government of the United States has had towards the people.” The National Rifle Association has also issued a statement indicating that it will “vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners."

The treaty has already been ratified by 30 countries out of 34 in the Organization for American States (OAS), including the Dominican Republic, which signed on at the end of April. José Miguel Insulza, the secretary-general of the OAS, noted at the signing that the treaty “particularly stresses the needs for arms control; arms confiscation; regulating authorizations and licenses for export, import and transit; and strengthening controls at export points.” He added that “it was with great satisfaction” that he received the news about Obama prioritizing the treaty.

"As President Calderón and I discussed, I am urging the Senate in the United States to ratify an inter-American treaty known as CIFTA to curb small arms trafficking that is a source of so many of the weapons used in this drug war," President Obama proclaimed in Mexico City last month. He also incorrectly repeated the errant statistic that 90 percent of guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels come from America. (In actuality, according to ATF special agent William Newell, about 17 percent of guns associated with crime in Mexico came from the United States. And this figure has not been broken down to see how many came from civilian gun shops and how many were purchased from the U.S. military by Mexico's government.) "We're going to be very focused on this. It's going to be a top priority." ABC News quoted an administration official who said that Obama "felt that it was important to push now for the ratification of this treaty because the question of illegal small-arms is of great concern to the countries throughout the hemisphere a[s] it affects their safety.”

Some U.S. senators are already preparing to fight the treaty, including Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming. “The President said it is a very high priority for him to get this treaty that takes away our second amendment rights ratified by the Senate,” Barrasso explained. “It is a very high priority for me to make sure that this treaty never gets ratified by the United States Senate, and we will find the votes to defeat it.” Other senators gearing up to oppose the treaty include John Cornyn of Texas and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who said they will oppose the effort due to concerns about U.S. sovereignty and the rights of Americans.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada was relatively non-committal, saying; “We must work with Mexico to curtail the violence and drug trafficking on America’s southern border, and must protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights. I look forward to working with the president to ensure we do both in a responsible way.” According to reports, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry supports the treaty. But in order for it to be approved, it must be ratified in the Senate by a two-thirds majority vote.

— Photo: AP Images
This looks like a "back door" move by Obama to restrict our rights as gun owners.

Your "bumper sticker", "PRO GUN - PRO OBAMA" doesn't quite work here does it?
I think this is only the begining with your new President.

I'm sure you won't publish this, but I wish you would.

L. Allen

Ray,
I am disappointed that you support assault weapons. Assault weapons are not for either hunting. They are not for self-defense. They are used by criminals to kill people.

You claim it is difficult to enforce the law, so we should not enforce it. This is like saying we should not pass anti-discrimination law because people always have a way to show discrimination.

You claim hunters need semi-automatic weapon as hobby, I wonder if this is a good justification for owning it. What if someone has hobby of building high-power bombs? In general, hunting does not need assault weapons. I don't see why this hobby should be indulged.

Here is a a report on people died from assault weapon shooting in the last 2 months: http://gunlawforum.com/2009/05/06/assault-weapon-shooting-report-2009/

The lethal power of assault weapons makes it deadly and dangerous. Banning assault weapons is not a cure-for-all solution, but it is one small step we can take to take dangerous guns out of streets.

Anyone who knows of Obama's Illiniois Senate record, his past associations, and his own statements knows Obama is anti-gun. He nominated Eric Holder, known for his anti 2nd amandment stand. I'm curious if this comment will be seen posted. It's may and no comments are posted yet, another curious point.

I respect the Second Amendment just as much as the next American, and I'm pleased to see that the AHSA is infinitely more pragmatic than the gun nuts at the NRA. Despite the fact that I don't own any guns aside from a few spring-loaded AirSoft pistols (toys compared to your hardware, I know), and oppose an all-out ban on firearms, we must also take into account the practicality of military-grade weapons in a civilian's home.

Now, I don't mean to be cynical or condescending, but please, tell me one realistic situation where an assault rifle would be used by a civilian where no other weapon would suffice. As the step-son of a hunter, I know that nine times out of ten, a hunter only gets one shot at killing any sort of game, so hunting with an assault rifle would be incredibly asinine. To be honest, I just don't see any practical use for such a heavy class of firearm outside the hands of military or law enforcement personnel...

When it comes to gun control, I support longer waiting periods for heavier classes of firearms, extensive training classes for handling, use, and safety protocols regarding each class of firearm, full background checks prior to the purchase of any firearm, and prohibiting all violent criminals and sex offenders from possessing or using firearms for life, all federally enforced as a start. In the end, true law-abiding citizens have more patience and can handle weapons restrictions far better than gun nuts.

Everyone should have the right, given a license, to carry a gun in self-defense. We'd all feel a lot safer.

Obama is turning on you already? To think, you supported this guy.

I'm interested in your views about HR45.

I'm surprised this website is still running after the political season. What is its purpose at this point? Congrats on getting Obama elected; you, as a member of the left-wing media (you posted on the DailyKos...Seriously?), were able to hide the ball and distract many away from the real issues. I guess you think George Soros has the economic answers to our current problems then. I don't write this to be an I told you so, because I don't believe you are naive enough to actually believe Obama was not a gun grabber. You knew and tried to conceal it. Look at his cabinet appointee's...Holder, Emmanuel, Clinton, and many more anti-gun supporters. The assault weapon ban is just the beginning. Just look at the Chicago slum Obama came from to see what we have ahead of us, including FOID cards and huge taxes. Pelosi and Ried are in charge now and have the Obama rubber stamp for whatever they desire...again thanks for your hard work to help hunters and gun owners. Please stop bashing the NRA and touting yourself as a replacement. Yes, I know that they can be extreme, but you can't call they're actions "fear tactics" when what they warned of is the current situation. You can't replace them until you actually support gun owner's rights, which you clearly don't understand. If this heap is still in operation in 2010, I look forward to seeing who your congressional support goes to.

You try to fool people into believing you are a pro-gun organization with your lies of a stance. Just to suit your purposes you act surprised. You have not fooled me nor so many truly pro-Second Amendment citizens.

sir :

my family has been hunting in New York State since the 1700's--my father hunted big game animals worldwide---I've hunted extensively for43 years and own a number of guns--I'm also a clear thinking ,rational, and open minded person--my concern is very simple but real---

if gun control organizations don't begin to adopt a more common sense and compromising approach to gun ownership the anti gun population will easily win any debate with the American people who are quickly getting fed up with your close minded and radical thinking

let's start with assault weapons---real bad idea

start making sense or we will lose all of our gun rights

gary hamm

As someone who was raised in a family of hunters and fisherman, and surrounded by guns as a child, yet favors gun control in urban and suburban areas, I really found your article well-written. I shall be following up with a personal letter of my own to Mr. Holder.

Thank-you for your thoughtfully worded, careful letter. If more people in the gun control debate took their time to write this intelligently, we would have far fewer disagreements.

NJC

Also, please check out my favorite candidate for Congress in Colorado, who has a distinguished military career, and will be equally thoughtful on this issue. www.FlerlageforCongress.com

Thanks, Ray,

You are right on target with nearly all of your commentsin my view. Apparently, the pressure on AG Holder is doing some good. Our members can also help by simply pointing out to friends and family that "assault weapon" does not have to mean "automatic weapon"! As a kid growing up in Kansas, my favorite gun was a .22 Marlin semi-automatic rifle, with which I mainly assaulted jackrabbits and small varmints. That rifle might well be classified as an assault weapon, since, as I recall, it held fifteen rounds.

I would be grateful if anyone out there could speak with authority to two questions that keep coming up in this debate:

1) Is it easy - or even possible - to convert a "semi-automatic" rifle/carbine to full automatic status? One does hear this argument presented by proponents of the assualt weapon bill.

2) Might it be true that many of the weapons of choice of the Mexican drug cartels are fully automatic, military weapons that have origins in the countries of Eastern Europe or China or Israel etc.? Which does not mean that they are not getting to the Mexican thugs via gun dealers in the Southwest, a problem that must be dealt with . . .

Thanks!

Sir,

You letter to the Attorney General of the United States is well-researched and written. However, I have two points I believe need to be made:

1. At no point do you specifically mention the Second Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. Your facts support the need for the ammendment, but you never come out in support of it unequivocably. By protecting the Second Ammendment, the rule of law is protected; as a society and as a people, we can not be ruled by the changing tides of politicians and their appointees. The Constitution provides continuity, freedom and fairness.

2. During the run-up to the election, you campaigned hard for Obama, promising the American people in general and gun owners in particular that Obama would not take away our guns, that the second ammendment was secure. When you made those statements, those of us on the right seethed, knowing that the opposite was true - leopards do NOT change their spots. The fact that you felt it necessary to write this letter proves it. Those on the left sneered, knowing you were a dupe. You, sir, have been had.

I wish your organization and its membership success in defeating the gun ban that is now in the works. However, should you fail, I hope your membership has the courage to use whatever means available to remove you from your position, and replace you with a true champion of freedom, liberty and the Constitution.

Figured that someone in your position would have done more research on Obama, at least to the extent of his "actions" vs his rhetoric when it comes to gun control. Ray, sorry to see that you were "taken in" by these people, you got what you voted for.

Are you really surprised? Still think Obama's on our side?

Here are the other headlines:

"The Department of Defense has issued a directive that bans the sale of military brass to ammunition re-manufacturers."

"Obama Defunds Armed Pilots Program"

Order that ammo quick.

If you follow this up with a reversal on your opposition to .50 BMG sniper rifles, you'll instantly gain millions of additional members.

Anything a terrorist can do with a .50 BMG I can do with a .416 Weatherby Magnum. The only real difference is the Barrett looks meaner. To a large extent, the additional power of the .50 caliber round is negated by the greater accuracy of the much more modern .416.

For hunting, I'll always prefer the Weatherby, but I also understand why some collectors and military aficionados prefer the Barrett. The fact that ignorant and ill-informed criminals prefer the ugly black rifle does not mean we need to remove it from the hands of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

Mr Shoenke,

Thank you dearly for your well written letter. It eloquently put into words what has been on many of our minds. As a member of the Gun Owner's Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon, I appreciate that you are intelligently fighting the good fight. The chair of our caucus recently turned me on the AHSA, and I must say that I like what I see. I invite you to check out some firearms-related topics that we (Gun Owner's Caucus) have been discussing and working on locally by following this link: http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/
Thanks again, and keep up the good work!

Brian

Excellent letter and well stated. I would like to paraphrase/use this letter if I may to send a similar message to my legislators.
CFK

What a wonderful page. All I have to say is we have the right to bear arms. Now, if some dude was going to come into my bank with a gun to rob the place and he in turn had a gun (I along with everyone else who carried a gun) would have to put him in his place. Now. Who out there thinks this would make a situation like that....well happen a little less!!????.....IF WE ALL COULD CONCEAL AND CARRY. TBIRD-Illinois

Ray,

I would like to start off by saying that I appreciate your stance on our right to keep and bear arms. I am concerned however, that this new administration's stance now on gun ownership, taxation of ammunition etc..., have put us all at huge risk.

Your organization backed our current president thinking he would be your friend and now we are paying the price.

We cannot compromise 1 inch if we are going to keep our rights of the 2nd Amendment. We have to be bold and not compromise anything. We push for skill at arms, educating gun owners of proper safety and use of said weapons.

I come from a family who served in Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm and the other conflicts in between. They paid the price for our rights, our writers of our Constitution gave us those rights, and now we have an Ultra Liberal with Communistic thinking running the white house.

Would you have still backed him if he said, "I want to take your guns"? I would hope not. Don't be surprised at what is happening. All of the recent stories of people being killed by gun violence is directly targeted at society to ensure they get their gun bans in place. Look at Mexico. We are providing Mexico with all of their guns. Give me a break. They don't buy guns through legal means so why punish us?

You have some serious thinking to do and I would like to have you please consider this one thing. Speak to Dr. Ignatius Piazza who is the president and found of Front-Sight. www.frontsight.com. His stance for our 2nd amendment is ingenious and if we will follow his leadership on this, we might just win. We cannot however compromise our stance under any circumstances or we will lose.

Again, I am very concerned we have gun owning Americans backing a president who has yet to prove he stands by his word and who has yet to give us a glimpse into his writings in college, his authentic birth certificate, and much more. I am thrilled that America voted for our very first African president, but we have to look at the character of the man and you backed someone who will try to take away the very thing you love. If we let this happen, then we are traitors to all of the men, women, and children who have lost their lives to ensure we have the right to keep and bear arms.

God Bless,

Tyrone Culley

Did you not look at Pres. Obama's voting record while in the Illinois Senate? Actions speak louder than words...
You voted for change, this is it.

Great letter, I appreciate it, and I have saved it and intend to join AHSA. There are those of us that don't appreciate where the NRA is headed politically but believe strongly in our gun rights and enjoy shooting sports with more and more guns that are being considered "assault weapons". Thank you for your clarification of the AHSA position. I hope you continue this advocacy.

Mr. Schoenke,

I am glad that you are standing up to the candidate that you endorsed and will in the future look to their previous record before buying in to their election rhetoric.

On one point I must make a comment. The effectiveness of the 94 AWB was not based on it's irrelevance in language but in it's irreleveance in regard to the banning of weapons that were rarely used in crimes. There are multiple studies that I am sure you are aware of that prove this. Semi-automatic weapons of the type cast as "assault weapons" have never been used in a high percenatge of crimes. The first AWB and the current demand for an AWB are simply the product of politics and power struggles. Instead of focusing on the fact that the law was meaningless due to its arbitrary language and limits, address that fact that it was never useful in the first place. If we focus only on the fact that it was not limiting enough in scope to be worthwhile then we still have failed in showing that the need for an AWB is meaningless in itself.

I hope that you will pass on similar sentiments to the governmental officials which you speak with.

Thank you for standing up on behalf of those of us who lawfully own and shoot rifles with modern styling. Well said.

Great post Ray...

Ray
I am glad to see that you have decided to contact the new administration about gun ownership and the law abiding citizens.
I was beginning to think that you sold us out.
I have no confidence in the current administration protecting our right to own guns.
I am a conservative democrat. If the only way to get conservative people in government offices, is to vote republican. I will vote straight republican in 2 years.

I hope you do not mind that I posted the text of your letter on the Shotgunworld general information forum. An old thread there was recently resurrected wherein you and your organization were accused of being secretly in support of all kinds of gun control and all sorts of other highly suspect activity. I visited your site and try as I might, I could not find a thing to be critical of. I have never been able to support the NRA because of their tactics of lying about issues and their support of extreme right wing political candidates. As a proud Lefty gun owner, I freely admit that I despise the NRA and always have.

I was very happy to read your letter to Eric Holder because it appears to put to rest the whole "gun grabber" accusations against your organization. Enough so, that when I become a bit more financially stable, I will likely join the AHSA.