CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
– POLITICS
Sept. 4, 2008 – 12:41 a.m.
Gun Groups, Buoyed by Court Ruling, Are Working for More
By John M. Donnelly, CQ Staff
Gun rights groups are planning a busy election season.
To maintain momentum gained from the Supreme Court’s ruling in June striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and declaring that the Second Amendment grants individuals a right to own firearms, the gun groups have launched the most ambitious voter registration and education drives they’ve ever attempted. Congressional election endorsements from the National Rifle Association (NRA) are due this month. Also on tap is a media blitz by multiple groups in competitive districts.
At the Republican convention, strategic planning is under way.
“It’s a chance for us to sit down and buttonhole the candidates on legislative matters,” said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
While the Supreme Court ruling has helped the groups boost their membership, the narrow 5-4 ruling on the D.C. handgun case underscores the importance to gun rights advocates of future Supreme Court appointments.
“They’re energized, they’re heartened and they’re happy,” said Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman. “But they also recognize it was a slim victory.”
Arulanandam said the NRA will also conduct mailings, advertisements and news conferences. And it will issue congressional endorsements in most districts.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms does not engage directly in partisan politics but conducts voter education efforts. Gottlieb declined to divulge specific election plans but said the committee will focus on tight races, posting congressional voting records and ratings on its Web site “to let people know who’s a friend.”
The group also may use advertising, direct mail, speaking engagements and media appearances. And its voter registration campaign is under way, mostly at gun shows, Gottlieb said.
Also active in voter education and registration is the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for some 4,500 firms in the firearms industry.
A relatively new gun owners group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, is focused on conservation and has criticized the NRA and other groups for promoting political candidates who are strong on gun rights but not on protecting hunting areas from developers.
“What good is your gun if there’s nowhere to hunt?” said John Robinson, the association’s chief of staff.
This group, which is less than three years old, has endorsed the Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, whom it sees as more supportive of conservation.
Gun Groups, Buoyed by Court Ruling, Are Working for More
“We’re going to go and hold the NRA accountable for its statements, to make sure it is not lying about Obama’s record,” Robinson said.
Both major party presidential candidates affirm an individual’s right to own firearms. Beyond that, their records diverge on the issue.
Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona has mostly agreed with the NRA’s gun rights positions. He opposed a ban on assault weapons and voted against exposing gun manufacturers to civil lawsuits. He deviated from the NRA just twice on significant issues, when he voted to require a 72-hour waiting period for background checks on gun purchasers at gun shows and when he pushed campaign-finance legislation that gun groups considered an attack on their rights to expression.
Obama has voted to allow liability lawsuits against gunmakers. And he voted in favor of several gun-control measures in the Illinois legislature, including a ban on semi-automatic weapons.
The NRA will not endorse Obama. But it has not said whether it will endorse McCain. The group began endorsing presidential candidates in the 1980s and has done so in five of the past seven races, declining to endorse a candidate in 1992 and 1996.
Comments
I believe the gun control movement received more public support in England and Canada because the movement's flowering in the 1980s was well before crime and violence began to skyrocket in those countries. Few people there felt the need for armed self-protection at the time, so they were willing to give up their rights in exchange for the government's promise to keep crime low. In the 1950s the same was true of America. However, we experienced our great jump in crime and violence during the 1960s and 70s -- well before the gun control movement gained significant strength. During the 1960s and 70s a great many Americans began to rely on guns for protection from crime, and by the 1980s when the international gun control movement became prominent, these Americans provided a ready core of resistance and pushback.
Obama says he for the second amendment then how can he want to ban over half the guns on the market? Our right to bear arms is to protect us from criminals and our government. Not hunting. How the Hunter and Shooters is supporting a candidate that wants to ban 90% of all hunting ammo also doesn't make much sence.
The American Hunters and Shooters Association is nothing more than a fake pro-gun orginization put in place by the anti-gunners. It is designed to break the ranks of, and confuse the members of actual pro-gun groups. This shameful tactic has been tried before. In the three years this group has been up and running they haven't developed one program designed to help hunters, shooters, or conservation. The only thing they have done is endorse and help fund the most extreme anti-gun politicians and spread lies about those groups who really cherish second ammendment rights for what ever reason, whether it be hunting or self defense. This group was set up by and funded by extreme anti-gun groups whose agenda is the total dissarmament of the civilian population under the false pretense of a safer society. Beware the peasents in hundred dollar sandles.
Apparently the writer has not done any investigation or background research regarding American Hunters and Shooters Association. He must believe they actually support the 2nd amendment because they have "Hunters and Shooters" as part of their name. THE NRA has a track record of support of the 2nd amendment. Where in our constitution does "conservation" equate to support of the right to keep and bear arms? Do not be fooled by AHSA.
"American Hunters and Shooters Association" Give me a break. A quick look at the founders of this group will show that they have nothing to do with hunting or shooting. This is a front for left wing liberal politicians trying for the air of legitimacy that this article tries to give them.
AHSA is procriminal,all anti gun organizations are %100 pro criminal. they think if we give up our guns there will be less crime, if you believe that, i have a bridge in Brooklyn i want to see cheap
I do not vote Republican or Democrat. Which means each election I take a look at all the candidates and vote for the one I think will do the best job. The first thing I look at is there issues starting with the second Amendment. I think all anti gun laws are unconstitutional period. And I strongly refuse to even consider voting for any candidate that does not support the second Amendment. But honesty and this goes a little off track but from what I have read and heard about Obamas agenda when he gets in office. I believe he is trying to get elected as President for the sole purpose of tearing this country apart from the inside. I think Obama running for president is the greatest threat our country has faced in a long time. And scary thing is it seems he might succeed.
CQ should be ashamed. Writing about AHSA as though they are a legitimate pro-gun group is just shoddy journalism. Obama's record on gun rights in clear - he has never, ever opposed a gun control bill, measure, or proposal and he has never supported a gun rights bill, measure, or proposal. That AHSA would endorse someone with such a record speaks to their true agenda. AHSA is not a pro-gun organization.
most people cant believe the hunting and shooting organizaTION WOULD SUPPORT BARACK HUSAIN OBOMA but if you follow the money you will find it leads back to peta and the brady bunch who is useing this as a ruse to get funds and divide moderates on the issue of guns,god and freedom
I don't know if this is intentional, but this article is extremely misleading on several fronts. 1. Meaningless, but Scary-Sounding Terms Mr. Donnelly employs the term "assault weapons" without defining it. Though I see this often in the mainstream press, I am still surprised and troubled by its use in "hard news" articles without so much as an explanatory footnote. Whenever someone asks me if we should ban assault weapons, I ask them to first tell me what an assault weapon is. I've yet to get an answer that was anywhere close to the actual laundry list of descriptors and gun models in the Clinton gun ban (which some in Congress want to "reform" and resurrect.) The phrase has some meaning in military circles, but even there it is not a hard and fast one. Truth is, in the context of the civilian gun ban debate, "assault weapon" is applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner. It is essentially meaningless at this point. This has been general knowledge to anyone familiar with the issue for many years. But the prohibitionists continue to trot out the phrase and apply it to whatever set of firearms they believe can be portrayed as particularly scary. (I suppose this is to be expected. The phrase has been one of the more effective workhorses in their stable, when it comes to limiting civilian access to an ever-shrinking coral of firearms.) 2. Senator Obama's Gun-RIghts Record (yes, he has one) Near the end of the article is the following paragraph: "Obama has voted to allow liability lawsuits against gunmakers. And he voted in favor of several gun-control measures in the Illinois legislature, including a ban on semi-automatic weapons." That's all the article says about the Senator's gun-rights record. If this is all one ever read on the topic, he may well conclude the Senator has been only mildly anti-gun. Particularly if the reader doesn't know just how large a portion of existing civilian firearms are semi-automatic. I won't record the substantial list of Senator Obama's other anti-gun votes and statements. They are easy to find with a little internet searching. (And one need not look at a single NRA site in doing so.) But I have to comment on the disturbing impression given of Senator Obama as a legislator who acted to hold firearm manufacturers accountable for their workmanship and business practices. Who would not applaud him for that? I certainly would. But, as Captain Kirk said in the Star Trek episode 'Court Martial', after seeing a falsified historical record of his actions, "That's not the way it happened." The legislation at issue is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Obama voted against this legislation. The PLCAA only protects manufacturers from liability in the event a third party uses their product for a criminal act. It provides no protection against manufacturing negligence or any actions to sell arms to criminals or other prohibited persons. The act was promulgated in response to efforts to bankrupt the industry with frivolous lawsuits. These efforts were very serious and well-funded, and represented a clear and present danger to the firearms industry. Thankfully, the vast majority of Senator Obama's colleagues voted in favor of the PLCAA and President Bush signed it into law. (Unfortunately, some are still trying to get around it. The defense of those who make the tools of liberty, like the defense of liberty itself, is never-ending.) 3. American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) Mr Donnelly labels ASHA a "gun owners group". I'm sure ASHA has some members, and I'm sure at least some of those members own guns. But I'm convinced AHSA is little more than a shell group with a web site, intended to provide political cover for gun prohibitionists and policies. The most telling aspect is their endorsement of Barack Obama (see preceding discussion.) Also, a perusal of their web site leaves me thinking they are long on talk, and very short on accomplishments or programs. Respectfully, Bill Corish Linden, Virginia P.S. Don't get me wrong. It certainly would have been OK to discuss "assault weapons", Senator Obama, and AHSA in this article. But I expect a lot more discernment and precision from an organization which places the headline "Objective. Non-Partisan. Authoritative." in size 42 font on it's "About CQ" page.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: