Talk:American Hunters and Shooters Association

message: The "American Rifle Association" suddenly popped up out of nowhere, attacking pro-Second Amendment groups and pushing itself as a "reasonable alternative."  No questions about membership or funding were ever answered.  People started digging and found that the "ARA" is nothing more then the "AHSA" with a new name slapped on the same outfit: same Employer Identification Number, same PO Box in Laytonsville, MD, same Ray Schoenke cell phone number as the point of contact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.186.25 (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: AHSA caught trying to create a new Astroturf group: the American Rifle Association

message: The list of endorsed candidates should also include Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) who was endorsed by AHSA in Oct. 2006 in her challenge to then-incumbent US Senator from Missouri, Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO).  Citations for this include Human Events, "Claire McCaskill: Camouflage Candidate" <http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17628> 10/20/2006; The FreeRepublic.com -- "McCaskill’s So-Called “Hunter” Group Bankrolled Campaigns of Anti-Hunting Politicians AHSA HIDES FUNDING SOURCE" on the Free Republic website of  Nov. 6, 2006.
At this time (11/27/2010) the AHSA website appears to be defunct.  Attempts to access it result in the message, "SITE OFFLINE: the American Hunters and Shooters Association website is currently offline."
Brolin 1911a1 (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The AHSA describes itself as "... a national grassroots organization ...."
25 Apr 2005 The domain name: http://www.huntersandshooters.com for the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) was registered by DCS - Internet Advocacy Group, mailing address:
: 600 Pennsylvania Ave SE, 
: Suite 200, 
: Washington, DC 20003 
The same mailing address was given on the DCS website http://dcscongressional.com/ and on the DCS domain name registration as on the original AHSA website and AHSA domain name registration.
3 Aug 2005 The registration for http://www.huntersandshooters.com was changed to show the AHSA, not DCS, as the owner of the site name.
At the local gun club and range, I shoot in several target shooting disciplines, have aided a  reserve deputy practicing with his sidearm, participated and observed qualification tests for handgun permits, hunter safety courses, etc,--years of various club activities in other words--and I have never seen an AHSA presence. A website-only "grassroots organization" created by a PR firm, DCS, whose biggest client is the Democratic Leadership Council, and whose main product appears to be press releases supporting gun control policies looks and feels like astroturf to me. Excuse me if I remain skeptical. Naaman Brown (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description 

message: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_07_290_RespondentAmCu11GeneralsAHSA.pdf 
District of Columbia v. Heller amicus curiae of Maj. Gen. John D. Altenburg Jr., etc al.
The amicus curiae brief of Maj. Gen. John D. Altenburg, Jr., et al., in the case of DC v Heller, argued that the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms enhances the collective goal of supporting national defense, and that the dichotomy between individual right and militia right interpretations is false: 
:"The Petitioners and Respondent are asking this Court to select among two mutually exclusive interpretations of the Second Amendment: one establishing an individual’s right to bear arms and, the other memorializing society’s right to organize a force for its collective defense. Amici suggest that this dichotomy, pitting individual rights against group rights, is not ordained by the language of the Second Amendment, which is a cogent blend of both individual rights and community rights, with each depending on the other. A well-regulated militia – whether ad hoc or as part of our organized military – depends on recruits who have familiarity and training with firearms – rifles, pistols and shotguns. Amici suggest that the Second Amendment ensures both the individual’s right to possess firearms, subject to reasonable regulation, and the constitutional goal of collective defense readiness. Based on decades of military experience, amici have concluded that the District of Columbia’s Gun Law (“D.C. Gun Law”), D.C. Code § 7-2502.01 et seq., directly interferes with various Acts of Congress aimed at enhancing the national defense by promoting martial training amongst the citizenry."
The amicus also describes AHSA thus:
:"The American Hunters and Shooters Association (“AHSA”) is non-partisan organization that advocates sensible public policies for gun ownership and use. AHSA seeks to balance Americans’ right to possess firearms with the need to ensure sensible and mature ownership, including keeping guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and those who lack the ability to responsibly own a weapon. AHSA does not support unfettered access to all types of weapons."
--Naaman Brown (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Position in D.C. v Heller (2008)

message: Federal records --- as reliable as source as any --- prove that the AHSA and the "American Rifle Association" are one and the same.
And the cited source conclusively demonstrate that the AHSA endorsed no one but Democrats.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.180.42 (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with partisan NPOV, which you would see if you examine my editing record. What is claimed in the section is synthesized from that source. It is not what the source says. Furthermore, it is a primary source; to make your contention stand requires a secondary source. This is synthesis - original research. Find a source that states what you have synthesized, and you'll be fine. Further reverts will likely get you blocked from editing. Anastrophe (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knock off the partisan NPOV nonsense, Anastrophe 

message: Articles need to be written from the neutral point of view, focus on the topic of the article, and use reliable secondary sources. Digging through depositions and FEC reports for material isn't kosher. Talking about the outside activities of directors is off-topic. And framing issues from the NRA point of view isn't neutral. Imagine what the NRA article would look like written using the same rhetorical tricks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.231.132 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the extremely rare instances where I support the actions and statements of anonymous. I reviewed - but not carefully (pressed for time) anonymous's edits, and didn't see wholesale redactions as the reverting editor stated. The points about content derived from depositions and FEC reports is correct - original research at its finest (we don't do the research, reliable sources do the research, we present what the reliable sources said about it). That said, and as I mentioned, I don't have time to go over it with a fine-toothed comb. What I would recommend is incremental changes, rather than the one multi-part re-org/cleanup of the article. Present one change; let discussion take place if any is called for, then move to the next. Overall, the edits appear NPOV (initially I thought not, but some portions were simply moved elsewhere in the article - if one doesn't scan top to bottom, it's easy to think more has been removed than has been). Good job, anon, hats off - and lets work together to get these changes collaboratively integrated into the article. Anastrophe (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reviewing the changes rather than doing a kneejerk revert. I'm afraid I don't have the time or patience to argue over this article line by line. I explained my reasons above, and I'm disappointed that  accused me of POV pushing without having the courtesy to come to the talk page himself. I have broken down the edits, rather clumsily, section by section, so that even a senior editor can see what I did. I probably won't get back here for a week or two, if ever, so it's up to you, , and anyone else who's interested in making this article comply with Wikipedia's NPOV, BLP and NOR rules. Good luck! 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on this article the edits are reasonable.  "Small", if legitimately sourced (a deposition is not a reliable source unless submitted by the group, and there's no way to check that reference) would be appropriate in the lead.  But I don't see a source.  On four of the articles the anon has edited, the edits were clearly POV pushing—but not on this article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

text: On a more detailed review, I see that I mistook some source rearrangement for source removal. I disagree that an NPOV article should not characterize this former organization as a (failed) astrotufing group, since that's a fair characterization of the industry press called it during its brief and undistinguished existence. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack piece 

message: Pretty near all non-profits are officially "non-partisan", no matter how partisan they really are. It's a legal issue and it ain't any kind of boast or claim. Prolly we should delete it from a few thousand articles on organizations cause it's so meaningless. But until then let's not be partisan. Felsic (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Second Amendment Sisters, National Association for Gun Rights, Students for Concealed Carry, et cetera et cetera. Felsic (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for the goose, good for the gander. Feclsic (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the nonpartisan article, 501c4s are not nonpartisan. Might it be worth moving this discussion to the nonpartisan talk page to clarify? In the meantime, I'd say removing "nonpartisan" from 501c4 orgs pages makes sense. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me know when you start that discussion. Felsic (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-partisan 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on American Hunters and Shooters Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070309230224/http://www.crimegunsolutions.com/careers.htm to http://www.crimegunsolutions.com/careers.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203033956/http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=1702 to http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=1702
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061118040758/http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=200 to http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=200
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112063859/http://www.gunlawnews.org/asha.html to http://www.gunlawnews.org/asha.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified