Talk:American Hunters and Shooters Association

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Gun politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Gun politics task force.

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

Archive 1 (May 2006—November 2008)

AHSA caught trying to create a new Astroturf group: the American Rifle Association

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)[reply]

Untitled

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) brolin_1911a1 aka Chris Meissen[reply]

Membership numbers in lead

Is there a more current number we can find?
One editor disagrees that this belongs in the lead, and believes that putting in the lead is a POV. I don't see how a factual number is POV pushing, although I acknowledge that it is 3 years old and seriously in need of an update. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We could put an infobox like the NRA has. Membership numbers should be in the article somewhere, I think. --tc2011 (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If additional information is available about their membership numbers then the updated counts should be included. Normally organizations are quite eager to publish their membership numbers so I would expect that this information would be available somewhere. Having said that, there is nothing inherently POV or wrong about the 150 members figure if its the latest figure made available. There seems to be a misconception that because AHSA is small, that this is inherently negative. Curiously, the NRA is frequently criticized for the opposite reason of being too large. Neither is accurate. Size of the organization is just a simple fact devoid of inherent negative or positive connotations. Dman727 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting the lead

I've put up a sandbox page at: Talk:American Hunters and Shooters Association/lead where we can rework the lead. I think that the current material in the lead is overly combative for this sensitive topic. When a sentence has to be as carefully qualified as, "...formally founded in 2006, and has claimed no more than 150 dues paying individual members.", it smacks of manipulating statistics, even if only by appearance. I'm bothered by the "formally founded" and "dues paying individual members" as overly qualified (lawyerly) statements. How was it otherwise founded? Is dues paying a legitimate criterion to measure? What is an individual member? I don't oppose this information in the article, but to me putting it so prominently in the lead is unencyclopediac. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin asked me for an opinion. This article is about the AHSA, not the NRA, and not gun control in general, or the right to bear arms. The position of the organization on the issues it engages in is obviously relevant, because it is explicitly an advocacy group. That it is opposed to the position of the NRA on the meaning of the right to bear arms is obvious and explicit also, and it is therefore quite clear that the NRA would be, and is, critical of it. But neither side can be assumed to be evil or illegitimate. To argue or imply that an organization supporting a moderate position on gun control is in fact a front for those who support a more extreme position on gun control is an accusation of bad faith, and needs firm evidence. The article equates all gun control legislation with banning firearms, which is propaganda. The problem here is that the NRA does seem to be quite specifically claiming bad faith, and that must be included, but included without endorsing (or contradicting) their statement, or organizing the material to repeat it multiple times.

For non-US people, I suppose it might help to point out that when this organization refers to "radical" position on gun control, it is not referring to radical politics in general, but rather the NRA position completely opposed to most forms of gun control. In general the language used by both the groups and its opponents is specialized to the controversy and has to be read with an understanding of the rhetoric that both sides How to clarify this without implying hypocrisy is somewhat difficult, because in US politics such tactics are universal on all sides.

To equate opposition to gun control with general conservative politics is an over-generalization. In the context of American politics, although most all people who call themselves conservative support the NRA position on gun control, so do many others. The question of whether the organization is partisan is too cmplicated to mention incidentally here, & is not necessary.

To use 2006 membership figures in the lead at all (with a 2005 reference to them?!) is unfair, even if no more recent figures are available; almost all organization start small--the number at the start can be stated elsewhere, with the date being specified. If there are 2007 or 8 figures, they can be used in the lead, again with the date in the text. To clarify the point, the implication of such low numbers is not whether or not they are a splinter group, but rather that they are not a genuine membership organization.

We usually give the name of only the head, and other prominent figures, not everyone on the Board. We refer details of their background to the articles on them. If they don't have articles, they may not be prominent enough to mention.

The section on "criticism" is a clear violation of NPOV. The article says about a dozen times: "Look, they support gun control legislation". Yes, so they do--to say this 5 times over this is essentially a hidden endorsement of the NRA position that any group supporting any such legislation will support all such legislation, and that any organization claiming to devoted to the interests of gun users that endorses any such legislation is hypocritical. To say they endorse only Democratic candidates is also unfair, unless one can show they have refused to endorse a Republican candidate whose positions on gun control they support. In "ASHA opposes the views of the BATFE and Fraternal Order of Police concerning the Tiarht Amendment. These law enforcement groups claim implementation of ASHA's perspective would jeopardize both lives and law enforcement operations," the references do not show that either of them criticized this organization.

The quote in "endorsement" does not say they endorsed Obama. They did endorse him over Clinton, so one should be found that says so. did they endorse him in the general election? It's relevant information.

It is not necessary to use the phrase "self published" in the references when referring to material from a group's own web site. It's obvious.

In short, the article needs a complete rewrite for neutrality. I prefer not to work on American politics, but I will if I must. DGG (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description

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)[reply]

Position in D.C. v Heller (2008)

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)[reply]

Knock off the partisan NPOV nonsense, Anastrophe

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Attack piece

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 @Jclemens: 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, @Anastrophe:, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Non-partisan

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good for the goose, good for the gander. Feclsic (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Let me know when you start that discussion. Felsic (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]