Washington, D.C. - Ray Schoenke, the President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), expressed support for Judge Sonia Sotomayor as Supreme Court Nominee. Schoenke made the endorsement in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

Schoenke, a life long hunter, and gun-owner stated his firm belief that gun owners have nothing to fear from Sotomayor:

“Based on the available case history, it appears that Sotomayor honors precedent. Now that D.C. v Heller is precedent, gun-owners should feel secure that their rights are safe.

After sending the letter, Schoenke stated, “As with most issues involving the Second Amendment, concerns about Sotomayor are being stoked by groups who benefit financially from the politics of fear. At AHSA, we believe strongly that the Second Amendment is an individual right, as determined in the landmark case, D.C. v. Heller. We know are gun rights are secure and look forward to the expansion of those rights to the states.

Schoenke noted, “In a recent Second Amendment case, Judge Sotomayor simply followed precedent in cases involving Second Amendment rights as it applies to the states. Other conservative judges in the Seventh Circuit took a similar position. What we should be focusing on is making sure that, Heller, through the 14th Amendment’s process of incorporation guarantees Second Amendment freedoms in all states.”

Contact: Colin at colin@huntersandshooters.com

---------------------------------------------------

Recently my local paper carried the familiar headline of an accidental shooting. The tragedy involved two teenage roommates, one of whom allegedly shot the other in the head with a newly purchased shotgun he was fooling around with while the victim slept on the couch. As skeptical as experienced gun handlers might be of the odds of “accidentally” shooting someone in the head, if you’ve spent time with novices you know how often such events are narrowly avoided.

In addition to the shotgun, a police search of the apartment discovered the victim, eighteen years of age, owned a handgun from which the serial numbers were scratched off. Again, all too typical. A couple kids get curious about guns, and promptly buy them by whatever means available, including an apparently black market purchase. What caught my interest in this story was a comment by the victim’s father, who said:

“My only real regret is not knowing about their interest in getting [a gun]. I wish I would have known . . . I just don’t think a lot of people understand the volatility of a weapon, how easy it is for the thing to go off or how volatile, or how irreversible it is. It’s sad that it takes a tragedy like this to learn that lesson.”

With the utmost respect for this aggrieved father, it doesn’t take a tragedy to learn this lesson. The statistics are readily available. For 2006, the Center for Disease Control lists 642 accidental firearms death in the United States. 102 of these victims were minors. This is far lower than the exaggerated rate of “8 children a day” claimed by some anti-gun organizations, but that’s little solace to the families of the victims. These statistics are only for fatalities, not the other damaged lives.

For accidents like this one, the cause isn’t malice. It’s ignorance. Regardless of your stance on guns, a few facts cannot be denied: the country is filled with guns, popular culture celebrates violence, and most if not all people will encounter guns in some way in the course of their lives. Less of a fact but a statement I’d stand by is that guns are "cool;" young males in particular are drawn to them like moths to a flame. Even without the Hollywood hype and myths about guns enhancing masculinity, kids are still going to want them. In the case above, the unfortunate thing is that no one appears to have prepared these young men for their first encounter with weapons. This amounts to the same “abstinence only” approach to sex ed that most of my fellow progressives rightly decry as a dangerously ineffective program that relies on misinformation and scare tactics instead of providing information that can save a life or prevent pregnancies.

“Abstinence only” sex education has been an abysmal failure in education. Rather than educating the young and the hormonal about risks and effective protections against those risks, abstinence only education relies on shame and fear to fight off the combined influence of moonlight, daddy’s car keys and hot summer nights by the lake. Unsurprisingly to those with knowledge of human sexuality, the approach doesn’t work. A 2006 study revealed that 95% of Americans have had premarital sex. (Yes, that’s nine-ty-five or 19 out of 20 of us, if you prefer.) My guess is those are higher rates than children admit to their parents (or parents to the children), but these rates appear to have been consistent at least since the 1950s (grandma!) When you put the prevalence of this behavior in the same room with a “See no evil, hear no evil” education program, the results are predictable: studies show the rates of unprotected sexual activity for teens in abstinence-only programs match rates for teens who get no sex education at all!

As a parent, I want my schools to do better than that in protecting my kids from AIDS and other life-altering consequences of risky behavior. Yes, protecting minors and other young people from the physical and emotional dangers of precocious sexual activity is part of a parent’s responsibility. But that gives little security regarding their peer group. I can talk with my own children, but I can’t sit down with my neighbor’s kids to give them “the talk” they need to get from their own folks.

When most people inevitably have their first encounter with sex, they aren’t expected to be experts the first time out of the gate. But with guns, you had better be. For the sake of yourself and those around you (like a roommate on the couch) you need to be an expert in safe handling from the very first time you pick one up without supervision.

Denying children direct knowledge and experience with firearms promotes a dangerous ignorance. It means that instead of learning from their parents, some kids are learning about gun safety from the worst source possible: each other. Gun avoidance programs are a good start for younger children. Especially for a kid with no family experience with firearms, the best thing to do with a gun they find is of course to leave it alone and call for an adult. Who can argue with that? But these programs are generally aimed at younger kids. When kids get older, the fascination with all things dangerous will lead some to guns, regardless of their guardians’ wishes. As the report cited above about abstinence-only sex ed says, “Peer support may be protective but erodes sharply during the teen years.” You can say the same thing about “eroding” fear of guns: a second grader is likely to call an adult; a ninth grader—or his friends—is more likely to think “cool” and pick it up.

While this may seem counter-intuitive to some; I would posit that the more likely a kid is to want a gun, the more important it is he knows how to handle one. This belief shared by my friend Donny Adair, who mentors at-risk youths in hunting safety and ethics in the African American Hunting Association. The young men Donny mentors learn firsthand from an adult what a gun can do, and are taught to see through the hollow machismo often attached to firearms by those with low self-image.

Unfortunately, such approaches are not universal. Public schools and many youth organizations that used to teach marksmanship and gun handling no longer do so, or face declining enrollment in their programs. As a result, respect for guns, knowledge about the positive role of guns in society, and even respect for the lives misuse use of a gun will alter are decidedly lacking for far too many of our youths. This is especially so for those who come from families with the “abstinence only” approach to raising these young people.

We of course live in a world where many activities can be fatal; including unprotected sex, swimming pools, alcohol, reckless driving and other highlights of the Hollywood lifestyle. We must talk to our children about these risks, and we need to talk to them about guns, too. Moreover, we need to teach them how to handle a tool most are likely to pick up at some point in their lives. And we need our schools to make sure everyone’s children get the same message. As parents, ask your schools what they are doing to teach older students about safe gun handling, as well as avoidance. Take your children to the range, even if you aren’t a regular shooter yourself. Have “the talk” about guns.

As with other aspects of growing up, realize your child is someday going to need to know how to pick up their tools without you being there to guide them.

AHSA welcomes New Media Director, Zak Johnson. A lifelong gun owner, Zak hails from Portland, Oregon and was the founder and first chair of the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon. The caucus works to promote gun ownership as a nonpartisan civil right embraced by all Americans. Zak began his writing career as a reporter in South Africa in the late eighties and has since worked in conservation and resource management industries from commercial fishing to mink ranching. Zak looks forward to the day when the 2nd Amendment is as uncontroversial as mom, baseball and apple pie and knows AHSA is the team to forward that goal. Read Zak's blog.

I thought I would share with all of you the letter I sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on February 26th:

February 26, 2009

Mr. Eric Holder    
United States Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Holder:

Congratulations on your appointment and confirmation as Attorney General of the United States.   I am writing to address your recent comments about the renewal of the federal assault weapons, which I read in The Hill today.   This raises grave concerns for me and other law-abiding gun owners.  I strongly urge you to reconsider this effort.

For the past four years, I have served as President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA).  We are a gun rights organization with a commitment to protecting our environment, preserving open spaces and keeping our communities safe.  Then-candidate Obama shared many of our views and we endorsed his candidacy last April.  I was honored to serve as a surrogate for the campaign.  Last fall, I spent a great deal of time talking to gun owners, many of whom were union members, on behalf of the Obama-Biden ticket through over 40 appearances in Ohio, Minnesota, Florida and Colorado.  I also did a radio ad, which was broadcast nationally, and was featured in the campaign's direct mail.  Barack Obama's election was critically important for the future of our nation and to the million of gun owners, like me, who voted for him.

That is the reason I want to address the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which passed in 1994 in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and expired on September 13, 2004.  It is my understanding that the Obama administration continues to state its intention to reinstate that ban.  I would strongly encourage you to negate that effort. The assault weapons ban is an issue of great import to America's law-abiding hunters and shooters, who I represent through my role as President of AHSA.   But, this issue shouldn't be based on politics, it's about policy.

Most importantly, as studies have shown, the law had no measurable effect on crime reduction and created an easily avoidable template for gun manufacturers to work around. Instead, the law demonized lawful gun owners and became a lightning rod for a decade long public debate over gun crime that merely served to divert time and resources from our already over-burdened law enforcement agencies.  Frankly, it has been an unnecessary distraction.  Gun owners support efforts to keep our communities safe.  We just want those policies directed at the root cause of crime and violence and not just symbolism, which is how the Washington Post accurately described the ban back in 1994.

Since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban's enactment, the studies analyzing its effect showed there was no statistical significant evidence that it reduced gun crimes. In fact, two studies prepared for the United States government confirm that fact:  The Department Of Justice-funded study issued in July of 2004 titled "Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003" and the Center for Disease Control's Task Force on Community Preventive Services report "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws" issued in October of 2003.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban's major thrust, which was based on a political compromise between competing bills in the U.S. Senate, was to ban the manufacture and sale of certain gun models that had two or more of the following features, considered by most to be merely cosmetic: pistol grip, folding/collapsible stock, flash suppressor/muzzle brake, large-capacity detachable magazine, bayonet mounting point, and a grenade launcher mounting point.  However, manufacturers just put these features on guns in variable combinations instead of using an "all-in-one" approach, meaning that post-ban guns sold were effectively duplicates of pre-ban guns with a mix and match of the isolated features.  The new law became a "charade."

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban also prohibited the production of large capacity ammunition feeding devices (clips) that carried more than 10 rounds. However, large pre-ban clips were always available, albeit with a higher price point, from dealers, on the internet, at gun shows, or from international sources (especially from former Warsaw Pact countries that had large quantities of AK-47 magazines of various capacities that could fit a variety of both pre-ban and post-ban AK-47 variants).   Again, the law was meaningless.

In addition, law abiding sport shooters, collectors, self-defense advocates and hunters who bought semi-automatic replicas of military ordinance felt they had become targets of over-reaching law enforcement agencies because of the demonization of their lawfully owned guns or what they thought was a lawful hobby. This caused a chilling of support for law enforcement by an untold number of citizens who would never imagine themselves as law-breakers, which is exactly the opposite response you would hope to get from legislation intended to fight crime.

Finally, since the ban was first enacted back in 1994, there has been a major development in the interpretation of the Second Amendment, which must also be considered.  The decision in Heller v. District of Columbia established the principle that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.   The Supreme Court decision must guide your thinking as you proceed.

We share your commitment to reducing crime and gun violence.  We believe, as law-abiding gun owners, the way to do that is not by banning guns, but by making sure that criminals, terrorists and people who can harm themselves and others do not get guns.  Law-abiding gun-owners will overwhelmingly support your efforts along those lines.  Again, I applaud your long-standing service to our country and defense of the Constitution. I do however ask you work to ensure that any law enforcement legislation the administration proposes aimed at reducing gun crime in our communities will actually lower gun crime.  Policy considerations should dictate this decision.

Sincerely,

Ray Schoenke, President
American Hunters and Shooters Association