May 15, 2025    The Honorable Pam Bondi Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20530 unacceptable, and law-abiding gunowners must be protected. As you know, in 2022, the Supreme Court delivered a major victory for law-abiding gun owners in New York State in its decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen. This ruling struck down New York’s Sullivan Act which required concealed carry permit applicants to justify their desire for a concealed carry permit and required firearm regulations to be viewed in the context of the “historical tradition of firearm regulations.” While this was a tremendous step in restoring rights to New York gun owners, their Constitutional rights are still being unnecessarily and unconstitutionally restricted. Dear Attorney General Bondi, I write to you to urge the Department of Justice to investigate New York State’s infringement of New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights and ensure that these rights are upheld for all citizens by taking the appropriate action to remedy these infringements. New York State has enacted and enforced a sweeping regime of laws that infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of its citizens, in direct defiance of precedent set by the Supreme Court and the Constitution. This is New York’s restrictions include a categorical ban on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles, licensing and registration of constitutionally protected arms, and an arbitrary cap on magazine capacity. These restrictions amount to a structural repudiation of the Second Amendment and an unconstitutional infringement on gunowners’ rights. These restrictions violate the Supreme Court precedents set in DC v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and NYSRPA v. Bruen. As you also know, the Department of Justice has a long history of investigating and addressing infringement of Constitutional rights by the States, and we urge the Department to take the appropriate actions to uphold New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment is not a suggestion, it is a Constitutional guarantee that requires enforcement. I urge you to act swiftly to investigate New York’s constitutional infringement and fight to uphold New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights. Albany lawmakers have unconstitutionally restricted the rights of New Yorkers for too long. I look forward to hearing from you and have complete faith in your ability and willingness to fight for these essential rights. Sincerely,  .pdf copy of the letter

HR1041

H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, would reverse a policy by which veterans are stripped of their constitutional right to possess a firearm.  This occurred when veterans were assigned a fiduciary to help manage their Department of Veterans Affairs benefits.  It was done without the same level of due process afforded to all other law-abiding Americans.

The veterans earned these benefits through suffering a service-connected disability but in doing so they lost their 2nd Amendment rights.

On May 6, 2025, the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs voted to favorably report this legislation, by a vote of 13-11, so the bill can now be considered by the full U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill says: “The Secretary (of Veterans Affairs) may not transmit to any entity in the Department of Justice, for use by the national instant criminal background check system…personally identifiable information of a beneficiary, solely on the basis of a determination by the Secretary to pay benefits to a fiduciary for the use and benefit of the beneficiary…without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such beneficiary is a danger to themselves or others.’’.

The bill has 68 sponsors, all Republicans, including NY Congresspersons Stefanik, Tenney, and Langworthy.  Don’t see your Congressperson’s name?  You might want to ask them why. 

________________________________________________________________

Sunday was Mother’s Day and they were the focus.  But shouldn’t Dads have at least gotten a participation trophy?

_________________________________________________________________

Deputy State Senate Majority Leader Michael Gianaris (Democrat-Queens) recently said that “we are currently in an environment politically where the legal system, the prosecutorial system, investigative bodies of government are being used to target political enemies.”

Ya think!

Was he referring to Letitia James’ politically motivated lawsuits against Donald Trump?  No!

On April 16th, SCOPE wrote about some potential cases of real estate fraud by NY Attorney General Letitia James.  A criminal referral was made to the Department of Justice on this matter.

Gianaris was defending the NY State budget which passed last week.  In it was a provision that could leave state taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars of legal fees for Attorney General Letitia James as she battles the charges of real estate fraud.  Charges related to her personal activities and having nothing to do with her duties as Attorney General.

The $10 million criminal defense slush fund would seemingly cover any state employee facing any federal “legally compulsive process” as of Jan. 1, 2025, who can claim the federal probe is “a result of the employee’s New York State employment or duties.”  James has already claimed these charges were a part of a Donald Trump revenge tour because of her actions as NY’s Attorney General.

The NY Post reports: “The bill is so broad that it would cover just about any federal investigation of anyone who cashes a state paycheck…Which is remarkable, since most New York political corruption convictions come from federal charges, and have for decades…The Legislature here isn’t just helping out James, it’s succoring future lawmakers and other state officials caught with their hands in the cookie jar.”

Letitia James used taxpayers’ dollars to pursue Donald Trump on a dubious real estate fraud charge and now will be able to use taxpayers’ dollars to defend herself on real estate fraud charges.

Congressperson Elisa Stefanik said, “This disgraceful slush fund epitomizes the cesspool of corruption in Albany, where Democrat elites prioritize protecting their own over the needs of New York families…state Democrats are "doubling down on shielding their corrupt allies."

S2099 Good afternoon, I’m reaching out from the NY Senate Minority Counsel’s Office to let you know that Leader Ortt’s bill S.2099, which removes the prohibition on firearm silencers in New York is on the agenda for the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee agenda next week. I’ve attached a copy of the bill. Thank you! C. Frontero Deputy Counsel – Floor Operations NYS Senate Minority Counsel/Program

For a .pdf copy of S2099 click HERE

Ammo Costs

Will tariffs affect the availability of ammunition?  Do gun owners need to stock up?

According to a report in Ammoland, most ammunition is manufactured in the United States, so tariffs will not affect them.  There is some foreign manufactured ammunition but it is not a significant amount.

However…

Nitrocellulose is a propellant powder used in ammunition.  It is made by treating cellulose with nitric acid and sulfuric acid.  When ignited, it transforms into a large gas volume, propelling the bullet without much smoke or residue. Its ability to combust rapidly without producing visible smoke makes it ideal for military and industrial applications.

Nitrocellulose components are readily available in the U S A and it is relatively simple to produce.  But its hazardous nature means that only a few companies are qualified to handle its production.  There are very few manufacturers in the U S A.  Such plants are expensive and take time to construct since there are significant safety and environmental concerns.

AmmoLand contributor John Farnam noted that:  at present, the nitrocellulose made in the USA is just enough for our needs; if one of the current nitrocellulose plants were shut down, there would be significant gunpowder shortages in the United States of America.

Who is the largest producer and 2nd largest exporter of Nitrocellulose?  A five letter word that starts with C and ends with A.  It has seen a huge increase in exports to Russia since the Russia-Ukraine War began.

And then there is…

Antimony is a crucial material for hardening lead bullets and creating other munitions.

Antimony is not as critical as the nitrocellulose plants. Only small amounts of antimony are necessary for lead alloys used in bullets. Antimony is a small amount of the cost of ammunition, according to Dan Wolgin, CEO of Ammunition Depot.

But…

The closure of domestic antimony mines in the early 2000s has left the U.S. entirely dependent on foreign sources, with China being the most significant supplier.  As the world’s largest producer of antimony, China accounts for nearly half of global production and supplies 63% of U.S. antimony imports. Antimony plays a vital role in the defense industry, from armor-piercing ammunition to night vision goggles and precision optics. 

Tariffs do not seem to be an ammo supply problem.  But China’s dominance in the production of antimony and nitrocellulose cannot be overstated.  The U S A has the capacity to produce enough ammunition if two vital components are available.

Highlights for a recent Op-Ed by 2^nd Amendment defender John Lott.

 A June 2021 Biden Administration document that was recently declassified was titled “Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism.”  (SCOPE: Who can argue with the need to counter domestic terrorism?  Unless, of course, Biden’s Plan violated the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans by labelling them as terrorists – without good cause.)

 Biden’s Plan directed the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security to target “incidents of concerning non-criminal behavior.”

It also instructs federal authorities to “provide resources to state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement that cover relevant iconography, symbology, and phraseology used by many domestic terrorists.”

 (SCOPE: Biden’s Plan would appear to intentionally infringe on 1st Amendment Free Speech rights:

Iconography: conventional images or symbols associated with a subject 
Symbology: the expression of ideas by symbols. 
Phraseology: a mode of expression, especially one characteristic of a particular speaker or writer.)

 In 2022, an FBI whistleblower exposed the FBI’s “Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide” for identifying “Militia Violent Extremists.” The guide advised agents to be suspicious of symbols like “2A” and imagery referencing the Second Amendment. It also flagged historically significant emblems like the Betsy Ross Flag and Gadsden Flag as indicators of potential domestic terrorists.

Concern about domestic terrorism was used as a basis for advocating a variety of gun control policies: banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; adoption of extreme risk protection orders; a national education campaign urging people to lock up their guns; and banning homemade guns (ghost guns).

 Biden’s Plan called for expanding Obama’s Operation Chokepoint to include de-banking of “financial activity associated with domestic terrorists” and gun control. 

 In December 2023, reports revealed that the FBI categorized “certain Catholic Americans as potential domestic terrorists.”

 FBI whistleblower Stephen Friend testified before Congress in May 2023 that he was tasked with recording the license plate numbers of parents who attended school board meetings and expressed concerns about topics such as critical race theory and gender ideology.

Biden’s plan advocated censorship, strongly suggesting that censorship is necessary to protect both democracy and free speech. (SCOPE: Censorship protects Free Speech?)

Biden’s Plan shows that officials aimed to track “concerning non-criminal behavior.”  It followed an explicit policy of identifying people based solely on their political views. 

Biden’s Plan calls for the U.S. government joining forces with other Western countries and forming partnerships with private-industry companies to “control the spread of disinformation.”  It explicitly calls for the U.S. government to lead a global push to addressing this disinformation content.  It also calls for the U S to participate in the “Christchurch Call to Eliminate Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content Online,” which calls for using AI to censor “hate” speech.  (SCOPE: Of course, it would be the radical left Biden administration that would have defined what is disinformation and hate speech.)

 It also supports such things as “evidence-based research on information literacy education for both children and adult learners and existing proven interventions to foster resiliency to disinformation.”  (SCOPE: Brain wash the kids.)

 Biden’s Plan raises serious civil liberties concerns. It obliterates the line between legitimate security threats and constitutionally protected speech and behavior and casts a dangerously wide net. The revelations show how far the Biden administration was willing to go to silence opposing political views.

Over-Regulation and Deprivation of Rights  by Jarrod Lomozik

            Through over-regulation, New York is removing the protections of society from people who wish to exercise their 2nd Amendment protected Right to effective self-defense.

            As Second Amendment supporters in New York State, we have watched as state legislators and governors have sought to transform the Second Amendment from a Constitutional Right into a privilege through over-regulation. The Concealed Carry Improvement Act and its prohibition on concealed carrying in places open to the public - without express permission - is an example of that. The Second Amendment guarantees the Right to EFFECTIVE self-defense.

          This brings up the distinction between a Right and privilege. A Right does not require anyone’s permission to exercise while a privilege requires permission to exercise. For example, Self-defense is a Right – not a privilege - that’s been codified into law, even in New York.  Article 35 of the New York State Penal Law authorizes the use of reasonable proportional force in self-defense.

          Anti-Second Amendment forces are trying to overregulate the Second Amendment thereby turning it into a privilege - requiring permission to exercise (which violates Supreme Court precedent.)  The state cannot make regulations so burdensome that it discourages individuals from exercising their Rights.  

          In addition, NY State legislators are constantly introducing proposed laws to attach burdensome fees to our 2nd Amendment rights.  They ignore the case Murdock v. Pennsylvania in which the Supreme Court ruled that a state “May not convert a Right into privilege and attach a fee to it”. 

             To protect our Rights against government over-reach, Congress codified: USC Title 18 section 241 “Conspiracy Against Rights”; section 242 “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”; and USC Title 42 section 1983 “Civil Remedy for Deprivation of Rights”. The thing to remember here is that state and Federal laws have concurrent jurisdiction meaning they are applicable simultaneously just as a Citizen is both a state and Federal Citizen simultaneously.

           Section 241 makes it a Federal Felony for two or more persons to threaten, intimidate, oppress, or obstruct the free exercise of any Right or privilege granted by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

          Section 242 makes it either a Federal misdemeanor or Felony for any person under the color of law to deprive someone of Rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

            Section 242 “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law” brings up the concept of “lawful authority.  Police officers who act within the limits of their lawful authority and are acting in good faith are protected by Qualified Immunity.  Section 242 comes into play if a police officer or executive official engages in conduct that violates the Constitution by engaging in “ultra vires” acts and are no longer legally protected by Qualified Immunity. (“Ultra vires” is a legal concept that translates from Latin as “beyond the powers”.)  An example of this is the use of excessive or unlawful force. If a court finds that a police officer used excessive or unlawful force (such as striking a handcuffed compliant subject) that officer is deprived of Qualified Immunity because Qualified Immunity requires police officers to act within the scope of their powers.

            What about legislatures and governors who ignore Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rulings when they pass and enforce gun laws that are directly aimed at depriving us of our rights?  How about sheriffs, judges and county clerks that intentionally delay processing and approving pistol permits?  That seems like a Section 242 violation.    

             Under US Code Title 18 section 242 “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law” and US Code Title 42 section 1983 “Civil Remedy for Deprivation of Rights,” governmental agents are liable both criminally and civilly for violations of individuals Civil Rights under Federal law. This liability also places an affirmative duty on public officials to know what conduct constitutes a violation of Civil Rights and what does not. It’s no different than a holder of a fishing or hunting license has the affirmative duty to be in compliance with hunting and fishing laws/regulations.           

            Under Nuremburg Principle IV, international law imposes both ethical and legal obligations to disobey unlawful orders. This was done in the aftermath of the Holocaust to prevent Human Rights abuses by removing the defense of obedience to superior orders or “I was ordered to do it.” That precedent means that even if a government official is ordered to violate someone’s Civil Rights, they have a legal and ethical obligation to disobey that order. This is a check conferred by the International Criminal Court on authoritarian power as exercised by the Nazi’s and Communists.

            One of the commonalities of the Nazi’s and Communists is the mobilization of governmental resources against perceived enemies. In Nazi Germany that included Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and Homosexuals. In the Soviet Union it was “class enemies” such as the middle class, the upper class, and people considered “Counter Revolutionaries”. Under the Nazi and Communist regimes, the law was used to define these groups as enemies of the state and strip them of the protections of society.

          The commonality here is that New York, through overregulation, is removing the protections of society from people who wish to exercise their Right to effective self-defense.  From my perspective, part of the debate should be about the threat of state sponsored force to achieve partisan political objectives that obstruct our rights. 

Concealed Carry and Reciprocity and the Cost of Lawsuits The United States Concealed Carry Association published an interactive state map concerning concealed carry statistics.  SCOPE pulled the ten largest states (minimum population of ten million) and shows them below.  There is a link to USCCA’s actual map at bottom of the page. Only 3 states, NY, California and Illinois, honor no other (zero, zip, nada) state’s concealed carry permits. And only NY and California have permits which expire in less than 5 years.  (Don’t forget that NY changed it down from 5 years and forgot to tell you.) Since this is budget season in New York State and since we already had the population numbers, we got the state budget expenditures in 2022 from the U S Census Bureau’s web site (apparently the last year they have available) and calculated the budget expense per person.  Hey, it’s expensive to try and do away with Constitutional Rights like the 2nd Amendment.  It’s expensive to defend those rights, too.  The state needs that budget money to run up the costs of lawsuits challenging NYS in order to bankrupt those that would dare oppose NYS.

* New York Concealed Carry Gun Laws: CCW & Reciprocity Map | USCCA 2025-04-08 ** Table 1.  State Government Finances by State: 2022

SCOPE President Activities in April 2025

1. On Saturday, April 26, 2025, approximately 110 members attended the SCOPE Annual Members Meeting, where important updates, strategic goals, and initiatives were shared. The guest speaker, Bobby Anne Cox, a civil rights attorney from Westchester County, New York, delivered a compelling message emphasizing that conservatives can no longer rely solely on the courts to advance their positions; instead, she urged that increasing conservative voter turnout must become a priority. Cox stressed that efforts to educate voters and mobilize turnout must begin immediately. The SCOPE President delivered a detailed PowerPoint presentation measuring the organization's progress using seven key metrics: individual and chapter membership, funds raised, lawsuits supported, pro-Second Amendment bills backed, gun raffles conducted and revenue generated, and whether a banquet was held and the proceeds earned. Of these metrics, five showed improvement over the previous year, one declined, and one remained unchanged. A prototype "Alert Message" system was also demonstrated to the audience, highlighting advancements in communication. Several new initiatives were introduced, including the development of a social media plan, a merchandise strategy, a SCOPE firearms safety course, and a proposal to offer a one-year free membership to graduates of that course. In closing, the SCOPE President called on members for increased chapter participation in gun raffles and quarterly board meetings, more contributions to Firing Lines, volunteers for committee work, and help in filling six vacant At-large Director positions.

 On Saturday, April 26, 2025 (1:00PM) the SCOPE board of directors meeting alongside the Annual Members meeting.  A key accomplishment of the session was the approval of the updated SCOPE by-law, making a significant step forward in the organization’s governance.  Planning for the upcoming 2025 banquet, scheduled for Saturday September 27, 2025, at the Palmyra VFW in Palmyra, New York, was also discussed, including consideration of several prominent national figures as potential guest speakers. During the meeting, elections for corporate officers were held, resulting in all current officers being re-elected, with the addition of Jim Krywalski as the new 2nd Vice President.  The board also reviewed SCOPE’s Top Ten Most Egregious firearms legislation, areas where SCOPE needs additional help and explored ways the organization can improve its operations and outreach.  The next board of directors meeting is scheduled to take place via Zoom on Thursday, July 17, 2025, at 7:00 PM. 

2. In April, the SCOPE President continued outreach efforts by visiting the Yates, Cattaraugus, and Monroe County Chapters of SCOPE. During these visits, discussions centered around SCOPE's top five priorities: coordinating efforts with other Second Amendment organizations, boosting both individual and chapter memberships, educating politicians and the public on firearms legislation, developing pro-Second Amendment bills, and supporting high school shooting sports through donations. Additionally, the SCOPE President addressed the organization’s “Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Laws” currently being debated in Albany, New York, emphasizing the importance of grassroots advocacy in defending Second Amendment rights across the state.

3. The President of SCOPE, in collaboration with the Jefferson/Lewis Chapter of SCOPE, recently met with New York State Senator Mark Walcyzk's Chief of Staff and Assemblyman Scott Gray to provide a detailed briefing on SCOPE's Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Legislation currently under debate in the New York State Legislature. During the meeting, the group highlighted key concerns regarding the potential impact of these legislative proposals on Second Amendment rights. In addition, plans were coordinated to brief New York State Senate Minority Leader Senator Rob Ortt, along with other members of the SCOPE corporation, on Wednesday, May 7, 2025, to further discuss the organization's legislative priorities and opposition. It is extremely important that every county chapter chairman or his representative brief his or her state Senator and Assemblyman or woman on the Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms legislation now because the State budget is finalized, and it is time for the legislature to act on other bills such as firearms legislation. 

4. Coordination continues developing the SCOPE banquet scheduled for Saturday September 27, 2025.

5. Time was dedicated to forming specialized committees focused on key areas of development, including the creation of a comprehensive social media strategy, the planning and execution of a merchandise program, and the design of a SCOPE firearms instructor’s course. Each committee was tasked with outlining objectives, identifying resources, and establishing timelines to ensure effective implementation and alignment with the organization’s broader goals.

Untangling Lawsuits

There are 2A lawsuits everywhere and it gets confusing as to where they stand and what the latest legal action means.  In addition, headlines are getting more and more deceptive and ‘journalists’ often don’t explain the situation well. (Perhaps because they don’t really understand it.)

Here are some helpful hints from a non-lawyer in non-legal-speak.  Of course, this is simplified and lawyers make their money arguing over the complexities.

A lawsuit can be filed against a government body to stop them from doing something.  Two examples: NY State was sued to stop the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) from going into effect and the Trump administration was sued to stop them from deporting illegal aliens. 

It’s important to know that lawsuits challenge specific parts of a law or regulation and do not necessarily challenge all of the law or regulation.

These lawsuits can take years to settle, so the suers (plaintiffs) often ask for a ‘preliminary injunction.’  If granted, a ‘preliminary injunction’ will stop the government from enforcing their law / regulation while the lawsuit is actually being settled. (For instance, stop Hochul from enforcing the CCIA or stop Trump from deporting illegal aliens while the case is being settled.) 

Think of the request for a preliminary injunction as a separate lawsuit (even though technically they are not.)  Lawsuit one wants the government to be permanently stopped while lawsuit two wants the government stopped while lawsuit one is being decided. 

Lawsuit two - the preliminary injunction request - usually gets decided before lawsuit one, which makes things further confusing.

Lawsuit two - the preliminary injunction - can end up working its way through the court system and sometimes goes all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. (SCOTUS)   

A judge is only supposed to issue a preliminary injunction if the judge believes (1) that there will be irreparable harm done if the order is not granted and 2) that the person seeking the order has a high probability of success on the merits and (3) the person seeking the order must have standing to raise the issue   The judge is supposed to use judgement but many (especially in NY State) seem to let their politics guide them.

Now, a few words about the court systems are necessary.

There are two separate court systems: NY State and the Federal government.  But they both consist of three levels. 

The lowest level is the trial level where the case is initially argued and the facts are established. 

The next level is an appeals level where the trial level loser can ask for a review of the case.  This level must accept all appeals made to it.

The highest level is also an appeals level.  (SCOTUS on the federal level.)  It has three paths it can follow:

(1) This level does not have to accept appeals.  If it does not accept an appeal, the judgement of the first appeals level stands and that is the end of the case. 

(2) This level can also refer the case back to the first appeals level with instructions; it does this because it wants all the issues entered into the records before it hears the case. 

(3) It can also agree to hear the case – usually months into the future.

TV talking heads and newspaper editorial writers (and anyone with an opinion on line) will often try to interpret what it means when SCOTUS refers a case back to the lower appeals level.  First, that is the commenter’s opinion and not fact.  Second, many are influenced by their politics and want to create a certain impression and often leave out – or bury – important facts.  Be wary of these interpretations.

Let’s look at a current 2A case as an example.  As of today, this is our understanding.  If you are paying attention to current 2A lawsuits, you may have heard about the Antonyuk v James case.  (James is Steven James who is the Superintendent of the NY State Police).

Antonyuk filed a lawsuit against the CCIA (lawsuit 1) and requested a preliminary injunction (lawsuit 2) so that the CCIA could not be enforced while lawsuit 1 is being heard.  All the following has to do with the preliminary injunction case (lawsuit 2).

The trial judge mostly found for Antonyuk and issued a preliminary injunction.

The appeals level court reversed most of the trial judge’s findings and found mostly that much of the CCIA could be enforced. 

Antonyuk appealed to SCOTUS

SCOTUS referred the case back to the appeals court with instructions to reconsider the case in the light of another SCOTUS decision.      

The appeals court decided that the other case did not impact Antonyuk and let their original decision stand.

Antonyuk went back to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS refused to hear the case so the appeals court decision as to the preliminary injunction stands.

What that means is that there now is an appeals level preliminary injunction stopping enforcement of a few parts of CCIA but most of the CCIA can be enforced by NY State.

However, lawsuit 1 to permanently stop CCIA will now be heard at the trial court level and it will work its way up through the system.  (Now you know why these cases cost thousands of dollars.)

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (the appeals court below SCOTUS) covers all of NY State.  Decisions of this court apply to all of NY State but not to other circuits.  For example, the 1st Circuit could ignore the Antonyuk ruling and Antonyuk would not be enforceable anywhere but in the 2nd Circuit.  (A moot point since Antonyuk only applies to a NY State law.) 

And if you understand all that, an important monkey-wrench has now arisen.

According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), when someone asks for a temporary restraining order* or a preliminary injunction, they are supposed to put down a ‘security payment’ to cover the government’s costs if the restraining order is overturned.  This has been largely ignored.

An example: the ACLU asked a judge to issue an order demanding the return of planes deporting suspected Venezuelan gang members.  If this procedure had been enforced, the ACLU would likely have had to fork over enough money to cover the return of those planes and the detention of the suspects in U.S. facilities in the interim. That money would remain as bond, and the judge would return it to the ACLU if the ACLU ultimately succeeds in the lawsuit.  If the ACLU fails, it loses the money.

This could have a chilling effect on temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions as the suer (plaintiff) would want to be very sure they have a winning case.  (And it’s never a sure thing.)  Losing the case could cost hundreds-of-thousands or millions. 

If used, this procedure would primarily impact the much-discussed cases where trial level judges are issuing nationwide restraining orders against the Trump administration.  Currently, anti-Trump administration plaintiffs will ‘judge shop’ for likely sympathetic judges at the initial trial level and there are no consequences to the plaintiff or the judge if the judges rule based on their political beliefs rather than the law.  But if the plaintiff’s had to fund these ‘security payments,’ that would might stop many of these in-their-tracks.

But for 2A lawsuits, that would put an additional financial burden on these cases which are usually funded on a shoestring.  The government defending the law has bottomless taxpayer dollars to keep appealing and running up the tab.

*Temporary Restraining Orders usually last for only 14 days, maximum. 

Another Gun Control Failure  by Bohdan Rabarsky

   Last Thursdaya, at Florida State University, shots rang out from a lone gunman and before the gunman was neutralized by police 2 innocent people were killed and 6 injured. Didn’t the gunman realize it was a Gun Free Zone?  Possibly, there weren’t enough signs posted about the campus?  Or was it he just decided not to follow the rules, as criminals always do?

   Was this some lone wolf out to wreak havoc with a weapon of war – what gun control advocates also call assault rifles – and what we call modern sporting rifles?  No.  This 20 year old University student used his mother’s handgun in this carnage.

  Florida is a pro-gun state, but still has a few restrictive and ineffective gun control measures. For instance, after the 2018 Parkland High School shooting, the Florida legislature enacted a law that to purchase a long gun you must be 21. It was also a Federal Law that you must be 21 to purchase a handgun.

The FSU shooter was a 20 year old!  So, those laws did not stop him.

   After the Parkland High School shooting, Florida also passed a Red Flag Law which allows police to disarm dangerous people before they can hurt themselves or anyone else. There were some indications that the 20 year old student was troubled.

The Red Flag law didn’t prevent this shooting.

  Mandatory storage laws, which are in effect in Florida, apply to keeping guns locked up when there are minors in the home. The shooter in this situation was a 20 year old student, so the mandatory storage law wouldn’t apply in this situation. 

   Florida State University is a gun-free zone and, in fact, most mass school shootings happen in gun-free zones. Shooters prefer targets that can’t fight back, as their usual goal is to kill as many people as possible. They target people that have no means of returning fire. All the gun laws the Florida State Legislature could have enacted would not have made a difference.  The main objective of this student seems to have been to kill as many people as possible.

   All this shows us is that gun control doesn't work, it has never worked and no matter how many new laws we keep enacting, it won't save lives.  It's not the gun but the person holding the gun. If we removed all firearms, then those wanting to do harm would use knives, vehicles or bombs; all of which have been used in the past.

   We'll always have people that want to harm others, so citizens need to have the ability to protect themselves. Usually by the time law enforcement arrives, the damage has been done, so citizens need the ability to protect themselves.  As the saying goes, when police are minutes away, help is only 1,500 feet per second away. 

Women for Gun Rights issued the following statement which sums it up well: “The brutal attack at Florida State University is yet another tragic reminder that Gun Free Zones don’t stop killers—they stop law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves,” said Dianna Muller, Founder of Women for Gun Rights. “It’s time to stop disarming the innocent and start training and equipping students, faculty, and staff to protect innocent lives.”