S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education Frontlines

From Breitbart News

Fri, 03 Apr 2026 17:18:58 GMT

From Breitbart News

On Thursday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced his signing of a memorandum ending the blanket gun-free policies on military bases in the United States.

He made clear that the right to self-defense comes from God rather than government.

Hegseth noted, “The Second Amendment of our Constitution enshrines the right of all citizens to carry weapons to protect themselves, their families, and their countrymen.” He pointed out that “warfighters” are “no less entitled to keep and bear arms than any other American.”

Yet, our bases across the country have become “gun-free zones,” he said.

Hegseth made clear the memo he is signing will ensure that “service members will be able to have their Second Amendment rights on post.”

The memo signed by Hegseth “directs installation commanders to allow requests for personal protection to carry a privately owned firearm.”

He said, “Affirming your God-given right to self-protection is what I’m signing today.”

Twisted Legal Logic by Tom Reynolds

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 14:52:39 GMT

Twisted Legal Logic by Tom Reynolds

In the case NYSRPA v Bruen, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) reinforced that ‘arms’ are protected by the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution (2A). Once something is classified as ‘arms,’ there has to be an historical precedent for banning them and that ban must go back to 1791, when 2A was passed*. (In other words, 2A should be interpreted by what it meant when it was passed, not what someone wishes it meant by their own modern standards.)

Immediately after the Bruen decision in 2022, the gun grabbers on the Left tried various strategies to work around Bruen, including trying to ban anything that looked like a gun, including toy guns – and also tasers and stun guns.

Massachusetts passed a law banning tasers. The constitutionality of that state law was challenged in Caetano v Massachusetts when Massachusetts argued that tasers did not exist in 1791 and, thus, were not covered by 2A. (Imagine applying that same logic to the 1A right of ‘free speech;’ radio, tv, internet, telephones, etc. would not enjoy free speech protections since they were not in existence in 1791.)

SCOTUS used that Massachusetts’ Taser law for Skeet practice. SCOTUS shot it down in courteous legal terms that basically said, “can’t you guys read.”

SCOTUS rejected the ‘not in existence in 1791’ idea as it had previously ruled that weapons are protected even if they were not in existence at the Founding. As a result of SCOTUS’ decision, tasers should be legal in Massachusetts and since this was a SCOTUS decision, tasers should be legal nationwide**. However, saying it doesn’t make it so.

New York City banned civilian possession of stun guns and tasers, not because they didn’t read Caetano but just because they can pass a law and if you don’t like it you can sue NY City - if you have the money for a long legal case to prove the law was unconstitutional.

Calce v City of New York, (backed by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition) did just that and sued NY City. On March 25th, Calce was argued before a three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court. (The court directly below SCOTUS.)

It seems as if it should have been an easy case after Caetano but do not underestimate the ability of lawyers on the public payroll to run up their opponents legal bill with twisted logic. NY City’s lawyers - and some of the justices on the court - seemed intent on working around Caetano to keep the taser ban alive.

SCOTUS had previously ruled that arms were protected by 2A. Once an ‘arm’ is protected by 2A, to create an exception, the burden is on the government to prove a 2A protected weapon is not in common use***. In other words, the burden of proof was on the government, not on the people.

NYC’s strategy in Calce is to flip the burden of proof and force Calce to prove that a weapon is in common use before it can be classified as ‘arms’ - and protected by the 2nd Amendment.’ (This would effectively eliminate any newly introduced weapon from being classified as arms because, being new, they would not be in common use.) Under Rule 56, if Calce fails to properly support an assertion of fact (that tasers are in common use) the court may grant Summary Judgment to NY City. This would leave the law in place and the petitioners would have to start over.

All is not lost. Some observers believe the judges did not sound fully sold on NY City’s theory that stun guns are outside the Second Amendment. At one point, a judge openly suggested having “a hard time” with the argument that stun guns or tasers are not within the meaning of protected arms, especially given that they are less lethal than handguns.

But the issue is whether courts below SCOTUS get to nullify Bruen by turning every arms-ban case into a battle over plaintiff-supplied statistics before the government ever has to prove its ban is constitutional.

SCOPE will keep you informed on this issue.

*The Left likes to argue that 2A protection only goes back to 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed. This would allow them to use Jim Crow laws as justification for banning a weapon.

**In New York State, tasers are:

Legal to own: Yes, for self-defense.

Age requirement: 18+ (some sources suggest 21+ for certain purchases)

Prohibited locations: Schools, courthouses, airports, government buildings,

public transit

Use: Only in reasonable self-defense; misuse can lead to criminal charges.

***In Caetano, Justice Alito’s concurrence pointed to evidence that hundreds of thousands of stun guns had been sold to private citizens.

Two Flags by Bohdan Rabarsky

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 23:27:31 GMT

Two Flags by Bohdan Rabarsky

For some, the thought of the 2nd Amendment conjures up gun rights and hunting privileges. For others, it’s self-defense against an intruder wanting to harm you or your family. (For those on the Left, it’s called a mistake.) In any case, the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted in many ways depending on who is doing the interpreting.

James Madison is the father of the Bill of Rights, which is the first Ten Amendments to our Constitution. Madison drew tremendous influence from 16th century philosopher John Locke on topics such as Separation of Powers, Limited Government, Religious Freedom and Natural Rights. Madison and Locke believed in fundamental principles of liberty, including the idea that individuals possess inalienable rights to life and liberty. These rights, of life and liberty, weren’t afforded by government but were God-given rights with which we were born. Fundamental rights of self-defense are amongst the God-given rights you were born with and not enabled by government or the 2nd Amendment. Government can list them & protect them, but our rights are not theirs to take away.

The Don’t Tread on Me Flag (Gadsden Flag) was created during the American Revolution and is often mentioned when the 2nd Amendment is discussed. That flag is an historical symbol of liberty, individual rights and defiance against an over reaching authority. In essence it says that we have our rights and trying to take them away will be like stepping on a rattlesnake. It is quite often presented at 2nd Amendment rallies aimed at fighting for gun rights in defiance of anti-gun government legislation.

To the gun grabbers on the Left, the Gadsden Flag symbolizes their greatest fear. If they trample on our rights, under 2nd Amendment protections, we have the means to protect those rights. The Left prefers unarmed masses, such as currently in Iran, where the common people do not have the means to defend their rights against a tyrannical government, which restricts their religious liberty rights, too.

A lesser-known flag was the Pine Tree Flag featuring a green pine tree and slogan “An Appeal to Heaven.” It symbolizes an appeal to divine justice when earthly authority fails; resistance against tyranny. The phrase “An Appeal to Heaven” originates from John Locke’s philosophy, justifying revolution when no earthly authority exists to settle grievances. But resistance needs the means to resist; hence, the 2nd Amendment.

The Pine Tree Flag still has meaning. In recent times, it was displayed by Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who is deeply religious and has explicitly stated that his Christian faith is the most important aspect of his life. He is a Baptist whose political worldview is derived directly from the Bible. He also believes in the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment is a check that ensures we have a choice that was not given to us by government, but a choice that is protected from government. What government can give, government can take, hence the Founding Fathers enshrined the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights as a preexisting right that government cannot take away. Defense of both our personal rights and our constitutionally given rights are God given rights, not rights provided by the 2nd Amendment. Never the two should be confused.

James Madison was also a strong proponent of religious liberty, as he wrote the 1st Amendment. The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment.

The 2026 S.C.O.P.E. Annual Members Meeting is Saturday, April 18th.

Wed, 18 Mar 2026 15:18:53 GMT

The 2026 S.C.O.P.E. Annual Members
Meeting is Saturday, April 18th.

The Member's Meeting will start at 10:00AM followed by lunch at noon.

Your January/February issue of the Firing Lines has the RSVP form on page 4.

You must RSVP for the meeting. The form is also attached HERE.

Please mail your RSVP by April 6th.

*Also, the Ballot for At-Large directors is inside the back cover of your January/February Firing Lines. Please vote for 4 of the listed candidates and mail your ballot (ballot only, addressed to SCOPE Ballot) postmarked no later than April 10th

March is Women’s History Month by Bohdan Rabarsky

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 14:51:57 GMT

March is Women’s History Month by Bohdan Rabarsky

The history of women’s rights in America often starts with the 20th century when Congress, led by men, enacted laws to give women the same rights as men. But there is an earlier law – a Constitutional Amendment – that may be the most empowering of them all. There is a saying that God created men (& women) but Samuel Colt made them equal. The 2nd Amendment made that possible.

Let’s look at some of the more important ones that were enacted into law in the 20th century:

1920-the 19th Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote.

1963-Equal Pay Act, prohibiting wage discrimination based on sex.

1972-Title IX in federal programs pertaining to women’s sports and academic opportunities.

1974-Equal Credit Opportunity Act-allowed women to apply for credit and loans without a male co-signer.

But the one that really made them equal didn’t require an act of Congress in the 20th century. It protects women’s rights and it goes back to December 15, 1791; the ratification of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is taking on new meaning in the 21st century.

For years, the right to bear arms focused on a “well-regulated militia” and since women were not, historically, a part of that militia, they were an afterthought. The Bruen case and its successors took the emphasis off militia and emphasized a historical context.

At first glance, relying on historical precedence is a problem since, in 1791, women did not have the same rights as men. For instance, married women had no legal identity, independent of their husbands. But even today’s most far left, anti-2A judge would not dare rule against a woman’s equal right to “keep and bear arms.” The Bill of Rights doesn’t differentiate by gender, so I’m pretty sure that women’s 2A rights are as safe as men’s 2A rights - which in New York State, they are far less safe than they should be.

When a woman becomes a single Mom, sometimes they’ll turn to organizations and to social services to survive. They also rely on the legal system to protect them from abusive partners. But an order of protection or restraining order is a piece of paper and doesn’t offer very much protection. And of course, there is the unrelated criminal who is always willing to take advantage of anyone they see as easy prey.

Where a protection order is just a legal piece of paper, a firearm can stop an intruder or abuser dead in their tracks - no pun intended. In many situations, women need to take the lead in protecting themselves and their family. If trouble arises, depending on where they live, getting help from a 911 call may take many minutes, when all they have are seconds. Women are the first line of defense against intruders while waiting for law enforcement to arrive, so they need to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones. An armed woman is no longer easy prey.

The fastest growing demographic of gun ownership in America is women, which can be viewed as sort of a "first responder" mentality. With a gun in hand, no one could accuse women of being the weaker sex.

When listing the laws that empowered women, the 2nd Amendment should be prominently displayed.

Monkey See Monkey Do by Tom Reynolds

Thu, 12 Mar 2026 14:57:52 GMT

Monkey See Monkey Do by Tom Reynolds

SCOPE often writes how one blue state follows another blue state when it comes to laws restricting our 2nd Amendment protected rights. We have excellent examples of that with bills recently passed by the Virginia legislatures.

Virginia’s SB749 has been approved by the legislatures and is awaiting the expected signature of Virginia’s radically Left governor.* Below shows the similarities between SB749 and existing law in New York State.

Notes:

Virginia’s SB749 is shown in black, starting with VA-

NY States existing law is shown under Virginia’s in red, starting with NYS-

In a few cases, one state does not have a comparable law so it is shown only with the heading VA- or NYS- and nothing after it.

The following comes from the sections dealing with the definition of Assault Rifles. There are similar sections dealing with other Assault Weapons such as pistols, shotguns, etc., but you will get the point!

VA- Any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, or transfers an assault firearm is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

NYS A person is guilty of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree when that person knowingly possesses an assault weapon.

VA- Assault firearm means

NYS- Assault weapon means

VA- A semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 15 rounds;

NYS-

VA- A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine…and that has one or more of the following characteristics:

NYS- A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

VA- A folding, telescoping, or collapsible stock;

NYS- A folding or telescoping stock

VA- A thumbhole stock or pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle;

NYS- A thumbhole stock. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon

VA- A second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

NYS- A second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand

VA- A grenade launcher

NYS- A grenade launcher

VA- A threaded barrel capable of accepting:

NYS- A threaded barrel designed to accommodate:

VA- A muzzle brake,

NYS- A muzzle break

VA- A muzzle compensator,

NYS- A muzzle compensator

VA- a sound suppressor

NYS-

VA- A flash suppressor

NYS- A flash suppressor

VA-

NYS A bayonet mount

VA-

NYS A grenade launcher

New York State likes to be first with new restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights, but keep your eye on other states. If another blue state comes up with a new approach to encroaching on 2A, you can be sure New York State will follow.

*Virgina’s new Governor Abigail Spanberger gave the Democrat’s response to Trump’s State-of-the-Union speech. She started saying she would report “plainly and honestly.” Her first point was to attack Trump’s tariff’s as raising the cost of living for Americans. She omitted that she has introduced more than 50 proposals, new rules and taxes: dog walking and grooming tax; guns and ammunition tax; new income tax brackets; storage facility tax; dry cleaning tax; home repair tax; electric leaf blowers’ tax; electric landscaping equipment tax; tax on deliveries made by Amazon, Uber Eats, FedEx and UPS orders. She was elected as posing as a moderate!

Annual Member Meeting Guest Speaker

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 18:15:15 GMT

Annual Member Meeting

To the SCOPE Membership,
SCOPE leadership is pleased to announce that this year’s guest speaker will be GOP/Conservative gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman.
The latest edition of Firing Lines includes an RSVP notice*. Please mail your RSVP by April 6th to reserve your seat.
SCOPE President

Each year, SCOPE brings its membership together twice to celebrate and support the defense of the Second Amendment with fellow like-minded individuals. These gatherings include the All Members Meeting in April and the SCOPE Banquet in September.

The All Members Meeting is fast approaching and will be held on Saturday, April 18, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the Moose Lodge in Montour Falls, New York.

This is a great opportunity to meet Mr. Blakeman and learn more about his platform.

We hope to fill the room for Mr. Blakeman, so please submit your RSVP as soon as possible. Lunch will also be provided.

I hope to see you there.

With All Honor and Respect,

John R. Elwood

Oregon, Initiative Petition 28 by Tom Reynolds

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 20:08:11 GMT

Oregon, Initiative Petition 28 by Tom Reynolds

Non-voting hunters may believe that their hunting right is safe from the radical Left’s gun control efforts. They forget that things one could never have imagined a few years ago often become commonplace in Democrat dominated states. If you doubt that…

In Oregon, Initiative Petition 28, would outlaw hunting, fishing and a host of other things, including cattle ranching. Backers of this measure say they have gathered about 105,000 of the required 117,173 valid signatures, which must be turned in by July 2.

Writing at Northwest Sportsman, editor Andy Walgamott explains, “Initiative Petition 28 cloaks itself as an anti-animal cruelty campaign, but in reality it would essentially criminalize hunting, fishing and trapping in the Beaver State, put ranchers out of business, and prevent you from even raising your own chickens for the table or trapping rodents damaging your home or business.”

Like New York State, Oregon is a Democrat dominated state and many gun owners use the excuse for non-voting, “my vote won’t make a difference.” Or in this case in Oregon, “Initiative 28 is so extreme it will never pass.” We estimate only about one-third of the gun owners in NY State will vote and I’ll bet Oregon is similar.

In order to add credibility to this animal cruelty’ proposal and seem less like hypocrites targeting just guns, they added fishing and cattle ranching to the list of no-no’s. That could be their undoing. This one bill manages to antagonize everyone not on the radical Left.

Since the Democrats are concerned about ‘affordability,’ have they considered that this will force meat eaters to import beef from other states, thus raising prices? As a solution, they might offset this by making meat eating illegal in Oregon! Couldn’t happen? I started this saying, “things one could never have imagined a few years ago often become commonplace in the Democrat dominated states.”

Whether or not you like Trump, this was a great line: “When the world needs courage, daring, vision and inspiration, it is still turning to America. And when God needs a nation to work his miracles, He knows exactly who to ask.”

The problem is, it’s the Oregon Democrats who proposed Initiative Petition 28 that are showing “courage, daring, vision and inspiration.” I don’t believe they are doing God’s work, but the Left doesn’t care. They don’t need God to manufacture a miracle,’ they just need gun owners to continue to stay home on election day.

______________________________________________

For those gun owners who avoid registering to vote in order to avoid Jury Duty, Claudine Ewing on WGRZ points out that, “New York draws potential jurors from five source lists, including the Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Taxation and Finance, Department of Labor, Department of Social Services and the Board of Elections.”

Basically, if you an adult living in NYS, you are going to be on most of those lists, unless you are an illegal alien. In that case, you can probably figure out a way to vote and still avoid Jury Duty; after all, no ID is required to vote.

Planning Ahead by Tom Reynolds

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 02:47:26 GMT

Planning Ahead by Tom Reynolds

People In leadership positions are supposed to consider both the short-term and long-term effects of their decisions. For instance, NY Democrats want to disarm the average citizen but they passed “Bail reform” that ties the hands of prosecutors and judges, flooding our streets with repeat offenders. NY State prisons face a staffing crunch following Governor Hochul’s decision to fire 2,000 correction officers; to solve the problem, Hochul wanted to release thousands of inmates convicted of violent crimes. And cooperating with federal officials to keep criminal aliens off-the-street is a no-no.

In light of Albany’s decisions, it seems to me that they made carrying a gun for protection into a good idea, in spite of the NY Democrats objections.

It’s not 2A, but since it will crush your pocketbook, here is another example of how well thought out are the NY legislature’s efforts.

In 2019, New York State legislature passed and Governor Cuomo signed a law called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCP.) It set mandatory goals of a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and net-zero by 2050. It also requires that 70% of the state’s electricity come from renewable resources by 2030 and be carbon free by 2040.

On February 26th, the CEO of the New York State Energy Research and Development Agency (NYSERDA) sent a memo which basically said, “OOPS.”

Under CLCP’s mandatory requirements, according to NYSERDA, by 2031, if you live in upstate NY and heat with oil or Natural Gas you can expect their heating bills to increase by $4,000, annually.* That’s $4,000 more than you are paying now!

Gas at the pump could increase by $2.00 a gallon to about $5.00 a gallon.

And in case you don’t have a calendar handy, 2031 is only five years away.

Keep in mind that the government almost always underestimates costs.

But according to the NYSERDA memo, “The acceleration in clean energy deployment…as required to meet CLCP’s targets is infeasible today.” The marketplace does not have the capacity to deliver the volume of renewables that would be called for and it is “difficult to envision how all the actors in the state could adequately ramp up to spend the $28 Billion that such a policy would generate annually quickly after program launch.” (Emphasis added.)

NYSERDA believes it would “…lead to high burdens to New York households…” Ya think so!

Not to defend energy companies (mine is NYSEG) but they will take the knee-jerk blame when people see their energy bill go up. However, in this case, they are just the middle man passing through costs mandated by Albany politicians.

New York State has enacted a plan, mandated in law, that cannot be met. Will we see Kathy Hochul hauled off in handcuffs for violating the law?

Not so shockingly, New York politicians are blaming President Trump.

Three years after passing CLCP, because the NY Legislature has done such fine work, they rewarded themselves with a $32,000 raise from $110,000 to $142,000.

In light of NYSERRDA’s report and being tone-deaf to NY taxpayers, State Senator James Sanders Jr. (D) is sponsoring a bill to again raise the legislators’ pay; this time to $180,000. If you are math challenged, that is a $38,000 (26%) raise! And to be sure our state legislators don’t get further burdened, he included an annual cost-of-living adjustment, too. (See, they can plan ahead when it involves their own pocketbook.)

By the way, at $142,000, NY State has the highest paid legislators in the nation.

Governor Hochul and the legislative leaders are always saying that NY State needs to lead the nation. Unfortunately, in lacking any appreciation for the consequences of their actions, NY State legislators and Governor Hochul are challenging California for the nation’s lead. And in greed and self-interest they are leading the nation.

*Rebecca C. Lewis on X: "NEW: NYSERDA has sent a memo to the governor's office on the "likely costs of CLCPA compliance. This is after both Gov. Hochul and her budget director cited costs in the thousands for New Yorkers. The memo says upstaters could face up to $4,000 in costs and NYC residents $2,300 https://t.co/zbN5hfeGjO" / X

Good News by Tom Reynolds

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 01:03:39 GMT

Good News by Tom Reynolds

It seems that there is always bad news to spread about 2A, so here is some positive ‘stuff.’

Over fifteen years ago, a man was convicted, in Pennsylvania, of carrying a firearm without a state license. Fifteen years later, he was stopped by another state’s police officer, whom he told of a pistol in the center console of his car. The man was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Being a non-violent felon with no other criminal history, his defense lawyers made a motion that the state firearm law was “unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him.” However, the trial court denied his motion and the man pled no contest to the felon in possession state charges – and then appealed his conviction.

Recently, the state’s Attorney General responded to the appeal and wrote that the conviction for possessing a firearm by a felon violates the 2nd Amendment. “On studied reflection, the Attorney General has concluded that the conviction does indeed infringe (the man’s)right, as a nondangerous felon, to keep and bear arms. The state must therefore confess error and urge this Court to reverse.”

The A G writes that, since he swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, “It is thus the Attorney General’s duty to admit when he believes the State has obtained a conviction in violation of the Constitution.” The A G wants to file a brief for this case in which he will “discuss the lack of historical evidence supporting the dispossession of all felons as distinct from the strong historical evidence supporting the dispossession of dangerous felons.”

Wow, has Tricia James seen the light?

Not a snowball’s chance… It was Florida’s Attorney General, James Uthmeier and it was not his first venture into defending 2A.

A Florida law bars those under 21 from carrying concealed firearms. Uthmeier recently asked a state appeals court to uphold a teen defendant’s right to carry.

In another case, Florida’s First District Court of Appeals ruled that Florida’s open carry ban was unconstitutional. Uthmeier backed that up when he wrote on X: “I’m issuing guidance to Florida’s prosecutors and law enforcement in light of the 1st DCA’s decision…Because no other appellate court has considered the constitutionality of Florida’s open carry ban since the SCOTUS decision in Bruen, the 1st DCA’s decision is binding on all Florida’s trial courts. Meaning that as of last week, open carry is the law of the state.”

Any chance Uthmeier could be persuaded to move to New York?

__________________________________________________________________

For over 30 years, veterans who lacked the ability to manage their financial affairs — often due to service-related disabilities — were automatically reported by the VA to the NICS’ check as “prohibited persons.” This reporting effectively barred them from legally owning or purchasing firearms.

On February 17th, the VA formally ended this unconstitutional practice; the VA will no longer report veterans to NICS solely because they need fiduciary help and the VA is working with the FBI to remove veterans’ names that were improperly submitted in the past. In its official announcement, the VA acknowledged that this practice violated both the Gun Control Act and the constitutional rights of veterans, because the department was making life-altering disability determinations without any judicial or quasi-judicial due process — a fundamental right in American law.

Congressional allies in both chambers have already introduced bills like the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act that would permanently prohibit the VA from submitting NICS reports unless the veteran is adjudicated a danger by a court.

Gun Control in Iran by Tom Reynolds

Mon, 02 Mar 2026 18:06:56 GMT

Gun Control in Iran by Tom Reynolds

With recent events in Iran and President Trump calling on the Iranian people to rise up and replace their tyrannical government, you might ask about Iran’s gun control policy… and it’s what you would probably expect.

There is not much specific about it on-line, other than it is generally described as quite ‘restrictive’. It appears that handguns and semi-automatic firearms are illegal (except for the government, of course.) Hunting shotguns and some single fire rifles are available with a license, primarily in rural areas.

There are few restrictions on the use of force by the government.

Obtaining a gun license in Iran, for those few guns that are legal, involves several steps:

Applying for a gun permit at the local police station

Submitting to a background check, including criminal records and military service status

Completing a psychological evaluation to ensure mental stability

Taking a firearm safety course and passing a written and practical exam

Paying the required fees

Waiting for approval from the authorities, which may take several months

Wow, notice the resemblance to New York State under Kathy Hochul and the Democrats.

A you might expect, where there is gun control there is a flourishing black-market trade in firearms. So much so that the Iranian legislature recently passed laws imposing more severe penalties for illegal firearms. Internet sites offer to illegally sell basic handguns for about 200 million Rials! Don’t let that price amaze you, 200 million Rials is roughly $240. (Runaway inflation is one of the reasons that Iranians are protesting.)

SCOPE recently wrote about gun free ‘sensitive’ places; traditionally in America, when citizens were not allowed to carry weapons in a ‘sensitive’ place, the government was supposed to provide security. The assumption by gun control advocates is that the state remains a reliable guardian of public safety and will never devolve into an oppressor. 20,000 to 30,000 dead Iranian protesters would disagree with that assumption.

When regimes face existential threats to their power and the state has a monopoly on violence, the state will resort to using their monopoly on violence against its own citizens. And in Iran, the state is currently feeling threatened by its citizens and it holds an absolute monopoly on armed violence.

The complete removal of an armed citizenry leaves people at the mercy of those who hold all the guns. Iran's blood-soaked streets stand as a grim reminder of that reality.

Equal Protection by Bohdan Rabarsky

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:16:01 GMT

Equal Protection by Bohdan Rabarsky

Politicians have long been the target of criminals wishing to do them harm. The FEC (Federal Election Commission) has ruled that federal members could use campaign funds for personal security services, as long as they have had credible threats of security lodged against them. Many Democrat lawmakers have taken advantage of this service, since then. For example, some of the heaviest users in the Senate were:

Raphael Warnock $605,900;

Jon Ossoff $316,700;
Mark Kelly $302,600.
Eric Swalwell $86,500;
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez $83,200;
Jasmine Crocket $80,000;
Ilhan Omar $31,200.

In the lower house they were:

Cori Bush $233,700;

While nobody regrets providing security to keep our representatives and their family members safe, these same Democratic representatives have consistently voted to take away our God given right of self-defense.

Every Congressional Democrat who used campaign funds (other people’s money) for their personal security voted for the Assault Weapons Ban of 2025 (HR3115 and SB1531.) How hypocritical of them to want armed guards to protect themselves and their family members, but they don’t believe you should be allowed to be able to protect yourself and your family.

In addition, both New York State Senators, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand voted in favor of that Assault Weapons Ban. Of the 19 Democratic New York Congressional Representatives, 13 of them voted in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban, including my own Central New York 22nd District Congressman John Mannion.

Those same people also voted against HR 38, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025. Not only did they vote against you possessing those scary black weapons of war, but they voted against you being able to take your legal firearm across state lines to protect yourself and your family. Constitutional Carry should be available in every state, the same way your driver’s license is recognized from state to state. Having a driver’s license is a privilege, not a right, but the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional Right, that shouldn’t be infringed.

The average citizen in America can’t afford private security nor does the average citizen have discretionary funds to install an expensive security system in their home. About all many homeowners have today is a Ring camera on their front door. Why can’t citizens have protection the same as our government officials do? Citizens should be able to rely on the Constitution, which allows them the right to bear arms.

Mexico – New York’s Ambition by Tom Reynolds

Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:30:55 GMT

Mexico – New York’s Ambition by Tom Reynolds

You are probably aware of the wide spread drug cartel related violence occurring in Mexico.

Mexican drug cartel boss ‘El Mencho’ was killed in an attempt to capture him. In the aftermath, it is reported that 25 members of the Mexican National Guard have been killed as well as 30 cartel members. Another 20 people have reportedly been killed – so far - but with no designation so, presumably, they are civilians.

More than 1,000 people were stuck overnight in Guadalajara’s zoo, where they slept in buses. The zoo sheltered them because many had been trapped when violence broke out in the surrounding states. (I wonder if the Zoo had armed guards or if those sheltering just waited to become defenseless victims, much like Americans in our gun-free zones.)

American embassy workers and American tourists were advised to ‘shelter in place.’

In gun violence cases in the USA, the media and the Democrat’s leadership are quick to call for more gun control. That is not happening with Mexico. Why?

In 2024, CBS News reported that “Drug-related violence has seen more than 480,000 people killed in Mexico since the government deployed the army to combat trafficking in 2006.”*

In 2024, the AP reported that then Mexican President Obrador had a policy of not confronting the cartels and encouraged local people to seek out peace pacts with the gangs.** (Sounds like Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’ attitude towards fraud schemes by criminal aliens.) Four Roman Catholic bishops met with Mexican drug cartel bosses in a bid to negotiate a possible peace accord between drug cartels and President Obrador said he approved of such talks.

Could silence on the gun grabbing Left, in the face of so much violence, be because Mexico already has strict gun control? So, what is gun control like in Mexico?

Mexico is what Kathy Hochul and the Democrat leadership envision for New York State. Mexico is already doing what Hochul and company want done in New York and the results are a disaster.

Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution allows inhabitants to keep firearms in their homes for safety and self-defense. (Not quite the USA’s 2nd Amendment but, like Hochul, the Mexican government tries to ignore their constitution.)

The Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA) maintains exclusive control over Mexican firearm sales and registration. (The equivalent of the ATF?)

If one wants to legally get a gun in Mexico, the process is lengthy, bureaucratic, and requires demonstrating a legitimate need for the firearm. Applicants face stringent background checks, psychological evaluations, and must prove safe storage. (In NYS, Democrat sponsored bills want to require psychological exams. Try getting a permit in NY City or other major cities in the USA; think in terms of years.)

And if you can work your way through the bureaucratic roadblocks, the only legal gun store in Mexico is located in Mexico City and operated by SEDENA. (Imagine if the only gun store in NY State was in downtown New York City? Inconvenient doesn’t begin to cover it! And I’ll bet against those SEDENA employees in the gun store being customer oriented. Something similar was the goal of the ATF under Joe Biden, who was committed to shutting down legal retail stores to make it difficult to buy a gun store, legally.)

For protecting a home, officials generally allow short firearms like pistols or revolvers in calibers up to .380 or .38 Special. Other weapons, such as .22 caliber rifles and various shotguns, are typically authorized for protecting rural land or for use in hunting clubs. (NY State currently has proposed bills limiting calibers and types of guns that civilians may own. NY’s legislature aspires to be Mexico!)

Having a permit to own a gun for home protection does not automatically allow you to carry it in public. Federal law distinguishes between keeping a gun in your home and carrying or transporting it. (Much like what the gun grabbing left wanted before the Heller, McDonald and Bruen cases restored ‘keep and bear arms’ to its proper status.)

Public carry firearms licenses are difficult to obtain and are only issued to individuals who:

are mentally and physically capable (The NY Legislature has proposed bills requiring a mental exam to get a permit)

demonstrate a need to carry arms (What used to be called ‘May Issue’ in NY State before Heller, McDonald and Bruen)

provide proof of employment

served in the military

do not have a criminal record

do not use illegal drugs

Individuals must renew their license every two years. (Something for Hochul to aspire to since pistol permits in NYS must be are renewed every three years.)

Mexican citizens cannot own an AR-15 which is considered military-style weapons (Assault weapons to the Left) and are strictly prohibited for civilian ownership. (Kathy Hochul’s and the Democrat leadership’s dream.)

Penalties for illegal firearms are severe. (The same as penalties in NY State, unless you are an illegal alien, in which case NYS offers you sanctuary status, instead.)

Per MEXLAW.com, Mexico’s legal gun stores sold 52,147 firearms between 2009 and 2014. Wow! In spite of all the restrictions, drug cartels are able to illegally arm their ‘employees’ with ‘military style firearms’ while law abiding Mexican citizens only bought about 9,000 each year.***

Any reasonable analysis would define Mexico’s gun control laws as failures.

Perhaps Mexico should adopt NY City’s Mayor Mamdani’s approach and have social workers talk to the drug cartels and persuade them to tone down the violence.

*5 women, 3 men shot dead in the street in Mexican cartel stronghold - CBS News

**Mexico's most dangerous city for police refuses to give up or negotiate with cartels | AP News

***During the Biden administration, 1 million guns were sold every year in the USA.

Colonial Sensitive Locations by Tom Reynolds

Mon, 23 Feb 2026 18:38:08 GMT

Colonial Sensitive Locations by Tom Reynolds

According to SCOTUS’ Bruen decision, when enacting gun control laws, the government bears the burden to show that those laws are supported by a longstanding historical tradition that goes back to the founding of our nation. Specifically: “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The 2nd Amendment is an “unqualified command” and exceptions to it must be historical exceptions.

Since it is 83 pages long and single spaced, I’ll have to rely on Stephen Halbrook’s review of The Second Amendment, Sensitive Places, and Comprehensive Government Security , a study by Dr. Angus McClellan. The basic theme of this study is that there is a historical tradition of sensitive places but these places were not gun free zones. Instead, when the government required its citizens to disarm to enter a sensitive place, the government provided the protection with armed security. The government must provide security when it labels a place as ‘sensitive;” that is the historical tradition surrounding ‘sensitive places,’ not the left’s belief that sensitive places just need to be “gun free zones.”

McClellan points out that security was provided at sensitive places such as courthouses* and legislative assemblies** in each of the 13 original states (plus Vermont) and that at least 10 of the original states had security at polling places***.

When the government could not provide security for a ‘sensitive place’, colonial citizens were required to arm in order to protect themselves (unlike today when New York State makes ‘sensitive locations’ a gun free zone). For instance, governments could not furnish security in colonial churches so citizens were expected to perform that function. (In George Henry Boughton’ painting of Early Puritans of New England Going to Church, the men are all armed.) In 1770, Georgia required that every person liable to bear arms in the militia “shall carry with him a gun, or a pair of pistols, in good order and fit for service, with at least six charges of gun-powder and ball, and shall take the said gun or pistols with him to the pew or seat...The penalty of ten schillings for neglect of same…”**** Other colonies had similar laws .

Arms were also required to be taken to public assemblies and carried while traveling.

Modern schools are ‘gun free zones’ and every school shooting in the last 30 years has been in those ‘gun free zones.’

Schools were not gun free zones at the Founding. Firearms restrictions applied only to students over whom the school exercised in loco parentis authority, and not to faculty.

In short, there were sensitive locations at the time of the Founding. And when Founding-era governments did not have the resources to secure all such locations, the Founders had a solution to that problem and it wasn’t a ‘gun free zone’ sign; men were required to bring their firearms. This is unlike the approach we see today in New York (and other deep blue states) where government-mandated ‘gun free zones’ render their citizens defenseless. The founders believed in the opposite of the approach of blue states, today.

This lesson for the 21st century was clearly explained by Cesare Beccaria, an 18th century philosopher on crime. He wrote that arms-control laws “worsen the condition of the attacked while improving that of the attackers; they do not reduce murders, but increase them, because there is greater confidence in attacking the unarmed than the armed.” The Founding Fathers agreed with Beccaria that laws that disarmed citizens and left them unprotected by the government made citizens into helpless prey.

‘Gun free zones’ must either be protected by the government or abolished.

McClellan’s work has already been used in an amicus brief. We can hope that it spreads quickly to other lawsuits and results in related New York laws being declared unconstitutional.

It is often said that: ’Those that do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.’ The Founders knew that, Beccaria knew that and SCOTUS knows that, but the gun control addicts on the left ignore even the most straightforward lessons of history.

* the 1789 Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States provided for the appointment of U.S. marshals to attend the federal courts.

**sergeants-at-arms and doorkeepers were appointed to keep order in and regulate admission into the various legislatures. In 1786 such officials attended both the house of delegates and the senate in Virginia.

*** In Virginia in 1742, two undersheriffs “with drawn Swords across the Doors” were placed as guards to allow voters to pass in and out of a courthouse to vote.

**** #144 - Colonial records of the State of Georgia / compiled ... v.19 pt.1 1911. - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library

Gun Laws Missing Something? by Bohdan Rabarsky

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 19:53:27 GMT

Gun Laws Missing Something? by Bohdan Rabarsky

Where should the focus be in mass killings?

Unfortunately, the latest shootings have shown that mass killings aren’t uniquely American. On Tuesday, February 11th in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, Canada, a shooter killed eight people and wounded 25 people. The shooter killed a 39 year old teacher and five students as well as his mother and an 11 year old stepbrother. The latter were found in a residence and occurred before the shooter went to the school. The shooter eventually took his own life.

The firearms recovered were a long gun and modified handgun. At the time of this writing, it hasn’t been determined how the shooter obtained the firearms.

Canada has a National Handgun Registration ongoing since 1934. On May 1st, 2020, Canada banned 1500 models of ‘assault weapons.’ Canada further expanded this list on December 5th 2024 by adding 300 more ‘assault weapons’ and 324 unique makes & models. On April 4, 2025, Canada banned 179 additional ‘assault weapons.’ Currently, there is a national freeze in effect on handgun sales, purchases and transfers.

These weapon bans came in the wake of the 2020 mass killings in Nova Scotia, when a mass killer murdered 13 people over two days, then set fire to buildings that killed nine more people. The killer illegally obtained 4 stolen guns; 3 guns that were smuggled in from the United States and a Smith & Wesson handgun was taken after killing a RCMP officer.

The Tumbler Ridge shooter was born a biological male who transitioned to a female six years ago. He was also a high school dropout. According to police records, over the years authorities have responded to his home over concerns about mental health issues.

Canada’s strict gun laws wouldn’t have prevented either of these two mass murders. Canada’s strict gun laws target lawful gun owners, require firearm safety training, extensive background checks and registration. In the case of the Nova Scotia incident, the killer used burning buildings to kill 9 people, so any gun laws wouldn’t have made a difference.

In Sydney Australia, about 1,000 Jewish people were gathered together at Bondi Beach to celebrate Hanukkah when two gunmen, armed with long barreled weapons, began firing a them. At least 16 people died and about 40 were hospitalized. The murderers were a 50 years old man and his 24 years old son.

Australia has very strict gun control laws, including a 28 days waiting period for gun purchases.

Ms. Segal and other Jewish leaders in Australia told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that the deadly events were shocking but not unexpected. They said that antisemitic incidents have intensified. “It hasn’t come without warning,”.

Authorities in Canada, Australia and America need to start focusing on the mental health of their residents, instead of enacting more gun laws against legal gun owners, as that obviously hasn’t prevented mass killings.

A New FFL

Tue, 17 Feb 2026 22:17:09 GMT

A New FFL

SCOPE has written about the difference between the Biden and Trump administrations in regards to FFL’s and the ATF bureaucracy. In response to SCOPE’s recent email on the newly nominated ATF Director, Robert Cekada, we received the following email.

I began my journey to become a licensed firearms dealer in New York in early 2024. It took over a year to receive the federal firearms license (FFL) alone. I mailed my FFL application May 30th 2024 and finally received it on June 2nd 2025. After 13 months, I had my 07 FFL. Another 3 months later, I had my New York dealer and gunsmithing licenses

Initially my application was on hold due to "possible" ties to a previous FFL. Rather than looking at my completely unblemished record (including no traffic violations) they made assumptions and the DOJ had everything on hold.

Fast forward to Donald J Trump. President Trump’s administration created new policies within the ATF which were designed to help protect the 2nd Amendment: in regards to licensed FFLs; and to gun owners in general. It was not easier to get a Federal Firearms License but he insured that dealers would not be penalized for clerical errors (a policy put in place by the previous administration). He decreased the size of the ATF and let them know there were not only in place to enforce firearms laws but to help legal, law-abiding FFLs. Current policy is that the ATF is to help FFLs whenever possible and give them the benefit of doubt rather than go to immediate revocation of their license. Had Donald Trump not been in office I firmly believe I would not have received my FFL.

Throughout the time I waited, I spoke to various agents of the ATF, numerous times. My dealings with the ATF have been pleasant and all of the agents have helped me to the best of their ability. I know firsthand how an administration can "alter" the policies within a federal organization (whether they are legal or not.) I see how easily the policies can be manipulated by whoever the current administration is - including those at the state level.

President Trump and Director Cekada have my full support and I am indebted to both of them for changing the internal policies of the ATF. Hopefully they have set a precedent that will remain in place for generations to come.

David B Freemanowner
Green Dragon Guns, LLC
38 Main St
Akron, NY 14001

HR 2189 by Tom Reynolds

Mon, 16 Feb 2026 22:39:17 GMT

HR 2189 by Tom Reynolds

The House voted 233-185 to pass H.R. 2189, Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act. According to the bill’s summary:

This bill removes less-than-lethal projectile devices (e.g., certain TASERs) from regulation under the Gun Control Act.

The term less-than-lethal projectile device means a device that:

1) is not designed or intended to expel (and may not be readily converted to discharge) commonly used ammunition or projectiles exceeding a velocity of 500 feet per second;

(2) is designed and intended to be used in a manner not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury; and

(3) does not accept (and cannot be readily modified to accept) an ammunition feeding device.

The Attorney General and ATF to must determine whether specific devices qualify as less than lethal, upon request, with a 90-day response timeline.

22 Democrats voted for the bill (1 Republican against) which indicates that a few Democrats are willing to put aside their hatred of anything that resembles guns and recognize that de-escalation tools should not be subject to the same taxes, registration requirements, and regulatory red tape as rifles and handguns.

The bill heads to the Senate next.

The bill creates a distinct legal classification for devices like Tasers and similar conducted energy or impact projectile weapons. They would be exempt from Gun Control Act firearm definitions and related regulations, National Firearms Act firearm definitions including taxes and registration requirements, and firearm and ammunition excise taxes under the Pittman Robertson framework.

It will be interesting to see if New York Senators Schumer and Gillibrand can put aside their knee jerk negative reaction to anything resembling guns and vote for this common sense bill.

Can Pro-Gun bills actually come from the NYS Legislature? by Ron Havlen

Thu, 12 Feb 2026 15:23:37 GMT

Can Pro-Gun bills actually come from the NYS Legislature? By Ron Havlen

The number of bills containing the word ‘firearm’ introduced or acted on in the 2025-2026 session seems staggering. Especially when bills listed with a version in both the NY Assembly and NY Senate are counted as just one bill, resulting in 349.

Recently published was the new ‘Top Ten most Egregious Firearms Legislation.’ We even added a second “Watch List” of what we also consider bad bills, that didn’t quite make the top ten.

However, not all is the doom and gloom as we might initially think. There are actually a few somewhat bright spots, although rare. Below I list what I believe are the most beneficial bills to legal firearms ownership that I found within the current legislative session. It’s not many, but it does show there are a few legislators in NYS that can appreciate the rights inherited by all New York State citizens.

A03840/S01872– This bill would repeal the background check fees for guns and ammunition as they were included in the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

Assembly sponsor Blankenbush with several co-sponsors. Senate sponsor Walczyk.

A05584/S03481– This bill would eliminate background checks for ammunition sales in New York State and prevent the State from passing other background check fees on to dealers or their respective customers.

Assembly sponsor Bailey with co-sponsor, Senate sponsor Helming with co-sponsors.

A02472/S01647– The ‘Civil Rights Restoration Act’ recognizes the abuse of basic rights in the SAFE act and seeks to return due process and the right to keep and bear arms to the people of New York State. It clarifies rights to counsel and legal hearing. While the bill doesn’t mention ‘Red Flag Laws’, it goes a long way to rectify certain injustices inherent in such laws.

Sponsored by Assembly sponsor Hawley with co-sponsors and Senator Borrello.

A03863/S07302– This bill simply states its purpose is to eliminate the re-certification requirements for firearms licenses created by the Safe Act.

Assembly sponsor DiPietro and Senate sponsor Gallivan.

A02547– The purpose of this act is to repeal Chapter 1 of the laws of 2013, amending the Criminal Procedure Law and other laws relating to: suspension and revocation of firearms licenses; private sale or disposal of firearms, rifles or shotguns; and establishing a minimum age to possess a firearm relating to gun control. What does all that mean; repeal the ‘SAFE Act.’

Assembly sponsor DiPietro.

A09203– This is a very simple bill; it seeks a NY State Constitutional amendment which says “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.”

Assembly sponsor Barclay with several co-sponsors.

While, for the most part, our entire NY State government despises the average citizen’s basic rights, there are a few within the NY legislature who appreciate that it is the people, not the overbearing government, that have actual rights.

I encourage you to contact your legislators about the bills we list in the Top Ten Egregious and the Watch List and voice your concerns. I also encourage you to look beyond those bills at others you might find oppressive. And then I also encourage you to contact the legislators listed above and thank them for their support of the basic freedoms of New York Citizens.

NYS Assembly Members

NYS Senate Members

A T F Director

Wed, 11 Feb 2026 00:54:47 GMT

A T F Director

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been the spearpoint for various presidential administrations in those administrations’ efforts to neuter the 2nd Amendment, through the government bureaucracy.

Democrats fondly remember the ‘golden years’ - prior to Trump - when the ATF’s budget increased, ATF Directors were firmly anti-2A and agents were closing a record number of gun stores.

Anti-2A organization “The Trace” bemoans President Trump’s recent year in office: In one year’s time, he has effectively starved the ATF of resources and support. He nixed regulations meant to expand background checks for gun purchases and relaxed penalties for lawbreaking gun dealers. He proposed slashing the agency’s budget, and he has diverted agents away from fighting violent crime to beef up immigration enforcement. After the ATF’s permanent director resigned, Trump twice installed inexperienced interim leaders as replacements.

Yeah. So, what’s the problem?

“Lawbreaking gun dealers” were only dealers who made a clerical mistake.

“…diverted agents away from fighting violent crime to beef up immigration enforcement. Enforcing immigration rules against gangs like Tren de Agua and individual murderers, rapists and sex-traffickers isn’t fighting violent crime? Are these people worse than gun dealers who made a clerical mistake? Not in Democrat’s minds.

“Proposed laying off 20 percent of the agency’s staff.” With its history of anti-gun efforts, one has to believe the ATF is still populated by deep staters who are dedicated to preserving their personal power and position through dedication to the Democrat Party’s anti-gun philosophy. Since many in the ATF are not political appointees, it is difficult for a pro 2nd Amendment administration to get the ATF to do a ‘180.’ Cutting the budget is one way to attack it.

But ‘The Trace’ is partially correct that there were several changes in ATF Directors during the past year. So, Trump has nominated a permanent director. The Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a confirmation hearing for Robert Cekada, President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as Director of the ATF.

During the hearing, Cekada repeatedly said that the ATF’s mission is “not to burden lawful gun owners.” He committed to upholding the Constitution’s right to ‘keep and bear arms’ and he promised no interference with law-abiding citizens exercising that right. Regulations must align with law and avoid unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and the firearms industry. No major opposition emerged – which gives us some reason to pause; one would expect wailing to the heavens by Democrats over a Trump nomination.

Cekada has been the ATF’s Deputy Director since 2025. He has been with the ATF since 2000 and has held a variety of positions.

Ammoland gives us reason to hope as it reports that “The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) expressed support, with representatives noting Cekada’s history of collaboration and his pledge not to impose undue regulatory hurdles. The American Suppressor Association (ASA) entered a supportive letter into the record, praising his commitment to accountability, transparency, and stakeholder engagement. Gun rights advocates and law enforcement alike appeared unified in viewing him as a stabilizing, experienced choice.”

Hopefully, Cekada is not a deep stater who has been in hiding and is, instead, a rabid supporter of President Trump’s agenda for the 2nd Amendment.

Pretti in Minneapolis

Mon, 09 Feb 2026 19:55:24 GMT

Pretti in Minneapolis

There is controversy over the shooting of Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis, on January 24th, over Pretti carrying a firearm and over subsequent statements by various individuals, including President Trump. All of this is being interpreted in several ways, according to the person’s philosophical belief.

Here are some thoughts on the legal right to carry (but not about the justification for the shooting.)

According to Chief Brian O'Hara of the Minneapolis Police Department, Pretti had a Minnesota state permit to carry a concealed handgun, and Pretti had no criminal record. That permit would allow him to carry anywhere it was legal to carry.

Was carrying at the protest legal? According to the US Concealed Carry Association, “Many states do not have specific laws targeting protests.” Minnesota is one of the states that generally defaults to carrying being generally lawful at protests.

There may be location-specific restrictions that apply whether or not a protest is occurring. For instance, one could not carry to a protest on school grounds. That type of situation has not been mentioned, so it does not seem to be a case here.

It appears that it was lawful for Pretti to be carrying to the protest.

However, lawful carry can become illegal if you are violating another law at the same time, such as brandishing, threatening behavior, etc. In other words, what happens at the protest can impact the legality of carrying there. Pretti was obviously interfering with a federal law enforcement activity. Did that make his carrying illegal? That’s a complicated question for the courts to decide but one that should have been evaluated by Pretti before going to the protest.

Those would seem to be the facts about the legality of Pretti’s concealed carry. Now the question is: should he have been carrying? Just because you can do something does not mean you should do something.

If one intends to go to a protest to watch the protest and / or avoid direct confrontation with law enforcement, there will be various opinions. We know protests can turn violent and the purpose of carrying is protection, so one can make a strong case for legally carrying in these circumstances. Remember Kyle Rittenhouse had to legally protect himself against violent assault.

If one intends to get in direct confrontation with law enforcement at a protest, whether physical or taunting, that is a different set of circumstances. It’s obvious that Pretti was involved in both taunting and a physical confrontation.

When he went to the protest, did Pretti intend to get involved to that level? What was his state of mind? An incident eleven days before, on January 13th, gives us a strong clue. At the protest of the 13th, Pretti is shown, in a video, swearing at law enforcement officers and then kicking out the tail light of a federal SUV. He was then forcefully taken to the ground by multiple agents. Pretti either breaks free or was released and he runs away. Subsequent video of the confrontation shows Pretti with a handgun in his waistband but that was unknown to law enforcement, at that time.

Firearm trainers stress extreme caution when confronted by a law enforcement officer (LEO), whether it be a traffic stop or something more serious. First, keep your hands away from the hand gun. Second, tell the LEO you have a concealed carry permit and you are armed. Third, tell the LEO where it is located. That minimizes the possibility of a tragedy. Pretti did none of that on the 13th or the 24th.

So, it is clear by Pretti’s actions on both the 13th and the 24th that he knew there was a serious possibility of a direct confrontation with law enforcement and that he intentionally carried.

If Pretti was going to a protest and not intending a confrontation with law enforcement, it’s legal to carry and a case can be made that carrying was a good thing.

If Pretti was going to a protest and at that protest intended to have a confrontation with law enforcement, carrying may or may not have been legal and it was definitely foreseeable that it was a bad idea.

Wolford v Lopez Aftershock

Wed, 04 Feb 2026 21:21:16 GMT

Wolford v Lopez Aftershock

SCOPE wrote about the Wolford V Lopez Supreme Court (SCOTUS) lawsuit which challenged Hawaii’s law that it was ‘…unlawful for concealed-carry license-holders to carry firearms on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization.’ (Gas stations, stores, restaurants, etc. had to post a sign that it was okay to carry on their property.) This would also impact New York’s misnamed ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ which contains a section that parallels Hawaii’s law.

SCOPE believes the attitude of the SCOTUS’ justices made Hawaii’s chances look bleak. Apparently, Hawaii’s legislators agree with SCOPE that their outlook is bleak, so they have introduced Senate Bill 3041. This bill would force businesses open to the public to “post a color-coded placard indicating whether the business or restaurant allows firearms or large knives to be brought onto the premises.” It would have to be posted where it is “clearly visible to the general public and patrons entering the business or restaurant.” Failure to post the sign would shut down the business completely, because it is “unlawful to operate a business or restaurant unless the placard is posted.”

I wonder how many non-gun owners ask themselves if a business allows large knives as they enter? As Mae West might have said, ”Are you glad to see me or is that a large knife in your pants?”

Guns and large knives would be legal but the business must make a public decision as to whether to allow them. Of course, this is being proposed in hopes of creating a boycott of pro-gun businesses by sympathetic gun grabbers. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if it worked in reverse for those businesses that are pro-gun and they get more people patronizing the business.

The sign must also be color coded: a “green placard shall indicate that the business or restaurant does not allow firearms or large knives: a red placard indicates “that the business or restaurant allows firearms and large knives;” a “yellow placard shall indicate that the business or restaurant allows either firearms or large knives to be brought onto the premises, but not both.”

Criminals will be saying ‘thank you’ for making their decisions easier. (Especially those that aren’t good at reading; they just can’t be color blind when picking out the easiest place to rob.) I’ll bet that gun free establishments will get more crime than those allowing guns.

The 1st Amendment includes a right to be free from compelled speech. But hey, if you are ignoring the 2nd Amendment, why would ignoring the 1st Amendment bother you?

Demonstrating their usual deep thinking, Hawaii’s legislators leave blank the definition of a “large knife.”

Attacking 2A From All Directions

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 12:54:12 GMT

Attacking 2A From All Directions

No one can deny that the leadership of the Democrat Party is thoroughly anti-Second Amendment. But repealing that amendment is a ‘bridge too far’ so they try to weaken it in various ways. Nowhere is that truer than in New York State.

The following are groups of laws that are currently proposed in the NY Legislature to weaken or neuter the 2nd Amendment. The list is divided into various tactical strategies to destroy 2A in order to demonstrate the variety of approaches that gun grabbers are using. Some laws are repeated with different bill numbers. (A are Assembly bills and S are Senate bills.) The most dangerous bills are those proposed in both the Assembly and the Senate.

Please remember that these proposals are in addition to the many anti-2A laws already in force in NYS; for instance, the SAFE Act and the Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

Make owning a firearm more expensive

A01290 / S6395: Tax on the sale of Ammo. $.02 per cartridge for .22 caliber or less. $.05 per cartridge for greater that .22 caliber.

A06024 / S01315: Tax on the sale of Ammo. $.02 per cartridge for .22 caliber or less. $.05 per cartridge for greater that .22 caliber.

S05813: 11% Excise Tax on firearms. Components and ammo.

A05611 / S05974: Requires $1 million in liability insurance

A07186: Requires Liability insurance (no amount specified)

A03376: Requires Liability insurance (no amount specified)

Use time to discourage firearm possession
Bureaucracy and Increased Expense
Lawfare
Devices

A08853 / S04277: .50 caliber or greater firearms: possession of new ones prohibited; currently owned ones must be registered.
S01358: All pistols or revolvers sold must have a childproofing device or mechanism incorporated into the design of such pistol or revolver to effectively preclude an average five years old child from operating it. (Ten pounds pull; an average five years old child's hands are too small to operate it; and require a series of multiple motions in order to fire the pistol or revolver.

A03233 / S00362: 10 day waiting period from NICS check started

A01210: 10 day waiting period from NICS check started

A01774 / S00418: Buy only one (1) firearm every 30 days

S04807: Buy only one (1) rifle or shotgun every 90 days

A00360 / S03981:Hunting license, 5 hours safety course and exam, live fire instruction and test with 90% accuracy, drug test, mental health evaluation, criminal background check, safe storage container all necessary to buy firearm.

S04790: Purchaser of any firearm must submit to a mental health exam.

A04085 / S00658: To possess a firearm must have a Firearms Safety Certificate (5 hours of classroom and 2 hours of live fire) and pass a written exam.

A09373 / S08608: Add much bureaucracy for selling guns to NY State

A00929: NY Attorney General prosecute firearm sales in other states to NY residents without going through NYS Police.

A05711: Easier for law officer to apply for ERPO (Red Flag).

A1962B / S3385A: Class A misdemeanor to not safely store firearms accessible to a minor or a prohibited person when

A08406: Applications to seize firearms when the family court not in session.

A00436 / S00744: Includes pistol converters in the definition of a rapid-fire modification device. (No definition of what a pistol converter is.)

A03021 / S2158: Establish and maintain a database of information relating to the sale or use of micro-stamped firearms.

A05105: Makes criminal possession of a ghost gun a class C felony

A07810 / S06403: Civil actions against any person manufacturing, distributing, transporting, or importing into the state, or causing to be distributed, transported, or imported into the state, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend, any assault weapon or ghost gun.

3D printers

A02228 / S03562: Criminal background check to buy 3D printer capable of printing firearms

A1777A / S0227A: Sale, distribution or disposal of digital instructions to program a 3D printer to manufacture or produce any machine-gun, assault weapon, large capacity ammunition feeding device, disguised gun, ghost gun, unfinished frame or receiver, firearm silencer, magazine, rapid-fire modification device or major component of a firearm, rifle or shotgun, to a person in New York who is not registered or licensed as a gunsmith with a Type 7 Federal Firearms License, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Manufacture of a ‘ghost gun,’ unfinished frame or receiver, firearm silencer, magazine, or major component of a firearm, rifle or shotgun or disguised gun is guilty of a class D felony.

A02060 / S05952: Only registered gunsmiths can manufacture a firearm on a 3D printer and any firearm manufactured by a 3D printer must contain a unique identifying number and to be registered with the state police.

Locations

A01953: Restricts the locations of gunsmiths and dealers in firearms in relation to child day care or educational facilities, and places of worship.

A05817 / S06787: Increases sentences for weapons within 5,000 feet of school grounds.

A07382 / S01382: Prohibition against concealed firearms in national parks and national wildlife refuges.

A08895 / S01799: Limits hours of operation, addresses noise pollution and limits operations to one weekend each month for municipal shooting ranges and ranges used by law enforcement.

S01273: Prohibits openly carrying a rifle or shotgun. Exception for hunting, private property and other exceptions

S05292: Class A misdemeanor to sell a firearm, rifle, shotgun or ammunition on state property including state and county fairgrounds, and county, city and municipal property.

Limit Persons Accessing Guns

A00346: Must be 21 to possess any firearm. Exception for hunting.

A01764 / S04388: Prohibits marketing firearms and firearm related products to anyone under 18 years old except where marketing is geared toward hunting.

A01920: Prohibits entry to gun shows to anyone under twelve years of age.

S01440: Revokes a license to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms for a conviction for failure to safely store firearms.

Studies

A1191B / S1455A: Study the viability of personalized firearms.

A02084 / S01289: Establishes the office of gun violence prevention and the gun violence advisory council.

Maryland’s Sensitive Places

Mon, 26 Jan 2026 18:49:26 GMT

Maryland’s Sensitive Places

The Bruen decision said that states could designate certain ‘sensitive places’ as gun free zones. But Justice Thomas warned against overreach in designating these places.

Thumbing its nose at the Bruen decision, New York State passed the mis-named Concealed Carry Improvement Act. (CCIA.) It was not alone. Several deep Democrat states passed similar laws, at least in part. All these states have something in common; they took advantage of the opportunity to name places as ‘sensitive areas’ and totally ignored Justice Thomas’ warning about overreach.

Last week SCOPE wrote about the Supreme Court hearing the case about Hawaii’s overreach (Wolford v Lopez). At that same time, an appeals court was hearing a similar case and its decision may be an omen of what is in store for New York State’s CCIA.

On January 20, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Maryland’s prohibition on carrying guns on private property that was held open to the public is unconstitutional. (For instance: Gas stations, grocery stores, etc.)

The judges said that Maryland’s prohibition was “directed at gun owners, not property owners…With or without the new private-property consent rule, Maryland property owners have the right to exclude unwanted people (including those with guns) from their property.”

In addition, examples of historical precedence cited by Maryland were weak because: “Many of the historical statutes Maryland cites appear to regulate hunting on others’ property without permission.”

The Justices concluded: “Maryland’s rule would effectively declare most public places ‘gun-free zones.’ But that likely stretches the sensitive places doctrine too far…In short, there is no relevant historical tradition supporting Maryland’s private-property consent rule, at least on this record and as to property held open to the public.”

However, the court held that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the rule for property not held open to the public. (For instance: Homes, farms, etc.)

The ruling did allow certain places to be named as gun free zones. Some were unanimous (as noted) but others were (held) by a 2 to 1 majority. They are:

- unanimously hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in government buildings is constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in public transportation is constitutional

- unanimously hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns on school grounds is constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration is constitutional (provided law enforcement first orders the armed individual to leave)

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in state parks, is constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in museums is constitutional

- unanimously hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in healthcare facilities is constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibitions on guns at stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, and casinos are constitutional

- hold that Maryland’s prohibition on guns in locations that sell alcohol is constitutional.

The judge who disagreed with parts of the ruling issued a partial dissent, warning that the majority’s approach risks “hollowing out the Second Amendment.” He agreed that schools, government buildings, and health care facilities can be treated as sensitive places. But he argued that approving Maryland’s long list of additional locations “stretches the sensitive places exception into a broad license to prohibit firearms in locations where people gather for almost any purpose.”

This decision only applies to the 4th circuit (Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.) But combined with the Supreme Court’s seemingly dislike (in oral arguments) of a broad definition of ‘sensitive places that are open to the public’ and the 4th Circuit’s outright rejection of that principle, this is good news for New York gun owners and bad news for Kathy Hochul and CCIA.

The lawsuit’s gun owners will have to decide if they will ask the full Fourth Circuit to rehear the case or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court or do nothing. Do they want to challenge those places the 4th circuit allowed, especially those without a majority decision?

Here is a link to the actual 94 page decision 241799.P.pdf

Wolford v Lopez is Heard by SCOTUS

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 14:34:47 GMT

Wolford v Lopez is Heard by SCOTUS

SCOPE wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) accepting a lawsuit, Wolford v. Lopez, which is a challenge to Hawaii’s gun carry restrictions. The high court must answer: “Whether the Second Amendment allows a State to make it unlawful for concealed-carry license-holders to carry firearms on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization.”

On Tuesday, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in this case.

The gun owners lawyer told the justices that “[b]y banning people from carrying firearms on private property that is open to the public unless they first obtain affirmative permission, Hawaii has run roughshod over that constitutional right.” Hawaii’s ban is inconsistent with our national historical tradition of firearms regulation.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, (who has never let the United States Constitution come before her personal politics), cited ‘Black Codes’ which were enacted after the Civil War to restrict the rights of formerly enslaved people as an appropriate historical precedent. Jackson said, “The fact that the Black Codes were at some later point determined themselves to be unconstitutional doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make.”

Sane justices disagreed with Justice Jackson. Justice Gorsuch questioned whether the court should consider the Black Codes’ law at all, calling it an “outlier.” Justice Alito pointed out that the law was designed to prevent formerly enslaved people from defending themselves against members of the Ku Klux Klan and “racist law enforcement officers.”

Hawaii’s lawyer agreed that the Black Codes “are undoubtedly a shameful part of our history,” but should still be used! According to Hawaii’s lawyer and Justice Jackson, an unconstitutional law is evidence to support making another law constitutional.

Justice Alito noted, and Hawaii’s lawyer agreed, that it would violate the First Amendment for the state to ban particular political attire in a restaurant without “express consent from the owner of the restaurant.”

Hawaii’s lawyer emphasized that “the Second Amendment … is not a second-class right.” But then he argued that there are key differences between the First and Second Amendments, which effectively makes the Second Amendment less of a right than the First Amendment.

Justice Jackson also advocated a property rights approach in an effort to save Hawaii’s law but it appeared to be unsuccessful.

Virtually all of the court’s six Republican appointees seemed to agree with the challengers that Hawaii’s law violates the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. This would impact New York’s misnamed ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ which contains a section that parallels Hawaii’s law.

O Canada: NOTICE TO INDIVIDUAL FIREARMS OWNERS ASSAULT-STYLE FIREARMS COMPENSATION PROGRAM (ASFCP)

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 01:50:23 GMT

O Canada: NOTICE TO INDIVIDUAL FIREARMS OWNERS, ASSAULT-STYLE FIREARMS COMPENSATION PROGRAM (ASFCP)

The Canadian Firearms Program facilitated the delivery of this notification on behalf of Public Safety Canada and has not shared or disclosed any licence holder names, addresses or personal information with Public Safety Canada. Please ensure that your email is up-to-date with the Canadian Firearms Program to receive direct program updates. Alternatively, updates will be available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/campaigns/firearms-buyback.html

This notice is being sent to all holders of a valid Possession and Acquisition License (PAL).

As part of various actions and programs to tackle gun violence in Canadian communities, beginning in May 2020 the Government of Canada deemed prohibited more than 2,500 makes and models of firearms. Should you own one of these prohibited firearms, thank you for safely storing and not using that prohibited firearm.

In prohibiting these particular firearms, such as the AR-15, the Government of Canada also committed to compensate eligible businesses and PAL holders who are impacted.

The purpose of this notice is to provide you with the opportunity to be compensated should you own one or more of these prohibited firearms.

Over 12,000 of these prohibited firearms were successfully collected from businesses from across Canada. More than $22 million in compensation has been provided to these businesses.

To determine if you own a prohibited firearm, please search the list of 2,500 makes and models. The list is available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/campaigns/firearms-buyback.html

If you do not own one of these prohibited firearms, you do not need to do anything more.

If you do own one of these prohibited firearms, and you wish to participate in the ASFCP and apply for compensation, you must first declare the prohibited firearm(s) in your possession.

You may do so during the nation-wide declaration period, which begins on January 19th, 2026, and ends on March 31st, 2026. After March 31st, 2026, declaration requests will no longer be processed.

To complete the declaration or for more information about the ASFCP, please visit: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/campaigns/firearms-buyback.html

It is important to note that an amnesty has been in place since 2020. This amnesty ensures every impacted PAL holder can hold onto the prohibited firearms until the end of the amnesty.

This amnesty is scheduled to end on October 30th, 2026.

All prohibited firearms and devices must be disposed of or permanently deactivated prior to that date. If you remain in possession of an impacted firearm following this date, you will be noncompliant with legislation.

Thank you for your continued commitment to safe firearms practices and compliance with all firearms rules and regulations.

Additional Information for the ASSAULT-STYLE FIREARMS COMPENSATION PROGRAM

Compensation will be determined primarily on a first come first served basis, based on the date your declaration is submitted and the availability of Program funds at that time. To increase your likelihood of receiving compensation, pending eligibility, you are encouraged to submit your declaration as early as possible. Submitting a declaration does not guarantee you will receive compensation.

To complete the declaration or for more information about the ASFCP, please visit: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/campaigns/firearms-buyback.html

This webpage also contains information on: the list of eligible Assault-Style Firearms (ASFs) and their compensation amounts; other options for compliance with the prohibitions; and the Amnesty Orders.

Reminder: while the compensation program is voluntary, compliance with the law is not. Impacted firearms and devices must be disposed of, or deactivated by the end of the amnesty period on October 30th, 2026.

If you do not wish to return your firearm under the Program, alternative options are available to you before the amnesty period expires on October 30th, 2026:

U. S. v. Hemani

Wed, 14 Jan 2026 14:17:12 GMT

U. S. v. Hemani

The Supreme Court has said it would hear United States v. Hemani. The case aims to get to the bottom of whether federal statute 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment. That statute currently prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who ‘is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.’

The FBI had been monitoring Ali Hermani (a dual citizen of both the U.S. and Pakistan) for suspected terrorist ties. He was found in possession of a 9mm handgun alongside small amounts of marijuana and cocaine during a search of his home. He was not under the influence of any drugs at the time of the search but he confessed to law enforcement that he was a daily marijuana user.

Hemani was charged by a grand jury with possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The district court granted Hemani’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and the government appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

The Fifth Circuit had previously ruled in United States v. Connelly that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional when the government did not prove the defendant was intoxicated at the time of possessing the firearm, even if the defendant was a regular drug user. The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Connelly, and similar cases, questioned the constitutionality of categorical bans on gun possession by drug users without proof of actual dangerousness at the time of possession.

Hemani’s case was factually similar: the government did not allege he was under the influence at the time of firearm possession.

Hermani’s attorneys argued that the federal statute in question is constitutionally vague and does not hold up under the 2022 Bruen decision.

Attorneys for the DOJ argued that colonial-era laws against “common drunkards” armed with weapons, as well as more than 100 years of restrictions on firearms possession by drug addicts, meet the Bruen requirement for “history and tradition.”

The Fifth Circuit Court dismissed the charge. The ruling only applies to the 5th Circuit.

There is now a circuit split: the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have found § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional in certain as-applied cases while the Seventh Circuit has upheld it.

The Department of Justice appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) which has agreed to take up the case.

Since Bruen(2022) SCOTUS has heard four Second Amendment-related cases.

In Garland v. Cargill (2024) the court found that a bump stock does not convert guns into machine guns under federal gun laws.
InUnited States v. Rahimi (2024) the court found that a person can be temporarily disarmed if a court deems that the individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of another person.
In Bondi v. Vanderstok (2025) the court found that the ATF has the authority under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to regulate unfinished frames and parts kits.

In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (2025) the court found that Mexico failed to prove that seven American gun makers routed guns to Mexican drug cartels through unlawful sales.

Bruce Blakeman

Mon, 12 Jan 2026 16:18:11 GMT

Bruce Blakeman

SCOPE had published research on Kathy Hochul and Elise Stefanik as candidates for governor. Before Stefanik dropped out, Bruce Blakeman had announced he was also going to run for governor. Once Stefanik dropped out, Blakeman was endorsed by the Republican and Conservative parties as well as President Trump, so it appears he is going to be the Republican candidate.

Getting right to the point, SCOPE could not find any statement about Blakeman’s position on the 2nd Amendment. Not entirely a surprise in politics around NY City. But there are some hopeful signs and perhaps, as the campaign continues, he will become more acquainted with 2A and make its defense a campaign issue.

Blakeman has had one instance involving 2A. After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, he helped conduct a rifle drive which resulted in the collection of 60 rifles for Ukraine. Kel-Tec delivered the donated guns to Ukraine as part of a larger shipment.

Since that’s all we have on 2A, here’s some background on Blakeman.

In 2021, Blakeman was elected Nassau County Executive with 50.35% of the vote. This was surprising since the county has 110,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans.

In 2025, Blakeman was reelected by a bigger margin of 12%, even though the Democrats still had a 110,000-voter registration advantage. So, in a Democrat county, Blakeman won twice and increased his margin. Something to note in Democrat controlled New York State.

Bruce Blakeman is a lawyer and has also served in unelected posts. He was a commissioner for the New York-New Jersey Port Authority, a Nassau County legislator and Hempstead town councilman. In 2017, Blakeman endorsed a Democratic in the race for Hempstead Town Supervisor. The Democrat won and named Blakeman Deputy Town Supervisor. Then, in 2019, Blakeman endorsed a Republican for Town Supervisor against his former endorsee; the Republican won.

His actions on hot topics may give us some clues about him.

Blakeman opposes the 2019 New York bail reform and has called for its repeal. He issued an executive order permitting the Nassau County Police Department to disclose when a person released without bail is rearrested.

Blakeman created a patrol unit within the Nassau County Police Department modeled on the NYPD's "Hercules" counterterrorism unit.

Blakeman recruited 75 people for a force of "special deputies" to deploy during emergencies. Many of them were former police officers.

Blakeman’s campaign web site says that Blakeman said NO to Kathy Hochul’s sanctuary policies, and worked with ICE to take criminals off our streets. As County Executive, Bruce Blakeman hired 600 new Police and Law Enforcement Officers.

In 2024, U S News and World Report ranked Nassau County as the safest county in America.

Following the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, Blakeman held a rally in support of Israel where 6,000 people attended. Aid for Israeli Defense Force soldiers was collected at the rally

In February 2024, Blakeman issued an executive order banning women's sports teams that include transgender women from using county facilities. (A state judge struck down the order on the grounds that the county executive lacked the authority to impose the ban but the county legislature passed a similar ban the next month and more lawsuits ensued.)

During COVID, he signed an executive order making masks optional, contravening the state mandate.

Blakeman is pro-choice on abortion, which he believes neutralizes one of the Democratic Party’s potent weapons and allows him to shift the campaign squarely onto Hochul’s record.

A fun but meaningless fact: Blakeman’s former wife is now married to Paul McCartney of The Beatles.

ERPO for 11-Year-Old Girl

Thu, 08 Jan 2026 22:56:03 GMT

ERPO for 11-Year-Old Girl

One of the main complaints against Red Flag Laws / Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) is that they are unnecessary and can be easily abused by the government. Here is an example.

A state Supreme Court justice in Ulster County ruled that the Attorney General’s petition seeking a protection order to keep guns away from a child constituted frivolous conduct.

An 11-year-old identified only as K.L., had a text exchange with a friend in which she told the friend that she was considering suicide. K.L.’s friend showed the texts to her mother, who contacted law enforcement, and State Police responded. Troopers interviewed K.L. in the presence of her parents and she made no comments about hurting herself and displayed no suicidal ideation in the trooper’s presence. After a voluntary search, troopers concluded that there were no guns in K.L.’s home. Nevertheless, State Police filed a petition for a temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), which Supreme Court Justice Julian D. Schreibman denied.

Schreibman held a hearing on Feb. 6 to determine whether to issue a final ERPO. Schreibman denied the ERPO and wrote: “It is illegal in the state of New York for an 11-year-old child to handle a firearm, much less to possess or own one … In short, before any ERPO petition was brought, K.L. was legally barred from possessing any gun.”

Also, under New York’s Environmental Conservation Law, the youngest a person can be issued a hunting license is 12, he noted.

“Thus, the foregoing provisions establish that there is a blanket prohibition, without exception, on 11-year-olds possessing firearms of any kind. In light of that comprehensive legal bar, it is plainly unwarranted under existing law to seek an ERPO against an 11-year-old child.”

Not to be denied, the Attorney General tried another tactic and argued that if an ERPO was issued and the parents bought any guns, they would have to store them in a secure location, away from K.L. But without an ERPO, the state argued, the parents could just leave guns out.

Schreibman said that was “flatly wrong.”

“Having an ERPO in place against a child does not create or increase the parents’ criminal liability for improper weapons storage,” Schreibman wrote. State law imposes the exact same responsibilities for safe storage and criminal consequences for non-compliance on any gun owner who lives with a person who is under 18.

“Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that, in the prosecution of an ERPO against … K.L., the office of the Attorney General engaged in frivolous conduct,” he wrote.

Kudos to the friend and all those involved in taking the suicide threat seriously.

Kudos to the judge who did not succumb to the pressure of finding for an ERPO.

Thumbs down to the State Police who filed for the ERPO and the Attorney General who never misses an opportunity to infringe on the Second Amendment. There are already sufficient other safeguards that both the State Police and the Attorney General chose to ignore.

https://nydailyrecord.com/2025/12/24/judge-denies-erpo-for-11-year-old-girl/

Wolford v Lopez (Hawaii)

Tue, 06 Jan 2026 16:14:08 GMT

Wolford v Lopez (Hawaii)

After NYSRPA v Bruen negated several strategies that had been used by New York State to neuter our 2nd Amendment guaranteed rights, New York State’s misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) was enacted by our Democrat legislature and signed by Governor Kathy Hochul. It contained numerous parts that are abhorrent to the U S Constitution. We are not alone in being so poorly treated by our state government. California, Maryland, New Jersey and Hawaii also enacted similar restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ right to bear arms. Especially popular by these states was designating almost all private property as gun-free zones unless otherwise posted. (A gun is of limited use if you can’t carry it anywhere but in your house.)

Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) accepted a private lawsuit, Wolford v. Lopez, which is a challenge to Hawaii’s gun carry restrictions in which the high court will answer: “Whether the Second Amendment allows a State to make it unlawful for concealed-carry license-holders to carry firearms on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization.”

Now, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has submitted an amicus brief (otherwise known as a “friend-of-the-court” brief) to the Supreme Court that pointedly argues that, citing the Bruen (2022) decision, the “government cannot enact licensing regimes that effectively eliminate the right to public carry.”

The DOJ’s amicus brief explains that Bruen invalidated Hawaii’s prior firearm-licensing regime, “under which Hawaiians could virtually never obtain public-carry licenses. Hawaii responded by loosening its licensing restrictions, yet it simultaneously enacted a new restriction that effectively nullifies those licenses and prevents public carry. Specifically, Hawaii made it a crime for licensees to carry firearms on private property open to the public—the very places where licensees would go in their daily lives—unless those establishments provide ‘[u]nambiguous written or verbal authorization’ or post ‘clear and conspicuous signage’ allowing firearms.”

After stating that the “United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms …” the DOJ’s brief points out that the “‘right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home’ ranks among the Second Amendment’s most basic guarantees. Bruen thus held that the government cannot enact licensing regimes that effectively eliminate the right to public carry. Nor, more broadly, may the government restrict firearms without showing that the restriction fits within a discernible tradition of firearm regulation.”

If Hawaii’s law is declared unconstitutional, that should take down similar laws in states like…New York, where a lawsuit mounts a similar challenge. Under normal circumstances, when it is a private citizen challenging the state, New York might try to ignore the SCOTUS ruling, basically saying “sue me” and forcing the private citizen to pay for the lawsuit. But since the federal government has taken an interest – and has even deeper pockets than NY State – NY State might be less apt to ignore SCOTUS.

Baird v Bonta

Mon, 05 Jan 2026 23:13:14 GMT

Baird v Bonta

Historically, the Ninth Circuit is the most leftist / progressive / district in the federal court system; it’s also the most reversed appeals court. Well, surprise! In Baird v Bonta, a three-judge appellate panel, composed of two judges appointed by President Trump during his first term came down on the side of ‘open carry’ when they said in their opinion’s summary:

“…the historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry

is part of this Nation’s history and tradition. It was clearly
protected at the time of the Founding and at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no record of any law restricting open carry at the Founding, let alone a distinctly similar historical regulation.”

This appellate decision reversed, in part, a district court’s decision.

The details from the majority opinion clearly state the issue and the reasoning:

“California's has banned open carry in all counties with a population greater than 200,000. According to the most recent census, those counties are home to roughly 95% of the state's population. The 5% of California's population for whom open carry is not outright banned everywhere in the state are purportedly able to apply for a license that would allow them to exercise their constitutional right to open carry in just their county of residence, although their ability to secure even that license is, on the record before us, at best unclear….”

“For most of American history, open carry has been the default manner of lawful carry for firearms. It remains the norm across the country—more than thirty states generally allow open carry to this day, including states with significant urban populations. Indeed, several of our Nation's largest cities and states recently returned to unlicensed open carry by explicitly authorizing it. For example, Texas reauthorized open carry without a license in 2021. Kansas likewise transitioned back to allowing open carry without a permit in 2015. And other states that placed restrictions on open carry in recent decades have also removed those burdens.”

“Similarly, for the first 162 years of its history open carry was a largely unremarkable part of daily life in California. From 1850, when California first became a state, until the Mulford Act of 1967, public carry of firearms in California (open or concealed) was entirely unregulated...”

Bruen said "history reveals a consensus that States could not ban public carry altogether." (“Public carry” includes both open and concealed carry.) Bruen established that modest burdens were likely constitutional as long as they do not prevent the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights and served the government’s interest in ensuring only law-abiding citizens were carrying arms. For example, background checks, modest fees and short wait times would likely be constitutional.

Both sides used the NYSRPA v Bruen decision to justify their position, but the majority smacked down the minority’ opinion.

The third judge, a President GW Bush appointee, concurred in part and dissented in part. His dissent said:

First, open carry is not conduct that is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.

Second, following the reasoning of Bruen, California may lawfully eliminate one manner of public carry to protect its citizens so long as its citizens may carry weapons in another manner that allows for self-defense. Because California allows concealed carry, it may restrict open carry.

The majority countered the dissent: “…that is not only a basic logical error, but also obviously a wrong way to interpret language in Supreme Court opinions…. If the Supreme Court said, "States cannot ban speech altogether," nobody would think it was also implicitly saying that as long as the state allows some speech, it necessarily can ban all other speech. …”

The dissent also assumed that California’s various local licensing schemes are all effectively “shall issue” and without onerous restrictions on place, design and function of the “allowed” firearms. (Gun owners in California would argue that the reality is different.)

This was a good win for 2A but the judges did throw a partial loss to us. The court upheld California’s licensing requirements in counties with populations under 200,000. The panel found that, “shall-issue” licensing schemes align with Bruen by allowing permits based on a general desire for self-defense. But the judges raised legitimate concerns about the state’s apparent subterfuge, noting that no open-carry licenses have been issued despite the legal framework.

The appellate court’s decision may be appealed to an en-banc hearing by all the judges in the Ninth Circuit or it may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

This Ninth’ Circuit’s opinion is the opposite of the Second Circuit (New York, etc.) which found in Frey v N Y City that a ban on Open Carry was constitutional. A split like this, if it stands, is the kind of case that SCOTUS is likely to hear.

A Christmas To Remember

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 21:33:09 GMT

A Christmas To Remember

The July 4th 1776 Declaration of Independence had real world consequences for the signers. One of them, Benjamin Rush, recalled: “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after the other, to the table of the President of Congress, to subscribe what was believed by many at the time to be our own death warrants?”

Of late, our forefathers have come under a lot of undeserved criticism. All but forgotten is the immense personal courage that it took to sign the Declaration of Independence. As Americans, we have a lot to be thankful for at Christmas and those that risked their lives to gain us our freedom need to be honored, not denigrated.

While independence was being celebrated in Philadelphia, 23,000 British soldiers and 10,000 Hessian mercenaries were being unloaded from ships in NYC Harbor, where George Washington, by order of the Continental Congress, had to defend the undefendable.

Eventually, the colonial army was driven out of New York City and it retreated across New Jersey to Valley Forge Pennsylvania, where things became even more desperate.

The enlistments of the bulk of Washington’s army were due to expire and there was little hope of many reenlistments. Not just because of the devastating defeat in New York but the army was undersupplied in almost every area; many soldiers had no shoes and had been wearing the same clothes – now rags - for months. Food was scarce. Defeatism ran through the army.

There is no record of Washington contemplating giving up. Instead, he gained control over whatever negative emotions he had and formulated a plan, which led to the most important Christmas in American history.

In the early evening of December 25, 1776, in a freezing rainstorm that lasted all night, the Continental Army loaded onto boats and crossed the ice clogged Delaware River, in three groups. The crossing was so treacherous that one group did not make it across and a second group made it across but turned around and went back. Only Washington’s group was able to march to the attack.

Hours behind schedule, with one-third strength, the army arrived at their target, Trenton New Jersey.

Officers reported to Washington that the ice storm had soaked the muskets and many could not fire because of wet powder. These officers suggested that the attack be abandoned. Washington’s reply was the equivalent of “fix bayonets”.

While the Hessian enemy was yawning and waking up, Washington attacked. The Continental Army was in rags with long hair and matted beards coated in rain and mud; it looked like the army-from-hell had come screaming from the depths to kill the Hessians. The battle was brief and the Hessians surrendered.

In what was the potential breaking point of the Revolutionary war, when all hope seemed to be lost, Washington did not despair. He never lost sight of his goal. He and his army persevered and they eventually won. They set an example that should live today; we’re Americans, we’d cross a frozen river on Christmas to defeat our country’s enemies.

Luck certainly played a part in the successful American Revolution and at Trenton. For example: The leader of the Hessians in Trenton was Colonel Rall, Rall’s spies had told him of Washington’s attack. The Hessians knew Washington was coming! Rall acted properly and increased the guard and had a reserve force ready to reinforce wherever he was attacked. On Christmas afternoon, one of Rall’s sentry posts was attacked. The Hessians sprang into action and the attackers quickly retreated after a brief and ineffective exchange of gunfire. Rall had little respect for Washington and the colonials. He so disrespected the colonials that he believed this was the attack he expected, so he relieved the guard and the reserve and he went to a Christmas party.

Who attacked the sentry post? To this day, no one knows. The best guess is some farmers had too much “Christmas cheer” and decided to harass the Hessians. They fired a few shots and then went back to celebrating Christmas. But because of this, Washington was able to enjoy complete surprise.

God has been on our side.

Prior to the 2024 election, many were dejected and in a funk over politics. Summoning the energy to continue the fight to preserve the Constitution seems beyond some people’s wills. To them it would be easier to, in a very real sense, surrender to the likes of Alexandria Octavio-Cortez and tell her, “You win. We give up. Do with the USA what you will.”

How wonderfully things have changed in less than a year.

Winston Churchill gave what may be the greatest college commencement speech. It was only nine words. “Never give up. NEVER GIVE UP. NEVER GIVE UP!”

SCOPE did not give up. We remembered that many of us took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath had no expiration date! (If you didn’t take that oath, it’s not too late to commit yourself to that principle.)

The battle to preserve our constitutional rights did not end with Trump’s election. The Left immediately counterattacked.

Thomas Paine wrote, “These are the times that try men’s souls. The sunshine soldier and the summer patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country…”

Sunshine soldiers and summer patriots will find other excuses to occupy their time and let the Constitution be shredded by the forces of Socialism. Is our current situation less winnable than it appeared on Christmas morning, 1776? Or Christmas morning 2023?

Paine also wrote, “Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered.”

When we were born in the USA, we won the lottery! It’s time to pay the price of that lottery ticket. Our forefathers were willing to pay that price and we need to join with them. Stand up and fight for the USA: its Constitution; its traditions; its future; and your family. The choice is clear - get engaged or surrender.

Reagan on Legislation

Wed, 17 Dec 2025 22:13:37 GMT

Reagan on Legislation

Ronald Reagan laid out a basic part of his successful legislative philosophy; that he didn’t need a complete victory as long as it moved towards his ultimate goal. Reagan was willing to take a partial victory, if it was a step in the right direction, and then he would come back for more. Unfortunately, Republicans did not pick-up this philosophy, but Democrats did adopt it. Over the last 40 years, Democrats - on all issues and especially on gun control - were willing to take a step in the left direction and then come back for more. It has worked for them.

Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB) amended the National Firearms Act (NFA) and eliminated the tax stamp for certain firearms, suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and the NFA’s “any other weapons” category, but still kept the paperwork and registration requirements.

A lawsuit challenges the NFA, as it is amended, as now being unconstitutional because it was a tax law and now there is no tax. The Trump DOJ has filed an ‘Amicus Brief’ to protect what is left of the NFA.

One ‘no-compromise’ 2A organization calls the DOJ’s Amicus Brief the “ultimate betrayal” of the 2nd Amendment. Their idea of ‘no-compromise’ flies directly in-the-face of Reagan’s philosophy.

This past weekend, on Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk radio show, Gresham was asked his opinion on what 2A organizations he would suggest donating to (in Colorado, I believe.) He didn’t name any he opposed but without mentioning Reagan’s philosophy he drove home the point that no-compromise would not work in an American legislative system based on compromise. Gresham wants to take a win and then come back for more.

What was Pam Bondi’s DOJ thinking when it filed the Amicus Brief? Perhaps, the idea of the entire NFA being declared unconstitutional and automatic weapons (machine guns to the Left) being sold over-the-counter was a bit too much. The Left and its media propogandists would have a field day if ‘machine guns’ were completely legal.

The field is still wide open for new efforts to remove other items, like suppressors, off of the NFA’s list. After all, over 40 states have made suppressors legal, subject to the NFA’s provisions. (Guess which state is not one of them?)

The Trump administration has been declared by some as the most pro-2A administration in history. They certainly have had some early successes. Trump is a deal maker and that requires some long-term, strategic goals. It’s quite likely that the ‘Amicus Brief is just a short-term tactical move in the grand political scheme. We don’t know, at this point, and only time will tell.

Few would disagree that the Republican Party has disappointed 2A defenders, over the years, and it is appropriate to call them to task for it and let the politicians know we are watching. But, like Trump, we 2A defenders need to pick our fights and it seems much too early to start condemning our friends over one issue. We have too much in common to let one step divide us.

Is that Amicus Brief a bad thing? It’s your opinion that counts and it should be based on the complete picture.

The idea of a strategic goal also reinforces the need for gun owners to get out and vote. A long-term strategy requires a political majority for the party that supports 2A.

DOJ’s 2nd Amendment Section

Tue, 16 Dec 2025 15:50:59 GMT

DOJ’s 2nd Amendment Section

On April 8th, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the creation of a Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force. This task force was created to continue the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) ongoing work to implement Trump’s Executive Order 14206 (Protecting Second Amendment Rights) and protect the fundamental right secured by the Second Amendment. The Task Force was principally charged with developing and executing strategies to use litigation and policy to advance, protect, and promote compliance with the Second Amendment.

Bondi serves as the Chair of the Task Force and the Associate Attorney General serves as the Vice Chair and the Task Force was composed of representatives from multiple areas of the DOJ.

This task force sounds more like a committee to study the issue. But unlike most committees, something came from this one.

On December 8th, Harmeet Dhillon, the DOJ’s Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division said that her division had started a 2nd Amendment Section: a gun rights-focused section. She promised "a lot more action" on gun rights enforcement.

This is important. The 2nd Amendment has moved beyond a task force studying the issue to a full blown operational section focusing on the 2nd Amendment and with enforcement powers.

One of the focuses mentioned in Dhillon’s announcement was fighting a variety of state and local courts on gun issues, particularly difficulties around concealed carry permits. “Some of the things we're seeing, and that is going to be the focus of our work around the country, includes multi-thousand-dollar costs for citizens to apply for concealed carry permits…Other jurisdictions are having unreasonably long delays. Other jurisdictions are outlawing guns that should be protected by the Second Amendment under the recent Supreme Court precedent."

This could be huge as many deep blue Democrat districts practice the above in order to deprive us of our gun rights. This is something that SCOPE and other 2A defenders have complained about for years but Democrat districts have ignored the complaints, even when the Supreme Court of the U.S. has told them to stop.

Dhillon also stressed something gun rights defenders have emphasized: gun rights "equalizes the ability of those of us, women, people with disabilities, and others who might otherwise be more vulnerable to be able to protect ourselves." That is true “equity.”

She finished by saying, “So stay tuned. You're going to see a lot more action from this Department of Justice to protect your Second Amendment rights."

We’ll definitely stay tuned. The DOJ has a history of attacking gun rights so this 180 degree switch in direction will have some bumps, as the DOJ’s portion of the “Deep State” won’t go quietly. But so far in President Trump’s term, there have been successes and this seems poised to produce even more.

The November / December edition of the SCOPE newsletter, The Firing Lines, is available for download

Thu, 11 Dec 2025 17:21:16 GMT

The November / December edition of the SCOPE newsletter, The Firing Lines,
is available for download here.

A New Interpretation

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 16:29:53 GMT

A New Interpretation

Almost ninety years ago, something worth remembering was happening in Germany. Author David Roll describes it in his book George Marshall, Defender of the Republic. Roll writes about Hitler: “…Adolph Hitler engineered a political revolution by captivating German voters, especially the country’s six million unemployed…Hitler was a singularly gifted speaker and performer. Between 1928 and 1932, his Nazi party shocked the German establishment by increasing its share of the vote in the Reichstag (parliament) from 2.6 percent to 37.4 percent. By the end of July 1932…the president of Germany’s crumbling Weimar Republic, was persuaded by right wing advisers to ask Hitler to become Reich Chancellor (supposedly a coalition of cabinet would curb Hitler’s extremism)…It wasn’t as if Hitler hid his intentions. He had spoken and written of restoring Germany to greatness by…destroying Jews and Bolsheviks…But the politicians discounted his stated intentions as overblown rhetoric and they underrated his abilities. After all, Hitler was just a lunatic that had emerged from the lunatic fringe…”

Remember, NAZI was the abbreviation for National SOCIALIST German Workers Party.

Is there a lesson in this for us, today? We certainly have a lunatic fringe representing the Socialist movement in America that ignores history in their search for power. And there are leaders of this movement who are gifted speakers and performers. One is constantly praised for his smile. Don’t discount them.

It’s fair to label these leaders of the current lunatic left as anti-2nd Amendment, just like the NAZI’s. But wait! There is a new movement creeping into the academic world (See Columbia University "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Explodi" by Bernard E. Harcourt.) The socialist Left wants to revise history and remove the gun control label from the NAZI’s because the NAZI’s ‘relaxed’ gun prohibitions. Like much of the current anti-2A rhetoric, it twists facts to suit its purpose. To forewarn and forearm you about something that is coming, let’s review a few facts about NAZI gun control.

The Versailles Treaty of 1919, which ended WW1, imposed strict gun control on Germany.

A 1928 law eased gun control – sorta. Weapon purchase permits were introduced - but the law only allowed "authorized persons" to purchase and possess firearms. (Requiring a permit to purchase a gun; could that happen here in NY State? Sarcasm intended.)

And check out the wording in NY State’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act [CCIA] for similarities to ‘authorized persons’.)

The law also introduced mandatory registration of weapons, which gave the government a list of weapon owners and their weapons to facilitate confiscation. (The current Left denies that gun owner lists would be used for confiscation.)

The purpose of this NAZI law was described as ensuring that firearms were only issued to "reliable individuals" – as the government defined ‘reliable’. (CCIA replaces ‘reliable’ with ‘good moral character.’)

In 1933, Jews were defined as ‘unreliable.’ The weapons’ laws were then used to confiscate weapons and disarm Jews. “Searching for weapons" was used as the justification for raids and searches of homes. (Albert Einstein’s summer residence in Caputh was searched in spring 1933.)

Because the law gave the police the authority to issue or withdraw weapon permits, Jewish weapon owners were disarmed through warrants issued by the police and later – starting in 1935 - by order of the Gestapo. Self-defense of Jews had been abolished.

Why does the socialist Left now say the NAZI’s eased gun control? The key to this new interpretation of NAZI gun control laws is a 1938 law which the Left sometimes describes as a relaxation of existing regulations. Sort of true; it relaxed the law for ‘certain groups’ of officials who no longer needed a permit for weapons possession. Of course, it is ignored that ‘certain groups’ only included privileged members of the Nazi Party and its associated organizations. In addition, the new Left’s interpretation ignores that the 1938 laws also prohibited the possession of any weapons by other groups of people, namely Gypsies and all individuals who lost their "Civil Honors" or who were under supervision of the police, which included people convicted due to homosexuality.

Directly after ‘Kristallnacht’ the possession of any weapons by Jews was prohibited. It’s reported that some rationalized this as good because it kept Jews from committing suicide. (Sounds like a current theory of the anti-2A left.)

Under the NAZI’s, the privileged – as the NAZI’s defined them - saw their access to guns relaxed while all others and especially Jews, Gypsies, etc. saw the right to a firearm completely taken away. That doesn’t really sound like relaxing gun control. But it does sound like the twisted logic being used today to justify gun control.

Frey / Cheng v NY City

Mon, 08 Dec 2025 15:27:03 GMT

Frey / Cheng v NY City

In the decision New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) stated that certain areas could be designated as “sensitive,” such as court and government buildings - but the designation must be used sparingly. It cannot be applied simply because a large number of people gather in a location.

Shortly after the Bruen decision, the NY Legislature met in an emergency session and passed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) which, amongst other things, banned firearms in Times Square because of the large number of people gathered there. (Many other places were also included as “sensitive.”) Various lawsuits have emerged and one of the cases was Frey / Cheng v NY City. The case challenged three provisions of CCIA:

The ban on carrying guns in Times Square, the New York City subway, and the Metro-North commuter rail system.

The state ban on open carry.

The requirement that even licensed gun owners obtain a separate, city-specific permit to carry in New York City.

The District Court judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue over the restrictions imposed by the CCIA. This would have killed the case if not appealed. The plaintiffs did appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In September, the Appeals Court Three-Judge Panel disagreed with the District Court and decided that the plaintiffs do have standing to sue. This was not a final ruling on the law’s constitutionality. The panel only decided that the plaintiffs have standing to sue. The case now returns to the lower court to hear the actual case.

The plaintiffs also sought to put the law on hold until the case could be decided. However, the three-judge panel would not issue a stay in the enforcement of the law while the case is being decided. For now, carrying a firearm in Times Square, on the subway, or on commuter trains remains a felony—even for licensed concealed carriers. Open carry remains entirely banned statewide, and anyone licensed outside New York City still needs a special city permit to carry there.

It is interesting to consider one of the reasons the appeals court used when deciding that the plaintiffs are “unlikely to succeed on the merits.”

The Bruen decision says laws have to have historical analogies going back to the ratification date of the 2nd Amendment; what was the meaning of the words and historical analogies at that time? Most consider that date to be the ratification date of the Second Amendment in 1791. However, some argue it is the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, when 2A was applied to the states. One of NY State’s examples of a ‘historical tradition’ was far removed from either founding era; a North Hampton law from the 1300s having to do with Fairs.

The judges said they took a “flexible” approach to applying the Bruen standard and upheld the law. The judges wrote: “There is perhaps no public place more quintessentially crowded than Times Square…In short, Times Square is our modern-day, electrified, supersized equivalent of fairs, markets, and town squares of old. We therefore need not stretch the analogy far,’ to conclude that [the law] is entirely consistent with our historical tradition of regulating firearms in quintessentially crowded places.”

The decision wasn’t the one that plaintiff Jason Frey wanted to hear, but he was not too surprised because of past anti-gun rulings from the Second Circuit. He said: “The mental gymnastics used to reference laws from before the nation was formed show us just how deep the hatred for our Second Amendment is to some of these people that currently hold positions of power.”

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Amy Bellantoni, blasted the decision: “The Second Circuit decision is disappointing, but not unexpected considering its palpable disdain for the Second Amendment.”

As to the stay in enforcement while the case is being heard, the plaintiffs could request an en-banc review from the full bench of the appeals court or could go directly to SCOTUS. There is no guarantee that either request will be granted. As of this date we have not heard of a decision.

The actual case is still to be heard in the district court.

CPRC (Crime Prevention Research Center)

Fri, 05 Dec 2025 18:22:57 GMT

CPRC

Dr. John Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) is heavily involved In the Gun Control debate. CPRC does extensive research - often used by SCOPE - and submits many Amicus Briefs (Friend of the Court) on important 2A lawsuits, including the Bruen decision. Here is a link to a few of the important briefs: Amicus Brief Archives - Crime Prevention Research Center Here is a link to some of its research: CPRC original research Archives - Crime Prevention Research Center

Basically, it’s an important resource for the pro 2nd Amendment community.

Some organizations are ‘top heavy’ in where they spend their money, so SCOPE reviewed CPRC’s 990 (annual financial report.) Total revenue and expenses are about equal at $500,000 and Lott gets paid $116,000 (which is not out of line.) Lott is the only one making more than $100,000. Based on the amount of 2A output, CPRC is using the money for 2A work and not abusing its purpose.

Most of CPRC’s revenue comes from donations and it is currently having a fund raising effort. This is from their newsletter: We currently have two matching grants—one from retired law professor Joe Olson and another from a donor who will match contributions up to $10,000 and $15,000, respectively. So some donations will be double matched.

Donations are down this year, even though much work needs to be done. If you can help, please follow this link.

SCOPE is a rare non-profit in that we support other organizations that bring 2A lawsuits; the cost of these lawsuits is huge and beyond SCOPE’s ability to totally fund, on our own. We have submitted an Amicus Brief in the past, which isn’t cheap. We have suggested that members donate to these lawsuits, in the past, and members have generously responded. (Even though this may reduce potential donations to SCOPE, we realize you don’t have a bottomless pile of money to support 2A and we are all on the same side.)

SCOPE encourages 2A defenders to support CPRC and consider donating at this time when donations are doubled.

One Man One Vote

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 16:14:53 GMT

One Man One Vote

Most would agree that there is a huge political divide on almost everything between New York City and most of the state. Because of the population difference between NY City and upstate, ‘tyranny of the majority’ reigns. One solution to that ‘tyranny’ might be to overturn the Warren Court’s wrongful ruling that established the “One Man One Vote” principle. (Or as Congresswoman Tenney suggested to me, “One Citizen One Vote)

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) under Chief Justice Earl Warren was one of the most liberal SCOTUS that the USA has ever had and, hopefully, ever will have. Many of the divisive issues we face today are directly related to rulings during Warren’s reign. Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II accused the Warren Court of repeatedly amending the Constitution through its opinions, rather than waiting for the lawful amendment process.

One of the Warren Court’s worst decisions was Reynolds v Sims, which ignored the Constitution and took political power from conservative rural areas and gave it to liberal cities; it’s known as “one man one vote”.

A brief history:

In 1789, the U.S. Constitution gave legislative powers to two separate houses; one based on population and one with each state having equal representation no matter what the population. Most states followed that example. This was meant to prevent the ‘tyranny of the majority.’

In 1946, before Warren was appointed to SCOTUS, in Colegrove v. Green the court continued its long-standing position that legislative apportionment was a “political thicket” into which the judiciary should not intrude.

In 1962, in Baker v. Carr, the Warren Court ignored SCOTUS’ own precedent and forced the Tennessee legislature to reapportion itself on the basis of population.

In 1964, using its own precedent to validate its action, the Warren Court cited the above Baker case as a precedent and held in Reynolds v Sims that both houses of a two-house state legislature had to be apportioned according to population. This is known as “one man one vote”.

As a result of Reynolds v Sims, virtually every state legislature was reapportioned, ultimately causing rural areas’ political power to be given to urban areas.

Every issue must be viewed in context; statements can mean very different things when taken out of context. The U S Constitution set up the rules and overall framework for how the federal government would operate, but it also had another purpose; to protect the minority from the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ Every part of the Constitution should be interpreted within the context of protecting the minority from the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ “One man one vote” goes against that principle.

The Constitution contains many examples that contradict “one man one vote:

The power to make laws is vested in our elected representatives in the House and Senate, not in a vote by the majority of the people (Article I Section 1). Each state has two Senators, no matter what the population (Article 1 Section 3 and Amendment XVII).

One person, the President, has the executive power to run the government and enforce laws (Article II Section I).

The President is elected by the Electoral College, where each state has the number of votes equal to its total number of Representatives and Senators (Article II Section I). Almost all states allocate their Electoral College votes on a winner take all basis, not a percentage of votes (state laws).

In case no one gets a majority of the electoral votes, the decision is made by the House of Representatives where each state has only one vote for President, no matter what the population. (Amendment XII)

Only the House of Representatives is based on population and it is not truly “one man one vote”. The smallest state gets at least one vote (Article I Section 2). Six states are below the average representation.

Congress passed the law that sets the number of SCOTUS judges at nine and there is no requirement that they equally represent the USA.

Why is it important to gun owners that our Constitution is not in any way based on one man one vote? Currently, New York has a bicameral (two house) legislature where both houses are based on an equal percentage of the population. What if, instead of “one man one vote”, the NY State Senate was apportioned by each county having one Senator, no matter what the population was of the county? Rural counties would then have a voice that is currently denied them because of NY City’s overwhelming population. In NY State, the principle of “one man one vote” effectively means that people in rural counties have no vote. Rural counties are subject to the ‘tyranny of the majority.’

Stare decisis is a legal principle where courts rarely go against principles established in previous rulings. Unless of course you are a liberal court, then the only principle that matters is your current political position. Liberals respect stare decisis only when it works in their favor. The Warren Court frequently ignored Stare Decisis. Unfortunately, Stare Decisis also protects bad rulings as we have seen with “one man one vote”.

Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate (Article 2 Section 2); they are not elected; another example that goes against “one man one vote”. If liberals gain control of the Presidency and the Senate, the Senate could run rampant in approving far left judges who will make political rulings, such as the Warren Court made, instead of judgments based on the Constitution. Elections have consequences and we need to ensure that future Presidents and Senates only appoint conservative judges who believe in the rule of law.

Perhaps, someday, we will have judges who recognize that “one man one vote” was another constitutional aberration of the Warren Court and needs to be overturned. That would overcome the ‘tyranny of the majority’ that is now the rule of law in NY State and give gun owners and Upstate NY a voice in their government that is currently denied to them.

Blue or Not by Costantin Belyayev

Tue, 02 Dec 2025 23:30:49 GMT

Blue or Not by Costantin Belyayev

Is New York State truly a “solid blue” or a “deep blue” state?

This sentiment is frequently echoed by many individuals and publications from all walks of life. It is especially prevalent within organizations supporting the Second Amendment, and with good reason. New York State, prima facie, is “solidly or deeply blue”, when it comes to voting and voter registration, which makes it very difficult to defend our 2nd Amendment rights.

Is that description quite appropriate?

I have long thought that identifying New York as a solidly blue state does not tell the whole story. By doing so, we, the politically conservative residents of New York, project the wrong image within our own circles, but more importantly also outside of our state. To many a non-New Yorker, the state is merely an extension of New York City and its suburbs, and that urban centers are thought to make up the majority of New York State. Likewise, many non-New Yorkers often believe that most residents of our state are dyed-in-the-wool Democrat-voting liberals.

In order to look at the other side of the coin, I analyzed some statistical data and looked at some statistical images, all publicly-available via the Internet (spoiler alert: the data will not change the way New York votes by the end of this article but may show why it is premature to color our state with that predominant shade of dark blue.)

There are quite a few ways to look at New York’s voting and voter registration patterns. Here are a couple of options. One is numerically. And numerically, of course, blue-leaning Democrat voters outnumber red-leaning Republican/Conservative voters in New York by a large margin. No surprise there.

The other way, however, to look at the same issue is geographically. Then, the picture changes dramatically. The voting pattern map below from ZipDataMaps, a statistical website, shows a mostly “red” New York State with a smattering of “blue” regions throughout (composite of 2020-2024 election cycles).

(Note the predominance of red-toned areas. The redder the area, the more Republican votes cast. Definitely not a sea of deep or solid blue.)

One might challenge the usefulness of geographical analysis by saying that land does not vote, people do. But those who own and/or control the land tract, necessarily involve the land in the voting process through land use based on political leaning. Examples might include spending of income derived from the land, charitable contributions to like-minded organizations, customer relations for business owners, etc.

Now, for some numbers.

The following statistics were taken from the elections.ny.gov website, an official New York State data source. I am not here to question the veracity of those numbers; that may be a discussion for a different time. For the time being, here is what the data show:

For purposes of this letter I am only comparing major party (Democrat vs. Republican) voter registration. These data are represented as being accurate as of February 20, 2025, the latest available. We must also bear in mind that just because a voter is registered in one party, he/she may not vote that way or he/she may not vote at all. Again, any other voting irregularities that may or may not be present are a subject for a different discussion. This a representative snapshot.

New York State covers 54,555 square miles and is comprised of 62 counties. Five counties comprise the City of New York (Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, Richmond). Outside of New York City, the following 18 counties have more registered Democrats than Republicans and may, therefore, be considered “blue” (even though some voted “red” or even-split according to the above map):

Albany (blue), Broome (even split), Clinton (blue), Columbia (blue), Dutchess (blue), Erie (blue), Monroe (blue), Nassau (even split), Onondaga (blue), Orange (red), Rensselaer (blue), Rockland (red), Schenectady (blue), Suffolk (red), Sullivan (red), Tompkins (blue), Ulster (blue), Westchester (blue).

The combined geographical area of these 18 counties is 15,111 square miles, or 27.7% of the state.

Outside of New York City, there are 538,807 more Democrat-registered voters than Republican (total voter number is 8,027,544). Considering New York’s reputation as a “solid blue” state, this is not an overwhelming figure, especially considering that not every registered voter votes in every election or votes party-line.

The five counties of New York City are overwhelmingly “blue”, as would be expected. Here, the Democrats outnumber Republicans by 2,784,870 registrations out of a total of 5,126,009. The city, however, adds a scant 469 square miles, or 0.9% of the state. Once added into the overall area calculation, it brings the total “blue” area of New York to 15,580 square miles, or 28.6% of the state. But once the registration numbers are reviewed, they show that statewide (NYC included) the Democrat voters outnumber Republicans by 3,323,677 registrations.

So, numerically speaking, it is easy to relegate New York to the “solid blue” territory. But once we look at the geography, the result is not so “blue”. In fact, even according to the current voter data and basic mapping, New York appears “red” over 71.4% of its area. That is hardly a “solid blue” state. And geography matters. As I said before, even though population density and uninhabited areas (waters, forests, parks, government property, transportation infrastructure, etc.) offset the figures somewhat, it appears that upwards of two-thirds of New York’s landmass is in some way “controlled” by conservative “red”-leaning voters.

In 1964, a case entitled Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (commonly referred to as “One Man, One Vote”), was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. In that case, the court ruled that the 14th Amendment requires both houses of state legislative districts to be apportioned on a population basis. Prior to that, one house of many states had equal representation in every county (like the U.S. constitution does with state-by-state representation in the Senate.) This unfortunate ruling changed the political map of New York State and put us in our current predicament. But we can take some solace (albeit in cold comfort) from the fact that New York’s “blueness” is really a series of “stains” on an otherwise mostly “red” landscape.

A NOVEMBER 2025 SCOPE UPDATE

Tue, 02 Dec 2025 12:36:54 GMT

A NOVEMBER 2025 SCOPE UPDATE

With the year drawing to a close and SCOPE marking its 60th anniversary, now is an ideal time to reflect on the organization’s work over the past several months. During this period, several new committees were formed to advance emerging initiatives. In addition, both individual and chapter membership as well as overall funding continued to grow. More and more New Yorkers are recognizing that the Second Amendment can no longer be taken for granted. Let’s take a closer look at some of the progress made.

TOP TEN MOST EGREGIOUS FIREARMS LEGISLATION UPDATE. As many know, 2026 marks the second year of a two-year legislative session. This means that bills remain on the table and numbers from 2025 remain the same in 2026. Although the New York State Legislature is currently out of session and will reconvene in January 2026, legislators in both the Assembly and Senate can—and often do—draft bills in preparation for the upcoming legislative year.

For context, in January 2025, 69 firearms-related bills were introduced. SCOPE personnel carefully reviewed each bill and narrowed the list down to SCOPE’s Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Legislation.

SCOPE personnel will continue to review firearms legislation to keep SCOPE’s Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Legislation list current with any new bills introduced in 2026. It is especially important for county chapters to use this document to inform both politicians and the public about Albany’s actions affecting Second Amendment rights.

CANDIDATE RATING SYSTEM. The year 2026 marks a significant election cycle in New York, with all Congressional seats, as well as the offices of Governor, Attorney General, State Senators, and Assemblymembers, up for re-election. This makes it a particularly busy period for SCOPE, whose key responsibility is to evaluate politicians based on their legislative and voting records to inform and educate our members.

On November 13, 2025, a meeting was held to establish a framework for conducting these ratings. Attendees included Tom Reynolds, Bo Rabarsky, Ron Havlen, Joe Atkinson, and John Elwood. The evaluation process will consider bills sponsored or co-sponsored, voting records, press releases and news articles, policy platforms, and the SCOPE questionnaire, which is currently being updated. We hope that chapters and other members will join us in producing our best ever result.

Given the number of offices requiring coverage, SCOPE reached out via email to other New York State Second Amendment organizations for assistance. The Candidate Rating System is scheduled to be fully operational by June 1, 2026, ahead of New York’s primary elections on June 23, 2026.

SOCIAL MEDIA COMMITTEE. One of the most significant recent developments at SCOPE is the creation of the SCOPE Social Media Committee (SSMC). Aimed at expanding youth engagement, the committee—Chris Nichols, Ken Kasek, Marsha Devine, Ron Havlen, and Joe Gigliotti—presented a comprehensive social media plan to the SCOPE Board of Directors (BOD) in October, which the BOD subsequently approved. The SSMC’s mission is to develop social media content that reaches young Americans, emphasizing the importance of the Second Amendment and showcasing SCOPE’s efforts to protect it. Initial outreach is focused on X, Reddit, and Facebook, with performance analytics used to gauge effectiveness. SCOPE’s first social media content is now live on X at https://x.com/SCOPE_NY_2A.

STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION PLAN. Schuyler County Chairman Robert Halpin recommended and volunteered to develop a Strategic Communication Plan (SCP) for SCOPE. A strategic communication plan is essential because it provides a roadmap for all organizational communications, ensuring they align with SCOPE’s goals, save time and resources, and build a consistent, strong brand. The plan helps define objectives, identify target audiences, and coordinate messaging across multiple channels, ultimately improving efficiency, strengthening stakeholder relationships, and increasing the likelihood of achieving organizational objectives. The SCOPE Social Media Committee (SSMC) will be integrated into the SCP, with a draft expected early in the new year.

LAWSUIT RESEARCH COMMITTEE. When you ask someone to join SCOPE, they will often respond with, “Why should I join?” There are many strong answers: SCOPE supports lawsuits that defend the Second Amendment, contributes to high school shooting sports, and educates both the public and lawmakers about firearms legislation coming out of Albany. At our most recent Board of Directors (BOD) meeting, members endorsed the idea of establishing formal criteria for determining which lawsuits SCOPE should support. Consequently, a Lawsuit Research Committee was created to recommend those criteria and advise the BOD on which cases to fund. The committee meets regularly and will brief the BOD in January with its recommendations for 2026. Ultimately, one clear answer to “Why should I join?” is that SCOPE is committed to supporting legitimate, impactful lawsuits that protect the Second Amendment.

BYLAWS REVIEW COMMITTEE. The By-laws Review Committee (BRC) meets as needed to review SCOPE By-laws, recommend updates, and address any questions from the Board of Directors (BOD). The committee is chaired by Robert Halpin and includes members Carrie Christman, Jim Krywalski, and John Elwood. Efforts are ongoing to update the SCOPE Code of Conduct, which, I hope, will be presented to the BOD in January. The most recent approved version of the SCOPE By-laws, dated October 2025, is available on the SCOPE website under “About Us” at the bottom of the page.

ALL MEMBERS’ MEETING. Coordination for the All-Members Meeting (AMM) is currently underway. The AMM is scheduled for Saturday, April 18, 2026, at Montour Falls Moose Lodge from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM. Since 2026 is a mid-term election year, the guest speaker is expected to be engaging and informative. Lunch will be provided.

The Board of Directors will convene immediately afterward at 1:00 PM.

THE 2025 SCOPE BANQUET. Planning is already underway for the 2026 SCOPE Banquet, which is scheduled for Saturday, September 26, 2026, at the Palmyra VFW. Guest speakers have not yet been finalized, but given the significance of the upcoming election year, SCOPE will be working to secure a nationally recognized speaker.

RE-ACTIVATED CHAPTERS. Congratulations to the Erie and Chemung County chapters for successfully reactivating. Erie County resumed operations in August 2025 under the leadership of Mark Drews, while Chemung County reactivated in October 2025 with Ron Havlen serving as chapter leader.

Niagara County appears to be next on track for reactivation. The county held an initial informational meeting on October 6, followed by a second meeting on November 3, and is scheduled to meet again on December 1, 2025. The Niagara County Chapter of SCOPE is led by Simeon Mokhiber. I expect Niagara’s reactivation will be official at the next SCOPE BOD in January 2026.

On a negative note, the Capitol District Chapter of SCOPE ceased operations in October largely because attendance was non-existent. We will work in the future to reactivate the chapter.

This article highlights several key initiatives that SCOPE is currently undertaking. As 2025 draws to a close and we prepare for the new year, it is essential for SCOPE to reassess its priorities to ensure we remain effective in protecting, restoring, and expanding Second Amendment rights for all New York State citizens. I extend my sincere thanks to all SCOPE members for your time, talent, and resources in supporting and defending the Second Amendment.

With All Honor and Respect,
John R. Elwood, SCOPE President
JRElwood1355@gmail.com

Thanksgiving Non Talk

Wed, 26 Nov 2025 16:11:56 GMT

Thanksgiving Non Talk

Most of us find Thanksgiving to be a time of cultural and religious enjoyment and relaxation. But to those on the far left, politics is their religion and culture and there is never a time for relaxation. To prove that, Billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety has published a Thanksgiving gun-control infomercial titled Debunking Gun Myths at the Dinner Table. Everytown says: “There are a lot of widespread myths and conflicting information about guns, gun violence, and gun safety laws in America” that you can discuss around Thanksgiving Dinner.

Yeah, they are right about the myths but most of the myths come from ‘Everytown’ and its sister organizations, so let’s set the record straight.

Everytown says that it is a myth that: Criminals will always find a way to get their hands on a gun.

Everytown argues: Laws like background checks stop gun sales to criminals every day.

Reality: Studies show that the vast majority of criminals don’t obtain their guns from legal sources that include undergoing a background check. (1) So, they do find a way to get guns.

Everytown says that it is a myth that: Strong gun laws don’t work. Look at Chicago.

Everytown argues: Strong gun laws work. Many of the crime guns recovered in Chicago (and in other cities in states with strong gun laws) are trafficked from states with weaker gun laws.

Reality: Other less regulated states aren’t having Chicago-like crime spikes - or even other parts of Illinois. Exclude the Chicago metropolitan area and there was a 55% decrease in the Illinois’ homicide rate. (2) Perhaps this is because all the guns were shipped to Chicago and there were none left elsewhere? (Sarcasm intended.)

Everytown says that it is a myth that: The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Everytown argues: If more guns made us safer, America would be the safest country on earth. Instead, we have a gun homicide rate 26 times that of other high-income countries.”

Reality: Defensive gun uses by people lawfully armed are responsible for saving lives and preventing crimes every day and total at least one million times a year. (3) (4)

Crime Prevention Research Center has found that the United States ranks below average on firearm homicide rates across countries, even though “many countries that clearly have higher gun homicide rates than the United States… simply don’t report firearm homicide data.” (5)

Everytown says that it is a myth that: Federal law prohibits ALL domestic abusers from having guns.

Everytown argues: Federal law does not prohibit current or recent former dating partners subject to a domestic violence restraining order from purchasing or possessing guns.

Reality: First, I doubt if any responsible person actually said ALL?

Federal law on guns and domestic violence restraining orders uses the term “intimate partner” which includes: spouses (past or present); cohabitation partners during dating relationships; having a child together; anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence;” anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence against a current or recent former dating partner. That seems to cover A Lot.

Strict gun control laws that make a gun more difficult to obtain only disarm potential victims and make them unable to defend themselves.

Everytown says that it is a myth that: Having a gun for self-defense makes individuals and their families safer.

Everytown argues: Guns in the home increase the risk that anyone in the house, including children, will die by firearm suicide, homicide, or unintentional injuries.”

Reality: Studies show guns make people safer and people are voting with their wallets as gun sales for self-defense have been skyrocketing.

In 1993, Florida State University Criminology Professor Gary Kleck conducted the National Self-Defense Survey to study the prevalence of defensive gun uses (DGUs). He stated that “each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans.” (6)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted its own surveys of DGUs from 1996 to 1998. However, the agency didn’t make its research public at the time. The CDC survey data finally came to light in 2018. Analyzing the CDC survey along with his own survey, Kleck found that the CDC data indicated that there are likely more that 1 million DGU’s per year. (7)

Everytown started the article with a statement of their own: “Every day, 120 Americans are killed with guns and more than 200 are shot and wounded.”

SCOPE responds: As usual, ‘Everytown’ needs to add some meat to this, which SCOPE did in a Firing Lines article. (8) Almost 60% of those killed are suicides - which is a very different issue and needs to be addressed differently – leaving only 48 daily deaths. And in those remaining deaths, about 6 are legal Defensive Gun Uses. Of the 42 daily deaths left, most are committed with illegal guns. Everytown also omits how many of these homicides happen in ‘Gun Free Zones.’

Don’t be like Everytown. Politics are not a religion. Have a safe, happy and relaxing holiday and remember to give thanks for all that God has given this great nation; including the freedom to write an article like this.

(1)    Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016
(2)    NRA-ILA | The Desperate Deflection to the “Red State Murder Problem”
(3)    Defensive Gun Use Archives - Crime Prevention Research Center
(4)    UPDATED: Compiling Cases where concealed handgun permit holders have stopped likely mass public shootings - Crime Prevention Research Center
(5)    Comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries - Crime Prevention Research Center
(6)    Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun
(7)    A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use
(8)   September2025 Page 6

Internet Insecurities

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 19:25:44 GMT

Internet Insecurities

Section 6 of Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 prohibits a registry of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions. The pertinent language of Section 926 reads:

No such rule or regulation…may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter…be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.

However, there are numerous government lists of gun owners: National Firearms Act of 1934 registry; state and local registries; Federal Firearms Licensees’ records; etc.

If you think your personal and gun information is secure, think again. There are marketing companies that legally search these government lists and will provide lists of gun owners, including personal information on them. And most troubling, Legal Insurrection just wrote an article that wasn’t about firearms but gave some troubling statistics about government records that should scare gun owners:

In 2020, reports indicated the number of exposed government records increased…from four and a half million (4.5 million) breaches of records in the first quarter of 2019, to seventeen million (17.0 million) breaches in the first quarter of 2020. (Emphasis added.)

And things have only gotten worse.

The IRS can provide whatever privacy assurances it likes, but the record of government data breaches and purposeful leaks, and the resulting harm to millions of individuals, is well-documented and will continue to occur.

______________________________________________________________

Many people get some or all of their news from social media. Legal Insurrection also wrote about on-line fake identities meant to mislead you about the writer and meant to give that writer more credibility. The article was about misleading information that was being posted on-line about Israel by people under fake names and biographies. But the warning applies to us all:

Now we know that it was all a massive foreign influence operation of fake MAGA accounts meant not to promote Trump, but to turn Americans against Jews and Israel and to sow chaos and division among actual Trump supporters.

If it’s happening on X, it’s happening elsewhere on social media. (Emphasis added.)

However, there is some hope -on X - until the scammers figure out a way around it. Legal Insurrection explained and gave examples of the fakes they uncovered:

X has turned live a “location” function that lets you know from where the account is posting (and whether they are trying to hide location through a VPN). The result is that many of the most manipulative supposedly MAGA accounts were frauds posting from abroad.

So many “America First” accounts turned out to be from Pakistan, Egypt, and other places that have no connection to America whatsoever.

They’re doing their best to somehow radicalize Americans against Israel.

Accounts like @1776General are interesting. It has 141k followers. Bio says: "Constitutionalist, Patriot, Ethnically American, Colonial Stock, 1620 Host on Ethnic American Broadcast." And it's based in Turkey. (Emphasis added.)

What about all the other social media platforms?

We recognize the sources of some information (such as ‘Brady’, ‘Everytown’ and ‘Moms’) and we can discount it as propaganda. There is enough misleading information already out-there by these organizations that we know are anti 2nd Amendment, we don’t need more misinformation from cowards hiding their true identity.

Looking Back and Forward by Richard Rossi

Mon, 24 Nov 2025 21:59:36 GMT

Looking Back and Forward by Richard Rossi

Thank you to the citizens that went to the polls and voted. I hope everyone did their civic duty as well as their due diligence and voted for the candidate who respects our Rights and Freedoms as American Law-abiding citizens. We had much more on the line than just our Second Amendment Rights!

Unfortunately, there is little time to relax, regardless if your candidate lost or won. Election season is over for 2025 and 2026 will soon be upon us. Take a break and, come January 2nd, it will be time to go into election mode - the Midterms are just around the corner.

The 2026 Mid-term elections are going to be crucial in New York State. Our Governor, Attorney General, ALL seats in Albany (both Assembly and State Senate), and ALL the seats in the U.S. House of Representative will be on the line.

As you all know, Zohra Mamdani was elected New York City’s mayor. Yes, we have a socialist / communist Mayor elected in NYC and also one who has endorsed numerous gun control schemes. This will hit home to upstate residents since NYC is the economic hub of New York State and controls Albany politics. Don't be fooled for one second, Mamdani’s election will greatly impact upstate New York. Mamdani’s previous statements indicate that he is a threat, not only to the 2nd Amendment but to the very foundations of American prosperity. His actions and the responses in Albany could have significant impact on the elections.

As we look ahead to the midterm elections in 2026, Governor Hochul is running for re-election. The state of New York is in the balance. This is a 'do or die' scenario for our upstate community. The elections could start to turn around NY State, depending on whom we elect in 2026.

Elise Stefanik recently announced her run for governor in New York against Hochul. She has, at this crucial time, a chance to dethrone the Democrats from another term as governor. Stefanik is a strong defender of 2A and Hochul is definitely not. (There is more about these two in the upcoming Firing Lines.)

This will not be the only challenge for New Yorkers. State Attorney General Letitia James has also been an enemy of 2A. Michael Henry has established 2A credentials and has often spoken at SCOPE events, such as the recent annual banquet.

Stefanik and James are the early leading candidates but there may be more.

The Dem's currently have all the power in Albany; a governor and a super majority in the Albany legislature. All this can change in 2026, if we organize and unite! But we can’t depend on others to do it for us. Allow me to give you examples from the recent Delaware County elections of issues that commonly occur beyond just Delaware County.

Every political commentator says that a “Get out the Vote” effort is one of the keys to winning. The intense 'Get out the Vote" effort for our candidates did not materialize.

“Letters to the Editors” of newspapers are still valuable but less impactful as newspapers are being replaced by other media. An effort to reach potential voters via our local newspapers' "Letters to the Editor" was almost non-existent.

Comments on social media are now as important as “Letters to the Editor” and I know of little or no effort in this area. (Note: SCOPE is developing a social media presence to be used in the upcoming election.)

With the lack of “Letters” and “Comments”, we missed an opportunity for citizens to voice their support or concerns and, most importantly, an opportunity to voice the facts and cut through all the political campaign rhetoric; especially the many falsehoods about our 2nd Amendment protected rights.

The Delaware County Republican Committees did run ads in our local papers for our candidates but their impact was limited, as they were not run early enough to coincide with the Absentee Ballot time-frame. In addition, I believe there was no similar effort on social media. A critical opportunity to reach voters cannot be overlooked in the future.

One of my personal “pet peeves” is when political parties endorse candidates before the voters speak in primaries. Our local Representatives in Albany endorsed the eventual loser in the primary - before the primary - and they were then slow in endorsing the primary winner. This contributed to a Republican candidate versus Republican candidate in the general election. So much for unity in maintaining our Rights & Freedoms.

New York State's survival is on the line in 2026. It is going to take dedication, organization, unity, timeliness and effort to overcome the radical, liberal, democratic, socialist wave that is upon us. This will not be easy but we have no choice! Sitting back and saying we can't win is not an option.

Frey v. City of New York, No. 23-365 (2d Cir. 2025)

Thu, 13 Nov 2025 15:29:51 GMT

Frey v. City of New York, No. 23-365 (2d Cir. 2025)

In New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court stated that certain areas could be designated as “sensitive,” (such as court and government buildings) but the designation must be used sparingly. It cannot be applied simply because a large number of people gather in a location.

NYS’ misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) ignored Bruen and banned firearms in Times Square because of the large number of people gathered there. Many other places were included in CCIA as “sensitive.” Various lawsuits have emerged, suing New York State over what some have called “thumbing their nose” at the Supreme Court under the Bruen decision. One of those is Frey v City of New York.

Highlights of Justia Opinion Summary about Frey v City of New York:

The plaintiffs objected to three main provisions:

the prohibition on carrying firearms in designated “sensitive locations” (specifically Times Square, the New York City subway, and the Metro-North rail system);

the statewide ban on open carry of firearms;

and the requirement that state concealed carry license holders obtain a separate, city-specific permit to carry a firearm in New York City.

The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of these provisions, arguing they violated the Second Amendment. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion for a preliminary injunction…On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (a three-judge panel) affirmed the district court’s order...The court concluded that each challenged provision—sensitive location restrictions, the open carry ban, and the city-specific permit requirement—fell within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and did not violate the Second Amendment.

The court found that:

the government had demonstrated a historical tradition of regulating firearms in crowded public places, supporting the sensitive locations restrictions;

regarding the city-specific permit, the court determined that localities have historically imposed their own firearm regulations...

In the Frey case, New York State’s examples were from the early 1900s and a North Hampton law from the 1300s. Many thought the lack of historical analogues would be the death of the law, but the judges said they took a “flexible” approach to applying the Bruen standard and upheld the law. The judges wrote “…In short, Times Square is our modern-day, electrified, supersized equivalent of fairs, markets, and town squares of old. We therefore need not stretch the analogy far,’ to conclude that [the law] is entirely consistent with our historical tradition of regulating firearms in quintessentially crowded places.”

The court’s ruling brings up a continuing issue in many similar cases that will require the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to decide; do historical analogues concerning the 2nd Amendment go back to the founding era, which most consider to be the ratification date of the Second Amendment in 1791, or does 2nd Amendment history begin with the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

And what could be more of a “flexible” approach than the court saying: it also concluded that the open carry ban was consistent with historical regulations that allowed states to prohibit one form of public carry (open or concealed) as long as the other remained available. Based on this logic, the 1st Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” would not stop NY State from banning, for instance, the Catholic Church since other Christian churches are available.

The decision wasn’t the one that plaintiff Jason Frey wanted to hear, but he was not too surprised because of past anti-gun rulings from the Second Circuit. “The mental gymnastics used to reference laws from before the nation was formed show us just how deep the hatred for our Second Amendment is to some of these people that currently hold positions of power.”

All this was over the request for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs could request an en banc review from the full bench or could go directly to SCOTUS. There is no guarantee that either request will be granted.

If you want to run for a SCOPE Leadership Position

Wed, 12 Nov 2025 16:59:24 GMT

If you want to run for a SCOPE Leadership Position

SCOPE by-laws require anyone wishing to run for an At Large Directorship in 2026 to publish their intentions by January 1, 2026.

At Large Directors to the Board of Directors are elected by the entire membership. These positions are full-fledged board members with full voting rights. At Large Directors represent the SCOPE membership as a whole, whereas County Chairs represent their county.

__________________________________________________

Section 3.2a states:

Any member wishing to become a candidate for an at large directorship must provide written notice of candidacy and a biography, sent by first class mail to the attention of the secretary at the corporation’s offices, postmarked no later than January 1of the election year, or by email sent to the secretary no later than January 1 of the election year.

Section 3.3a states:
The at-large directors shall be elected to hold office for two-year terms.
PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052-0165

Section 3.4a states:

At-large directors must be at least 21 years of age and must also have been a member in good standing continuously for at least two years prior to their nomination. The corporation’s board of directors may waive the two-year requirement for good cause at its discretion.

_________________________________________________

If you feel you qualify and have interest, please forward your intentions with biography to:

SCOPE, Inc. Election Committee

Intentions & Biographies must be postmarked or emailed by January 1, 2026

email to: sue.scopeny@gmail.com

To All SCOPE Members, (A message from the president of SCOPE)

Tue, 11 Nov 2025 20:58:11 GMT

To All SCOPE Members, (A message from the president of SCOPE)

Seventy-one years ago, on June 1, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation officially changing the name of the holiday from Armistice Day to Veterans Day. Originally established as a federal holiday in 1938 to honor the end of World War I, Armistice Day was renamed in 1954 through an act of Congress to recognize all U.S. military veterans.

Since the nation’s founding in 1776, more than 41 million Americans have served in the U.S. Armed Forces — including 16 million who served during World War II. Of those who have served, over 1.1 million made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation.

To every veteran who continues to serve through the SCOPE Corporation, I want to express my deepest gratitude for your dedication and service to our country. The oath you once swore—to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic—remains deeply rooted in your heart. For that enduring commitment, I offer my sincere and heartfelt thank you.

Freedom is NOT free!

THANK YOU!

With All Honor and Respect,
John R. Elwood, SCOPE President

Veterans Day

Mon, 10 Nov 2025 22:12:59 GMT

Veterans Day

A history lesson on what brought about the Veteran’s Day holiday and its parallels with today’s global situation should give all of us a reason to pause, remember and take action. We don’t need another holiday to celebrate the end of another war.

In June 1914, a Bosnian Serb assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Then…

Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.

Russia came to Serbia's defense.

Germany, France, Britain and the Ottoman Empire soon joined the war.

Then, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Italy and others joined.

In the Pacific, New Zealand occupied German Samoa

Australian Forces landed on Germany’s island of New Britain.

A German cruiser sank a Russian cruiser.

Japan declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary in what was a land grab.

German forces attacked South Africa. India supplied large quantities of food, money, ammunition and soldiers to the British.

In early 1917, the United States entered the war on the side of the Allies.

Later in 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power in the Russian October Revolution and the Soviet Union was born.

Millions died. WW1 led directly to genocide, a pandemic and the rise of the Soviet Union. A worthless worldwide political body was established in the aftermath.

On November 11, 1918, an armistice was signed and on the "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month" of 1918 and hostilities ceased on the Western Front of World War I. (On June 28, 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed which formally ended the war.)

November 11th was declared as “Armistice Day” to celebrate the end of the “Great War.” (It wasn’t yet known as World War 1, since World War 2 was still twenty-one years in the future.)

Commemorations of November 11th were initially focused on honoring the military dead of the First World War and the return to peace. Later, many countries changed the name to include all veterans of their armed services and a few honored their war dead both uniformed and civilian. Most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations adopted the name Remembrance Day.

In 1954, the United States changed the name to ‘All Veterans Day’, later shortened to 'Veterans Day'. (The United States has a separate holiday, “Memorial Day’, to honor and mourn the U.S. military personnel who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces.)

Tuesday is the 107th anniversary of the armistice. Have we learned anything from history? WW1 started because one person was assassinated and it rapidly grew from there. Today’s international situation sounds a lot more explosive than just one royal being assassinated.

We need to honor veterans on this Tuesday and the best way to honor these veterans is to be sure that history does not repeat itself. They sacrificed too much for it to be in vain.

Glock

Wed, 05 Nov 2025 15:39:25 GMT

Glock

Rumors are that Glock may be preparing to discontinue the majority of its commercial handgun lineup by November 30, 2025. Glock has announced the discontinuation of more than thirty models to “streamline” its commercial portfolio. Glock’s FAQ states discontinued models will continue to be supported. (‘Supported’ should mean spare parts still available, but a halt in new production inevitably tightens supply and reshapes the secondary market.)

According to posts attributed to GlockStore and echoed by industry influencers, only the Glock 43, 43X, and 48X models will remain available.

The old models will be replaced by a new “V line” that will be rolled out in December, this year.

Why is this happening?

Glock says it will concentrate its production, marketing and R&D on the models that will “drive future innovation and growth.

Another rumored reason is the expiration of Glock’s patents which will make cheaper copies available.

However, what cannot be ignored are lawsuits around illegal “switch conversions” that turn semiautomatic pistols into functionally automatic weapons. Over the last year, three government lawsuits—Chicago, New Jersey, and Seattle—have accused Glock of selling pistols that are “too easily” converted by illegal auto-sear devices (so-called “switches”). In addition, California Assembly Bill 1127 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 10th. It will ban the sale of firearms that include a cruciform trigger bar which is a key component within the trigger mechanism in Glock handguns. FFL’s in California would not be able to sell any handgun that uses this component after July 1st, 2026.

According to retailer reports, the move toward new “V Models” would include mechanical changes intended to make those conversions difficult or impossible.

Several gun rights groups are challenging Assembly Bill 1127 saying it violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by outlawing one of the most popular and commonly owned handgun platforms in America.

And of course, criminals won’t be busy seeking a way around these new changes. Right?

And the lawsuits against Glock will probably continue stating that Glock should have done it sooner.

As you can imagine, it will be difficult to sort out rumors from fact. So, check with your local gun store for later and more specific information.

2nd Amendment Task Force Strikes Again

Tue, 04 Nov 2025 17:31:11 GMT

2nd Amendment Task Force Strikes Again

SCOPE had previously reported the formation of a Department of Justice (DOJ) “Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force.” A.G. Bondi noted, “For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated like a second-class right. No more. It is the policy of this Department of Justice to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

Scope also reported on the Task Force’s first high-profile move; the DOJ filed a federal lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, alleging deliberate delaying tactics by the Sheriff’s Department in processing applications for California concealed carry licenses.

We now can report on a second case.

In Washington D.C., Juan Peterson had been found guilty, in 2023, for possession of a large-capacity ammunition feeding device under D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b). Peterson challenged his conviction to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on Second Amendment grounds, arguing that the statute infringes upon his constitutionally protected rights.

THE DOJ filed an unopposed motion to vacate Peterson’s conviction: “It is the United States position that § 7-2506.01(b) is unconstitutional. As a result, the United States is not prosecuting violations of § 7-2506.01(b), and believes that, in the interests of justice, Peterson’s conviction should be vacated*…because the United States would not charge a defendant similarly situated to Peterson under D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b) if arrested today, vacatur of Peterson’s conviction would ensure fundamental fairness.”

The DOJ referred to the Supreme Court’s “Heller” and “Bruen” decisions which established that arms “in common use” by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes receive Second Amendment protection. With standard-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds numbering a reported 700 million in circulation nationwide, that would seem to qualify as common use. **

As SCOPE previously reported, the DOJ’s actions in defense of 2A are huge. The anti-2A states have passed unconstitutional laws and basically said, “sue me” knowing that it would cost the plaintiff tens of thousands of dollars to “sue them.” This helps takes the financial burden off of individuals.

*Magnus v. United States: “a conviction for conduct that is not criminal, but is instead constitutionally-protected, is the ultimate miscarriage of justice.”

** NSSF Report Reveals Firearm Magazines with Capacity Over 10 Rounds is National Standard • NSSF

Vote - Ballot Proposal 1

Mon, 03 Nov 2025 20:09:03 GMT

There has not been much discussion on this, which since we live in New York State has got to make us leery of anything our politicians do, especially without much transparency. Most of what is on-line just repeats the same story without much depth. Here is a quick summary.

This is how Ballot Proposal 1 appears on the ballot: “Amendment to Allow Olympic Sports Complex In Essex County on State Forest Preserve Land”

It’s on the ballot in elections across the state because passing this proposal requires a change to the New York State Constitution.

A “Yes” vote: Authorizes the existing Olympic sports complex (after the fact) and allows the state to acquire more protected land in the Adirondacks while regulating its development.

A “No” vote: The Olympic sports complex remains in violation of the state constitution, meaning the state can’t develop it further without another amendment.

History:

The Mount Van Hoevenberg Olympic Sports Complex in Essex County, New York has long operated on forest preserve land, which should be “forever wild” under the state constitution as part of the vast Adirondack Park. This means it generally can’t be developed.

But when it was first built — for the 1932 Winter Olympics — the state allowed the construction of the sports complex for holding the event, without amending the state constitution. So, the sports complex has been in violation of the “forever wild” clause. Its facilities have so far made use of 323 acres of the 1,039 acres within the complex’s designated boundaries.

If it passes, it authorizes the use of ski trails and related facilities in the sports complex.

New York state could only develop within the designated 323 acres of the 1,039 acres in the sports complex. The only developments allowed would be for trails and facilities such as access roads, parking lots, offices, small lodges and snowmaking equipment.

New York could not use these acres to build hotels, condos, swimming pools, tennis courts, zip lines, off-road vehicles or other equipment or facilities of the sorts included in this bill.

To compensate for greater use of the sports complex land, 2,500 acres of forest land that’s now under a lesser form of protection would be added to Adirondack Park.

What supporters say:

“This is the best-case scenario for both the human and ecological communities of the Adirondacks: it protects wildlands while an historic attraction continues to host world-class sporting events, drawing athletes and visitors from the region and around the world.” – Adirondack Council, environmental nonprofit

“This proposed amendment would help to right historical wrongs,” fixing the sports complex’s past mistakes and ensuring the site is managed properly going forward. — Protect the Adirondacks, environmental nonprofit

What opponents say:

“New York’s ‘forever wild’ protections are not a suggestion. I oppose carving exceptions into the constitution for new construction on protected lands. Once we weaken these safeguards, it becomes easier to do it again.” — City Councilmember Robert Holden (Democrat, represents central and western-central parts of Queens)

“This doesn’t affect us directly, but opens the door to further encroachment on protected state lands, and the potential for government corruption.” — The Queens Village Republican Club, citing Councilmember Holden

You now don’t know a lot about this proposal but at least you won’t be completely surprised when you go to vote.

Random Articles of Interest

Thu, 30 Oct 2025 23:08:40 GMT

Random Articles of Interest

One could almost have predicted this?

The U.S. edition of the Daily Mail, a British tabloid and online publication, has dubbed the scoped hunting rifle used in the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk a “high-powered sniper rifle.” It reads, “Kirk was shot in the throat by a high-powered sniper rifle while speaking to college students at Utah Valley University on September 10.”

Should deer hunters now be referred to as “snipers?”

________________________________________________________________

Bruce Bernhard recently commented:

Currently, New York State requires the purchase of any black powder firearm, including flintlock muskets, to go through a federal background check.

Now this may sound as overkill. However, there actually has been several mass shootings of innocent victims using muskets as weapons, along with arrows etc. If you don't believe me, look it up. I realize it was a while back (actually 17th century) but there may be some people still holding a grudge at what happened to their ancestors.

________________________________________________________________

The Wall Street Journal featured an analysis of justifiable homicides in the US with the claim that there was a 59% increase in such incidents over the last five years. "It's easier than ever to kill someone in America and get away with it."

Was this what is referred to as misinformation?

The chart tops out at 200 cases - not 200 per 100,000 - just 200 in each year. This would qualify as a quiet year in Chicago.

_________________________________________________________________

The former director of the Census Bureau, John Abowd, introduced an algorithm called “Differential Privacy” for the 2020 Census, and the Bureau itself revealed in 2022 that this algorithm caused overcounting in several Democratic states and undercounting in Republican states. Blue states including Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Minnesota, and Rhode Island were overcounted. States like Florida and Texas were undercounted. Republicans believe the miscount led to their party having nine fewer seats than should have been apportioned.

__________________________________________________________________

Just when you thought sanity might have returned

NYU Law School’s radical More Than Human Life program (MOTH) is promoting “nature rights.” MOTH participants are seeking to force the Ecuadorian Copyright Office to grant a copyright to a forest as the supposed co-composer of music called Song of the Cedars.

A three-judge panel of the Michigan state court of appeals was asked whether chimpanzees have constitutional rights just like people. Chimpanzees are not “persons” in the eyes of the law, the appellate court held, denying the petition for habeas corpus filed on behalf of seven chimps by the Nonhuman Rights Project.

Another way to Infringe

Tue, 28 Oct 2025 16:38:20 GMT

Another way to Infringe

By Bohdan Rabarsky and Tom Reynolds

Governor Hochul recently signed into law bill S1985A / A544B sponsored by Democrat Senator Peter Harckham and passed along party line votes in both houses. Similar bills had been sponsored in previous sessions: in 2021/2022 (S5026 / A5455); and 2023/2024 (S2102 / A2413). Neither time did it make it out of committee, but this year was their magic number.

The new law states that, in some cases, the police “may” take possession of the weapon but in other cases the police “shall” take custody of firearms when responding to reports of family or domestic violence. Before the law was enacted, police officers under the ‘Safe Homes Act of 2020’ had the option of removing firearms that are in plain sight or are discovered during a consensual or lawful search.

(Note: The dictionary defines shall as: “used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory.” It defines may as “used to indicate possibility or probability.” The 2nd Amendment says “…shall not be infringed” it does not say “may not be infringed.”)

Under this new law, there is no need for an ERPO (extreme risk protection order) or a judge’s court order, as long as the weapon is in plain sight or is discovered pursuant to a consensual or other lawful search for the police to take the weapon.

Firearms that can be taken include: “rifle, electronic dart gun, electronic stun gun, disguised gun, imitation weapon, shotgun, antique firearm, black powder rifle, black powder shotgun, or muzzle-loading firearm.” (Note: Imitation weapon? A toy can be seized?)

The law also states: An officer who takes custody of any weapon pursuant to this paragraph shall also take custody of any license to carry, possess, repair, and dispose of such weapon issued to the person arrested or suspected of such family offense.

Is all this unconstitutional seizure?

The 4th Amendment to our Constitution says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Constitution.laws.com says: The Fourth Amendment guards against the government’s ability to conduct unreasonable search and seizures when the individual party being searched has a “reasonable exception of privacy.”

The Fourth Amendment specifically requires a law enforcement agency to possess judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants, which are supported by probable clause, to be administered before a person’s property can be inspected.

The individual’s property may be searched and seized without a warrant given the presence of certain circumstances, if: The individual is on parole or in a tax hearing; faces deportation; the evidence is seized from a common carrier; the evidence is collected by U.S. customs agents; the evidence is seized by probation officers; the evidence is seized outside of the United States; or probable cause is evident. (Note: none of these circumstances seem to apply to this new law.)

Far left Cornell’s Legal Information Institute opens a door to seizure when it writes the following about the 4^th Amendment:

In general, most warrantless searches of private premises are prohibited under the Fourth Amendment, unless…there is probable cause to search, and there is exigent circumstance calling for the warrantless search.

Exigent circumstances exist in a situation where people are in imminent danger...

…warrantless search and seizure of properties are not illegal, if the objects being searched are in plain view.

SCOPE and other 2nd Amendment defenders are on constant alert for proposed or new laws that threaten 2A. A favorite tactic for gun grabbers is to hide their work behind a safety concern -when it suits their purposes. Potential domestic violence is a safety concern but the left uses it to open the door for future constitutional infringements under the façade of safety. The pressure in these situations is to err on the side of the accuser and if the 2nd Amendment is infringed in the process…the attitude is ‘bummer’.

The law also states that after one hundred twenty hours have passed (5 days) and if none of the following are in place (an order of protection; an extreme risk protection order; other court order prohibiting the owner from possessing such weapons; no court order is involved), “…the court or, if no court is involved, licensing authority or custodian of the weapon shall direct return of a weapon…and/or such license taken into custody pursuant to this section.”

This would seem to give the gun owner a path to have their guns returned. But this is New York State where many public officials feel free to work around or ignore even U. S. Supreme Court orders. What if the custodian of the weapon delays / refuses to return the weapon, even though there was no legal reason to seize the weapons? The gun owner could be looking at months or years instead of 120 hours to get their guns back. And count on thousands of dollars of legal costs to recover the weapons (and don’t forget the license - you won’t be able to buy a replacement). The ‘custodian’ uses taxpayer dollars to keep citizens from their weapons and feels free to do this since they are almost certainly free from personal repercussions.

Link to the actual bill: NY State Assembly Bill 2025-A544B

Celebrating 60 Years of SCOPE by Senator Pam Helming

Mon, 27 Oct 2025 18:51:22 GMT

Celebrating 60 Years of SCOPE by Senator Pam Helming

Representing Livingston, Ontario and Wayne Counties and the Monroe County towns of Chili, Mendon, Riga, Rush, and Wheatland

There was something truly special about SCOPE’s 60th Anniversary Banquet. You could feel the pride in the room and the unshakable commitment to freedom. For six decades, this organization has stood on the front lines defending the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers.

It was a privilege to welcome hundreds of incredible patriots to the 54th Senate District, including President John Elwood, Chairman of the Board John Prendergast, Treasurer Tom Reynolds, and Secretary Gary Zielinski. Their leadership, along with your membership in SCOPE, continues to inspire all who value liberty.

That evening, as I stood at the podium, I saw a room packed with people who love this country. People who are proud to be Americans. And it was not lost on me that the event was held at the Palmyra VFW, an active post dedicated to our area veterans and their families. By supporting our VFW, you were also supporting our Veterans. As the State Senator for this area, and a member of a military family, I want you to know that meant a great deal to many of us.

Next year, our nation will mark 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Our founders gave us the framework that made the United States the greatest nation in history. Preserving that legacy is both our right and our duty.

Here in New York, our freedoms are under constant attack. The majority party in Albany is attempting to control everything; from how we can heat our homes and prepare our food, to what type of vehicles and school buses we can drive, to how we can protect and defend our families. It's up to all of us to push back on these misguided policies. The best way to do this is by voting. Whether it's voting in local elections this year or statewide elections next year, we have to let our family and friends know the importance of choosing representatives with the values that closely align with our own. The consequences of not showing up at the polls can be dire.... just look at the situation in NYC.

At the end of the evening, I left the banquet knowing that SCOPE members will continue to rise to the challenge. That each and every one of you will continue your work to preserve and protect our freedoms. For that, I am hopeful and forever grateful.

N Y City Mayor Ratings

Fri, 24 Oct 2025 16:07:53 GMT

N Y City Mayor Ratings

SCOPE rates political candidates on 2nd Amendment issues, only. Since the NY City mayoral race involves three candidates, only one of which is well known to gun owners, we will add our ratings on where they stand on 2A issues.

Gun control is not a hot button issue in New York City. A majority of NY City residents support gun control laws simply because New York City is a liberal city and liberals demonstrate knee jerk support for gun control laws, not because they know anything of the details.

Andrew Cuomo (F-)

Cuomo needs little explanation. As the former governor and ‘father of the SAFE Act,’ Cuomo is well known to New York gun owners. Under a “Message of Necessity,” he had the SAFE Act signed into law, without the normal safeguards against such emotional actions.

Unbiased observers see the SAFE Act not as a meaningful deterrent to crime but as “political theater” intended to energize the governor’s liberal base at home and attract a national audience for his (then) national political ambitions.

On August 29,2018 Cuomo proudly said, “We passed the toughest gun control law in the United States of America, the SAFE Act."

Curtis Sliwa (D)

Sliwa funded “Guardian Angels” in 1979 due to NYC's rising crime. He hasn’t said much, directly, about gun control but some of his comments are educational.

In October 2021, Sliwa said, “I choose not to carry a gun and I'm a victim of violent crime. Shot five times on the orders of the Gottis to the Gambinos; hollow point bullets. I was offered a carry permit by the NYPD; I said no. You want to go into the inner city, where most of these gang shootings occur by young males, and you're strapped, and then you're here to tell them they shouldn't be?”

At least he has a non-political reason, but then he said on October 6th of this year, “I’ve never had security. But both I and my wife were subject of direct threats, and so over the weekend I had armed security with me for the first time…I never had (previously) armed security.”

Sliwa sounds like almost every gun control advocate; they believe in “armed security for me but not for thee.” Have you ever heard a politician ask for unarmed security?

Zohran Mamdani (F-)

On May 24, 2022 Mamdani said, “We need to ban all guns.”

On July 30, 2025 he said, “I echo the call from Governor Hochul for a nationwide ban on assault rifles."

Mamdani’s track record in the New York State Assembly reveals a legislative history deeply antagonistic to the Second Amendment. According to VoteSmart.org, he has voted in favor of several measures that infringe on lawful gun ownership:

Mandating gun stores post warnings about selling firearms

Restricting marketing practices of firearm manufacturers

Requiring handgun license applicants to turn over their social media history

Expanding New York’s “red flag” law to allow more people to petition for confiscation of firearms

Supporting a ban on private ownership of bulletproof vests.

In summary:

Cuomo has shown he is an enemy of the 2nd Amendment but he has stopped short of an outright ban on all guns.

Unlike his two opponents, Sliwa does not have a history of antagonism to the 2nd Amendment so he might not energetically try to take away the 2nd Amendment rights of New Yorkers.

Mamdani is embracing an outright ban and, if his rhetoric is to be believed, he may attempt to enforce it citywide. Mamdani is a Democratic Socialists (the polite word for communist) and communist leaders have a history of the outright banning of guns.

G F Z’s by Bohdan Rabarsky

Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:42:41 GMT

G F Z’s by Bohdan Rabarsky

Last month another horrific shooting occurred, yet again in a “Gun Free Zone (GFZ).” American Conservative political activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated on the grounds of Utah Valley University. GFZ’s include all schools, at both the local or state levels, as well as any property within 1,000 feet of a GFZ.

Two months ago, another horrific tragedy occurred in a GFZ, this time at the Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis Minnesota. The shooter was of legal age and purchased his weapons legally. The weapons used weren’t automatic weapons, assault weapons or weapons of war, but a shotgun, a semi-auto pistol and a semi-auto rifle. While the crime scene was still active, Minnesota Democrats were out in full force calling for “sensible” gun control, bans on assault weapons and weapons of war. Calls were made for Congress to act and blame was laid at the feet of Republicans for doing nothing.

If the Democrat leadership can’t control the narrative, they lose the upper hand in the gun control battle. They always focus on the type of weapon, instead of focusing on both the shooter and the “Gun Free Zone”. In fact, in almost all cases, GFZ’s are absent from the discussions.

One of the school shootings that captured national attention was the April 20th 1999 shooting at Columbine High School, where so-called assault weapons were used. Though the primary attack was supposed to be made with bombs, they didn’t detonate, so the firearms were the secondary method of attack. Columbine had one (SRO) School Resource Officer.

Interestingly, five years before the Columbine shooting, Congress had passed a Federal Assault Weapons Ban as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, but it didn’t seem to deter the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

The original Gun-Free School Zone Act (GFSZA) of 1990 was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS in U.S. v Lopez. So, in 1995, Congress amended the GFSZA to apply only to firearms that had moved in interstate commerce, which is just about all firearms. This reinstated the gun free zone, which also didn’t deter Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

Democrats keep blaming the NRA’s lobbying influence over Republicans, but when Democrats have had their chance to make changes, they did nothing. In the 117th Congress, President Biden had control of both houses and did nothing. In the 118th Congress, Democrats controlled the upper chamber, yet they also did nothing.

A handful of states allow either public or private schools to have armed teachers. Some states passed these laws after experiencing a mass school shooting. For example: Florida allowed armed teachers after the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mass shooting; Texas allowed armed teachers after the 2022 shooting in Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.

If Congress was serious about ending school shootings, protecting the most vulnerable amongst us and allowing teachers the ability to teach in a safe environment, here are a few things I believe they should allow:

1.      Mandatory metal detector at a single-entry point of the school.

2.     Plain clothes armed school resource officers in every school.

3.      Use retired law enforcement & military personnel as SROs in school; they’re already trained in the use of firearms.

4.      Offer certified and trained teachers the ability to carry conceal, with firearms being easily accessible to only the teacher within the classroom in the event of an attack.

If legislators are serious about stopping shootings, they will stop obsessing on the firearm and shift their focus to a real problem, GFZ’s.

Don Lemon Speaks by Tom Reynolds

Mon, 20 Oct 2025 20:58:39 GMT

Don Lemon Speaks by Tom Reynolds

Don Lemon appeared on “The Left Hook with Wajahat Ali,” and said, “If you believe in the Second Amendment, if you believe in the Constitution, Black people, Brown people of all stripes, whether you’re an Indian American or a Mexican American or whoever you are, go out in your place where you live and get a gun legally. Get a license to carry legally.”

Uber liberal Don Lemon is encouraging people to get licensed and buy a gun! Wow, can’t disagree with him – for the first and only time. Of course, he’s referring to only black and brown people and not all those other skin colors covered by a colorblind 2nd Amendment.

This is the same Lemon who spent years decrying the "culture of violence" associated with firearms and he is now championing the 2nd Amendment that he once dismissed as a relic of white privilege. How can it be white privilege if black and brown people can use it?

What happened? Did a poltergeist take over his body?

The rest of Lemon’s quote tells us more.

“Because when you have people knocking on your door and taking you away without due process as a citizen, isn’t that what the Second Amendment was written for?”

Whoa! Lemon is saying the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from government overreach! Next thing, he’ll be quoting the NRA.

His statements are also confusing. He mentions citizens but seems to be referring to illegal aliens, who are not citizens. No one is knocking on Indian American citizens and Mexican American citizen’s doors and taking them away without due process. Does he want illegal aliens to get a gun? (Tren de Aqua is way ahead of him.)

As usual, the most ardent gun grabbers know nothing about the facts – or is Lemon intentionally misleading people? It appears that Lemon is mixing very different circumstances together in order create sympathy for illegal aliens in the U S A. Here is the actual situation on illegal alien gun possession:

18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5) makes it illegal for specific non-citizens to possess or receive firearms or ammunition. Specifically:

Individuals unlawfully present in the United States, such as those who entered without inspection, overstayed visas, or otherwise lack legal status.

Unauthorized presence alone disqualifies an individual from firearm ownership. The Tenth Circuit, in United States v. Huitron-Guizar, ruled that the Second Amendment does not extend to undocumented immigrants.

A conviction can result in up to 10 years in federal prison under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(8). If the violation is connected to other criminal conduct, sentencing enhancements can extend the prison term. Additional charges may apply in cases involving false statements on firearm applications, which is a separate federal offense under 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) and carries up to five years in prison.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(C), any non-citizen convicted of a firearms offense is subject to deportation. Federal prosecutors may pursue charges even if the firearm was not used in a crime. A single conviction can trigger removal proceedings. Even without a conviction, a mere charge can prompt U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to initiate removal proceedings based on unlawful presence or a visa violation.

Immigration judges consider firearm-related conduct when determining bond eligibility, making it difficult for illegal aliens to avoid detention or removal. Prosecutors argue that defendants without lawful status pose a flight risk, making it difficult for non-citizens charged with firearm violations to secure release while awaiting trial.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE enforce these laws.

After writing all this, I suddenly realized that this was Don Lemon talking. Who cares what Don Lemon says!

School Safety by Jess Nassar

Fri, 17 Oct 2025 23:52:11 GMT

School Safety by Jess Nassar

I teach at the New York State School for the Deaf located in Rome, New York. After fourteen years of teaching, something is now troubling me. As I have gotten older and wiser, I have become concerned about the lack of security in our building. Safety should never cross my mind while teaching, but now it does. Times are changing for the worse. All schools should be protecting both students and staff.

If the school can’t protect us and I am not allowed to do so on my own, what recourse do I have? I reported my concerns to my union representative and I am hoping they will put safety first. Without safety I cannot educate.

After the latest shooting in Minnesota, where the gun person admitted they were targeting children in a ‘gun free zone’, it really made me think about the abundance of mindless hate in this world. At my school, students are Deaf and obviously are not going to hear the gun shots. These students and staff need extra protection because they are even more vulnerable than the general education population.

Metal detectors and an armed guard should be present in all schools regardless if they are public or state run, like mine.

Recently, I went to my local county building to help my husband sign up for a pistol permit and that place is guarded like it’s the White House. All measures to protect our county employees are in place, yet we don't do the same for our children? Since they don’t let the teachers carry their own weapons to protect themselves - and most importantly our youth - every school should have metal detectors and armed guards. No exceptions.

It is always better to be safe than sorry.

A machinegun . . .

Thu, 16 Oct 2025 23:53:18 GMT

A machinegun (an automatic) expels multiple rounds with a single function of a trigger.

In a Forced Reset Trigger (FRT), the bolt forces the trigger to reset, allowing the shooter to take quicker follow-up shots. An FRT only fires a single round with each function of the trigger.

Earlier this year, Ammoland reported that the ATF and DOJ entered into an agreement in National Association for Gun Rights v. Garland with the government admitting that FRTs are not machine guns (automatics). The government then decided to drop all other lawsuits across the country.

The federal government is dropping its FRT cases. End of story. Right?

Not in deep Democrat areas like Washington D.C.

Someone made an anonymous tip to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) reporting that a D.C. resident had an FRT.

An MPD Investigator applied for and received a search warrant from a D.C. Superior Court Judge by stating that an FRT can convert a semi-automatic firearm to a fully automatic firearm. On October 8, the MPD conducted a raid on the DC resident’s apartment where they found several FRTs. After obtaining an additional search warrant, MPD recovered multiple firearms, a 3D printer, filament, five SD cards, four USB drives, two laptops, three electronic storage banks, and one cell phone.

An MPD Investigator and ATF Special Agent responded to the scene and interviewed the DC resident. According to the police report, the man admitted to knowing “what FRTs are and how they are capable of turning a semi-automatic firearm into a fully automatic firearm.”

MPD arrested the D.C. resident for Possession of a Machine Gun (and Pistol License Violation) even though the DOJ and the ATF have previously agreed that an FRT is not a machine gun, making them legal under federal gun laws. Possessing an automatic manufactured after 1986 is a crime. All FRT’s were made after 1986 but an FRT does not make a semi-automatic into a machine gun.

Deep blue / far left areas are so caught up in their determination to do away with all civilian gun ownership that they ignore the federal government (DOJ and ATF). We have here a confrontation between the feds, (which say FRT’s are not automatics) and D.C, (which says FRT’s are automatics.) D.C. may have the lead in this case but deep blue states like California and New York will not be far behind.

Hawaii Sensitive Places

Wed, 08 Oct 2025 20:40:08 GMT

Hawaii Sensitive Places

Hawaii has a law banning guns in certain "sensitive locations." The law reads (emphasis added):

[§134-9.5]

(a) A person carrying a firearm pursuant to a license issued under section 134-9 shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly enter or remain on private property of another person while carrying a loaded or unloaded firearm, whether the firearm is operable or not, and whether the firearm is concealed or unconcealed, unless the person has been given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property…

(b) For purposes of this section, express authorization to carry or possess a firearm on private property shall be signified by:

(1) Unambiguous written or verbal authorization; or

(2) The posting of clear and conspicuous signage at the entrance of the building or on the premises…indicating that carrying or possessing a firearm is authorized.

Sounds a lot like New York State’s misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

The law was initially blocked by a district court judge.

A 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (the most far-left, most reversed circuit court in the United States) reversed the judge and upheld the law, in 2024. In his dissent, Judge Lawrence VanDyke said the law "effectively nullified the Second Amendment rights of millions of Hawaiians."

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear a court case challenging the private property part of this; Wolford v. Lopez. (Lopez is Hawaii’s Attorney General and will defend the law.) No date has been set for oral arguments.

Wolford et al and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition say that the case violates the 2022 SCOTUS decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which states that firearm restrictions need to be consistent with the nation’s “history and tradition.”

…the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier, and that

the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen’s text, history and tradition test* in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits.

The Trump administration’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a court filing:

"From the earliest days of the republic, individuals have been free to carry firearms on private property unless the property owner directs otherwise…Because most property owners do not post signs either allowing or forbidding guns, Hawaii’s default rule functions as a near-complete ban on public carry. A person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a coffee shop, or even a parking lot."

"The structure and operation of Hawaii’s law reveal that the law serves no legitimate purpose and instead seeks only to inhibit the exercise of the right to bear arms."

Hawaii argued in a brief that the Second Amendment does not override a property owner’s right:

“The rule can be upheld for the independent reason that it represents a valid governmental effort to vindicate property owners’ fundamental right to exclude by enacting a default rule that comports with the community’s reasonable expectations…there is no right to engage in speech or carry firearms on someone else’s property without her consent."

* Under Bruen’s text, history and tradition test:

The first step is to look at the original text and meaning of the Second Amendment. The courts have held that “the people” are at least Americans who have reached the age of majority, which in the United States is 18 years of age. Handguns are bearable arms, so the Second Amendment covers the plaintiffs’ conduct.

The second step puts the burden on the state. It must show that a law is consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation by using historical analogues.

The question that is argued is whether historical analogues must come from founding era, which most consider to be the ratification date of the Second Amendment in 1791. Others argue it is the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which, they hope, allows them to try and use ‘Jim Crow Era’ laws restricting gun ownership of blacks.’

Shoot to Kill

Wed, 08 Oct 2025 13:27:50 GMT

In Israel, south of Jerusalem, an Israeli Defense Force reservist (IDFer) was driving when he heard the sound of a crash behind him. He looked in the mirror and saw a vehicle had driven into a bus stop. He stopped his car and quickly exited and saw wounded people with blood on them. Then, he saw a man get out of the offending vehicle but he did not know if this was an attacker or an accident victim. When someone shouted, ‘He has a knife,’ the IDFer drew his concealed pistol, chambered a round, held it in two hands at eye-level, and confronted the terrorist. The IDFer shouted for the attacker to stop, in Arabic. Instead, the attacker began what was described by the IDFer as “a frenzied run toward me.” The IDFer fired two shots at the attacker’s legs and the IDFer believes at least one of them hit. But the attacker kept running so, while backpedaling, the IDFer shot him in the center of mass, and the attacker fell.

The IDFer added, “In my opinion, he was drugged. I shouted at him, and he continued advancing toward me. I shot him, and he fell. The word 'neutralized' is a euphemism; it has no place in this context. Terrorists must be killed.”

Perhaps the IDFer was initially following Joe Biden’s advice to shoot assailants, “in the leg instead of the heart.” Or, at one time, Israelis were instructed to “shoot at the feet first.” Whichever the case, the IDFer was unwisely adhering to bad advice.

When one’s life is directly and imminently threatened, one needs to stop the threatening individual as quickly as possible. Most would agree that the best way to stop an individual is to inflict lethal wounds, preferably multiple lethal wounds! And the best way to do that is shooting ‘center mass.’

A favorite feature of old westerns was for the ‘good guy’ to shoot the gun out of the hand of the ‘bad guy’, usually without wounding the ‘bad guy,’ just disarming him. Unless you have a death wish, don’t try that in real life.

And even more menacing to your continued good health is to “shoot to wound.” Attempting to use your pistol to inflict wounds intended to be “non-fatal” endangers your own life and needlessly prolongs the incident.

When someone gets a gun for protection, they need to realize that stopping a threatening individual almost always involves inflicting grievous wounds that will likely end the attacker’s life. An unpleasant but necessary fact, to be considered. Before an incident happens, gun owners need to think about when to use lethal force. It should be used as a last resort.

DOJ vs LA Sheriff

Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:06:03 GMT

DOJ vs LA Sheriff

SCOPE had previously reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi had announced the formation of a Department of Justice (DOJ) “Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force.” Bondi noted, “For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated like a second-class right. No more. It is the policy of this Department of Justice to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

In the Task Force’s first high-profile move, the DOJ filed a federal lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, alleging deliberate delaying tactics by the Sheriff’s Department in processing applications for California concealed carry licenses.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Some quotes from the complaint:

“…Between January 2024 and March 2025, Defendants received 3,982 applications for new concealed carry licenses. Of these, they approved exactly two…This is not bureaucratic inefficiency; it is systematic obstruction of constitutional rights.”

“The mechanics of this obstruction are equally damning. Defendants force applicants to wait an average of 281 days—over nine months—just to begin processing their applications, with some waiting as long as 1,030 days (nearly three years). The median delay is 372 days. These delays far exceed California’s own statutory requirement that licensing authorities provide initial determinations within 90 days, demonstrating Defendants’ flagrant disregard for both state law and constitutional obligations.”

“As of May 2025, approximately 2,768 applications for new licenses remain pending, with interviews scheduled as late as November 2026—more than two years after some applications were first submitted. Numerous applicants simply gave up and withdrew their applications, often after waiting months in Defendants’ deliberately stalled process. These are not abstract statistics; they represent thousands of law-abiding citizens who have been stripped of their constitutional right to self-defense outside their homes.”

“…Defendants have constructed an administrative labyrinth designed to frustrate and ultimately deny this fundamental right to virtually all who seek to exercise it.”

It appears that Bondi’s DOJ is serious in defending 2A rights.

As SCOPE previously wrote, the significance of this is that citizens will not have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars suing the LA Sheriff’s office but, instead, we have the federal government using its resources to right an obvious wrong about a fundamental right.

Unfortunately, similar practices in Democrat run states make this a huge problem and will require huge resources to counteract these unconstitutional practices.

Lessons From General Marshall

Fri, 03 Oct 2025 20:20:46 GMT

Lessons From General Marshall

Many 2nd Amendment defenders and SCOPE members are veterans who follow, with considerable interest, the goings-on in the current military service. On Tuesday, the senior military officers and enlisted were called to a meeting by Secretary of War Hegseth and President Trump.

But first, a little history.

General George C. Marshall was the highest-ranking Army officer in World War 2; at that time, the Air Force was known as the Air Corps and was also a part of the Army. Marshall was sworn in on September 1, 1939. The same day that World War 2 started with the German invasion of Poland. (What a way to start a new job!) The U.S.A. did not enter the war until Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

In his book, The Generals, Thomas E. Ricks writes that Marshall understood that political and other pressures “had resulted in the appointment to high command in past wars of so many mediocre and even incompetent officers.” Marshall set about weeding out ‘mediocre and incompetent officers’ before the USA entered the war. He later said about this subject, “I was accused…of getting rid of all the brains of the army. I couldn’t reply that I was eliminating considerable arteriosclerosis.”

At Tuesday’s meeting, Secretary of War Hegseth said that the military has promoted too many leaders for the wrong reasons; political pressure based on race, gender quotas and historic firsts. “The era of politically correct, overly sensitive don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings leadership ends right now at every level.”

Sounds straight out of George Marshall’s plan to increase military readiness and effectiveness.

Even before Marshall was appointed Chief of Staff, he was thinking about what would be the necessary traits for the upper ranks when a war broke out. Two of the qualities he was to demand of his officers were “physically strong” and “display marked energy.* Marshall had “determined that most of the top generals in the Army were too aged for combat, and just below them were many officers who were also past their prime.”

At Tuesday’s meeting, Hegseth said, “…I’m also directing that war fighters in combat jobs execute their service fitness test at a gender-neutral, age-normed, male-standard, scored above 70%...It all starts with physical fitness and appearance. If the Secretary of War can do regular, hard, PT, so can every member of our joint forces.”

Sounding absolutely Marshal-like. Hegseth added that the physical fitness standards included generals and admirals.

By the time we entered WW2, two years after he had assumed office, Marshall estimated that he had forced out at least 600 officers. It will be interesting to see the reaction and results from Hegseth’s imitation of General Marshall.

Hegseth has issues to deal with that Marshall did not. It would not be only generals and admirals complaining about new physical fitness standards. Anticipating criticism, Hegseth said it is not about preventing women from serving in combat positions. “If women can make it, excellent; if not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it," he said. "That is not the intent…”

President Donald Trump summed up the meeting, but he could also have been summing up the purpose of the 2nd Amendment: “The [purpose] of America’s military is not to protect anyone’s feelings. It’s to protect our republic…We will not be politically correct when it comes to defending American freedom. And we will be a fighting and winning machine.”

The Socialism movement in America has a goal of disarming the American citizen and Socialists have made inroads by hiding their ultimate goal behind emotional terms meant to evoke feelings instead of rational thinking. “Gun violence” and “assault weapon” are a few examples.

Our military deals with national defense and the 2nd Amendment is intended to work in parallel to our military and deal with local defense; personal protection. Just as what is now happening in our military, we must cut through the rhetoric, stand firm against every attempt to weaken the 2nd Amendment and roll back the inroads made over the past ninety years. No wavering when it comes to defending the freedoms protected by our Constitution.

*The other qualities Marshall wanted were: good common sense; have studied your profession; cheerful and optimistic; extreme loyalty; determined.

Projection by Tom Reynolds

Wed, 01 Oct 2025 23:20:45 GMT

Projection by Tom Reynolds

There is a saying that whatever the Democrats are accusing you of doing, they are already doing, themselves. I saw a recent article in Ammoland that adds another dimension to that saying and, perhaps, it explains some of the motivation of the Left.

Sigmund Freud called it “projection.” People assign their own fears, flaws, and impulses to others as a psychological defense mechanism. It’s easier to accuse someone else and attach your own toxic personality traits onto others than it is to confront yourself. For example: If a man feels emasculated and insecure, he labels masculinity itself as “toxic.”

Projection is also political and it might just explain why the anti-gun Left is so determined to disarm law-abiding Americans.

The Democrat leadership will tell you guns are the cause of violence as if an inanimate object can, by itself, initiate violence. Or are they really projecting their own thoughts that, “If I had a gun, I might lose control.” It’s not our behavior that they’re afraid of, it is their own behavior, projected onto us.

Lately, there have been several “gun violence” incidents by radical left wingers. The media and the Democrat leadership quickly blamed guns for the actions of those left-wing radicals and called for more gun control. Is it deliberate misinformation or political spin or is it the Democrats’ inability to face uncomfortable truths about themselves? Did the Democrat elite again come face-to-face with their own worst fears about themselves?

Their inability (or refusal) to self-reflect when mixed with their toxic ideology becomes extremely dangerous. (We on the Right are not paranoid, the Left really is out to get us!)

Everyone can fall into the same trap. But on the right, there’s a level of moral restraint, (spiritual / religious grounding), that keeps most – but not all - of us from acting out violent fantasies. Many of us live with a belief in higher accountability. But in an atheistic communist society, there is no spiritual higher power. Those with a conscience tend to use their power responsibly. Those without a conscience, who project their violent impulses on others, can become unpredictable and unstable.

Does the Left oppose civilian gun ownership because they assume that we’ll use a gun the way they imagine themselves using it? That we’ll act on the same immoral impulses they’ve refused to confront in themselves?

Do they want to be sure we cannot use guns against the Democrat power elite because they see themselves as taking up arms against the Republican power elite?

To SCOPE members and many other Americans, a firearm is a tool for protection, for hunting, for preserving life, and defending the innocent. To others, it’s a tool of power and aggression. That difference lies not in the object, but in the mind of the holder.

Should we worry about the person who views a gun as a last line of defense or the one who sees it as a first strike in an act of violence?

NY City

Mon, 29 Sep 2025 21:38:55 GMT

NY City

Two off-duty officers were waiting in plain clothes for the train on a Long Island Rail Road platform when a man attempted to rob them. One of the officers shot the thief and he was hospitalized in stable condition. The officers sustained minor injuries.

The police identified the thief as Jahmar Stewart, 32, whose last known address is a Brooklyn homeless shelter.

Three - of many - issues here are NY City’s soft on crime policies, the inability of NY City citizens to get a concealed carry permit and "gun-free zones"

According to the New York Post, Stewart has a number of arrests to his name this year. New York City's soft-on-crime policies returned a violent suspect to the streets, even when he was already facing charges from a previous arrest.

Stewart was arrested on August 8th for allegedly attacking another resident at the homeless shelter. The victim was gathering his belongings when he got into an argument with Stewart, who slugged him multiple times. The top charge in that case was third-degree assault, which is not bail-eligible, and Stewart was released on his own recognizance.

Stewart was busted on a petit larceny charge July 16th for allegedly stealing fruit juice from a bodega on East New York Avenue.

Stewart was also arrested and charged with menacing in July for allegedly threatening another resident at the homeless shelter with a knife, but was released on his own recognizance.

Stewart was arrested and charged with misdemeanor assault in June, after allegedly hitting another resident in the head with a tree branch.

If they are going to allow criminals to roam the streets, shouldn’t citizens be able to ‘bear arms’ to protect themselves. Didn’t the Supreme Court’s heller McDonald and Bruen decisions have something to say about citizens bearing arms to protect themselves? Apparently, Supreme Court decisions do not apply in NY City.

The NYPD is slow-walking the issuance of concealed carry permits. In fact, the department won't even say how many permits have been issued this year, but there are ongoing lawsuits featuring plaintiffs who have waited a year or more to receive their carry permit. In other cases, litigants have been awarded their permits only after they've filed suit. (You have to hire an attorney or threaten a lawsuit to exercise a fundamental civil right in NYC, unless you're willing to wait a year or two before being able to legally bear arms.)

Since most of NYC is a “gun free zone,” the few New York City residents who've been able to obtain a license to carry are prohibited from lawfully carrying throughout much of the five boroughs, including on public transportation, A 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld "gun-free zones", declaring that "prohibiting firearms in quintessentially crowded places" is part of the national tradition of gun ownership.

There's virtually no chance of legislative relief in New York State dominated by leftist gun grabbers in all three branches of government. There is litigation but it will take years. In the meantime, American citizens in New York City remain at risk from violent predators and are prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment right to armed self-defense.

This was apparently the third attempted robbery of off-duty police officers in the Big Apple within a week-long span. Luckily for the police, they can carry a firearm when off duty; something denied to almost all other law-abiding New York City residents. Why should off-duty law enforcement be the only ones who can protect themselves with a firearm in these dangerous environments?

Answer. Because Kathy Hochul says so. If you don’t like being told what you can’t do, vote her out in 2026.

Why is the Democrat Party losing voters?

Tue, 23 Sep 2025 16:48:26 GMT

Why is the Democrat Party losing voters?

Minnesota state Senator Ron Latz (DFL) said that women, not men, need special training to own a firearm. “….a firearm owned by a woman for self-defense, the evidence is it is more likely to end up being used against her by the attacker rather than used to successfully defend herself. That’s the data, so maybe that points to the even greater need for training on how to use the firearm and to prevent it from being taken by an attacker and used against her.”

Latz did not provide any substantiation for the “evidence” or “data” to which he alluded.

A male Democrat categorizes women needing more training than men in the use of a tool that does not require any special male gender advantages like size or strength.

So much for sexism being trumpeted as a Republican’ vice.

________________________________________________

And if you think only male Democrats have views in contrast to reality.

NPR’s Tonya Mosely asked former Vice President Kamala Harris about her gun control platform: “In cities like Philadelphia, handguns are responsible for most homicides and violent crime. How will you address the issue of the use of handguns because a push for an assault weapons ban only addresses, um, a significant but small part of the problem?” (Emphasis added.)

The former vice president couldn’t answer why Democrats are going after “Assault Weapons” when hand guns are a much bigger issue. Harris tried to deflect with the standard Democrat cliché that Modern Sporting Rifles need to be banned and universal background checks must be implemented.

Mosely interrupted and pressed her further: “Respectfully, we do understand that. But I’m asking specifically about handguns because many of those handguns aren’t purchased at places that run background checks. In many of those instances those handguns aren’t bought lawfully.” (Emphasis added)

The ex Vice President had no response to the logical reasoning that criminals do not follow the law. Harris shifted her answer to another gun control cliché – gun shows, when she said: “But the gun show loophole and why we need to close that. Because what ends up happening is that gun shows at flea markets, gun dealers are not, under existing law in the past, required to register their sales.”

Contrary to Harris statement, the facts are:

gun dealers (FFL’s) are required to do background checks not matter where the gun is sold;

the federal government is prohibited, by law, from keeping a gun registry;

And as to the “gun show loophole,” according to the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics’ study of federal and state inmates who used a gun in commission of a crime, “Inmates, 2016:”

90% did not obtain it from a retail source.

43% obtained it “off the street” or from the “underground market”

7% found it at the scene of the crime

6% stole it

0.8% obtained the firearm at a gun show

The “gun show loophole” that Harris references is a myth.

_______________________________________

Harris did not have an answer for criminals illegally buying handguns, but Representative Jasmine Crockett, (D-Texas) provided cover; criminals aren’t necessarily criminals.

Crockett appeared on Jonathan Van Ness’ "Getting Better" podcast, where the host asked her to share one key fact she wishes more people knew about crime in America.

“…just because someone has committed a crime, it doesn’t make them a criminal. That is completely different. Being a criminal is more so about your mindset. Committing a crime can come for a lot of different reasons."

I wonder if crime victims would feel better if they knew they were not criminalized by a criminal?

Nevada

Mon, 22 Sep 2025 22:57:35 GMT

Nevada

In Point of Contract (POC) states, firearm purchase background checks go through state or local authorities, rather than the FBI’s NICS system. These states are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, Illinois, Nevada and New York.

On August 24, a ransomware attack took down Nevada’s POC system. Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) dealers in Nevada were unable to process firearm transfers for most customers until September 14th. (That’s three weeks.)

Apparently, many of the state’s computer systems are integrated as this also impacted the DMV, Medicaid, SNAP, and WIC benefits.

When the state’s system went offline, so did the ability to run POC background checks. Without clearance, most firearm sales could not legally be completed. Nevadans with a valid Concealed Carry Permit (CCP) could take possession of purchased firearms; a CCP serves as an alternative form of clearance under Nevada state law. All other sold guns piled up in gun shops waiting for state background checks. And how many sales were lost? This has had a serious impact on the financial health of many gun shops.

It has also put people at risk. Individuals who wanted to purchase a gun for the first time weren’t likely to have a CCP. If these non CCP people wanted a gun to be protected from abuse, a stalker, gang violence in the neighborhood, etc. well…too bad.

Governor Joe Lombardo was asked to issue an emergency declaration that would allow FFLs to submit their background checks directly to the NICS System. The governor never replied, which is a polite way of saying, “Forget it!” (We New Yorkers can anticipate a similar reply from Governor Hochul when this happens in New York State.)

The Nevada Office of Emergency Management admits that: “hackers exfiltrated data” during the attack. What a relief! The hackers did not steal any data, they only “exfiltrated” the data which means they copied information out of state systems and took it off-site…Oh wait, isn’t that stealing?

Governor Lombardo said that residents’ personal information had not been compromised. That’s encouraging since we New Yorkers know that governors never lie!

But just in case, Lombardo also said: “If investigators eventually discover otherwise, we will follow Nevada strict statutes about personal data breaches by notifying any affected individuals promptly and providing resources to help protect them.”

If data was “exfiltrated” and includes firearms-related information, this breach could expose the identities and addresses of law-abiding Nevada gun owners, which would identify households most likely to contain firearms. If Nevada gun owner data is now in the hands of criminals…

Could this happen in New York State since we are also a POC state?

Remember how smoothly establishing the NYS system went? (Sarcasm intended.)

NY State has been losing gun shops and a three-week shut down would probably put many more out of business. Would Kathy Hochul and the NY Legislature feel bad about that? FFL’s in NY State must be hyperventilating when they think about their businesses’ future being dependent on the quality of security in the NY State computer network.

Legal Updates Highlights

Thu, 18 Sep 2025 21:50:32 GMT

Legal Updates Highlights

Schuyler County sends out “Legal Updates” every month, which can also be found in its entirety on SCOPE’s website. Other highlights are in the Firing Lines. Below are two articles showing growth in gun ownership, even in New York City.

Brooklyn’s newest gun store in 50 years opens with focus on education and safety

A National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor and trainer has opened Brooklyn’s newest gun store in 50 years. Owner Michael Bergida has reported a steady stream of phone calls and customers.

Customers are only allowed to enter the highly secure double door entrance by appointment and people must show their gun license.

Bergida was inspired to start the business from the June 2022 Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen. The landmark ruling dramatically relaxed gun laws and expanded the right to bear arms. Bergida got his license a year later and became an instructor. He opened a site to help people get licensed, learn about responsible gun ownership and learn gun safety online.

Bergida wants to educate people about responsible gun ownership through seminars and training. “A lot of people have really bad heads here when it comes to guns in New York City. There’s no gun culture here, and they don’t really understand it,” Bergida said. “My job is to educate.”

(SCOPE note: Bergida is wrong, there is a gun culture in New York City - among criminals.)

Lox & Loaded gun club aims for self-defense for Jewish community amid antisemitism threat

The gun club is aimed at giving Jews and allies the tools to defend themselves with antisemitism at historic levels in the U.S.

"It's never been easy being Jewish, but it's feeling harder and harder," said Lox & Loaded Member Jeffrey Sumber. "I think people that were in liberal households, or weren't accustomed to firearms, are realizing that the police cannot be at every street corner and every event," added gun owner Gayle Pearlstein. "We aren't big Second Amendment gun people, but we love our identity, and we will do anything to preserve it," said Daniel Schwartz, president of the Chicago Jewish Alliance, "and if that means defending it, we will."

The 2025 SCOPE Annual Banquet will be on Saturday, September 27th

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 16:12:31 GMT

The 2025 SCOPE Annual Banquet will be on Saturday, September 27th
Tickets are $65 per person

at the Palmyra VFW Post 6778
4312 NY-31, Palmyra, NY
_________________________________

Email updates will be sent out as we receive speaker confirmations,
and updates will also be posted on our website.

The Banquet Emcee will be Conservative Radio Talk Show Host:
Bob Lonsberry
_______________________________________

Michael Henry:
Seeking the GOP nomination to challenge NY Attorney General Letitia James in 2026
Will be speaking
_________________________________________

To purchase tickets and pay by check: *Order Form
*Must be postmarked by Friday, September 12th

To purchase tickets using your credit card: **2025 SCOPE Annual Banquet
**Ticket sales will be closed Monday, September 15th

We hope to see you there, but if you cannot make it and would like to donate to the banquet,
use the red button below and type Banquet in the comment section

Thank you for your support.

Quicker So You Are Not Deader

Wed, 03 Sep 2025 23:37:51 GMT

Quicker So You Are Not Deader

In the case known as Ortega, et al. v. Lujan Grisham, et al, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. District Court of Appeals has ruled 2-1 that New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period to purchase a firearm “is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens,” and has reversed a lower court ruling and remanded the case back to the district court “with instructions to enter injunctive relief consistent with this opinion.”

The decision stated, “Cooling-off periods infringe on the Second Amendment by preventing the lawful acquisition of firearms. Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendment’s scope”.

Also emphasized was that this approach treated every citizen as dangerous simply for wanting to buy a firearm.

_________________________________________________________________

Last June, a three-judge panel ruled that California’s one handgun purchase per month law failed to meet the standard set in the ‘Bruen’ decision and, therefore, the law was unconstitutional.

On August 14th, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finalized the ruling that this law is unconstitutional.

The full panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to review a lower court’s ruling that California’s one gun per month purchase limit violates the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. That made final the June decision against the California law.

Back in 2012, a Virginia law limiting handgun purchases to one per month was repealed.

State Delegate Scott Lingamfelter said: "I think Virginians deserve effective laws, and one handgun a month has been overtaken by technology and improved background checks. Criminals don't go into gun stores, stand there in the bright light, hand over their driver's license and stand there and wait for the vendor to see if they have a criminal record. If you really want to get after gun crime, you get after people who use guns illegally. You don't punish law-abiding citizens."

_________________________________________________________________

Closer to home, NY State proposed laws:

S00418 andA01774 make it a misdemeanor to procure more than one firearm during any period of 30 days.

S00362 and A01210 establish a 10 day waiting period before a firearm sale can be completed by delivery to the buyer. __________________________________________________________________

As part of the administration’s crackdown on crime in the nation’s capital, President Donald Trump streamlined the gun permitting process for honest citizens in the District of Columbia,

Trump’s “Making DC Safe and Beautiful Task Force” will allow D.C. residents to book next-day appointments to register their firearms with the Metropolitan Police Department and walk-in appointments are available. Previously, applicants had to wait up to four months for a registration appointment.

Unasked Questions

Tue, 02 Sep 2025 20:52:57 GMT

Unasked Questions

The murder, last week, of the school children in Minnesota was a tragedy beyond belief. Every parent has to shudder at the thought.

Of course, the anti-2A leftists immediately sounded the call for more gun control as if that was the only solution. This confirms that the left’s ultimate purpose is not safety but to remove all civilian gun ownership from the United States. If their goal was safety, they would also look at equally legitimate issues.

For instance:

Isn’t it legitimate to question whether having Gun Free School Zones (GFSZ) is effective and questioning whether GFSZ is even a good idea?

Gun-free zones began with the Gun-Free School Zone Act (GFSZA) Of 1990 which was declared unconstitutional by the U S Supreme Court in United State v Lopez. So, in 1995, Congress amended the GFSZA to apply only to firearms that had moved in interstate commerce, which is, effectively, almost all firearms. This reinstated the gun-free zone framework.

Because of the GFSZA, every school shooting since 1995 has happened in a gun free zone.

The Minnesota shooter wrote: “I recently heard a rumor that James Holmes, the Aurora theater shooter, may have chosen venues that were “gun-free zones.” I would probably aim the same way… Holmes wanted to make sure his victims would be unarmed. That’s why I and many others like schools so much.”

In 2018, the Crime Prevention Research Center released a study showing that 97.8% of mass shootings that occurred over a 68-year period were carried out in GFSZA’s. The Crime Prevention Research Center also found that armed civilians ended 33.8% of active shooter incidents between 2014 and 2021, when they were present and legally able to respond.

Isn’t the issue of gender change and mental illness also deserving of further exploration?

The shooter was a biological boy who changed his name to a girl. In his writings, he expressed regret at assuming another gender.

‘Transitioned’ and ‘non binary’ murderers were responsible for murders at the Covenant School in Nashville Tennessee, in a Colorado Springs LGBTQ nightclub, at a Denver-area charter school and at a Rite Aid warehouse in Aberdeen, Maryland. Some would say that these are a small percentage of mass murders. But transgender people are a small percentage of the population.

The Minnesota boy’s mother signed off on the name change to a girl. Would results have been different if gender change had been treated as a mental illness instead of validating it?

Should the issue of developing ‘Red Flag’ laws that are constitutional have been raised?

The Minnesota murderer left writings which indicated, as one person put it, he hated everybody. There were probably lots of other signs that this person had severe mental / antisocial issues. All the more reason for ‘Red Flag’ laws? But most ‘Red Flag’ laws are only fronts for ignoring the Constitution in the drive to disarm all Americans. If the goal was really safety, why don’t the anti 2Aers develop laws that don’t trample the Constitution?

Why wasn’t there security at the school?

Many people believe blue state governments are controlled by teachers’ unions and the union leaders campaign against any school system other than public schools. Since the Minnesota murders happened at a nonpublic Catholic School, where was the security?

The Minnesota Catholic Conference wrote Governor Tim Walz twice in two years for a small security grant to protect against school shootings because nonpublic schools were excluded from Minnesota’s $50 million Building and Cyber Security Grant Program and Minnesota’s Safe Schools Program. Their 2023 letter to Walz wrote: “There are approximately 72,000 students enrolled in Independent, Catholic, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim nonpublic schools in our state.”

Shouldn’t someone be asking why 72,000 students were not included in a Safe Schools Program?

What impact did the shooter’s use of marijuana have in this tragedy?

It's reported that the Minnesota shooter wrote: “Gender and weed f*cked up my head. I wish I never tried experimenting with either.”

A Canadian study of 14 million shows how the risk of schizophrenia attributable to cannabis rose from 4% to 10% with legalization of cannabis (in 2018):https://t.co/Zc84KlPYnl pic.twitter.com/QRA9oyGVRF

In another cohort study of individuals aged 14 to 65 years in Ontario, Canada, the proportion of incident cases of schizophrenia associated with Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) almost tripled during a period of substantial liberalization of cannabis policy. Changes in Incident Schizophrenia Diagnoses Associated With Cannabis Use Disorder After Cannabis Legalization - PubMed

Thoughts and prayers

Tennessee State Representative Justin Jones said something others on the left have echoed: “…you have all these people who want to give thoughts and prayers after a shooting, but I was a minister, and that is a form of theological malpractice when you pray for something that you have the power to change.”

He’s right in that that it’s theological malpractice to do nothing when he and other legislators have the power to change things. But he ignores that he and others like him let their drive to eliminate legal gun ownership blind them to addressing the real causes of these tragedies.

And criticizing prayers for those killed and injured and the bereaved families is one of the few ways most of us can react when liberal legislators in Blue States, like him, block the road to real solutions.

Conclusion

After every tragedy, anti 2A leftists want the one and only issue to be gun control. But the real issues are untreated mental illness, societal isolation, the failure of existing systems to intervene before violence erupts and on-line radicalizations.

Mass murders will always be exploited by anti-gun activists to push for restrictive laws that infringe on law-abiding citizens’ rights, rather than address the many causes of these issues.

86 Years Ago

Thu, 28 Aug 2025 22:08:55 GMT

86 Years Ago

The most effective ‘mouthpiece’ of those who would take away our 2nd Amendment protected rights is the New York Times (NYT). The leadership on the left swear by it. (The rest of us swear at it!) The NYT repeats anti-2A propaganda and many readers unquestioningly believe whatever the NYT prints.

A favorite tactic of the left is to try and destroy the credibility of those that oppose them by highlighting even the smallest issue. It’s time 2A defenders went on the offense and highlighted something that was no small issue; the NYT got it wrong and it contributed to 20 million people being killed.

Below is a cautionary tale about unquestioned belief in the NYT that is reprinted from Legal Insurrection.

‘In 1939, Hitler and Stalin concluded secret negotiations, which resulted in the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on August 23 of that year, to bring about their desired division of Eastern Europe, beginning with Poland. This pact allowed Hitler to invade Poland with the Soviets’ blessing, which, as is well known, set into motion the Second World War.’

‘What is much less well known is that the New York Times reported on the start of the War by repeating and reinforcing the Nazi propaganda. The renowned author and journalist Ashley Rindsberg elaborates on this fact in his recent bestseller The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times’s Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History (p. 27): The New York Times bought the Nazi dupe without flinching. Underneath its famous banner, “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” the paper reported that, according to “Chancellor Hitler,” Germany had been attacked. Already in the second paragraph of the Times’s front-page article, the reporter … reprint[ed] verbatim Hitler’s infamous war speech to the Reichstag, which the Führer used to justify to the world, as much as to the German people, his invasion of Poland….’

‘Rindsberg describes this New York Times article as “what likely constitutes the single biggest, yet least recognized, journalistic failure on record.” (p. 26) Eighty-six years later, American socialists and progressives, and even numerous liberals, still swear by the content and narrative promoted by the Times. They consider reading and trusting the paper a matter of intellectual refinement, social awareness, and moral superiority.’ (Emphasis added)

What Legal Insurrection did not talk about was that the NYT had a history of misrepresenting what was happening in the USSR. Walter Duranty was a New York Times reporter, living in relative comfort in Moscow with his mistress, while Duranty covered up Stalin’s crimes, including the Ukrainian famine / genocide.

He was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting.

Malcolm Muggeridge, a British journalist of note, later described Duranty as “the greatest liar of any journalist I have met in fifty years of journalism.”

But no editor at the NYT thought to question Duranty’s reporting. Could it be that the NYT’s ideological sympathy was in line with socialism just as it is in line, today, with the anti-2A movement?

Gun grabbers use every opportunity to tell the general public of the awfulness of civilian gun ownership. As defenders of 2A, we are well informed of the counter arguments, but those who exclusively read the NYT probably never read those counter arguments. And those same readers put the NYT on a pedestal that it does not deserve.

Animal Farm

Tue, 26 Aug 2025 23:38:33 GMT

Animal Farm

Ronald Reagan once joked: A woman was getting married for the 4th time and was looking at wedding dresses. The salesgirl was concerned that the bride was only looking at white dresses and hesitantly said: “White is generally reserved for first timers.”

“Oh, it’s my first time,” the bride replied.

“But you’ve been married three times?”

“Yes, but my first husband and I got into a terrible fight on the way to the reception. We never spoke again and got divorced.”

“My second husband got too excited as we were undressing on the wedding night and died of a heart attack.”

“And my third husband, he was a socialist and all he did was sit on the edge of the bed and tell me how great it was going to be!

Socialists always tell us how great tomorrow will be under their leadership - but tomorrow never comes.

This month is the 80th anniversary of Animal Farm, which was published in August 1945.

It exposed the myths surrounding socialism / communism and big government, where tomorrow never comes.

Animal Farm tells the tale of revolutionary farm animals overthrowing the human farmer, only to find themselves governed by a cabal of pigs who prove even more cruel and oppressive than the human they replaced.

Those ruling pigs continually promise a new utopia, tomorrow, in which all animals enjoy equality. Instead, the governing pigs ruthlessly consolidate power, distort the truth and live lives of luxury while the animals under their rule toil harder than ever. Orwell famous line, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” gets to the very root of socialism / communism.

The working animals on Orwell’s fictional farm learned too late that they’d been duped. Their sacrifices merely paved the way for a new elite class repeating egalitarian slogans.

Orwell’s central message was that revolutions promising equality rather than individual freedom will devolve into a system of privilege and abuse. Castro in Cuba, Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, Mao in China and Stalin in the USSR provided equality; all but the elite were equally poor.

Animal Farm exposes the corruption and privilege that ensue when government becomes too powerful and leaders impose their will on others, while rationalizing that hypocrisy. It provides a cautionary tale about human nature and excessive government power.

Those leaders who rail most loudly against alleged privilege and inequality often indulge in privilege after they gain power themselves. For instance: Lyndon Johnson (War on Poverty) and Bernie Sanders (“millionaires and billionaires aren’t paying their fair share) were born poor and spent their life in ‘public service’ and became multi-millionaires.

The reality remains the same. Socialist rulers thrive within the system while excusing themselves from the standards they preach. For example: they want to do away with citizen ownership of firearms while surrounding themselves with armed guards.

About crime in Washington D.C., New York’s anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer recently said, “I walk around all the time (in D.C.)…And I feel perfectly safe." Omitted by Schumer is that he enjoys the comfort of full-time, taxpayer-funded armed security details, provided by the U.S. Capitol Police.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Schumer.

Orwell’s warning thus remains: Beware of leaders who preach most loudly of equality, because they typically make themselves “more equal” than the rest of us, when given too much power.

On a related note, N Y State Senator Tom O’Mara has spoken to SCOPE chapters and said that when he first joined the NY legislature, twenty-one years ago, if he called a Democrat a Socialist, they would have vehemently denied it. Now, the Democrats in the NY legislature embrace that title.

Not Coming After Hunting Rifles - Yet

Thu, 21 Aug 2025 21:23:59 GMT

Not Coming After Hunting Rifles - Yet

Hunters, notoriously, don’t vote. One study said that, nationwide, only between 30% and 50% of hunters vote.

Why don’t they get involved since Democrats have been coming after 2nd Amendment gun rights in increasingly radical fashion? One answer is that some hunters feel the Democrats are not coming after their guns. That’s no longer true (actually, it never was true but now there is proof.)

Connecticut State attorneys are arguing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that hunting rifles, particularly semi-automatic ones like the AR-15, are not protected by the Constitution.

Background:

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and co-plaintiffs are suing the state of Connecticut to overturn their assault weapon and magazine bans as infringing on Second Amendment rights.

As well, NAGR seeks a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of these laws.

In a 2nd Circuit appeals court hearing as to the preliminary injunction, the Connecticut Attorney General’s office raised a surprising new issue; it argued that the Second Amendment only protects guns commonly used for self-defense but does not protect hunting rifles, particularly semi-automatic ones. Connecticut is saying the AR15 is a hunting rifle, NOT a self-defense weapon and, therefore, Connecticut has the authority to regulate it.

Connecticut based their position on a previous Supreme Court ruling (Heller) which stated that the Constitution guarantees the right to self-defense but does not offer blanket protection for all weapons.

NAGR counterargued that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. (in common use) and is neither dangerous nor unusual and, counter to media hype, are rarely used in mass shootings.

The eventual decision will only involve the preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the law while the actual suit over the law is being heard. The issue of 2A not protecting hunting rifles is likely to be a big issue when the actual suit against the laws is heard.

For now, hunting rifles remain legal in Connecticut since existing law has not banned them.

A circuit-level victory here will establish legal precedent throughout the entire 2nd Circuit, which includes New York State. NAGR losing would open the door to NY State banning AR-15’s as non self-defense weapons.

Democrat leaders are always looking for any opportunity to further extend their war on guns, no matter how slight. Hunters might want to reconsider not voting while using the excuse that Democrats aren’t coming for their guns. As seen in Connecticut, it’s not a question of IF but WHEN they are coming.

SCOPE Banquet: Attorney General candidate to be at SCOPE banquet

Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:30:09 GMT

SCOPE Banquet: Attorney General candidate to be at SCOPE banquet

New York Attorney General Letitia James has ridden rough shod over the judicial system in New York, using it to punish those of which she does not approve, using what is now called ‘lawfare.’ A Grand Jury is investigating her for using her office to deprive Donald Trump of his rights as she ran for NY State Attorney General on the platform of ‘getting’ Donald Trump and the NRA.

She also accused Donald Trump of real estate fraud but she is now being investigated for real estate fraud, herself.

James has actively defended NY’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act as well as proposing a law to make it illegal to purchase ammo in another state without going through NY’s background check.

Without question, she is an enemy of 2A.

At the SCOPE annual banquet on September 27th,* a 2026 election challenger to James will be there. Mike Henry is running for the Republican nomination for NY Attorney General.

Henry leaves no doubt about where he stands on Letitia James. “The time for politicized justice is over. The NY Attorney General's office under Letitia James, has turned into a partisan weapon and has to be defeated.”

We are familiar with Letitia James and her stance on 2A but the banquet will give you a chance to learn more about Mike Henry in face-to-face meetings and discussions.

The 2026 Attorney General election is vitally important to the future of 2A in NY State and this gives you an opportunity to ‘scope out’ a candidate.

The banquet Emcee will be Canisteo native Bob Lonsberry.

Lonsberry is a conservative American radio talk show host, columnist, and author. Also, an Army veteran and marathon runner. His frank opinions are often controversial and always interesting.

Lonsberry has been a newspaper reporter, columnist, photojournalist and editor, as well as a magazine writer and commentator on radio (Radio talk-show host at WHAM, WSYR, WGY and WAIO) and television. He has also been a TV reporter and manager.

Lonsberry has spoken at SCOPE chapter meetings and he will make the evening interesting.

The SCOPE banquet is on September 27th at the Palmyra VFW, 4312 NY Rte-31, Palmyra, NY. It starts at 5:00 PM.

Tickets can be found either online at scopeny2a.org, in the newest Firing Lines, or you can download an order form. Deadline to RSVP is September 12th.

The July/August edition of the SCOPE newsletter, The Firing Lines is now available

Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:15:34 GMT

The July/August edition of the SCOPE newsletter, The Firing Lines, is now available.

DO GUN FREE ZONES SERVE A PURPOSE?

Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:12:53 GMT

DO GUN FREE ZONES SERVE A PURPOSE? by Bohdan Rabarsky

On Saturday afternoon, July 26th, at a Traverse City Michigan Walmart, a knife wielding attacker stabbed 11 shoppers before he was stopped by a good guy with a gun. Former Marine Derrick Perry, a veteran and well trained in the use of firearms and having a State of Michigan conceal carry permit, used his personal firearm to stop the attacker from committing further carnage. According to County Sheriff Michael Shea, from the time the 911 call came in until the attacker was stopped by the Marine Veteran, it took all of one minute.

Once again, a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy from harming more citizens.

The attacker will be charged with 1 count of terrorism and 11 counts of assault with intent to murder.

On Monday, July 28th, a shooter with preplanned motives, who had driven from Nevada to New York City, double parked his car 20 to 30 yards away from the targeted building that he planned on entering. He walked through a busy area of New York City for 15 to 20 seconds, openly carrying an AR-15 style rifle, without any resistance, into the Manhattan office building where he planned his mass murders.

With New York City being a perpetual “Gun Free Zone”, who was going to stop the shooter who was defiantly openly carrying his rifle? Definitely not a good guy with a gun, as it’s virtually impossible to get a conceal carry permit in New York City. The City is an investigative journalistic newsroom covering New York City. According to it, in 2023*, 5,000 people applied for concealed carry permits and 503 were approved. In a city of 8.5 million citizens, the chances of someone being there to stop the shooter were slim.

Once again, a Gun Free Zone is nothing more than a feel-good measure that serves no purpose but it does embolden those that don’t follow the laws and leaves the rest of us helpless.

*The latest numbers available

$4,706

Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:11:13 GMT

$4,706

The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ lowered the tax stamp fee from $200 to $0 for suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs). It takes effect in January 2026.

During negotiations over the bill, Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, proposed a $1 tax stamp fee instead of a $0 charge (It was defeated.) Why would an anti-2A Senator propose a $1 tax? Because he wanted to be sure the path to increasing the tax stamp charge was kept open. A tax must have a revenue-raising purpose to be constitutional. Since a $0 tax stamp generates no revenue, the government will struggle to defend the tax stamp in court; the entire tax stamp idea could be thrown out.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

That same Senator Murphy has proposed an amendment to H.R. 3944, (the 2026 appropriations bill for military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs,) that would raise the tax to $4,709! It would also impose a $55 tax on actions currently exempt under the code.

"If we want to save lives in this country, we have to find a way, come hell or high water, to stop mass legalization of silencers in this country," said Murphy in a press conference last month. But Senator Murphy failed to quote any statistics as to how many people are killed in any year by a suppressed firearm.

Suppressors are now legal in 42 states, (New York not being one of them.) A study of Criminal Use of Firearm Silencers by Paul A Clark states: “The data indicates that use of silenced firearms in crime is a rare occurrence, and is a minor problem.” That’s why Senator Murphy isn’t quoting any statistics!

Socialism says it creates equality but every socialist society in history has created a two-tiered system; the elites (government and the rich) and everyone else. This proposal is right in line with those principles. Murphy would establish a two-tiered system for the Second Amendment, where the rich will be able to exercise rights that the middle class and those in poverty cannot financially afford.

There is a reasonable chance that this amendment may be rejected on technical grounds. But Murphy’s amendment is a warning to all gun owners as to what will happen if he and his anti-2A cohorts ever get back in the Senate majority. They can’t repeal 2A but they can price it out of the reach of ordinary law-abiding Americans.

H R 4676

Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:07:39 GMT

H R 4676

On July 23rd, proposed bill HR4676 (the Modern Firearms Safety Act) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and referred to its Judiciary Committee.

The bill’s official summary of purpose reads: “To prohibit the imposition of requirements that handguns have certain features generally absent from firearms in common use, and to restore the civil and natural rights of Americans in States hostile to liberty, and for other purposes.“

“States hostile to liberty” sounds like it is describing New York State! (And California, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc.)

HR4676 would preempt any requirements that exceed those imposed by Federal statute. It would make it illegal for any state or political subdivision to pass a law or regulation which mandates: “any design feature, functionality, safety mechanism, or performance standard that is not required by Federal statute.” (Emphasis added.)

It won’t stop NY State from passing these laws but they would be immediately voided by any reasonable court since the wording is very clear.

In particular this law would ban state laws requiring microstamping, among other things. (Microstamping is not required by federal law.)

Why is this law necessary? The bill explains: “State and local governmental requirements for handgun design that mandate features not ordinarily present on the affected models:

limit the selection of handguns available to law-abiding citizens in these jurisdictions;

artificially inflate the price of constitutionally protected arms;

present safety concerns by altering the intended design and function of the affected models;

violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

pose an unacceptable restraint on interstate commerce.“

That last comment is necessary since Congress – not the states - regulates interstate commerce. This should prevent any challenges based on the 10th Amendment.

As usual, any proposed bill that is good for 2A has Claudia Tenney as a cosponsor and this one is especially good for New York gun owners.

We are done playing defense and this bill definitely puts us on the offense and is well worth your time in contacting your Representative and encouraging their support of it.

US Representatives

Microstamping

Thu, 07 Aug 2025 16:22:45 GMT

Microstamping

Microstamping is a technology in which the gun’s firing pin imprints each fired cartridge with a unique microscopic identifying code. This is touted as a tough on crime measure.

Maybe not.

In 2023, California passed a law requiring microstamping of firearms, once it becomes feasible. California’s Department of Justice (DOJ) studied its feasibility and, this year, issued a report saying that it’s viable.

One of the many problems with microstamping is that the firing pin coding wears down after multiple uses. But California’s DOJ’s report says it won’t wear down, even after thousands of rounds are fired. Of course, most of the studies the DOJ relied on came from companies that stand to profit from selling microstamping components.

By January 2026, companies can start applying for licenses to produce the microstamping parts and by mid-2026, California will begin signing contracts with them. On January 1, 2028, only pistols equipped with these components will be allowed to be sold in California.

First, what if the studies that California’s DOJ has relied upon turn out to be wrong, as we suspect?

Second, lawful gun owners have no reason to file-down or otherwise destroy the imprint but criminals would certainly do that. So, if this will only impact law-abiding owners, is it really a crime prevention issue? But the lie of microstamping being tough on crime will still be trumpeted by the left-wing media.

Attorney William Kirk recently made some interesting observations about this.

If only California was to require this, the cost and complexity of retooling every pistol model with unique microstamping components might make it unprofitable for most manufacturers. “You are not going to go through the expense of producing unique firing pins just for one state,” Kirk said. Would most manufacturers stop selling pistols in California, leaving very few models available? Is that, in fact, the real purpose of this law?

Adding a unique firing pin to every single handgun line, just for California, does not make business sense. But what happens when the same requirement pops up in other states? If other states follow suit, how many states must require it in order to make the retooling worthwhile?

California will have full control over which brands and models get approved. An anti-gun state government will be picking winners and losers in the retail gun market. What could go wrong?

It will be a bureaucratic mess: reports, standards, deadlines, and licensing rules, mostly invisible to the non-gun buying public as only gun owners will feel the pain.

The microstamping approach avoids passing handgun bans and running afoul of our 2nd Amendment freedoms, while producing the same result. Kirk described it as: “They have absolutely thwarted any reasonable opportunity you have to arm yourself with a handgun.”

New York State has had laws proposed regarding microstamping of firearms for several years. The current versions are S02158 and A03021 and they rest in committees, but could be activated once the Democrat controlled legislature comes back in session in January.

It’s important that New Yorkers stand firm against S02158 and A03021 to protect our 2nd Amendment rights.

Presidential Message on National Shooting Sports Month

Tue, 05 Aug 2025 22:21:10 GMT

Presidential Message
on National Shooting Sports Month

The White House
August 4, 2025

From the earliest days of our great national story, hunters, fishers, sportsmen, and gun owners have carried forth a storied legacy of recreation and competition, proudly embodying our timeless principles of liberty, responsibility, and self-reliance. This National Shooting Sports Month, my Administration honors these cherished American traditions—and we pledge to keep them alive and flourishing for generations to come.

Since the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791, shooting sports have instilled the values of focus, discipline, and confidence in our citizens—connecting generations, binding together communities, and reminding us of the freedoms that define our Republic. Sports like hunting and fishing also provide a glimpse into the beauties of God’s creation and allow countless Americans to experience the splendors of the great outdoors. For as long as I am President, the Federal Government will abide by the premise that the God-given right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

This National Shooting Sports Month, we honor the generations of sportsmen who have carried forward our traditions of marksmanship, responsibility, outdoorsmanship, and freedom. We encourage every citizen to promote a culture of firearm safety. And above all, we recommit to the eternal truth that our constitutional rights do not come from the hands of government, but from the hands of Almighty God.

More Ridiculous Comments

Mon, 04 Aug 2025 20:29:59 GMT

More Ridiculous Comments

Last week, SCOPE emailed comments about the 345 Park Avenue shooting and some of the expected comments by the gun grabbing left, especially Kathy Hochul. There’s more and they get even more ridiculous.

Governor Kathy Hochul noted the alleged Manhattan shooter had a concealed carry permit and she claimed the permit allowed the shooter to have an AR-15.

The shooter did have a concealed carry permit from Nevada but it applies only to handguns and not AR-15’s. One Pinocchio for Hochul.

And besides, NY State does not recognize the concealed carry permit from any of the other 49 states and in NY State there is a prohibition against so-called ‘assault weapons.’ So, NY’s draconian gun laws meant nothing to criminals; they only impact law abiding gun owners. Another Pinocchio for Hochul.

Although New York’s “assault weapons” ban failed to prevent the Manhattan attack, Hochul made it clear that she believes such a ban on a national level would amount to being “tough on crime.”

Tough on legal gun owners, yes, but definitely not tough on crime. Another Pinocchio.

Communist NY City Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani addressed the mass shooting at the Park Avenue office building while at his family’s private compound in Uganda. He also called for such a ban to be enacted nationwide and has said that, if elected, he will “lead calls” to pass such a nationwide ban. And in true communist fashion, Mamdani had previously called for a ban on all firearms: “We need to ban all guns.” (May 24, 2022, tweet.)

No Pinocchio here as he was telling the truth. In the best traditions of Joe Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, he will ignore the 2nd Amendment and do everything he can to disarm law-abiding American citizens.

In a 2016 speech, Barack Obama said: “…it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.”

Not to be outdone by Obama, New York City Mayor Eric Adams claimed, “Automatic weapons are as easy to get as a cell phone.”

First, you have to find an automatic weapon (machine gun) manufactured before 1984 since it is illegal to purchase one manufactured after that date. That’s no easy task. Conversely, there is no cutoff date on purchasing cell phones.

One big Pinocchio for Adams!

To buy that automatic weapon, you must be fingerprinted and photographed and pass a background check and pay a federal tax of $200 and register the firearm with the ATF. The process for doing this can take months.

I know the lines in the cell phone store can get long but come on…

Another big Pinocchio for Adams

And by the way, the Manhattan attacker did not use an automatic weapon. He used a semiautomatic rifle. As a former NY Police Department Captain, one would expect Adams to know the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic firearm.

One would also expect gun-grabbers to know the difference between laws that impact criminals and laws that impact law-abiding citizens. But they don’t and we still labor under these ill-conceived laws.

345 Park Avenue Shooting by Tom Reynolds

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 21:31:56 GMT

345 Park Avenue Shooting by Tom Reynolds

By now, you have probably read about the shooting that occurred at 345 Park Avenue in New York City at about 6:30 PM on Monday. The media covers it in their own, usual way but here are some added thoughts.

President Trump said. "I trust our Law Enforcement Agencies to get to the bottom of why this crazed lunatic committed such a senseless act of violence." Seems sensible. It was a senseless act of violence and the police need time to get the facts behind it.

On the other hand, after identifying the gun used as an AR-15-style “assault” rifle, Governor Hochul wasted no time in calling on Congress to pass a national assault weapons ban.

What piece of logic did she miss?

Estimates are that there are 20-30 million AR15 style rifles in the U S A. Does Hochul believe they will all be turned in? Does she believe criminals will turn in their illegal guns? All she wants to do, which is standard for the gun grabbing left, is to disarm law abiding citizens and put them at a disadvantage to armed criminals.

No surprise there. Hochul relies on emotion and misinformation to sell her agenda. Never miss the chance to use a crisis to further a political agenda.

It’s reported that the rifle used was a Palmetto State Armory PA-15 rifle and early reports claimed it was equipped with a suppressor. (It was not. The sling was mistaken for a suppressor.) Palmetto does sell PA 15 rifles that are semi-automatic and most chamber in .556 or .223 ammo. None of the PA15’s fire automatically, which is necessary to be a military ‘assault’ weapon, a fact ignored by gun grabbers in order to make the semi-automatic rifle sound worse.

Some reported that the shooter bought a ‘lower’ and built his own weapon which is meant to start the ‘ghost gun’ stampede. But the gunman’s supervisor at the Horseshoe Casino in Las Vegas has admitted that he purchased a fully assembled AR-style rifle in Las Vegas and sold that rifle, the one used in the New York City office shooting, to Tamura for $1,400.

Some report it had a 30 round magazine. Enter the large capacity magazine banners.

CNN claimed the active shooter in New York City is a “possibly white” male. They are probably the only people in the world who could see his picture and say he might be white.

A couple decades ago, I attended a dozen meetings in that same building. In front of the patio is an automobile waiting area, where limos usually wait, and it is reported that the shooter double parked there. The entrance patio is about 20 yards long so it took the shooter 15-25 seconds to exit his car and walk to the front door. It’s a busy area and you can tell from a picture that people are standing in front of the cars. And yet, no one noticed a man with a rifle! No one called 911! No one yelled, ”Hey, he's got a gun!”

Could it be that everyone was too busy staring at their cell phone?

One of the main preventive measures taught in defense classes is ‘situational awareness.’ Had anyone been aware, that tragedy might have been avoided. The would-be witnesses missed one of the most tragic events they will ever experience.

Hochul also used this as an opportunity to complain about states that do not have New York’s strict gun laws; “…our laws only go so far when an AR-15 can be obtained in a state with weak gun laws and brought into New York to commit mass murder."

There were probably hundreds of people in the building. Pictures show rooms inside the building being barricaded. Due to NY’s strict gun laws, no one was ‘carrying.’ No one (or multiple persons) was armed and could step up and challenge the murderer. All the hundreds of law-abiding, would-be victims could do was hide and pray.

And finally…

Numerous studies estimate there is a median figure of 1.6 million Defensive Gun Uses occurring in the U S A, every year. (Very few end up with shots being fired.) If 1% of those would have ended in a murder, that is 16,000 murders prevented. Gun Violence Archives estimates there is an average of 14,567 non-suicide, illegal gun homicides over nine years. (There is an average of 1,882 legal gun homicides.) It’s quite possible that guns prevent more murders than they are used in. Another issue Hochul chooses to ignore.

The Ninth Surprises

Mon, 28 Jul 2025 18:35:04 GMT

The Ninth Surprises

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals covers the ‘Left Coast’ and is the most far left federal appeals court. (Any further left and you will get your feet wet in the Pacific Ocean.)

So, when it gave 2A advocates a huge win, that was a surprise. In a 2-1 decision, the three-judge panel approved a permanent injunction delivered by a U.S. District Court judge, early last year. It concluded that the California law on Background check requirement on sales of ammunition (and prohibiting residents from ordering ammunition online or bringing ammunition purchased out-of-state back into California) is facially unconstitutional, meaning there's no circumstance where it can be lawfully applied.

The Ninth’s opinion stated that the law: "meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms."

Some highlights of the decision (which look a lot like Kathy Hochul’s and Letitia James’ efforts in NY State.)

California’s ammunition background check regime regulates all ammunition acquisitions by California residents; the regime applies not only to every transaction in California but also to ammunition purchases by California residents outside the state.

It requires California residents to pay for and complete an in-person background check before each ammunition acquisition.

A California resident may be required to purchase ammunition during a specified period of time—e.g., 18 hours—after passing a background check.

Though not all the rules comprising California’s ammunition background check regime impose delays on their face, they do not require California to approve checks within a certain timeframe. (Emphasis added.)

The regime applies to all types of ammunition, and California residents cannot avoid the background check requirements by taking advantage of internet or out-of-state sales. Rather, out-of-state purchases are subject to additional delays and fees.

Given the fees and delays associated with California’s ammunition background check regime, and the wide range of transactions to which it applies, we conclude that, in all applications, the regime meaningfully constrains California residents’ right to keep and bear arms. Thus, it is not a “presumptively lawful regulatory measure.”

Appeals court decisions only are binding in the appeals court’s district which is, in this case, the left coast.

New York is trying many of the same things that California was doing in the above law. Let’s hope that liberal New York courts also surprise us and outlaw many of the same laws.

And at the federal level, in another issue:

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it has filed a motion for summary judgment in the case of Elite Precision Customs v. ATF. At issue are federal laws that ban licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns to buyers who live in another state. Under current law, it is illegal for federally licensed firearms dealers to sell handguns to individuals who reside in a different state, even if the buyer is fully eligible to possess firearms and passes a background check. Instead, buyers must arrange for the handgun to be shipped to a dealer in their home state, incurring additional fees and delays.

In a similar case, the federal ban was struck down by a district court but that decision was reversed by an appeals court. However, this happened before the decision in NYS Rifle & Pistol v Bruen, which is the basis for this reconsideration.

Under the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, courts are required to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. The plaintiffs wrote: “The Government does not cite a single law that burdened the right of peaceable citizens to acquire arms in another state or colony in any way like the laws at issue here.”

As SCOPE recently wrote, the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) has been refusing to defend some anti-2A cases that the Biden DOJ would pursue to the bitter end. Will the Trump DOJ decide to not defend this law and let a summary judgement against the law be imposed? Let’s hope so.

Vintage Firearms Update

Sat, 26 Jul 2025 15:53:25 GMT

Vintage Firearms Update

SCOPE President John Elwood received a text message from Robert Donald, former owner of Vintage Firearms. He is the subject of a lawsuit to which, as you may recall, SCOPE donated money. The lawsuit stemmed from the mass shooting in Buffalo, New York in 2022. Vintage Firearms was one of several being sued by the families.

Below is the text message Elwood received from Robert Donald.

On July 15, 2025, I sat down with 10 lawyers present and 17 on video conference for approximately 6 hours and answered questions concerning the legal sale of a rifle to Payton Gendron and later used in the horrific Tops Supermarket shooting in Buffalo, NY, in May of 2022. The opposing lawyers were very professional, but almost all the questions were designed to make it appear I did something wrong. I was truthful to the best of my recollection and did my best to answer their questions. It was my first deposition and hopefully my last. 6 hours of answering questions is not easy and I was glad when it was over.

My attorneys will now proceed with a motion for summary judgement and a dismissal of the lawsuit as frivolous and unwarranted. In my opinion, and many others, the legal system should never have let these actions against Vintage Firearms LLC proceed. Vintage is still standing strong to protect your and future generations' right to own and possess firearms.

Elwood asked Mr. Donald to keep SCOPE informed on the status of his case. This is one case where SCOPE is making a difference.

Thank you for your hard work in protecting, restoring, and expanding the Second Amendment for all NY State citizens.

Trump Administration and 2A

Thu, 24 Jul 2025 22:46:42 GMT

Trump Administration and 2A

In the upcoming Firing Lines, we discuss Trump and the 2nd Amendment. Since our cut off for its publication, more has happened.

Usually, the Department of Justice (DOJ) leans toward enforcement and regulation. It’s rare for the DOJ to support rolling back gun control but the Trump administration is doing just that.

In 2021, the Biden administration promulgated a rule through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) setting forth a framework for determining whether pistols equipped with stabilizing braces are considered “short-barreled rifles” and subject to a tax and registration requirements under the 1934 National Firearms Act. That rule went into effect in 2023 and pistol braces were reclassified as short barreled rifles and a $200 tax and registration requirement were imposed on the estimated 40 million braces in circulation. Non-compliance meant potential felony charges carrying up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

2A advocacy groups argued that the pistols constitute protected arms.

There were many cases challenging the ATF rule and two appeals courts found against the ATF despite the continuing efforts of the Biden administration.

It was recently announced that the Trump (DOJ) has formally ended its defense of that directive. (By the way, 40 million pistol braces would seem to qualify as ”in common use.”)

In a case involving state laws:

In July, Trump’s DOJ filed a legal brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case and strike down sweeping state-level firearm restrictions, in several states. A 2A win at the Supreme Court level would likely strike down several major gun laws and force states to rethink their entire approach to firearms regulation. Such a decision could create a national standard that constitutional rights can’t ‘get the run around’ by state-level lawmakers.

The DOJ’s brief targets Hawaii’s law that bars people from carrying firearms on private property unless there’s a visible sign allowing it; lawful carry is a crime unless a property owner explicitly says otherwise. Since most businesses don’t post any signs at all, this creates a “near-complete ban on public carry.” (SCOPE members will remember that New York State’s ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ also did this.)

The DOJ is using the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision (Bruen) as the foundation for its brief; modern gun laws must align with the historical traditions of firearm regulation in America. The DOJ argues that bans on magazine sizes, carry restrictions, age limits, and licensing schemes do not meet this historical test. (Again, NYS is a constitutional failure.)

This puts the DOJ on the side of gun owners. The DOJ brief states that the United States “has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms.”

In another case, a lower court struck down handgun purchase bans for 18-to-20-year-olds. The court cited the Bruen standard and found the age-based ban unconstitutional

Trump’s DOJ chose not to appeal that decision

This change in attitude at the federal level is important in another sense.

Previously, NY State lawmakers ignored the U S Constitution when passing laws attacking 2A. There attitude was ‘sue us.’ Private citizens had to sue the state using private citizen funding while the state used ’house money’ (the taxpayers seemingly bottomless pockets.) If the state lost at one level, they just appealed to the next level, costing the citizen hundreds of thousands of dollars. NY’s strategy was to physically, mentally - and most importantly - monetarily exhaust the NY citizen.

With the federal government taking the lead, the feds have a bigger pocket of ‘house money’ and they can afford to challenge the states, where private citizens had to do it in the past.

Of course, it’s the taxpayers’ state money versus the taxpayers’ federal money, but NY State no longer holds the money cards.

Trump and 2A

Mon, 21 Jul 2025 15:31:47 GMT

Trump and 2A

After four and a half years of Trump being President, has Donald Trump been good or bad for the 2nd Amendment?

He has said the right things, loudly and clearly, but actions speak louder than words. Let’s look at his actions.

Good stuff.

During COVID many ‘blue states’ declared gun stores and ranges as “non-essential” and closed them. Trump declared firearms retailers, manufacturers, and ranges as essential critical infrastructure, keeping them open.

In his first term, Trump directed agencies to eliminate regulations that infringed on 2A. Following up on that, on February 7, 2025, Trump issued an Executive Order that: ‘will halt existing policies designed to curtail the clear right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.’

In July 2025, Trump’s Department of Justice proposed a new rule that could grant gun rights to potentially thousands of Americans who are currently barred from owning firearms. The proposed rule would create a pathway for individuals with criminal convictions to have their gun rights restored, with final discretion left to the attorney general on a case-by-case basis.

In his first term, Trump signed the Fix NICS Act. It required federal agencies to upload more disqualifying records, like mental health adjudications and domestic violence convictions. This helped ensure that prohibited folks couldn’t slip through the cracks. Also – and very importantly - it didn’t create any new restrictions on law-abiding owners.

In Trump’s first term, 234 federal judges were confirmed, including 54 to the appellate courts and three Supreme Court justices: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. These were solidly 2A judges and the monumental Supreme Court decision in ‘Bruen’ (and other follow up decisions) were made possible by these appointments. These are his longest lasting, pro 2A achievements.

On the negative side, there are some specific issues that some 2A advocates dislike.

After the Parkland shooting in 2018, Trump suggested Red Flag laws could help address mental health threats. But it was just a comment. No federal Red Flag law was enacted.

Under Trump, after the Las Vegas shooting in 2018, the ATF issued a rule that reclassified bump stocks as machine guns. However, this was a strategic move by Trump to head off Congress from rushing through more sweeping legislation that would have certainly impacted and perhaps outlawed semi-automatic rifles. And in 2024, the Supreme Court, led by the Trump-appointed justices, overturned that bump stock ban.

Good or bad. Too early to tell

In May, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) leaked that it is moving forward with plans to merge the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). It is expected to be proposed as part of the White House's full fiscal year 2026 budget. The proposal requires congressional approval.

In addition, since Trump was inaugurated on January 20th, there have been stories of cuts of between 500 and 1,800 ATF employees. However, some or all of these cuts may be transfers in the above reorganization.

Some argue that this merger will result in more resources available to the ATF

The ATF does serve a purpose but it was used by the Biden administration (and could be used again by future left-wing administrations) as ‘lawfare’ against FFL’s and gun owners.

One other thing

If one searches the NY legislature for proposed bills covering guns or firearms, you will find more than 70 bills and most are anti-2A proposals.

When last we looked, if you also search the federal Congress for proposed bills covering guns or firearms, you will find very few and most are pro-2A.

NYS is dominated by anti-2A Democrats while Congress has a slim majority of Republicans and most of the latter will defend 2A. Trump has been very clear he would veto anti-2A bills. Certainly, he deserves some credit for discouraging the anti-2A folks and the dramatic difference between the NY legislature and Congress.

Legal Updates

Tue, 15 Jul 2025 23:44:36 GMT

Legal Updates

Every month, Schuyler County publishes Legal Updates. The following are some 2nd Amendment highlights for June and July.

New York state budget creates Office of Gun Violence Prevention

The enacted state budget for fiscal year 2025 creates a formal New York State Office of Gun Violence Prevention to consolidate gun control efforts. OGVP will be part of the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the agency that oversees law-enforcement training and data collection.

The budget bills specifically earmark just under $60 million that’s new:

• $2.5 million for the OGVP

• $7.2 million for community-based gun- and domestic-violence prevention programs

• $40 million for police and legal costs to better enforce Extreme Risk Protection Orders, or “red flag” laws

$10 million in competitive grants to local community groups like the Greater Direction mentorship programs in Buffalo

Republican legislators far and wide have decried most of the budget for being too expensive and ignoring effective solutions to violent crime.

New Mandatory Insurance Law Could Lead to Civilian Disarmament

A new bill in New York State, known as Senate Bill S5974, could force all gun owners to carry at least $1 million in liability insurance. Sponsored by Senator Kevin Parker, this proposal isn’t just aimed at new buyers – anyone who already owns a gun would also be required to comply.

According to the bill, insurance must be purchased before someone can legally possess a firearm, and it must be maintained continuously. If you lose your coverage, you lose your legal right to own the gun. That’s not a suggestion – it’s automatic revocation.

The insurance requirement in the bill specifically covers damages from negligent acts involving firearms. In simple terms, if you accidentally fire your weapon and someone is hurt or property is damaged, the insurance is supposed to help cover those costs. However, if the firearm is used in self-defense, which is considered an intentional act, most general liability policies wouldn’t pay out.

As William Kirk of Washington Gun Law explained, “Insurance is only going to cover you for negligent activity at best.” That means people using guns legally in defense won’t even benefit from this requirement.

Kirk points out that the kind of insurance this bill demands doesn’t actually exist in most markets. If your insurance lapses, your registration and permits are automatically void. That gives the state the power to confiscate your guns, without any new due process. “They’ve created essentially a domino effect,” Kirk said. “Cancel the insurance, cancel the permit, then confiscate the firearms.”

That’s a serious escalation, and it shows how financial requirements can be turned into legal weapons.

One of the more overlooked aspects is how this could disproportionately hurt working-class Americans. It sets up a financial barrier that many can’t afford, especially in cities where gun ownership is already hard to navigate. This could become a form of economic discrimination that punishes the poor.

As Kirk said, “This is a law that’s really just designed to throw up yet another barrier… to access what is supposed to be an inalienable right.” If it passes, expect other states to follow. If it fails, expect it to come back next year, just like it has every year since 2013. Either way, it’s clear the battle over civilian gun rights is moving into the realm of insurance, and that should concern every American who values their freedom.

Citi Ends Political De-Banking Policy, Rescinds Requirement for Clients to Restrict Gun Sales

Financial services company Citi is walking back its political de-banking policy and its requirement for retail clients to restrict gun sales, making it the latest large corporation to distance itself from progressive corporate governance.

Citi announced the changes …after examining its corporate policies in light of shifts to the regulatory climate and President Trump’s executive orders.

Citi’s rescinded policies are both part of the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) movement in corporate America that seeks to use corporations as vehicles for progressive goals.

Conservatives have raised the alarm about financial companies “de-banking” right-wing clients and denying them access to services because of political orientation. The practice has mostly impacted right-wing extremists, but it has spilled out into industries disfavored by the left and other conservative institutions. Republican lawmakers have also raised the alarm about cases of debanking involving gun dealerships and religiously affiliated institutions.

Schuyler Co. Legal Updates

Borrello calls on gun owners to create grassroots movement to protect 2nd Amendment

Fri, 11 Jul 2025 23:34:29 GMT

Borrello calls on gun owners to create grassroots movement to protect 2nd Amendment (an article from The Batavian on July 9th by Howard B. Owens)

Sen. George Borrello advocated for grassroots unity and active voter engagement as key ingredients for defending Second Amendment rights in New York during his address to Genesee County SCOPE on Tuesday at the Coon Hunters Association clubhouse on Hopkins Road in Batavia.

Borrello highlighted a recent legal victory against New York’s Department of Health over Rule 213, which he said would have allowed public health officials to detain individuals suspected of carrying communicable diseases without proof or due process. He emphasized that sustained community action was essential to overturning the rule.

He pointed to ongoing challenges, including what he described as incremental restrictions on gun ownership in New York State.

Borrello said, “When it comes to our Second Amendment rights, if they could just outlaw guns in New York State, they would, but they know that even for them, that’s a bridge too far, especially now with the Supreme Court the United States that we have, so instead, it’s death by a 1,000 cuts, right? They want to make it very difficult and very expensive for you to own a gun and to exercise your Second Amendment rights in New York State.”

Borrello called for a coordinated effort to register and mobilize gun owners and non-affiliated voters, noting that many remain unregistered.

“If we could get half of the gun owners in New York state who are not registered to vote and to vote the right way, we would have Lee Zeldin as governor,” he said.

Borrello concluded by urging attendees to remain engaged and to help identify key districts where potential Republican gains could be made. He stressed that the path forward depends on voter turnout and collective resolve.

“It has to be an effort on everyone’s part to get out and do it," Borrello said. "If you want to stop complaining about stuff, then start doing something about it. It’s about getting those people out, registering to vote and getting them to the polls. It can be done. It has been done in the past in the state. I’m not one of those guys who says, 'You know what? It’s hopeless. I’m leaving.' I don’t want to go to Florida. I love it here. My family’s here. My businesses are here. My wife and I have a restaurant business, and I want to stay here, and I want to fight to make New York what it used to be.

2025 SCOPE Annual Banquet Program Advertising Rates

Tue, 08 Jul 2025 23:48:41 GMT

If you, or anyone you know, would like to place an ad in the
2025 SCOPE banquet program, please find all of the details below.

You can also print a .pdf copy of the Ad Rate Sheet

Donate Here

A Shot Heard Around the World

Fri, 04 Jul 2025 16:42:07 GMT

A Shot Heard Around the World

In the 1600s and 1700s, Europeans came to North America looking for religious freedom, economic opportunities, and political liberty. The first permanent English settlement was established in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607 with a population of 104. By 1776, the English-speaking population in North America grew to approximately 2.5 million. For 169 years, from 1607 – 1776, people in North America were governed by the English monarchy.

By 1776, the British Empire controlled significant parts of the world, including large swathes of North America, parts of the Caribbean, and territories in Asia and Africa. Britain was a major global power with extensive trade networks and a powerful navy. At the start of the American Revolution, the British navy consisted of over 270 ships of various sizes including powerful ships-of-the-line, smaller sloops, and various other vessels. By the end of the war, the British navy had grown to nearly 500 ships.

There were many reasons why people left England, dared the dangerous Atlantic crossing to North America, and endured the many hardships once in North America. Many early settlers, like the pilgrims, left England to escape religious persecution by the Church of England. The Industrial Revolution led to widespread poverty and unemployment in Britain, making the prospect of a new life with economic opportunities in America very appealing. Some sought more control over their own governance and felt they were being taxed without representation. The colonies offered a chance for social advancement, with less emphasis on rigid class structures than in Europe.

The first shots of the American Revolutionary War (American War of Independence) were fired at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775. Significant battles during the American Revolutionary War included Siege of Boston (1775-1776 when the Continental Army surrounded Boston, leading to eventual British evacuation, Battles of Saratoga (September-October 1777) which convinced France to support America, Battle of Trenton (December 26, 1776), Battle of Cowpens (January 17, 1781), and the Siege of Yorktown (September-October 1781).

During the American Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, five years before the victory at Yorktown and eight years before the Treaty of Paris was signed, officially ending the American Revolutionary War. America was founded on an EXCEPTIONAL idea, rooted in the belief that the United States was founded on an idea, an idea of liberty, individualism, and democracy.

The Declaration of Independence announced the separation of the 13 colonies from Britain, and it contains several important concepts including that all men are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. A new nation was born.

Today, we honor the signing of our Declaration of Independence – a moment that gave birth to the idea of freedom from tyranny. It’s a time to reflect on the profound significance of that vision and the ongoing sacrifices required to preserve it. A vital part of that effort is patriots like you who stand up to protect and defend the Second Amendment, a significant part of the Constitution of the United States.

Life can be hectic, and I truly understand how valuable your time is. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for supporting SCOPE and its mission. I wish you, your family, and your friends a joyful and safe Fourth of July 2025.

With All Honor and Respect,

John R. Elwood

A Perfect World in N.Y. City

Thu, 03 Jul 2025 14:44:43 GMT

A Perfect World in N.Y. City

Fascists, Socialists and Communists have many things in common and one of them is removing all guns from their people; only Hitler, Stalin and Mao and their supporters had firearms in their perfect world.

Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani, the presumptive Democrat nominee for mayor of N.Y. City describes himself as a Democrat Socialist while President Trump labels him a Communist. Mamdani also wants NY City to be a perfect world and he wrote in a May 24, 2022 tweet, “We need to ban all guns.”

New York City is noted for its slooowww pace in approving pistol permits. Many would not believe it could get slower. Guess again.

On the other hand, some of Zohran Mamdani’s programs would seem to say New Yorkers will need more guns. Let’s explore some quotes from Mamdani which would seem to support the idea that more guns will be needed.

Did you think ‘Defund the Police’ was dead? Think again.

Per Mamdani: Queer liberation means defund the police. We don't need an investigation to know that the NYPD is racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety. What we need is to #DefundTheNYPD. NO to fake cuts – defund the police.

And apparently the key to reducing crime is keeping criminals out of jail.

Per Mamdani: We will support existing decarceral legislation that will:

End cash bail

Decriminalize sex work
Legalize marijuana
Permit safe injection sites
mandatory licensing of semiautomatic rifles;
banning civilian purchase of body armor
restrictions on gun dealer advertising and required warning signage in retail stores.
expanding New York’s “Red Flag” laws;
forced disclosure of social media accounts for concealed carry applicants.

He wants to empty jails because: "Violence is an artificial construct."

Per Mamdani: “conflating (sex) trafficking with consensual sex work won't help anyone. DA Katz must listen to sex workers & their demand for full #decrim.

But if you happen to be one of the criminals ‘victimized’ by being put in jail, your life will get easier.

Per Mamdani: Restrict solitary confinement; Enact elder parole; Re-enfranchise incarcerated Nyers; Make all calls and emails to and from people incarcerated in state jails and prisons free.

In Mamdani’s N Y City, when you are in danger, a social worker will be minutes away.

Per Mamdani’s campaign web site: …centralize, expand, and invest in community-based violence intervention programs through the Crisis Management System, including gun violence interrupters…deploying teams of violence interrupters to respond immediately to instances of gun violence.

He wants to emulate a Richmond California program that… deploys trained outreach workers to people identified as active firearm offenders. (Emphasis added),

Crime in the transit system?

Mamdani’s web site calls it “A Critical Place for Intervention” and, instead of more cops, his web site says he will be: “Creating dedicated outreach workers in our subway stations.”

History is a prelude to the future. Here is how Mamdani voted as a N.Y. Assemblyman (via VoteSmart):

Voted for:

Supported:

Decide for yourself. Will Mamdani’s gun free New York City be a place where guns are not needed for personal defense or will guns be even more of a necessity?

And since N Y City is the ‘1,000 pound gorilla’ in the N Y legislatures, expect a spill over into the rest of N Y State. Especially in the area of financing all these ‘progressive’ programs.

The Good the Bad and the Dumb

Wed, 02 Jul 2025 23:47:46 GMT

The Good the Bad and the Dumb

Originally, the U.S. Senate version of the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ (BBB) completely removed suppressors and short-barrel rifles from both NFA taxation and required registration. But the Senate’s parliamentarian rejected the inclusion of that specific language on a technical reason.

The GOP-controlled Senate then added language to Trump’s BBB reducing the $200 tax on suppressors and short-barrel firearms to zero ($0).

Although the tax is removed, NFA registration is still required.

The Senate voted to advance President Trump's BBB and start debate on the sweeping tax and immigration package. In a 51 to 49 vote, all but two Republicans voted to advance the bill and all Democrats voted against it.

Not a big deal in NY State, since NY is one of only eight states where suppressors are still illegal. But a nice win for the 2nd Amendment - if it stays in the bill’s final version and is enacted into law.

_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

Early in June, California’s State Assembly passed Assembly Bill 1127, supported entirely by Democrats and opposed by nearly all Republicans. It is a gun control measure aimed at outlawing firearms that can be easily converted into machine guns. It targets the exact technical features that define pistols like Glock handguns. The bill’s language is so technical and specific that it’s no accident that the law aims to ban what may be the most popular handguns sold in America.

Easily converted means “readily converted by hand or with household tools” into a fully automatic weapon because of what the sponsors label a “dangerous design flaw” that gun manufacturers have known about for decades and done nothing to stop it.

However, Alisha Curtin, co-host of Gun Owners Radio revealed Glock already took steps to prevent future conversions in their newer pistol designs.

Curtin also notes that the bill introduces an entirely new term: “machine gun convertible pistol.” AB1127 makes it sound like converting a Glock to full-auto is as simple as replacing a battery, when in reality it requires a mix of illegal tools, know-how, and intent.”

This is pushing California towards a total ban of Glock pistols.

In response to the BBB easing laws on suppressors, some of the anti-2A U.S. Senators displayed their lack of factual knowledge about suppressors.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) posted to X, “A hidden provision of the bill…wait for it…legalizes gun silencers!! What?? So now criminals will be able to hide their crimes and police will lose the ability to respond to mass shootings.”

Then Murphy added, “Mass murderers use silencers so their targeted victims can’t hear the gun shots, and they can kill more people who don’t flee when the shooting begins.”

Not to be undone in a race to the bottom, our own less than beloved Senator Chuck Schumer said, “The only people who want silencers are criminals because they don’t want people to hear their bad, horrible, deadly deeds.”

Of course, these Senators must be correct since in the movies the suppressed guns only go poof. But in the non-cinematic world, suppressors/silencers lower the decibel level of guns, but do not make them silent. They can still be heard and most are not hearing safe even at the lower decibel levels.

And in another approach, Senator Mark Kelly (D-Arizona) claimed that suppressors would effectively negate “ShotSpotter” gunfire detection systems used by law enforcement in cities to triangulate gunfire for responding police.

“These silencers circumvent that system. That system will no longer be effective when a gunman has a silencer.”

SoundThinking is the company that owns ShotSpotter and their fact sheet says,

“The ShotSpotter sensors are designed to pick up the sound of gunfire from suppressors…”

One has to wonder if these politicians are that uninformed or if they are just liars?

June 2025 SCOPE President Activities

Tue, 01 Jul 2025 18:17:54 GMT

June 2025 SCOPE President Activities

June 2025 was an exceptionally active month for SCOPE initiatives. The Erie County Chapter of SCOPE was reestablished under the leadership of Mr. Mark Drews. SCOPE President John Elwood served as the guest speaker at multiple gun clubs and SCOPE chapters, including the Niagara County Second Amendment Forever organization, the Schuyler County Chapter of SCOPE and the Ulster County Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. In June, meetings and coordination efforts included two sessions with the SCOPE Social Media Plan Committee and a meeting with an H&R Block representative regarding sales tax on potential future online merchandise sales by SCOPE. As the 2025 legislative session concluded on June 16, 2025, the SCOPE legislative committee convened to review and assess SCOPE’s Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Legislation debated in the New York State Legislature. Banquet coordination efforts continued Sunday, June 22, 2025, as the SCOPE Chairman and President attended a Cayuga County GOP event to meet with Congressman Michael Lawler and invite Congressman Lawler to speak at the 2025 SCOPE banquet. Expanding SCOPE chapters in New York State is essential. The organization’s President is currently prioritizing Niagara, St. Lawrence, and Putnam counties. Finally, preparations were made for the Jefferson/Lewis County Chapter of SCOPE as its members volunteered to participate in the Lewis County Fair 15-20 July 2025.

Erie County Chapter of SCOPE. The Erie County Chapter of SCOPE was officially reestablished on Wednesday, June 11, 2025, under the leadership of Mr. Mark Drews. Approximately 45 SCOPE members attended the meeting, which was held in Blasdell, New York. Mark Drews opened the meeting by welcoming attendees and outlining the chapter’s future direction. SCOPE ‘s President also addressed the group, discussing the organization’s five key priorities and its strategic path in 2025-2026. The chapter plans to hold meetings monthly.

Niagara Second Amendment Forever Organization. The SCOPE President served as the guest speaker at the Second Amendment Forever organization, with the goal of outlining SCOPE’s efforts to protect and defend the Second Amendment, presenting the organization’s key priorities, and encouraging new membership. The SCOPE President also was the guest speaker at the Schuyler County Chapter of SCOPE on Thursday, June 5, 2025.

SCOPE’s Social Media Plan Committee. The committee began work developing a course of action for a SCOPE social media plan. Proposed actions include launching multiple social media accounts – such as X, Reddit, and Rumble – developing additional “Alert Messages,” and potentially starting a podcast. Once a proposed course of action is outlined, the committee will present it to the SCOPE Board of Directors for approval. The plan will detail key elements such as the concept, costs, and required resources. Upon approval, a dedicated SCOPE Social Media Task Force (SMTF) will be established to implement and manage the social medial strategy.

H&R Block and Sales Tax. To assess the feasibility of establishing a fourth revenue stream through online merchandise sales, research was conducted to determine whether a 501 c (4) organization is required to collect and remit sales tax in New York State. A SCOPE official met with a senior executive from H&R Block to clarify whether sales tax would be required. A sales tax is required for a 501 C (4) organization in New York State. If the SCOPE Board of Directors approves the development of an additional revenue stream through online merchandise sales, several steps must be taken. First, SCOPE would need to get a New York State sales tax vendor number, followed by applying for an online services agreement. Sales tax would be remitted quarterly covering the periods March – May, June – August, September – November, and December – February. Even if there were no sales during a quarter, a sales tax report is required. Additional research is still needed before a final decision can be made.

Update To SCOPE’s Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Legislation Debated in the Legislature. The 2025 legislative session officially ended on June 16, 2025, when the New York State Assembly adjourned. At the start of the session in January, SCOPE personnel reviewed 69 firearms-related bills introduced in the legislature and identified the "Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Bills" for focused monitoring and opposition. One of these bills, Senate Bill S00362—which mandates a ten-day waiting period from the initial contact with the New York State National Instant Background Check System (NYS NICS) before a firearm, shotgun, or rifle can be delivered—passed the Senate through a full floor vote. However, its companion bill in the Assembly, A03233, did not advance out of the Codes Committee during the 2025 session.

With the session concluded and Senate Bill S00362 advancing, several SCOPE members met and began updating the "Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Bills" list in preparation for the 2026 legislative session. Two additional bills are being considered for inclusion on SCOPE’s updated list. The first is Senate Bill S00399 / Assembly Bill A00199, which would make it illegal for certain individuals to possess or sell a "pistol converter" or a "converted pistol." The term “convertible pistol” is defined as any semi-automatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted into a machine gun—either by hand or using common household tools—through the installation or attachment of a pistol converter. The second is Senate Bill S04954 / Assembly Bill A01089, which would prohibit the use of lead ammunition when taking wildlife on state-managed lands, including wildlife management areas, state forest preserves, state parks, and other state-owned lands open to hunting. The ban would also apply to lands that contribute surface water to the New York City water supply.

Banquet. Banquet planning is ongoing. On Sunday, June 22, 2025, the SCOPE Chairman and President attended a Cayuga County GOP event held in support of Congressman Michael Lawler, who is currently exploring a potential run for New York State Governor against Governor Hochul in 2026. During the event, Congressman Lawler was invited to be one of the featured speakers at the upcoming SCOPE Banquet, scheduled for Saturday, September 27, 2025, at the Palmyra VFW in Palmyra, New York.

Fundraising Season. SCOPE county chapters are actively planning and carrying out their summer and fall fundraising efforts. For example, the Jefferson/Lewis County Chapter is participating in the Lewis County Parade and hosting an informational table at the county fair. Activities at the event include playing “Plinko" game for a gun raffle, public education on current firearms legislation, and the distribution of U.S. Constitutions and voter registration forms. Proceeds from these efforts help fund legal challenges in support of the Second Amendment and contribute to local high school shooting sports programs. Successful fundraising strengthens SCOPE’s ability to protect and defend Second Amendment rights against ongoing efforts by gun control advocates.

Fourth of July. What a day! Friday, July 4, 2025, marks the 249th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America. It’s a day to reflect on and celebrate the enduring significance of our nation’s independence. For nearly 250 years, our freedoms have been preserved through the dedication and sacrifice of generations of patriots who came before us.

We owe our liberty to the courage and perseverance of individuals like G.I. Joe and Rosie the Riveter—symbols of the countless men and women who gave their all for the country. As we celebrate this Independence Day, let us remember the meaning behind it and honor those who made our freedom possible.

Thank You! I want to thank each member of SCOPE for volunteering to support and defend the Second Amendment with your time, talent, and treasure. The world is full of examples of what happens to its citizenry when they lose their right to self-defense. In 1787, when Mrs. Elizabeth Willing Powell asked Benjamin Franklin, "What do we have, a republic or a monarchy, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it". Enjoy your family and friends during your celebration of the Fourth of July and stay safe!

John
SCOPE President

Farming, Hunting and Animal Rights

Mon, 30 Jun 2025 19:39:16 GMT

Farming, Hunting and Animal Rights

Over the four years of the Biden administration and as far back as the Obama administration, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-hunting and animal rights groups have been pushing banks towards a policy of denying banking services and financial products to the firearm and ammunition industries.

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Humane Society International blogged: “It is therefore immensely important that considerations of animal welfare and a shift toward plant-forward food systems are integrated into core financing and investing strategies.” Basically, they want us to become vegetarians!

However, the Trump administration has put up a detour sign and is tearing that avenue up.

While speaking at the World Economic Forum 2025 in Davos, Switzerland, just four days into his second term, President Donald Trump urged major banking institutions to abandon their previously held politics-based lending protocols that discriminated against the firearm and ammunition industries.

As a result, Citigroup announced it was no longer implementing its long-held policy of discrimination against the firearm industry

Shareholder resolutions related to animal welfare were introduced at both Bank of America and Citigroup board meetings. Both boards opposed the proposals and signaled no intention to address the issue publicly.

So, these anti-2nd Amendment, anti-hunting and animal rights groups are paving another road.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) created a gun-related Merchant Category Code (MCC) for credit and debit card companies to use to track purchases of firearms and ammo. When most banks announced they would NOT be moving forward with implementing the code, Democrat run states like New York passed or are proposing laws to force banks to adopt these codes, paving the way for a gun registry.

Animal rights activists, the Wilberforce Institute, is connected to Washington, D.C., lobbyist Marty Irby who spent years as executive director of Animal Wellness Action (AWA). AWA’s spent huge amounts to defeat pro-hunting conservatives and electing anti-hunting and gun control supporting progressives, (according to OpenSecrets.)

The Wilberforce Institute’s political goals include banning traditional ammunition for hunting and using frivolous lawsuits to tie up businesses. (For example: in New York and other states, proposed bills target lead ammunition; the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled against Mexico’s attempt to sue the firearm industry but Mexico is rumored to be trying a different tactic toward that same end; many Democrat run states are passing laws to work around federal laws and allow frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.)

When voters reject their activist agendas and banks shrug off their financial discrimination demands, the anti-2A, anti-hunting, anti-science animal rights activist turn to the courts.

Animal rights group Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) attempted to have judges rule that elephants, that are in the care of zoos, have “personhood” rights. That attempt was defeated.

If the courts had decided that the elephants, or any other animal in monitored and beneficial care, possessed personhood rights, the flood gate would open for future lawsuits against other zoos, farms and even pet owners.

Gun owners must be aware that these groups will use the courts, the ballot box and major banking institutions to push their radical anti-2A, anti-hunting, animal rights agenda. The societal and economic costs are of no concern to them. When one door closes to them, they open another.

Hunters should obviously be concerned about their 2A rights and farmers need to ally with 2A organization such as SCOPE. And those not interested in becoming vegetarians might consider joining us, too.

Around the East Coast

Thu, 26 Jun 2025 18:36:04 GMT

Around the East Coast

New York State seems to attract every gun control bill imaginable. We are not alone. The same types of bills bounce around states where there is a heavy Democrat presence – which is, basically, the Northeast..

SCOPE did a search titled ”anti-gun in (state name)” to compile the information below on upper East Coast states. Some of these bills have not been passed but they give you an idea of what is being tried. Many should seem familiar.

The Rhode Island House and Senate passed S.359A along party lines. The approval sends the bill to the Governor (D), who was endorsed by both Everytown and Giffords and has already included money for the ban in his 2026 proposed state budget.

The bill says: No person shall manufacture, sell, offer to sell, transfer, or purchase a ‘prohibited firearm’, except as otherwise authorized under this section. A "Prohibited firearm" means:

A semi-automatic shotgun that has a fixed magazine capacity exceeding six (6) rounds;

Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;

A semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding ten (10) rounds;

A semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has at any one of six common cosmetic features including: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip; a thumbhole stock; a flash suppressor, a threaded barrel, a barrel shroud.

Punishment includes imprisonment of not more than ten (10) years, or a fine up to $10,000.

Maine lawmakers took up more than a dozen bills related to firearms. Here’s a closer look at some of them. (Only a dozen? Pikers compared to NYS.)

Maine’s House and Senate rejected proposals that:

would have allowed someone to carry a concealed firearm in a state park,

would have reduced the age limit that a person can carry without a permit.

The House voted for an amended bill that would require serial numbers for so-called ghost guns (made with a 3D printer.) It would also prohibit undetectable firearms that can’t be spotted with a metal detector (which are already illegal under federal law.)

Initially the Senate passed but then reconsidered and tabled a bill which prohibits financial institutions and merchants from creating a de facto gun registry by using firearm codes to track purchases. The House still has not taken up the bill.

Democrats in Hartford Connecticut passed and the governor signed what one lawmaker considers to be the "worst anti-Second Amendment piece of legislation in the Connecticut General Assembly’s history."

The ‘Firearm Industry Responsibility Act’ aims to permit the filing of a civil action against a firearm industry member who fails to "exercise reasonable control" over firearm industry products. It is designed to shortcut the defense provided by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that shields the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits.

State Senator Rob Sampson accurately described it when saying: “This bill represents a concerted national effort to effectively litigate the firearm industry out of business… There are vague and subjective terms – trap doors – throughout, which are a dream for anti-gun activists and litigators looking to harm the industry with meritless cases. This is simply a political bill disguised as an effort to keep people safe."

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey (D) signed one of the most extreme gun control bills, H4885. The 116-page radical gun control package implements sweeping gun bans, magazine restrictions, mandatory registration of all firearms, extreme training requirements, and more.

In addition, Massachusetts proposed bills S1653 and H2672 state:

(a) A firearm industry member shall: establish and implement reasonable controls regarding the manufacture, distribution, importation, marketing, and sale of firearm industry products; and take reasonable precautions to ensure the firearm industry member does not sell or distribute a firearm industry product to a downstream distributor or retailer of firearm industry products that fails to establish and implement reasonable controls.

(b) A firearm industry member shall not manufacture, distribute, import, market, offer for wholesale, or offer for retail sale a firearm industry product that is:

(1) designed, sold, or marketed in a manner that foreseeably promotes conversion of legal firearm industry products into illegal firearm industry products; or

(2) designed, sold, or marketed in a manner that is targeted at minors or individuals who are legally prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms;

In 2024, Maryland Governor Moore signed two anti-gun bills into law.

House Bill 947 allows civil causes of action to be brought against firearm industry members. The law has the potential to bankrupt local firearm industry members through a litany of lawsuits, inflating business costs in such a fashion that it severely limits opportunities to lawfully purchase firearms, ammunition, and components.

House Bill 583 utilizes taxpayer dollars to fund a state-level program to push the Governor's gun control agenda (that parallels President Biden's Office of Gun Violence Prevention.) Like Biden’s office, the likely reality is the center seeks to employ gun-control advocates and activists and utilize the center as a radical, anti-gun propaganda tool.

Other Maryland gun control measures were defeated - but will return:

House Bill 935 and Senate Bill 784 sought to impose an excise tax at a rate of 11% upon all transactions involving firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.

House Bill 430 would have required those with a wear and carry permit to obtain liability insurance.

House Bill 1473 was an attempt to phase out lead ammunition across the State of Maryland.

Bucking the trend in the Northeast, New Hampshire passed a law protecting manufacturer liability!

In New Jersey, lawmakers want to:

Increase the penalties for the manufacturing and distributing so-called “ghost guns” and 3D-printed firearms from second-degree to first-degree crimes,

make it a crime to possess digital instructions to use a 3D printer to make a gun, firearm receiver, magazine or firearm component,

buying parts to make a gun without a serial number,

making a covert or undetectable firearm,

transporting a manufactured gun without a serial number,

require businesses that sell guns and ammunition to use the merchant category codes for processing credit, debit, or prepaid transactions.

establish criminal penalties for selling or possessing "machine gun conversion" devices that can turn semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic firearms,

permit the court system to take additional time to consider pretrial release or pretrial detention when firearm offense is involved. (Gun owners could be detained indefinitely for mere possession charges while a judge considers whether they're eligible for pre-trial release.)

Pennsylvania SB209 deals with licenses, liability insurance and the sale or transfer of firearms

And more bills in the hopper.

Gun Owners of America-Pennsylvania says, “…we’re tracking 36 anti-gun bills, including Red Flag Gun Confiscation Orders, “Ghost Gun” bans, universal registration checks, mandatory safe storage laws, and semi-automatic rifle bans (to name a few).”

Rabidly anti-gun House Speaker Joanna McClinton (D) is pushing for more gun control.

Existing Delaware law bans specific models such as the AK-47, AR-15, and Uzi. The law also restricts firearms based on design features, including semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines that have: pistol grips; folding stocks; or flash suppressors.

Delaware also restricts certain firearm accessories and modifications such as silencers, short-barreled rifles, and sawed-off shotguns, and high-capacity magazines holding more than 17 rounds

Vermont bills that would have disarmed law abiding citizens but are dead (this year) include:

H.45 would have prohibited carrying firearms in establishments serving alcohol,

H.368 would have banned carrying firearms in government buildings,

H.381 would have banned purchasing or possessing commonly owned semi-automatic firearms,

H.392 would have banned firearms in state-owned buildings and lands,

Not to be forgotten, H.418 would have implemented an 11% excise tax on the purchase of guns and ammo.

HR 38

Tue, 24 Jun 2025 23:08:36 GMT

HR 38 ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/38/text )

Federal proposed bill HR 38 says that if you have a concealed carry permit in your state, it’s valid in other states (with below restrictions.)

To qualify to carry concealed in a non-resident state, a person:

must not be prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm,

must carry a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person,

must have a valid license or permit issued pursuant to the law of a State, that allows the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides.

The firearm must have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. (The feds, not the states, regulate interstate commerce.)

This does not include a machine gun or destructive device.

The non-resident state in which a person can carry must:

have a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm,

or

the state does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

It’s not ‘Constitutional Carry’ but it’s a very big step in that direction and well worth supporting.

The bill has 168 co-sponsors in the House and – to no one’s surprise - all of them have an ‘R’ after their name. The co-sponsors include New York Congresspersons:

Claudia Tenney,

Nick Langworthy,

Elise Stefanik,

These above three are reliable defenders of the 2^nd Amendment.

Republican Congresspersons not co-sponsoring the bill include:

Nicolas LaLota                    (NY 1 – Long Island)

Andrew Gabarino             (NY 2 - Long Island)

Nicole Malliotakis (NY 11 – Staten Island & Brooklyn)

Michael Lawler                   (NY 17 – NYC northern suburbs / Hudson Valley)

If you live in their districts, you might consider dropping them a line and asking why they are not co-sponsoring the bill.

Lawler is frequently mentioned as considering a run for governor in 2026. He seems to fall in to a trap that many Republican candidates fall into – they try to appeal to Democrats but alienate their Republican base and that base fails to show up on election day; they might get a few Democrat votes but lose even more Republican votes. But hey, they’ve got paid campaign managers advising them while we are just the voters.

Proposed Legislation in D.C. and New Jersey

Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:02:39 GMT

Proposed Legislation in D.C. and New Jersey

SCOPE tries to keep you updated on the never-ending attempts in New York State to void the 2nd Amendment. Once in a while we need to look beyond our borders to see what else is happening.

2nd Amendment defenders can’t help but notice the difference between Republican dominated legislatures and Democrat dominated legislatures.

For instance, at the federal level, where the Republicans have a majority:

The Firearms Policy Coalition reports that the Senate Finance Committee has proposed firearm and tax reforms as part of the budget reconciliation package, including:

Removing suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and “any other weapons” (AOWs) from the definition of firearm under the National Firearms Act. (NFA)

Redefining the term “Firearm” to include only machineguns and destructive devices!

Eliminating the legal basis and requirement for taxing, registering, or restricting these items under the NFA!

Eliminating the government’s authority to classify shotguns as destructive devices

Eliminating the $5 transfer tax for AOWs

Preempting state and local registration or licensing laws that rely solely on NFA classification, so long as the owner acquired the item in compliance with federal (GCA) requirements

Ensuring that owners of SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs don’t run afoul of state and local laws requiring registration or licensing requirement under the NFA as long as they lawfully acquire or possess them under other federal laws!

Then there are the Democrat dominated state legislatures:

Anti-2A legislatures have a habit of following each other’s lead, so what we see in Democrat run states like California or New Jersey is probably not far from New York. The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) reports and describes the following list of gun bills being voted on by the NJ Senate, on Thursday:

S3894 creates a crime for possession of digital instructions to illegally manufacture firearms or firearm components. (You don’t have to produce a gun or component, just have a digital file on your computer.)

S3895 establishes the crime of reckless discharge, which is a swipe at concealed carry. Every time a firearm is used, even in legitimate self-defense situations, prosecutors will have more tools to harass law-abiding gun owners.

S3896 This bill is another attempt to criminalize lawful self-defense with a firearm. It allows possible prosecution for self-defense where a firearm is discharged.

S3706 mandates the use of Merchant Category Codes. This can be used to create a firearms registry or discriminate against gun owners and lawful businesses. (We already have this in NY State.)

S3900 When someone is accused of a firearms’ crime, it allows imprisonment, while awaiting trial, for an unlimited amount of time. (Do these people ever read the US Constitution, which supersedes New Jersey State laws?)

S1558 Makes it a first-degree crime (up to 20 years in jail) to transport, ship, or dispose of a firearm without a serial number. No exception for previously owned historical firearms that were lawfully manufactured and lawfully acquired without a serial number. (Ex post facto laws are laws that retroactively change the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the law was enacted, and they are prohibited by Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.)

S3893 This legislation creates new crimes for possessing or selling a machine gun "conversion device." This could mean that previously-lawful devices that cause a semi-automatic firearm to cycle more rapidly (rather than changing the way the trigger functions from semi-automatic to fully automatic) are illegal. It also opens the door to prosecution of vendors from other states who sell devices lawfully elsewhere, but which end up in New Jersey.

Bunker Hill

Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:44:46 GMT

Bunker Hill

SCOPE wrote, last week, that many important events that occurred 250 years ago, during the Revolutionary War, were passing without enough fanfare. Here is another.

Two hundred and fifty years ago yesterday, the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought on June 17, 1775.

The majority of the battle was fought on the adjacent Breed’s Hill, so why is it called the battle of Bunker Hill? Because Bunker Hill was the original objective of the British troops.

The British were besieged in Boston when they decided occupy Bunker Hill, for strategic reasons. They attacked, uphill, an entrenched position. Two assaults on the colonial positions were repulsed with significant British casualties but the redoubt was captured on their third assault, after the defenders ran out of ammunition and retreated.

As a result, the British suffered 1,054 casualties (226 dead and 828 wounded), and a disproportionate number of these were officers; about 100 commissioned officers were among the dead and wounded. The casualty count was, reportedly, the highest suffered by the British in any single encounter during the entire war.

The 1,200 colonial defenders suffered about 450 losses, in total, of whom 140 were killed.

British Commander General Clinton remarked in his diary that "A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America.”

Many things done have unintended consequences and although the battle, itself, was not terribly significant, their losses effected British strategy in future battles. The British adopted a more cautious planning and maneuver execution in future engagements, which was evident in the subsequent battle in New York City where the British had a chance to destroy Washington’s army but hesitated and allowed Washington to escape, eventually to Valley Forge.

The engagement also convinced the British of the need to hire substantial numbers of Hessian mercenaries to bolster their strength in the face of the new and formidable Continental Army. You may remember that those Hessians also ended up at Valley Forge. (But that’s a year away.)

So much for mass shootings being uniquely American!

Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:16:32 GMT

So much for mass shootings being uniquely American!

A letter to the editor sent by Bohdan Rabarsky.

It’s been impossible to find any American newspaper giving the facts surrounding the tragic mass school shooting that just took place in Graz Austria on Tuesday, June 10th. The attack at the BORG Dreierschutzengasse High School claimed nine lives with the shooter apparently taking his own life. We’re always led to believe that shootings like this only happen in the United States because of our “lax gun laws and our popular gun culture that breeds a sense of wild west in every gun toting citizen.”

Austria has more restrictive gun control laws than we have in America, but as is in America, it’s a sign that there’s a breakdown in society and morals.

The BBC is reporting that the alleged shooter used two legally obtained firearms. Gun ownership in Austria requires a registration and purchasing a firearm involves a three day waiting period. Handguns may only be purchased by persons over the age of 21 who hold a firearm license. Anyone wanting to own a firearm in Austria must first provide a reason for the purchase, such as “sports shooting or self-defense”

The 21 year old suspect used a handgun and a shotgun and had a required firearm license, so the notion that a waiting period, registration and licensing will reduce such mass shootings is somehow debunked. Gun restrictions in Austria did not prevent this attack and calling for more gun control would not guarantee this will not happen again

Anti-gunners that want you to believe mass shootings are something unique to America, are lying to you. They happen everywhere but are only reported in a way to fit a narrative to scare you into thinking it can only happen here unless the government passes more gun control, bans guns all together or an Article V Constitutional Convention repeals the 2nd Amendment.

The Revolution and Fathers’ Day

Fri, 13 Jun 2025 15:20:25 GMT

The Revolution and Fathers’ Day

Something important is happening without enough fanfare. Two hundred and fifty years ago the American Revolution was being fought! It is an important anniversary to Americans and to the rest of the free world that we have been defending.

The planning for this celebration should have been occurring during the Biden administration. But that would have entailed celebrating America.

What 250th anniversaries have passed, so far, without enough fanfare?

On April 19th 1775, there was a skirmish at Lexington and Concord followed up by a British retreat to Boston. It is referred to as “The shot heard round the world.” It signaled the start of The Revolution and should definitely have been celebrated.

On May 10th 1775, Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain boys captured Fort Ticonderoga, here in New York State. It was an American morale builder and the cannons captured in this victory were eventually transferred over the mountains to Boston where they threatened the British and forced them to abandon Boston.

Call me catty, but NY Governor Kathy Hochul could not find time on May 10th to travel a few miles north to celebrate the occasion. Congresswoman Elise Stefanic was there.

Tomorrow, Saturday, the 14th, we celebrate Flag Day which was enabled by the American Revolution.

A crucial anniversary is coming up this weekend; Sunday the 15th is Fathers’ Day. Something important occurred on that day in 1775, which gives increased meaning to this year’s Fathers’ Day and seems like more than a coincidence.

On June 15th 1775, George Washington – the appropriately named ”Father of our country” – was chosen by the Continental Congress as commander of the Continental Army. Washington would be at the very center of American events for the next twenty-two years, and it all started on that June 15th; a Virginia planter started on the road to being the “Father of our country.”

Washington truly was the indispensable man. Think of how American and world history would have been changed without his leadership, wisdom and unselfishness at the birth of the United States.

Probably, there would not be a United States.

The Continental Congress made mistakes over the course of The Revolution, but they got that “Big One” right.

When we honor our fathers on this Sunday, take a minute to remember the “Father of our country” and thank God for giving us George Washington.

S0399 / A0199

Thu, 12 Jun 2025 16:23:48 GMT

S0399 / A0199

Proposed NY State legislature bills S0399 and A0199 are a direct assault on your 2nd Amendment rights. These bills amend “Section 1. Subdivision 1 of section 265.00 of the penal law…and a new subdivision 37 is added.”

This is how the actual bill reads with the new proposed sections shown in bold and underlined.

Machine-gun" means a weapon of any description, irrespective of size, by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, from which a number of shots or bullets may be rapidly or automatically discharged from a magazine with one continuous pull of the trigger and includes a sub-machine gun, and also includes any convertible pistol that is equipped with a pistol converter.”

“Convertible pistol" means any semi-automatic pistol that can be converted into a machine-gun solely by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter.

Note how the second paragraph reads; “can be converted.” It doesn’t say “has been converted.” Gun control advocates will certainly read this as saying a firearm only has to have the ‘potential’ to be converted and not actually have been converted. If you legally own a semi-automatic Glock, which can potentially be converted to automatic (a machine gun) by the use of a ‘Glock Switch,’ you would be in “possession of a convertible pistol” even though it has not been converted.

And if your semi-automatic pistol is another brand and not currently convertible, you are not off-the-hook. All it would take is for some inventor, in the future, to invent a pistol converter for your firearm for your gun to suddenly become illegal, even though you have done nothing to convert it.

Subdivision 10 of section 265.02 of the penal law, as added by chapter 1 of the laws of 2013 would be amended by these bills to read: A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when…Such person knowingly possesses any pistol converter.

S0399 had its 3rd Reading which means it is eligible for the Senate majority Leader to bring it to a vote.

A0199 is still in committee.

And all of this is unnecessary.

The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 prohibited civilian ownership or transfer of machine guns made after May 19, 1986. All of these converted pistols would have been made after that date so a converted pistol is already illegal under existing law.

But a pistol that is potentially convertible is not illegal under current law – and there’s the real reason for the proposed laws; to make all semi-automatics illegal because they are potentially convertible.

Under federal law, owning a machine gun manufactured before 5/19/1986 is legal. But, the National Firearms Act of 1934, (which was enacted as part of the Internal Revenue Code), requires an extensive background check and paying a $200 tax when buying a machine gun manufactured before 5/19/1986.

There are 13 states that have state laws banning possession of a machine gun even if you have the proper federal permit. Guess which state is one of the 13?

By the way, a pistol converter should not be confused with a Handgun conversion kit which can stabilize and fire your weapon like a rifle as opposed to being fired as a traditional handgun.

Not Coming for Your Gun?

Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:37:21 GMT

Not Coming for Your Gun?

Many gun owners do not feel the need to get involved in 2nd Amendment defense because the government “is not coming for their gun.”

Guess again. There are proposed bills in the New York Legislature that would apply to probably every civilian firearm purchase. Here is the math if they were all passed (and remember that the overwhelming anti-2A Democrat majorities could pass any of these and we currently have no way to stop them.)

If you want to buy a firearm at $500,

The existing federal excise tax is $55

Bill S5813 proposes an 11% state excise tax; $55

The price you pay is $610. (Excise taxes are buried in the merchandise’s price so you don’t see them.)

Then you pay 8% NYS Sales tax of $48.80.

And don’t forget the $9 CCIA fee.

The $500 gun costs you $$667.80.

In addition:

Bills S5974 and A5611

Add on the cost $1 million in liability insurance which will be around $400.

Bills S0658 and A4085

Add the cost of classroom and range training; $250 to $500

Bill S3981

Requires a hunting license for $22

And a drug test for ($100?)

And a mental health evaluation for ($200?)

And a safe storage depository ($100?)

That $500 gun will cost you at least $1,500 but probably not more than $2,500.

And that’s before you try to buy any ammo!

They are coming for your gun!

32 Years Is Long Enough!

Tue, 10 Jun 2025 20:27:53 GMT

Sportsmen’s Association for Firearms Education (S.A.F.E.) sent out the following:

32 Years Is Long Enough!

For over three decades, a dangerous government policy has stripped law-abiding Americans of their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms - often without due process.

The “Schumer Amendment,” passed in 1992, handed the ATF unchecked power to permanently ban gun ownership for anyone with certain non-violent offenses or even short-term mental health commitments. This “Amendment” added to the dangerous precedent of empowering the government to act as the ultimate arbiter of our God-given rights.

But now, the Department of Justice has issued a historic rule that could restore these rights for the first time in 32 years. This is our chance to push back and ensure that gun control advocates aren’t the only voices the DOJ hears.

The window to submit public comments closes on June 18th. Make your voice count while there’s still time.

TAKE ACTION - ALERT THE DOJ. Feel free to copy and paste GOA’s comments found below.

I strongly support the Department of Justice’s rule to allow for federal restoration of gun rights pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 925(c).

If the Trump administration is serious about wanting to rein in unelected bureaucrats who have abused their power and waged war on individuals’ rights and freedom, then this rule must be implemented quickly.

Unelected ATF bureaucrats should not have the power to permanently deny certain Americans from ever exercising a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Since the “Schumer Amendment” went into effect in 1992, thousands of would-be gun owners have been asking for their constitutionally protected rights to be restored.

It is unjust to strip those Americans of a constitutional right - for life - especially a right that provides personal safety and security, and a right that is explicitly prohibited from being “infringed” upon.

I urge the Department of Justice to move forward and fully implement this rule through the creation of a formal process to ensure speedy rights restoration

Gun Owners of America (GOA) posted this explanation which should help you understand the above:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued an Interim Final Rule removing the Attorney General’s delegation of authority to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to process applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). This action follows more than three decades of Congressional funding restrictions that have rendered ATF unable to process individual applications.

The rule removes outdated regulations and is part of a broader review of firearm-related policies under Executive Order 14206 (Protecting Second Amendment Rights). Upon the interim final rule’s expected publication tomorrow, the DOJ will begin allowing individuals who are not “dangerous to public safety” to use the statute and petition to have their gun rights restored.

Key Points of the Rule Change:

Since 1992, Congress has prohibited ATF from using funds to process gun rights restoration applications, making the statute obsolete.

ATF will no longer handle individual firearm disability relief applications under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). DOJ will instead carry out the statute and process petitions for gun rights restoration.

The DOJ rule goes into effect immediately upon publication and will simultaneously accept public comments on the rule before issuing a final version.

SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENT

Christian v James

Mon, 09 Jun 2025 21:29:01 GMT

Christian v James

The Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) decision in Bruen established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. Bruen also set a standard that gun laws must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

In response, New York State under Governor Kathy Hochul enacted the misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), which was an attempt to work around the Bruen ruling. CCIA expanded the list of “sensitive places” in NY State where guns are banned to include public parks, libraries, and private property opened to the public unless posted otherwise by the property owner. Places in NY State where firearms could be carried became an exception, not a constitutionally protected right.

A lawsuit called Christian v. James is fighting the ‘sensitive place’ tactic. The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) joined individual plaintiff Brett Christian and the Second Amendment Foundation to file this lawsuit against these new restrictions.

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for:

10 AM on Wednesday June 25, 2025
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
17th Floor, Room 1703
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON CHIEF JUDGE Docket #: 25-384

The case boils down to the fact that New York’s sweeping bans are government overreach of the type that the Second Amendment was designed to prevent. States cannot invent new categories of “sensitive places” to justify gun bans, especially when these restrictions lack clear historical precedent.

Labelling most of a state as a ‘sensitive place’ where firearms have been banned has become a favorite tactic of heavily democrat states like NY, Illinois, California, etc. The outcome of Christian v. James could have significant implications for those states using ‘sensitive places’ as a gun control tactic.

A positive decision by the 2nd Circuit will only directly impact NY State but it may have influence on other lawsuits, as Christian is one of many similar cases across the USA.

Ultimately, many legal experts expect the Supreme Court will have to take on these cases.

The New York State Senate will vote on Bill S00362

Mon, 09 Jun 2025 21:24:17 GMT

Fellow SCOPE Patriot,

Today, the New York State Senate will vote on Bill S00362, which proposes extending the current waiting period for all firearm purchases from three days to ten days. This bill also states that violations would be classified as a Class A misdemeanor.

I strongly urge you to contact your State Senator—regardless of party affiliation—and ask them to vote NO on this legislation.

The existing three-day waiting period is already effective, and there is no conclusive evidence indicating that a longer waiting period would enhance safety. Extending it unnecessarily burdens law-abiding citizens without delivering proven benefits.

Governor Hochul claims this bill is about protecting New Yorkers from themselves. However, this approach overlooks data, common sense, and the rights of responsible firearm owners.

Please make your voice heard today. Please DON'T WAIT. DO IT NOW!

S00362 has a SAME AS BILL. It is Assembly bill A03223 which was referred to the Assembly Codes Committee on January 27, 2025, with no action since. However, the NY State Assembly's legislative term has been extended another week, through 18 June, 2025.

We need to stay vigilant. You can expect more legislative alerts this week and next.

Thank you.

NY SENATE

The Worm Turns and Turns

Wed, 04 Jun 2025 16:07:44 GMT

The Worm Turns and Turns

SCOPE published a list of the 10 most egregious anti-2nd Amendment bills proposed in the NY legislature. It was not easy to get the list down to just ten!

It would be equally hard to name the most anti-2nd Amendment politician in NY State. It would be difficult because there are so many ‘deserving’ politicians to choose from. But certainly, NY Attorney General Letitia James would be a prominent part of that discussion.

One of Letitia James’ strategies is to run up the cost of lawsuits brought by NYS citizens against NY State, hoping the NYS citizens will run out of money to finance their lawsuits while she uses the NYS taxpayers’ bottomless pockets to defend anti-2A laws.

James, herself, is now the subject of a Federal Housing Finance Agency’s criminal referral over her private real estate affairs and perjury. It has nothing to do with her official position.*

You will probably be unhappy to know she may still be dipping into the taxpayers’ pockets to defend herself.

When the NY State legislature passed Governor Hochul’s $254 billion state budget package, it included a $10 million criminal defense slush fund that would seemingly cover any state employee 1) facing any federal “legally compulsive process” (e.g., subpoenas and so on) as of Jan. 1, 2025, 2) who can claim the federal probe is “a result of the employee’s New York State employment or duties.”

Wanna bet it will be linked to her duties; it will be defined as President Trump’s revenge for her lawsuits against him, ignoring that she it is reasonably alleged to have committed real estate fraud as a private citizen.

Deputy State Senate Majority Leader Michael Gianaris (Democrat-Queens) defended that the law is needed “because 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.”

Is he talking about the Biden administration’s “Lawfare?” No.

Is he talking about James getting elected on the promise of using her office to “get” Trump? No.

Gianaris seems to have missed those actions.

And the hypocrisy doesn’t stop with Gianaris. When ex-Governor Andrew Cuomo sued to make NY State taxpayers fund his defense against sexual harassment suits, Letitia James stated, “Andrew Cuomo… believes sexual harassment was within his ‘scope of employment’ as governor. Sexually harassing young women who work for you is not part of anyone’s job description. Taxpayers should not have to pony up for legal bills that could reach millions of dollars so Mr. Cuomo’s lawyer can attack survivors of his abuse,”

When prosecuting Trump, James said, 'Everyday Americans cannot lie to a bank to get a mortgage.’ She’s right, everyday Americans can’t, but James obviously doesn’t consider herself an everyday American.

The NYS taxpayer may yet get off the hook as James has established a private legal defense fund to fight possible federal charges, so she may not need a taxpayer bailout. Anyone potentially doing business with the NY Attorney General’s office would do well to consider a donation.

But it’s the thought that counts and NY Democrats are definitely thinking about protecting anyone who is anti-2nd Amendment.

* Here are the allegations of perjury and real estate fraud:

James signed—under oath—on a federally backed mortgage application.

On Aug 2, 2023, she wrote: “This property WILL NOT be my primary residence" for her Sterling St, Virginia property.

On Aug 17, she signed a sworn declaration stating that it will be used as her primary residence. She never moved.

It’s alleged that two top AG staffers witnessed the statement.

Did the false statement get her a lower interest rate, reduced down payment and waived reserve requirements?

In addition, James’ Brooklyn property has 5 legal units, but for 20 years James claimed only 4 units on loans, permits, and a federal loan modification. That let her qualify for easier, cheaper loans.

And finally, James also claimed that she was married to her father in an earlier, unrelated loan application. How does one mistake being married to their father?

NYS Assembly session extended three days

Tue, 03 Jun 2025 22:35:06 GMT

According to the 2025 NY Legislative Calendar, sessions end on June 12th. SCOPE just received word that the Senate will adjourn on June 12th, however, the Assembly has been called back for another week; June 16th, 17th and 18th.

This gives everyone 1 more week to reach out to their Assembly representatives and make their voices heard.

NYS Assembly

WOW!

Tue, 03 Jun 2025 18:27:13 GMT

WOW!

Unable to repeal the 2nd Amendment, the gun grabbing left has tried to neuter 2A in various way; one of which was to use the ATF to drive gun stores (FFL’s) out of business. That effort seems to be over, for the next 3+ years.

The first paragraph of a recent ATF announcement lays it on the line, "This is not the same ATF of the last four years. We are fundamentally changing course with a renewed focus on rebuilding trust with federal firearms licensees (FFLs), gun owners, and the public by prioritizing public safety and collaboration."

Under new leadership, ATF has already taken significant steps, including:

1. Ending the Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement Policy that had targeted firearms dealers.

2. Publishing a new Administrative Action Policy that emphasizes firearm traceability and public safety and deemphasizes immaterial paperwork errors.

3. Encouraging any federal firearms licensees that had their licenses revoked or surrendered under the Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement Policy to reapply. Those applications will be judged under the new Administrative Action Policy.

4. Removing revoked FFL inspection reports from ATF’s public website.

5. Instituting a NICS alert policy that restricts use of NICS alerts to federal firearms trafficking violations.

6. Establishing a Senior Industry Partnership Advisor/Liaison within the Office of the Director to address industry concerns and foster productive engagement.

7. Establishing a classifications board and requiring all new firearm classifications to be reviewed and approved by the Office of the Director prior to publication.

8. Ensuring that all rules fairly implement congressional statutes rather than create entirely new laws by administrative order.

9. Improving response time from the Firearms & Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) to FFL inquiries.

10. Reversing a ban on the importation of non-lethal training ammunition.

Additional efforts currently in progress include:

1. Publishing an updated Commerce Report.

2. Updating ATF Form 20 (Authorization to Transport Firearms) into a simplified notice-based system.

3. Updating and simplifying ATF Form 4473 to make it more concise and user-friendly for both purchasers and FFLs.

4. Publishing an open letter on changes to the Brady Chart.

5. Ensuring uniformity in dealer inspections and enforcement across regions.

6. Publishing an open letter reversing a ban on the importation of dual use barrels.

7. Publishing a ruling to allow electronic signatures on NFA forms.

8. Reviewing all current regulations to identify and eliminate outdated or unnecessary rules.

This isn’t Joe Biden’s ATF anymore!

Unfortunately, politicians in New York State will still be using every possible trick to neuter 2A, including running FFL’s out of business, as long as the current NYS regime is in power. But getting the federal government off-our-backs is “a giant step for mankind.”

SCOPE Activities in May, 2025

Mon, 02 Jun 2025 15:54:19 GMT

SCOPE Activities in May, 2025

Relationships matter and are essential. On Wednesday, May 7th, 2025, several SCOPE officials traveled to Albany to meet with New York State Senate Minority Leader Senator Rob Ortt, along with Senator Joseph Griffo, Senator Mark Walczyk and their staff. During the meeting, SCOPE presented its list of the Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Bills currently being debated in Albany. The discussed covered several proposed bills, including Assembly Bills A00929, A02228/S03562, S00418/A01774, S00658/A04085, A00346, S05813, A03376, A01210/S00362, and S01358. Senator Ortt and his colleagues expressed their opposition to all the bills on the list. Furthermore, Senator Ortt directed his staff to ensure SCOPE is notified whenever any of these bills are scheduled for debate. A meeting to brief New York State Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay is also in the works.

We are in the danger zone. This is the period between when the budget is finished and the end of the legislative year. This is the time when firearms legislation gets signed in the middle of the night. One such bill moving forward is Senate Bill S04277. New York State Senate Bill S04277 seeks to prohibit the possession of certain .50 caliber firearms and directs the New York State Police to implement a buyback program. Under this program, individuals who currently lawfully possess these firearms could surrender them to a designated officer in exchange for fair market value compensation. SCOPE opposes this legislation, arguing that banning a single caliber sets a precedent for broader firearm restrictions. Moreover, they note that .50 caliber firearms have not been used in any crimes in New York State. The bill could also negatively impact shooting sports communities, such as those involved in long-range competitions.

Although S04277 was not originally included in SCOPE’s “Top Ten Most Egregious Firearm Bills”, recent developments may warrant its addition. On Tuesday, May 20, 2025, the New York State Senate Codes Committee advanced the bill in a 9-4 vote, split along party lines. It now awaits further action. According to Senate rules, the Senate Majority Leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, will decide whether the bill proceeds to a floor vote. As of today, Thursday, May 29, 2025, there are seven (7) legislative days remaining – June 4-6 and June 9-12. Notably, there is no companion bill (“same as”) currently in the New York State Assembly.

SCOPE leadership continues to engage with county federations, SCOPE chapters, and local rod and gun clubs throughout New York State. On Thursday May 8, 2025, I addressed the Ulster County Federation where approximately 45 representatives from various rod and gun clubs in the county were in attendance, including the SCOPE County Chairman. The primary goals of the visit were to gauge interest in forming a SCOPE chapter in Ulster County and to encourage increased SCOPE membership. During the presentation, I outlined SCOPE’s five (5) key priorities, SCOPE’s Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms legislation, and how SCOPE accomplishes its mission. Membership applications were handed out and 6-8 people signed up as new members. SCOPE visits to other counties and SCOPE chapters are planned for the near future.

Planning for the 2025 SCOPE Banquet is underway. The event is set to take place on Saturday, September 27, 2025, at the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post 6778 in Palmyra, New York. A tentative program includes a social hour from 5:00PM – 6:00PM, Dinner from 6:00PM-7:00PM, Guest Speaker(s) from7:00PM-8:00PM, Awards from 8:00PM-8:20PM, Raffles 8:20PM-8:55PM, and closing remarks at 9:00PM. Menu and cost will be determined soon.

It is essential that 2nd Amendment supporters engage not only with like-minded individuals but also with elected officials and members of the public who may hold differing views. With that goal in mind, SCOPE is launching an effort in which its representatives meet with policymakers who have opposing perspectives on the 2nd Amendment. These meetings will focus on discussing SCOPE’s “Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Legislation” to foster dialogue and promote understanding.

As part of its mission to defend the Second Amendment rights, SCOPE works to keep both members and the public informed about politicians and legislation that impact gun ownership. With the fundraising season underway – and many SCOPE chapters setting up tables at fairs and field days – a power point presentation has been created to highlight SCOPE’s Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Bills, helping educate the public on critical legislative threats. The power point presentation was emailed to all SCOPE county chairman to use as they see fit. During the General Brown Field Days, from 30 May through 1 June, the Jefferson/Lewis County chapter of SCOPE displayed the power point presentation on an electronic loop, running all day on a large screen TV.

Membership is improving but still lags with younger generations. To improve membership with younger generations, SCOPE wants to develop a social medial plan. To do that, a social media plan committee formed this month to begin work. More to follow in the coming months.

Several significant federal and state gun-related developments occurred over the last month. At the federal level, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H. R. 1, also know as the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which incudes a provision in Section 2 that removes suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Meanwhile, in New York, the state imposed $16,000 in penalties and fees on Walmart on May 28 for selling and shipping “realistic toy guns” that were black, dark blue, silver, or aluminum – colors that make them resemble real firearms. Under New York law, toy guns must be brightly colored orange or made entirely of transparent or translucent materials. This requirement was enacted in 2022.

SCOPE is making a significant impact. I want to extend my sincere thanks to all SCOPE members for generously giving their time, talent, and treasure to support and defend the Second Amendment in New York State.

John R. Elwood
SCOPE President

Bill Updates 4.27.25

Wed, 28 May 2025 22:09:15 GMT

Bill Updates 4.27.25

A few words about the legislative process.
There are so any anti-2A bills in the New York legislatures that it is hard to be current on all of them. Most on the 10 worst are still in committees but a few of them - and some others – have advanced beyond committees and are, currently, the most dangerous. Below is a list of those beyond committee in at least one legislature.
A01210/S00362 – Establishes a ten (10) day waiting period from contact of the New York State National Instant Background Check System (NYS NICS) before a firearm, shotgun or rifle may be delivered to a person.
S0362 in Senate eligible for a vote
A1210 in committee
S4277 in Senate eligible for a vote
No companion bill in Assembly
S3385 in Senate eligible for a vote
A1962a in committee
S0399 in Senate eligible for a vote
A0199 in committee
S0399 in Senate eligible for a vote
A0544b in Assembly eligible for a vote
A1191 Passed Assembly and referred to Senate
S1455 In committee

SCOPE previously reported on the 10 Most Egregious Proposed bills in the NY Legislatures. There were many others that did not make the 10 worst list but were still dangerous to 2nd Amendment rights.

1-Newly introduced bills are first sent to a committee where they will can sit indefinitely until the committee votes to send them to the full legislature for their vote.

2-In the legislature, the bill must wait 3 days (referred to as 3 readings) before any action can be taken.

3-Then it becomes the Majority Leader’s / Speaker’s decision if the bill will be brought to a vote.

4-If the legislative body approves the bill, it is sent to the other legislature for their consideration. (Note – there may or may not be a ‘companion’ bill already in existence and working its way through that legislature.)

5-The Governor can issue a ‘Message of Necessity’ declaring an emergency and the above process goes out the window.

S04277- Prohibits the possession of certain .50 caliber firearms.

S03385 / A1962a - Establishes violations for the failure to safely store rifles, shotguns, and firearms in the presence of a minor or a prohibited person; repeals certain provisions relating thereto.

S0399 / A0199 - Makes it illegal for certain persons to possess or sell a pistol converter or a converted pistol.

S1985 / A0544 - Requires police officers to take temporary custody of firearms for not less than one hundred twenty hours when responding to reports of family violence.

A1191 / S1455 - Requires the division of criminal justice services to certify the technological viability of personalized handguns and to establish requirements related to the sale of personalized handguns; defines personalized handgun; requires the division to establish and maintain a roster of all personalized handguns approved for retail sale to the public; requires the division to report to the legislature on the technological viability of personalized handguns.

There are 9 scheduled days left in this legislative term. They are: 28-29 May; 4-6 June; and 9-12 June. Members should consider calling or E mailing their legislators about these bills.

NYS Assembly

NYS Senate

S00362

Fri, 23 May 2025 21:58:07 GMT

S00362

This is an update regarding Senate Bill S00362, which proposes the establishment of a 10-day waiting period for all firearm purchases. The bill also states that any violation of this waiting period would constitute a Class A misdemeanor.

S00362 was debated in the Senate Codes Committee on Tuesday (May 20, 2025), and passed by a vote of 9-4. All 9 Yes votes were Democrats and the 4 No votes were Republicans.

Per the NYS Firearms Association (NYSFA), “…the Senate Codes Committee met for just twenty minutes yesterday”… to pass the bill.

What does this mean?

Passage in the Codes Committee means that the bill can now proceed to the Senate floor for a full vote. However, this is not automatic—it is up to the Senate Majority Leader to decide whether the bill will be brought to the floor.

S00362 has a companion bill in the Assembly, A03233, which is currently in the Assembly Codes Committee. The good news is that, as of today, A03233 has not been voted out of committee.

This legislation is listed on SCOPE’s “Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Legislation"

NYSFA nicely summarized opposition to this bill: “Even if you pass a background check instantly, you’ll be forced to wait 10 days to take home your firearm. That’s not public safety -- that’s disarming law-abiding New Yorkers.”

There are 10 legislative days left in the calendar year. Dates include; 27-29 May, 4-6 June, and 9-12 June.

SCOPE previously met with Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt about this bill as a part of SCOPE's Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Legislation and is attempting to coordinate with Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay to brief him and his staff on it.

We encourage all gun owners, no matter who is your NY State legislator, to contact them and urge them to vote no on this bill.

NYS Assembly

NYS Senate

Memorial Day

Thu, 22 May 2025 18:26:41 GMT

Memorial Day

A man who was in a Nazi death camp as a child remembered that, towards the end of the war, the prisoners were deathly afraid that the guards would execute them. So, when the prisoners were loaded into a box car, they were terrified.

The boy’s father peered through the slats in the side of the car to see what was happening and when he said “there are armed men coming down the road”, there was panic.

But then he said…“It’s the Americans.”

Other than “He is risen,” no three words have ever meant as much to so many people as, “It’s the Americans.”

On the 40th anniversary of D-Day, Ronald Reagan spoke at Point Du Hoc, which is a cliff on the Normandy coast. On D-Day, U S Army rangers scaled that cliff under murderous fire. They took great casualties, but they took the cliff. 40 years later, in front of Reagan were the living survivors of those rangers. Reagan praised them and by extension, all the many victories for freedom that “it’s the Americans” have led.

Reagan praised the U S Army Rangers of Point du Hoc as well as all veterans who gave their lives by describing why they were willing to make that sacrifice:

“The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge – and pray God we have not lost it – that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.”

“It’s the Americans” who came on D-Day to Point Du Hoc and the liberation of Europe began.

In 1966, French President Charles De Gaulle told U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk that De Gaulle wanted "every American soldier out of France." Rusk replied, "Does that include the dead Americans in the military cemeteries as well?" De Gaulle was silent.

Baseball Hall of Fame pitcher Bob Feller interrupted his career and was one of the first professional baseball players to enlist immediately after Pearl Harbor. When he was being honored after coming back in 1945, he said, “The real heroes didn’t come home.”

In the American Revolution, 31,000 soldiers and sailors died. They died for a country that didn’t exist and they would never see.

In the Civil War, 364,000 Union soldiers and sailors died. They may have fought to save the Union or to free the slaves, or both, but for whatever reason they fought. Their sacrifices turned the name United States from a plural into a singular and put us on the road to making “all men are created equal,” a fact.

In World War II, 405,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen died. As Reagan said, they came “to liberate, not to conquer.”

In all wars, a total of 1,354,000 Americans have died and another 1,498,000 were wounded.

Remember when we proudly said: “I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That’s what Americans died for.

America was not founded on slavery. The pilgrims and puritans came here for religious freedom. That’s what Americans died for.

Before our Constitution, people were “servants of the king” - not citizens. 11 score and 16 years ago, that changed. That’s what Americans died for.

You may remember a hit song from years ago: The Impossible Dream. It sang about righting the unrightable, bearing the unbearable and fighting the unbeatable. That’s very inspiring but, if you think about it, who would want to do that? Right the unrightable? Bear the unbearable? Fight the unbeatable? That’s crazy.

But the song also gave a reason to fight: so “My heart will lie peaceful and calm when I’m laid to my rest….and the world will be better for this.”

Those 1,354,000 Americans who were killed have hearts lying peacefully and calm. The world was better for them having lived.

It’s a fair statement that everyone now living will eventually be laid to their rest. Will hearts lie peaceful and calm because they did their duty? Will the world be better for them having lived?

America is the last best hope of mankind and worthy of our efforts, past and present, to preserve it.

On Memorial Day, we honor those that gave their lives for our country. But Lincoln put it best at Gettysburg: “The brave men, living and dead…have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.”

Our founders gave us the structure that made the United States the greatest country in the history of the world - if we can keep it. It’s our right and our duty to preserve our Constitution against all enemies - foreign and domestic – and in doing so we meaningfully honor those that fell in our nation’s defense.

We didn’t ask for this fight to preserve what they died for but every generation of Americans has it thrust upon them. The same questions echo across the years for all those called to duty in defense of our nation and our values: we didn’t ask for this fight but if not us…who? If not now…when?

We must rise to the challenge so generations yet unborn will remember that whenever our country and all of mankind was threatened, it's the Americans who rose up to defend it. And the government of the people, by the people and for the people did not perish from the earth.

And those future generations will proudly say the same words: God bless the United States of America and all those who died to preserve that nation.

A Letter to the Congress of the United States

Sat, 17 May 2025 02:07:11 GMT

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

Mon, 12 May 2025 23:07:31 GMT

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

Mon, 12 May 2025 22:52:02 GMT

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

Mon, 12 May 2025 22:50:27 GMT

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 2nd Amendment defender John Lott.

Wed, 07 May 2025 20:40:47 GMT

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

Mon, 05 May 2025 16:46:52 GMT

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

Fri, 02 May 2025 18:04:24 GMT

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

Thu, 01 May 2025 22:55:01 GMT

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

Thu, 24 Apr 2025 20:40:12 GMT

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

Thu, 24 Apr 2025 20:26:35 GMT

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.”

Be An Informed Gun Owner by Tom Rood

Tue, 22 Apr 2025 19:41:03 GMT

Be An Informed Gun Owner by Tom Rood

You may have heard that in most elections, only about 65% of registered voters bother to vote. The standard answer is “My vote won’t count.” The thing is, there are many elections won or lost by a handful of votes. In one local election a while back, the votes tallied came to a tie. In that election, there was one write in candidate- “Micky Mouse.” That voter could have decided the election and threw it away. The vote was decided by a coin toss at the board of elections.

Yes, your vote counts. One time my wife and I were going to be away, so we mailed in our ballots. Our Assemblyman won that election by just six votes. Yes, your vote counts. There are many examples of close races resulting in recounts because the election was too close to call.

Why am I bothering you when elections are months/years away? Because it takes time and money to get the word out. What’s the word? INFORMED! Gun owners are not informed as to what is happening behind closed doors in Albany. If they were, perhaps a few more might be motivated to vote. If a few more gun owners voted in the last Governor election, Mr. Zeldon would be our governor, and Ms. Hochul unemployed.

Things you should know about your Second Amendment rights:

Right now, in Albany, legislators are considering bills that would:

1-Limit you to purchasing only one firearm in 30-day period

2-Require you to have 2-year firearm safety training certificate with need to be recertified (read retrained) every 2 years

3-Require you to have 1 million in liability insurance for firearms in your possession

4-Establish a 10-day waiting period after NICS check before firearm can be delivered

5-Establish a 5000-foot gun free zone around schools (5,280 feet = 1 mile). If Mennonite and other Christian schools are included, we might as well figure Yates County becoming a gun free county.

6-And over 20 more anti-gun bills pending.

I am asking you to help get this word out. Talk it up with anyone you know that owns a gun. Any kind of gun. Because if we let Albany and Washington have their way, your ownership and use of firearms will be history. There are billionaires out there financing people, elected officials, and influencing/controlling MSM (main-stream media) to accomplish this goal. You would have to live on Mars not to see what is happening to our Second Amendment Rights.

I began this column several years ago with the idea of influencing gun owners with information about issues that could interfere with their constitutional right to bear arms. I added First Amendment issues later as it became obvious that amendment was being used to influence anti-gun agitators. At the same time, I am advocating non-violence using the ballot box as our method of preserving our way of life. It’s on the line like never before. Trump is in office for four years. What happens in the next presidential election? A lot, maybe most, of what Trump is accomplishing can be lost just as fast.

Be informed, be involved. “A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.”

GOSAFE is a No Go

Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:15:31 GMT

GOSAFE is a No Go

Usually, the gun grabbing left tries to ban semi-automatic firearms based on cosmetic details such as pistol grips, collapsible stocks, and muzzle devices – and don’t forget the left’s favorite - a detachable magazine.

Now, they are going after semi-automatics based on their self-loading mechanisms.

According to the NRA, these are the six self-loading mechanisms for semi-automatic firearms: Recoil, Gas; Short Stroke Piston; Long Stroke Piston; Muzzle Gas Trap; and Blowback/Inertia Operations.

Senators Mark Kelly, (D-Arizona), Michael Bennet, (D-Colorado), Angus King (I-Maine) and Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico), cosponsored the Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion (GOSAFE) Act which targets a firearm’s gas operating system, which is an extremely common system used in rifles like the AR-15. The bill defines “gas-operated” as also including blowback-operated and recoil-operated systems as well.

GOSAFE is broader and more restrictive than other types of “assault weapons” bans because it would prohibit rifles like the Ruger Mini-14, a semi-automatic rifle that does not usually get caught up in gun bans.

GOSAFE also includes the usual ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition along with any magazine that can be “readily restored, altered, or converted to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.”

GOSAFE also includes a provision that would ban any device that, when attached to a semi-automatic firearm, “materially increases the rate of fire.” This would ban bump stocks and ban premium triggers, aftermarket recoil springs, and other common upgrades that could potentially increase the rate of fire.

Current owners of banned firearms will be allowed to keep them, though those firearms can only be transferred to immediate family members after the bill goes into effect.

Exemptions include: .22 caliber rimfire or less firearms; semi-automatic shotguns; any rifle with a permanently fixed magazine of 10 rounds or less; any handgun with a permanently fixed magazine of 15 rounds or less; recoil-operated handguns.

GOSAFE would charge anyone who possesses a banned rifle or magazine with a misdemeanor and hit them with a fine of up to $5,000 and/or a 12-month prison sentence.

GOSAFE has also been endorsed by the usual suspects: Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady; United Against Gun Violence; Sandy Hook Promise Action Fund; and March for our Lives. They use the usual misleading characterizations such as “weapons of war.” With these groups endorsing it, you know it is unconstitutional.

Mark Oliva, managing director of Public Affairs at National Shooting Sports Foundation said, “This legislation is an affront to the Second Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in the 2008 Heller decision…That decision, of course, held that government cannot ban entire classes of firearms that are commonly owned and commonly used.”

There are over 30 million modern sporting rifles in America today, according to Oliva. (That should qualify as commonly owned and used.)

According to a 2022 survey of hunters by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 36% used AR-type rifles (what the NSSF calls “modern sporting rifles”) for varmint hunting, 21% used them for hunting small game, and 21% used them for hunting big game.

Another survey by Winchester Ammunition found that 40% of hunters used an AR-platform rifle for hunting in 2021.

Oliva summed it up well when he also said, “Senators Kelly, Heinrich, King and others who attack the rights of law-abiding citizens would rather punish those who obey the law instead of holding criminals responsible for their crimes…Instead of crafting lists of banned rights, these senators should empower law enforcement to protect our communities, hold prosecutors, district attorneys and attorneys general responsible for soft-on-crime policies and mandate that judges lock up criminals instead of turning them back into our communities to prey on our innocent neighbors.”

And speaking of prosecutors, district attorneys and attorneys general…

The gun-grabbers at the Bloomberg-funded Everytown For Gun Safety have announced that they plan to spend millions of dollars to elect state attorney generals who they say will “stand up for the law.” (As they wish the law was written.) Another of Bloomberg’s bottomless millions going to finance efforts to curtail private gun ownership and kill the Second Amendment.

With a goal of spending $10 million, the group will support the work to elect Democrat AGs in up to 10 key swing states across the 2025 and 2026 election cycles. This will likely include races in Georgia, Minnesota, Nevada, Wisconsin and Virginia.

Letitia James and Fraud

Wed, 16 Apr 2025 19:10:36 GMT

Letitia James and Fraud

Letitia James ran for and won the office of New York Attorney General (AG) on a platform of sticking it to Donald Trump. Fulfilling her campaign promise, AG James sued Donald Trump in 2023, accusing him and his family business of engaging in financial fraud to secure favorable loan terms and insurance terms. She claimed Trump did this by inflating the value of his real estate assets. James won a judge’s crazy ruling against Trump for $455 million. (It’s widely expected to be reversed on appeal.)

But was Letitia James the one who committed real estate fraud to obtain better loan terms?

PJ Media and FOX News reports

As early as July 17, 2023, James had registered a campaign committee-James for NY 2026 – Attorney General (ID 308810) - and filed campaign finance disclosures. This demonstrates her clear intention to seek re-election as the AG.

On August 17, 2023, one month later, James signed a Power of Attorney to be able to complete a real estate purchase in Norfolk Virginia. The power of attorney that James signed said, “I hereby declare that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.”

On August 30, 2023, the transaction was completed. The Virginia property at 604 Sterling Street was purchased for $240,000 with a $219,780 mortgage. Per PJ Media, the mortgage documents require James to make the property her principal residence within 60 days (by approximately October 30, 2023) and maintain it for at least one year.

On October 2nd, 2023, James’ suit against Trump for fraud started.

On July 17th, James clearly states she will be running for reelection as AG but on August 17th she clearly states Virginia will be her principal residence. New York’s Public Officers Law § 30(1)(d) mandates that an office becomes vacant when the officeholder ceases “to be an inhabitant of the state.”

If, in fact, the Virginia property became her principal residence, then she had legally abandoned her position as New York Attorney General. Was she then ineligible to prosecute Trump? Has she not been the NY AG for the past year and a half?

If she did not take up the Virginia property as her principal residence, then she lied on the Power of Attorney. This could be important since mortgage rates are lower on primary homes than on secondary or investment properties. A case can be made that she committed fraud to gain more favorable real estate loan rates — pretty much the crime of which she accused Trump!

James may also have tripped federal wire fraud charges with this maneuver. These can carry a fine of up to $1 million and/or 30 years in prison. Those charges would be brought against Letitia James by President Trump’s Department of Justice. (Don’t stop laughing!)

It doesn’t stop there.

Both The Gateway Pundit and FOX News report:

In 2001, Letitia James purchased a four-story multi-family apartment building with five (5) apartments in Brooklyn for $550,000. The Certificate of Occupancy, dated January 26, 2001, says the property is legally classified as a five (5) family dwelling.

In 2005, James refinanced the building with an adjustable loan that started at an interest rate of 7.2% with a ceiling of 10.2%. She declared the building was a four (4) family unit. Properties with four or fewer units qualify for more favorable “residential” interest rates, while those with five or more are classified as “commercial” properties—often subject to higher rates.

IN 2011, James sought relief from high interest rates by applying under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). HAMP had strict eligibility requirements. According to its official Making Home Affordable Program Handbook, “Eligibility is limited to owner-occupied properties with no more than four (4) units.” James listed her property type as: DWELLING ONLY – 4 FAMILY (apartments)

James got the HAMP loan at an interest rate of just 2.7% (down from an estimated 10.2%.) Saving about $44,000 per year.

HAMP warned: “False statements may be punishable by fines, imprisonment, or both under federal law.” Mortgage fraud under federal law under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Treasury. Hat’s President Trump’s Department of Treasury. (Don’t stop laughing yet.)

The Gateway Pundit and FOX News report more.

In the Spring of 1983, Letitia James and her father jointly purchased a home at 114-04 Inwood Street in Queens, New York. (For Letitia to live in?) The deed for the property, executed on the same day says the property is being purchased by “ROBERT JAMES AND LETITIA JAMES, his daughter.”

According to New York City Department of Finance records, on May 20, 1983, Letitia James and her father, Robert James, took out a real estate loan from Kadilac Funding Ltd. for $30,300 as “husband and wife.”

When the James “couple’s” loan was assigned by Kadilac Funding Ltd to The Richard Grill Company and recorded on June 27, 1983, Letitia and her father, Robert James, are once again listed as “husband and wife.”

When they sold the property on May 4, 2000, the document listed the sellers as “ROBERT JAMES AND LETITIA JAMES, HIS WIFE.”

It is guessed that at the age of 24, Letitia James may have had trouble qualifying for a home loan as a single woman with little or no income. She had graduated from CUNY’s Lehman College in 1981 and she would not begin law school at Howard University in Washington, DC, until the fall of 1984 and she was living with her parents.

Does this qualify as fraud?

Will the ‘legacy media’ cover these before they are forced to do it?

In today’s world it is hard to know what is true and false. The above seems to be well documented and was publicized on FOX News. We shall see…

Concealed Carry Recertification

Tue, 15 Apr 2025 21:32:05 GMT

This email went out in January but it is important enough to do a reminder.

Concealed Carry Recertification

Prior to 2013, pistol permits were good for a lifetime and required no recertification.

In 2013, the NY SAFE Act required pistol permit holders to recertify every five years. This began in January of 2017. Those that certified in 2017 had to recertify five years later, in 2022.

But in late summer 2022, the state tweaked the rules for those who hold a concealed carry permit and they must recertify every three years, not the five that continues to pertain to other permit holders.

So, for those concealed carry permit holders that recertified in 2022 and thought they had five years, guess what? You will need to recertify this year - 2025

Prior to 2013, lifetime pistol permitting had been typically handled through the county clerks’ offices. But the SAFE Act granted control of the new pistol permit renewals to the New York State Police. During the renewal process, handgun owners affirm their basic personal information and that they still own the guns appearing on their permit.

To handle this process an online system was created.

If you want to check your recertification status:

Go to NYS Pistol Permit Recertification

Click on Check Recertification Status

You will need to know:

your last name,

date of birth,

drivers license number,

last four digits of your social security number

and that you are not a robot

Click on Check Recertification Status

Your recertification status should then appear.

Laugh or Cry

Thu, 10 Apr 2025 21:54:19 GMT

Laugh or Cry

New Jersey Senator Cory Booker has probably never met a gun control effort he did not like. Gun control has been a key issue throughout his political career.

He supports stricter gun control measures such as:

Universal background checks

A ban on assault weapons

Requiring a federal gun license,

Limiting handgun purchases to one per month

A national gun buyback program,

Kevin A. Batts, special assistant for Senator Booker was arrested on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol by Capitol Police after failing to go through security carrying a firearm without a proper license.

_________________________________________________________________

Millions of taxpayer dollars pour into Washington D.C.’s anti-violence initiatives.

Cure the Streets is a D C public safety program to reduce ‘gun violence.’ Cure the Streets hires people with criminal histories as ‘violence interrupters’ because they know first-hand about crime. The program operates in notoriously high-crime sections throughout D.C. (That covers every place but the White House Rose Garden.)

A Cure the Streets employee, Cotey Wynn, has a record which includes felony murder, first degree murder, possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, and distribution of a controlled substance. After becoming a D.C. violence interrupter, Wynn got arrested and charged with a fatal shooting in 2017. At that time, Wynn was under the supervision of the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia that believes preventative detention should only be a last resort for defendants, who should live in the least restrictive conditions while awaiting court.

Wynn, was recently arrested and faces a first-degree murder charge related to a nightclub shooting.

The D.C. Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement (ONSE) is the umbrella agency that focuses on reducing violence in D. C.

Councilman Trayon White was expelled by the D.C. Council and is scheduled to be tried in 2026. He took $156,000 in cash payments in exchange for using his position as a D.C. councilman to pressure government employees at ONSE and the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services to extend several contracts. “The contracts at issue were valued at $5.2 million and were for two companies to provide Violence Intervention services in D.C.,” according to the Department of Justice.

Former Deputy Director Dana McDaniel is another ONSE official nabbed in a bribery scheme. She has pleaded guilty to accepting at least $10,000 in exchange for using her position to award contracts and grants to businesses owned by a Maryland-based associate. She faces 15 years in prison.

D.C, has these ‘reimagined’ efforts at bringing down crime and some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Too bad it’s the crooks running the programs. Maybe guns aren’t the problem.

_________________________________________________________________

NY Assembly bill A3662 was described by Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly as, “It is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in my 36 years in law enforcement.”

The bill would ban cops in the state from stopping and searching drivers over a slew of low-level violations — including the one that ended up nabbing serial killer Joel Rifkin.

(It’s a stretch to call it the “most ridiculous thing” since NYS has set a high bar in that regard.)

_________________________________________________________________

At the Obama Foundation’s 2024 democracy Forum, former President Barack Obama said, “I don't understand how we got so toxic and just so divided and so bitter.”

_________________________________________________________________

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning posted footage of Mao Zedong, the founder of the Chinese Communist Party.

Mao is probably – no is definitely- the worst mass murderer in history. Even worse than Stalin, Hitler and the tyrants of old. Mao is responsible for killing between 30 and 55 million people!

Of course, the current edition of the Communist Chinese Party is emulating Mao in its treatment of the Uyghurs. And don’t forget the Wuan coronavirus epidemic.

Movement in the Right Direction

Tue, 08 Apr 2025 23:11:07 GMT

Movement in the Right Direction

Under 18 USC 922(g), persons prohibited from possessing a firearm include anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration, regardless of the sentence that was actually imposed. It did not matter whether or not the offense involved violence, and no matter how long ago it happened. The law also prohibits gun possession by anyone who has ever been subjected to involuntary psychiatric treatment, even if that person was never deemed a threat to others.

That person who was legally banned from possessing a firearm had to seek relief from this ban / disability by applying to the Department of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. (ATF)

However, “in the early 1990s, Congress became concerned about the number of resources that ATF was using to adjudicate requests to relieve individual Americans from disabilities on their ownership of firearms. (“The Committee believes that the approximately 40 man-years spent annually to investigate and act upon these investigations and applications would be better utilized to crack down on violent crime.”). Congressional reports also stated that judging whether applicants posed “a danger to public safety” was “a very difficult and subjective task,” id., and that “too many felons . . . whose gun ownership rights were restored went on to commit crimes with firearms.”*

So, the agency you applied to for relief was officially banned from considering the application. (Bureaucracy at its best!)

Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice recently introduced an interim final rule* that rescinds the delegation of that process to the ATF.

The authority to handle this issue has not yet been transferred to another branch of the DOJ. Bondi considers this a first step to give the AG a clean slate to work with instead of trying to work around the ATF’s bureaucratic procedures. Which makes sense since we are dealing with an ATF bureaucracy that has been dedicated to abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America said of this: "The [Justice Department's] decision to finally withdraw ATF's authority in this matter is an encouraging sign that this administration is serious about protecting the Second Amendment for all Americans."

The important thing is that we are seeing some tangible positive movement.

*Federal Register :: Withdrawing the Attorney General's Delegation of Authority

The March/April SCOPE newsletter, Firing Lines, is posted

Tue, 08 Apr 2025 18:58:47 GMT

Click the link below

MARCH / APRIL Firing Lines

Ulster County by Frank Riess

Thu, 03 Apr 2025 22:49:07 GMT

Ulster County by Frank Riess

The anti gun left will use all means at their disposal to take away our 2A protected rights, including making the permit process bureaucratic, arbitrary and a whole lot more work than it should be.

Frank Reiss just wrote a letter to U S Attorney General Pam Bondi about this and we reproduce it below with his permission and some minor corrections.

Attorney General Bondi

US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530‐0001

April 2nd, 2025
April 2nd, 2025
Owner Wallkill River Small Arms
2332 Rt 300
Wallkill, NY 12589
DOJ Investigation into California Gun Law Patterns and Practices Should be Expanded

Honorable Attorney General Bondi,

The law‐abiding gun owners of Ulster County, NY need your help. We are aware of your recent action in Los Angeles County and need the same assistance. The Ulster County Family Court is acting in a way that directly opposes the Constitution of the United States and the laws of New York State. Their actions include but are not limited to:

· Pistol permits routinely take more than a year to obtain

· A judge has to sign an “amendment” to a pistol permit for a permit holder to acquire a new handgun

· Amendments have been routinely taking several months

· Permit holders have been summoned to a court room to testify as to why they need certain or additional firearms

· Permit holders have been told that they cannot purchase additional handguns until they complete more training

· Outright denying amendments for the purchase of certain LEGAL handguns

· HUNDREDS of permit holders have had permits revoked for missing a confusing and unclear recertification process that must be done via the internet

· Permit applicants are quizzed on the law until they get a question wrong and are then denied

· Judges seem to have taken pleasure in humiliating applicants and permit holders in their court rooms

· A judge is currently refusing to renew my NYS Firearm Dealers License over an issue she has with my renewal application. It is the exact application I have used three times. I had to hire an attorney to continue operations so I can feed my family.

My case is still pending.

The actions and missteps being taken by “acting supreme” court judges are harassment and obstruction of government administration. While not new, these anti‐gun actions have increased exponentially starting with the Bruen decision and have now reached a fever pitch with the second election of President Trump. In the past, letters and calls to supervisory judges in Albany fell on deaf ears. I pray that you might have more influence.

Sincerely and Grateful,
Frank Riess

Note: Here is an artice on the Los Angeles issue to which that Frank Reiss referred.

A1898

Wed, 02 Apr 2025 17:05:40 GMT

A1898

Proposed Assembly Bill A1898 prohibits using toxic ammunition in the taking of wildlife. It specifically says: Wildlife shall not be taken with the use of any toxic ammunition, including lead ammunition. Wildlife shall be taken using only any federally approved nontoxic ammunition. (Emphasis added)

It was cosponsored by Assemblywomen Linda Rosenthal (D-NY City), Dana Levenberg (D-Ossining), Anna Kelles (D-Ithaca) and Assemblyman Jonathan Jacobson (D-Newburg). Three down staters and one from Ithaca!

Dieter Kraemer researched some background information and suggests sending a letter to the cosponsors and the Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee. Here are some important facts:

Assemblywoman Rosenthal references the Humane Society of the United States, (HSUS).* HUSIS has said, “…scientists consider the use of lead ammunition to be the greatest unregulated source of lead knowingly released into the environment in the United States...It incidentally kills millions of wild animals a year.” (Yes, lead bullets do kill millions of wild animals. Hunters will confirm that is the bullet’s purpose.)

Activist Facts describes HSUS as: “…a radical animal rights group that inaccurately portrays itself as a mainstream animal care organization. The words “humane society” may appear on its letterhead, but HSUS is not affiliated with your local animal shelter.”

HSUS includes a huge web of organizations, affiliates and subsidiaries.

The American Institute of Philanthropy gives HSUS a “D” rating.

David Wills the former vice president of HSUS was sentenced to life in prison for a conviction of child sex abuse charges. He also embezzled money from the organization.**

Paul Irwin (HSUS president from 1996 to 2004) founded the Humane Society of Canada (HSC) while claiming to live in Canada but he actually lived in Maryland. Erwin was reimbursed $85,000 by HSUS for the purchase of a vacation home by the organization.***

HSUS executive John Hoyt lived rent free in a house that the organization purchased for him.****

When Wayne Pacelle became the CEO HSUS, he took HSUS in a radical political direction. In 1991, Pacelle told the Associated Press: “[I]f we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.” Pacelle would later resign over sexual harassment allegations.*****

Humane Society of the United States has now changed its name to Humane World for Animals.

Does this sound like an organization that publishes reliable information?

Rosenthal also states that lead bullets are made from recycled car batteries. Technically possible but complicated and dangerous. Does she have any evidence this is done by any manufacturer? Importantly, does that make them more dangerous, more toxic?

Iowa State University conducted a study on wild Bald Eagles.****** Their conclusion is that very few are suffering from any kind of lead poisoning. We now have more eagles in the US than ever before.

The use of lead-free ammunition in NY state should be on a voluntary basis, it should not be mandated by state law.

*Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) | Activist Facts

**David Wills, ex-Humane Society of the U.S. vice president, gets life in prison - Animals 24-7

***Paul Irwin - Wikipedia

****HUMANE SOCIETY REFUSES TO CLEAN HOUSE – Deseret News

*****CEO Of The Humane Society Resigns Amid Allegations Of Sexual Harassment : The Two-Way : NPR

******Most Iowa bald eagles are not exposed to high levels of lead, according to new Iowa State University research - News Service

SCOPE Activities in March 2025

Tue, 01 Apr 2025 01:20:38 GMT

SCOPE Activities in March 2025

SCOPE Chapter Visits. SCOPE officials recently visited the Schoharie and Seneca County Chapters of SCOPE, engaging in discussions about the organization's key priorities. The five main priorities highlighted were: synchronizing efforts with other 2A organizations in New York State, expanding membership both individually and within active chapters, educating politicians and the public about firearms legislation in New York, developing and promoting new firearms legislation, and supporting high school shooting sports through donations. The President also shared SCOPE’s strategic vision for 2025-2026, which includes developing a robust social media plan, creating a merchandise strategy, and certifying SCOPE range instructors. Additionally, the SCOPE Board of Directors approved of a significant donation to Gun Owners of America New York (GOA-NY) to support their lawsuit against the controversial ammunition background check law; and to the Firearms Policy Coalition lawsuit against the ban of body armor in New York State; reinforcing SCOPE's commitment to defending Second Amendment rights.

SCOPE’s Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Legislation. With the start of a new two-year legislative period, new bill numbers were assigned to both existing and new firearms legislation. Currently, the New York State legislature is considering sixty-nine firearms bills that could potentially become law. In response to the influx of these sixty-nine bills, SCOPE (Shooter's Committee on Political Education) decided to form a committee tasked with analyzing and identifying the Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Legislation in New York State. After weeks of analysis and deliberation, SCOPE narrowed the list down to their Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Legislation. The bills include Assembly Bill A00929, A02229/S03562, S00418/A01774, S00658/A04085, A00346, S05813, A03376, A01210/S00362, S02158/A03021, and S01358. These bills are available for review on the New York State Assembly website and the document detailing SCOPE's analysis has been posted on the SCOPENY2A.org website, as well as shared with other 2A organizations throughout the state to ensure their members’ situational awareness. SCOPE officials are making plans to brief the majority and minority leaders in the New York State legislature, as well as senators and assemblypersons on SCOPE’s Top Ten Most Egregious Firearms Legislation.

Annual All Members Meeting. Coordination is underway for the Annual All Members meeting, set to take place on Saturday, April 26, 2025, at the VFW Post 6778 in Palmyra, New York, from 0945 to 1200. We are thrilled to welcome Bobby Ann Cox as our guest speaker. A dynamic speaker and civil rights attorney from New York State, Cox has a distinguished history of suing government entities and recently secured a historic victory against Governor Hochul in a landmark lawsuit. The meeting will also feature a presentation on SCOPE's progress over the past year, as well as the organization's plans for the 2025-2026 period. In addition, elections for At-Large directors will be determined. Lunch will be provided for all members, followed by an afternoon SCOPE board of directors meeting.

Updated SCOPE By-Laws. The SCOPE by-laws were updated in the last year and the updated by-laws will be voted on at the board of directors meeting on Saturday, April 26, 2025.

Increasing Active SCOPE Chapters. In March, SCOPE officials visited the Tioga County Sportsmen's Association with the goal of boosting membership and exploring the possibility of starting a SCOPE Chapter in Tioga County. The visit proved successful in attracting several new members to SCOPE, though there was no interest from attendees in taking on the responsibility of leading a new chapter in the area. Despite this, the visit was seen as a positive step in expanding the organization’s presence within the county. Additionally, several other counties without SCOPE chapters have recently shown interest in activating a chapter.

SCOPE continues to protect and restore the Second Amendment. We need your help. Please join us by volunteering your time by joining a committee or writing an article for the Firing Line. Before the end of April, the annual All Members meeting will occur. I hope to see you there.

John Elwood
SCOPE President

Gun Rights Are Not a “Culture War” Issue -They Are a Civil Rights Imperative by James D. Tresmond, Esq.

Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:26:33 GMT

Gun Rights Are Not a “Culture War” Issue -They Are a Civil Rights Imperative by James D. Tresmond, Esq.

In their endless quest to obfuscate, deflect, and trivialize, politicians and the media have taken to dismissing the right to keep and bear arms as just another front in the so-called “culture war.” This is a grotesque misrepresentation. To call the Second Amendment a “culture war” issue is to place it in the same category as petty political squabbles over pop stars, social media trends, and other frivolities that occupy the minds of our ruling class. Gun rights are not a “fad” to be debated alongside the latest manufactured outrage of the 24-hour news cycle; they are an unassailable pillar of individual liberty, as fundamental to a free society as the right to speak, to worship, or to seek redress against an oppressive state.

A “culture war” is, at its core, a manufactured conflict designed to inflame passions and distract the public while preserving the status quo. These skirmishes are waged not over principles, but over headlines. The right to keep and bear arms, on the other hand, is not a matter of mere ideological preference. It is the hard-won recognition of an existential truth: that power unchecked by the armed citizen is power inevitably abused.

The history of gun rights in America is not the history of suburban hobbyists or political slogans; it is the history of resistance against tyranny and a safeguard against systemic oppression. During Reconstruction, the disarmed freedmen of the South learned that their “rights” were nothing more than paper-thin promises when met with the iron fist of armed mobs and complicit state governments. Jim Crow laws went hand in hand with disarmament because those who seek to control and subjugate understand that an armed citizen is a citizen beyond their coercive grasp. The Second Amendment has long been the lifeline for those abandoned by the institutions meant to protect them.

Fast forward to the present day, and the lesson remains the same. The smallest minority in the world is the individual, and no right is more fundamental to preserving the autonomy of the individual than the right to self-defense. Those who would trivialize this right - those who would condescendingly lump it in with the day’s political entertainment - are betraying the very notion of civil rights. It is both appalling and unsurprising that the same politicians who wrap themselves in the language of “justice” and “equity” fail to grasp the cruel irony of advocating for an unarmed populace. An unarmed citizen is a subject, not a sovereign. And history has been unrelenting in its demonstration that disarmed populations do not meet happy ends.

This leads us to the so-called “gun rights champions” in the Republican Party - the same party that depends on gun owners every election cycle while treating them as disposable every legislative session. You know the people to whom I’m referring. They know who they are, too. The idea that Republicans can brush off the Second Amendment as a “secondary issue” and still expect gun owners to rally behind them is a delusion of the highest order. How often do we hear that it’s not the “right time” to push for pro-gun legislation? That we must “pick our battles”? That gun owners must be patient while courts slow-walk the most basic affirmations of our rights?

Gun owners are watching. They have seen the betrayals, the half-hearted advocacy, and the gutless surrender to media pressure. And let me assure these cowardly, calculating politicians of one thing: You will not win elections without the gun vote. You will not rally your “base” while treating their rights as an afterthought. And when the time comes for the midterms, when you crawl back to the podiums and make your feigned overtures to the people you’ve spent years dismissing, do not feign surprise when your applause is drowned out by silence.

A politician who treats the Second Amendment as a mere “culture war” talking point is a politician unworthy of office. A party that believes it can ignore gun owners and still win is a party that deserves to lose. And a media establishment that sneers at armed self-defense while enjoying the protection of armed security is a hypocrisy so glaring, it borders on parody.

Gun rights are not a political spectacle. They are not a partisan gimmick. They are the last line between liberty and subjugation, between self-determination and state control. Those who fail to recognize this simple fact will be discarded by history just as surely as those who have sought to erase this right before them.

Onward!

Annual SCOPE Members Meeting, Saturday, April 26, 10 AM

Sat, 29 Mar 2025 00:45:40 GMT

Bobbie Anne Cox

will be the
guest speaker

Bobbie Anne Cox

Attorney Bobbie Anne Cox will be the speaker at our Members Meeting on April 26th. She has described Kathy Hochul as an elitist Governor…and her lawless Department of Health.

Bobbie Anne is a 2023 Brownstone Institute Fellow and an attorney with 25 years of experience in the private sector. She passionately defends and preserves the Constitution against egregious government overreach, defending citizens against tyrannical acts of heavy-handed government.

Are you familiar with the NYS Department of Health (DOH) “Isolation and Quarantine Procedures” regulation? You should be. It’s another attack on our liberties by Governor Kathy Hochul and her administration

Here is what Attorney Bobbie Anne Cox had to say about it in the American Thinker: “Imagine a land where the government has the power to lock you up because the unelected bureaucrats in the Health Department think that you might, possibly have a communicable disease. They don’t have to prove you are sick. They don’t have to prove you are a health threat to others…and you must stay there for however long they want. No time limit.”

“No chance to prove that you aren’t actually infected with the disease. No chance to confront your jailers, see their supposed evidence against you or challenge their quarantine order in a court of law before getting locked up. And they can use law enforcement to help them carry out their forced quarantine… “

Sounds a lot like Red Flag laws (Extreme Risk Protection Orders) where your guns are taken away without “due process of Law.” You know-that part of those pesky 5th and 14th Amendments that Kathy Hochul and the NY Legislature ignore, at will.

Cox went to court and successfully got it struck down before it could become a permanent regulation; it does not exist today.

However, the Appeals Court reversed the decision and dismissed the case because the plaintiffs did not have standing…Some of the plaintiffs were NYS legislators and they didn’t have standing! The DOH is now free to reissue its dystopian regulation.

There is nothing stopping the tyranny of the NYS Executive Branch and its unconstitutional DOH, now.

Cox also worked with Lee Zeldin to prevent the unconstitutional gerrymandering of the Congressional lines in New York State by the Democrats. Cox formed Stop NY Corruption and with help from other members of NY’s Congressional delegation were successful in preventing that shameful political ploy to illegally retake the House of Representatives.

Cox again teamed up again with Congressman Zeldin and together with her organization, Vote NO on Prop One Committee, fought against the radical Dems that run NYS with their dishonest campaign to pass Prop 1.

Bobbie Anne Cox has been a David versus Goliath fighter for our rights against the far-left assault on those rights, in New York State. The Members Meeting will give you a chance to hear her stories, ask questions and develop a strategy to protect all our rights – especially our 2nd Amendment protected rights. _________________________________________________

Member Meeting
RSVP FORM

DONATE HERE

Hacking Gun Registries

Sat, 29 Mar 2025 00:39:00 GMT

Hacking Gun Registries

From 2A defenders’ standpoint, gun registries have been a no-no as they pave an easy path to gun confiscation.

There is another issue; a digital file (and everything is now digitized) provides an inviting target for hackers. This was demonstrated last week, when SCOPE wrote about Israel’s gun registry being hacked by Iran - and you can be sure that Iran will not use that information for the benefit of Israeli gun owners.

As further evidence-

In 2012, an interactive map showing the names and addresses of all handgun permit holders in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties was posted on a newspaper’s website. The map allows readers to zoom in on red dots that indicate which residents are licensed to own pistols or revolvers. That information could only come from a government registry.

And then there are government ‘oops’ moments.

In 2022, the California Department of Justice (DOJ)'s new Firearms Dashboard Portal was shut down after users realized their personal information, including full names, date of birth and addresses could be publicly accessed.

Gun control hackers now have an inviting new target.

Federal law and ATF regulations require a licensed firearms dealer (an FFL holder) to record various information when they receive a firearm and when they sell / transfer it. This is information about the firearm (serial number, manufacturer, etc.) and personal information (name, address, etc.)

These records must be available for ATF inspection during business hours.

To make things easier, there is online software that allows dealers to keep this information in an electronic book.

What could possibly go wrong with having every gun transaction on-line?

In addition, when the ATF inspects the FFL’s files, the FFL downloads the on line file to a thumb drive and the ATF agent leaves with that data; the bulk of the inspection happens back at the ATF office.

Is the ATF destroying these thumb drive records at the conclusion of the compliance check or keeping the information, either on the thumb drive or downloaded it to a central directory? Is the ATF using this information as a short cut to creating a gun registry— in violation of 18 USC 926 (a)(3)?

Digitizing the information makes it easier for everyone involved: the FFL; the ATF; hackers; government gun registry creators.

Realistically, there is too much personal information already out-there in the digital universe. This creates even more targets for potential hackers and could be used directly against gun owners. The gun grabbers are a part of the political left and we have seen how the left reacts to things of which they don’t approve – like Elon Musk’s Tesla.

The Trump administration and ATF Director Patel need to ensure that the none of the information on the thumb drive is transferred to a permanent file and the thumb drive is destroyed after the inspection.

Could you fire a gun in space?

Sat, 29 Mar 2025 00:27:05 GMT

Could you fire a gun in space?

From the web site Mental Floss:

Could you fire a gun in space?

Technically, it should work just fine. According to BBC Science Focus, guns don’t require oxygen to fire. That’s because they already have an oxidizing agent in the sealed ammunition cartridge that can ignite the gunpowder. Nor is gravity needed to chamber a bullet: a spring forces that.

It’s not a lack of gravity that poses the biggest problem. Instead, environmental factors might prevent a space shooting. Extreme temperatures could cause the weapon to overheat and malfunction. If the weapon gets too cold, the firing cap primer might not go off; metal gun parts could lose their structural integrity, leading to jamming.

Shooting on Earth	Shooting in Space
Gun will likely function in average temperatures	Gun could malfunction when exposed to extreme hot or cold temperatures
Bullet will travel until gravity overtakes it, typically 1.5 miles depending on caliber	Bullet could travel indefinitely until striking a solid object
Recoil can be absorbed by body	Recoil could propel body backward

Suppose those problems are resolved. If a gun can successfully fire, what would happen to the bullet? If it’s not hitting a target, the shooter may never find out. On Earth, a bullet that doesn't strike a target will eventually be pushed down by gravity. Depending on the caliber and environmental factors, it could travel for well over 1 mile. Because space lacks gravity and its drag, however, there’s nothing stopping the bullet from traveling indefinitely, or at least until it makes contact with a surface.

The shooter would also have to contend with recoil. On the ground, gravity and planted feet help absorb kickback. In space, the astronaut-slash-gunslinger would be propelled backward after firing. This wouldn’t be rapid—probably less than walking speed—but it would put the shooter in motion, and they would need a counteracting force (like thrusters) or the wall of their spacecraft to halt their movement.

Note: Not mentioned – if the bullet flies too close to a large object, it could be deflected by that object’s gravity. And if it flies too close to a sun it would burn up.

The Also Rans

Tue, 25 Mar 2025 21:49:28 GMT

The Also Rans

SCOPE recently published a list of the 10 Most Egregious Bills currently proposed in the NY Legislature. There was a lively discussion to establish which 10 were the worst. There were some deserving runner ups and we wanted you to see some of them.

A360

Requires a person to apply for a hunting license prior to the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.

Additional requirements for all shotguns and rifles include taking a five hour gun safety course and exam, passing a shooting range test with 90% accuracy, providing notarized proof of a passed drug test and mental health evaluation, providing proof of purchase of ammunition safe storage depositories and passing a criminal background check.

A5817

Enhancing sentences for certain offenses involving weapons within 5,000 feet on or near school grounds.

S399 and A199

A Convertible pistol means any semi-automatic pistol that can be converted into a machine-gun solely by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter. Any person, dealer, firm, partnership, or corporation who disposes of or who transports or ships as merchandise or who disposes of a convertible pistol is guilty of a class D felony.

All semi-automatic firearms are potentially convertible into an automatic, even if the technology does not yet exist.

S4807

Relates to limiting the acquisition of a rifle or shotgun to one per ninety-day period.

S227 and A1777

A person who intentionally sells, distributes, or disposes of a three-dimensional printed firearm is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

S4277

The possession of 50 caliber or larger weapons is banned.

S5292

Prohibits the sale of a firearm, rifle, shotgun or ammunition on state property including state and county fairgrounds, and county, city and municipal property. Designates offense as a class A misdemeanor.

S4388

Prohibits gun industry members from marketing firearms and firearm related products to minors; excepts instances where marketing is geared toward hunting purposes.

A1962 and S3385

Establishes violations for the failure to safely store rifles, shotguns, and firearms in the presence of a minor or a prohibited person; repeals certain provisions relating thereto.

S1985

Requires police officers to take temporary custody of firearms for not less than one hundred twenty (120) hours when responding to reports of family violence. (was 48 hours)

A2084 and S1289

Establishes the office of gun violence prevention and the gun violence advisory council.

S2547

Establishes a minimum age to possess a firearm.

S1273

Bans openly carries a rifle or shotgun on or about such person. “Openly carries" means to carry a rifle or shotgun in a manner that renders such rifle or shotgun, or any portion thereof, visible to others. Exception for hunting.

A1920

Prohibits entry to gun shows to anyone under twelve years of age.

A5105

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree when such person is not licensed as a gunsmith or a dealer in firearms with intent to manufacture and/or distribute such firearms pursuant to section 400.00 of this chapter and, knowing it is a ghost gun, such person possesses a ghost gun.

Since the legislature is in session. We fully expect there will be more introduced that are candidates for the top 10.

Tesla

Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:47:14 GMT

Tesla

An online map, decorated with an image of a Molotov cocktail, went live this Monday. It displayed the names, addresses and contact information of Tesla owners and dealerships and members of the Trump administration. The site is reported as saying that the only way to get off the list is to prove that you’ve sold your car.

Given all the recent terrorist actions against Tesla dealers and owners, this is of genuine concern to Tesla dealers and owners.

Why is it of concern to 2nd Amendment defenders (who don’t own Teslas?)

Also this week, a massive cyberattack on Israeli government agencies and private security firms - allegedly orchestrated by Iranian hackers - has exposed names, addresses, firearm details, and even military and medical information on thousands of Israeli gun owners, raising alarms about national security and the dangers of centralized gun databases.

Anyone identified as a gun owner in Israel is now vulnerable to every would-be terrorist.

Ammoland sums it up well: “The Israeli data breach mirrors concerns that have been raised for years in the United States. The ATF’s database, combined with efforts to track firearm transactions indefinitely, could one day be weaponized against law-abiding gun owners.”

“Gun owners in the U.S. should take this as a cautionary tale. If hostile foreign actors can compromise Israeli security databases, what’s stopping similar groups—or even an overreaching domestic agency—from misusing American gun owner data? The best way to protect gun owners from cyber threats, government overreach, and criminal targeting is simple: don’t maintain a registry in the first place.”

U.S. federal law forbids federal gun owner registries but federal bureaucrats (especially the ATF) have often ignored or worked around the law and created would be gun registries, especially during the Biden administration when they were free from consequences. 80 to 100 million American gun owners must not be put in the same vulnerable position as their Israeli counterparts.

Tesla benefits, directly and indirectly, from mammoth government subsidies and has been the darling of the green new deal. A few months ago, who would have believed that Tesla would now be the enemy of those same leftists and subject to their acts of terrorism. If it can happen to tesla, gun owners are even less protected.

Do you doubt that Iran or China or Russia would love to hack into a list of U.S. gun owners?

In an era of cyber warfare and government overreach, centralized gun registries are a liability. Gun registries put every gun owner in potential danger from anti-gun terrorists, just as Tesla owners are now endangered.

Firearms for Those Under 21

Thu, 20 Mar 2025 23:04:32 GMT

Firearms for Those Under 21

Many Democrat majority states, including New York State, are trying to ban firearm sales to those under 21. NY Assembly proposed bill A346 tries to do this in NY State and made SCOPE’s list of the “10 Most Egregious Proposed Bills.”

Florida – of all places – passed such a bill a few years ago. It is being challenged in court by the NRA.

The 11th U.S. Court of Appeals has let stand a Florida statute barring the purchase of long guns by young adults in the 18-to-20-year age group.

However,

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier won’t defend the law if appealed to the U S Supreme Court!

Uthmeier wrote, “Upon assuming office, I tasked my staff with reviewing Florida’s underlying law and whether it was consistent with the Second Amendment. Notwithstanding CA11’s opinion today, I believe restricting the right of law-abiding adults to purchase firearms is unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit quite recently reached the same conclusion. If the NRA decides to seek further review at SCOTUS, I am directing my office not to defend this law. Men and women old enough to fight and die for our country should be able to purchase firearms to defend themselves and their families.” (Emphasis added.)

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal law prohibiting those under age 21 from purchasing handguns violates the Second Amendment. When there is a disagreement between sides, the U S Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has to decide, if appealed and if SCOTUS takes up the case.

The majority opinion in the Florida case said, “The Florida law that prohibits minors from purchasing firearms does not violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments…because it is consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation…During the Founding era, minors generally lacked unrestricted access to firearms.”

“The age of the majority ‘remained unchanged’ in the United States “from the country’s founding well into the twentieth century.” When World War II necessitated lowering the conscription age to 18, states lowered the age of majority too. And, in 1971, the ratification of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to individuals at the age of 18. But for much of the first two centuries of our nation, our law limited the rights of individuals under the age of 21, including their purchase of firearms.

The dissenting opinion wrote, “In the absence of historical precedent, the Second Amendment does not allow for a categorical ban on the ability of law-abiding adults to purchase a firearm for self-defense. The majority opinion’s contrary conclusion is hard to understand as anything other than a declaration that Second Amendment rights—alone among all our constitutional rights—start at the age of twenty-one. This conclusion splits with at least three sister circuits. And it is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court has warned us that the Second Amendment is not a ‘second-class right,’ subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. But the majority has read an age limit into the Second Amendment and that amendment alone.”

The dissent continued, “The Commissioner has presented no analogous Founding-era regulation that precluded young adults from purchasing firearms. The record of historical statutes the Commissioner did compile, which does not begin until the 1850s, does not establish a tradition of outlawing all firearms purchases by eighteen- to twenty-one-year-olds. These statutes were passed many years after the Founding…”

It generally takes years for the courts to decide these cases. In the meantime, we must stop NY A346 from being enacted so we do not have to live under it, until SCOTUS decides.

The Annual Members Meeting

Thu, 20 Mar 2025 21:49:19 GMT

Bobbie Anne Cox
will be the guest speaker

Attorney Bobbie Anne Cox will be the speaker at our Members Meeting on April 26th. She has described Kathy Hochul as an elitist Governor…and her lawless Department of Health.

Cox went to court and successfully got it struck down before it could become a permanent regulation; it does not exist today.

There is nothing stopping the tyranny of the NYS Executive Branch and its unconstitutional DOH, now.

Member Meeting
RSVP FORM

Beware of Pit Bulls in Bed

Tue, 18 Mar 2025 21:45:24 GMT

Beware of Pit Bulls in Bed

Tennessee: Pit Bull Accidentally Shoots Its Sleeping Owner

Read the comments, too!

___________________________________________________

A NY City resident, Joseph Garofalo, applied for two licenses to possess and purchase firearms: one for a Premise Residence handgun license; one for a rifle/shotgun license. The New York Police Department (“NYPD”) License Division denied both applications. The rationale for denying him was that Garofalo lacked the needed “good moral character” to have a gun. He appealed the denials and lost both appeals.

Mr. Garofalo had some issues in that he had previously violated a protective order and been arrested for domestic abuse. He was never convicted of any crime and he did not disclose any of this on his application.

The NY Police Department denied his permit on the basis that Garofalo did not disclose this negative information on his application.

Garofalo sued NY City claiming that NY City violated his Second and Fourteenth Amendments and that the law is “arbitrary and capricious.”

New York City has settled the case and agreed to pay $10,001 to Garofalo.

Why did NYC settle? Did NYC believe it would not win the case and that it could destroy the entire law? NYC doesn’t admit any wrongdoing in the settlement, meaning the law can continue.

It could also have been settled because defending it was more costly than settling.

This might be a good sign that the anti-gun left believes the law on “good moral character” can be overturned.

_______________________________________________________________

You have probably saw or have seen something about the Democrats’ actions during President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress. It could have been worse.

In Serbia’s parliament, opposition lawmakers unleashed smoke bombs, flares, and tear gas causing three injuries. (Opposition lawmakers are the Serbian equivalent of Democrats.)

A Few Lawsuits and Things

Tue, 18 Mar 2025 21:44:13 GMT

A Few Lawsuits and Things

SCOPE sent an E mail reminding people about the SAFE Act. A sharp-eyed SCOPE member caught an issue:

The footnotes contained the statement: A shotgun is considered an “assault weapon” if …

It should have said: a semi-automatic shotgun is considered an assault weapon if…

Oops. My bad!

F Y I about this case: A Western District of New York federal court made a decision to stop the 7 round limit in a magazine but that did not cover all of NY State.

But when NY Attorney General Letitia James appealed it to the federal 2nd Circuit and lost, that extended the decision to ALL of NY State since the 2nd Circuit covers ALL of NYS.

A Circuit Court decision is binding precedent for lower federal district courts in that circuit; they are required to follow it.

Latetia James seems to appeal every negative gun decision but sometimes those appeals bring negative consequences - to her way of thinking.

_____________________________________________________________

The Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) has generated so many lawsuits that it is difficult to keep track of them. Here’s an update on one of them.

The Christian v. James lawsuit challenges CCIA’s banning firearms on all publicly accessible private property without the express consent of the owner.

The Western District of NY delivered judgment against NY State, in January. Western District of New York is a part of the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court. As usual, New York’s Attorney General Letitia James appealed the decision to the 2nd Circuit because she uses bottomless taxpayers’ pockets to defend the indefensible though multiple layers of appeals.

So, the lawsuit sits waiting to be heard in front of the 2nd Circuit

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed its answering brief with the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The brief cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen: New York’s ban “…cannot be reconciled with the historic principles underlying the Second Amendment.”

And yes, we are talking about the same Western District and 2nd Circuit that were featured in the first section of this e mail.

_________________________________________________

In 2021 the National School Boards Association (NSBA) sent a letter labeling parents as ‘domestic terrorists’ subject to the Patriot Act if they speak up about their kids’ education. Attorney General Merrick Garland responded by directing the FBI to get involved?

Local school board issues became a federal case? Speaking out at a school board meeting made one a domestic terrorist?

Was this just an oddity or a trend in the late and unlamented Biden administration? Judge by the below.

An anti-terrorism briefing was held at Fort Liberty (Formerly Fort Bragg) where they listed several anti-abortion (Pro-Life) organizations as “terrorist groups.” The organizations labeled as terror groups include National Right to Life and Operation Rescue. These organizations were listed as participating in terrorist activities included opposing Row v Wade, demonstrating and protesting, “Truth Displays,” and picketing. (Forget those pesky 1st Amendment protected rights.)

Whatever position you have on abortion, labelling anti-abortion groups as terrorist groups was government ‘lawfare’ against organizations of which it disapproves. So, labelling parents speaking out at school board meetings as terrorists was not an aberration in the Biden White House.

If they could have gotten away with this, do you doubt that 2nd Amendment defense organizations would have been next to be labelled terrorists.

A Few Things

Sat, 15 Mar 2025 01:39:31 GMT

A Few Things

The Arkansas state Senate passed Act 229, (also known as House Bill 1117), which would require public school districts and open-enrollment public charter schools to annually provide students with age appropriate instruction on firearm safety. The bill would have to also pass the state House of Representatives and be signed by the Governor to become law.

Under the bill, the Arkansas State Game and Fish Commission would work with the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education to create and approve age-appropriate firearm safety courses.

Although just an option being discussed at this time, the bill does state that if an option of live-fire training is approved, it would require parent’s consent.

As part of the rationale, Representative Scott Richardson said: “All of our children play together and invade whatever home happens to be the play of the day. And in that process, they may go into a neighbor's home and discover that unsecured firearm, and how would they react."

Can you imagine such a bill in New York State? The liberals running the state Education Department would be peeing their pants!

_______________________________________________________________

HB 2187, passed the West Virginia House Education Committee. It is next scheduled for the House Judiciary Committee.

HB 2187 authorizes teachers, administrators, or support personnel in elementary or secondary schools to carry concealed firearms and be designated as a school protection officer (SPO).

Yep. Definitely diapers for the NYS Education Department.

__________________________________________________________

In a case involving Pennsylvania’s law banning 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms during a state of emergency, a three-judge panel of the federal Third Circuit had held the ban unconstitutional. It based its finding on that 18-to-20-years-olds are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects.

The state then petitioned for rehearing en banc where it would have then been reconsidered by all the judges of the Third Circuit, rather than a three-judge panel.

The court denied the petition. The state remains barred from enforcing the ban and the 3 judge panel decision remains binding precedent in the Third Circuit.

______________________________________________________________

The Federal Third Circuit also denied a petition for a rehearing en banc in Lara v. Paris.

The court determined that the original understanding of the Second Amendment goes from when it was ratified in 1791 and that date controls any Second Amendment analysis.

In order to sneak in and undermine the Bruen guidelines, it has been a common strategy of the anti-gun left to say the understanding of the 2nd Amendment starts with the approval of the 14th Amendment, in 1868. This would have opened the door for the left to try to use racist, post-Civil War, southern state laws aimed at prohibiting gun ownership of blacks as an historical rationale for current gun control.

That’s right, the anti-gun left tries to use racist laws to justify their gun control positions.

_________________________________________________________________

NICS checks dropped in February but were still over 1 million for the 67th consecutive month.

PLCAA Lawsuit

Sat, 15 Mar 2025 01:32:02 GMT

PLCAA Lawsuit

Last week, SCOPE wrote about a movie about a law suit against gun manufacturers. That

E mail’s purpose was to point out the propaganda value of movies to the anti-gun left. Now, there is news about an actual law suit against gun manufacturers.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a federal law that shields gun makers from frivolous lawsuits when their products are used criminally. Under PLCAA, if the manufacturer obeyed the laws as to selling the guns and did not falsely advertise, they generally can’t be held liable if the product is used illegally. However, PLCAA does have exceptions.

Mexico (the country) filed a lawsuit against major gun manufacturers arguing that gun manufacturers are violating federal law by “aiding and abetting” straw purchasers and criminal gun dealers. The Mexican government claims that these companies “knowingly” sell firearms that end up in cartel hands through straw purchases because American gun makers sell to retailers near the border and some criminals buy those guns illegally and smuggle them to Mexican drug cartels.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) recently heard oral arguments in Mexico v. Smith & Wesson. A SCOTUS decision will open - or close - the door on future lawsuits against the firearms industry

SOTUS seemed dubious. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden-appointed, died-in-the-wool liberal, who never lets the law stand in the way of her opinion seemed skeptical.

As with many 2nd Amendment cases, there is more here than just winning. We have to ‘beat the point spread.’ Remember the “Heller” decision which validated gun rights in Washington D.C. but did not apply to the states? It took the follow up McDonald decision to apply that decision to the states. Mexico’s lawsuit is in federal court. A narrow SCOTUS’ ruling might reject Mexico’s federal case but leave the door open for other lawsuits through state courts, which would not ‘beat the point spread.”.

On the other hand, a broad ruling might attempt to stop these lawsuits through the states. (Emphasis on ‘attempt to stop’ since states like New York have judges that do not let SCOTUS’ decisions stop them from allowing obviously losing law suits in order to tie gun manufacturers up in court and cost the gun manufacturers millions to defend themselves.)

One thing to remember is that judges often sit on cases of which they do NOT have a sophisticated understanding. For instance, Justice Kagan made a comment about easily scraped off serial numbers and Justice Sotomayer Sotomayer made comments about manufacturers making easily erasable serial numbers. They or their law clerks will, hopefully, learn that firearm manufacturers permanent mark serial numbers on firearm’s frames or receivers according to precise ATF regulations, in a way that serial numbers cannot be “easily erased.” It’s a crime to make a firearm that is not marked (serialized) according to ATF’s regulation and it is a serious crime to obliterate a serial number. Even if erased, there are methods to raise or reveal an obliterated serial

In a moment of sanity, Justice Alito asked if U.S. states could, in return, sue the Mexican government for the flood of fentanyl pouring into American cities? A great example of unintended consequences.

In any case, no matter what the decision, the anti-gun left will soon be seeking anything they can use to try and subvert the 2nd Amendment. We can only hope for a broad decision which will make the left’s work a little harder.

Bankruptcy and Bureaucracy

Sat, 15 Mar 2025 01:30:59 GMT

Bankruptcy and Bureaucracy

A new legislative session has begun in Albany and the leftist gun grabbers have wasted no time in introducing bills aimed at neutering the 2nd Amendment. Since there is no chance the 2nd Amendment will be repealed, one of the left’s many strategies is to make getting and keeping a firearm so bureaucratic and expensive that ordinary citizens will give up out of frustration or the lack of money.

The 2nd Amendment is the only constitutionally protected right where one has to get a license and pay a fee in order to exercise that right.

Below are four bills that have recently been introduced which are aimed at burying gun owners in bureaucracy and bankruptcy. Those starting with ‘A’ are Assembly bills and those starting with ‘S’ are Senate bills. Where two bill numbers are given, the same bill has been introduced in both the NY Senate and Assembly.

S658 and A4085

No person shall possess a firearm unless such person holds a firearms safety certificate issued pursuant to this section. To get a firearms safety certificate, one must take: 5 hours of classroom instruction and a test; 2 hours of live fire instruction and a test; demonstrate safe handling on a test.

A fee may be charged for administrative purposes.

Valid for a period of two years, and may be renewed upon completion (again) of all the requirements of this section.

A360

Requires a person to apply for a hunting license prior to the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.

Establishes additional requirements for all firearms, shotguns and rifles including taking a five hours gun safety course and exam, passing a shooting range test with 90% accuracy, providing notarized proof of a passed drug test and mental health evaluation, providing proof of purchase of firearm and ammunition safe storage depositories and passing a criminal background check.

S5813

Commencing July 1st, 2026, an excise tax is imposed upon licensed dealers in firearms, firearms manufacturers, and sellers of ammunition, at the rate of eleven percent of the gross receipts from the retail sale in this state of any firearm, major component of a firearm, or ammunition.

A3376

Requires liability insurance (unnamed amount) for owners of firearms, rifles and shotguns.

SAFE Act Revisited

Thu, 06 Mar 2025 22:27:09 GMT

SAFE Act Revisited

The New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 is commonly known as the SAFE Act. It has been twelve years since it became law. (Did you miss the anniversary on January 15th?) Perhaps you have forgotten about its provisions which, at that time, caused tremendous controversy – and in many cases, still do.

The SAFE Act passed under the "message of necessity" procedure, a device in the New York State Constitution by which the governor may expedite a vote on a bill, bypassing a usual three-day waiting period. (It was signed into law on the 2nd day of the new legislative session.) The "message of necessity" procedure was intended for emergencies.

The New York State Senate approved the act on a 43–18 vote on January 14, 2013. The following day, the New York State Assembly approved the legislation by a 104–43 vote, and Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill into law less than one hour later.

Some of its provisions are:

(1)The Act broadened the legal definition of assault weapon to include those semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic handguns, and semi-automatic shotguns which have one or more features listed in the footnote at the end of this article**. This "one-feature test" was a change from the previous "two-feature test," enacted in New York in 2000, which barred such weapons if they had two or more of the enumerated features.

A "grandfathering" provision allowing those with an assault weapon (under the newer, broader definition), to keep the weapon, but required that it be registered with the New York State Police. The constitutionality of the assault-weapon prohibition was upheld by Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny in 2013, and this ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2015.

(2) Beginning on April 15, 2013, only magazines with a capacity of seven rounds could legally be sold in New York

The Act allowed the continued possession of ten-round magazines purchased before that date, but made it illegal to load more than seven rounds of ammunition into a ten-round magazine.

The magazine provisions were struck down by Judge Skretny in 2013 and this ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2015, allowing New York gun owners to "legally load 10 rounds in a 10-round magazine."

New York had a pre-existing ten-round magazine limit which remained in effect.

(3) The Act required ammunition dealers to conduct background for direct or internet ammunition purchases. Online buyers are required to purchase ammunition through a licensed dealer in the state and obtain the ammunition in person. The fly-in-the-ointment was that no system existed to do this in 2013. This provision was enacted in 2024.

(3) New York’s Mental Hygiene Law was amended as of March 16, 2013, to add a new reporting requirement for mental health professionals (physicians, psychologists, registered nurses and licensed clinical social workers).

Mental health professionals providing treatment services to an individual must make a report to authorities, "if they conclude, using reasonable professional judgment, that the individual is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others."

The reports (an MHL 9.46 report) are sent to county officials, and if they agree with the assessments, the officials then input the names into the state database where it is retained for five years.

If the person in the database has a gun permit, the license is revoked and gun(s) are seized. The people in the database are barred from obtaining a permit until their names are purged."

Under the health privacy law, HIPAA, because these informational disclosures are required by law, they can be made without the patient's consent. So, HIPAA protects you from private citizens but not the government.

(4) Owners must report lost or stolen guns and ammunition to authorities. It is a misdemeanor to fail to report such a loss or theft within 24 hours.

(5) All sellers or other transferors of firearms and ammunition must conduct a NICS check (National Instant Criminal Background Check) of the prospective purchaser or other transferees, in "all sales, exchanges or disposals of firearms, rifles or shotguns" or ammunition, except those between immediate family members, provided that the transferring family member does not know that the transferee "is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm."

The Act requires that a prospective firearm transferor and transferee process the sale via an FFL, but "does not mandate that FFLs play this processing role." An FFL, who does elect to provide the service, may not charge the parties more than $10 per transaction.

(6) Gun owners living with a household member "who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection" must "safely store" any guns, using "an appropriate locking device including a trigger lock, a gun safe, or a secure gun cabinet." Failure to do so was made a misdemeanor.

(7) Holders of handgun permits must re-certify every five years. In 2022, this was changed to every three years for Concealed Carry (unrestricted) Permits.

(8) Holders of handgun permit may "request that their application information be made exempt from disclosure under state Freedom of Information Law."

(9) The Act amended New York Penal Law to establish "tougher penalties for those who use illegal guns as well as measures to help combat gang violence."

(10) The SAFE Act contains a severability provision that allows other measures to remain in place in case the broad prohibitions against weapons are invalidated by the courts.

** A pistol is considered an assault weapon if it is semi-automatic, has a detachable magazine, and at least one of:

a folding or telescoping stock;

a thumbhole stock;

a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

the capacity to accept an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;

a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded, or

a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle, shotgun or firearm.

a folding or telescoping stock;

a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

a thumbhole stock;

a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

a bayonet mount;

a flash suppressor;

a muzzle brake;

a muzzle compensator;

a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, muzzle brake, or muzzle compensator; and

a grenade launcher.

a folding or telescoping stock;

a thumbhole stock;

a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds; or

an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

A rifle is considered an “assault weapon” if it is semi-automatic, has a detachable magazine, and at least one of:

A shotgun is considered an “assault weapon” if it has at least one of:

a folding or telescoping stock;

a thumbhole stock;

a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds; or

an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Andrew Cuomo Might Come Back To Haunt Us by Bo Rabarsky

Thu, 06 Mar 2025 03:29:15 GMT

Andrew Cuomo Might Come Back To Haunt Us by Bo Rabarsky

Andrew Cuomo was elected Governor of New York in 2010 and then reelected in 2014 and 2018. Then Governor Andrew Cuomo was the father of the 2013 SAFE Act. As the 56th governor of New York State, he was, at that time, also the longest serving governor in America, having served 3,887 days in office until he resigned on August 23rd, 2021.

In 2021 governor Andrew Cuomo decided to - or had to - resign in disgrace rather than face further accusations and a possible investigation into his committing sexual harassment. He also faced intense criticism for the way he handled Covid-19 and the nursing home scandal.

In 2022, he decided not to try a comeback and run for governor against his successor, Governor Kathy Hochul; his poll numbers were very low.

Cuomo’s last New York State financial filing before he resigned (July Periodic, 7/15/21) showed he left with $18,256,818 in his campaign account which could only be used by Andrew Cuomo.

His latest financial filings (January Periodic, 1/14/25) shows Cuomo has $7,709,231 left in his campaign fund. What did he spend $10.5 million on in the past few years?

Cuomo still wanted a political life and decided to spend some of those funds with Bulldog Strategies, a public affairs and consulting company founded and owned by Rich Azzopardi, who was Cuomo's spokesman while he was in office. Cuomo used Bulldog Strategies to help rebuild his image, do polling and now Cuomo wants to run for Mayor of New York City.

In 2024, New York City Mayor Eric Adams was having issues with illegal aliens. Since Eric Adams considered New York City a Sanctuary City, it had been flooded with illegals. The New York State Legislature also provided $2.5 Billion in aid to house and feed illegals. Mayor Adams was on his way to Washington D.C. to see President Biden for even more federal financial aid, when he received a phone call from one of his aids that the FBI was at his office. A visit from the FBI is generally not a good thing! Legal problems had begun for NY City Mayor Eric Adams.

A recent poll showed Cuomo leading with 30% of the vote amongst possible NYC mayoral challengers. Of course, he is currently the benefit of the highest ‘name recognition’ amongst those challengers. Will New York City voters forget the Covid 19 nursing home scandal and the sexual harassment charges? 30% have!

New York State's election laws are a complex set of rules & regulations and will only allow Cuomo to use a small amount from his state campaign funds in the mayoral race. He'll have to go out and raise more funds for his mayoral race. Meanwhile his millions sit collecting interest.

Or maybe…

Albany is looking dysfunctional for the 2026 governor’s race. After assuming the governorship, Kathy Hochul’s first choice for Lieutenant Governor, Brian Benjamin, resigned from office after being indicted on federal bribery and wire fraud charges. Hochul then appointed Antonio Delgado as Lieutenant Governor. Now, Delgado has divorced himself from Governor Kathy Hochul. And with Kathy Hochul’s popularity slightly lower than a communicable disease…

Who knows what the future holds for Democrats in Albany and the governor’s seat. Could Andrew Cuomo use the 2026 New York City mayoral race to get himself back in good graces with Democrats/Progressives and set himself up for another run at governor of the Empire State in 2030? Or will he see a sooner opportunity in 2026 amongst the ashes of Hochul’s governorship?

And remember, he still has $7.7 million he could use in a race for governor.

Movie Review

Tue, 04 Mar 2025 18:45:45 GMT

Movie Review

Some of the most dangerous words in the English language are: “I didn’t really understand it until I saw the movie.” Movies are not facts!

In 1996, John Grisham wrote a book called Runaway Jury which was about attempts to stack / bribe / threaten a jury in a lawsuit against tobacco manufacturers.

In 2003, a movie of the same title was made about the book with several name celebrities in major roles - but the ‘bad guys’ in the movie were changed to gun manufacturers.

Rotten Tomatoes’ Critics’ Consensus called it: “An implausible but entertaining legal thriller.” It was indeed entertaining, highly implausible and, in addition, a propaganda piece for the gun control lobby.

The movie follows a lawsuit where the widow of a man shot and killed by his former co-worker sues the gun manufacturer because the manufacturer made it too easy for a disturbed person to buy a gun. To make that point, a Federal Firearms Licensee (portrayed as a sleaze) is condemned because he lets a ‘straw purchaser’ buy 25 guns a month, month-after-month, and never does anything. (Apparently, the ATF and the NICS check people were too busy to notice, since none of that is mentioned.)

Apparently, the murderer walked into an office building in downtown New Orleans with an AR 15 rifle and no one noticed until he started shooting. He must not have taken the bus. If he drove, was he lucky enough to get a parking space directly in front of the building he shot up?

The heroes and villains are defined unambiguously, with the ‘bad guys’ (gun manufacturers and their lawyer) being unattractive, one-dimensional characters, who all lose their cool, at some point in the film, and blurt out what really despicable people they are.

And the gun manufacturers contribute millions to the defense team in a scene where they sit around casually drinking whiskey and smoking cigars. But it’s never revealed who funded the gun control legal team.

On the other hand, home movies are shown of the victim at his child’s birthday party.

The term “Assault weapon” is used often to describe the murder weapon and the gun manufacturer advertises weapons as being ‘fingerprint proof.’ (Can you imagine a real gun manufacturer describing his gun as fingerprint proof?)

The bad guys are revealed as horrible persons for doing everything they can to subvert the jury and the good guys win - by doing everything they can to subvert the jury. Essentially, the ends justify the means. Don’t worry about those archaic American principles about right-and-wrong.

Oh wait. The gun control lawyer believed in right-and-wrong because he chose not to take up the offer to bribe the jury. But he never bothered to report the bribe to anyone! That would have been a career threatening legal issue for the lawyer, but if he had reported it the movie would have made even less sense.

And the jury overcomes their initial concerns about the law because they sympathize with the widow, after manipulation by one of the ‘good guys.’

All of the main characters in the film break the law, except for the gun control lawyer and he joins the other main characters in being unethical. The movies’ “good guys” (gun control enthusiasts) win while breaking the law, but none of those who broke the law are punished. In fact, two of them are made to look like heroes and walk away $15 million richer. Crime does pay!

So, why this review about a 20 years old movie?

First, the movie just popped up on Netflix, presumably taking advantage of one of its stars, Gene Hackman, just dying. It will probably be seen by thousands of people.

It is a great example of how the Left sneakily implants their propaganda in the movies and other entertainment forms.

While SCOPE members and just about anyone familiar with the laws surrounding firearm purchases would pick up on the misrepresentations in the movie, people not familiar with the purchase of firearms may swallow this whole. Fingerprint proof guns being sold? Sure! FFL’s selling guns by the dozens to straw purchasers? Happens all the time!

At least the murderer didn’t use a “silencer” that went poof!

Implausible it may be but this is just one of many movies the Hollywood Left uses to push their political agenda. And the scary thing is that many people will accept it as fact.

Mass Shootings That Weren’t

Mon, 03 Mar 2025 19:50:14 GMT

Mass Shootings That Weren’t

Criminal use of guns usually makes the headlines. Defensive use of guns…not so much, as that would justify gun ownership.

The left-wing media concentrates on incidents when guns are used in mass shootings. What about defensive use of guns that stopped likely mass public shootings? John Lott has produced a list of concealed handgun permit holders that stopped likely mass shootings, since 2014. It’s a long list that the main stream media has somehow managed to overlook.

It is not a list of all defensive gun uses (it’s estimated there are a million defensive gun uses every year) but only those that stopped a likely mass shooting. It’s probably not all of these incidents since the media doesn’t cover them very well.

* For more details on all of these incidents, go to the link at the end of this post.

Muncie, Indiana, August 30, 2024

A suspect approached a group of people, waved a gun, and threatened to kill everyone before opening fire. Two witnesses retrieved firearms from their vehicles and shot back, wounding the assailant.

Martinsburg, West Virginia, June 30, 2024

When a godmother realized a man who had confronted her godson in the parking lot of her apartment complex was pulling a gun on him, she came downstairs with a .380 and fired some rounds back at them, which stopped this melee and they took off.

Statesville, North Carolina, May 25, 2024

A suspect had become angry with his neighbors for playing music and setting off fireworks and decided to fire shots at the group of people that were outside the home. One person returned fire, but no one was seriously injured.

Arlington, Texas, September 28, 2023

A former employee was armed with a rifle and fired multiple shots into a car dealership lobby full of people. When the suspect headed toward the service area, an armed employee told him to leave and they began shooting at each other. The suspect then returned to the parking lot toward his vehicle and was shot in the chest by the police as he pointed the rifle in their direction.

Las Vegas, Nevada, Friday June 23, 2023

A gunman walked in and fired shots at the front desk. Fortunately, the employee had a concealed handgun permit and was able to quickly stop the attack before anyone else was hurt.

El Paso, Texas, Wednesday, February 15, 2023

A permit holder stopped a shooter who had shot four people and threatened others.

Phoenix, Arizona, Saturday, February 11, 2023

A man was killed after he had entered a restaurant with a gun and fired a number of rounds inside the building. Another man was inside the restaurant during this incident and shot the individual ending this confrontation.

Panama City, Florida, January 11, 2023

After being locked out of the business and enraged over lost property, a man got a firearm from his car and began firing into the club occupied by multiple patrons and staff. A patron who is a concealed weapon license holder intervened and fired multiple rounds, striking the suspect at least once.

Tucson, Arizona, December 18, 2022

A suspect was kicked out of the bar because of his disruptive and threatening behavior. He returned shortly after with a rifle and fired a shot into the ceiling. The suspect was shot three times by an armed patron at the bar after he was repeatedly told to put the rifle down but refused.

Chandler, Arizona, December 14, 2022

A man pulled into the employee parking lot of an Amazon facility and opened fire after jumping out of his car. An armed Amazon worker on the scene saw what was unfolding, and he pulled out his gun and fired at the gunman, wounding him.

Billings, Montana, November 30, 2022

An unruly customer was escorted out of a club. He then retrieved a handgun from a vehicle and threatened to shoot. Another armed customer outside the restaurant fired the bullet that struck the 35-year-old in the chest.

Detroit, Michigan, August 28, 2022

A gunman killed three people and injured a man and his dog. When an armed bystander saw the shooting, he intervened and stopped the spree killer by drawing his own gun and firing at the gunman until he fled.

West Palm Beach, Florida, August 7, 2022

A concealed carry permit holder fatally shot a 22-year-old man who brandished a short-barreled shotgun from his car at a family gathering and threatened to fire into the crowd.

Greenwood, Indiana, July 17, 2022

A heavily armed man had murdered three people and wounded three others when a 22-year-old man legally carrying the gun fatally shot him.

Charleston, West Virginia, May 25, 2022

A man started firing an “AR-15 style firearm” into a crowd. A woman, who was legally carrying a gun, shot and killed him.

South Fulton, Georgia, May 3, 2022

A teenager fired his gun at multiple people. Two men responded by firing back and killing the shooter.

Phenix City, AL, April 13, 2022

After a dispute from earlier in the day, two men returned. One got out of his vehicle and shot at four people. One of the intended victims with a concealed handgun permit, returned fire, striking both suspects.

Portland, OR, February 19, 2022

A homeowner shot multiple people at a demonstration, killing one woman and injuring several others. A demonstrator, who is licensed to conceal carry a firearm, shot the homeowner.

South Central, Nebraska, October 22, 2021

A fired employee returned to the facility and killed two employees and injured another before another employee shot and killed the gunman.

Lancaster, Pennsylvania, October 17, 2021

A shooting between two teenagers ended when a concealed handgun permit holder intervened, shooting one of the participants.

Syracuse, NY, August 31, 2021

A property manager saved several lives when he used a legally possessed handgun to fatally wound a man who had opened fire on a crowd.

San Antonio, TX, August 11, 2021

A woman crashed into a parked car and then began shooting indiscriminately as people came out of their homes. An armed resident shot the woman to death.

Fort Meyers, Florida, July 22, 2021

A convicted felon, with an illegally possessed gun, fired multiple shots into a crowd before a bystander with his own gun confronted the attacker. The felon stopped attacking and “threw his gun in a parking lot.”

Chicago, Illinois, July 4th, 2021

Three people standing in an alley were shot before a witness with a concealed carry license shot at the gunman

Arvada, Colorado, June 21, 2021

A good Samaritan fatally shot a gunman who had just killed a police officer. The Samaritan was mistakenly killed by responding officers.

Fort Smith, Arkansas, May 15, 2021

A man shot an elderly woman in her apartment and then began shooting at people in neighboring apartments. A man used a rifle, not a concealed handgun, to stop the attack.

Metairie, Louisiana, February 20, 2021

After murdering two people and wounding others, armed employees and customers, all with concealed handgun permits, returned fire and eliminated the threat.

Weslaco, Texas, August 17, 2020

A man with an AK47 was planning to shoot people at a Walmart. A customer and security guard held the man at gunpoint and the man put down the gun. The man had another gun on him, which he pulled on police, who returned fire and killed him.

Dallas, Texas, July 25, 2020

Three men were shot and a woman was hit by shrapnel when someone opened fire outside a sports bar. He was confronted by armed patrons and they exchanged gunfire. The shooter fled.

Brownsburg, Indiana, July 16, 2020

A 22-year-old man attacked two cemetery workers, killing one. He shot a third man who was legally armed and shot back, fatally wounding the attacker.

Hummels Wharf, PA, July 11, 2020

A man killed his ex-wife and another man in the parking lot of a restaurant. A restaurant customer, who is licensed to carry a firearm, shot and wounded the shooter.

Louisville, KY, June 27, 2020

A man shot a handgun into a park crowd. Several bystanders returned fire, shooting the assailant in the leg.

Kwethluk, Alaska, May 16, 2020

A 19-year-old man, broke into the village public safety building dressed for combat. He staged rifles inside, and activated the fire alert system and shot at responding officers. A resident armed with a rifle, was able to get the shooter to drop his weapon.

Tulsa, Oklahoma, March 27, 2020

A woman started firing at a group of people who were standing in a parking lot. An armed citizen shot and killed the assailant.

Near Fort Worth, Texas, December 29, 2019

Three people, including the shooter, were shot in an attack in a church. The attacker died after being shot by two of the parishioners. Four other parishioners also drew their permitted concealed handguns.

Duncan, Oklahoma, November 18, 2019

A gunman murdered two people in a vehicle before a bystander with a gun confronted him, causing the gunman to turn the gun on himself.

Newnan, Georgia, August 13, 2019

A gunman intended to shoot up a bar when an off-duty employee took a small caliber rifle from his SUV and shouted at the gunman, who opened fire, hitting the employee. The gunman fled but was later arrested.

Colonial Heights, Tennessee, February 13, 2019

A shooting at a dentist office in Colonial Heights, Tennessee was stopped by a concealed handgun permit holder. After the killer fatally shot his wife, he turned his gun on other people in the office. A patient shot the killer and kept him covered until police arrived.

Birmingham, Alabama, October 27, 2018

A masked man entered a McDonald’s restaurant and immediately started firing his gun. A concealed handgun permit holder returned firing killing the attacker.

Louisville, Kentucky, Wednesday, October 24, 2018

A white racist murdered two blacks in a Krogers but a white bystander with a concealed carry permit engaged the murderer. Multiple rounds were fired and no one was injured. The murderer fled the scene and was later taken into custody.

Titusville, Florida, August 4, 2018

A gunman opened fire at a park full of kids. The gunman was confronted by a citizen with a concealed weapons permit. The gunman pointed the firearm at the concerned citizen who shot the gunman.

Tumwater, Washington, June 18, 2018

An attacker carjacked a vehicle, drove to Walmart, stole ammunition and continued shooting at people. He unsuccessfully tried to carjack another vehicle, seriously wounding the driver before two armed customers shot him dead.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Thursday, May 24, 2018

A man shot at people from outside the front door of a restaurant. An off-duty security guard and another man who was legally open carrying a gun shot and killed the attacker.

San Antonio, Texas, December 7, 2017

A man with a gun was about to start shooting a father’s children as the children were walking out of a restroom. The father shot and killed the attacker.

Rockledge, Florida, November 17, 2017

A man killed one person and severely wounded another in a parking lot and then continued shooting inside a car repair shop. Two other workers, both concealed weapons permit holders, engaged in a shootout that left the suspect wounded.

First Baptist Church of Sutherland Spring, Texas, November 5, 2017

A former NRA instructor, who lives next door to a Church where 26 churchgoers were being murdered, grabbed his AR-15-style rifle after hearing the gunfire and went over to investigate. He shot the murderer in the leg and torso before the murderer fled the scene, but was later arrested.

Clearlake Oaks, California, October 23, 2017

A shooter killed one person and wounded seven in a rampage that started in a neighborhood and continued to two gas stations and a church. A gas station vendor exchanged fire and a concealed carry church usher eventually held the murderer at gunpoint until police arrived.

Arlington, Texas, May 3, 2017

A man, who had already killed one person, was shooting at the front door of a restaurant as customers were fleeing. A concealed carry customer, who was dining with his wife, shot and killed the murderer.

Townville Elementary School, September 28, 2016

A 14 years old boy killed his father and then began shooting at a school playground. One student was killed and three were wounded. A volunteer firefighter, who possessed a valid firearms permit, restrained the shooter until law enforcement officers arrived.

Lyman, South Carolina, June 30, 2016

A man started to shoot three people in a nightclub. Permitted concealed handguns were allowed in bars in South Carolina and a permit holder was able to shoot back, wounding the shooter in the leg and stopping him.

Winton, Ohio, Sunday, July 26, 2015

A shooter fired at four different people. A legal concealed carry holder returned fire. No one was hit and the shooter withdrew.

Conyers, Georgia, Sunday, May 31, 2015

A man came into a liquor store firing a handgun, killing two people. A customer fired back at the murderer. The assailant fled but later died.

New Holland, Wisconsin, May 5th, 2015

A man pulled up to a crowded fire station parking lot full of children and firefighters and began firing in the air and at his vehicle. He also pointed the firearm at individual firefighters. Two firefighters who have concealed weapons permits pulled their guns on the gunman who ultimately complied and was disarmed.

Chicago, Illinois, April 19, 2015

An Uber driver with a concealed carry permit pulled a gun and opened fire on a man he saw firing a pistol into a group of people. The shooting stopped when the assailant was wounded several times.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 22, 2015

A man in a barber shop was arguing and took out his gun and opened fire on customers and barbers. Another man outside heard the gunfire, ran into the shop, took out his own gun and opened fire, striking the assailant in the chest.

Darby, Pennsylvania, July 25, 2014

A convicted felon killed a caseworker during a regularly scheduled appointment. A doctor in the vicinity had his own gun and returned fire, hitting the murderer three times and critically wounding him.

Chicago, Illinois, July 7, 2014

A man fired on a group of people leaving a party, only to be shot himself by one of the victims, a military service member with a concealed carry permit.

Portland, Oregon, January 11, 2014

A man was ejected from a nightclub, but he returned 30 minutes later with a gun and shot a bouncer and two others. A second bouncer, a concealed handgun permit holder, fatally shot the assailant.

* UPDATED: Compiling Cases where concealed handgun permit holders
have stopped likely mass public shootings (crimeresearch.org)

THE HOCHUL WALK OF SHAME by Jim Tuttle

Thu, 27 Feb 2025 02:35:02 GMT

THE HOCHUL WALK OF SHAME by Jim Tuttle

Let’s look at New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s willful failures as well as her intentional and criminal failures.

Upon taking office Mrs. Hochul pledged the following. “I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Governor of the State of New York, according to the best of my abilities.”

The oath is to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Since then, she has often conducted herself contrary to this oath. Let’s look at how she has done this.

She has always supported the NYS Safe Act. The Safe Act is not one law but rather a name given for a series of changes to several different NYS laws, over the years. None of those changes made a weapon safer to operate, or less dangerous. Firearms only become dangerous in the hands of the wrong person.

In addition, these changes were mostly cosmetic in nature. Ban it if it has a bayonet mount or a large capacity magazine or looks like a military weapon, and on-and-on. In direct contrast to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, these changes were intended to infringe on the civilian ownership of a weapon and not intended to make society safer.

Later she formulated an enhanced Safe Act, which included “Red Flag” Laws. These are laws having to do with individuals with criminal histories, histories of domestic violence or others that she deemed unfit to own a firearm. It might sound good but to accomplish this she had to violate the “Due Process” clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendment.

At that time, she also provided NYS taxpayers’ monies to the NYS Police to create a gun owner registration. This was accomplished by requiring the NYS Police to perform background checks (NICS) on anyone purchasing not only a firearm, but any ammunition. The ammo provision is a delaying tactic (harassment) that could take from two hours to two weeks (or more) to accomplish. She also created a fee system to put an extra burden upon the ammo purchaser.

Most importantly, she made a very extensive list of places that she deemed that firearms could not be carried: schools or school events; churches; public events; sporting events; private property; and the list goes on. In reality, all she did was create free fire zones, with a target rich environment. Anyone who wanted to do a lot of damage would have free reign in these areas. As far as I’m concerned, this was an act of criminal negligence.

Additionally, she further endangered our children by prohibiting the purchase of any type of body armor or bullet proof vest. Since it has been a serious crime to wear such an item during the commission of a crime for twenty years of more, this was an unnecessary act and only served to endanger citizens. (A further form of citizen disarmament.) Formerly, parents were able to purchase Kevlar lined backpacks for their children. They can no longer do that.

With these new laws at her disposal, she still has completely failed in her stated goal: “Public safety is my top priority and I won’t rest until everyone is safe and feels safe in New York State”. Yet, an individual who was very well known to local police, probation officers, family court, criminal court and the New York State Police, and not one entity met their responsibility. As a result, this person went to Buffalo NY and shot and killed several people. Kathy Hochul never took responsibility for her incompetence and the failure of all the laws. Instead, she took less than twenty - four hours to blame the tool (weapon) to promote her agenda. (She always uses her failures to promote more gun restrictions).

During the same time that she has continually violated our 2nd amendment rights, she encouraged places like New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and more, to become sanctuary cities, inviting very dangerous criminals into this state.

A no bail policy was instituted, encouraging these criminals to continue and even escalate in their activities, all in direct violation of the nation’s laws and the laws of NYS. I’ll never understand how a person can be arrested almost forty times and still be on the street. Apparently, Hochul has no problem with this.

I could go on-and-on about the contract frauds, (which she prevents from being made public,) or the lies connected with solar power - don’t get me started on that subject.

I’ll close and leave you with this thought. With about five-million-gun owners in this state, more than ever, we need to actively promote our cause, which is the protection of our families and our 2nd Amendment rights - or lose them forever.

One party rule in Albany is going full force in attacking Constitutional Rights! by Bohdan Rabarsky

Mon, 24 Feb 2025 22:11:46 GMT

One party rule in Albany is going full force in attacking Constitutional Rights! by Bohdan Rabarsky

Legislative bills have a shelf life of two years, ending in even numbered years. Therefore, all gun bills introduced in 2023, expired at the end of 2024. They have to be reintroduced in 2025 as a new bill with a new bill number.

The New York State’s 2025 Legislative Session started on Jan. 8th and it didn’t take long before Democrats in Albany started writing gun bills. Within the first ten session days, they had sponsored 50 gun-related bills.

Like everything in life, not all gun bills are created equal. There are gun bills they actually plan on moving forward through the system, with a chance of making it to the governor's desk to be signed into law.

In other instances, leadership assigns bills to be written by certain legislators, so the legislators can go back to their constituents and show they’re fighting for them. Many of these bills don't have a chance of becoming law, but it makes the Legislator look good.

Though a bill has not passed in the past, in New York State they are still lurking out there and that makes them dangerous. Here’s a couple examples

One of these bills is S1358 sponsored by state Senator Jose Serrano (D-29, New York City). This bill would require all pistols to be equipped with a permanent “Child Proofing Device”. Senator Serrano first sponsored this bill in 2009 and 8 more times since then. Each year the bill was referred to the codes committee or, to put it into baseball terms, it made it to first base and never went any further.

Another bill S418 sponsored by Senator Michael Gianaris (D-12, Fordham Heights). This bill prohibits the purchase of more than 1 firearm during any period of 30 days. Senator Gianaris first sponsored this bill in 2011 and 7 more times since then. This bill was referred to codes, but it never made it past first base.

One thing these two bills have in common is that both are sponsored by Democrat legislators from the New York City area. More than likely, none of the Democrats that have sponsored these gun bills own a gun or have ever held or fired a gun. Come to think of it, almost every unconstitutional gun bill sponsored by a Democrat comes from New York City or one of the surrounding counties.

All legislators take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, but seem to skip over the 2nd Amendment. Below is a partial list of the Democrats, the districts they represent surrounding New York City and some of the bills they've sponsored.

D-12 Michael Gianaris, New York City S418

Only 1 firearm purchased every 30 days.

D-14 Leroy Comrie, New York City, S2158

Microstamping

D-29 Jose Serrano, New York City, S1358

Firearms not usable by 5year old

D-38 Jenifer Rajkumar, New York City, A2228, A2060

3D printed NICS check and ID #

D-88 Amy Paulin, Scarsdale, A346, A198

Minimum age of 21, waivers

D-81 Jeffrey Dinowitz, Riverdale, A437

Required warnings

D-47 Brad Hoylman-Sigal, Manhattan, S227, S3833

3D Printers and Licensing, dart and stun guns

D-67 Linda Rosenthal, New York City, A1764

Marketing firearms to minors

D-31 Khaleel Anderson, New York City, A3021

Microstamping

D-73 Alex Bores, New York City, A1191

Personalized handguns

D-58 Monique Chandler Waterman, New York City, A2084

Establish office of gun violence prevention

Notice the number of 3D Printer proposed bills. NY City based legislators obviously do not know that every LEGAL firearm must have a certain amount of steel in it (that makes it detectable to a metal detector.) They want to make illegal what is already illegal!

Our Governor at Work

Wed, 19 Feb 2025 19:50:50 GMT

Our Governor at Work

It’s doubtful if anyone could paint Kathy Hochul as anything but an enemy to the 2nd Amendment. She doesn’t let the U S Constitution or NY State laws stop her and not just in her opposition to guns*. Politics seems to trump concern for the people of New York State.

For example.

As SCOPE reported on January 16th, NY Congresswoman Elise Stefanik is President Trump’s nomination to be his Ambassador to the U N.**

Once confirmed and Stefanik resigns, under the current law, Governor Hochul will have 10 days to schedule a special election in the following 70 to 80 days. So, Stefanik’s 21st congressional district will have up to three months without a Representative. Did I mention that the 21st is a solid Republican district? With Republican control of the House of Representatives so close, a vacant Republican seat would make their majority ultra-thin, but only last for about three months.

Thus cometh NY Senate bill S4588*** which would move the election to replace Stefanik to November, keeping the House Republican majority ultra-thin for an added six months.

Here is the rational, directly from the bill:

“New York's current system of filling federal and state elected office vacancies places undue financial and operational burdens on local boards of elections and exacerbates voter confusion and fatigue by asking voters to frequently participate in elections throughout the year.”

(Where was all this concern about fiscal issues and voter confusion and exhaustion in 2022 when the Democrats were overturning a redistricting commission that they established?)

With such a “noble” rationale behind the bill, one would think that Governor Hochul would leap to defend it. Not so!

Hochul tried to distance herself from the plan to hobble President Trump’s agenda. She claimed she had nothing to do with the plan even as the state Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins contradicted Hochul’s stance and said: “It began with her.” Apparently, House Minority Leader and Brooklyn Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) was also involved in the effort but, somehow, Hochul claims knew nothing about it.

That the people of Stefanic’s district will not have any representation in Congress until November is just collateral damage to Hochul’s pursuit of political power.

Then there is this example.

Last September, prosecutors at the Southern District of New York indicted NY City Mayor Eric Adams. He was accused of receiving benefits from Turkish nationals which, prosecutors alleged, led to a quid pro quo.

Adams pled not guilty in court.

On February 10th, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove said in a letter that the case cannot be brought until after this year’s mayoral election. The directive from Bove makes no assessment on the strength of the evidence against Adams and only delays any action, but he says it is hindering Adams' ability to address the immigration crisis.

NY City has been a Sanctuary City for illegal aliens, which definitely hinders everyone’s ability to address the immigrant crisis – if one wants to address it and Hochul has made it clear she does not want to address it.

Eric Adams has said he met, on February 13th, with President Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan to prepare for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to resume operations on Rikers Island, which houses the NY City’s largest jail.

On February 14th, Adams said that he wants to loosen New York City’s sanctuary laws to allow the NYPD to cooperate with ICE

On February 18th, it has been reported that Governor Kathy Hochul is considering removing Adams from office as NYC Mayor. As governor, Hochul has the power to remove Adams from office, but that authority has never been used in the state’s history.

(Since New York State was officially formed on July 26, 1788, no New York City mayor has deserved being removed from office? From the founding of our state until the 1930’s, Tammany Hall was the main local political machine of the Democratic Party and played a major role in controlling New York City and New York state politics but no Mayor in all that time was ever deserving of removal from office for corruption, until Adams?)

There are many unknowns around these actions and accusations and given NY City politicians are involved there are probably no ‘clean hands.’ But the important fact is certain; Hochul showed no public interest in removing Adams from office when these charges were made. After Adams said he will cooperate with ICE, Hochul is swiftly motivated to take action.

Draw your own conclusions about her political motives.

And then there is “Congestion Pricing” for NY City.

Congestion pricing is a system that charges vehicles $9 during peak hours for entering Manhattan's Congestion Relief Zone (CRZ) — the area below 60th Street, excluding certain highways like the FDR Drive and West Side Highway.

As one can imagine, another ‘tax’ on the middle class was not popular.

It was scheduled to go into effect this past Summer, but Governor Hochul abruptly halted the plan. At the time, she said she worried it would cost motorists too much money.

(Could she have been more worried that it would cost democrats votes?)

Once the presidential election was over, Congestion Pricing reappeared and took effect on January 5th. (Maybe votes were her motivation!)

So, why this civics lesson centered on Kathy Hochul. Politics is dirty and Hochul is not the only one wallowing in the mud. But many gun owners don’t want to get involved because they don’t believe Hochul and company are coming for their guns. But as the above examples indicate, the Constitution and laws are considered a hindrance, not a guidance for Hochul and friends. They may not appear to be coming for your guns – yet – but don’t be deceived by their current actions and words. They are coming. It’s not if but when.

Ask yourself this question: do you trust Kathy Hochul after reading he above examples?

* See the Concealed Carry Improvement Act for proof.

** S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education -
Biden, Reciprocity, Stefanik and Hearing

*** Bill Search and Legislative Information | New York State Assembly

Sale of Child Operated Firearms

Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:43:39 GMT

Sale of Child Operated Firearms

To date, there have been five proposed bills introduced in the New York legislature having to do with age restrictions for firearms. One of those is especially bad!

New York State Senate bill S1358 was introduced by four Democrat Senators in January and referred to the Codes Committee. It’s summarized as “Sale of child operated firearms.”

Does that bill refer to selling firearms meant only for children? (That would not be a problem since no one manufactures firearms for children.)

Nope. Under that harmless sounding name lies a more sinister purpose.

If passed, one year after being passed, in New York State, you will not be able to buy a newly manufactured firearm that has not been “childproofed” against a 5 year old. Basically, firearms that are widely available almost everywhere else in the United States would be illegal to sell in NYS.

The bill actually says:

“No person, firm, limited liability company or corporation engaged in the retail business of selling rifles, shotguns or firearms shall sell, deliver or transfer any child operated firearm to another person.”

What is a child operated firearm?

"Child operated firearm means a pistol or revolver manufactured twelve months or more after the effective date of this section which does not contain a childproofing device or mechanism incorporated into the design of such pistol or revolver to effectively preclude an average five years old child from operating the pistol or revolver.”

How does one child proof a firearm to comply with this law?

“Such devices or mechanisms shall include, but not be limited to:

the capacity to adjust the trigger resistance to at least a ten pound pull;

the capacity to alter the firing mechanism so that an average five year old child's hands are too small to operate the pistol or revolver;

the capacity to require a series of multiple motions in order to fire the pistol or revolver.”

The way the bill is written, a firearm must have all three of the above, not just any one of the three.

Does this technology even exist? (Remember, the lack of an effective technology did not stop multiple states from requiring “micro-stamping.”)

Would it make the firearm almost unusable by an adult?

What’s the penalty for selling, a non-child proofed firearm?

“Any person, firm or corporation who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.”

The bill only addresses selling these guns. Could one buy a non-child proofed firearm in another state?

Answer: the gun grabbers in New York would certainly try to stop this with a future bill! The already tried this in another case.

On February 9th, SCOPE sent an email** explaining proposed bill A00929 which would violate the “Interstate Commerce” clause of the United States Constitution in order to allow NY Attorney General to prosecute New Yorkers and gun sellers who buy guns or ammo in another state without “without contacting the New York state police for authorization.”

Has lack of technology or violation of the United States Constitution ever stopped Kathy Hochul and the New York Legislature?

You might consider dropping your state Senator or Assembly-person a line and tell them how much you dislike this bill.

** S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Assembly Bill A00929

Presidents’ Day

Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:17:34 GMT

Presidents’ Day

Technically, George Washington was born on February 11th under the Julian calendar, which was still in use for the first 20 years of Washington’s life. The Gregorian calendar, intended to more accurately mark the solar year, was adopted in 1752, and added 11 days. Washington’s birthday moved to February 22nd.

In 1879, Washington’s birthday on February 22nd became a legal holiday for federal employees in the District of Columbia.

In 1885, it grew to include the entire nation. (Joining just four other bank holidays that the federal government recognized at that time: Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Thanksgiving, and Independence Day.)

Some states like New York (not the federal government), also celebrated Lincoln’s birthday on February 12th 1809. Lincoln’s birthday was never a federal holiday.

Congress proposed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. The idea was to move several holidays to various Mondays throughout the year, giving workers a few three-day weekends off. During debate on the bill, it was proposed that Washington’s Birthday be renamed Presidents’ Day to honor the birthdays of both Washington and Lincoln. Following much discussion, Congress rejected the name change. But the idea of adding more three-day weekends was popular enough that the Uniform Monday Holiday Act passed Congress in 1968.

In 1971, the Uniform Monday Holiday Act took effect. Washington's Birthday holiday was moved from February 22 to the third Monday of the month. That it splits the difference between Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays is probably not a coincidence, but it is nothing official. The third Monday in February remains only "Washington's Birthday" in federal law.

However, many states have official variations which include: Washington and Lincoln’s Birthday; Presidents’ Day; Washington’s Birthday; Washington and Jefferson Day. And some states have a separate state holiday for President’s Day.

The holiday was never ‘President’s Day’ at the federal level but that has become its unofficial title.

Some object to honoring all presidents, just because they had been president, and do not like the title President’s Day. I’m sure the readers could quickly name a few!

However, if you are going to honor February birth presidents, another president that many feel deserves special recognition was born on February 6th; Ronald Reagan.

MCC’s

Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:54:54 GMT

MCC’s

Merchant Category Codes (MCCs) classify merchants and businesses by the type of goods or services provided. Most businesses have one (1) code that covers all purchases. Historically firearms and ammo purchases were included under a general sporting goods code (5941) under the MCC.

Financial Services companies such as credit card companies use these codes.

The International Standards Organization approved creation of a separate code for guns and ammo, under pressure from the gun control activists, worldwide.

The Biden administration, of course, pushed American financial institutions to adopt this, which is a backdoor into a gun registry.

At the individual state level, California Governor Gavin Newsom became the first governor in the country to enact the MCC firearm credit card code. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis followed suit. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul joined in by becoming the third state to enact the firearm retail store MCC.

Hochul expressed the real reason for the code change: “We’re also going to require credit and debit card companies to track purchases at gun dealerships, and make it (possible), in turn, for us to monitor the sale of guns and ammunition.”

As usual, this effort of the gun grabbing left has lots of holes in it, the main one being that one (1) code applies to all purchases at that business.

Even the anti 2A Bloomberg News reported: “The payment network and its banking partners would have no idea if a gun-store customer is purchasing a [firearm] or safety equipment.”

Hochul suggests NYS can flag “suspicious” purchasing behavior. A “suspicious” purchase” would prompt a bank to file a Suspicious Activity Report to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. However, the banks haven’t defined what would be a suspicious purchase, in this case.

Are all purchases under the new code ‘suspicious?’ Hochul would say yes!

Will buying boxes of shotgun shells, waders, decoys and a hunting license at a local retailer be flagged with the MCC.

To remedy this, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act (PPPA), was introduced by Representative Riley Moore (R-WV) and 25 House colleagues. It would prohibit a credit card network from requiring firearms retailers to use or assign a special merchant category code that distinguishes such a retailer from a general-merchandise retailer or a sporting-goods retailer. A firearms retailer may not be assigned any merchant category code that distinguishes the gun dealer from a general-merchandise retailer or a sporting-goods retailer.

Not only would this protect gun owners from one form of government intrusion, it would eliminate a lot of bureaucratic created confusion.

A similar bill, HR 7450, was introduced in a previous session of Congress, but it did not come up for a vote. The new version does not yet have a bill number, as of this writing.

2A defenders are encouraged to write their congressperson to support this bill.

NYS Congress printable .pdf

Recertification 2.0

Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:24:51 GMT

Recertification 2.0

Got this advice from a SCOPE Member.

You might want to inform others that if they need to make changes in pistols being co-registered, they need to delete it from their current list and then add it back in as co-registered. (Make sure to jot down the info before you delete so you can add it all back in.)

This is the only method for making changes.

Also, if you have had the semi-automatic rifle added to your permit you need to go to that line and click yes even if you already have it on your permit.

A very helpful gentleman at the NY Trooper website for pistol permit recertification helped me navigate these issues.

If you need to contact the Recertification help desk call: 855-529-4867

________________________________________________________________

U.S. Rep. Mike Bost(R-Ill) and Rep. Morgan Lutrell (R-Texas) introduced H.R. 1041. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) and Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) introduced S. 478, a companion bill.

Veterans’ who name a fiduciary (or someone to assist with their finances) have their names submitted to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as prohibited individuals. This practice was temporarily suspended but the suspension will expire on March 14, 2025.

This legislation, introduced both in the House and Senate, would ensure that no Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) bureaucrat can strip a veteran with a fiduciary of their rights to keep and bear arms without a judge or court ruling first that the veteran is a danger to themselves or their community.

Those pesky 5^th and 14^th Amendments strike again, much to the dismay of gun grabbers.

_________________________________________________________________

U.S. Representative Jack Bergman (R-MI) reintroduced H.R. 45, the Firearm Industry Non-Discrimination Act (FIND Act). U.S. Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) also introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate (S. 137).

The FIND Act would prevent corporations and other entities that receive government contracts from discriminating against the firearm and ammunition industries.

This is important in relation to large financial institutions, to stop them from implementing ‘virtue-signaling’ corporate policies. These financial institutions have wielded their size and influence in an attempt to restrict firearm manufacturers from conducting constitutionally protected business.

An Illinois County Resident Circuit ruled against a requirement that Illinois residents must obtain a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card in order to possess a gun in the home for self-defense.

The judge noted:

“…the defendant’s possession of a .22 caliber rifle within the confines of her own home, even without a valid FOID card falls squarely within the protections afforded her by the Second Amendment.”

“If we compare [the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home] to the right to vote, requiring a voter to pay an administrative fee for absentee voting from their own home would be unthinkable. There is no question that voting from home requires more administrative work. Yet, to require the payment of additional fees would disenfranchise voters, regardless of the amount of the fee”...any fee associated with a FOID card, as related to possessing one for having a gun in one’s home for self-defense, “violates the Second Amendment.”

“After analyzing all the evidence in this matter, this court finds that the defendant’s activity of possessing a firearm within the confines of her home is an act protected by the Second Amendment. Additionally, there are no historical analogues to the FOID Act as required in Bruen.

The decision only impacts this specific case and Illinois. Being a thoroughly Blue state dominated by Chicago, it will certainly appeal this decision. But, the logic is strong and may be picked up in other similar cases.

Executive order on 2A

Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:36:21 GMT

Executive order on 2A

On Friday, February 7th, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order that will start to undo the Second Amendment regulations put in effect by Biden. It reads as follows:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. The Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty. It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedoms since the founding of our great Nation. Because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.
Sec. 2. Plan of Action. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
(b) In developing such proposed plan of action, the Attorney General shall review, at a minimum:
   (i)    All Presidential and agencies’ actions from January 2021 through January 2025 that purport to promote safety but may have impinged on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens;
   (ii)   Rules promulgated by the Department of Justice, including by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, from January 2021 through January 2025 pertaining to firearms and/or Federal firearms licensees;
   (iii) Agencies’ plans, orders, and actions regarding the so-called “enhanced regulatory enforcement policy” pertaining to firearms and/or Federal firearms licensees;
   (iv)   Reports and related documents issued by the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention;
   (v)    The positions taken by the United States in any and all ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights;
   (vi)   Agencies’ classifications of firearms and ammunition; and
   (vii) The processing of applications to make, manufacture, transfer, or export firearms.
Sec. 3. Implementation. Upon submission of the proposed plan of action described in section 2 of this order, the Attorney General shall work with the Domestic Policy Advisor to finalize the plan of action and establish a process for implementation.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
   (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
   (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Assembly Bill A00929

Mon, 10 Feb 2025 02:30:06 GMT

Assembly Bill A00929

NY State Assembly bill A00929 was introduced by Phillip Steck and Rebecca Seawright. Referred to Codes Committee in January 8th. No same as (corresponding) bill introduced in the NYS Senate.

Quotes directly from the bill:

‘a) Investigate and prosecute any individual seller of firearms or retail firearms dealer who knowingly sells an illegal firearm or rapid fire modification device to a resident of the state of New York or to an individual who purchases a firearm or rapid-fire modification device on behalf of a New York state resident or who knowingly sells a firearm or rapid-fire modification device to a resident of the state of New York or to an individual who purchases a firearm or rapid-fire modification device on behalf of a New York state resident without contacting the New York state police for authorization pursuant to section two hundred twenty-eight of this chapter and any other law, rule or regulation.’

‘c) Investigate and prosecute any individual seller of firearms or retail firearms dealer should they knowingly sell ammunition to a resident of the state of New York or to an individual who purchases ammunition on behalf of a New York state resident without contacting the New York state police for authorization pursuant to section two hundred twenty-eight of this chapter and any other law, rule or regulation.’ (Emphasis Added.)

Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution says:

‘The Congress shall have Power to…regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…’ (Emphasis added)

Article XIII Section 1 of the New York Constitution reads:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ......, according to the best of my ability…” (Emphasis Added)

It seems that Assemblypersons Steck and Seawright have violated their oaths of office by introducing a bill which is obviously contrary to the United States Constitution in which regulation of interstate commerce is only done by the United States Congress. Will they be impeached? (Sarcasm intended.)

How is NY State going to notify every individual seller of firearms or retail firearms dealer in the world that they need to be contacting the New York state police for authorization - or NYS Attorney General Letitia James will be coming after them?

Because of the burdensome background check and fees introduced by the Concealed Carry improvement Act and signed into law by Governor Hochul, (an act that has numerous unconstitutional parts) many gun owners now buy ammunition in other states.

If you should buy ammo in another state, this bill would allow:

3. The attorney general shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this section by bringing civil and criminal actions in the state courts of New York. (Emphasis added.)

It is easy to complain but difficult to get people motivated into action. How aggressive in doing away with 2nd Amendment protected gun rights does New York State have to get in order to get gun owners motivated? And not just gun owners – anyone who believes in the Constitution and the rule-of-law.

Concealed Carry Recertification

Wed, 05 Feb 2025 18:55:14 GMT

Concealed Carry Recertification

Prior to 2013, pistol permits were good for a lifetime and required no recertification.

In 2013, the NY SAFE Act required pistol permit holders to recertify every five years. This began in January of 2017. Those that certified in 2017 had to recertify five years later, in 2022.

So, for those concealed carry permit holders that recertified in 2022 and thought they had five years, guess what? You will need to recertify this year - 2025

To handle this process an online system was created.

If you want to check your recertification status:

Go to NYS Pistol Permit Recertification

Click on Check Recertification Status

You will need to know:

your last name,

date of birth,

drivers license number,

last four digits of your social security number

and that you are not a robot

Click on Check Recertification Status

Your recertification status should then appear.

Miscellaneous lawsuits and Proposed Laws

Wed, 05 Feb 2025 18:53:42 GMT

Miscellaneous lawsuits and Proposed Laws

“Elite Precision Customs LLC, et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, et al.” is a new lawsuit, which has just been filed, that challenges the federal ban on interstate handgun sales. Under current federal law, individuals cannot purchase handguns across state lines directly from dealers unless the firearms are shipped to a dealer in the purchaser’s home state. (Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3) and § 922(b)(3).)

The lawsuit says the ban violates the Second Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens from purchasing handguns across state lines for lawful purposes. Modern background checks and digital records negate the concerns that originally justified these restrictions and that the restrictions are outdated.

________________________________________________________________

Currently, New York State fully bans the use and ownership of suppressors.

State Senate Minority Leader Robert G. Ortt’s proposed bill, S02099, would legalize firearm suppressors in New York state, allowing for the legal possession of suppressors. Forty-two other states allow for the use of firearm suppressors.

Senator Ortt has introduced a version of this bill every legislative session since 2017. It is hoped that, at some point, Democrat Senators who oppose this bill will realize that suppressors have no legitimate negative consequences as they are almost never used in crimes - except in movies where they only go puff. (And we all know that Hollywood never lies. Sarcasm intended.)

__________________________________________________________________

Reese v. ATF is a Louisiana lawsuit challenging the ban on firearm sales to persons under 21 years of age. The plaintiffs argue that federal laws unconstitutionally restrict their right to keep and bear arms based on their age, thereby denying them equal protection under the law. They seek a judicial declaration that these provisions are unconstitutional

Initially, the district court found that the plaintiffs had standing to sue but dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

A three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Western District of Louisiana unanimously ruled to reverse the lower court decision and remand the case for further action.

The Fifth Circuit Court scrutinized the historical evidence regarding the regulation of firearms among eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds at the time of the nation’s founding. The appeal court found prior judicial interpretations, (like the NRA I decision which upheld similar age-based restrictions,) incompatible with recent Supreme Court decisions that emphasize a historical understanding of gun rights, such as Bruen and Rahimi.

A positive decision in this case would directly affect only the U S 5th Circuit (which encompasses Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) but would be a good start in total repeal of these laws.

In the case, U.S. v. Daniels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction of a man under a federal law that prohibits firearm possession by one who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” (The substance in question was marijuana.)

Police officers legally searched Patrick Daniels Jr’s car and found marijuana and 2 loaded firearms. Daniels waived his Miranda rights and admitted he had been a regular marijuana user since high school, smoking the drug “approximately fourteen days out of a month.” Importantly, the agents did NOT ascertain or render an opinion as to whether Daniels was under the influence of marijuana at the time of his arrest.

Daniels was charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) and sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison.

Daniels appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which ordered the Fifth Circuit to rehear Daniels’s case in light of the high court’s opinion in U.S. v. Rahimi.

Fifth Circuit then found that applying 18 U.S.C. 922 (g)(3) to his case violated the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit determined that:

922(g)(3) was not per se unconstitutional and allowed the statute itself to stand.

922 (g)(3) could be validly applied where the accused was determined to be actively impaired by illegal drug use at the time of the firearm possession.

922 (g)(3) could NOT be constitutionally applied “where it seeks to disarm an individual solely ‘based on habitual or occasional drug use.’”

922(g)(3) might be applicable where the illegal drug use was so regular and heavy that it rendered the person “continually impaired,” even when not acutely intoxicated.

Habitual or occasional drug use has no historical basis under the Second Amendment as grounds for a lifetime firearm prohibition.

RIFLE, the ATF, Suppressors and Lead Ammo

Thu, 23 Jan 2025 17:42:55 GMT

RIFLE, the ATF, Suppressors and Lead Ammo

Representative Tracey Mann (R-KS) is introducing legislation to put the ATF’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy toward Federal Firearm Licensees (FFL’s) in check. The legislation is titled the Reining In Federal Licensing Enforcement (RIFLE) Act.

The RIFLE Act:

ensures that the ATF gives FFLs a chance to comply before ATF moves to revoke a license,

clearly defines and strengthens what constitutes a willful violation, imposing a presumption that there is no willful violation absent clear and convincing evidence,

allows FFLs to review and appeal ATF determinations before an administrative law judge,

reimburses FFLs for legal fees incurred while the ‘zero tolerance’ policy is in effect,

automatically reinstates and approves licenses suspended, revoked, or denied while ATF’s zero tolerance policy is in effect,

reimburses FFLs who were victims of the ATF’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ policy.

According to Mann’s office, in 2024 alone, ATF saw the highest levels of gun store license revocations in 20 years, which was the third consecutive year of increased license revocations under President Biden. The Biden Administration recently claimed it reversed its Zero Tolerance policy but it appears to remain fully in effect.

Representative Mann told Breitbart News, President Biden’s zero tolerance policy undermined the Second Amendment and trampled on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

New York Congresswoman Claudia Tenney is one of the bill’s cosponsors.

But don’t get too excited…

Steve Dettelbach is out as the head of ATF and Deputy Director Marvin Richardson will return as the default head of the embattled agency.

Ammolandreports: “Richardson was the driving force behind the ATF’s war on pistol braces and privately manufactured firearms…Even though Richardson was only an acting assistant director at the time, pushing to go after braces was his idea.”

The pistol brace rule was defeated in multiple courts, but the ATF recently asserted that braced pistols still need to be registered with the NFA and that the owners still must pay $200 for a tax stamp. The ATF then reluctantly backed down under threat of further legal action.

Dettelbach is a prime example of the Swamp denizens that believe they – and not Congress – make the laws.

President Trump cannot appoint a new ATF Director fast enough!

More about Silencers / Suppressors.

Last week, SCOPE reported that the Hearing Protection Act was being introduced in Congress; it would remove suppressors from the burdensome requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

The bill demands the destruction of all current NFA registration records of silencers/gun mufflers within 365 days of the Act’s enactment.

It’s reported that there are some complicated provisions that are intended to deal with the various state laws concerning suppressors.

In addition, it is unclear how the eight states that currently ban ownership of silencers / suppressors would fare under this bill. (NY is one of the eight states.)

In addition, Illinois’ ban on ownership is being challenged in federal court in Illinois.

The text of the Hearing Protection Act has not been officially entered into the House of Representatives as of this writing,

New York Congresswoman Claudia Tenney is also one of this bill’s cosponsors.

Back to lead ammo…

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Final Rule published in 2023 opened hunting and fishing opportunities on eight National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs),

but

banned the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle.

Representative Rob Wittman’s (R-Va.) introduced H.R. 556, the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act, which would prohibit USFWS, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service from banning the use of traditional lead ammunition and tackle unless they have approval by the applicable state fish and wildlife department and proof that lead ammunition and tackle is primarily causing wildlife population decline.

Many argue that there is no scientific evidence that lead ammo is detrimental to wildlife. This law would require scientific evidence to back up any lead ammo bans.

An Elderly Man . . .

Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:26:53 GMT

An Elderly Man . . .

At 1PM, yesterday, a man walked up to the White House and asked to speak to President Biden.

The guard responded that “Joe Biden is not President anymore.”

At 2 PM the same elderly man again approached the White House and asked to speak to President Biden.

The guard again responded that “Joe Biden is not President anymore.”

This continued for several more hours until the guard asked, “Why do you keep doing this? I keep telling you that Joe Biden is not President anymore.”

“I know”, the man responded, “but I just love hearing it.”

More Good News

Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:11:57 GMT

More Good News

Last week, SCOPE wrote that bills have been introduced in Congress for Reciprocity between states on gun licenses and changing the law on Suppressors / Silencers.

More is happening.

NY Representative Claudia Tenney has introduced the “Second Amendment Guarantee Act” (SAGA). It’s a bill that would prohibit states from banning the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of rifles and shotguns that are lawfully permitted under federal law. One of the cosponsors is NY Representative Nick Langworthy.

Basically, it would preempt state-level firearm restrictions, including New York’s SAFE Act, which was signed into law by former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Tenney described the SAFE Act as unconstitutional and said her proposed federal legislation would not only nullify the SAFE Act but would also block other states from passing similar gun bans.

On another front…

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) acknowledged that it has over 920 million firearms records, (920,664,765 records). The ATF is not legally allowed to keep a registry but has played fast and loose with semantics to claim that its database is not a registry because it isn’t searchable.

2nd Amendment defenders have long worked against such record keeping as an aid to any gun confiscation efforts.

Texas Representative Michael Cloud and Idaho Senator Jim Risch introduced legislation to block the formation of any federal gun registry, the “No REGISTRY Rights Act.” (NRRA.) It’s designed to protect 2nd Amendment rights while also addressing the overreach of the ATF, (which ran wild during the Biden administration.) The NRRA would: require “the ATF to delete all existing firearm transaction records, dismantling the current database;” allow “FFLs to destroy transaction records when they go out of business, preventing further accumulation by the ATF;” prohibit “any federal agency from creating or maintaining a firearms registry in the future.”

Or, why not just get rid of the ATF…

Representative Eric Burlison of Missouri announced H.R. 221 to abolish the ATF.

Burlison is quoted as saying, “The ATF is emblematic of the deep-state bureaucracy that believes it can infringe on constitutional liberties without consequence. If this agency cannot uphold its duty to serve the people within the framework of the Constitution, it has no place in our government.”

The future of these proposed legislations is unknown but what is important is that the pro-2A Republicans are going on the offensive. For too long, 2A has had to play defense. It’s time the anti-2A’s spent their time on defense.

Hopefully, at some point, we will see the Constitutional balance returned.

Not a proposed law but of interest to 2Aers…

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerburg announced that Facebook would be dropping its “fact-checking network” and move to a “community notes” style system similar to the system on X.

Facebook used to count on fact-checking partners to cut down on so-called “disinformation.” That some of this disinformation was actually true was just an inconsequential casualty in their war on the political Right.

Will the new policy apply to firearms? Meta has said it will only ban illegal materials, and firearms are legal in the United States. If Meta is to be believed, it will lift restrictions on gun content.

Will social media platforms become neutral to guns, or is it just lip service? We shall see…

After the election, Zuckerburg was one of the CEO’s that made the trip to Mar A Lago to kiss Trump’s feet (or perhaps kiss something anatomically higher.)

This is important since many people get their news from social media posts and, in the past, it has been a constant drumbeat of Democrat political propaganda. When all you hear is that guns are bad without any response, you tend to believe it to be true.

Many leftist political commentators are condemning Zuckerburg’s and Elon Musk’s moves to make their social media companies more neutral instead of far-left parrots. It’s like complaining that the referees are enforcing the rules against both teams.

Biden, Reciprocity, Stefanik and Hearing

Thu, 16 Jan 2025 22:26:47 GMT

Biden, Reciprocity, Stefanik and Hearing

2nd Amendment defenders should be happy that Joe Biden is riding – into - the – sunset and it’s probably best to forget Obama 2.0 as just a bad mistake. Move on! But in case anyone tries to rehabilitate his reputation on 2A matters (or his Vice President should reappear on national politics), here is a handy resource out of Ammoland, that covers their many anti-2A efforts.

An In-Depth Look at our Incompetent President’s Antigun Actions

_________________________________________________________________

Reciprocity between states on gun carry is becoming a bigger deal and proposed bills are being introduced. The upcoming edition of Firing Lines has a big article that explains the ins-and-outs of Reciprocity.

_________________________________________________________________

Elise Stefanik is the Congresswoman for NY’s 21st Congressional District and President elect Trump has nominated her to be his Ambassador to the U N.

She is off to a good start. In November, she denounced the U.N. as a corrupt "den of antisemitism." Trump is not a fan of the U N, so this could get interesting.

However, with the Republican control of the House of Representatives so close, the election for her replacement will be critical to both parties. She is not expected to resign her House seat until confirmed by the Senate. Once confirmed and she resigns, Governor Kathy Hochul will have 10 days to schedule a special election in the following 70 to 80 days. So, the 21st will have about three months without a Representative.

The 21st is rated a ‘solid’ to ‘safe’ Republican district and Stefanik won in November 215,996 to 132,447.

In lieu of a traditional primary election, the Republican and Democratic nominees will be internally selected by the party committee chairs for each of the district’s 15 counties.

The issue is far from decided as GOP sources told the Albany Times Union that Assemblyman Chris Tague, former congressional candidate Liz Joy and Rensselaer County Executive Steve McLaughlin are currently the leading potential candidates. The party chairs have also considered a range of New York Republicans, including NY State Senator Daniel Stec, former U.S. Senate nominee Joe Pinion, Rome businessman Joe Rutkowski, StickerMule CEO Anthony Constantino, Assemblyman Robert Smullen and Ogdensburg native Josh Parker.

All the leading candidates are considered strong supporters of Donald trump.

The Republican’s selection process is also politically tethered to the Conservative Party, whose chairs in the district are expected to try to align their selection with the GOP’s.

Although a solidly Republican district, Democrats are hopeful that the tight timeline of the special election will help them make inroads.

Lynne Boecher, chair of the Warren County Democratic Party, said that the party chairs had interviewed 10 candidates for the nomination. They will soon be moving forward with a “select number” for follow-up interviews,

One Democratic hopeful, Blake Gendebien, has already raised $265,000 toward his campaign. Gendebien runs a 1,000-acre dairy farm in St. Lawrence County and previously served on the Lisbon Central School Board. He joins 2024 NY-21 contender Paula Collins as a candidate for the nomination, as well as retired Army Lt. Col. Steven Holden, Jay town Councilman Knut Sauer, Middleburgh Mayor Timothy Knight and Clinton County educator Rod Driscoll.

SCOPE will keep you informed on this important election as things start to sort out.

________________________________________________________________

Congressman Ben Cline (R-VA), joined by 38 additional House Members, reintroduced the Hearing Protection Act in the 119th Congress as H.R. 404. NY Congresswoman Claudia Tenney is a co-sponsor.

The Hearing Protection Act would remove suppressors from the burdensome requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and require purchasers to pass an instant NICS check. This change will make it is easier for law-abiding hunters and sportsmen to access these hearing safety devices.

New York State is one of the few states where hearing suppressors (aka silencers) are illegal.

AN ASSASSINATION IN MANHATTAN

Wed, 15 Jan 2025 02:34:31 GMT

AN ASSASSINATION IN MANHATTAN

Oneida-Herkimer SCOPE Chapter Chairman Bo Rabarsky recently sent the following letter-to-the-editor. It highlights the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to gun control (or just about anything else.)

On Dec. 4^th 2024, Brian Thompson, CEO of United Healthcare was murdered on the streets of New York City in broad daylight, by someone that had stalked him and stood by waiting for him. The killer had left behind a few shell casings with a cryptic message written on each casing. Photos started circulating of the alleged assassin, how he had arrived in NYC, how he got away and where he was possibly headed. A reward was quickly established by the NYPD and rumors started circulating as to why the CEO was killed.

Normally, in a highly publicized killing as this, national gun control groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action & Guns Down America come out before all the facts have been gathered and demand Congress come up with a comprehensive gun control plan. They’ve been completely absent from this shooting and the gun hasn’t been the focus, at all, as it is in most shootings. The alleged killer has been the focus for a change. Imagine that, they’re actually focusing on the person who pulled the trigger, but in a sick and perverse way. Certain media has been idolizing the killer with justifications for the shooting.

In an interview on the Piers Morgan show, Liberal commentator Briahna Joy Gray admitted that she has no empathy for the slain CEO Brian Thompson. Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz said she felt “Joy” along with many other Americans.

Since when have Americans as a society lost our morals to the point where murder is ever justified? Do these gun control groups condone such a heinous crime as justification against the corporate world? Is that why they're all sitting quiet for a change?

I suppose we should be happy that at least one murder is not blamed on the gun, as if the gun had a will of its own. But the opportunistic coverage of this murder by the left’s echo chamber shows that they will switch gears immediately to take advantage of every opportunity. It’s easy to vilify insurance companies, so the left took a break from their anti-2A tirades and shamefully tried to justify a cold-blooded murder.

ATF UNDER FIRE

Tue, 14 Jan 2025 01:57:17 GMT

ATF UNDER FIRE

Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO) has introduced a bill to abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). While this is a positive step, it will be a difficult battle. Although Republicans hold the majority in both chambers of Congress, they do not have the supermajority needed in the Senate to pass the bill unless all Republicans vote for the bill and some Democrats suddenly become bipartisan.

However, the bill is a warning to the gun grabbing bureaucrats in the ATF that Congress is watching. It is a good start for those who want to abolish the ATF, even if not successful.

The ATF’s primary purpose is to regulate a constitutionally protected freedom. Prior to Boebert’s bill being introduced, Representative Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) described the situation perfectly: "The Second Amendment doesn’t need a babysitter. The ATF’s job is redundant, dangerous, and unconstitutional. Let’s eliminate it."

Representative Boebert reminded everyone of how the ATF has made the streets more dangerous by allowing firearms to flow to Mexican drug cartels through programs like “Fast & Furious.”

The ATF also has a history of using the rule-making process as an end-around to Congress and it would have been successful if not for the courts:

The ATF attempted to ban bump stocks by modifying the definition of a machine gun, only to have SCOTUS reject their efforts.

After Congress refused to institute universal background checks, the ATF made an “engaged in the business” rule, which made almost everyone selling a firearm a “gun dealer.” This was a backdoor universal background check. A Texas Federal District Court judge has issued an injunction against this rule, blocking the ATF from enforcing it.

When he ATF attempted to: reclassify pistols with stabilizing devices to be short barreled rifles; gun parts as firearms; and forced reset triggers to be machine guns, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked it.

When Democrats controlled the White House, the ATF became more of a tool of the executive branch to undermine our 2nd Amendment protected freedoms.

In another positive note, ATF Director Steve Dettelbach resigned even before President Trump was able to fire him. Alan Gottlieb, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, took a shot at Dettelbach when he said in an email to Guns.com. “The country needs someone at the ATF helm who will lead the agency, not weaponize it; someone who not only can define what an ‘assault weapon’ is but also understands what it is not."

Books and More Laws

Sat, 11 Jan 2025 13:57:31 GMT

Books and More Laws

On Wednesday, SCOPE suggested New Year’s resolutions and one of them was to read 2nd Amendment books. One member followed up and asked for a list.

How about you, the members, suggest reading material and we will publish a list in a future Email.

Please Email SCOPE at SCOPENYinfo@gmail.com with the name and author and a short description.

______________________________________________________

In October, Governor Hochul signed A.9862A / S.8479A which will require payment card networks to use certain merchant category codes (MCC) for ammunition and firearm dealers. New York becomes the third state, joining California and Colorado, to enact this requirement.

(This, of course, is a step to creating a gun registry so that guns can be confiscated. Expect, at first, only certain firearms are confiscated and then the list expands. Doubt that? See what happened in Canada – our 51st state? But as a warning to leftist politicians, also see what just happened to Prime Minister Trudeau who was the instigator behind it. Oh, and how did the anti-2A candidate for U S President do in the last election?)

Also signed by Hochul in October, S6649/A2882 requires firearms dealers and gunsmiths to post warnings at sites where firearms are sold and distribute warnings at the time of sale, including that firearms increase the risk of suicide, death during domestic disputes, and/or unintentional death to children.

(How would Hochul feel if an FFL posted a sign next to it which truthfully says something like: Numerous studies have shown that firearms are used defensively between 500,000 and 2,000,000 times every year. I add ‘truthfully’ since many on the left have a rather distant relationship with the truth.)

In October, the NYPD reported - and anti-2A organizations have echoed - that since January 1, 2002, 18,750 guns have been taken off the streets in NY City.

(What they don’t tell you is how many of those guns were illegal! But the left will use this statistic as a reason to write more anti-gun laws that the criminals will ignore and have no impact on the number of guns taken off of NY City streets.)

Resolutions

Wed, 08 Jan 2025 18:24:26 GMT

Resolutions

In Ammoland, David Codrea makes some suggestions for New Year’s Resolutions for gun owners. Below are a few and, in some cases, SCOPE added some of our thoughts on them.

I will know my representatives: state representatives; congresspersons and U.S. Senator. Do you know how to contact them on gun bills and more?

I will write letters to the editor: Do you see something gun-related in the newspaper spreading misinformation? Keep things on topic, resist the urge to morph from wit into insults, and make sure to adhere to posted word limits to increase the chance yours will be published. (SCOPE will help you if you have a draft.)

I will join a gun rights group: Gun owners can benefit from keeping apprised of bills, lawsuits, and politicians to oppose and support. Network/attend events with like-minded shooters and activists. (If you are reading this, you probably already are in SCOPE but most SCOPE members are in more than one group.)

I will take a new person shooting: With an emphasis on safety and they will learn that it’s fun! (And I’ll bet you will do some shooting, yourself.)

I will read Second Amendment books: Codrea urges you to purchase some – the people who do the work to bring them to us deserve to eat, too.

See if your library carries them and inquire if they don’t. (The library has to purchase them too and I get most of my reading material through the library and with the money I save I can buy more guns!)

I will support legal actions/court cases protecting the right to keep and bear arms: (SCOPE investigates and supports lawsuits.)

I will spread the word: If you come across something you think helps advance your interests, spend one minute letting others know about it — because that’s the only way to escape the leftist echo chamber. Share the links. If you’re on social media, “like” and especially “share” the link on Facebook or tweet/retweet it on Twitter/X.

I will attend a gun show: Here’s a fun one that shouldn’t be too difficult to make or to keep, and this one is important because it can help reinforce that we’re hardly alone, and the good fellowship is restorative. Also, note how peaceably everyone is behaving.

I will boycott an anti-gun company: The only effort required here is to find an alternative, and while it’s not practical for all products and services, the ones it is feasible to avoid are the ones that can feel it the most. Just supplement it with one thing: Let them know.

I will buy a gun: (Do you really need a resolution to do this?)

I will give my children a development-appropriate education about guns: Teaching is a fundamental parental responsibility. (And they won’t get this in school!)

I will verify emails about gun-related bills with a credible source: It’s tough enough getting gun owners to respond to real threats or opportunities without frivolously mobilizing and alarming them, wasting everybody’s time and energy on distortions and non-issues. (SCOPE’s emails try to keep you informed on real issues.)

I will attend a public demonstration in support of the Second Amendment: Bearing in mind caveats about avoiding trouble and crowds, and J6-style set-ups, showing judicious public solidarity with freedom advocates at rallies and the like is essential.

I will vote: Sometimes the obvious is the easiest to miss.

NYS Assembly

NYS Senate

NYS Congressional Reps

Walmart

Mon, 06 Jan 2025 21:12:18 GMT

Walmart

Do you shop at Walmart? I do.

Do you Concealed Carry? I do.

When you shop at Walmart, do you almost always Concealed Carry? I do.

Does Walmart always seem to be busy? It is where I shop.

When in Walmart, I have wondered if there are other Concealed Carriers also shopping. Given the large number of people, it seems likely that there are at least one or two more, besides me.

Who could it be?

The guy with the MAGA hat?

The mom “carrying” in her purse?

The dad shopping with his family?

Impossible to tell, since our firearm is, by definition, concealed.

I wonder if potential murderers, who look for a place to kill multiple victims, consider the odds that, in Walmart, there are probably one or more armed shoppers who will shoot back. After all, murderers like “gun free zones” where they don’t face opposition and can wreak havoc for at least several minutes until police arrive.

These potential murderers should stop to consider that it’s probable that someone will probably shoot back, even in NY State. Anti-2A’s (like former NY Governor Cuomo) will argue about innocent bystanders being hurt in a cross fire, ignoring that without opposition those same bystanders are helpless and could be shot like “fish-in-a-barrel.” It also ignores that murderers use other weapons than guns, such as knives, and those knife wielders will be at a considerable disadvantage in a gun fight.

We “carry” but we never want to have to use our weapon against another human being. We hope that the potential presence of our weapon is enough to discourage anyone with evil intent. And the potential presence of multiple weapons adds to the safety factor.

That brings us to “Open Carry,” which would seem to be a bigger discouragement to potential evil. After all, as stated earlier, murderers like gun free zones where there isn’t opposition. “Open Carry” should make us safer!

Walmart asks its customers to not “Open Carry.” (Not a problem in NY State where Open Carry is illegal.) Although this is a request and not a ban, in “Open Carry” states, might Walmart politely ask an “Open Carrier” to leave?

What if Open Carry was legal in NYS and welcome in Walmart?

If you could legally “Open Carry” in NYS, you will be noticed and you better have a permit since it will be obvious to any police officer that you are armed and subject to being asked to show your permit. So, “Open Carrys” are very highly likely to be legal and have passed a background check.

Criminals – not so much. They may carry a handgun but it will be concealed and most handguns used in crimes are not legal. Criminals don’t want to be noticed until they start shooting.

Will “Open Carry” make some people nervous. Initially, very likely, since it will be uncommon. But some of those same nervous people will be those that need “Safe Places” when someone disagrees with them or went into grief counselling after Trump was elected. “Open Carry” will say to those people, “Get over it” and, after awhile, most people will get over it, after discovering that labelling oneself as a victim is not working.

Open carrying a firearm does provide a tactical advantage to your adversary. The bad guy can take time to formulate a plan because they can see that you are armed. However, when there are more than one “Open Carriers” (and maybe still some “Concealed Carriers” too) the firearm may serve its purpose of telling the evildoer, “Not today. You may get shot.”

Think about “Open Carry” this way. If you were going for a walk in a dangerous neighborhood, you might take a dog with you; a big dog. Not because you want the dog to attack anyone but because you want a potential assailant to see the dog and decide against assault. “Open Carry serves the same purpose.

The Governor Hochul and the NY legislature, as constituted, will never approve “Open Carry” (they can’t deal with “Concealed Carry”.) But the Supreme Court may find that “Open Carry” is a constitutionally protected right under the 2nd Amendment. And pressure on our federal legislatures couldn’t hurt, either.

In the meantime, I’ll continue to “Concealed Carry” in Walmart and just about every other store and hope that the knowledge I – and others - might be in the store will keep evil at bay.

Getting Involved Matters. It Matters More Than You Realize by John R. Elwood

Sat, 04 Jan 2025 23:39:37 GMT

Getting Involved Matters. It Matters More Than You Realize by John R. Elwood

The 2020 census estimated New York State’s population was 20, 201,249. Though New York State has led the nation in population loss (-2.7% or 630,000 residents left since 2020) with some of the main reasons being unaffordable housing, cost of living, domestic migration, and draconian laws enacted. Still there an estimated 4.5 million or 19.9 % of the New York State population that are gun owners. In the 2022 New York State gubernatorial election between Kathy Hochul and Lee Zeldin, Kathy Hochul won by less than 400,000 votes (377,834). It is estimated that only 1.2 million of the 4.5 million New York State gun owners voted in the gubernatorial election. In other words, of the 3.3 million New York State gun owners that did not vote, if they had voted, Lee Zeldin would likely have been elected governor and burdensome laws like the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) would not have been enacted into law.

The election is over, but what you do now still matters. Get involved. 2A organizations are having success fighting back against unconstitutional firearms legislation.

Second Amendment Organizations Continue to Fight Back!

On June 23, 2022, in a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court issued its decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen that established a new standard for evaluating the constitutionality of gun control laws. It required any firearm regulation to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation, To be considered legal. Essentially, Bruen expanded the right to carry concealed weapons in public by deeming many may-issue systems AS unconstitutional and requiring states to adopt “shall-issue systems instead; this effectively broadened the scope of Second Amendment protections beyond the home. Courts, now, are required to examine whether gun control laws align with historical precedent. So, what was our Governor’s reaction? She doubled down!

That was not a surprise. The day the Bruen decision was handed down, Governor Hochul signaled she would fight back. Between June and September 2022, the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) was rushed into law by Governor Hochul and the NY legislature. The new law made it a crime to be armed at a “Restricted/Sensitive” location unless concealed carry permit holders had permission or signage allowing it. The CCIA carved out more than twenty sensitive locations including: federal, state, or local government buildings; any place of worship, except for those people responsible for security; libraries, public parks and zoos; and any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble.

But wait, 2A organizations were not done. 2A organizations fought back.

On October 10, 2024, in a Christian vs James lawsuit (initiated by the Firearms Policy Coalition), Federal Judge Sinatra, struck down a portion of NYS’s CCIA barring concealed firearms on private property without the consent of the property owner as unconstitutional. It was not all we wanted, but it was a small win.

New York State Ban on Body Armor

In another attempt to restrict gun rights, on June 6, 2022, Governor Hochul signed a body armor ban into law. The law states, when not being engaged or employed in an “eligible profession”, the purchase, taking possession of, sale, exchange, giving or disposing of body armor is prohibited.

People engaged or employed in eligible professions include: police officers, peace officers, federal law enforcement officers, armored car guard, security guard, firefighter, emergency medical technician, paramedic, ambulance drive and attendant, firearms dealer, body armor retailer/salesperson, private investigator, building safety inspector, code enforcement officer, firearms instructor, professional journalist, newscaster, nuclear safety officer, process server, animal control officer federal firearms dealer, range safety officer, forensic science technician, ballistic examiner, school building administrator and school district administrator.

If you are not engaged or employed in one of these professions/jobs and you are a New York State citizen, you are prohibited from the purchase, taking possession of, sale, exchange, giving or disposing of body armor. The first offense is a misdemeanor, and any subsequent offense is a felony. But again, 2A organizations are fighting back against the New York state ban on body armor.

New York State’s ban on body armor does not comply with the Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v Bruen, which established a new standard for assessing the constitutionality of gun laws. Under Bruen, the court stated gun laws must be consistent with the nation’s tradition of firearm regulation. The term “arms” has long been understood as being inclusive of armor.

Once again,2A organizations are fighting back and the ban on body armor in NY State is being challenged.

On 1 July 2024, a complaint was initiated against New York State’s ban on body armor initiated by the Firearms Policy Coalition. The defendants include Letitia James, Attorney General for New York State, Mr. Steven James, Superintendent of the New York State Police, Mr. Michael Keane, Acting District Attorney (DA) from Erie County, New York, Mr. William Gabor, (DA) from Madison County New York, and Ms. Sandra Doorley, DA from Monroe County New York. As expected, the defendants made several attempts to get rid of the case.

First, the defendants tried to argue that the plaintiffs did not have standing in the court. (Note: Legal standing, also known as locus standi, is the right to bring a lawsuit or appear in court. It’s a condition a party must meet to show they have a sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action being challenged.)

Then, the defendants tried to argue the reasons why they should not be considered defendants. On November 8, 2024, Judge Sinatra denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On December 17, 2024, a scheduling/case management order was issued. The lawsuit will go forward. (Note: A Scheduling/Case Management Order is a court document that outlines the timeline and deadlines for all stages of a legal case, including discovery, motions, and trial dates.) A decision on the case is scheduled for February 27, 2026.

Shooter’s Committee on Political Education (SCOPE) will continue the fight against restricting NY citizens’ Second Amendment rights. In the coming days, SCOPE will decide whether to donate to the lawsuit against NY States’ ban on body armor.

The fight to secure our Second Amendment rights is not over and 2A organizations must continue to fight back! SCOPE NEEDS YOU! We hope to see you at one of our monthly meetings! Our website is SCOPENY2A.org. Get involved today!

You Never Know

Fri, 03 Jan 2025 18:54:36 GMT

You Never Know

General George Marshall was sworn in as Chief of Staff of the Army on September 1, 1939, the same day that Hitler invaded Poland and World War 2 began. (What a way to start a new job!) On that day, the U S Army and Air Corp had 189,839 regular troops and officers. It was the 17th largest army in the world, just behind Portugal.

Marshall had been promoted above many more senior officers to become the highest-ranking person in the Army.

In addition to the Great depression, the 1930’s also featured severe isolationism. The overwhelming majority of Americans had no interest in becoming involved in Europe’s problems; Hitler, Fascism and Communism.

With all of Europe in war, the first peacetime draft was proposed in 1940, a presidential election year. President Franklin Roosevelt was silent about supporting the draft until after his opponent, Wendell Wilkie, came out for it; Roosevelt then endorsed it. With both candidates’ support, it was enacted in October. Those drafted were to serve up to one year.

By the summer of 1941, the war in Europe had worsened and Asia was in turmoil. Since the draftees’ year of service was coming to an end, Congress debated an unpopular bill to extend those draftees service beyond the year. By then, Roosevelt had been reelected, so he showed great courage (sarcasm intended) and came out in favor of the extension.

On August 12th, the United States House of Representatives voted on the extension. In the 1st vote, the extension was approved by 204 to 201. Then, a House member changed his vote and the revised vote was 203 to 202. There was concern that others would change the vote when an anti-war member asked, by mistake, for a recapitulation – instead of a reconsideration. (A recapitulation only allowed for a recount while a reconsideration would have allowed House members to change their vote.)

The recount confirmed the 203 to 202 vote and before the antiwar House members could act, Speaker Sam Rayburn banged his gavel and announced that the vote had passed. Under the House rules, the vote was frozen.

The Senate approved it by a wider margin, 37 to 19, and Roosevelt signed the Service Extension Act of 1941 into law on August 18.

Less than four months later, Pearl harbor was attacked by the Japanese and we were in World War 2. By the end of 1941, there were 1.4 million men in the U S Army. 1.8 million in all services. (Remember, there were only 189,839 two years earlier.)

The United States was woefully unprepared at the start of WW2 but had the draft not added a million trained men to the Army and Army Air Corp before the war broke out, WW2 would have had a very different path.

So why is this little piece of history important to us who are defending the 2nd Amendment? Because, you never know when a small act will have huge consequences.

Roosevelt broke military tradition and angered many senior Army officers when he promoted George Marshal to be Chief of Staff, over more senior officers. Most historians agree that Marshall was the most important and influential military officer in WW2 and very likely was irreplaceable.

Had Wendell Wilkie not come out with the politically difficult position of favoring the 1940 draft bill, Roosevelt would very likely not have come out for it and that would probably have defeated it. The U S A might still have had a smaller Army than Portugal when WW2 broke out, with disastrous consequences.

203 House members voted to extend the draft, less than 4 months before Pearl Harbor. Had any one of them voted otherwise, many of the trained soldiers would have already returned to civilian life when Pearl Harbor was attacked and the U S Army would have again been severely depleted.

House Speaker Sam Rayburn had a quick gavel and used technicalities in House rules to ensure the draft bill stayed passed. Had he not done so, a change of one vote by the House would have changed the history of WW2.

2nd Amendment defenders are looking forward to the change of administrations on January 20th. But the gun grabbers are not lying down in defeat. As well as being a right, keeping and bearing arms is essential to a safe and prepared United States.

We never know when our actions may have huge consequences down-the-line in our battle to preserve the 2nd Amendment and our American values.

A Christmas To Remember

Wed, 25 Dec 2024 13:21:53 GMT

A Christmas To Remember

Eventually, the colonial army was completely driven out of New York and it retreated across New Jersey to Valley Forge Pennsylvania, where things became even more desperate.

On the early evening of December 25, 1776, in a freezing rainstorm that lasted all night, the Continental Army loaded onto boats and crossed the ice clogged Delaware River, in three groups. The crossing was so treacherous that one group did not make it across and a second group made it across but turned around and went back. Only Washington’s group was able to march to the attack.

Hours behind schedule, with one-third strength, the army arrived at their target, Trenton New Jersey.

Luck certainly played a part in the successful American Revolution and at Trenton.

The leader of the Hessians in Trenton was Colonel Rall, a man who had little respect for Washington and the colonials. Rall’s spies had told him of Washington’s attack. The Hessians knew Washington was coming! Rall acted properly and increased the guard and had a reserve force ready to reinforce wherever he was attacked.

On Christmas afternoon, one of Rall’s sentry posts was attacked. The Hessians sprang into action and the attackers quickly retreated after a brief and ineffective exchange of gunfire. Rall so disrespected the colonials that he believed this was the attack he expected, so he relieved the guard and the reserve and he went to a Christmas party.

Who attacked the sentry post? It wasn’t Washington. To this day, no one knows. The best guess is some farmers had too much “Christmas cheer” and decided to harass the Hessians to make up for the harassment the farmers had received. They fired a few shots and then went back to celebrating Christmas. But because of this, Washington was able to enjoy complete surprise.

At times, God has been on our side.

One year ago, many were dejected and in a funk over politics. Summoning the energy to continue the fight to preserve the Constitution seems beyond some people’s wills. To them it would be easier to, in a very real sense, surrender to the likes of Alexandria Octavio-Cortez and tell her, “You win. We give up. Do with the USA what you will.”

How wonderfully things have changed in less than a year.

Winston Churchill gave what may be the greatest college commencement speech. It was only nine words. “Never give up. NEVER GIVE UP. NEVER GIVE UP!”

The battle to preserve our constitutional rights did not end with Trump’s election. The Left is already counterattacking.

Thomas Paine wrote, “These are the times that try men’s souls. The sunshine soldier and the summer patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country…”

Paine also wrote, “Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered.”

Do We Need More Gun Laws?

Tue, 24 Dec 2024 03:04:51 GMT

Do We Need More Gun Laws?

Every time there is a shooting, the gun grabbing leftists come out from under their rocks and promote more gun control legislation. Like most leftist efforts, they just don’t work and one of the reasons is rarely mentioned by the left.

Between the years 2021 and 2023, Dion Cooper illegally “straw purchased” 133 firearms and then provided the firearms to convicted felons or juveniles who couldn’t legally purchase or possess the firearms on their own.

Cooper, of Kent, Washington, pled guilty to multiple federal firearm charges, including trafficking in firearms, making a false statement in connection with the acquisition of firearms and straw purchasing firearms.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Todd Greenberg, who prosecuted Cooper’s case, said: “Dion Cooper was the largest known straw purchaser in the history of the western district of Washington…Fifty-four of the guns that Dion Cooper purchased were linked in and used in violent crimes – a homicide, drive-by shootings, armed robberies, bank robberies, assaults – this wasn’t theoretical at all, these guns caused immense harm in our community.”

After all that, and not including any consideration for crimes that might still be committed with firearms Cooper illegally provided, the federal judge gave him just three years in prison.

Washington is an uber-Democrat state with strict gun laws.

On June 11, Hunter Biden was convicted in federal court of three felonies stemming from an October 2018 firearm purchase.

Federal law (18 USC § 922(g)(3)) prohibits the possession of firearms by anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

A Department of Justice press release explained: Biden knowingly made a false written statement on the ATF Form 4473 when he certified that he was not an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance…during an 11-day period between Oct. 12 and Oct. 23, 2018, Biden possessed a firearm while knowing he was an unlawful user of or addicted to any stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance, in violation of federal law.

President Biden pardoned his son in a broad ranging pardon stretching back to 2014 and it covers just about every other possible federal crime.

Biden is a politician who has spent his career championing more gun control legislation. Yet, the above two cases are examples of why the gun control legislation isn’t effective. An ever-growing web of statutes, regulations, and enforcement policies make it harder and harder for conscientious, law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights, while those who brazenly violate the law often go unpunished or receive mild punishments.

What is the point of making decent law-abiding Americans comply with the onerous and ridiculous federal gun control laws, other than to inconvenience and burden Constitutionally-protected conduct.

Passing more laws does not deter criminals when those criminals see that existing laws are not enforced or end in light sentences.

Deficit? What Deficit?

Thu, 19 Dec 2024 22:37:31 GMT

Deficit? What Deficit?

Roll Call is a newspaper and website published in Washington D C, when the United States Congress is in session, reporting news of legislative and political maneuverings on Capitol Hill.

Roll Call reports that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rolled out a new incentive for Medicaid providers to talk with patients about owning a gun. CMS is allowing Medicaid funds to be dispensed when those queries are made.

Why would doctors need funding to ask these questions? After all, asking a patient if they own a gun doesn't cost anything. Because, by opening up the Medicaid money spigot, the Biden administration is incentivizing healthcare professionals to ask these types of invasive questions.

A CMS spokesperson said that while Medicaid first began allowing coverage of violence prevention-related services in 2021, the latest announcement clarifies that the coverage also includes “anticipatory guidance,” or health education and counseling to help parents and caregivers understand and improve the health and development of their children.

“As a result, states may reimburse for a health care provider counseling parents on firearm safety and injury prevention,” the CMS spokesperson said.

Of course, gun grabbers hope the conversations about guns will become routine.

“The hope is that this normalizes this question as part of routine medical care,” said Chethan Sathya, a pediatric trauma surgeon and firearm injury prevention researcher at Northwell Health, the largest health care provider in New York. “When you start funding things, that is the huge incentive for hospitals and providers to integrate this into usual routine medical care, and it provides a revenue stream for that.”

Isn’t there a federal deficit problem? Something like an accumulated deficit of $36 trillion…and growing. The gun grabbing Left considers that deficit as only collateral damage in their war on gun rights.

Remember this the next time N Y State complains about the growing cost of Medicaid.

When is Lethal Self-Defense Justified?

Thu, 19 Dec 2024 22:11:09 GMT

When is Lethal Self-Defense Justified?

You are probably familiar with the Daniel Penny trial over Penny killing an assailant on a NY City subway.

A schizophrenic on drugs and a career violent criminal with over 40 arrests, boarded a New York City subway train and threatened passengers. Penny took Neely to the floor with the assistance of two other passengers and applied a chokehold for several minutes until the police arrived. The assailant died.

At trial, one charge against Penney was dismissed and he was found innocent on another.

Penny was an example of a ‘Good Samaritan’ who risked his own life to protect others. (That’s usually called self-defense but not in a Soros’ DA’s district.) Had Penny been convicted, it would have caused future “Good Samaritans” to reconsider getting involved.

It was also another example of a George Soros funded DA – Manhattan’s Alvin Bragg - who has a very skewed view of the law in which he believes assailants should not suffer harm when they are assaulting people.

There was another recent case that probably did not get your attention.

In 2016, Jairo Castillo shot and killed an assailant who had confronted him with a razor blade over a drug dispute. The assailant held a razor blade against Castillo's face while threatening to cut him “from ear to ear."

In 2019, Castillo was convicted of 2nd Degree Murder and criminal possession of a weapon. He appealed the decision.

A mid-level appeals court heard Castillo's case and disagreed with his self-defense claims, noting that Castillo began firing his gun after the assailant had turned around to leave the salon where the dispute took place. That court said there was "no reasonable view of the evidence" to suggest that Castillo was justified "in firing four additional shots into the victim's back" after he had turned around, even if the initial gunshots had been justified.

On November 21st, New York's top appeals court (The Court of Appeals) overturned the conviction of Castillo. The court vacated Castillo's second-degree murder conviction and criminal possession of a weapon.

The Court of Appeals said in its ruling that the trial court should have allowed Castillo to argue he was acting in self-defense. It clarified that defensive, lethal force can, in some circumstances, be used against an aggressor even if the aggressor begins to turn away. The court said that even though the assailant began to leave, "it would not be unreasonable for defendant to believe [he] continued to pose a threat."

Bragg is infamous for favoring criminal rights over victim rights.

In 2022, Bragg charged a Harlem bodega employee, Jose Alba, with second-degree murder for fatally stabbing a customer who had begun to assault Alba.

On July 1st, an assailant, who was younger and bigger than the 61 years old Alba, attacked Mr. Alba behind the counter of the Bodega where Alba worked. Alba picked up a kitchen knife that was stashed behind the counter and stabbed the assailant in the neck and chest at least five times.

Alba was arrested by police on July 2nd and charged with one count of second-degree murder.

Alba was held in Rikers Island for several days before being released on $50,000 bond, partially secured by the owners of the bodega where Alba worked.

Bragg ultimately dropped the charges against Alba, probably because the incident created a media and political firestorm. Even Democrat NY City Mayor Eric Adams spoke out against Bragg.

The first lesson is to be careful of what district in which you practice self-defense. Be sure to check out the local D A’s reputation before you defend yourself or others. (Sarcasm intended.)

The second lesson is that, even in New York State, you may find judges that use good judgement when interpreting self-defense lawsuits.

The third lesson is that political animals like Alvin Bragg, who only view the law as a means to their political ends, do succumb to political and citizen pressure if enough is applied against them.

The fourth lesson is that it is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

A Rose By Any Other Name

Tue, 17 Dec 2024 13:08:57 GMT

A Rose By Any Other Name

We should be excited that the Left has given up on “Gun Control”

We should be excited…but we aren’t.

The term “Gun Control” has simply been replaced by:

Gun Reform
Gun Safety
Gun Violence Prevention

A Rose by any other name is still a Rose. Or in this case, a Turd by any other name…

Unfortunately, the Left continues to be less interested in preventing violent crime than they are in banning lawfully and constitutionally owned firearms. So, SCOPE and you, the 2nd Amendment defenders, are not going anywhere. The battle for our constitutionally protected rights continues.

2A After January 20th

Sat, 14 Dec 2024 02:47:44 GMT

2A After January 20th

There are high expectations for Donald Trump in the area of the 2nd Amendment.

Schuyler County SCOPE publishes a monthly legal update and the following are some of its articles concerning Mr. Trump and 2nd Amendment priorities as well as a brief history of incoming Sen Majority Leader John Thune.

What Donald Trump's 'Concealed Carry Reciprocity' Means for Gun Rights

Donald Trump promised to sign "concealed carry reciprocity" legislation if he won a second term in office. The policy would allow gun owners with a concealed carry permit from one state to legally carry their weapons in other states.

Every state in the U.S. permits some form of concealed carry, but the regulations can vary widely. Some states do not require a permit to carry concealed weapons, while others demand permits, stipulating certain conditions. States such as California and New York have particularly strict requirements.

Trump spelled out his intention to change the law in a 2023 speech, stating: "I will protect the right of self-defense everywhere it is under siege. And I will sign concealed carry reciprocity. Your second amendment does not end at the state line."

Trump has long campaigned on a pro-gun platform and all three times he has run for president he has received an endorsement from the National Rifle Association (NRA) firearms rights lobby group.

Democrats and groups that advocate for gun control have long opposed "concealed carry reciprocity."

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-concealed-carry-reciprocity-1983740

The Four Federal Gun Violence Prevention Efforts Trump Could Dismantle

Here’s a look at the Biden-era policies most likely to be on the chopping block:

Sacking ATF Director Steve Dettelbach

Closing the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention

The Safer Communities Act’s Gun dealers & background checks and funding for gun violence prevention

Biden’s executive orders

https://www.thetrace.org/2024/11/trump-gun-violence-policy-biden-election/

Incoming president likely to make more than 100 judicial appointments

The next president will appoint more than 100 federal judges to the bench, providing an opportunity to mold the federal judiciary towards his or her liking. As of Election Day, there were six vacancies on the high-profile federal circuit courts, and 61 district court vacancies waiting to be filled.

According to recent history, a new president on average has between 200 and 250 Article III judicial appointments during the course of four years in office.

Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project, estimates that there could be 37 circuit court judges eligible for senior status and 80 district court appointments when the new president is sworn in on Inauguration Day.

A Republican staffer said at this point in the Trump administration, 218 Article III judges had been appointed. “We confirmed a total of 234 Article III nominees during the entire Trump administration,” the staffer told The Washington Times. “To date under the Biden administration, we have confirmed 213 Article III judges.”

There are five pending circuit court nominees and 25 pending district court nominees that Mr. Biden has made, “with several unlikely to be confirmed before the end of the Congress,” the staffer noted.

Judicial appointments have become part of the election debate. In the 2016 presidential race, Mr. Trump was credited with winning over conservative voters by releasing a list of his intended judicial candidates.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/nov/5/incoming-president-likely-make-100 judicial-appoin/

Where John Thune Stands on Gun Control and the Second Amendment

John Thune will be the Senate Majority Leader starting in January and, as such, he will be the most powerful person in the U S Senate.

Moving up to the Senate in 2005 after six years as a Congressman, Thune has supported key gun rights legislation while in office. He co-sponsored the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005, which protects the American firearms industry from frivolous "lawfare" lawsuits, and has repeatedly attempted to move the needle on nationwide concealed carry reciprocity.

He's also butted heads with the ATF and IRS for a decade on topics ranging from banning common ammunition types to questioning unfair tax audits of licensed gun dealers.

Thune is currently a co-sponsor in the Senate of the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act in the 118th Congress. However, he is not a co-sponsor of pro-suppressor legislation such as the SHUSH Act or the Hearing Protection Act.

https://www.guns.com/news/2024/11/14/where-john-thune-stands-on-gun-control-and-the-second-amendment

Thanksgiving Day

Wed, 27 Nov 2024 21:31:44 GMT

Thanksgiving Day

We won the lottery when we were born in the United States of America. We enjoy freedoms and rights and opportunities that no one else in history has enjoyed.

It’s more than appropriate that Americans have a day to say thanks for that win.

The Bible talks about birthrights and Thomas Jefferson described our birthright as Americans – “all men…are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights”. Those rights are embodied in our Constitution. They are our birthright.

Jefferson went further when he wrote: “…to secure these rights, governments are instituted…” In other words, the government’s job is to protect our rights.

Then, to top it off, Jefferson wrote that governments secure “their just powers from the consent of the governed”. From the consent of “we the people.”

Our country thrived because our Constitution reflected those words and we practiced them– as private citizens and public officials.

No country has done more for the world than America.

I read a story written by a man who, as a boy, was in a Nazi concentration camp. As the war neared its end, the prisoners were afraid they would be executed and when they were loaded in a boxcar, there was terror. The boy’s father was watching through a gap in the walls and when he saw a group of armed soldiers coming, panic ensued. But he changed everything when he said, “It’s the Americans”.

That perfectly sums up what being an American has meant to the world. No three words – other than “He is risen” - have meant as much to so many as, “It’s the Americans”.

We in SCOPE believe in the Constitution as it was written.

We believe in all the rights protected by that constitution - not just in the right to keep and bear arms

We believe the Constitution limits government in order to protect our rights.

Some tell us that our Constitution needs to be reimagined and America needs to be “transformed”.

We disagree.

As President Ronald Reagan said, our system of capitalism, free market and private property works. That America is a shining city on a hill and the last best hope of mankind.

Before we meet, SCOPE members say the Pledge of Allegiance. Its words have meaning and we unashamedly say under God. But we should not forget the next word – indivisible. We believe in a United States not split apart by class warfare. We believe in uniting not dividing and that “We the people” are the true governors of our nation.

Our founders gave us the structure that made the United States the greatest country in the history of the world - if we can keep it. It’s our duty to preserve our Constitution against all enemies–foreign and domestic.

On Thursday, we should give thanks for all that has been given to us and all the opportunities that “It’s the Americans” have to accomplish in the future.

Don’t Mess With Republican Women

Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:26:50 GMT

Don’t Mess With Republican Women

Per a Gallup poll:

The number of Republican women who own guns has jumped.

From 2007-2012, 19 percent of Republican women owned guns, now 33 percent of Republican women do.

Only 29 percent of Democrat men own a weapon.
More Republican women own guns than do Democrat men!
Six out of ten Republican men own guns, making them the dominate political demographic among gun owners.
43 percent of all men and 20 percent of all women are “likely to own guns.”
Contrary to what citizens are demonstrating, Democrat lawmakers in Albany, Washington D C, and the capitols of blue states want to do away with civilian ownership of guns.

Post Election News

Tue, 19 Nov 2024 16:15:09 GMT

Post Election News

In 2016, Hollywood elites who vowed they would flee the country if former President Donald Trump won the election and returned to the White House included Bruce Springsteen, Cher, Samuel L. Jackson, Whoopi Goldberg, George Lopez, Miley Cyrus, John Legend and Chrissy Teigen, Amy Schumer, and Lena Dunham. Even Barbra Streisand vowed to move to Australia or Canada.

None of them made good on their promises.

They are getting a second chance.

A man who is apparently unhappy about President-elect Donald Trump’s victory said he is leaving America and relocating to Hawaii.

__________________________

First they came for my AR15
Then they came for my gas powered car
Then they came for my kitchen appliances
When they came for my pet squirrel, there was no one left to help.
__________________________

Some leftist women are shaving their heads in protest of Donald Trump’s victory. These women claim to be shaving their heads in protest of the “patriarchy.” In one video, a woman said: “F*** coloring our hair. F*** having my hair be long and luxurious. F*** all that s***. F*** being skinny. F*** being hot. F*** being all the things that the patriarchy wants us to be.” She concluded by informing men that she will not be speaking to them.

This is believed to be that ‘‘woman”:

I feel bad for parents nowadays. You have to be able to explain the birds & the bees …The bees & the bees … The birds & the birds … The birds that used to be bees … The bees that used to be birds … The birds that look like bees … Plus bees that look like birds but still got a stinger!!! …”
___________________

Joe Biden makes post-election comments after being forced to withdraw from the race in Favor of Kamala Harris..

_____________________

Washington State is on the left coast, yet Washington State voters just passed a voter initiative effectively banning natural gas bans. (They okayed banning bans.)
_____________________

In June, Governor Hochul paused Manhattan’s “congestion pricing tolls”, citing high inflation and vacancy rates in Manhattan office buildings. Less gullible believed this issue would hurt the Democrats’ chances in November’s election. (Congestion pricing is unpopular with voters who dislike taxes. Duh!)

The toll, in June, was $15. After the election, Hochul announced the initiative will now go into effect on January 5th. Drivers entering south of 60th Street will be forced to pay $9.

Hochul is portraying this as a 40% tax cut. A toll going from $0 to $9 is a tax cut.

But there is also an ‘oops’ moment. This initiative requires approval from the federal government. Biden is okay with it but Trump has vowed to end the tolls when he takes office.
______________________

The Pennsylvania Senate race was called for Republican Dave McCormick, who currently holds a 26,000 votes lead. Being within one percentage point triggered an automatic recount under Pennsylvania law. Incumbent Democratic Senator Bob Casey has insisted that ‘’every vote” be counted.

And he wasn’t joking about ‘every vote.’

Before the election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that mail ballots lacking formally required signatures or dates should not be included in official results. Democratic officials in Philadelphia and surrounding Bucks, Centre and Montgomery counties are ignoring that court order to disqualify these ballots.

Democrat Bucks County Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia said, "I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country,"

She is admitting to committing voter fraud by citing (‘without evidence’ - as leftist media likes to say) that court orders are no longer mandatory, if you don’t like them.
__________________

Washington Redskins’ owner Edward Bennett Williams said about his head coach George Allen: “I gave him an unlimited budget and he overspent it.”

Kamal Harris’ campaign raised an historic $1 billion…and she overspent it!
__________________

Colorado voters rejected Proposition 127, which sought to ban hunting mountain lions and bobcats.

The measure ignored the fact that populations of lions and bobcats are thriving, and hunting is carefully managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The sweeping language used in this initiative could have been expanded in the future to ban the hunting of other game animals like deer, elk, and sheep.

This is the first time since 1992 that Colorado voters have rejected a wildlife ballot proposal.

Fortunately, pro-hunting forces were well organized and able to effectively message about Proposition 127 to the Colorado Electorate.

This explains one reason why SCOPE and other 2A defense organizations exist.

The 1st Amendment Is Back In Style!

Sat, 16 Nov 2024 13:10:49 GMT

The 1^st Amendment Is Back In Style!

The 1st and 2ndAmendments are tied together and the elite on the left need to destroy both to achieve their goals. Without free speech, you might not know that your 2nd Amendment rights are being threatened. And the 2nd Amendment protects all the other rights.

Donald Trump made a speech about our 1st Amendment rights and how he would be defending them, but you may not have heard about it. Thanks to our friend Tom Shepstone at Energy Security and Freedom we were alerted about it.

In trying to get a date when the speech was made, I searched “Trump speech on the 1st Amendment” on line and the first 6 pages of results never mentioned it and, further, all but one of the links had Trump as anti-free speech or abusing the 1st Amendment. (I stopped searching after 6 pages.) This further demonstrates why Trump’s actions to defend free speech are necessary. Censorship is alive and well – for now.

However, I did find that on November 11th, the Washington Times started an article about the speech by writing: President-elect Donald Trump isn’t messing around. His first major policy statement since his landslide victory outlines his plan to restore free speech.

We can hope that Trump takes as aggressive a line on defending the 2nd Amendment as he is on defending the 1st Amendment.

Below are highlights of the speech and a link to the actual speech is at the end.

“If we don’t have Free Speech, then we just don’t have a Free Country. It’s as simple as that. If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple just like dominos one by one. They’ll go down.”

“FIRST, within hours of my inauguration, I will sign an executive order banning any federal department or agency from colluding with any organization, business, or person, to censor, limit, categorize, or impede the lawful speech of American citizens. I will then ban federal money from being used to label domestic speech as “mis-” or “dis-information”.

“And I will begin the process of identifying and firing every federal bureaucrat who has engaged in domestic censorship, directly or indirectly, whether they are the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, the FBI, the DOJ, no matter who they are.”

“SECOND, I will order the Department of Justice to investigate all parties involved in the new online censorship regime…”

“These include possible violations of federal civil rights law, campaign finance laws, federal election law, securities law, and anti-trust laws, the Hatch Act and a host of other potential criminal, civil, regulatory, and constitutional offenses.”

“THIRD, from now on, digital platforms should only qualify for immunity protection under Section 230 if they meet high standards of neutrality, transparency, fairness, and non-discrimination.”

“FOURTH, we need to break up the entire toxic censorship industry that has arisen under the false guise of tackling so-called “mis-” and “dis-information.” The federal government should immediately stop funding all non-profits and academic programs that support this authoritarian project. If any U.S. university is discovered to have engaged in censorship activities or election interferences in the past, such as flagging social media content for removal and blacklisting, those universities should lose federal research dollars and federal student loan support for a period of five years, and maybe more.”

“There will be criminal penalties for any federal bureaucrat found to interfere with elections by depriving Americans of information:”

“We should also enact new laws laying out clear criminal penalties for federal bureaucrats who partner with private entities to do an end-run around the Constitution and deprive Americans of their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. In other words, deprive them of their vote. And once you lose those elections and once you lose your borders like we have, you no longer have a country.”

“Furthermore, to confront the problems of major platforms being infiltrated by legions of former Deep Staters and intelligence officials, there should be a 7-year cooling-off period before any employee of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DNI, DHS, or DOD is allowed to take a job at a company possessing vast quantities of U.S. user data.”

“FIFTH, the time has finally come for Congress to pass a digital Bill of Rights. This should include a right to digital due process, in other words, government officials should need a COURT ORDER to take down online content, not send information requests such as the FBI was sending to Twitter. Furthermore, when users of big online platforms have their content or accounts removed, throttled, shadow-banned, or otherwise restricted no matter what name they use, they should have the right to be informed that it’s happening, the right to a specific explanation of the reason why, and the right to a timely appeal. In addition, all users over the age of 18 should have the right to opt-out of content moderation and curation entirely, and receive an unmanipulated stream of information if they so choose.”

“The fight for Free Speech is a matter of victory or death for America and for the survival of Western Civilization itself. When I am President, this whole rotten system of censorship and information control will be ripped out of the system at large. There won’t be anything left. By restoring free speech, we will begin to reclaim our democracy, and save our nation.”

Trump: Free Speech

New York State Congressional Results

Fri, 15 Nov 2024 00:49:12 GMT

New York State Congressional Results

SCOPE published its rating for Congressional candidates (including ratings by Gunowners of America, National Shooting Sports Foundation and the NRA.) Below are those ratings for the winning candidates.

R=Republican C=Conservative L=Libertarian D=Democrat

WF=Working Families CS=Common Sense

* Incumbent District Descriptions per Ballotopedia

Blank or ? = Insufficient information to rate

SCOPE GOA NSSF NRA

District 1 (Likely / Lean Republican)

Nicholas Lalota* (R C) A B+ A- A

District 2 (Solid / Safe Republican)

Andrew Garbarino* (R C) B B B B+

District 3 (Likely Democrat)

Tom Suozzi* (D CS) F F F F

District 4 (Toss Up)

Laura Gillen (D CS) F F

District 5 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Gregory Meeks* (D) F F F F

District 6 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Grace Meng* (D ) F F F F

District 7 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Nydia Velazquez* (D WF) F F F F

District 8 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Hakeem Jeffries* ( D ) F F F F

District 9 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Yvette Clarke* (D ) F F F F

District 10 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Daniel Goldman* (D) F F F F

District 11 (Solid / Safe Republican)

Nicole Malliotakis* (R C) B- D C+ B

District 12 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Jerrold Nadler* (D WF) F F F F

District 13 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Adriano Espaillat* (D ) F F F F

District 14 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Alex’a Ocasio-Cortez* (D WF) F F F F

District 15 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Ritchie Torres* (D ) F F F F

District 16 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

George Latimer (D) F F

District 17 (Toss Up)

Michael Lawler* (R C) B B B

District 18 (lean Democrat)

Patrick Ryan* (D WF) F F F F

District 19 (Toss Up / Tilt Republican)

Josh Riley (D WF) F F

District 20 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Paul Tonko* (D WF) F F F

District 21 (Solid / Safe Republican)

Elise Stefanik* (R C) A B+ A+ A+

District 22 (Lean / Tilt Democrat)

John Mannion (D WF) F F

District 23 (Solid / Safe Republican)

Nick Langworthy* (R C) B A- A+ A

District 24 (Solid / Safe Republican)

Claudia Tenney (R C) A A- A+ A+

District 25 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Joseph Morelle* (D WF) F F F F

District 26 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Timothy Kennedy* (D WF) F F

The Last Best Hope

Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:45:00 GMT

The Last Best Hope

Ronald Reagen spoke of the USA as the “last best hope of mankind” and most of us agree. But in retrospect, that is a bit egotistical of us. Great nations have come and gone throughout history and been replaced by other great nations.

But what if we are correct that we are the “last best hope of mankind?” That’s a big responsibility!

If so, don’t we have a duty to fulfill that God given responsibility?

The ‘elite’ left want to lord over us and force their radical agenda on us – an agenda that would destroy the ‘last best hope of mankind.’ They spent billions and we nullified it all by voting! ($2 billion was raised by Kamala Harris’ campaign and they still went in debt.) We fulfilled one aspect of our duty to preserve the USA when we voted.

On election day, we dodged a bullet. And because of that, we will be able to buy bullets for the next four years - and gas-powered cars and have electricity on a regular basis.

Some may view our work as done but, in fact, it is only beginning.

If you believe the left is going to reconsider their radical positions in light of their loss at the ballot box – think again. The left is not blaming their extreme positions for their loss. They are still tossing around words like; Hitler; fascism; end of democracy; patriarchy, racist, sexist, etc.

And they have added new divisions to our country.

We knew that we were considered racist misogynist, sexist, white supremacists out to end democracy, etc. But who knew that we are now joined by black men who are now also sexists and latino men are now both racists and sexists when they voted for Trump? (Luckily for those on the left, if you voted for Harris because she is either a woman or black, that is not considered racism or sexism by the Democrats.)

Democrat elites believe that it was racism and sexism that led to their defeat and not their failed policies on immigration, national debt, crime, the economy, gender and the 2nd Amendment (to name just a few).

Because they know this, several Democrat state governors, including the ‘beloved’ Kathy Hochul, have pledged to interfere with the efforts of Trump and the new Congress, even though 75 million Americans voted for Trump, including 3 ½ million New Yorkers. Expect that these governors of deep blue states will double down on their policies on guns and the environment in order to protect us from our voting habits.

And in the first bid to be the Democrats’ 2028 candidate for President, California Governor Newsome posted on ‘X’: “I just called an emergency special session to help bolster our legal resources and protect our state against any unlawful actions by the incoming Trump Administration…Whether it be our fundamental civil rights, reproductive freedom, or climate action — we refuse to turn back the clock and allow our values and laws to be attacked.”

No lessons learned from the election about dividing the country leading to losses in elections. Nope. Like a losing gambler, they are doubling down on dividing the country!

And in a race to the bottom, Kathy Hochul announced her administration was creating an "Empire State Freedom Initiative" to resist any “threats” from Washington to abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, gun safety, immigration and other areas. (But in typical fashion, Hochul also said she welcomed all federal funding.)

Note the change in labeling her efforts against 2A as ‘gun safety’ and not ‘gun control.’ A Rose by any other name…Or in this case a Poison Ivy by any other name...

"New York will remain a bastion for freedom and rule of law," Hochul said at a press conference in Manhattan.

“New York is a bastion for freedom and the rule of law” and a Big Mac is health food!

Hochul has strange ideas about the meaning of freedom when it comes to our Second Amendment rights. Her reaction to the rule-of-law Bruen decision was not compliance but defiance.

We now have a new mandate to change the direction. So, buckle up and work with SCOPE because the leadership on the left will be overtly and covertly resisting in every way they can - and the rule-of-law is no impediment to them.

Quick & Dirty

Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:43:53 GMT

Quick & Dirty

Here are some ‘quick & dirty’ suggestions on priorities for President Trump and the new Congress as to our 2nd Amendment protections. Just priorities. If everything is a priority then nothing is a priority.

For President Trump:

Remove ATF Director Dettelbach from office as well as every political appointee in the ATF.

Appoint an ATF Director who respects the rights of law-abiding citizens and uses resources to target actual criminals instead of honest business owners.

Rescind the more than 50 executive orders Biden issued related to firearms.

Remove FBI Director Wray from office as well as every political appointee in the FBI.

Appoint an FBI Director who respects the rights of law-abiding citizens and uses resources to target actual criminals instead of honest gun owners (and stop weaponizing the government against political opponents.)

Close the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Stop every ‘Red Flag’ law attempt that does not strictly adhere to ‘due process of law’ protections. Protections such as: considered innocent until proven guilty; instituting punishment for frivolous charges.

Stop the NICS system from being used for ammo background checks, to be in accordance with existing law that does not allow it.

For Congress:

Pass National Reciprocity for gun licenses.

Pass a redefined Safer Communities Act by: reversing the ‘engaged in business’ rule to reinclude ‘livelihood;’ redefining the “willful violation” for firearm retailers that could cost them their license; outlawing the “zero-tolerance” policy being used to cost FFL’s their license. We need to end the war on FFL’s.

If the ATF is too far gone to correct it, disband the entire department which will allow Trump to start over without the holdovers.

Pass a law specifically restricting those illegally in the United States from gun possession.

Resist the multitude of proposed laws that will infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

Veterans Day

Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:41:57 GMT

Veterans Day

A little history to show why learning from history is important.

In June 1914, a Bosnian Serb assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne.

Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Russia came to Serbia's defense. Germany, France, Britain and the Ottoman Empire soon joined the war. Then, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Italy and others joined. In the Pacific, New Zealand occupied German Samoa and Australian Forces landed on Germany’s island of New Britain. A German cruiser sank a Russian cruiser. Japan declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary in what was a land grab. German forces attacked South Africa. India supplied large quantities of food, money, ammunition and soldiers to the British.

In early 1917, the United States entered the war on the side of the Allies.

It was truly a World War.

Later in 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power in the Russian October Revolution and the Soviet Union was born.

Millions died. It led directly to geocide and a pandemic. A worthless worldwide political body was established in the aftermath.

On November 11, 1918, an armistice was signed and on the "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month" of 1918 hostilities ceased on the Western Front of World War I. (On June 28, 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed which formally ended the war.)

November 11th was declared as “Armistice Day” to celebrate the end of the “Great War.” (It wasn’t yet known as World War 1 since World War 2 was still 21 years in the future.)

Monday is the 106th anniversary of the armistice. Have we learned anything from history?

WW1 started because one person was assassinated and it rapidly grew from there.

Currently, Hamas invaded Israel and performed barbaric acts. Israel responded. Hezbollah in Lebanon, on Israel’s northern border, attacked Israel and threatened an invasion. Iran, which has dreams of recreating the Persian Empire, threatens the United States for helping Israel defend itself and an Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump was uncovered. American troops were attacked by drones and rocket barrages in Iraq and Syria and U S forces face ramped up attacks by Iranian-backed groups. Syria has been in a decades long civil war where poison gas has been used.

Russia’s Putin is determined to restore the past ‘glories’ – and atrocities – of the Soviet Union Empire.

China is determined to take over global leadership and practices genocide directed against its own people. It also threatens America’s ally, Taiwan.

Africa lags behind the rest of the world in almost every important category and is a hotbed of atrocities and civil wars.

Today’s situation sounds a lot more explosive than just one royal being assassinated.

One of the major aspects of World War 1 was the incompetence of the military and political leadership. Countless men on both sides were butchered as the generals fought the wrong war – the ‘last war’. (Unknown officers Eisenhower and Patton were reprimanded for espousing tank tactics that differed from what was then accepted army doctrine.)

Today, our military leaders (both generals and politicians) have been fighting the wrong war as they prepare to fight the next war on Woke battlefields where climate change and Diversity Inclusion and Equity are the biggest enemy. These generals were securing their own political support by focusing on Woke and DIE propaganda instead of planning and implementing a successful withdrawal from Afghanistan and keeping our armed forces prepared to fight real world enemies.

When the U S A entered WW1, it was not prepared; soldiers trained using broom handles instead of rifles.

At a time of heightened tensions, our current readiness is threatened as all military branches are missing their recruitment goals. Are our generals and admirals fully engaged in finding the root cause of the enlistment crisis? By raising the maximum enlistment age to 42, they are trying to offset the problem rather than solve the problem.

For instance, the Coast Guard has major national security missions to accomplish, including interdicting drug smuggling and illegal immigrants on the high seas, maritime search and rescue, and other important missions. Forbes reported that the Coast Guard will have a 10% shortage in enlisted ranks forcing the Coast Guard to take ten cutters out of service. Is anyone in D.C. aware that the U S A has a fentanyl drug smuggling crisis which is killing tens of thousands of Americans and that the Coast Guard is a major player in protecting our borders?

During WW1, Congress passed and President Woodrow Wilson signed and enforced a Sedition Act which covered a broader range of offenses. Those offenses included speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light.

Anyone noticed any assaults on our 1st Amendment protected right of free speech by the Swamp in Washington? Anyone noticed the current government in Washington D.C. using its power against its political enemies?

A history lesson on what brought this holiday about and its parallels with today’s worsening global situation should give all of us a reason to pause, remember and take action. We don’t need another holiday to celebrate the end of another war.

We need to honor veterans on this Monday and the best way to honor these veterans is to be sure that history does not repeat itself. They sacrificed too much for it to be in vain.

Last Minute Events

Mon, 04 Nov 2024 18:48:27 GMT

Last Minute Events

Kathy Hochul says that if you vote Republican you are ”anti-woman” and “anti-American.” Well, what else would she expect from people the Democrats call “garbage,” “Hitler”, “racist,” “fascist”, “deplorables,” who only cling to their “guns and bibles.”

Kamala Harris and the Democrats have been walking back positions they took over the last 4 years.

It’s difficult to tell where Harris stands on the 2nd Amendment, based on her contradictory statements. I joke. Actually, it’s not. She will do everything possible to neuter the 2nd Amendment.

Amongst the Democrat walk back positions is the border wall. Politico, (of all places), reports: “Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) once described the border wall as “a racist monument” and called for it to be torn down. Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) called it “stupid” and “useless.” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said a wall across the entire border would be “a gross waste of money.” Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.) called it “a silly idea.”

“But all four Democrats — and several others who once opposed it —tout their commitment to border security and willingness to crack down on illegal immigration.”

Could it be they are all in very contested elections and they are reading polls that indicate the vast majority of Americans disagree with these politicians’ stances on border security? To be sure, you can count on their strong support for border security - until after the election.

Harris maintains she will not ban fracking but her campaign committee says she will not approve permits – which are necessary to frack.

Proposition 1 on your ballot would add gender identity to the New York State Constitution. Radical, left-wing activists are actively working to redefine what male and female mean.

In July, H.R. 9218, the Defining Male and Female Act was introduced by Republicans in Congress. This bill would formally add the definition of “male” and “female” to the U.S. code, defining both by one’s biological sex.

HR 9218 would be in direct opposition to Proposition 1, if they both should pass.

Democrats want to pass Proposition 1 while opposing HR9218. Republicans oppose Proposition 1 and want to pass HR9218. The Tuesday vote will determine where the country is going on the issue of boys becoming girls and using girls’ bathrooms and playing girls’ sports.

Today, the NY State Regents is scheduled to lay out their plan for revised graduation requirements. Students could qualify for diplomas by passing traditional Regents’ exams, or they could earn an occupational certificate or by volunteering for public service.

Currently, the state requires students to pass at least four exams — in English, math, history and the sciences, in order to graduate. It has been this way since 1865. Under the new plan, passing exams would become optional.

What better way to hide the failure of many government public schools, especially inner city public schools, than to do away with the measurement that demonstrates their failure.

Illegal voting an issue?

In July, Congressional Republicans passed the SAVE Act, which would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. However, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not brought it to the floor for a vote.

Last week, Republicans introduced the JAIL for Alien Voters Act, which would make it a felony for illegal aliens to vote.

The Biden / Harris administration is responsible for distributing absentee ballots to military service members. Military service members are complaining that they have not received enough absentee ballots to vote before Election Day.

Representative Brian Mast (R-FL) wrote, “Other service members also stated that when a request for a federal write-in absentee ballot was made, they were told the base’s stockpile of such ballots was depleted and had not been replenished."

Democrats rabidly protect the right to vote, by destroying protections against illegal voting. But they are considerably less rabid about military service members voting.

Hey, priorities are priorities!

And gun owners in NY will love this:

The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic submitted a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, recommending that former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo be charged with making criminally false statements to Congress.

Governor Cuomo made three criminally false statements under oath:

That he was not involved in reviewing or drafting the New York State Department of Health Report, which was used to counter criticisms of his administration's nursing home policies during the pandemic.

That he had no discussions about a peer review of the New York State Department of Health Report.

That he had no knowledge of any external individuals outside the New York State Department of Health reviewing the Report.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has aggressively gone after anyone associated with Donald Trump who could be accused of making false statements or even the most minor infraction. Will he pursue Cuomo?

The mainstream media is ardently anti-Trump. But they are no longer as meaningful as they would wish. Joe Rogan’s interview with Donald Trump has been viewed at least 42 million times on YouTube. That number does not include people watching/listening on Spotify or X, where the interview is also available.

New York State Congressional Candidate Ratings

Thu, 31 Oct 2024 18:42:37 GMT

New York State Congressional Candidate Ratings

Firing Lines contained the NY Congressional rating by SCOPE and Gun Owners of America (GOA). The following are the updated ratings to include the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the NRA

R=Republican C=Conservative L=Libertarian D=Democrat

WF=Working Families CS=Common Sense

* Incumbent

District Descriptions per Ballotopedia

Blank or ? = Insufficient information to rate

SCOPE GOA NSSF NRA

District 1 (Likely / Lean Republican)

Nicholas Lalota* (R C) A B+ A- A

John Avlon (D ) F F

District 2 (Solid / Safe Republican)

Andrew Garbarino* (R C) B B B B+

Rob Lubin (D WF) F F

District 3 (Likely Democrat)

Michael LiPetri jr. (R C) A ?

Tom Suozzi* (D CS) F F F F

District 4 (Toss Up)

Anthony D’Esposito (R C) B B A B

Laura Gillen (D CS) F F

District 5 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Paul King (R C CS) B- ?

Gregory Meeks* (D) F F F F

District 6 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Thomas Zmich (R C) ? ?

Grace Meng* (D ) F F F F

District 7 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

William Kregler (R C) ? ?

Nydia Velazquez* (D WF) F F F F

District 8 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

John Delaney (R C) ? ?

Hakeem Jeffries* ( D ) F F F F

District 9 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Menachem Raitport (R C) A ?

Yvette Clarke* (D ) F F F F

District 10 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Alexander Dodenhoff (R) ? ?

Daniel Goldman* (D) F F F F

District 11 (Solid / Safe Republican)

Nicole Malliotakis* (R C) B- D C+ B

Andrea Morse (D ) F F

District 12 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Mike Zumbluskas (R ) C ?

Jerrold Nadler* (D WF) F F F F

District 13 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Ruben Vargas (R C) ? ?

Adriano Espaillat* (D ) F F F F

District 14 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Tina Forte (R C) ? ?

Alex’a Ocasio-Cortez* (D WF) F F F F

District 15 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Gonzalo Duran (R C) ? ?

Ritchie Torres* (D ) F F F F

District 16 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Miriam Flisser (R) ? ?

George Latimer (D) F F

District 17 (Toss Up)

Michael Lawler* (R C) B B B

Mondaire Jones (D ) F F

District 18 (lean Democrat)

Alison Esposito (R C) A- A A

Patrick Ryan* (D WF) F F F F

District 19 (Toss Up / Tilt Republican)

Marcus Molinaro* (R C) A- B+ B A

Josh Riley (D WF) F F

District 20 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Kevin Waltz (R C) A A ?

Paul Tonko* (D WF) F F F

District 21 (Solid / Safe Republican)

Elise Stefanik* (R C) A B+ A+ A+

Paula Collins (D WF) ? F

District 22 (Lean / Tilt Democrat)

Brandon Williams* (R C L) B B B+ A

John Mannion (D WF) F F

District 23 (Solid / Safe Republican)

Nick Langworthy* (R C) B A- A+ A

Thomas Carle (D ) F F

District 24 (Solid / Safe Republican)

Claudia Tenney (R C) A A- A+ A+

David Wagenhauser (D ) F F

District 25 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Gregg Sadwick (R ) ? ?

Joseph Morelle* (D WF) F F F F

District 26 (Solid / Safe Democrat)

Anthony Marecki (R C) ? ?

Timothy Kennedy* (D WF) F F

Not Coming After Hunting Rifles - Yet

Wed, 30 Oct 2024 21:32:26 GMT

Not Coming After Hunting Rifles - Yet

Hunters, notoriously, don’t vote. One study said that, nationwide, only between 30% and 50% of hunters vote.

Why don’t they get involved since Democrats have been coming after 2nd Amendment gun rights in increasingly radical fashion?

One answer is that hunters feel the Democrats are not coming after their guns. That now needs to be amended to say the Democrats are not coming after their guns, YET.

Connecticut State attorneys are arguing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that hunting rifles, especially semi-automatic ones, are not protected by the Constitution.

Background

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and a co-plaintiff, Toni Theresa Spera filed a lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s restrictive gun control law passed after the Sandy Hook tragedy; the law bans the sale of firearms classified as “assault weapons.” (NAGR v Lamont) NAGR is suing the state of Connecticut to overturn their assault weapon and magazine ban as these laws infringe on their Second Amendment rights.

NAGR sought a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of these laws. On August 3rd, 2023, a United States District Judge ruled against NAGR and the judge would not install a preliminary injunction stopping enforcement of these laws.

The decision was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The hearing on the preliminary injunction was held on October 16th.

At the hearing, the Connecticut Attorney General’s office raised the stakes by contending that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly used for self-defense, but not hunting rifles. Connecticut’s AG contends that Connecticut has the authority to regulate firearms that are not typically used for self-defense, suggesting that hunting rifles do not fall under this category.

Connecticut referenced a previous Supreme Court ruling (Columbia v. Heller), which stated that the Constitution guarantees the right to self-defense but does not offer blanket protection for all weapons.

NAGR argued that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. and is neither dangerous nor unusual and should be protected. NAGR pointed out that, despite political rhetoric, AR-15s are rarely used in mass shootings, with over 75% of such incidents involving handguns. He criticized Connecticut’s laws as politically motivated rather than based on crime reduction.

The current court action only involves the preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the law while the actual suit over the law is being heard. Since Connecticut has raised the threat that the 2nd Amendment does not protect hunting rifles, it is likely that this will be a big issue when the actual suit against the laws is heard and Connecticut continues to defend its strict gun regulations.

A circuit-level victory here will establish legal precedent throughout the entire 2nd Circuit which includes New York and Vermont.

For now, hunting rifles remain legal in Connecticut but their constitutional protection is now in question.

Democrat leaders are always looking for any opportunity to further extend their war on guns, no matter how slight. Hunters might want to reconsider not voting because Democrats aren’t coming for their guns. As seen in Connecticut, it’s not IF but WHEN they are coming.

Hitler, Fascists and NAZIs

Tue, 29 Oct 2024 23:05:38 GMT

Hitler, Fascists and NAZIs

Lately, the terms Hitler, Nazi and Fascist have been thrown around – a lot – by Kamala Harris and the Democrats when referring to Donald Trump or the MAGA movement.

The NAZI’s were Fascists and Adolf Hitler was their leader. Along with Italy’s Fascists and Japan, they plunged the world into a war where most estimates place the total number of deaths at around 70-85 million people. Approximately 17 million of these deaths were due to crimes against humanity carried out by the Nazi regime in Europe.

The Nazis, Fascists and Hitler were evil people. Being politically associated with Hitler, NAZI’s and Fascism is a genuine negative.

Since Democrats are known for accusing others of doing things the Democrats are already doing, let’s examine this a little closer.

Nazi is actually an acronym. It stands for National Socialist German Workers Party. The NAZI’s self-identified as Socialists and evolved into Fascists.

Who is associated with Socialism: Harris and the Democrats or Trump and the Republicans? (Hint: Bernie Sanders ran for the Democrat nomination for President by self-identifying as a “Democrat -Socialist.”)

How about Gun Control?

Under a 1928, law (prior to Hitler’s rise to power), Germany had a strict firearm-licensing scheme. Under Hitler, in 1938, the NAZI’s relaxed certain gun registration laws for the benefit of "law-abiding German citizens" – i.e. NAZI Party members. Laws were also passed banning gun ownership by "unreliable persons” such as enemies of the “National Socialist State”, Jews, Communists, etc.

Hitler and the NAZI’s believed in gun ownership for the politically connected but not for those they disfavored.

Who is currently protected by security armed with guns but does not want the non-politically connected citizen to have a gun: Harris and the Democrats or Trump and the Republicans?

Hint: Trump speaks at NRA conventions.

Hint: In 2008, Harris signed on to a District Attorneys' friend-of-the-court brief in District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief urged the Court to reinstate D.C.'s handgun ban, endorsing the view that a total handgun ban does not violate the Second Amendment. Additionally, Harris argued that the Second Amendment does not protect your individual right to own a firearm.

In early 1933, at Chancellor Hitler's urging, the Reichstag Fire Decree was signed into law; it suspended basic rights and allowed detention without trial. It was classed as an emergency measure to protect public safety and order.

A month later, the Enabling Act gave Hitler's cabinet the power to enact laws without the consent of the Reichstag (Parliament). With certain exceptions, these laws could deviate from the German constitution.

Hitler's government had become a de facto legal dictatorship.

Within three months the NAZI’s main opposition party had been declared illegal and other parties had been intimidated into disbanding. In July, the Nazi Party was declared the only legal political party in Germany.

Hitler and the NAZI’s weaponized the government against their political foes.

Trump was president for four years and did not use the power of the government against his political enemies, such as Hillary Clinton and others who participated in the Russia Hoax. He even respected the law and submitted to some dubious legal proceedings against him.

The Harris / Biden administration has weaponized the government against Trump and anyone who supports him. In addition, they have illegally let 10 million aliens into the country with the goal of making them American citizens and, thus, give the Democrats a huge voting advantage. And don’t forget Chuck Schumer threatening the Supreme Court for ruling in a way he did not like and Harris / Biden’s plan to pack the Supreme Court.

So, who is weaponizing the government like Hitler did?

Hitler and the NAZI’s hate for the Jewish people was demonstrated by the infamous Holocaust in which 6 million Jews were murdered. Huge numbers of Jewish victims died in Concentration Camps and were executed by killing squads that followed the German army.

As president, Trump fulfilled the longstanding promise of Democrat and Republican presidential candidates to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He recognized Israel’s 1981 annexation of the Golan Heights. He launched a strike killing the Iranian Quds Force terrorist commander Qassem Soleimani. He pulled out of the flawed Obama-administration nuclear deal with Iran and re-imposed strict economic sanctions. He helped negotiate the unprecedented Abraham Accords, bringing peace between Israel and some of its Arab neighbors: Bahrain, the UAE, Morocco, and Sudan.

Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Orthodox Judaism before marrying Jared Kushner, and he’s spoken fondly about having Jewish grandchildren.

As for Harris - Benjamin Netanyahu received a bipartisan invitation to give a speech before Congress. As Vice President, Harris should have officiated over the speech but, instead, went to a sorority event. Harris chose to side with the fifty-plus Democrats who boycotted Netanyahu or called him vile names like a “war criminal.”

Harris eventually met with Netanyahu. She went on with a rant of sympathy for the Palestinian people about their “suffering,” but ignored Israel’s suffering under ceaseless and indiscriminate terror attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, and Iran, and never mentioned the Israeli civilians killed on October 7th.

Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, is Jewish.

Her step daughter, Ella, has been publicly raising money for UNRWA. Members of UNRWA have been linked to Hamas and the October 7th attacks. Benjamin Netanyahu said about UNRWA: it is "perforated with Hamas…In UNRWA schools they've been teaching the doctrines of extermination for Israel - the doctrines of terrorism, glorifying terrorism, lauding terrorism."

If Trump is Hitler, he has a very strange way of going about it.

Harris, on the other hand…

Disarming a Country

Mon, 28 Oct 2024 21:32:04 GMT

Disarming a Country

In Mark Smith’s book Israel Disarmed: What the October 7 attack teaches Americans about the right to bear arms, he gives us some examples which should be a wake up call in the debate over 2nd Amendment protected rights.

According to Smith, only about 1.5% of the Israeli population were allowed to own firearms before October 7, 2023. (John Lott says it is 3%.) The political belief in Israel was that they could count on their police force and their military to protect them.

However, in Smith’s book he highlights the contrast between two Israeli kibbutz.

In the October 7th attacks, one Israeli kibbutz had no defensive firearms and about 750 residents. 60 residents were killed, 17 were taken as hostages.

Another Israeli kibbutz had about 1500 residents which included about a dozen men with firearms. Not one resident of the second kibbutz was killed as the roughly dozen armed defenders held off the Jihadis.

In addition, on October 7th, 364 people were killed and 40 hostages were taken at the Supernova Sukkot Gathering, an open-air music festival. 17 police officers were killed and Smith does not know if the police officers were armed. The festival was a “gun free zone.”

A few days after the attack, Israel’s Second Amendment-lacking citizenry was granted new ‘permissions’. Israel’s Minister of National Security went on “X” and wrote: “Today I directed the Firearms Licensing Division to go on an emergency operation, in order to allow as many citizens as possible to arm themselves.”

Basically, regulations were loosened - not lifted - in order for more Israelis to arm themselves. Included in that ‘loosened’ regulations was that citizens were allowed to purchase 100 bullets (the former limit was 50).

On October 23^rd 2023, SCOPE wrote about firearm regulations in Israel. It’s worth rereading. Here is the link. S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Lessons From Israel

Israel learned the hard way that when the police are minutes or hours away, help is only 1,500 feet per second away.

Smith also uses the example that on November 13th, 2015, a mass shooting and hostage taking took place in Paris at the Bataclan Theatre. A concert was attended by 1,500 people. The attackers killed 90 and another 416 people were injured. Seven of the attackers were also killed. Eight police officers who were at the Bataclan off-duty were all unarmed.

France has very restrictive gun laws in spite of a national history of gun ownership.

And speaking of France’s history, Wikipedia has this to say: “The Farcy law (Loi Farcy) of 1885…liberalized gun ownership and production. This regime continued until 1939, when weapons were divided into categories and ownership of military caliber weapons was strictly regulated, almost prohibited.”

1939! Great timing to restrict military caliber weapons! The Nazi’s invaded France in May of 1940 and it took just over six weeks for France to surrender. (Wikipedia failed to mention that little tidbit!)

It’s worth noting that every school shooting occurs in a gun free zone.

It’s good to remember these lessons when voting.

Full Employment for Lawyers

Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:57:09 GMT

Full Employment for Lawyers

On the back of your November ballot is Proposition 1, which is a proposed amendment to the NY State Constitution. It requires a yes vote to pass it and a no vote to reject it.

First, what does Proposition 1 actually say? This is the wording on the ballot:

“This proposal amends Article 1, Section 11 of the New York Constitution. Section 11 now protects against unequal treatment based on race, color, creed, and religion. The proposal will amend the act to also protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes, as well as reproductive healthcare and autonomy. The amendment allows laws to prevent or undo past discrimination.”

Got it? Understand what you are voting on?

Below is what the actual wording of the NY Constitution will be if it passes:

(Italicized/bold words are the additions to the Constitution from Proposition 1)

“§ 11. a. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed [or], religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in [his or her] their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state, pursuant to law.”

“b. Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section.”

Whoa! Wait a second. Section ‘b’ does not seem to be addressed by the description on the ballot? Try reading it again. Shouldn’t you understand what you are voting to approve and enter into the Constitution? So, what in hell does Part b mean? Or for that matter, Part a, too?

Per their web page: “The Empire Center for Public Policy, Inc. (ECPP) is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank based in Albany, New York.”

On August 16^th, ECPP wrote about their study called: “Ballot Proposal One: A Constitutional Amendment Fraught With Uncertainty.”

ECPP wrote: “Prop One could open many New York civil rights laws—and other laws that may discriminate based on classification—to legal challenges. And those challenges could include irreconcilable differences between classes like religious belief and gender identity.“ (Emphasis added)

ECPP added: “Resolving those cases would make the courts—not the Legislature—the decision-makers on value judgments that determine civil rights policies in New York.”

Then ECPP added: “…Prop One contains vague language that invites legal challenges to existing laws. And it contains no guideposts for the courts in its application. Prop One elevates almost every class of person to a special status and places those different classes of persons and multiple laws into conflict, leaving it up to the judiciary to make up solutions to those conflicts as it goes along.” (Emphasis added.)

Two thoughts.

Full employment for lawyers!

Religions are a constitutionally protected class that cannot be discriminated against. But a religion that opposes abortion or the current gender identity movement would be in conflict with those newly constitutionally protected classes. (Catholic hospitals that refuse to do abortions would, without doubt, be amongst the first challenged under this proposal.) It would be up to the courts to decide for or against – without much guidance from the NY Constitution. Welcome to legislation from the bench!

Note: Appeals judges are the final NY State legal authority and they are appointed by the governor and approved by the legislature, which means leftists will be appointing…leftists. Or, to paraphrase Andrew Cuomo, there is no place in NY State for conservatives.

ECPP continues: “Prop One threatens the status quo by adding so many suspect classes—leaving aside the vagueness of some—that applying the test may render many existing laws unconstitutional or pit classes against each other in ways that are unworkable.” (Such as the previous example of religious liberty versus abortion rights.)

ECPP adds: “Part B of Prop One attempts to address the inherent conflicts in naming so many suspect classes…But it is unclear how that provision can work in practice.”

They know it works in theory so don’t worry about how it works in actual practice.

ECPP adds something that should terrify anyone who believes in 1^st and 2^nd Amendment rights: “Part B also includes permission for the state to discriminate through ‘any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed’ in Prop One.”

You can expect a NY State law to push the edge-of-the-envelope by proposing a law making illegal to speak out against a constitutionally protected right such as gender identity.

And certainly, some legislator will figure out a way that firearms discriminate against minorities based on high crime rates in minority neighborhoods and propose another anti-2A law. After all, under Part b, NY State can discriminate against a protected class if it does so in the interest of another protected class that it disfavors. (And gun rights are certainly a disfavored class In Albany.)

And here is the gun rights kicker, the right to “keep and bear arms” is NOT protected in the NY Constitution, opening the door for anti-2A legislation. Since we are not even in a constitutionally protected class, feel free to discriminate.

Music to Kathy Hochul and the anti-2A movement’s ears.

ECPP concludes: “In short, Prop One and its added suspect classes threatens to throw New York civil rights law into chaos.”

“Thus, the amendment may be unworkable unless New York courts devise workarounds to its application. And that means the amendment will place decisions on civil rights policy in the hands of the judiciary and not the Legislature where they belong.” (Emphasis added.)

By the way, it will potentially put NY State in conflict with the U S Constitution. But that small matter has never stopped Kathy Hochul and the NY Legislature.

The Election is Almost Here!

Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:51:22 GMT

I hope this email finds you well and enjoying fall foliage.

I 'd like to remind you that the election is almost here. In 11 days, on Tuesday November 5, 2024, election day arrives. However, early voting begins the day after tomorrow.

Early voting in New York State runs from Saturday October 26, 2024 through Sunday November 3, 2024. I encourage you to find out exactly where early voting occurs in your part of New York State because it may not be the same place you normally vote on election day.
I encourage you to vote early and support the Second Amendment.

Good Luck!
With All Honor and Respect,
John R. Elwood, SCOPE President

Indianapolis Indiana

Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:58:17 GMT

Indianapolis Indiana

Criminal Non-Criminal

Homicides Homicides

2021 249 22

July 1 2022, Constitutional Carry went into effect

2022 211 15

2023 171 45

Could be a coincidence (or not a coincidence) that Criminal Homicides went down when people were better able to defend themselves WITH GUNS.

I’m betting on ‘or not a coincidence.’

Pennsylvania

Note: In 2021, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed Constitutional Carry but Governor Tom Wolfe vetoed it.

There are other issues in Pennsylvania which may eventually leak over its northern border into NY.

A Pennsylvania law bans 18 to 20-year-old citizens from openly carrying firearms. The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) claimed that the law violates the U S Constitution because it disarms part of “the people.”

In October 2020, the lawsuit, Lara v. Paris, originally filed. At the time, states could rely on the concept of ‘interest balancing’ to defend their laws.

As you probably know, these trials take forever to go through the trial and the appeals process.

In 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bruen. Pennsylvania could no longer use ‘interest balancing’ to defend its law against constitutional scrutiny. The court could only use the original text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment.

In January 2024, the Third Circuit found Pennsylvania’s law unconstitutional.

In March 2024, an appeal to the 3rd Circuit was denied.

In April 2024, Pennsylvania was enjoined from enforcing the law.

Pennsylvania appealed to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS)

On October 15th, SCOTUS vacated the lower court’s decision, and remanded the case back to the Third Circuit for “consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi.” This means the law is still alive, for now.

Rahimi said that a citizen could be temporarily disarmed if they posed a threat to public safety.

Do 18 to 20-year-olds, as a group - and not as individuals - pose an unusually high risk to public safety?

Applying laws to a group instead of an individual is a very risky limb to crawl out on. However, accusing groups is currently in vogue: white men are accused of being racist just because they are white; MAGA, as a group, are accused of being fascist.

Pennsylvania will probably argue that the human brain isn’t fully developed until age 25, which leads to bad judgement and risky behavior. But that argument opens the door to a host of related issues involving age restrictions that few would want to get into.

Street Takeovers

Street takeovers by protestors / criminals / thugs are in vogue. Streets are completely shut down, motorists are accosted and police are generally overwhelmed and helpless.

Ammoland warns: “When stalled by a violent riot, stationary vehicles are death traps…your only safety lies in motion! So long as you’re moving, escape from criminal violence is possible.”

Ammoland did not mention another possible action; be carrying.

Should Trump win the election, it will serve as an excuse for these “mostly peaceful takeovers” to increase in numbers. You have been warned!

On Another Issue

Columbus Versus Indigenous Peoples

Tue, 15 Oct 2024 17:57:29 GMT

Columbus Versus Indigenous Peoples

The Left wants to eliminate everything they don’t like; such as guns and Columbus Day. Columbus offends them because he was involved with slavery. Instead, the Left wants to honor Indigenous Peoples. It’s appropriate that Democrats want to honor Indigenous Peoples as Indigenous Peoples’ history parallels the Democrat Party’s history of slavery.

Did you know that the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery did not apply to all slaves? The “Five Civilized Tribes” of the southeast - Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole - also participated in the institution of slavery. Because these tribes were located outside the sovereignty of the United States, constitutional amendments did not apply to them. (Kinda like Kathy Hochul, who doesn’t believe the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution applies to New York State.)

According to journalist Aliana E. Roberts, by 1800, the “Five Tribes” had developed “plantations that rivaled those of their white neighbors.” She also notes that the percentage of black slaves in the population was significant. In 1860:

Cherokee Nation citizens owned 2,511 slaves (15 percent of their total population),

Choctaw citizens owned 2,349 slaves (14 percent of their total population), and

Creek citizens owned 1,532 slaves (10 percent of their total population).

Chickasaw citizens owned 975 slaves, which amounted to 18 percent of their total population.

These were proportions equivalent to that of white slave owners in Tennessee, a large slaveholding state.

Most other North American tribes also practiced some form of slavery, even before Columbus. (Wait a minute – Columbus didn’t introduce slavery to America? If that’s so, could the 1619 Project also be wrong?)

In The Birth of America, William Polk writes: “Indian societies were frequently at war with one another…booty consisted in part of slaves. Slavery was as common in the New World as among Africans and Europeans. Practices were equally cruel.”

Close to home here in NY State, the Mohawks would eat their captives, which is usually referred to as cannibalism.

A special “shout out” on Indigenous Peoples Day should go to the Aztecs.

The Aztecs had religious festivities at the end of their 20-day months and human sacrifice was an essential feature of these festivities. (And you thought giving up something for Lent was hard.)

Human sacrifice also was part of the legend around the founding of the Aztec capital city, Tenochtitlan, which was accompanied by the sacrifice and skinning of the daughter of the King Coxcox of Culhuacan. (By contrast, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton decided on the current site of Washington D.C. over dinner and a bottle of wine.)

Another aspect of Aztec human sacrifice was children who were made to cry before the sacrifice. The tears were thought to wet the earth and thus appease the gods. If a child did not cry, the priests would sometimes tear out the nails of the child to make him or her cry.

The Aztec practice of human sacrifice also served a political purpose. The Aztecs were small in number compared to the other subjugated tribes and, thus, there was always a danger of an alliance between these tribes against the Aztecs. To avert this, Aztecs demanded humans as a tribute from the subjugated tribes. As a result, these tribes would constantly raid each other to procure humans for sacrifice. This minimized or eliminated the chance of an alliance between the tribes. (Sounds like the current effort to keep the Left in power by dividing people over race and gender issues.)

In 1487, five years before Columbus discovered America, “Templo Mayor” was dedicated in the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan, with a four-day celebration. How many were sacrificed during that time is a subject of scholarly speculation with the lowest estimate at 4,000.

It is hard to know how many Aztecs died under the sacrificial knife. Many reputable scholars today put the number between 20,000 and 250,000 per year for the whole Aztec Empire. (Hitler, Mao and Stalin would have been proud of the Aztecs.)

Indigenous People Day would not be complete without mentioning the Incas of Peru. Although a little less bloodthirsty than Aztecs, the Incas had enslaved other indigenous people along the Andes.

Human sacrifices were practiced by the Incas to ward off danger, famine or an epidemic. The victims were usually children, sometimes men and virgins. (Apparently, virgins have been sacrificial favorites, everywhere.)

More recently, archaeologists have discovered a site in northern Peru of mass child sacrifice. About 550 years ago, over 140 children were probably sacrificed on a site known as Huanchaquito-Las Llamas. Later, the number of sacrificed children’s remains found rose to 269, with the discovery of another nearby site.

An interesting aspect of the Inca Empire is described in the book “A Socialist Empire: The Incas of Peru” by Louis Baudin. (The Incas would make Stalin, Mao and Fidel proud.) Baudin writes that the regime imposed by the Inca rulers on the indigenous populations they had enslaved was a precursor of Marxist-style socialism. Private property and individual initiative were prohibited. Money and commerce did not exist. Private life was subject to tough state regulation: people had to dress in a similar way; marriage was allowed only following the eugenic laws of the state, to avoid “racial contamination”. Like any tyrannical system of this type, it was oppressive and didn’t work, so much so that the subjugated indigenous peoples enthusiastically helped the few Spaniards who came to get rid of it. (Sounds like the Incas deserve the Margaret Sanger Planned Parenthood award for eugenics.)

So, the Aztecs and Incas enslaved other indigenous peoples. Well, at least they weren’t racists.

It’s lucky for those Indigenous Peoples that they weren’t “White European Heritage Peoples” or the ‘Woke’ would demand that they lose their new holiday because they practiced slavery. To be fair, just about every people have practiced slavery; European, Asian, African and indigenous American.

If the holiday had to be renamed, again, the “woke” would demand that it honor someone who did not practice slavery or cannibalism; that, of course, would eliminate just about every race and country in the history of the world.

But if you wanted to name it for someone who did not practice human sacrifice or cannibalism, Christopher Columbus is available.

Hypocrisy, Thy Name is…

Thu, 10 Oct 2024 23:12:19 GMT

Hypocrisy, Thy Name is…

SCOPE (and many others) often point out the double standard of the anti-2A’s. For instance: anti-2Aers want to disarm citizens and make citizens unable to defend themselves while the anti-2Aers enjoy the protection of people with guns.

Kamala Harris has led that effort, which plays well in her home state of California, which is also heavily anti-2A.

Kostas Moros, an attorney representing the California Rifle & Pistol Association, posted this on X: "…California law classifies ALL Glocks as 'unsafe handguns' because they do not have a compliant chamber load indicator, lack a magazine disconnect mechanism, and until our lawsuit caused California to repeal the requirement, of course lacked microstamping," (Emphasis added.)

"The only reason we can still buy Gen 3s is because they are grandfathered in, but they are still 'unsafe handguns…We can't buy more modern Glocks new in gun stores (just secondhand from exempt cops, or from those who moved here with them from other states).”

Kamala Harris supported the Unsafe Handgun Act.

Guess what gun Harris owns?

During her 60 Minutes interview, Harris stated that she owns a Glock.

Harris owns an 'unsafe handgun'?

As the former district attorney of San Francisco, which is a law enforcement position, she would have legally been allowed to purchase and own an "unsafe handgun." But if it is ’unsafe,’ why is law enforcement allowed to use an ‘unsafe’ handgun?

Harris was attorney general of California in 2013 when the Justice Department authorized the state to institute a 2007 law requiring new models of handguns to be micro-stamped. In 2023, the California legislature passed a law banning the sale of any handgun that isn't "microstamping-enabled". (Since repealed.)

Is Harris Glock micro-stamped? Even if not the law, doesn’t she still believe in microstamping?

Whether you are pro or anti-abortion, it is interesting to read the reasoning behind some rulings and how they have ‘aged’ when applied to other issues, like defending the 2nd Amendment.

Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey were the two cases, at the federal level, that allowed abortion.

The plurality in Casey – Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter – believed that the public “should never conclude that its constitutional protections hung by a thread — that a new majority … could ‘by dint of numbers’ alone expunge their rights.” (Emphasis added.)

These words are worth repeating: “a new majority … could ‘by dint of numbers’ alone expunge their rights.”

The current majority of the Supreme Court proved that they will defend our 2nd Amendment rights in NYSRPA v Bruen.

What is the reaction of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and many Democrats? They wanted to add new members to the Supreme Court, nominated by (anti-2A) Biden, so they would then have a ‘new majority” which could ”by dint of numbers alone expunge their rights.’

It should be noted that Biden and Harris are big defenders of abortion but apparently these two lawyers have not read the reasoning behind these decisions. Or if they have, they don’t believe the basic rationale should be applied to issues they don’t like.

Kind of like they only believe our 1st and 2nd Amendment protected rights don’t apply to issues they don’ like.

I wonder how they will feel about ‘packing’ the Supreme Court if Trump is elected President? Would they also do a flip-flop?

Another Anti-2A Group (Ammoland)

Tue, 08 Oct 2024 23:39:56 GMT

Another Anti-2A Group (Ammoland)

Five of the country’s top anti-gun groups launched a new organization comprised of state lawmakers, which will focus on changing state gun laws. Legislators for Safer Communities consists of Brady, Community Justice, Everytown for Gun Safety, GIFFORDS, and March for Our Lives.

Initially, the coalition consists of 171 state lawmakers from 43 states. (That’s only 4 per state!)

In their words, the group wants to circumvent the “congressional stalemate” on gun-control legislation by focusing on changing state laws.

(Their definition of a ‘stalemate’ is that the 2nd Amendment is still the law of the land.)

Legislators for Safer Communities claims to be independent and nonpartisan, but the six Co-chairs and the twenty-eight Steering Committee members, named on its one-page website…drumroll please…are all Democrats.

Knowing that the group is being led by Democrats, you will not be shocked to learn that the one paragraph description of their purpose echoes as many Democrat talking points as they could squeeze into one paragraph: “a public health issue;” “systemic inequalities”; “equity and justice; etc.”

However, they were unable to link gun control and abortion.

Tanya Schardt, Brady’s senior counsel and senior policy director, said in a press release they want: “to save lives through common sense and evidence-based policies.”

(You can bet those “evidence-based policies” will be peer reviewed by peers paid by Brady, Community Justice, Everytown for Gun Safety, GIFFORDS, and March for Our Lives.)

There is no contact phone number and only a digital contact form.

It is not listed on GuideStar or other charity navigators.

The site offers no information about the group’s funding, but the five anti-2A groups listed have deep pockets.

While this group will be focusing on laws at the state level, New York shouldn’t be concerned since we couldn’t possibly have any more restrictive laws than we already have. Could we? Not possible? Say it aint so?

Well, just in case it is possible, the best prevention is voting. Which is satisfying, knowing that you can offset the millions spent on anti-2A efforts simply by voting – at no cost to you.

Public Land Closure

Mon, 07 Oct 2024 19:58:57 GMT

Public Land Closure

The following is a press release from NSSF concerning the closure of public lands which will take away recreational shooter opportunities. (Emphasis has been added.)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, strongly opposes Interior Secretary Deb Haaland’s proposed plan for the Department of the Interior to shutter access to recreational shooting on 1.3 million acres of the Bears Ears National Monument, in Utah. Today’s announcement will needlessly deny recreational target shooters access to the monument for no legally justifiable purpose and will violate federal law.

“Secretary Haaland’s proposed plan to close access to 1.3 million acres for recreational shooting is a violation of federal law,” said Joe Bartozzi, NSSF President and Chief Executive Officer. “Public lands must be made available for all the public to use. Federal law explicitly states that when closures of public lands are necessary, they must be limited in area and duration to achieve a specific stated objective. Secretary Haaland has articulated none of the required criteria, as required by law. The Secretary should rescind or drastically modify this misguided policy and apply the law as intended: to benefit the public.”

The John D. Dingell, Jr., Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act [4], which was signed into law in 2019, sets the criteria upon which the Secretary of the Department of the Interior may close public access to public lands. The law limits the area and duration for when public access to federal lands may be closed. Closures may only occur when a clear and quantifiable objective is identified. Secretary Haaland’s announcement to close 1.3 million acres to Bears Ears National Monument fails to meet these requirements.

The Dingell Act states that federal lands will remain open to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting in accordance with applicable law. That is, unless the Secretary establishes that a specific area must be closed for one or more particular reasons, including public safety, administration or compliance with applicable laws. If that is to occur, the Secretary must limit the closure to the smallest area necessary and for the shortest amount of time to achieve the stated purpose.

None of these criteria were met before Secretary Haaland announced that public access will be denied to countless recreational shooters who, since the land is public, own those lands. The announcement will deny access in a manner detrimental to conservation funding. What is most appalling is that this punitive political action is occurring despite the absence of any indication that recreational shooters pose an any viable threat to the monument’s cultural, historic or natural resources.

“NSSF is deeply troubled by this blatant violation of the law to close off access to 1.3 million acres of public land,” Bartozzi added. “This unlawful closure demonstrates that the Biden-Harris administration and Secretary Haaland are openly hostile to the interests of America’s sportsmen and women. This action clearly shows utter disdain for the rule of law. NSSF will protest this proposal and will work with the Bureau of Land Management to ensure future shooting opportunities in the Monument remain available to recreational target shooters.”

NSSF encourages all Americans who enjoy access to public lands to comment on this proposal and to make their voices heard.

What part of Compulsory and Mandatory Don’t You Understand?

Fri, 04 Oct 2024 00:33:35 GMT

What part of Compulsory and Mandatory Don’t You Understand?

Kamala Harris in her own words, (from the Schuyler County S.C.O.P.E. Legal Update for October, 2024.)

Harris-led office, ATF stonewalling probe into ‘collusion’ with anti-gun group lawsuit:

House Oversight chair Vice President Kamala Harris is campaigning on what she characterizes as a record of a tough former prosecutor. But a White House office she has “overseen” may have focused less on gun crimes and more on targeting a legal gun manufacturer.

The House Oversight and Accountability Committee says the Biden-Harris administration is stonewalling an investigation into potential “collusion” with a gun control group founded by billionaire former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to boost Chicago’s lawsuit against Glock Inc.

Since June, neither the White House nor the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, better known as the ATF, has responded to multiple inquiries from the committee.

The ATF missed its most recent deadline to respond to the committee on Wednesday, Aug. 28.

The committee has been investigating the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention’s communications with the Everytown for Gun Safety regarding a lawsuit by the city of Chicago against Glock, a firearms manufacturer.

Chicago sued Glock in Cook County Circuit Court, attempting to restrict alterations that can happen with the guns after they are sold. The illegal alterations happened after the sale of the guns, but the plaintiff contends the company willfully sold pistols that can be converted into fully automatic weapons. Criminals use a piece called an auto sear to convert the weapon. The lawsuit asserts that Glock turned a blind eye to the alterations that criminals make.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/harris-led-office-atf-stonewalling-probe-collusion-anti-gun-group-lawsuit-house-oversight-chair

Kamala for Gun Confiscation: In Her Own Words

Here is Harris supporting gun confiscation, in her own words:

At a September 2019 campaign event, Harris told reporters that confiscating commonly owned semi-automatic firearms was “a good idea.” Elaborating on her support for a compulsory “buyback” program, Harris added, “We have to work out the details -- there are a lot of details -- but I do…We have to take those guns off the streets.” (Emphasis added.)

On the September 16, 2019 episode of “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” Harris reiterated her support for gun confiscation. During a question-and-answer session, an audience member asked Harris “Do you believe in the mandatory buyback of quote unquote assault weapons and whether or not you do, how does that idea not go against fundamentally the Second Amendment?” The candidate responded, “I do believe that we need to do buybacks.” Making clear that she believes Americans’ Second Amendment rights are for sale, Harris added “A buyback program is a good idea. Now we need to do it the right way. And part of that has to e, you know, buy back and…” (Emphasis added.)

On October 2, 2019, Harris called for gun confiscation during an MSNBC “gun safety forum.” During the event, Harris had the following exchange with MSNBC anchor Craig Melvin. “We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory buyback program. It’s got to be smart, we got to do it the right way, but there are 5 million at least some estimate as many as 10 million and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets.” (Emphasis added.)

On October 31, 2019, Harris called for gun confiscation at a public television candidates forum in Ankeny, Iowa. Responding to a question about gun control, Harris answered, “I support buybacks.” The forum moderator then asked Harris, “How mandatory is your gun buyback program?” Harris made clear, “It’s mandatory.” (Emphasis added.)

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240916/kamala-for-gun-confiscation-in-her-own-words

Kamala Harris’s Previous Support for a Ban on Handguns Highlights the Gun-Control Movement’s Broader Aims

Vice President Kamala Harris supported a 2005 ballot measure that banned San Francisco residents from possessing pistols.

The Democratic presidential nominee backed Proposition H in her role as the city’s District Attorney at the time. The measure banned San Francisco residents from buying, selling, or even possessing handguns. With exceptions included for active-duty law enforcement, military, and licensed security guards, 58 percent voted in favor of the measure. But it faced immediate legal scrutiny from the National Rifle Association (NRA), California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), and other gun-rights groups.

“San Francisco was a leader in proposing gun restrictions at the local level, and she never met a gun control law she didn’t like,” Chuck Michel, who represented the NRA and CRPA in its fight against the city, told The Reload. “Prop H was the crowning jewel.”

Harris broke with other prominent gun-control advocates in backing the ban and confiscation measure… the aim isn’t to prohibit only one sort of gun but to limit gun ownership wherever it can be found. In 2006, Harris thought she could get a ban on handguns, so she went for a ban on handguns. In 2024, she thinks she can get a ban on certain rifles, so she’s going for a ban on certain rifles. The distinctions drawn in defense of the campaign are what they have to be at any moment, but the aim remains the same.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kamala-harris-previous-support-for-a-ban-on-handgunshighlights-the-gun-control-movements-broader-aims/

Westchester County

Thu, 03 Oct 2024 01:42:02 GMT

Westchester County

Leftist politicians like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden continually say they are not going to take away your guns. But what happens when they have control of the government and we can’t legally stop them?

On September 15, 2023, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a bill (S4879) allowing Westchester County to change its handgun and semi-automatic rifle licensing fees.

Outside of the counties that make up NY City, Westchester County has the largest Democrat majority of any county in New York State; there are 284 thousand more registered Democrats than Republicans.

This imbalance is reflected in the Westchester County Board of Legislators which has seventeen (17) legislators: one (1) is Republican and one (1) is Conservative and fifteen (15) Democrats.

Currently, the fee for an application or renewal for a pistol or semi-automatic rifle license in Westchester County is $10. Westchester County is looking to raise the cost of the license to $175!

The proposed fee to amend a restriction on a license will increase from $3 to $125.

Any other amendments will go up from $3 to $25.

Westchester says the increase will pay the salaries of various county employees, but they are not adding new employees to administer this increase. The county’s current budget already covers the wages for the existing workers.

Critics of the increase point out that no other county fees are increasing, just pistol and semi-automatic rifle license fees. The critics allege that the new fees are nothing more than a “poll tax” on the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. (Ya think!)

Only two legislators, Margaret Cunzio (C) and James Nolan (R), have vowed to vote “no” on the proposal. The 15 Democrat legislators have not stated how they will vote.

To all those gun owners, and especially to hunters, who don’t want to get involved or vote because they believe the Democrats are not coming for their guns…guess what?

To Vote Or Not To Vote—There Really Isn’t Any Question by Tracy Marisa

Thu, 03 Oct 2024 01:38:22 GMT

To Vote Or Not To Vote—There Really Isn’t Any Question by Tracy Marisa

Suggesting to SCOPE members that they turn out to vote in the general election is preaching to the choir. That’s true; at least I hope it is.

But a famous writer said several decades ago that “in a sort of ghastly simplicity” we humans tend to “…remove the organ and demand the function...We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” In other words, and in our American instance, given how little emphasis there has been on civic engagement in those same decades, it would not be surprising if our voting muscles have atrophied.

Whether you need some encouragement yourself to get out and vote or whether you would never miss an opportunity to vote but you know people who would have to be dragged to a polling place kicking and screaming, it may be worth spending a few minutes looking at some of the reasons why folks don’t turn out to vote in November and what the rest of us can do about it.

One reason for not voting is that voting requires some planning ahead.

You can’t vote if you are not registered.

This year the deadline for registering to vote is October 26th.

Keep in mind that if you’ve changed your address, you need to re-register to vote. You can register online at https://www.elections.ny.gov/VotingRegister.html.

For those who have access to a printer, it would be a kindness to your unregistered friends and neighbors, who might not have internet access, if you printed a few of the forms that are available on that same webpage and had them handy for them to fill out. (See the menu at the top of the page to find the link to the printable registration form.)

A SCOPE e-mail that went out on September 9th that was written by Stephen Dallas (thank you!) had a lot of helpful info which might have seemed very early at the time but now looks increasingly urgent. So, I’m reiterating much of it at the end of this email as well as listing these important deadlines and dates*.

Another ~~excuse~~ reason I’ve personally heard gun owners give for not registering to vote is that they don’t want to be called to be on a jury.

First…folks, we need people to sit on juries who know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have not been tossed out the window! There are more than enough of the other sort of potential jurors out there, and we don’t need to cede more territory to the other side, in court, by simply not being there.

Secondly, these are the ways NYS puts together its list of potential jurors (from the state website): “Potential jurors are randomly selected from lists of registered voters, holders of drivers’ licenses or ID’s issued by the Division of Motor Vehicles, New York State income tax filers, recipients of unemployment insurance or family assistance, and from volunteers.”

Not registering to vote is NOT going to “save” someone from their civic duty of sitting on a jury. People should register to vote and then perform another one of the relatively few civic duties we actually have—turn out and vote.

A third reason is the feeling that their vote doesn’t count

As we know, 2024 is a presidential election year and while that generates a lot of interest, in NYS it may also lead people to the feeling that their vote doesn’t count. If you know about the Electoral College and how that system works (and why it exists), that feeling is not without merit. But that only applies to the presidential election. All other lines on the ballot are totally up for grabs and the winner will be the candidate who can get the greatest number of people to turn out and vote for him or her. (In the interests of encouraging turnout, the county board of elections where I used to live put together a list of local elections that had been won by very few votes, usually a half-dozen or fewer and in some cases only one vote. It happens more often than you think.)

Which leads us to a list of reasons why your vote will count

For those elections that are literally closest to where you live—town, village, city, county—people’s individual votes absolutely do matter. Some of those people running for local office are on the same page that we’re on (re: the Second Amendment) and some are definitely not. You want to know which are which.

This year, offices that are up for grabs in addition to POTUS/VP are:

U.S. Senator (Gillibrand is up this year, but not Schumer, and her opponent, as you know, is Mike Sapraicone – who just spoke at the SCOPE Banquet);

U.S. Member of Congress, State Senator, State Assemblymember, with those three varying with your specific location in NYS;

There may be other, more local offices, on the front of the ballot;

The reverse will have Proposal 1 statewide (known by many as the Parent Replacement Act) and there may be other propositions on the reverse as well, specific to the voter’s election district.

This seems like a lot to keep track of. But there really is no reason, anymore, why people shouldn’t already know whose name will appear on various lines—town council, village mayor, district attorney, judge, sheriff, county legislator, whatever—before they ever cross the threshold of their polling place. By the time early voting starts, county boards of elections often publish sample ballots online that represent exactly the ballots that voters will be handed at their individual polling places. Any counties that don’t put up a PDF of election district ballots will still have a list of all the offices and proposals that are due to appear on county ballots.

While voting might have seemed like a mysterious black box in the past and we could use that very inscrutability as an excuse for not voting (or voting ignorantly), that is no longer the case. And this is yet another way that people with internet access can help those without.

And vote next Spring, too

This last thing is not directly related to the November election, but it does have to do with civic responsibility generally as well as voting, in particular.

I often hear people who bemoan the political thinking of younger Americans. They ascribe the young people’s disregard for the Constitution and Bill of Rights to their having been to college. While many colleges and universities certainly share in the blame for this, they’re not the sole source of the problem (and there are plenty of people who haven’t been to college and are quite left-leaning, so the college theory doesn’t explain everything).

Find out what’s going on in your local K-12 schools when it comes to teaching about the U.S.A. and our history. And then make sure you vote in your local school elections in the spring, generally in May. Those elections aren’t just about tax rates and tax levies, although those are important, but they are also about how exactly the money is being spent and, perhaps most important of all, who sits on the school board. You can have a direct impact on what’s going on in your local schools, and thus in young people’s attitudes, but one thing you have to do is vote.

Back to November 5th

Please vote, and encourage your friends, neighbors, and family members to vote. Pick them up and buy them a coffee or a soda if that helps grease the wheels a little. We can change things but we have to use the weapon at our disposal and not leave it holstered — voting.

75% of life is just showing up.

*Courtesy of Mr. Dallas:
(Location of poll site is determined by resident address.) Once you’re registered to vote, you can find your polling place for General Election Day, November 5th, by going to https://voterlookup.elections.ny.gov/ or on your county BOE website. You can only vote at your polling place—you can’t just wander in anywhere, even if you think that’s the way it should be. There are wandering wannabe voters who assume they can vote in any location labeled “polling place”—

Early Voting by Mail / Absentee Voting for General Election:

October 26 - Last day for board of elections to receive applications by mail or by online portal for an absentee ballot for the General Election .

November 4 - Last day to apply in person for absentee ballot for the General Election.

November 5 - Last day to postmark an absentee ballot for the General Election. (It must be received at the Board of Elections no later than November 14th, Military Ballots by November 20th.)

November 5 - Last day to deliver in person an absentee ballot for the General Election to the County Board or Poll Site, by the close of polls.

General Election Dates:

October 26 through November 3- Early voting days for General Election.

November 5 - General Election - 6 am to 9 pm.

(ask me how I know).

What about these other ways of voting (besides at your designated polling place on November 5th)?

“Mail-in and absentee ballots: A New York law allowing all registered voters to cast their ballots by mail was upheld in August by the state’s highest court. The decision means that the millions of New Yorkers eligible to vote in the November 5 election will be able to cast ballots by mail if they wish — something that only a handful of people could do before.

This means any registered New York voter may apply for a mail-in ballot.

They can apply either online (https://elections.ny.gov/request-ballot), or in person at their local election oﬃce, or by designating another person to deliver their application to the local election oﬃce for them.

Mail-in ballot applications are due 10 days before the election. Mail-in ballots must be postmarked by Election Day or submitted in person by 9pm on Election Day to the County Board of Elections Oﬃce or polling site.

Certain New Yorkers are eligible to apply for an absentee ballot. The form to apply is diﬀerent than, but the places to apply are the same as, for mail-in ballots, and the ballot can be returned using the same methods as early mail voters.

Early voting: You can also vote in-person via early voting. Early voting is just like voting on Election Day. Early voters privately mark and scan their ballot at a polling place. Early voting results are counted, tabulated and included in election night totals. There is no requirement to apply for early voting. The process is completely walk-in.

Early voting for the general election is Saturday, October 26 through Sunday, November 3. Voters may visit any of their assigned Early Voting Centers in their county, except in New York City, where voters are assigned to one early voting site. To find each county’s early voting locations, click here: https://voterlookup.elections.ny.gov.

Early voting may be an especially attractive process in upstate New York, where even early November weather can be unpredictable, and voters may have diﬃculty making it to the polls on Election Day. Early voting can also be a guard against other unexpected events that might arise on Election Day, from family obligations to workplace emergencies.

Again, people with internet access and a printer can help out people who don’t have those things.

Immigration Analysis

Sat, 28 Sep 2024 23:07:47 GMT

Immigration Analysis

According to the report from the Deputy Director of ICE Patrick Lechleitner sent to Congressman Tony Gonzalez, these are illegal immigrants who have been caught and released with court dates set years into the future, or, worse, those ordered deported but still residing within our borders.

Happy Anniversary!

Fri, 20 Sep 2024 14:26:04 GMT

Happy Anniversary!

Did you miss all the celebrations on the one year anniversary of NY State’s implementing a background check and tax on ammo?

You did!

Here’s a little refresher.

From the New York State Police (NYSP) web site

“New York State's gun laws are designed to prevent criminals and those who threaten to harm themselves or others from buying or possessing guns, cracks down on illegal guns, and bans only the most dangerous assault weapons.”

No mention of ammo.

From the FBI’s “Firearms Checks (NICS)” page:

“When a person tries to buy a firearm, the seller, known as a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), contacts NICS electronically or by phone. The prospective buyer fills out the ATF form, and the FFL relays that information to the NICS. The NICS staff performs a background check on the buyer. That background check verifies the buyer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to purchase or own a firearm.”

No mention of ammunition checks by NICS.

Ammunition is not mentioned in the Department of Justice’s NICS rules for Point of Contacts. (New York is now a “Point of Contact” state.)

Nothing about ammo in “Public Law 110–180, An Act To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System” also called the “Fix NICS Act”

It is reported that during an FBI/ATF Townhall at the 2024 SHOT Show, NICS Section Chief Trudy Ford explained that using the NICS system for ammunition background checks was not an approved use of the NICS system

It seems clear that NICS cannot be used for purposes for which it is not federally authorized; like background checks on ammo purchases!

But, in a court filing, Attorney Paloma Capanna wrote:

“NYSP employees are manually entering individual ammunition background check data from their new system, by hand, into the federal FBI-NICS system in violation of Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations §25.11.” (Emphasis added.)

Capanna continued: “28 CFR §25.11(b)(2) prohibits a state, expressly, from misuse of the FBI-NICS system for any purpose outside the federally-mandated firearms background check.”

It seems that the NYSP are violating federal regulations and the FBI are aiding and abetting them when the NYSP use the NICS system to do background checks on ammunition. (Say it aint so, Merrick Garland and Kathy Hochul!)

How could this blatant violation of the law happen?

David Codrea tried to find out how, using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) He submitted a FOIA request “to the FBI in March for documents and records to clarify authority and determine decision-making (and decision-makers) authorizing the use of NICS for New York State ammunition background checks.”

Codrea’s interpretation of the FBI’s two responses: “We’re not going to tell you. Deal with it.”

Codrea has now sent a letter requesting help to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. Theoretically, they have more influence – if they choose to use it.

The FBI has delegated power to itself that was not passed by Congress and the FBI refuses to provide information about it, in violation of another law passed by Congress. The Swamp is alive and well in D.C. under the current administration!

And Donald Trump is a threat to Democracy?

You Said What?

Thu, 19 Sep 2024 16:29:16 GMT

You Said What?

In an interview with Hillary Clinton, CNBC’s Rachel Maddow brought up recent actions taken by the Biden-Harris Justice and State Departments against Russians who were allegedly pushing pro-Russian propaganda.

Hillary Clinton replied: “…we are not going to let adversaries, whether it is Russia, China, Iran, or anybody else, basically try to influence Americans as to how we should vote in picking our leaders.”

Then Clinton went further. “I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda, and whether they should be civilly or even in some cases, criminally charged, is something that would be a better deterrence.” (Emphasis added.)

In 2022, federal election regulators fined Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Democratic National Committee for not properly disclosing the money they spent on controversial opposition research that led to the Steele Trump-Russia dossier. The money flowed from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to law firm Perkins Coie LLC, to the research company Fusion GPS, and then ultimately to Christopher Steele, who got $168,000 for writing the dossier which said Trump conspired with the Kremlin to win the 2016 election.

Lock her up?

In a visit to Pittsburg, Kamala Harris said, "It's time to turn the page on the divisiveness. It's time to bring our country together, chart a new way forward…A lot of what I think is happening…is that people are exhausted about the division and the attempts to kind of divide us as Americans."

While in Pittsburg calling for an end to divisiveness, Kamala Harris made a campaign stop at Penzeys Spices - which is known to openly discriminate against Republicans. It has an “About Republicans" page on their business’ website with an 842-word essay bashing Republicans. Some of their rhetoric: “…we’re done pretending the Republican Party’s embrace of cruelty, racism, Covid lies, climate change denial, and threats to democracy are anything other than the risks they legitimately are. If you need us to pretend you are not creating the hurt you are creating in order for you to continue to be our customer, I’m sad to say you might be happier elsewhere.”

In 2022, Penzeys Spices’ CEO Bill Penzey wanted to rename Martin Luther King Jr. Day as "Republicans Are Racist Weekend!"

“…turn the page on divisiveness,” didn’t last a full day!

Per the State Bar of California’s web site: “Taking the attorney's oath is not just a ritual. It is required for admission to practice law in California pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 6067.”

The oath says: “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States…”

While serving as San Francisco District Attorney in 2007, Kamala Harris spoke about a San Francisco law she sponsored that was ultimately signed into law by then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. She said, “…just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs.” *

Amendment IV of the U S Constitution says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…”

Did Harris skip that class on the 4th Amendment in law school?

But Donald Trump is the threat to democracy!

By the way, the presidential oath of office goes: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Can gun owners expect Harris to follow that oath when dealing with the 2nd Amendment just as she followed the California attorney’s oath?

* ttps://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-once-said-police-133749431.html

Judgement Day – November 5th, 2024 by Richard Rossi

Wed, 18 Sep 2024 23:51:10 GMT

Judgement Day – November 5^th, 2024 by Richard Rossi

This goes way beyond political affiliation. For New York citizens, Judgement Day is November 5th. Ballot proposition 1 (ERA) is on the November ballot.

This election is critical to our Rights & Freedoms and maintaining our Second Amendment protected rights. This might seem like a small issue considering that we have a President to elect this year. But it‘s not!

This proposition will change our NYS Constitution. If passed, the impact of this Constitutional Amendment on NYS Citizens will be felt for decades. As gun owners, we must also be responsible Law-abiding citizens and fight to keep all our Rights under our Bill of Rights.

Hopefully by now you have heard of the Ballot Proposition 1 to amend our New York State Constitution ("Equal Rights Amendment") which will be on the reverse side of your ballot. The ballot wording seems harmless. Who is not in favor of equal rights for all? However, it is a wolf in sheep's clothing!

First - let's clear the air on all the Abortion misinformation that is circulating. There is no truth to it, at all! Abortion is already legal in New York, with some of the most far-reaching protections in the country and there is no significant movement to change that. Given these protections, adding abortion rights to the state constitution is redundant. The laws already ensure comprehensive access and protection for abortion services.

A more appropriate and fitting name for this proposition would be “THE PARENT'S REPLACEMENT ACT”. If this ballot amendment is passed, will it destroy your Parental Rights? Let’s look closer.

The 5 KEY-TAKE-AWAY points

The New York State government could have more authority than parents in making medical and other important decisions for children.
Children under the age of 18 could have the right to irreversible surgical and nonsurgical transgender procedures without parental notice or approval.
Schools could be banned from disclosing to parents that their children are becoming transgender.
Biological males could be allowed to compete against biological females in school sports without restrictions.
Protections for churches and other religious organizations and non-profits could be eroded regarding beliefs that run contrary to newly-created ‘Rights’ in Prop One.

Take a moment and ask yourself these questions about the proposition?

What does it mean to be able to “discriminate” based on things like age and gender identity and what some possible legal ramifications might be?

Should the New York State government have more authority than parents in making medical and other important decisions for children?

Should minors have the right to irreversible surgical and non-surgical transgender procedures without parental notice or consent?

Should biological males be allowed to compete in female school sports without restrictions?

Should laws that determine the legal age to purchase and/or consume alcohol or cannabis be weakened?

Should statutory rape laws that protect against sex with minors be weakened?

Can you be accused of discrimination by voicing your "Free Speech" Rights and speaking against these gender related issues!

The future of our children hangs in the balance.

It is you - the voters – who will decide on whether Proposition 1 will be passed on election day.

For more information visit The Coalition to Protect Kids - New York.

A one minute video demonstrating Kamala's views on the 2nd Amendment (Video)

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 18:24:50 GMT

A one minute video demonstrating Kamala's views on the 2nd Amendment (Video)

Kamala on the 2nd Amendment

This Election and the Second Amendment by Renée Barchitta

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 00:05:54 GMT

This Election and the Second Amendment by Renée Barchitta

VP Kamala Harris is a leader in the Biden Administration on gun policy and oversees the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Harris’s policies to reduce “Gun Violence” are supported by many of the nation’s influential anti 2nd Amendment groups such as Giffords and Bloomberg.

Harris stated, “We, who believe that every person should have the freedom to live safe from the terror of ‘Gun Violence,’ will finally pass red flag laws, universal background checks, and an assault weapons ban.”

“In 2008, …Harris led a group of prosecutors that unsuccessfully tried to convince the US Supreme Court to reject a broad right to gun ownership…”

In 2010 Harris was elected California Attorney General and continued pushing for stricter gun laws.

From 2017 to 2021, U S Senator Harris co-sponsored bills: for universal background checks; to ban “assault weapons;” and increase oversight of licensed gun dealers.

VP candidate Tim Walz originally got an “A” rating from the NRA which was subsequently changed to an “F” rating, after he flip-flopped. Randy Kozuch, chairman of the NRA Political Victory Fund, said Walz is a "political chameleon — changing his positions to further his own personal agenda…In Congress, Walz purported to be a friend of gun owners to receive their support in his rural Minnesota district…Once he had his eyes set on other offices, he sold out law-abiding Minnesotans and promoted a radical gun control agenda…Kamala Harris and Tim Walz cannot be trusted to defend freedom and our constitutional rights." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-walz-on-gun-control/

As Governor, Walz signed into law “…universal background checks, a red flag law, and one of the largest investments in community-based violence prevention programs of any state to date.” https://www.thetrace.org/2024/07/kamala-harris-guns-violence-election/

A good example of Kamala Harris’ ineffective ideas about the 2nd Amendment is in her response to the Parkland shooting.

The Parkland high school shooting was a mass shooting on February 14, 2018. 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz opened fire on students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in the city of Parkland, Florida, killing 17 people and injuring 17 others.

During Harris’s visit, after the shooting, the VP announced her solution to “school gun violence;” the creation of a National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center, funded by the DOJ and run by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions. It would promote states’ passing Red Flag / ERPO laws, and use Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) funding to help implement laws already enacted.

But the Red Flag Law, if it had been enacted in Florida, would not have stopped Nicholas Cruz from killing 17 people, thanks to the federal government’s “Promise Program.”

Why?

The ‘Promise Program,’ instituted by President Obama and Attorney General Holder, was to stop what Obama described as the school to prison pipeline for Black and Hispanic youth. “The Broward Co. School District (Majority Stoneman Douglas HS) was awarded $54 million in grants to institute the ‘Promise Program.” The school’s discipline policy was changed to stop suspensions / expulsions and arrests.

The Broward County Sheriff’s Department received 45 complaints/concerns about weapons, violent behavior and threats relating to Nicholas Cruz or his brother from 2008 to 2017 - long before the shootings at the High School. Cruz also made a suicide attempt and a video stating that he could become a school shooter. School officials, law enforcement, and the FBI had been notified about Cruz’s behavior.

Even without Red Flag laws, police officers could still remove a weapon when there was imminent danger or a court order. But under the Promise Program, no judicial action was taken against Cruz so there was no basis for action.

It is not a stretch to say the Promise Program caused 17 deaths, because Cruz was never arrested and he could legally purchase a firearm.

Kamala Harris proposed a law which would have been ineffective because of another federal law.

"Trading freedoms for safety promises is a risky proposition, as freedoms once surrendered are seldom returned without extensive struggle.” Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership (jpfo)

What does the 2024 Presidential Election Mean for Gun Rights and Gun Control? by John Elwood

Tue, 10 Sep 2024 23:43:47 GMT

What does the 2024 Presidential Election Mean for Gun Rights and Gun Control? by John Elwood

The Republican nominee for President is former President Donald Trump. During the run up to the 2016 presidential election, the National Rifle Association (NRA) endorsed Donald Trump on May 20, 2016. He was endorse again in 2020 and, unsurprisingly, the NRA endorsed former President Donald Trump again on May 19, 2024, delivering Trump his third consecutive presidential endorsement.

What are former President Trump’s positions toward guns?

Donald Trump has generally been aligned with pro-Second Amendment views. During his political career, he has supported the rights of individuals to own and carry firearms, often emphasizing the importance of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Some key positions of his stance include opposition to gun control measures such as universal background checks. Former President Trump believes there would be fewer casualties of mass shootings if potential victims had guns. Trump suggested addressing gun violence through improving mental health services rather than implementing more restrictive gun laws. Finally, Trump promoted the idea of arming teachers and enhancing school security to prevent school shootings, rather than imposing stricter gun control measures.

In a speech to the NRA, Trump vowed to protect gun owners’ rights saying, “we need it for safety because the bad guys aren’t giving up their guns.“ Also claiming Biden “is coming for your guns.”

The Democratic nominee for President of the United States is Vice President Kamala Harris. Harris was nominated after President Biden dropped out of the 2024 race against former President Donald Trump. Harris is an extension of Biden when it comes to gun rights.

Prior to serving as President Biden’s Vice President, Kamala Harris was a Senator from California from 2017-2021. In 2017, Harris was rated the third most liberal senator after Senators Elizabeth Warren and New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand. In 2018 Harris was rated the second most liberal senator behind Senator Warren, from Massachusetts. In 2019, Senator Harris was labeled the most liberal senator in the United State Senate. You may notice a pattern!

What is Kamala’s policy toward guns? Harris advocates for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. She believes that limiting the size of magazines can help reduce the lethality of guns and decrease the potential for mass shootings. Harris supports requiring universal background checks for all gun sales including private transactions and those at gun shows. Harris also believes implementing red flag laws, which allow for the temporary removal, without due process, of firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves and others, is a good idea.

The two political parties could not be farther apart from their positions on guns, making the choice easy for those that are pro or anti 2nd Amendment.

If you value the Second Amendment, the choice is clearly Donald Trump.

If you favor losing your Second Amendment protected rights, the choice is Kamala Harris!

To all gun owners, please get out and VOTE during the presidential election. Support the Second Amendment and YOUR right to keep and bear arms.

Getting Gun Owners to vote: Five simple things by Stephen M. Dallas

Mon, 09 Sep 2024 23:47:06 GMT

Getting Gun Owners to vote: Five simple things by Stephen M. Dallas

How often, after yet-another gun control law passes or an anti-gun politician gets elected, do we hear “There’s more than enough gun owners in our state to defeat the gun-grabbers at the polls if they would just vote”? More often than we’d like.

This problem isn’t limited to gun owners. In a typical presidential election year, no more than 60 percent of the voting-eligible population chooses to participate. Only about 40 percent vote during the midterms. And turnout in local elections tends to be even lower than in federal and statewide elections.

“Get Out the Vote,” or GOTV efforts can increase gun owner turnout during elections. A nonprofit educational organization, such as SCOPE, may engage in GOTV efforts so long as it is nonpartisan in nature. According to the IRS, if a voter registration drive or a GOTV effort is done in an educational manner without favoring or opposing a candidate or having the effect of favoring or opposing a candidate, a nonprofit can conduct GOTV activities.

Here are five simple things that SCOPE members can do to encourage more gun owners to vote.

1. Register Voters. Get gun owners on the voter lists.

A study from Vote4America has revealed that there are 10 million gun owners and hunters in the United States who are not registered to vote.

Gun owners can’t vote if they aren’t registered. Non-partisan groups can go out and register new voters.

Finding new pro-2A voters depends on where you look. For example, in Bucks County, PA, for the first time since 2007, there are now more registered Republicans than Democrats. This is the result of conservative activist Scott Presler. Presler and his Early Vote Action went to gun shows in the state. They registered brand new voters, new citizens, young voters and others. What worked with Pennsylvania gun owners can work in New York!

Other places where 2A-voters might be located are sportsmen’s clubs, gun stores, American Legion posts and VFWs. Bring voter registration forms, ask if you can leave them for the patrons. Be respectful but don’t assume these organizations won’t encourage GOTV. For example, the American Legion's "Get Out the Vote" program encourages all Americans to register and vote in all elections. “Legionnaires, posts, districts and departments are encouraged to fully involve themselves in the electoral process by serving as poll volunteers, poll workers and by encouraging and assisting others to register and vote” (https://www.legion.org/vote/about). Don’t forget churches either. The First Liberty Institute provides tips on how to successfully host a successful church-voter registration drive (https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10H53.pdf). Many of their steps could be easily adapted for other locations where gun owners may be found.

Act quickly! New York’s voter registration deadlines this year are between October 21 and October 26. For more information, check with your local Board of Elections or the NYS Board of Elections website (https://elections.ny.gov/registration-and-voting-deadlines).

2. Bank the vote. Encourage (legal) mail-in voting, absentee voting and early voting.

Mail-in and absentee ballots. A New York law allowing all registered voters to cast their ballots by mail was upheld in August by the state’s highest court. The decision means that the millions of New Yorkers (including gun owners) eligible to vote in the November 5 election will be able to cast ballots by mail if they wish — something that only a handful of people could do before.

This means any registered New York voter may apply for a mail-in ballot. They can apply online (https://elections.ny.gov/request-ballot), in person at their local election office, or by designating another person to deliver their application to the local election office for them.

Certain New Yorkers are eligible to apply for an absentee ballot. The form to apply is different than, but the places to apply are the same as for mail-in ballots, and the ballot can be returned using the same methods as early mail voters.

Early voting. Gun owners can also be encouraged to vote in-person via early voting. Early voting is just like voting on Election Day. Early voters privately mark and scan their ballot at a polling place. Early voting results are counted, tabulated and included in election night totals. There is no requirement to apply for early voting. The process is completely walk-in.

Early voting for the general election is Saturday, October 26 through Sunday, November 3. Voters may visit any of their assigned Early Voting Centers in their county, except in New York City, where voters are assigned to one early voting site. To find each county’s early voting locations, click here: https://voterlookup.elections.ny.gov. Early voting may be an especially attractive process in upstate New York, where even early November weather can be unpredictable, and voters may have difficulty making it to the polls on Election Day. Early voting can also be a guard against other unexpected events that might arise on Election Day, from family obligations to workplace emergencies.

3. Get voters to the polls. Make that final push.

Whether it’s absentee, mail-in, early voting or Election Day voting, there are various ways that non-profits can help get gun owners to polls, often through local sportsmen’s clubs, veterans or churches or similar 2A-friendly groups:

Networking. Use existing phone lists, email, mail, and newsletter distribution lists to share a final reminder about Election Day with gun-friendly groups’ members and make a push for them to get out and vote. The message can be as simple as:

“Remember, November 5 is Election Day! Do not forget to vote!”

Become a poll worker. Poll workers sign in and process voters, demonstrate voting procedures to voters and assist voters if requested. In order to be eligible to serve as a poll worker, you must be a New York State registered voter. Poll workers get paid for training and each day they work. Sign up with your local board of election here: https://elections.ny.gov/form/become-a-poll-worker.

Provide Rides to the Polls. Helping gun owners get to the polls is a great way to ensure that they vote. We can do this on our own or in conjunction with others. Here are some things to do to create a successful strategy:

Before Election Day, tell people that you will be offering rides to the polls on Election Day, and let them know that sign-ups are required. (Note that there will probably still be last minute requests and changes, especially if the weather conditions are poor.)

Determine whether you will lead the effort or work with others.

Establish how many cars, vans, and people will be involved/available.

Train volunteers to ensure they remain nonpartisan during their interaction with the voters they transport (such as not asking them whom they are going to vote for).

Divide Election Day into two-hour blocks of time (or more, depending on capacity).

Have someone act as “dispatcher” to organize drivers and the requests for transportation that come in from voters.

“Today is Election Day! If you have questions about your polling place or the hours for voting, call 1-866-Our-Vote (1-866-687-8683) or visit www.vote411.org for information.”

“Your vote counts. Your vote matters. Support your rights as a gun owner and vote today!”

4. Fight voter fraud with increased turn out. There’s strength in numbers.

It is important to guard against voter fraud. But we can’t let concerns about it depress pro-2A voter turnout. As explained by Charles ‘Kip’ Kiplinger, the vice president of the North Central Alabama Republican Assembly:

Continually emphasizing a rigged system and the potential for manipulated votes risks conveying the message that individual votes don't matter. This narrative plays into the hands of the opposition, who capitalize on disillusionment to drive down voter turnout for the other side.

We need to assure voters that even if there were irregularities, the best way to counteract them is to participate in the democratic process.

It's crucial to emphasize that, with enough votes, any algorithmic interference becomes inconsequential. There is, and always will be, strength in numbers.

In other words, the best way to fight potential voter fraud is to get so many people on “our side” to vote that it becomes impossible for “the other side” to cheat in any meaningful way!

5. Don’t delay. Start today!

GOTV is an opportunity to mobilize gun owners in support of the Second Amendment. We have the power to make a real impact, so don’t hesitate to start planning and implementing a strategy today!

Immigration Crisis? What Immigration Crisis?

Wed, 04 Sep 2024 17:23:09 GMT

While illegal migration at the U.S.-Mexico border continues to dominate election year politics, the country's northern border with Canada is also confronting a record-breaking surge in unlawful crossings.

More than 12,200 people were apprehended crossing illegally into the U.S. from Canada in 2023, a big jump from the 3,578 arrested the previous year, The New York Times reported. Through the first four months of fiscal year 2024, the Border Patrol apprehended 4,772 people between ports of entry That’s up from 2,229 apprehensions in the first four months of fiscal year 2023.

Of course, the southern border dwarfs these numbers, where its estimated 10 million illegals (apprehensions and got aways) have crossed since Biden and Harris took office.

Anything being done to discourage this invasion? Just the opposite in California!

The Democrat-controlled California Legislature has passed a bill which would grant undocumented immigrants access to the state’s taxpayer-funded home loan program, which provides up to $150,000 in down payment assistance for eligible first-time home buyers.

California Republicans are urging Governor Newsom to veto the measure, arguing that the bill will incentivize illegal immigration. (Ya think!) Newsom has until September 30th to make a decision on whether he will sign the bill into law.

Some quotes which summarize the situation:

“I didn’t know it was possible to make the border crisis and the housing crisis worse with just one vote, but Democrats found a way…Giving taxpayer-funded housing subsidies to illegal immigrants will drive costs even higher and encourage more chaos at the border.”

Migrants crossing the border illegally “look to California’s current policies like a giant welcome sign…Welcome to California, where illegal immigrants get free healthcare, free food, and now a free home with 0% down. “This is not rocket science. If you’re giving out free stuff, more people are going to come.”

Back in February, Representative Claudia Tenney recognized the situation and pointed to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection that showed a majority of people on the terrorist watchlist who crossed into the U.S. illegally last year did so along the northern border. “We know there are going to be terror cells and people who are going to do harm to the American people are coming across that border," she said in an interview with Fox.

After inviting this illegal invasion and seeing the results rejected by the majority of Americans, Kamala Harris and the Democrats are now saying they will deal with illegal immigration. Which reminds me of a story Ronald Reagan told.

A woman was getting married for the fourth time and went shopping for a wedding dress.

She picked out a white dress and the saleslady pointed out that white is usually reserved for first time brides who have not…you know…

The bride to be responded that she still qualified.

My first husband died of a heart attack in the limo going to the reception.

My second husband and I got into a terrible fight in the limo and we immediately divorced.

My third husband was a Democrat and all he did was sit on the end of the bed and tell me how good it was going to be.

Reagan was a man for all ages and his story is as true today as in the 1980’s.

If 1% of the 10 million illegals were criminals, that is 100,000 more criminals running loose in the U S A.

If 1/10^th of 1% are criminals, that is 10,000 more criminals running loose in the U.S.A.

10,000 criminals, equally divided, gives us 200 would be murderers / rapists / thieves in NY State.

On September 11^th 2002, nineteen aliens (19) killed 3,000 Americans.

How are we to protect ourselves?

Democrat policies in California, New York and D.C. are to take away the rights of Americans to defend themselves; those protected by the 2^nd Amendment.

In addition to the danger posed by criminal aliens, the Democrats have also pushed defund the police policies, reformed bail laws and decriminalized certain crimes. The ability to personally defund oneself and one’s loved ones are even more vital to us, today.

We used to say, “When the police are minutes away, help is only 1,500 feet per second away.”

That has been amended to say, “When the police might be hours away, help is only 1,500 feet per second away.”

Remember how vital our 2^nd Amendment rights have become when you vote.

Non NY Residents Can Apply for a NYC Pistol Permit

Wed, 28 Aug 2024 15:29:23 GMT

Non NY Residents Can Apply for a NYC Pistol Permit

About two weeks ago, there were a few articles about an ‘Emergency Rule’ in New York City allowing non-New York State residents to apply for a pistol permit in NY City. The stories fell far short of being fully informative and left many people confused. SCOPE read the actual Emergency Rule* and the following is a summary.

On August 6th, NY City Mayor Adams signed the NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF EMERGENCY RULES RELATING TO NON RESIDENT APPLICANTS FOR CARRY LICENSES AND TO PURCHASE AND REGISTRATION AUTHORIZATIONS. (Emphasis added.) The Emergency Rules are effective immediately, but only for 60 days while the NY Police Department develops permanent rules.

First, a brief history:

On June 23, 2022, the United States Supreme Court ruled in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that New York State’s “proper cause” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry firearm license was an unconstitutional restriction on an individual’s 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

On July 1, 2022, New York State enacted new statewide licensing standards removing the “proper cause” standard and adding additional criteria, effective September 1, 2022, for carry license applicants. (The ill named Concealed Carry Improvement Act.)

In addition, New York City says it revised its licensing regulations to remain consistent with case law and continues to do so in response to evolving Second Amendment cases, including the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi.

2024 NYPD rules did not contain formal procedures for applicants who do not reside in New York State, are not principally employed within New York City, and do not have their principal place of business in New York City.

Which brings us to today.

Mayor Adams believes an Emergency Order is needed, two years later! Sounds fishy! (With apologies to fish.)

The order justifies itself by the following statement: Delaying implementation of these additional rules would severely impede New York City’s ability to effectively and legally regulate handgun ownership within its jurisdiction.

That doesn’t begin to explain the sudden emergency, after two years, to permit non-New York State residents who are not principally employed within New York City to apply for a pistol permit in NY City.

And what is that add on about rules for “Purchase and Registration Authorizations”

Per the order: Section 5-25 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York, relating to handgun acquisition requirements is REPEALED, and a new section 5-25 is added. In addition to any applicable federal or state requirements, the following procedures apply to all licensees seeking to acquire and register a handgun to one or more of their licenses

No person shall acquire a firearm if such person has acquired a firearm within the previous ninety (90) days

Any licensee who obtains a handgun must purchase or obtain a safety locking device at the time of acquisition of such handgun,

A licensee may not take possession of a handgun without prior written authorization from the Division Head, License Division.

A licensee may not take possession of a handgun before it has been inspected by License Division personnel and entered on the license.

The number of handguns allowed under each type of handgun license is limited to 1 or 2.

Buried in the non-resident Emergency Rules are more anti-2A rules which have nothing to do with non-residents.

Sneaky. But could there be even more that is concerning NY City’s anti-2A leadership?

On August 24^th it was reported that the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California and seven private citizens won a victory when a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against California’s ban on non-resident concealed carry. (The state has 21 days to file a response.)

In her decision, Judge Garnett observed, “the State bears the burden of showing whether California’s residency requirements for a CCW license is ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation…the State has not carried its burden at this stage to show that the limitation of CCW licenses to California residents is part of a historical tradition of this Nation.”

Could this be the emergency?

Did NY City suspect that the courts would rule against California and issue an opening salvo against non-resident concealed carry as being unconstitutional under “Bruen”. The same thing that NY City says it is addressing in its Emergency Rules - which only serve to make the rules more bureaucratic. Non-NYS residents can apply for a permit but don’t hold your breath while the anti-2A bureaucracy in NY City buries you in rules, regulations, delays and disinterest under the Emergency Rules.

When faced with losing a court case, in the past, both NY City and State have tried to moot the case by tweaking the law. Their changes may not hold up under judicial scrutiny but that’s not the point. Forcing 2A plaintiffs to spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawsuits - that’s the point.

Statement of Basis and Purpose of Emergency Rule

PRESS AND PROTESTS SHOULD CHALLENGE DEM CRIME REFORMS - by Bob Lonsberry 2024

Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:09:41 GMT

PRESS AND PROTESTS SHOULD CHALLENGE DEM CRIME REFORMS - by Bob Lonsberry 2024

When you call the police, they come.

But now the police have called us, and we should come.

On Friday, in the lobby of the Public Safety Building, Chief Dave Smith of the Rochester Police Department lingered somewhere between rage and heartbreak, thundering in exasperation and emotional fatigue about one more crime and one more death and one more illustration of the fact the laws and lawmakers of the state of New York are on the side of the criminals.

This involved Thomas Chase, a 92-year-old retired college professor who spent the last 30 years as a volunteer piano player at a nursing home. Chief Smith leaned into the wreckage of Mr. Chase’s car on Thursday, his lifeblood still flowing from his shattered body, and recited the Lord’s Prayer as a service at his passing.

Mr. Chase’s car had been hit by a 17-year-old blowing like hell down East Avenue in a stolen Kia.

It was the 17-year-old and two confederates and 10 minutes before they had been one side of a shootout on Maria Street. Between then and the moment of impact there had been a car change – from one stolen Kia to another – an attempt to ram a police officer, and the headlong sprint away from the screaming blue and whites.

And then the crash into a sainted elderly man the next town over.

And that was pretty sad. But, with more than 30 years on the job, Chief Smith has seen dead people before. And with his Christian faith and the cross on his uniform denoting his chaplain training, he’s prayed for victims before.

But this was different.

Because this vehicular homicide had so many accomplices. The governor, the speaker, the majority leader, Harry Bronson, Jeremy Cooney, Samra Brouk, Jen Lunsford, Demond Meeks, Sarah Clark, and all their co-conspirators in the state capital. All have blood on their hands. All the way to their elbows. They had a part in killing Thomas Chase, and in victimizing hundreds of others who were slain, raped, beaten or robbed by criminals freed and empowered by the “criminal-justice reforms” of the Democratic Party.

That 17-year-old? The one behind the wheel and behind the crime? He is a parolee – already, at 17 – who was arrested a dozen times in Rochester alone last year for stealing cars and smashing them into businesses to steal and loot. His most recent arrest was for another stolen car in the Buffalo area four weeks ago.

He has been arrested over and over and over by the police, and turned loose over and over and over by the politicians. Raise the Age, a specific piece of legislation pushed by the governor, speaker, majority leader and every member of the local Democratic delegation to the state legislature, removed him as a juvenile from any sort of real accountability. Bail Reform, a specific piece of legislation pushed by the governor, speaker, majority leader and every member of the local Democratic delegation to the state legislature, turned him loose repeatedly with nothing more than an appearance ticket. Less is More, a specific piece of legislation pushed by the governor, speaker, majority leader and every member of the local Democratic delegation to the state legislature, made it virtually impossible for his parole to be violated, even when he was charged with subsequent felony crimes.

And so he was free.

The politicians set him free.

To get in a shootout on Maria Street, to almost smash into a cop, to kill a kindly retired professor in Brighton.

And Chief Smith stood there on Friday in the lobby of the Public Safety Building fit to be tied.

He was calling for help.

And it’s our time to answer.

The direct moral culpability of specific local and state politicians must be acknowledged and protested – by the people and the press.

Dog-and-pony show appearances in the Rochester region by the governor, speaker and majority leader should be protested loudly. Let every ribbon cutting, airport press conference and glory-seeking stop by any member of this troika of lawlessness be met with pickets and protests.

And let the local press stop being lapdogs for politicians who treat them like PR functionaries. At every appearance by visiting office holders, and at every press event or public appearance of Jeremy Cooney, Samra Brouk, Harry Bronson, Demond Meeks, Jen Lunsford and Sarah Clark, let local reporters have the courage to make every question be about criminal-justice reform. If the people, sheriff, chiefs, district attorney and activists decry the carnage imposed by these reforms, why are reporters not persistent in pressing those in power on the issue?

If the press is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, no one is more comfortable, powerful, privileged or elite in this community than those who have voted to support the laws which killed Thomas Chase and others across Rochester.

This is not a partisan undertaking – math and mail-ins assure that Democrats will win every countywide and state legislative election in Monroe County for generations to come – so the press wouldn’t be hurting the Democratic Party, with which it is apparently allied, but it would be helping the people of Rochester, which whom it should be allied.

It’s time to go Ida Tarbell and Jacob Riis on this subject. Neglect by the elites – through poisonous legislation – victimizes the people of Rochester, who are disproportionately poor and non-white. Somebody should stand up for them.

And somebody should answer the call of the police.

They did their job. Over and over and over. And Thomas Chase still ended up dead.

It’s time to answer the call.

Protest all visits of senior state officials to Rochester, and make every public appearance by Democratic state legislators a press conference on criminal-justice reforms.

It’s time all of us – the people and the press – were fit to be tied.

Lead Ammo Again

Tue, 20 Aug 2024 23:27:51 GMT

Lead Ammo Again

The NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is pushing the use of non-lead ammo.

In April, it released an update to their study. A summary is published on their web site under the heading: “Choose Non-Lead Ammunition.”

The following is taken directly from the DEC web site.

“…due to the social, political, economic, and ecological complexity of this issue, the New York State "Lead Ammunition Working Group" was formed in December 2020. The charge to the Working Group…was to conduct a comprehensive examination of the risks posed by lead hunting ammunition to wildlife and people and recommend actions to minimize those risks.”

The summary is almost entirely devoted to the dangers of lead ammo or the advantages of non-lead ammo. It includes “helpful tips that deer hunters would never have thought of, such as:

Practice marksmanship and outdoors skills to get cleaner, closer and precise shots.

Avoid shots at running deer as this decreases accuracy.

Wow! Thanks DEC!

Buried in this indictment of lead ammo is one sentence:

“To date, there are no reported human illnesses related to the consumption of wild game shot with lead ammunition.”

One question left unanswered is how much money was spent to produce this study. Since Cornell University was involved, my guess is “a lot.”

The “War on Lead Ammo” has been previously highlighted by SCOPE with its coverage of NY Senate bill S8461, which would add very expensive modifications to many (if not most) Skeet Shooting Ranges, in the name of lead ammo contamination prevention. Thankfully, that bill has gone nowhere, yet. But like the “Terminator”, it will be back.

Operation Demoralize

Tue, 20 Aug 2024 23:09:41 GMT

Operation Demoralize

Cornell Professor William Jacobson wrote in Legal Insurrection:

A couple of weeks ago, I spoke to you about Operation Demoralize.

It’s something we’ve been tracking at Legal Insurrection since 2011 and what it is, it is a concerted effort every presidential election to suppress Republican votes by creating a narrative that it’s over. There’s nothing you can do. The momentum is with the Democrat. It’s already been written, the result.

And we know that’s not true. People are falling for it again. Now I see it all over the internet. I see it in my inbox, I see it in comments, I see it everywhere.

I just want to give you a little bit of historical perspective. On this date. August 14th, according to the Real Clear Politics national polling average, and that’s important, it’s the national average, Kamala Harris is up 1.1%. Oh my God, the sky is falling. It’s over.

By comparison on this date in 2020, Joe Biden was up by 7.7% in the same Real Clear Politics average, and on this date in 2016, Hillary was up 6.8%.

That’s the historical record. That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be concerned. That doesn’t mean people can’t do better. That doesn’t mean really anything other than you are being played.

Polling at this time in the year is junk Polling at this time in the year predicts nothing, and you should ignore it. Now you can’t ignore it because it’s all over the place. People are constantly citing the latest poll. What I’m telling you is this is Operation Demoralize.

This is going to be a close election just like it was in 2016 and just like it was in 2020. It’s going to be 30 or 50,000 votes in this state and 20,000 votes in that state. And we’re really fighting over a handful of states for who’s going to be president, and turnout is going to be critical. It doesn’t matter if Democrats win California by 5 million votes, that’s irrelevant. What matters is Pennsylvania and Michigan, and Georgia and Arizona, and two or three other states.

And to the extent the media is able to convince you that it is all over and there’s nothing you can do, that is not in your interest as a voter.

So what I’m saying to you is: We are still in Operation Demoralize. It’s working just like it does every summer that we’ve tracked it. Shake out of it and get yourself together. There are legitimate concerns that people need to address, but this hyperbole and this hair-on-fire reaction is ridiculous. So, carry on.

And it isn’t just Jacobson saying these things.

CNN’s Harry Enten issued a warning that Donald Trump is still very much in the presidential race.

Enten said, “We put out those poll numbers yesterday…all of which showed Kamala Harris with clear momentum and enthusiasm potentially on her side. But I just want to take a step back and sort of point out we’ve kind of been here before. So, August 13, how far were the polls off in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and this is in 2016 and 2020 — Trump was under estimated both times around and by significant margins. Take a look here, in 2016 the average poll in those states they mentioned, those Great Lakes battleground states, Trump was underestimated by nine points on average at this point in 2016. How about 2020? It wasn’t a one off, look at this: He was underestimated by five points on average.”

“And of course Kamala Harris’s advantage in those New York Times-Siena College polls were four points in each of these key battleground states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. The bottom line is this: If you have any idea- if you’re a Kamala Harris fan and you want to rip open the champagne bottle, pop that cork, do not do it…If we have a polling shift like we’ve seen in prior years, from now until the final result, Donald Trump would actually win.”

And as to the ‘enthusiasm’ that he mentioned, Enten also pointed out that polling actually shows that Republicans are slightly more likely and Democrats are slightly less likely to say they will go to the polls than they were a few months ago.

Flip Flopping Away

Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:11:27 GMT

Flip Flopping Away

Tim Walz is the Democrat nominee for Vice President and 2^nd Amendment defenders are jumping on him. Even though the President is the important one in policy decisions, the Vice President should not be forgotten. So, what the heck, let’s point out Walz’ history with the 2^nd Amendment.

Walz once had an A rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA has since changed that to an F.

Walz, who says he was never been a member of the NRA, replied, “I had an A rating from the NRA. Now I get straight F’s. And I sleep just fine.”

So much for “inclusiveness” when it comes to caring what constituents who are gun owners think!

What changed Walz?

Walz was a member of the House of Representatives for 12 years, he represented a conservative district that borders Iowa and the district was relatively friendly to guns.

In 2018 when Walz decided to run for Governor of Minnesota, he started pushing anti 2^nd Amendment policies. Could his move leftward had to do with trying to get votes as he moved from a conservative district into a statewide race in a leftist state?

(Note: his running mate seems also inclined to change positions as she changes constituencies. For instance, she is no longer for single-payer health care, or for defunding the police. She is now for fracking and more border control. Not to mention no taxes on tips, but I mentioned it anyway. Reminds us a lot of Kristin Gillibrand’s “about face” on guns after she fell under Chuck Schumer’s magic spell.)

Walz wrote on Facebook during his run for governor, “I support universal background check legislation, oppose conceal and carry legislation…oppose legislation to reduce restrictions on gun silencers…I will work to ensure that Minnesota passes universal background check legislation…and support additional restrictions that ensure that Minnesota keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people.” (Sounds like he has checked most of the anti-2A boxes.)

You know someone is deeply anti-2A when they are for restrictions on silencers / suppressors. They don’t know what they are talking but that anti-2A rabbit hole they are going down forces them to say it, anyway.

He pushed an assault weapons ban by saying he wants to ban the guns he carried “in war.” He said: “We can make sure those weapons of war that I carried in war is [sic] the only place that those weapons are at.”

Oops.

As many have pointed out, he has never been in combat or carried any firearm “in war.” His campaign has now acknowledged this was a misstatement by Walz. (When a Republican does something like this it is ‘misinformation’ and must be censored to protect delicate ears.)

Kamala Harris told a Philadelphia campaign event that Walz believes: “as the majority of gun owners do, that we need reasonable gun safety laws in America.” Walz is also portrayed as supporting “common-sense regulation.”

In 2018, Walz in an Op-Ed published by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, wrote about the NRA saying: “…it’s the biggest single obstacle to passing the most basic measures to prevent gun violence in America — including common-sense solutions that the majority of NRA members support.”

It is mandatory that every leftist statement on 2A include “common sense” and “reasonable” when describing their positions. (Common sense seems to be an uncommon virtue in the left.)

Mr. Walz supports laws like universal background checks and extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws which he believes don’t violate Constitutional protections. Walz also claims that anti-gun laws do not make it more challenging for gun owners to acquire firearms, even though he backs banning certain guns.

It’s a fair statement that Walz has earned his F rating from the NRA.

What Josh Shapiro Tells Us

Wed, 14 Aug 2024 01:50:29 GMT

What Josh Shapiro Tells Us

Kamala Harris made a surprise pick for Vice President in Tim Walz, cementing her ticket as the most far left presidential and VP candidates in history. Yes, even further left than Biden / Harris or Obama / Biden. Which unquestionably means trouble for gun rights if they should win.

At the beginning of the V P selection process, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro was viewed as the front-runner, as he is a popular governor of a must-win battleground state. Why he was not selected tells us as much about Kamala Harris and the Democrats surrounding her as does the Harris / Walz ticket, itself. We can learn much from the Shapiro episode.

In a nutshell, Shapiro wasn’t ‘progressive’ enough. Actions speak louder than words and he wasn’t far enough left. The Left doomed Shapiro’s chances of being on the Harris ticket. Why?

Shapiro is pro-Israel.

The Biden-Harris Administration is struggling with its handling of the Israel-Hamas war. The horrific terrorist attack that Hamas unleashed last October, and Israel’s subsequent campaign to stomp out Hamas, ignited a firestorm of pro-Palestinian protest. Being politicians, Harris (and Biden) have been pandering to the Palestinians who may be crucial in Michigan’s voting. (For instance, the “Squad’s” Rashida Tliab is a Michigan Congressperson.)

Shapiro, who is Jewish, has been a strong defender of Israel. A commentary he wrote decades ago, while a college student, labelled Palestinians as incapable of living in peace. Since Harris and the left have been extremely negative to Israel, being pro-Israel probably doomed Shapiro’s candidacy.

If Harris / Walz are elected, it is reasonable to say, “Israel beware!”

Shapiro is pro-school choice.

Shapiro has verbally supported education freedom and school choice and vetoed legislation designed to provide minority children in underperforming school districts with new education options. This antagonized the Democratic Party’s labor union base, especially the teachers’ union.

He failed a WOKE test.

Leftists feel that Shapiro failed to adequately address a sexual harassment scandal involving one of his cabinet secretaries. What could be a greater sin than not bowing to the Woke ideology?

U S Senator John Fetterman doesn’t like him.

Fetterman warned Harris against picking Shapiro because of Shapiro’s overt ambition and reputation for throwing even allies under the bus if it suited his political goals. (No other politician, including Fetterman, is guilty of being ambitious and self-serving?)

Shapiro probably would have given a boost to Harris’ chances of winning battleground Pennsylvania, but he enraged key Democratic constituencies. In Harris’ mind, the harm to Harris’ far left constituency that Shapiro would have done greatly outweighed whatever electoral advantage he brought to the ticket in Pennsylvania.

The interesting question is how much damage has been done to Shapiro within the Democrat Party by pointing out he is NOT a radical leftist. If Shapiro really is so overly ambitious, will he move farther left to appease the controlling interests in the Democrat Party?

And if there is any silly talk about the Harris / Walz ticket being centrist, the rejection of Shapiro proves they are wedded to the far-left branch of the Democrat Party, which seems to control the Democrat Party. No centrist wanted.

Is there any doubt that the far-left leadership of the Democrat Party hates your 2^nd Amendment gun rights? Beyond the many anti-gun statements of Harris and Walz, the Shapiro episode sends a clear message to those that defend the 2^nd Amendment that Harris / Walz will cater to the far left wing of the Democrat Party that hates gun rights.

Venezuela

Wed, 07 Aug 2024 16:08:16 GMT

Venezuela

Venezuela is floating on a sea of oil. But the socialist government’s corruption and mismanagement has forced most of the population into poverty. As a result, many of the people invading our southern border are fleeing from Venezuela.

Venezuelan dictator / president Nicolas Maduro ran against Edmundo Urrutia for President of Venezuela. Last Monday, Maduro formally announced that he had won the election with more than 51% of the vote. His opponent’s party claimed Urrutia won with more than 73% of the vote. (124% of the vote went to somebody! Even CNN would have difficulty explaining that one away.)

Ammoland reports that: “…when it became clear that he was going to lose to opposition candidate Edmundo González Urrutia, Maduro sent armed government thugs into polling places with orders to stop the voting.”

How are Venezuelans protesting? In Caracas, hundreds of people marched through the streets, waving Venezuelan flags and chanting, “Liberty!” Across the country, videos show crowds banging pots.

Maduro responded that his government “knows how to confront this situation and defeat those who are violent.” CNN reports witnessing dozens of national guard soldiers in riot gear repressing the pot wielding protesters with tear gas and batons.

Pots are all Venezuelans have with which to protest.

In 2012, Venezuela banned private sales of firearms and ammunition and closed private gun shops. In 2013 Venezuela stopped issuing new firearm licenses and in 2017, the government banned the carrying of firearms in public places. (Inspiration for Kathy Hochul and the Concealed Carry Improvement Act.) The army, police, and certain groups trusted by the government are exempt from the ban and can buy firearms from state-owned manufacturers. The penalty for illegal firearm possession is twenty years imprisonment.

As Lee Williams said in Ammoland, “Every dictator knows that the first thing they must do to maintain their grip on power is ban civilian firearm ownership and then confiscate all the guns…Venezuela is the latest example of the need to protect and defend our Second Amendment rights. Rather than focusing solely on how they intend to disarm us, we should focus on why our politicians – including Harris – want a disarmed populace. It is certainly a question worthy of a response.”

Anti 2nd Amendment Vice President Kamala Harris issued a statement supporting Maduro’s claims. “The United States stands with the people of Venezuela who expressed their voice in today’s historic presidential election. The will of the Venezuelan people must be respected.”

Apparently, Kamala Harris is following in Biden’s footsteps and is on the wrong side of every international issue. Move on. Nothing to see here.

But now, she may be on the wrong side of Biden Administration. Last Thursday, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken finally acknowledged Gonzalez had won “the most votes” in the presidential election.

By the time you read this, who knows where Biden and Harris may be standing.

Other leaders were not so accommodating as Kamala Harris to Maduro. He has bowed to pressure from neighboring countries and called for an audit. (The audit will probably be as accurate as any audit of New York City voting.)

If faced with six more years of Maduro, we should see increased pressure on our southern border, to which “Border Czar” Kamala Harris will have to respond. (Or not…based on previous experience.)

Which leaves us with two reasons for the 2^nd Amendment protections.

Socialist politicians fear an armed populace. Guns are like nuclear deterrence; you never want to use them but having them keeps the bad guys and gals at bay.

Those Venezuelans who will cross our border won’t all be law abiding people who just want to assimilate into the United States.

Crime Pays?

Mon, 05 Aug 2024 18:59:22 GMT

Crime Pays?

Justice Department officials Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page each had a role in feeding the false Russia Hoax aimed at handicapping Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Attorney General Sessions fired Deputy Director McCabe before McCabe could retire. The DOJ Inspector General and the FBI's disciplinary office had said that McCabe had improperly authorized releases of information to The Wall Street Journal about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation and had misled agents who questioned him about it on four occasions, three of which were under oath.

Strzok played a senior role on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team until he was removed after an internal investigation revealed his texts with Page exhibited political bias. Page, who had also briefly served on Mueller’s team, resigned from her role as a lawyer for the FBI after the messages were discovered.

Oh yeah, the texts also revealed that Strzok and Page had an extramarital relationship.

In addition to the Russia Hoax, Strzok aided in Hillary Clinton not facing prosecution for her multiple violations of the law in storing top-secret information on her private email server. (You may remember, the same laws Donald Trump was prosecuted for.)

In 2021, the Biden / Harris Justice Department’s restored Democrat McCabe’s retirement benefits, which he lost when he was fired. (If he were a Republican doing the same thing, does anyone doubt he would be in jail?)

Now, the Biden / Harris Justice Department settled a lawsuit filed by Democrats Strozak and Page about supposed privacy violations that publicized their anti-Trump messages on government phones in the early phases in the get-Trump “Russian interference” probe.

Those Democrat Deep Staters running the Justice Department share McCabe’s, Strozak’s and Page’s Democrat politics, so they took care of their fellow travelers.

Strozak and Page will get $2 million if the settlement is approved by a judge.

Strzok, who was ultimately fired from the FBI, hasn’t settled the portion of his lawsuit in which he sued for backpay and his job back.

Your tax dollars at work under Biden / Harris.

ATF Efficiency?

Congressional laws prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from creating searchable digital records. One reason being that 2nd Amendment defenders fear that the ATF could create a database of firearm owners and that it could eventually lead to confiscation.

ABC News reports that, typically, the bureau takes around eight days to track a weapon and urgent traces average 24 hours.

The attempted Trump assassin, Thomas Crooks, was not carrying any ID when he was shot by Secret Service snipers but the FBI had his rifle.

Again, ABC News reported: “Within 30 minutes of the shooting at Donald Trump's Pennsylvania rally on Saturday, federal law enforcement used a byzantine paper records system to track down decade-old gun sales records to help identify the 20-year-old would-be assassin...Agents tracked the AR-15 style rifle the shooter used to a 2013 purchase from the now-closed dealer, sources familiar with investigators' findings told CNN.”

The ATF stated: "ATF completed an urgent trace through ATF's National Tracing Center based on out of business records from a closed gun dealer…Results were provided to the FBI and Secret Service in less than 30 minutes."

There are two possibilities.

ATF is super efficient when it wants to be. After all, it only had to:

Contact the manufacturer of the rifle ON A SATURDAY to get the distributor the gun was sold to. Then,

Contact the distributor of the rifle ON A SATURDAY to get the dealer the gun was sold to. Then,

Discover that the dealer was out of business and BATFE had the dealer’s records. Then,

Have an employee manually go through all those records looking for the rifle and then pull the purchaser’s information.

There exists a secret, illegal searchable digital record.

Your Government is Protecting You

Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:27:29 GMT

Your Government is Protecting You

Why do American citizens want to own personal firearms when we have the state and federal governments to protect us? Certainly, we have to carry because those governments are filled with top level officials who are corrupt and incompetent and can’t protect us. Am I talking about the recently resigned Secret Service head Kimberly Cheatle? No. There are plenty other scandals and would be scandals floating around the Biden/ Harris administration.

Here's one you may not have heard about.

Pauline (Polly) Hanson, was appointed on June 14th as Deputy Director of the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS). On July 16th, Judicial Watch reported that she has “stepped down”. Judicial Watch reported that the appointment “came just months after the administration quietly replaced the last FAMS director, marking the fourth time in around as many years that the agency got a new leader.”

Hanson previously was Amtrak police chief and also served as chief of Metro Transit Police in the District of Columbia and Executive Director of the D.C. Police’s Strategic Service Bureau. Sounds like she had ‘connections’ in Washington D C.

Hanson, was appointed to the FAMS’ position despite previously being investigated for fraud and conflict of interest as Amtrak police chief. Hanson was investigated for “unethical and illegal” behavior after awarding her then live in boyfriend, ABS Consulting senior director Kerry Thomas, a million-dollar counterterrorism contract to train officers in her agency. An investigation was initiated in December 2015, based on allegations about Hanson and Thomas’s relationship. The allegations included that Hanson and Thomas have been romantically involved for a “substantial period of time, that they cohabitated in Arlington, Va., and own a residence together in Delaware, and that, consequently, their actions regarding the procurement of the contract. . .were unethical and illegal.”

The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General stated that as deputy director, Hanson would have been in charge of all purchasing and contracts for FAMS. “If the allegations are true this is akin to letting the fox into the hen house,” the Air Marshal National Council wrote.

Hanson fought in court to limit investigators’ access to her bank records and when a judge ordered her to turn them over, she resigned as chief of the Amtrak Police.

Hanson’s appointment by TSA Director David Pekoske to be second in command at FAMS raised questions about the criteria to qualify for the top-secret clearance required for the position and ignited fury among air marshals nationwide. The Air Marshal National Council, the union that represents thousands of agents nationwide, asked the DHS Inspector General to reopen Hanson’s investigation, days after Pekoske’s appointment, to ensure she is eligible to hold a position of public trust and top-secret security clearance.

Judicial Watch also investigated after it was advised of this issue by aviation security specialists and the Air Marshal National Council. Judicial Watch immediately fired off two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to TSA and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Inspector General, asking for details about Hanson’s criminal and ethical investigation as Amtrak Police Chief and her subsequent resignation.

Was Hanson a Diversity, Inclusion, Equity (DIE) appointee instead of being appointed on merit? We’ll never know. But one has to ask, wasn’t there anyone better available and doesn’t anyone in the Biden / Harris administration bother with background checks?

Yes, American citizens need to continue exercising their right to ‘keep and bear arms,’ especially since the government which is supposed to protect us is prioritizing politics and ignoring merit when appointing people to protect us.

On the positive side, at least Hanson wasn’t going to be in charge of airplane maintenance.

Given that they first raised this issue, the men and women who make up the ‘grassroots’ of the FAMS seem to be more competent and honest than their leadership. Those of us who will be flying soon will appreciate that. We need that competence since we can’t carry on airplanes.

Crime Going Down?

Mon, 29 Jul 2024 14:38:57 GMT

Crime Going Down?

In the upcoming Firing Lines is an article titled: ‘Crime Going Down?’

Basically, the article shoots holes in Joe Biden’s statement, during his State of the Union address, that: “America is safer today than when I took office…last year, the murder rate saw the sharpest decrease in history, and violent crime fell to one of the lowest levels in more than 50 years.”

Here is one highlight from the upcoming Firing Lines article concerning the source of Biden’s data; the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report.

Several large cities no longer report crime statistics to the FBI. As the Washington Examiner notes: “In 2019, 89% of agencies covering 97% of the population submitted data, but by 2021, that coverage plummeted to less than 63% of departments overseeing just 65% of the population.“ Included in those that no longer report to the FBI are New York City and Los Angeles.

Why did “crime go down” per the FBI’s report? Because crimes were not being reported to the FBI! And what cities are no longer reporting crime? New York City and Los Angeles, two of the most crime ridden cities in the U S A!

Basically, any comparison of crime by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report is no longer valid because the basis of comparison, is no longer uniform.

So, why are we jumping ahead of the Firing Lines?

Newsweek is gleefully reporting that Pete Buttigieg schooled Fox News about crime. Buttigieg said: "…trying to make people think that crime is up when crime is down under Joe Biden and crime was up under Donald Trump. Now I don't know how often that gets reported on this network. So, if you're watching this at home, do yourself a favor and look up the data."

Where is the data to look up?

Newsweek also reports where to look it up: “According to the latest quarterly statistics released in June by the FBI known as the Uniform Crime Report...” (Emphasis added.)

Buttigieg, like Biden, (and you can be sure Harris will be added) is using an obviously invalid report to mislead the American people in order neuter a major campaign issue.

This erroneous report is on the top of a web page where it will be read and passed on as the truth. Newsweek never lies - except in print - but most people don’t realize that.

Watch for this lie to become an integral part of Harris’s political campaign.

Oh yeah, Newsweek also reported that Buttigieg; “…has emerged as a top choice to be Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate in this year's presidential election.” (After all, he has been as effective heading the department of Transportation as Harris has been as the “Border Czar.”)

Senate Candidate Mike Sapriacone to Speak at SCOPE Banquet

Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:13:48 GMT

Social Hour 5:00PM – 6:00PM

Dinner – Ray Bros. BBQ 6:00PM – 7:00PM

Cash Bar 5:00PM – 9:00PM

Raffles/Games 5:00PM – 9:00PM

Guest Speakers 7:00PM – 8:30PM

Senate Candidate Mike Sapriacone to Speak at SCOPE Banquet

SCOPE announces that one of our main speakers at the Annual Banquet will be Mike Sapraicone, who is running for the United States Senate opposing Kristin Gillibrand.

With crime and violence as major issues in the campaign, Mike’s experience as an NYPD Detective combatting gang violence, illegal gun trafficking, and leading high-profile homicide investigations makes him a timely candidate. He was at the foundation of the Giuliani crime turnaround in New York City resulting in the most dramatic decrease in crime ever seen in the city.

Sapriacone also has executive experience in the business world as a law enforcement and security expert, who started a 600-employee company providing armed security services to the nation’s largest corporations.

Sapriacone wants to get tougher on criminals. He has come out against New York’s Cashless Bail laws, releasing dangerous criminals back on the street and defunding the police.

Tickets are $65.00 per person

For a printable order form: click HERE

To order with a credit card: click HERE

For information on placing an ad in the program booklet: click HERE

Surgeon General Fronts for Biden/Harris

Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:23:39 GMT

Surgeon General Fronts for Biden/Harris

Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy said, “Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and adolescents.” Both President Biden and Vice President Harris continue to claim that gunshots are the leading cause of death of “children.” Murthy christened the situation as a “public health crisis,” opening the door to use a crisis to impose even more gun control through executive actions.

Are you a bit skeptical of claims by Biden and Harris’ experts? You should be. Remember Fauci and Covid?

In Murthy’s 39-page report, the entire deterrent emphasis is on the gun-control laws already pushed by Biden/Harris: assault-weapons ban; mandatory gunlock laws; and background checks on the private transfer of guns. Not once are the effects of soft-on-crime-prosecutors, defund the police, arrest and conviction rates, bail reform and emptying prisons mentioned by Murthy. Biden / Harris’ experts won’t consider both costs and benefits of firearms. Murthy’s approach will be as counterproductive as many of the experts’ Covid recommendations.

As John Lott puts it, it’s nonsense that “these problems wouldn’t exist if guns weren’t there.” According to Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), “After every gun ban, murder rates have gone up. One would think that just once, out of simple randomness, murder rates would have gone down or remained the same after a ban. But whenever crime data are available from both before and after a ban, we can see that murder rates have risen (often by huge amounts).”

Remember those issues mentioned above that Murthy did not mention? The United Kingdom banned handguns in 1997 and over the next eight years its homicide rate rose by 50 percent. When the police were increased by 14%, the rate returned to earlier levels. But Democrats would defund the police in America, anyway.

Over 90% of violent crimes do not involve guns. Per the CPRC, the following percent of Violent Crimes do NOT Involve guns:

2015 94%

2016 91%

2017 92%

2018 93%

2019 92%

2020 92%

2021 92%

2022 91%

Homicides peaked in 2020 and have come down but the murder rate was still 7 percent higher in 2023 than in 2019. Murthy and Biden blame this increase on the lack of gun control while ignoring the aforementioned defund the police budget cuts, DA’s refusing to prosecute violent criminals, bail reform, and release of prison inmates during the Covid pandemic.

And let’s look a little deeper at Murthy’s (and Biden/Harris’) deceptive definition of children and adolescents.

The age of majority (no longer an adolescent) in 48 states is 18 and yet Murthy’s claim counts 18- and 19-year-olds as adolescents.

For those adolescents and children under 18:

In 2020 there were 2,443 deaths from vehicles and 2,218 from firearms.

In 2021, there were 2,668 vehicle and 2,519 firearm deaths.

In in 2022, the two numbers are virtually tied at 2,528 for vehicles and 2,538 for firearms.

When excluding justifiable homicides that are committed in self-defense by civilians and police, the number of firearm deaths for under 18s falls by more than several hundred.

As people get older, suicides become more prevalent. Even using numbers for those under the age of 20, in 2020, removing suicides would reduce the number of firearm deaths from 4,253 to 2,960 (CDC numbers) or from 3,405 to 2,112 (FBI).

People don’t decide, “I’ve got a gun I think I’ll commit suicide.” They decide to commit suicide and then look for the means. There are many other effective ways to commit suicide besides guns.

And when Biden, Harris and Murthy mention children, they want you to picture young children and not teenagers belonging to gangs. Gang related shootings are significant causes of the deaths of older children.

The surgeon general wants to promote gun control through public health. He should first get his facts and logic right.

Rights for Me but not for Thee

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:15:03 GMT

Rights for Me but not for Thee

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in McDonald v. City of Chicago: “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental. To the contrary, broader constitutional concerns of an institutional nature argue strongly against that treatment.” (Emphasis added.)

According to the Associated Press: “A member of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s security detail shot an armed man during an attempted carjacking in the early morning hours. The deputy pulled out his department-issued gun and shot the man about four times, hitting him in the mouth.”

More per the Associated Press. Per a Secret Service press release: “Secret Service agents protecting President Joe Biden’s granddaughter opened fire after three people tried to break into an unmarked Secret Service vehicle in the nation’s capital. The agents, assigned to protect Naomi Biden, were out with her in the Georgetown neighborhood late Sunday night when they saw the three people breaking a window of the parked and unoccupied SUV.”

SCOPE note: Unoccupied vehicle. They shot to protect property which would have broken a New York State law if it occurred in NY.

Ammoland reports that U.S. Representative Cori Bush (D-Mo) spent nearly $1 million on private security for herself out of campaign funds. She is a strong gun control and defund the police advocate.

SCOPE note: The Washington Examiner reports that: "Squad" Representative Cori Bush (D-MO) is facing a competitive Democratic primary…with the release of a new poll that shows her trailing by 23 points to her challenger.”

Will the Democrats run on more gun control for thee but continue to be protected by armed guards? Bet on it.

Rahimi

Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:45:59 GMT

In the United States vs Rahimi case, Attorney General Merrick Garland hoped to undermine gun rights using a case with an individual who was described as “anything but a poster child for the Second Amendment.” Garland’s goal was to dismantle the ‘historical tradition methodology’ set down in the Bruen case and go back to “tiers of scrutiny” or interest balancing. He failed in that specific attempt even though he technically won the case.

The background:

Zackey Rahimi, who police have described as a drug dealer, allegedly knocked his girlfriend to the ground and slammed her head into a car dashboard during an argument and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone. She got a protective order that required him to stay away from her and barred Rahimi from having guns.

While the protective order was in effect, police say Rahimi allegedly shot into the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger. He also was accused of shooting at another driver after a car accident and three other incidents in which he fired a gun. Police investigating the shootings found several firearms when they executed a search warrant at Rahimi’s home.

Rahimi’s violation of a domestic violence protective order is against federal law. Rahimi’s attorneys appealed his conviction for that offense, arguing that he shouldn’t have been banned from having guns in the first place because that violated his constitutional rights.

Rahimi is not the public face you want when defending gun rights and victims of domestic violence are not sympathetic to him. The deck seemed ‘stacked’ against the 2^nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s decision rejected Rahimi’s argument but protected the Second Amendment as their ruling had a very narrow scope, focusing only on the case’s specific circumstances.

The Supreme Court’s ruled 8-1 against Rahimi. But only because it was justified to temporarily take away Rahimi’s gun rights because he was a ‘credible threat.’ The ‘credible threat’ requirement was not what Garland wanted; he wants to disarm citizens for any felony violation, whether or not the citizen is a ‘credible threat.’ So, the 2^nd Amendment won while Rahimi lost since the ‘credible threat’ requirement was advanced.

8-1 is important. Anti-2Aers cannot claim this was just the conservative wing of the Supreme Court since two liberal wing justices concurred. (Actually, the anti-2Aers will claim otherwise, anyway.)

SCOTUS actual ruling said: “When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”

The domestic violence law fit the tradition of historical firearm regulations: “When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, the individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”

The majority also rejected the federal government’s argument that Rahimi could be deprived of his right to have a gun because he is not a “responsible” citizen. “Responsible,” Roberts wrote, “is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail, and there is no support for such a rule in the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment cases.” The decision also debunked the idea that only “responsible” citizens are entitled to Second Amendment protections. This clarification is a victory against potential abuses in gun licensing regimes that might seek to impose excessive restrictions. (Memo to Kathy Hochul and the NY Legislature: take note of this!)

Rahimi’s philosophy is reflected in other court decisions.

In Garland v. Range, Bryan Range sued the government because he became a prohibited person after pleading guilty to lying about his income to obtain food stamps. The Court stripped him of his gun rights for life. He claimed that the punishment was inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

The lower Court decided for the government, but the full bench of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Range. So did SCOTUS which vacated the decision and remanded the suit back to the Third Circuit. Range was not convicted of a violent crime, and no one claims he is a danger to himself or others. It’s now in the hands of the Third Circuit with direction from SCOTUS.

The United States. v. Daniels challenges the federal prohibition of drug users owning guns. Title 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3) bars an individual from possessing a firearm if he is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance. Patrick Daniels admitted to smoking marihuana multiple days per month. But the government presented no evidence that he was intoxicated at the time of arrest, nor did it identify when he last had used marihuana. Still, based on his confession to regular usage, a jury convicted Daniels.

The Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment. The court explained that the nation’s history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage. Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users. Thus, the court held that as applied to Defendant, then, Section 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with felon gun owners in the case of United States v. Duarte, overturning a federal law that prohibited felons, including non-violent offenders, from possessing firearms. Duarte had five non-violent felony convictions. During a traffic stop, Duarte was found in possession of a firearm, which he attempted to discard. He was subsequently indicted under 18 USC Sec. 922(g)(1), a law which bars felons from owning firearms. Duarte’s argued that this law infringed on his Second Amendment rights.

The court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to all American citizens, including those with non-violent felony convictions. The judges emphasized that the right to bear arms is an individual right belonging to “the people,” which includes Duarte.

The court found no historical tradition supporting a lifelong ban on firearm possession for non-violent felons.

The government had argued that felons are not part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, suggesting that only “virtuous citizens” have this right. The court rejected this argument, highlighting that such an interpretation could extend dangerously to other constitutional rights. (Again, Kathy Hochul and the NY legislature should take note.)

J D Vance and 2A

Fri, 19 Jul 2024 16:08:26 GMT

Politicians should be known by their enemies. If so, Vice Presidential candidate J D Vance is the poster boy for preserving the 2nd Amendment.

Everytown for Gun Safety’s website writes negatively: “He opposed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and supported arming teachers in classrooms.”

The Washington Post reports that “In 2022, Vance said he favored abolishing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which enforces federal gun laws.”

It’s not just his enemies but the things he says that make Vance a 2A favorite.

In an Op-Ed* Vance wrote: “Democrat arguments for gun control rest on a series of falsehoods. Violence in our country is much more about density than guns. That’s why the Biden Administration’s dull attempts to curb gun violence don’t work and they threaten the very foundation of the rights we are afforded as free, American citizens.”

“Biden has also pushed for executive orders that would restrict ‘ghost guns’ and certain types of firearm braces. This is the worst kind of political showmanship: these restrictions will make it harder for law-abiding Ohioans to exercise their Second Amendment rights and neither will have even a small effect on gun violence in our country.”

During his senatorial campaign, Vance vowed to “fight those who confiscate guns, whether it’s federal bureaucrats passing laws or multinational corporations punishing people for exercising their rights.”

Then there are Vance’s friends.

Randy Kozuch, chairman of the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund, released a statement: “President Trump has made an outstanding choice in selecting Senator Vance as his vice presidential pick and running mate in the upcoming election. Senator Vance has been an unwavering supporter of constitutional freedoms, especially the right to keep and bear arms. In the U.S. Senate, he has consistently stood against the Biden-Harris gun control agenda. Between now and November, the NRA and its millions of members will engage with America’s gun owners about the importance of electing the Trump-Vance ticket.”

Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, wrote: “In naming Sen. Vance his running mate for the 2024 election, former President Trump has tapped a strong Second Amendment stalwart and someone who proudly stands with the firearm industry and law-abiding Americans from coast-to-coast who believe in exercising their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.”

We already knew that Trump was a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment but the addition of Vance makes this the most pro 2nd Amendment presidential ticket in history.

Is it enough to engage those gun owners who have sat out past elections and get them to the polls in November? If you know one of these people, you might want to wake them up.

*Columbus Dispatch July 20, 2021

News you might not know about by Tom Rood

Wed, 17 Jul 2024 14:52:04 GMT

SCOPE’s Certificate of Incorporation says it is dedicated: “to the preservation of the United States of America and the Constitution of the United States of America and particularly Article 2 of the Bill of Rights.” Toward that end, the Certificate calls for collecting and disseminating information to “insure that political candidates, as well as elected officials and all government agencies shall continue to preserve to the individual citizens all of their rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution…”

SCOPE is more than just the 2nd Amendment, although that has become our focus.

Since there can be little doubt that the establishment media is more biased than it has ever been, it is important that SCOPE members are made aware of non 2A issues that the establishment media lets slip by, intentionally, that will impact us. Toward that end, Tom Rood has prepared an analysis of a NY Constitutional Amendment that will be on November’s ballot.

News you might not know about by Tom Rood

We all need to be watchful of the smoke and mirrors often used to pass laws that would, normally, never get past informed voters, at least in the following case. Be informed about what we are asked to vote for in November.

The liberal state legislature and governor are trying to pull a fast one on all NY voters. It's buried in the so-called Equal Rights Amendment to the NY State Constitution. It will be on the back side of your ballot for Nov 5th.

The title is designed to attract voters into approving it - who could be against equal rights? Mainly, it's intended to attract liberal voters to vote in November. The libs know they are in deep trouble and are pulling out all stops to derail Trump.

What's in this proposition?

It's an amendment to our NY State Constitution. That means future NY State legislatures and future governors, perhaps of other political persuasions, will be prevented from changing the law without also making a new amendment to the NY Constitution. It will be locked in, nailed to the barn door, whether you like it or not. In other words, it codifies things you might not like and makes them the law of the land.

The funny thing that struck me is that the libs are hell bent to ignore the constitution, so why bother?

Republican legislatures sued to keep it off the ballot and lost- no surprise in NY.

What's hidden in it?

It puts abortion rights into the NY Constitution. Not necessary since New York legalized abortion in 1970 and this law is not under any genuine threat of modification or repeal. But putting abortion on the ballot is expected to bring out pro-abortion Democrats in greater numbers. (But will it also energize anti-abortion voters, too?)

Some of this is to counter the US Supreme Court’s reversal on Roe vs Wade. However, as I read about the court's action on this, the decision was to return the issue to individual states as the federal government does not have the power, under the U S Constitution, to make a national law either for or against abortion.

Here’s the real reason for it.

It expands the scope of discrimination based on race, religion, GENDER, reproductive freedom and protects them from being reversed by changing political tides. It updates the constitution so no New Yorker can be denied their rights based on ethnicity, national origin, disability, SEX (INCLUDING GENDER EXPRESSION), pregnancy or pregnancy outcome, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE and AUTONAMY. I read that last one as healthcare providers having to cover operations like sex changes.

The bottom line- this amendment is vaguely worded for a reason. Among other things it could be used to block parents from having a say whether their children undergo gender reassessment surgery. It might be used to strip parent's legal rights with school age children including controversial gender transformation procedures.

Another oppositional point includes schools being required to permit biological males competing on girls' sports teams or individual sporting contests. And don’t forget coed bathrooms.

If you are in agreement with this proposition, then by all means vote for it. But if it bothers you, you can color in the no box.

They're conservative! They're MAGA! They're pro-2A! And they aren't voting?!

Mon, 15 Jul 2024 20:41:18 GMT

They're conservative! They're MAGA! They're pro-2A! And they aren't voting?!

On Friday SCOPE quoted the Babylon Bee. The following is an article from Not the Bee on July 12th.

Study shows that 10 million gun owners are not registered to vote, including millions of swing state voters.

Gun guys! What is going on?

A new study from Vote4America has revealed that there are 10 million gun owners and hunters in the United States who are not registered to vote!

Talk about a missed opportunity!

The wildest part? Tens of thousands of voters in crucial swing states — the states where the future of legal gun ownership may be decided! — haven't registered to vote:

Hunters and gun owners not registered to vote (per Women for Gun Rights)

Pennsylvania 515,277

Michigan 370,619

N Carolina 370,470

Georgia 350,897

Wisconsin 338,884

Missouri 281,102

Virginia 277,390

Arizona 133,094

Nevada 59,173

Montana 52,233

Half a million Pennsylvanians may be "clinging" to their guns like Obama decried years ago, but, fortunately for the Democrats, they don't show up to the polls!

Then we have Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia all with 300,000+ potential pro-gun voters who aren't going to the polls.

Donald Trump lost these states by a handful of votes! And we've got hundreds of thousands of gun toters who can't bother to register?

Adviser to the group [Vote4America] Baker Leavitt told District of Conservation podcast host Gabriella Hoffman in a recent appearance that the most common response in its outreach to gun owners is the sentiment 'My vote doesn't count, the system is rigged.'

Despite the pessimism, even marginal wins could pay big dividends come November. 'If we could convert 2% of all licensed hunters and get them to vote, GOP would win in a landslide,' Leavitt told Hoffman.

Hoffman noted that 'a lot of hunters and gun owners, they're very animated in social media, they have a lot of opinions, but they don't go out to vote. They talk a great deal, often about preserving your rights, doing this — hunting — but a lot of people don't follow through with voting.'

They're so checked out of the system that they don't realize that their votes — again, tens of thousands of them — could completely change the course of the country!

They're conservative! They're MAGA! They're pro-2A! And they aren't voting.

Gun owners, do us all a favor and get out there and vote!

Note: New York is not considered a “swing state.” But SCOPE estimates that 1.8 million out of 5.0 million gun owners vote. National averages have about 67% of eligible voters actually voting. If 67% of the gun owners in NY State voted that would be an additional 1.5 million votes. NY would become a “swing state” and a huge number of “down ballot” candidates would benefit.

Is the Babylon Bee Satire or News?

Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:53:37 GMT

Is the Babylon Bee Satire or News?

The satire site “The Babylon Bee” reported on July 9th: “With…polls showing GOP candidates building sizeable leads, the Republican Party rushed to implement an emergency platform change after seeing how close they were to winning a landslide victory.”

“Struggles on the Democratic side of the ticket…led to Republicans gaining tremendous momentum in recent weeks, causing leaders to shift gears and push for changes to the GOP platform in hopes of avoiding any decisive wins in November.” (Emphasis added.)

What is The Bee talking about?

“The Reload” reported:

“The Republican National Committee (RNC) Platform Committee voted 84-to-18 on Monday to adopt the new 2024 platform language…However, it also minimized the party’s emphasis on gun policy compared to its previous platform.”

The entire platform discusses gun rights just once, in a preamble statement about the party’s dedication to defending “our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms.” The final product omits any discussion of tangible gun policy ideas.” (Emphasis added.)

The Democrats platform has not yet been announced but in 2020 it was: “Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers, abusive partners, and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check system. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others.”

Given the Democrats actions (which speak louder than words) over the last 3 ½ years, it’s logical that they will promise more of the same in 2024.

Remember how the Republican leadership was able to short circuit a landslide Republican victory in 2022? Are they at it again?

The ‘geniuses’ heading the National Republican Committee must be using the New York State Committee leaders as the advisors, since the NY leaders have been so successful. (Sarcasm intended.)

Are they afraid of offending the anti-gun left and it will not vote for them? Here’s some news; the anti-gun Left is never going to vote Republican! They are amongst the 30% who believe Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are doing a great job.

Many potential Republican voters do not vote and, perhaps, one big reason is that they believe Republicans are not very rabid in supporting traditional, Republican / Conservative positions; like on the 2nd Amendment. And if voters had any doubts, the National Republican Committee just proved the theory.

Perhaps the national leadership is walking softly so they do not offend those Democrats and Independents who might vote Republican. Except, those Democrats and Independents may now be asking themselves - if the Republican leadership cannot be trusted to fight for their own traditional values, why should Democrats and independents trust them?

On the positive side, the party platforms are more P R than substance and much of them rarely get followed. (Although, the Democrats seem to mean their anti-gun rhetoric, which should alarm gun owners.) But the National Republican Committee just gave a big P R victory to the Democrats.

Having vented our frustration at the Republicans, let’s add some perspective.

Don’t forget that Democrats are equally able to make huge mistakes. They were sure that bringing multiple court cases against Donald trump would sink his candidacy and give the Democrats an easy win. How’s that working out?

The Democrats are the mortal enemies of our 2nd Amendment freedoms. They will take away our gun rights through any possible method. If they are in power after November, the 2nd Amendment will only last as long as the current Supreme Court membership lasts.

There are many responsible Republicans who believe in our 2nd Amendment rights and will fight for them. Unfortunately, the national leadership have some convoluted political agenda which works against their own grass roots.

Even though this is New York State, gun owners and any defenders of the 2nd Amendment need to contact their legislators, candidates and Republican County Chairpersons and give them an earful. Let them know we are enraged by the national committee’s actions.

We should remember the example of Winston Churchill who was an ardent anti-communist but supported Stalin and the Soviet Union against Hitler in World War 2. When asked about the hypocrisy of his position, he answered: “If Hitler invaded Hell I would have at least a few good words to say about Satan.” Like the candidate or not, sometimes the lesser evil is necessary to stop pure evil.

The Upcoming Presidential Election – Elections Matter

Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:58:05 GMT

The Upcoming Presidential Election – Elections Matter by John R. Elwood

The upcoming 2024 American Presidential election carries unprecedented significance, potentially shaping the nation’s governance and trajectory for decades to come. Liberal progressives, since Woodrow Wilson’s era, view this as a culmination of over a century’s efforts. In contrast, former President Trump, and the Republican party, championing the Make American Great Again (MAGA) movement, are fighting back. But is it enough? Why is it the most important election in our lifetime? Inflation, immigration, crime, and national security are all important reasons, and all would seem to favor the Republicans. And don’t forget the Second Amendment?

Inflation has surged during the Biden administration. But what exactly is inflation? It is the rate at which prices rise over time. Across America, people from all economic backgrounds – whether upper, middle, or working class – have experienced increases in the cost of everything.

Over the past 40 years, successive presidential administrations have aimed to maintain inflation below 2 percent. At the conclusion of former President Trump’s term, inflation stood at 1.4 percent, the lowest in decades. However, in early 2022 during the Biden administration, inflation soared to 9.1 percent, a level not seen since 1981. And remember, future inflation rates, even if lower, now include that 9% in the base.

This increase can be attributed to two primary factors: escalating energy costs linked to the Green New Deal and substantial fiscal policy measures such as the 1.9 trillion-dollar American Rescue Plan and the 1.750 trillion-dollar Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. As a result, Americans have been experiencing the impact of inflation directly. Grocery prices, for instance, surged by 21 percent since the beginning of 2021 under President Biden’s leadership, marking the highest inflation rate since the Great Depression, in Roosevelt’s era.

Gun owners have certainly noticed that ammo is not immune from these increases.

In the area of illegal immigration, shortly after assuming office, President Joe Biden initiated a policy that resulted in a significant increase in illegal immigration at the southern border. According to the reports, the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States has doubled under his administration, totaling approximately ten million individuals (comprising 8.5 million encounters and 1.5 million individuals who evaded detection). This influx, as noted by Fox News, surpasses the population of 38 states. Many of these illegal immigrants lack work visas and may find employment in the informal economy, including contract labor and potentially in illicit activities. Moreover, the surge in ten million new illegal immigrants is expected to place considerable strain on social services such as healthcare, hospitals and school capacities, thus increasing taxes on American citizens.

With the increase of illegal immigrants into the United States, it is reasonable to think that incidents of crime will increase between illegal incidents and American citizens. Might an increased need for personal protection be another reason to preserve and practice the 2nd Amendment?

According to United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, criminal incidents involving non-citizens such as assault, battery, robbery, theft, fraud, DUI, illegal drug possession, illegal entry and re-entry all saw increases from 2021-2022. Reports from cables news network Breitbart and Representative Troy Nehls, (R-Texas) suggested that Venezuela had released violent prisoners who then crossed into the US via the southern border. Various news media outlets also highlighted instances where American citizens were victims of crimes like rape, murder, extortion, and carjacking committed by illegal immigrants. Among those affected were U.S Representative Henry Cuellar, who was carjacked in Washington D.C., and a Secret Service agent who was robbed in southern California. The U.S. Border Patrol noted 172 encounters in fiscal year 2023 with individuals listed on the federal government’s known or suspected terrorists list, a notable increase from 100 in 2022 and 16 in 2021.

Besides significant domestic issues troubling the country, many experts believe the United States is closer to World War III than ever before. In 2014, in former Defense Secretary Robert Gates book entitled, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War”, Secretary Robert Gates stated, “I think he (Joe Biden) has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

President Biden ordered the complete retreat and withdrawal from Afghanistan on August 30, 2021, marking the end of the 2001-2021 war. The withdrawal was the most embarrassing moment in U.S. miliary history, leaving thousands of Americans and Afghans supporting the war effort behind, and an estimated seven billion dollars’ worth of weapons and equipment including an estimated 48 million dollars’ worth of ammunition. Zelgai Sajad, the former Afghan consul general in New York stated, “The Taliban are feeling power to implement their barbaric rules on the people of Afghanistan.”

Many experts think President Biden’s disastrous retreat and withdrawal from Afghanistan emboldened closer coordination between the “new axis of evil” (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea), and the idea that the United States is the weakest it has been for decades and they believe now is the time to make world-wide changes.

On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine hoping for a quick victory. After a stubborn Ukrainian force blunted Russian efforts, Iran began supplying Russia with advanced drones while North Korea provided thousands of rounds of artillery and is projected to begin deploying troops to Belarus, a Russia ally. Russia continues to bombard Ukraine and take additional ground.

For years, by providing funds and military advisors for their operations, Iran supported its proxy forces: Hamas in Gaza; Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen. During the Trump years (2016-2020), due to U.S. sanctions, Iran did not have the funds to support Hamas’, Hezbollah’, or Houthis’ operations and the middle east remained relatively quiet.

In September 2023, President Biden handed over sixteen billion dollars to Iran. Shortly thereafter, Hamas launched an unprecedented and brutal attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, killing about 1, 200 Israelis and kidnapping approximately 250 hostages. Additionally, Hezbollah started bombarding Israel from the north.

Our foreign enemies are emboldened and our country has been invaded by 10 million people of which we know very little. More reasons why we need the protection of our 2nd Amendment rights.

What is Joe Biden doing about the Second Amendment?

In September 2023, President Biden launched the inaugural White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, aimed at curbing firearm-related incidents. Vice-President Harris oversees the office, and it is led by Stefanie Feldman, a long-time aide of President Biden, and supported by gun violence advocates Greg Jackson and Rob Wilcox. President Biden’s comprehensive gun violence initiative includes:

Prohibiting assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Mandating secure storage of firearms.

Repealing immunity for gun manufacturers from liability.

As gun owners in New York State, is this aligned with your preferences? What are former President Trump’s views on gun policy?

The National Rifle Association (NRA) endorsed President Trump in both 2016, 2020, and recently in 2024. In 2016, President Trump pledged to eliminate gun-free zones in schools and military facilities. His current gun policy proposal advocates for a nationwide right to carry concealed firearms.

The 2024 presidential election is arguably the most crucial of our lifetime. To all New York State gun owners, it is crucial that you participate and VOTE. Our Second Amendment rights hinge on YOUR vote! Your vote ensures that future generations – your sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters – will enjoy the same gun rights we cherish today.

Please get out and VOTE! YOUR VOTE DOES MATTER!

SAVE Act

Wed, 10 Jul 2024 14:53:55 GMT

SAVE Act

On June 27th, SCOPE sent an email about non-citizens voting in elections and the SAVE Act to prevent that*. Tuesday, Constantin Belyayev added his expertise on it and similar issues**. Then, Breitbart had an article about the SAVE Act worth reading. (Below.) Can you guess who is opposing the idea of having to prove you are an American citizen in order to vote?

SCOPE is trying to wake up gun owners that their government is being taken away from them while they sit on the sidelines. Opening our borders to illegal immigrants wasn’t an act of charity; it was a cold and calculated political move to steal the election and America.

Per Breitbart

House Democrats are planning to fight the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, set to be voted on the week of July 15, which would require state election officials to request proof of American citizenship before handing voter registration forms to applicants.

The SAVE Act, which Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) has deemed critical to safeguarding the nation’s elections from foreign influence, would require state election officials to mandate voter registration applicants provide proof of American citizenship.

Such election officials would not be allowed to register applicants to vote in federal elections unless they have handed over proof of American citizenship, which can include a passport or birth certificate.

“Noncitizen voting is a threat to election integrity,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) wrote in a policy brief on the SAVE Act:

Congress must pass the SAVE Act to close the loopholes that have allowed noncitizen voting, to enhance election security, to reduce the risk of foreign election interference, and to restore Americans’ confidence in U.S. elections. [Emphasis added]

House Democrats, though, are preparing a major fight over the issue, according to Axios.

House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) is demanding Democrats vote against the SAVE Act, putting pressure on those who represent swing districts that voted for former President Donald Trump and face tough reelection bids.

A YouGov poll published in July 2022 found that 65 percent of Americans support requiring proof of citizenship to vote in elections — including 48 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of swing voters, and 88 percent of Republicans.

Fewer than 25 percent of Americans oppose requiring proof of citizenship to vote.

*S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Non-Citizen Voting (scopeny2a.org)

**S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Illegal Aliens vs Citizens (scopeny2a.org)

Illegal Aliens vs Citizens

Tue, 09 Jul 2024 14:53:48 GMT

Illegal Aliens vs Citizens by Constantin Belyayev

This article is prompted by a recent (27 June 2024) S.C.O.P.E. mailing entitled “Non-Citizen Voting”. Based on my 20-plus years of immigration enforcement experience I thought I would throw in my 2 cents.

First, a little bit of background. I joined the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in 1996 as a criminal investigator / special agent. My first duty post was in New York City, a common first stop. Shortly thereafter I transferred to an INS office located within the New York State Department of Correctional Services (NYSDOCS), where our mission was to identify and remove incarcerated criminal aliens, legally or illegally present in the U.S. In 1999 I transferred to the Albany, NY, field office, where I remained until my retirement in 2018.

When I first started, INS itself was an agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ). In 2003, right after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the agency’s functions were merged with those of U.S. Customs, formerly of the U.S. Treasury, and transferred to the new department. The new combined agency became the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE) first, and then simply Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as we all know it today. (Word on the street was that the FBI could not suffer any other “bureau” to exist…)

During my career with INS and then with ICE, I was primarily tasked with enforcing criminal and civil statutes dealing with aliens and nationality. In the latter part of my career, I concentrated on cases involving Identity and Benefit Fraud, which concerned various schemes to obtain immigration benefits in the U.S. through fraudulent means.

The subject of non-citizen voting necessarily leads to far too many other collateral issues that could be addressed. To keep it brief and to the point I shall limit my comments to a just a few.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is part of Title 8 of the United States Code (USC), a set of laws which deals with aliens and nationality. The INA contains civil provisions describing prohibited conduct with respect to U.S. immigration laws. Civil provisions of the INA allow for deportation (removal) of aliens who have violated U.S. immigration laws based on a multitude of grounds. They also allow for fines against aliens and U.S. citizens such as employers hiring aliens without work authorization. Criminal provisions of Title 8 and Title 18 (General Crimes) allow for criminal prosecution of aliens and those aiding and abetting them to violate U.S. laws.

With respect to non-citizen voting, several civil INA statutes come to mind immediately:

INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) – Willful Misrepresentation of a Material Fact (making some type of false claim)

INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) or INA 237(a)(3)(D) – False Claim to U.S. Citizenship

INA 212(a)(10)(D) or INA 237(a)(6) – Aliens who Voted Unlawfully

Bear in mind that an alien does not have to be illegally present in the U.S. to be deported (removed) under the above statutes. According to Federal law, only U.S. citizens may vote. And thus, we proceed to the next section involving criminal statutes.

18 USC 911, False Claim to U.S. Citizenship, a felony. The law applies to documented provable oral and written false claims of U.S. citizenship. Even falsely marking a check box on a form stating "U.S. Citizen" could make one chargeable under this law. It is a “bread-and-butter” statute commonly used in immigration enforcement. My colleagues and I used this statute successfully on many occasions. It goes hand in hand with unlawful voting by aliens since to vote, an alien must swear or affirm that he or she is a U.S. citizen. We have seen, in recent times, numerous attempts by local and state governments to “bend the rules” so that non-citizens could vote, but the Federal statutes are quite clear:

18 USC 611, Voting by Aliens, a felony, specifically proscribes voting by aliens in any Federal election.

18 USC 1015, Naturalization, Citizenship, or Alien Registry, specifically subsection (f) makes it unlawful for any alien to vote in any Federal, state, or local election by falsely claiming U.S. citizenship. A violation of this statute is also a felony.

8 USC 1324, Bringing in and Harboring Certain Aliens. Any and every individual or entity, whether governmental or private, whether acting in their official capacity or privately, is subject to this statute. 8 USC 1324 says, in sum and substance, that it is unlawful to conceal, harbor, shield from detection any illegal alien, or to induce any alien to illegally enter into or reside in the U.S. Of course, there are court precedents and case law upon which prosecutors must rely in undertaking any case, and individual exceptions such as law enforcement bringing in informants or witnesses. Also, there is nothing to prevent U.S. Congress from creating a mechanism for aliens to obtain legal status. But if appropriately applied, many members of the current Federal Administration and New York State government could technically be chargeable under this statute. Failure to process incoming aliens for court hearings, clandestine night-time flights bearing aliens into the interior, unsolicited bus runs upstate from New York City, sanctuary policies of any governmental entity, and any similar conduct all qualify for potential evidence of 8 USC 1324.

Of course, the bigger issue under the current Administration is that U.S. Attorneys who are answerable to DOJ would be understandably reluctant to prosecute these and other similar crimes. It is stating the obvious that the Administration wants as many aliens to enter the U.S. as possible in hopes they would vote for the Democratic establishment. Consequently, the next U.S. Attorney who sticks his or her neck out in this manner may just wind up in Alaska prosecuting Innuits for illegal whale poaching or some such thing. Remember, a federal statute (or any other statute) is only as good as the Executive Branch employee who is willing (or allowed) to enforce it.

New York State has gone to great lengths to keep illegal aliens from being detected and dealt with according to law. Here are a few examples:

New York Driver’s License Access and Privacy Act, S. 1747B, commonly known as the Green Light Law, was signed by Governor Cuomo on 17 June 2019 and took effect in New York on 16 December 2019. It allowed illegal aliens to obtain “standard” drivers licenses (not Federally-accepted documents for travel under the REAL ID Act). Moreover, it took away the ability of immigration officials to access New York State motor vehicle records and instituted a requirement that a judicial warrant or subpoena be served for any such requests.

As if this was not enough, this law was yet further amended as part of the 2020 New York State budget, signed by Governor Cuomo on 3 April 2020. The amended version made it a Class E felony for any official of the New York Department of Motor Vehicles (NYSDMV) to provide any DMV records to any agency “that primarily enforces immigration law” (S. 7508B, Part YYY, Section 1, Subdivision 12 (a) and (b)). Some of the other provisions involve informing the individual whose record is being requested and certifying that the record would not be used for immigration enforcement purposes. Effectively, today an ICE agent may no longer conduct a simple license plate check in New York.

New York Protect Our Courts Act, A. 2176A, was signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo 15 December 2020. This law prevents immigration officials from entering any court in New York State in order to effect a civil arrest of an alien without a warrant or for a matter unrelated to the instant court proceeding. By way of explanation, a warrant is not initially required to effect the arrest of an alien on civil (not criminal) grounds of deportability or removability.

New York For All Act, S. 987 / A. 5686, last introduced in 2023. While, thankfully, this measure has not yet passed after being introduced on multiple occasions since 2019, it shows the lengths to which New York State officials are willing to go in order to unlawfully shield the illegal alien population from Federal enforcement efforts. This act would effectively end all cooperation between any New York State employee and any Federal agency which enforces immigration laws with virtually no exceptions.

Sanctuary city and state laws, while not specific to New York, already prevent cooperation between state and Federal law enforcement. A sanctuary state, by its very definition, violates 8 USC 1324 in that it harbors, conceals, and shields from detection illegal aliens. I wouldn’t bet on any U.S. Attorney taking such a case any time soon, however…

Yes, NY State (and the current Federal Administration) have taken great steps to encourage aliens to vote. And while it is still unlawful to do so under Federal law, "workarounds" persist. The affidavit attached to the NY State Voter Registration form is one such clever “workaround”. It does not require the applicant to blatantly lie by claiming some legal status and the ability to vote through U.S. citizenship. It merely allows the applicant to attest to the fact that he/she does not have a Social Security Number. The State does the rest.

Criminal behavior abounds in NY. Good luck getting anyone charged... unless, of course, you happen to possess a scary-looking black rifle legal in most other states. Or those that have been sitting on the sidelines on election day will finally decide to vote.

Talking Points for the Lawsuit Banning Body in Armor in NY State Brought Forth the by Plaintiff Armored Republic Holdings LLC

Mon, 08 Jul 2024 15:28:38 GMT

Talking Points for the Lawsuit Banning Body in Armor in NY State Brought Forth the by Plaintiff Armored Republic Holdings LLC

Armored Republic Holdings LLC (Arizona Company) v s Walter Mosley (NY State Secretary of State, Steven James, Superintendent of the New York State Police, Anne Donnelly, Nassau County District Attorney, and Melinda Katz, Queens County District Attorney.
The lawsuit is a Second Amendment challenge to the State of New York’s statutes and regulations banning the sale, purchase, acquisition, and transfer of body armor to persons who are not in certain “eligible professions”.
The lawsuit is based on the Second and Fourteenth amendments.
The right to keep and bear arms includes/refers to the right to WEAR, BEAR, or CARRY upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.
Body armor is included in the term “arms”
The Challenged Regulations infringe on the rights of New York citizens to keep and bear body armor by prohibiting all, but a select few from lawfully acquiring body armor.
Under the Bruen decision, the defendants must meet their burden by showing that the Challenged Regulations are consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. This is a burden the defendants cannot meet.
Bruen struck down NY’s “Proper Cause” licensing regime for the carry of firearms under which an applicant could only obtain a license to carry a firearm “only if he demonstrated a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general public.
The Challenged Regulations in this case, are worse than the “special need” regime invalidated in Bruen. Unlike in Bruen when an individualized determination was made for each applicant as a person, the Challenged Regulations bar ANYONE from acquiring body armor unless they are employed in an eligible profession.
The inherent right for self-defense is central to the Second Amendment right (Heller). Like the D.C. handgun ban was struck down, NY’s body armor ban amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelming chosen by the American society for that lawful purpose.
The Bruen decision described both weapons and armor as “ARMS”.
History of the Use Body Armor:
- 1181 – King Henry II of England proclaim every free layman to have a shirt of mail, a helmet of some sort, and a lance.
- 1285 – Statute of Winchester – commanded every man have in his house a chainmail shirt, a haubergeon, and a helmet of iron.
- 1328 – Statute of Northampton – demonstrated not only that armor was within the meaning of “arms” but also that armor was possessed by all classes and professions of persons.
- 1511 – King Henry VIII reissued the Statue of Winchester
- 1606 – King James I granted a charter to the Virginia Company for the creation of a settlement. Among the rights granted was the right to acquire “Armour” and all other things useful for their defense.
- 1680 – New York forbad the sale of any amor or weapons to the Indians.
- 1756 - Maryland statute prohibited Roman Catholics from possessing armor.
- 1783 – Connecticut statue made it a capital crime to commit robbery while being armed with any dangerous armour or weapons.
- No law in American history leading up to the ratification of the Second Amendment n 1791 prohibited the acquisition of body armor by persons based on their profession or restricted the lawful acquisition of armor to select professions.
- Body armor was in common use. NY, NC, RI, and VA required citizens to keep various kinds of armor for use in the cavalry as late as 1798; used in the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War.
- 1860s – bullet proof vests were purchasable by the general public, used in the Civil War
- NO LAWS EXIST IN AMERICAN HISTORY THAT PROHIBIT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS FROM ACQUIRING BODY ARMOR OR RESTRICTING THE ABILITY TO ACQUIRE BODY ARMOR TO SELECT PROFESSIONS, UNTIL JULY 2022 WHEN NEW YORK STATE ENACTED THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS.

Statistics for Modern Body Armor Use Today
- Nearly 99.4% of police forces nationwide use some form of body armor when on duty.
- Currently there are millions of body armor products in use among American private citizens for civilian purposes. The overwhelming majority of body armor products are used for lawful purposes such as law enforcement and civilian purposes.
- The FBI also found that 70% of mass-shootings are committed using handguns, but handguns are not banned, yet they are used far more than body armor.

What about the issue of whether an arm is “in common use”/
- Common use is met when at least tens of thousands of an item are in use (Avitabile v Beach) or (Maloney v Singas).
- The ban on stun gunswas reversed in Massachusetts because hundreds of thousands of tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens (Caetano v Massachusetts).
- There are far more body armor products in use among Americans today.

The Challenged Regulations

On June 6, 20233 Governor Hochul signed into law restrictions on the purchase, sale, exchange, and transfer of bullet-proof vests for citizens outside of people in selected professions.

On July 1, 2022, Governor Hochul signed legislation that expanded the scope of these restrictions from applying only to body vests to applying more broadly to all “body armor; went into effect on July 6, 2022.

The Challenged Regulations definition of body armor found in N.Y. Penal 270.20(2) defines “body armor” as any product that is personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire, regardless of whether such product is to be worn alone or is sold as a complement to another product or garment”.

Select professions include Police officers, Peace officers, Persons in the Military or NY National Guard. Additional Professions added include in the Challenged Regulations:
- Armored car guard
- Security guard
- Firefighter
- Emergency medical technician
- Paramedic
- Ambulance driver
- Firearms dealer
- Retailer/salesperson
- Private investigator
- Building safety inspector
- Code enforcement officer
- Firearms instructor
- Professional journalist
- Newscaster
- Nuclear safety officer
- Process server
- Animal control officer
- Federal firearms dealer
- Range safety officer
- Forensic science technician, ballistic examiner
- School building administrator and school district administrator

The first offense is a Class A misdemeanor, every subsequent offense is a Class E felony.

The following categories are not “professions” within the meaning of the Challenged Regulations and are not eligible to acquire body armor and are also categorically ineligible for recognition as a class of persons possible of being designated as an “eligible profession”:
- Member of the People within the meaning of the Second Amendment:
- Law-Abiding American Citizen;
- Taxpayer;
- Stay-at-home parent;
- Retired person;
- Person whose professional career is inactive for reasons other than retirement;
- Disabled person unable to maintain employment in a profession;
- Purchaser of Body Armor Products; And
- Prospective purchaser of Body Armor Products

Summary of the Unconstitutionality of the Challenged Regulations

The provisions of the Challenged Regulations that prohibit the acquisition of body armor by persons not engaged or employed in an eligible profession violate the Second Amendment because they prevent law-abiding American citizens from acquiring, and prevent the sale of arms based on their profession, a prohibition for which there is no historical analogue in this Nation’s traditions of arms regulations.

The provisions of the Challenged Regulations that establish criteria and processes for determining “eligible professions” that may acquire body armor violate the Second Amendment because they expressly exclude from eligibility entire classes of persons from being able to acquire body armor or even to apply for eligibility, a prohibition for which there is no historical analogue in this Nation’s tradition of arms regulation.

The provisions in the Challenged Regulations that require an in-person transfer of body armor violate the Second Amendment because they have the effect of eliminating the ability of law-abiding, responsible citizens to acquire body armor.

Federal law and the law of some states outlaws the possession of body armor by violent felons but provides exemptions for such felons who need body armor for their profession. But the Challenged Regulations treat everyone as a violent felon and allow only certain privileged professions to acquire body armor based on the Secretary of State’s determination that those professions have a special need for it. Like New York’s carry license regime that was invalidated in Bruen, the Challenged Regulations permit New Yorkers to acquire arms “only after demonstrating to government officials some special need.” Therefore, like the regulations that were struck down in Bruen, the Challenged Regulations “violate” the Fourteenth Amendment in that they prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

His lips moved

Tue, 02 Jul 2024 01:32:08 GMT

His lips moved

The usual suspects, the main stream / legacy media were full of headlines about Trump lying during the debate. Actually, much of their reporting ranged from inaccurate to misleading.

So, what about Joe Biden. Not much was reported about his “misstatements.” Let’s put that story straight.

How can you tell Joe Biden is lying? His lips are moving!

Doubt that? Here are a few highlights from last week’s debate.

Biden said "we find ourselves in a situation where when [Trump] was president, he was separating babies from their mothers, put them in cages, making sure that the families were separated."

Biden claimed that Border Patrol endorsed him and his “position” on immigration.

Biden claimed that then resident Donald Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the ‘Unite the Right’ rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, "very fine people."

Biden claimed Trump called veterans “losers and suckers.”

Biden claimed Trump added the most new debt in a single presidential term.

Biden claimed that when he took office, the economy was "flat on its back" at 15% unemployment.

Biden falsely said he is the first president in the past decade to not witness American troops’ deaths overseas.

After the 2020 debates, the LA Times (the most leftist paper on the left coast) corrected the statements blaming Trump for the cages: “The Obama administration did build the cages. The facility…was built with chain-link fencing by the Obama administration in 2014 in a warehouse in Nogales, Ariz.”

Question: Who was the Vice President under Obama when the cages were built?

The National Border Patrol Union reiterated their stance in a short statement posted to X, formerly Twitter: “To be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden.”

Snopes, (which is no fan of Donald Trump or the Conservatives), fact checked this recently, after letting the lie go unchallenged for seven years:

Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.”

Trump: “Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides…I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay?

The “losers and suckers” comments were first mentioned in an article on September 3, 2020 from The Atlantic (which is another far left rag.) Since it was reported two months before the election, consider the source and timing.

Under Trump, the national debt went from $19.6 to $26.9 trillion, an increase of $7.3 trillion. (Take out $3 trillion for the Covid extraordinary expenditures and it would have risen by $4.3 trillion under Trump.)

Under Biden, in 3 years and 7 months, the national debt went from $26.9 to $34.6 trillion. An increase of $7.7 trillion.

By the way, none of the covid spending under Biden was necessary. Before Biden took office, in the third quarter of 2020, the economy grew at a 34.8 percent annual rate. In the fourth quarter, it grew 4.2 percent. But because Biden had campaigned on the lie of an economy in ruins, his administration could not allow the economy to continue to recover on its own. That would have amounted to an acknowledgement that Trump's policies had worked. So, another huge round of stimulus became a political necessity and brought about inflation.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment was at 6% in January 2021.

January 6th was the subject of more “misinformation.”

Jake Tapper asked, "those voters who believed that you violated your constitutional oath through your actions and inaction on January 6, 2021, and worried that you'll do it again," President Biden argued that the former president "encouraged" the January 6th attack. Biden also criticized Trump for inaction on January 6th.

Trump actually said in his speech, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Trump advisor Kash Patel was in a January 3rd meeting where he claims Trump gave his approval for defense officials to communicate to Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi that they were authorized to deploy the National Guard to the District and the U.S. Capitol building amid threats of violence that day. Patel previously told DailyMail.com that the Capitol Police and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser both denied the offer for an armed National Guard presence. (Trump says Bowser denied the offer in writing.)

In a video shot by Pelosi's daughter, Alexandria, while the pair were escaping from the Capitol on January 6, 2021, the former speaker can be seen saying 'Why weren't the National Guard there to begin with?' 'They clearly didn't know, and I take responsibility for not having them just prepared for more,' Pelosi said to her chief of staff Terri McCullough.

Trump attackers point out that the President is in charge of the National guard but Patel and Trump say he had approved their use and only Pelosi needed to agree – which she did not.

Thirteen service members died during the botched U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan on August 26, 2021.

GUN OWNERS - GET OUT AND VOTE

Fri, 28 Jun 2024 21:17:15 GMT

GUN OWNERS - GET OUT AND VOTE

In 2022, Governor Hochul clinched victory in the New York State Governor race with a meager margin of 327,000 votes over Lee Zeldin, in an election that saw only approximately 1.8 million out of an estimated 5-million-gun owners in the state casting their ballots. With New York State boasting a population nearing 20 million, the influence of gun owners in shaping policies such as gun laws becomes evident. Had more gun owners turned out to vote, the landscape of gun legislation, such as the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), would not be as restrictive today, underscoring the potential impact of increased voter participation among gun owners. Why don’t more gun owners vote in New York State?

Gun owners cite several primary reasons for abstaining from voting: lack of interest, dissatisfaction with candidates, voters are too busy, or a belief their votes are inconsequential. The latter concerns are particularly troubling and impactful. It is projected that a mere 20% increase in voter turnout among New York State gun owners in 2022 could have altered the outcome of the gubernatorial election, resulting in Lee Zeldin assuming office and the CCIA not signed into law. New York State gun owners MUST get out and vote in the 2024 election.

America stands on the brink for many reasons. President Biden’s economic policy has the economy faltering, evidenced by a meager 1.3 percent growth in last quarter’s gross domestic product. Job creation is predominantly in the government sector or going to illegal immigrants, exacerbating wage stagnation amid rising inflation. The southern border remains porous, with an estimated 7.6 million illegal immigrants entering since President Biden took office, contributing to escalating crime nationwide. Gun control constitutes a pivotal aspect of President Biden’s agenda.

President Biden seeks to implement stringent gun control measures, including bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, universal background checks, and lifting immunity for gun manufacturers. When will New York State gun owners decide enough is enough and mobilize to vote? What is former President Trump’s platform on guns?

The National Rifle Association (NRA) endorsed Donald Trump on May 20, 2016, and most recently on May 19, 2024. Former President Trump stated, gun owners need to show up and vote; that gun owners have not participated enough in past elections. Former President Trump praised the NRA as the “backbone” of the country, claiming the Second Amendment is “under siege” under President Biden. Former President Trump in his speech to the NRA vowed to protect gun owner’s rights stating, “we need it for safety because the bad guys aren’t giving up their guns and claiming Biden “is coming for your guns.” It comes down to informed citizens voting to realize the country and polices they want.

Elizabeth Willing Powel, who is considered one of the well-connected social figures of Colonial and early Republic Philadelphia, was a close friend of both George and Martha Washington. Upon completion of the Constitution of the United States, Elizabeth Powel ask Benjamin Franklin, "what have we got a republic or a monarchy," to which Benjamin Franklin replied, “A republic if you can keep it’” The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely DEPENDENT upon the active, educated, and informed involvement of the people.

New York State gun owners MUST get out and vote in the 2024 Presidential election and local Congressional political races. Take 10 friends with you to vote. If you must, pick them up and drive them to the polling center. The United States is on the brink of losing it as a republic, and if gun owners don’t vote in greater numbers than in the past, our sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters will not have the same Second Amendment rights you and I do today! GET OUT AND VOTE! The country and our state are depending on YOU! Become a PATRIOT and VOTE!

DONATE HERE

Non-Citizen Voting

Thu, 27 Jun 2024 16:32:35 GMT

Non-Citizen Voting

There is no question that our national borders are open to illegal entry. One big reason for the open-door policy seems to be that Biden and the Democrats want illegals to eventually be able to vote (for Democrats.)

Eventually may be now.

The below comes directly from the New York State Voter Registration Form:

To register you must be a US citizen.

Are you a citizen of the U.S.? Yes No

Verifying your identity:

We’ll try to check your identity before Election Day, through the DMV number (driver’s license number or non-driver ID number), or the last four digits of your social security number, which you’ll fill in below.

If you do not have a DMV or social security number, you may use a valid photo ID, a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or some other government document that shows your name and address. You may include a copy of one of those types of ID with this form— be sure to tape the sides of the form closed. If we are unable to verify your identity before Election Day, you will be asked for ID when you vote for the first time

No Social Security Number? No problem. Just fill out this affidavit that says you have never been issued a Social Security Number. (See link below.)

nss1a.pdf (ny.gov)

In New York State, all you have to do is say you are a citizen but not show any evidence that you are a citizen, only show that you live in NY State. There are multiple ways to prove you live in NYS and they do not involve proving citizenship. NY State also gives out driver’s licenses to illegal aliens without any proof of citizenship.

Are you an illegal alien worried that applying for a driver’s license will get you reported to ICE? No problem. Per NY State’s “Documented” web site:

Will my information be shared with the federal government?

No. The law restricts access by immigration enforcement agencies unless it is required by a judicial order.

Basically, if you are a United States citizen living in New York State and do not want your vote cancelled by that of a non-citizen…you are screwed.

The Federalist offers more information:

Currently, Arizona is the only state that has some mechanism in place besides the honor system to keep foreign nationals from registering to vote. The state requires potential voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in state elections. But thanks to federal government interference, individuals who cannot prove their citizenship for state registration can still register as federal-only voters.

Thus, in Arizona, you must provide proof you are a citizen to vote in Arizona elections but you don’t need that proof to vote in federal elections!

The Federalist does offer some hope.

To find foreign nationals on their voter rolls, states can use two little-known federal statutes to verify whether a registered voter is an American citizen through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), according to America First Legal (AFL).

If requested, AFL contends, DHS is required to provide such information.

AFL first points to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c), which requires the former Immigration and Naturalization Service — which was replaced by the DHS — to “respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.”

AFL also points to 8 U.S.C. § 1644, which states: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.

Accordingly, States and localities should submit requests to DHS to verify the citizenship or immigration status of registered voters on voter rolls where there are any reliable indicators that a voter may not be a U.S. citizen.

In summary, current law makes it illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, but it does NOT require states to obtain documentary proof of U.S. citizenship before an individual registers to vote. So, illegal aliens voting in federal elections is illegal, but the federally-mandated registration process is a sieve and doesn’t prevent it.

There are two things we need to do right now, this year:

1- Be sure our local election board is aware of 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c) and 8 U.S.C. § 1644 and utilizes them to weed out illegal voters. (Of course, there is zero chance that NY City will do this.)

2- Motivating gun owners, who want to preserve the 2nd Amendment protections, to vote in this election is vital in order to offset what must certainly be expected is a flood of illegals voting for Democrats (a party that is unquestionably anti 2nd Amendment.)

Republicans have introduced the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act which would amend the National Voter Registration Act to clarify that states must require proof of citizenship when registering individuals to vote in federal elections. That bill has no chance of becoming law with Biden as President and the Senate in Democrat hands but with a change in 2025 in administrations and the legislature, it could be enacted.

You will be voting for more than just the 2nd Amendment in this election. You will be voting to protect your vote in future elections. We lose this one and we can expect even more laws that negate our votes.

DONATE HERE

Trust the Science

Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:24:24 GMT

Trust the Science

You have probably heard some form of this theory of gun ownership, that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises would be more likely to personally own guns.”

What you already knew - but the Left can’t believe - has now been researched and proven.

In a paper published in the Journal of Men’s Health entitled: Size Matters? Penis Dissatisfaction and Gun Ownership in America . (1)

The study showed that those more satisfied with penis size are more likely to own guns. And not just a gun but multiple guns and also to own “military-style” rifles!

And like most things that the Left is accusing us of, they themselves are doing...

Per the study: “We find that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises are less likely to personally own guns. “(Emphasis added)

So, the Left was maligning us that we were compensating for small penises by owning guns while it’s the Left that is actually compensating for small penises by NOT owning guns! (Instead of owning guns, they compensate by lusting after political power?)

Why waste one’s time researching something silly like this? That’s what’s even more fun. The research was funded by Change the Ref which is an anti-gun organization. From their website: “CHANGE THE REF RAISES AWARENESS ABOUT MASS SHOOTINGS and works to reduce the influence of the NRA and gun manufacturers through strategic interventions and by using art as a form of communication.” I don’t have to wonder what they were hoping would be the conclusion.

Actually, there was an earlier study, too.

In a 2021 paper entitled “Sexual Dysfunction and Gun Ownership in America: When Hard Data Meet a Limp Theory”(2) they concluded that:

“This study, we showed that men experiencing SD (Sexual Dysfunction) are no more likely to own guns than men without SD. Our findings are important because they contribute to our understanding of factors associated with gun ownership by challenging the belief that phallic symbolism and masculinity somehow drive men experiencing SD to purchase guns. Our findings also remind us of the perils of gun culture rhetoric, which is often characterized by misinformation and political propaganda.”

The Left may try to invalidate these studies as the studies constantly use the term “Male” in the traditional sense of those that have a penis. Which would seem to be a necessary part of studying penis dissatisfaction. But, to the Left, a penis is not necessary to be Male.

And statistics show that ‘real’ women are increasingly buying guns. I wonder what the left’s theory is on that?

Notes:

(1)Authored by Terrence D. Hill PhD, Liwen Zeng, PhD, Christopher G. Ellison, PhD, Benjamin Dowd-Arrow, PhD

(2) Authored by Terrence D. Hill, PhD, Benjamin Dowd-Arrow, PhD, Christopher G. Ellison, PhD, Ginny Garcia-Alexander, PhD, John P. Bartkowski, PhD, and Amy M. Burdette, PhD

_____________________________________________________

The Apocalypse is Upon Us

First there were safe spaces to shoot up on drugs or where “progressive” cities would actually furnish syringes.

Then, there was San Francisco which has implemented a free alcohol program for homeless alcoholics as part of a Managed Alcohol Program. Nurses provide clients with enough alcohol to meet their addiction needs while keeping them at a safe level of intoxication. (You can’t make this stuff up.)

3,000 miles away, per Maine Wire on June 13^th, Maine’s taxpayer-funded “harm reduction” specialists call it “boofing” or “booty dumping,” but those are just pleasant euphemisms referring to the practice of sticking heroin, fentanyl, or meth up your butt.

Maine Access Points, a taxpayer-funded nonprofit based in Bangor, as well as the city of Portland’s city-run needle distribution center are both offering extensive how-to guides and — even anal injection kits — to help drug users squirt narcotics into their anuses.

In Portland, the “Portland Public Health Boofing Kit” comes with a needleless syringe and an informational flyer explaining the proper technique for putting drugs up your butt.

Apparently, Portland believes that, if you are going to intentionally leave your border open to drug smuggling, the government should at least provide instructions on how to use the illegal drugs.

New Laws

Thu, 20 Jun 2024 18:54:10 GMT

New Laws

The New York State war on the 2nd Amendment continues. As SCOPE has often pointed out, since NY can’t get 2A repealed, NY State is trying to drive gun shops out of business.

The following bill was passed and has been sent to Kathy Hochul for a signature.

A2882/S6649 requires gun shops to put a warning sign on their buildings. The warning sign would state: “Access to a weapon or firearm in the home significantly increases the risk of suicide, death during domestic disputes, and/or unintentional deaths to children, household members and others. If you or a loved one is experiencing distress and/or depression, call the national suicide prevention lifeline at 988.”

Firearms are now like cigarettes and alcohol, except the latter two aren’t constitutionally protected rights.

The law will be enforced by your local police: “The Provisions Of This Subdivision Shall Be Enforced Within Each Municipality By The Applicable Local Police Force, Including Town, City And Village Police Departments Which Officers Are Authorized To Issue Appearance Tickets. Appearance Tickets Shall Be Served Personally.”

Hey, it’s not like there is a lot of crime happening out there to keep them otherwise occupied.

The penalties for failure to comply: “A Violation Punishable By Imprisonment Of Not More Than Fifteen Days Or By A Fine Of Not More Than One Thousand Dollars, Or Both. Each Day That A Violation Continues Shall Be Deemed A Separate Offense.” (Emphasis added.)

New York is an expert at pyramiding crimes as seen in the Trump trial in NY City.

This will also put business licenses in jeopardy

And don’t cross your local police, they have a get out of jail free card!

“No Licensing Officer, Local Government, Or Any Employee Thereof Shall Be Liable To Any Person By Reason Of Any Injury Or Damage Resulting From The Failure Of “Any Gunsmith Or Firearms Dealer To Comply With This Subdivision Or In Consequence Of Any Act Or Omission In Connection With The Implementation Or Enforcement Of This Subdivision.”

The police will have absolute discretion in performing their duty here and immunity from tortious conduct that may arise from their performance, even intentional misconduct.

Here’s another one waiting for Hochul’s signature.

A9862/S8479 allow financial institutions to assign merchant category codes (MCC’s) to retailers who sell firearms and ammunition, thus allowing these financial institutions to potentially track and/or halt purchases from these retailers.

A9862 & S8479 will require issuers of credit and debit cards to use specific MCC’s for firearms and ammunition merchants.

This legislation will allow financial institutions to distinguish firearm retailers from other general or sporting-goods retailers, as well as allow for the potential creation of a list or registry of privately owned firearms in New York.

In addition, it sets the stage for New York State to pressure retailers, wholesalers, financers and others to withhold firearm related services as the credit card company will have a list of them, based on MCC’s. The state already tried that and was slapped down by the Supreme Court in NRA v Vullo.* But NY State has never let the Supreme Court stand in the way of NY’s lawless pursuit of neutering the 2nd Amendment.

*S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - NRA v Vullo (scopeny2a.org)

More Than Bump Stocks

Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:16:19 GMT

More Than Bump Stocks

Beware of liberal judges, they do not believe in the United States Constitution and will destroy your rights to achieve their goal – which is to destroy your rights. Doubt that? Let’s look at the recent decision on ‘Bump Stocks.’

Some quick background.

Semi-automatic firearms require a separate trigger pull for each shot. Automatic firearms, (machine guns) require only one trigger pull for continuous shooting. This has been the law since 1934.

After a “Bump Stock” was used in a 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued an interpretive rule concluding that "Bump Stocks" are machine guns, even though they require a trigger pull for each shot.

Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works, sued the government after he was forced to surrender several "bump stocks" under the ATF's rule. He argued that ATF incorrectly identified bump stocks as machine guns, and overstepped its power in banning them.

A Texas-based U.S. District Court first approved the ATF rule, but an appeals court overruled it and sent it back to the District Court. The second time around, the District Court judge agreed that the ATF rule was illegal and likely to be rejected by other courts.

Of course, the Biden Administration appealed and the case eventually went to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS.)

The Supreme Court struck down the ATF ban on bump stocks. SCOTUS found that the ATF did not follow federal law when it banned bump stocks. The 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas was joined by fellow conservatives John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

This decision needs in depth examination as it highlights why leftist judges are such a danger to the Constitution.

Justice Clarence Thomas outlined the issue when he wrote, "This tragedy (the Las Vegas shooting) created tremendous political pressure to outlaw bump stocks nationwide. Within days, members of Congress proposed bills to ban ‘bump stocks.’

But the bills did not pass and so did not become law. That’s how the Constitution works! Congress must pass laws to put them in effect.

Instead, the ATF acted and outlawed “Bump Stocks.”

Why did SCOTUS rule against ATF?

In essence, the law Congress passed in 1934 and amended several ties afterwards clearly states that a machine gun requires only one trigger pull for continuous shooting. A ‘Bump Stock’ helps to fire rapidly but requires a separate trigger pull for each shot. A ‘Bump Stock’ does not make a gun into a machine gun as defined in existing law. The ATF violated a law Congress passed.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the majority arguing that the majority got it wrong. That’s fair, to question a decision. Both sides do it, all the time.

But then Sotomayor goes too far when she is quoted as saying that it’s “deeply regrettable” Congress has to act.

At the highest judicial level, liberals like Sotomayor find it ‘deeply regrettable’ that proposed laws - that they like - have to go through the work of being passed by a Congress elected by “We the People’ in order to become laws! They would much prefer their favorite proposals just be enacted by some executive agency appointees without ‘We the People’ having any say. After all, Liberals know best!

This is not the first time Sotomayor has expressed dissatisfaction with the constitutional steps needed to pass a law and prefers executive agency shortcuts. In another dissent, when a Barack Obama executive order was overruled by SCOTUS, Sotomayor complained that the people should not have to wait for Congress to act.

Justice Alito spoke for Conservatives when he wrote a short, separate concurring opinion on ‘Bump Stocks’ to stress that Congress can change the law to equate ‘Bump Stocks’ with machine guns. He doesn’t regret that Congress has to pass a law for it to be in force; it might then reflect the will of the people and not just the will of the liberal elite.

That’s it in a nutshell. Liberals want to bypass the Constitution whenever it’s convenient - for them - and they will rule as such if they can get a majority. The Constitution has no meaning to liberals like Sotomayor when it works against them. Conservatives believe laws should be enacted following the Constitution, whether or not it is convenient.

The way to prevent liberal judges from ‘legislating from the bench’ is to vote. Donald Trump explained it when he spoke at the National Rifle Association's Annual Meeting in Texas about not voting.

"But one thing I'll say, and I say it as friends, we've got to get gun owners to vote, because you know what? I don't know what it is. Perhaps it's a form of rebellion, because you're a rebellious people, aren't you? But gun owners don't vote. What is that all about?"

"If gun owners would vote, we would swamp them at levels that nobody's ever seen before. So, I think you're a rebellious bunch. So, let's be rebellious and vote this time."

Trump Trial Notes

Wed, 12 Jun 2024 19:55:12 GMT

Trump Trial Notes

It is difficult to get the straight story on the current Trump trial since it is loaded with complexities and not completely explained by much of the media (intentionally or not.). For instance, what exactly were the 34 counts that Trump was charged with? After all, at the bottom of this was a $130,000 payment to lawyer Cohen. How did that payment get to be 34 crimes?

To understand, there are two things to remember:

In the corporate world, one does not simply write a check. There is an invoice (bill) and then entries are made into the books (ledgers) and then an actual check is written. It seems that each of those steps was considered a separate “crime.”

And then Cohen was not paid in one check but over several checks written between February 17, 2017 and December 5, 2017. So, each check resulted in multiple crimes repeated multiple times, resulting in 34 crimes.

Here are the first 4 crimes, all revolving around 1 check (emphasis added):

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof:

(Crime 1) made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization;

(Crime 2) made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization;

(Crime 3) made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842460, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization;

(Crime 4) made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account check and check stub dated February 14, 2017, bearing check number 000138, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

Writing one check = four crimes.

Every time a new check was written, add three or four more crimes.

If the whole bill had been paid with one check, there would only be 4 “crimes” and not 34.

The 34 crimes amount to an accounting disagreement as to how the payments were classified. The prosecution claims the checks were falsely labeled as being for legal services. Trump’s lawyers claimed they were properly labeled because Cohen was serving as Trump’s attorney at the time.

Would normal procedure (not involving Donald Trump) have been to negotiate a classification and pay any additional taxes (if there were any?)

Trump was accused of falsification of business records, which only requires someone to have “[made] or [caused] a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.” Under New York law, that crime is a misdemeanor and it had already passed the Statute of Limitations so Trump could not be prosecuted on them, standing alone.

The 34 misdemeanors become felonies if it’s proven the defendant falsified records “with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

What was the second crime that made the misdemeanors into a felony?

Prosecutors alleged that the second crime was against New York’s election law:

Election (ELN) CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE 17, TITLE 1

§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more

persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Emphasis added.)

The second crime, necessary to make the 34 crimes a felony was a misdemeanor that Trump had promoted his election as President.

On November 8th 2016, Trump was elected President.

On January 20th, 2017, Trump was sworn in as President.

The first check and associated entries were not made until February 17th, 2017, after Trump was already President.

How could entries made after Trump was elected and inaugurated have made a difference? If the entries had been labelled “boinking a bimbo porn star”, it would have been embarrassing but would not have affected the election. Labelling them lawyer’s fees had no impact on the election.

Ah, but Cohen cut the check for $130,000 just before the election and, in return, got a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). A conspiracy?

First, Non-Disclosure Agreements are legal agreements. There would not seem to be a crime. The jurors had to determine whether a third crime was committed that made the NDA payment violate the election law.

Second, Cohen testified about a conversation he had with Trump on October 24th^, 2016. But under cross examination, the defense produced text messages that the prosecution had initially hidden from the defense. Why hide them? Well… The text messages written both before and after the phone call showed that the phone call was to Trump bodyguard Keith Schiller and lasted less than two minutes and was about harassing phone calls that Cohen had been getting. Cohen claimed that he knew Trump was with Schiller. The defense says Trump was not there.

In any case, how much could have been said in such a short time about two subjects including an NDA that was legal? Were they discussing a conspiracy about a legal agreement?

Judge Merchan gave the jurors the option of finding that the “unlawful” action that violated the Federal Election Campaign Act was the NDA.

Bradley Alan Smith was initially nominated by President Clinton and served as commissioner, vice chairman, and chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) between 2000 and 2005. He is one of many election law scholars that have written that the NDA was not a violation of the federal election law. He was scheduled to testify as such in the trial, which would have killed this tactic by the prosecution. Judge Merchan ruled that “Smith may not testify…or offer an opinion as to whether the alleged conduct in this case does or does not constitute a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA"). As Smith later explained, "Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me.”

So, Smith could testify but not on the central issue, of which he was an expert. That explanation to the jury was left to Judge Merchan, who was not an expert.

The judge instructed the jurors that they must agree on the first and second crimes—that Trump falsified business records in order to cover up the election crime—for him to be convicted, but they can differ on the third crime, or the “unlawful means” to influence an election. Some jurors could think campaign finance laws were broken and others could think there were tax violations, for instance.

So much for that quaint legal tradition about unanimous decisions.

In summary, the prosecution turned questions about accounting classifications of a legal agreement into the crime of influencing an election, after the election had occurred.

There is much more about this. Serious constitutional issues. For more on them, go to:

Trump Guilty Verdict: “There are some serious constitutional problems with this case” (legalinsurrection.com)

S9137A: So Hunters Don’t Believe Hochul and Company Are Coming For Them

Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:06:54 GMT

S9137A: So Hunters Don’t Believe Hochul and Company Are Coming For Them

Larry DiDonato did a good job of outlining this in Outdoors on June 7th and we reprint it here with his permission.

___________________________________________________

New York gun grab may hurt hunters

The New York State Senate recently passed a bill, S9137A, that bans the open carrying of rifles and shotguns in New York. It defines openly carrying a rifle or shotgun as doing so in a manner that allows the rifle or shotgun, or any portion of it, to be visible to others. Rifles and shotguns are also commonly referred to as “long guns.” The senate states the purpose of the bill is; “…to regulate the open carry of rifles and shotguns with enumerated exceptions in order to promote public safety and align with existing law in other states.”

Sponsor of the long gun carry ban, Deputy Senate Majority Leader, Micheal Gianaris, (D-Queens), said, “Making our communities safe starts with educating gun owners and limiting accessibility to weapons of violence. I am proud we are taking serious steps to tackle this critical issue. We must keep our communities safe and prevent guns from taking more lives.”

I don’t know of any hunter or shooting sports enthusiast who considers firearms used as they enjoy their hobby, a “weapon of violence,” but it’s apparent Sen. Gianaris does.

This bill does nothing to keep our communities safe. Criminals, intent on committing crimes with guns, will not be deterred by this legislation. Plus, long guns are almost never used in the commission of street, turf, gang, and drug fueled shootings, currently ravaging NY’s urban centers.

According to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Of all firearm-related crime reported to the survey, 86% involved handguns. The FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports show that 57% of all murders in 1993 were committed with handguns, 3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns where the type was unknown.”

Later federal studies confirm the trend. When the FBI researched homicides to determine the type of weapon used in homicides committed in the U.S. in 2019, they determined rifles were used in just 2.6%, and shotguns in just 1.4% of those homicides. Handguns, not long guns remain the weapon of choice in most of the homicides committed in the US.

Although the NYS bill banning the open carry of long guns claims to “promote public safety,” it does nothing to address the real issue of crimes committed by criminals with guns in our cities.

The state Senate already passed its version of the long gun carry ban, but its companion bill in the state Assembly, A10052, currently remains in the Assembly Codes Committee.

In an interview with New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) President Tom King, he called upon all concerned citizens, especially hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts to immediately contact their assembly representative, regardless of their party affiliation, to object to passage of this assembly bill. Its imperative legislators hear from constituents expressing their disapproval of needless, harmful legislation that does nothing to fight crime, and makes law abiding long gun owners into criminals simply by carrying hunting and target shooting rifles and shotguns.

Tom King added there’s recently been a deluge of anti-gun and anti-hunting legislation in NY. This bill checks both boxes. It is both anti-lawful gun ownership, and anti-hunting. The NYSRPA president went on to say Democrats have a veto-proof super majority in both the NY senate and assembly and emphasized the most important thing people can do is vote in November. “What we are seeing is the result of losing elections.” Make sure you vote so we can achieve a more balanced legislative body. Call your legislator on this, and other anti-gun and anti-hunting legislation you find objectionable.

While the current Senate and Assembly bills prohibiting the open carry of long guns tout some exemptions for police, military, military re-enactors, etc., in addition to those lawfully engaged in hunting and target shooting, there’s a problem. If you’re hunting and injure a deer for instance, and you track that deer onto posted property with a firearm, that used to be a mere violation in NY and you’d get a ticket for trespass while hunting facing a maximum fine of $250/and/or 15 days in jail. This new law makes the offense a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. The law follows a ridiculous theory established by NY’s CCIA where all NYS landowners must affirmatively post their property ALLOWING carrying of firearms. Otherwise, a hunter with a long gun who trespasses can go to jail for a year after being charged and convicted of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the 4th Degree pursuant to this long gun open carry legislative ban.

How does this bill “promote public safety”? Locking up law-abiding hunters and target shooters who get caught up in loopholes that make them criminally liable for a serious gun charge do nothing to “promote public safety.” In fact, the legislature is defying a federal court ruling that already shot down the provision of NY’s CCIA requiring signage affirmatively permitting those with legal firearms from being guilty of a crime just by going across a private property line. “A federal appeals court has struck down a New York State law requiring private property owners to post signs allowing concealed carry on property open to the public as part of a massive decision dealing with several separate challenges of the Empire State’s post-Bruen gun control legislation.”

Assemblyman Chris Tague (R/C-Schoharie) said, "New York State continues to set the bar for some of the most constitutionally-infringing legislation when it comes to gun rights, and this bill is just another example. It's another attack on responsible gun owners and sportsmen, and should absolutely not be the priority for this government. The fact that the Democrats of this state would rather work on this as opposed to the immediate issues people are facing on the ground, like affordability and the ongoing migrant crisis that is draining this state's resources is frustrating to see. I'd much rather focus our time and energy on those matters."

This statement seems to sum up the frustration of many NY sportsmen, gun owners, in addition to those voiceless victims trapped in high-crime urban areas who seek effective redress to combat crimes committed by criminals with guns.

A resident of Durham, Larry is a retired captain with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

SCOPE Note: With the legislature closed down, hopefully for the year, we can hope this bill was not passed by the Assembly in their flurry of last minute activity. But even if not passed this year, you can bet that a new version will be dialed up by Senate Democrats in January 2025.

Hunters, you have been warned!

NRA v Vullo

Mon, 03 Jun 2024 15:17:38 GMT

NRA v Vullo

The Far Left seems to recognize no boundaries in pursuit of their goals. They expect the public to quietly accept whatever they do, especially since most of the media will not criticize them. The danger the Left is willing to assume is that they may push it too far and create pushback. In the issue before us today, the pushback came from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

Too often we lose sight of those non 2nd Amendment other rights protected by the Constitution. However, sometimes those other rights have an impact on 2A.

Which brings us to the case of National Rifle Association (NRA) v. Vullo.

The NRA sued Maria Vullo—former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS)—alleging that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS regulated parties to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy. As DFS superintendent, Vullo had direct regulatory and enforcement authority over all insurance companies and financial service institutions doing business in New York. She could initiate investigations, refer cases for prosecution, notice civil charges, and enter into consent decrees. Although the NRA was not the directly regulated party here, Vullo used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA’s business partners in the insurance industry.

The facts.

In a 1963 decision in Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, SCOTUS explained that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression” of disfavored speech. SCOTUS ruled that even though a state regulatory commission lacked the “power to apply formal legal sanctions,” the coerced party “reasonably understood” the commission to threaten adverse action, and thus its “compliance with the commission’s directives was not voluntary.”

Fifty five years later, on February 27, 2018, Vullo disregarded the Bantam decision and met with senior executives at Lloyds of London (a huge multinational insurance company) and expressed her views in favor of gun control, and told the Lloyd’s executives “that DFS was less interested in pursuing” infractions unrelated to any NRA business “so long as Lloyd’s ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA.” Vullo and Lloyd’s struck a deal: Lloyd’s “would instruct its syndicates to cease underwriting firearm-related policies and would scale back its NRA-related business,” and “in exchange, DFS would focus its forthcoming insurance enforcement action solely on those syndicates which served the NRA.”

Subsequently, on April 19, 2018, Vullo issued letters entitled, “Guidance on Risk Management Relating to the NRA and Similar Gun Promotion Organizations.” In the Guidance Letters, Vullo “encouraged” DFS-regulated entities to: reevaluate, review and take prompt action on any dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations.

Vullo and Governor Cuomo also issued a joint press release echoing many of the letters’ statements, and “urging all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York” to join those that have already discontinued their arrangements with the NRA.

Fulfilling their part of the bargain, DFS subsequently entered into separate consent decrees with insurance companies that it had been investigating. These companies agreed to not provide any NRA-endorsed insurance programs (even if lawful).

Vullo and the DFS’s lawyers had to be aware of the Bantam decision and know that a government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs in the hopes of persuading others, but she may not use the power of her office to punish or suppress disfavored expression.

But legalities have never been an issue to the left when pursuing their goal of undermining the Constitution.

The NRA sued Vullo alleging that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated parties to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy. Vullo / New York asked the federal courts to dismiss the NRA’s suit.

The District Court denied Vullo’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the NRA plausibly alleged that “the combination of [Vullo’s and Cuomo’s] actions . . . could be interpreted as a veiled threat to regulated industries to disassociate with the NRA or risk DFS enforcement action.”

On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed the District Court decision. It concluded that Vullo’s alleged actions constituted permissible government speech and legitimate law enforcement, and not unconstitutional coercion. The Second Circuit determined that the Guidance Letters and accompanying press release were not unconstitutionally coercive because they “were written in an even handed, nonthreatening tone and employed words intended to persuade rather than intimidate.” (Was the 2nd Circuit reading the same guidance letter and considering Vullo’s meeting with Lloyd’s???)

The NRA appealed to SCOTUS and, last week, SCOTUS overruled the 2nd Circuit decision by a unanimous 9-0 decision. Leftist Justice Sotomayer even wrote the decision. The NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress gun-promotion advocacy.

The judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. (The NRA hasn’t won the actual case but the case is proceeding instead of being dismissed.)

In pushing this obvious violation of the NRA’s 1st Amendment Rights, Vullo and DFS may have opened a Pandora’s Box that the left will not like.

Breitbart Business Digest writes:

“Just as the NRA argued that Vullo's actions violated their rights, fossil fuel companies can now contend that insurance regulators' climate policies do the same. The arguments that the DFS used to pressure insurance companies to drop the NRA are almost the same arguments it has used to pressure companies to divest themselves from fossil fuels and stop insuring fossil fuel projects.”

“Insurers were being told to drop underwriting and investment in fossil fuels because activist "social movements" were likely to demand that they do so. Who needs to pass laws when just the possibility of leftwing activism is enough to trigger regulation?”

Let’s hope that government overreach and weaponization will suffer a significant setback.

Here is another reason why gun owners and lovers of the US Constitution need to vote. The President nominates SCOTUS justices and the Senate confirms them. A left leaning SCOTUS would be a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

Gun Owners’ Non-Votes

Fri, 31 May 2024 19:03:37 GMT

Gun Owners’ Non-Votes

Let’s start with a fact: there is no doubt that the New York Democrat Party is rabidly anti- 2nd Amendment, and especially the NY Democrat governors. Based on their 2A positions, Democrat candidates are not attractive to gun owners.

There is no generally accepted count of gun owners. A few years ago, estimates of gun owners in NY State generally ranged from 4.0 million to 5.5 million. With the surge in gun purchases since Biden became President, it’s reasonable to guess that the numbers now range from 4.5 million to 6 million.*

Let’s use 5 million gun owners in NY State as a conservative estimate for this exercise.

Nationwide surveys have determined that about two-thirds of the people eligible to vote actually do vote on a regular basis. That’s not just eligible registered voters but all possible eligible voters, registered or not.

If NY gun owners voted in the same percentages as the general public, 3.3 million would vote regularly. Two thirds of the 5 million gun owners is 3.3 million.

SCOPE estimates that about 1.8 million gun owners vote regularly.

1.8 million gun owners vote while 3.3 million should vote. The difference is 1.5 million gun owners sitting on the sidelines.

Not all gun owners vote Republican / Conservative. Let’s say 75% ** of gun owners vote Republican / Conservative.

If those 1.5 million non-voters had voted 75% Republican / Conservative, that would have been a net gain of 50%, which is 750 thousand*** Republican / Conservative votes.

Kathy Hochul won in 2022 by less than 400 thousand votes.

Andrew Cuomo won in 2014 by just over 500 thousand votes.

Think about that. If gun owners had voted only at national averages, there would be no Kathy Hochul today and no Andrew Cuomo after 2014.

Lower the split to 70% Republican/Conservative and 30% Democrat and you net a gain of 600 thousand votes. Still enough to eliminate Hochul and Cuomo.

How do we get 1.5 million gun owners off the sideline and into the voting booth?

Notes:

* A May 11, 2024 article in Gun Zone said: “According to recent estimates, there are approximately 5.2 million gun owners in New York State.”

** Why use 75%?

75% of 1.8 million 1.35 million. In recent NY Governor and Presidential elections, the 1.35 million would range from half to way-more-than-half of the total Republican / Conservative votes. Unless you believe that gun owners are the only ones voting Republican / Conservative, 1.35 million is reasonable.

Other studies have shown 30% to 50% of gun owners vote, depending on state. 1.8 million is 36% of 5 million so it is in line.

And usually, more than 75% of statewide Republican / Conservative votes come from Upstate NY, which is where the Republican / Conservative strength is located.

*** 75% R/C votes minus 25% Democrat votes nets a 50% gain in Republican / Conservative votes. 50% of the 1.5 million who didn’t vote is 750 thousand.

TOP 5 MOST EGREGIOUS FIREARMS LEGISLATION CURRENTLY DEBATED IN THE NY STATE LEGISLATURE

Wed, 29 May 2024 23:14:22 GMT

TOP 5 MOST EGREGIOUS FIREARMS LEGISLATIONCURRENTLY DEBATED IN THE NY STATE LEGISLATURE

1. Assembly Bill 08443 – Requires NY Attorney General to bring civil and criminal actions in NY State courts against any NY State resident or the ammunition seller in another state, when ammunition is purchased in another state, and it does not go through NY State’s ammunition background check. Sponsors include 1 democrat; Referred to Codes Committee on January 3, 2024.

2. Senate Bill 8461 – Requires skeet field tracts at shooting ranges to be certain dimensions (300x600 yards); prohibits them from including wetlands or open water sources; directs the department of environmental conservation to promulgate rules regarding environmental stewardship and lead ammo material reclamation.

3.    Senate Bill 00930/Assembly Bill 01566 – Restricts the sale of ammunition to only individuals authorized to possess such a weapon; creates a no gun database under the division of criminal justice services. 13 Sponsors; Referred to the Codes Committee on January 3, 2024.
4.    Assembly Bill 03314 – Requires liability insurance for firearm, rifle, and shotgun owners. Sponsors include five democrats; Referred to Insurance committee on January 3, 2024.

5.    Senate Bill 04150 - Relates to limiting the acquisition of a rifle or shotgun to one every 90-day period. 1 sponsor; Referred to the Consumer Protection Committee on January 3, 2024.

** Bill numbers will change at the start of the next legislative calendar year

SCOPE ACTIONS

Monitors NY State and local governments for gun legislation.
Donates to lawsuits to restore our Second Amendment (2A) rights.
Works with State legislators to sponsor pro 2A legislation.
Rates politicians on 2A actions and supports pro-2A politicians.
Synchronizes with other 2A organizations to increase effectiveness.
Educates politicians and the public on firearms legislation.

___________________________________________________________

For the above information in a printable .pdf format; click HERE

Print and share this information at your club and events~

Contact your representatives!

VOTE!

Mark Twain Strikes Again

Mon, 27 May 2024 18:12:15 GMT

Mark Twain Strikes Again

SCOPE has often quoted Will Rogers for some funny and timeless comments.

Here are some of the same from Mark Twain.

Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.

If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog.

If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re misinformed. (Was Twain a Gannett newspaper subscriber?)

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.(Yep, he was definitely a Gannett subscriber?)

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.

The secret of getting ahead is getting started. (Or as Yogi Berra might have said, 75% of life is just showing up.)

Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn’t do than by the ones you did do. (Was he talking about non-voters?)

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.

Let us endeavor so to live so that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry. (Contrary to the previous saying.)

Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great. (Isn’t being great contrary to Equity in Outcomes?)

And if you think only Mark Twain had a sense of humor:
And to show New York State has the same sense of humor as California:
If Twain were still alive, he would agree with the following:
And finally, trust San Francisco to be on the cutting edge of crazy. Remember the controversy when liberal cities like S.F. created areas for drug addicts to shoot up and began giving out free syringes. One could almost predict where this will go. San Francisco now spends $2 million a year (or maybe $5 million) on a “Managed Alcohol Program.” It provides free Alcohol to people struggling with chronic alcoholism who are mostly homeless. Nurses dispense “controlled doses” of vodka and beer to street people at specific times of the day.

Joshua Trees are a species supposedly threatened by “climate change.” A 2013 study concluded that, as temperatures rise and conditions become drier, it is anticipated that the available habitat for Joshua trees will diminish by as much as 90 percent.

Solar power is viewed as an answer to “climate change.”

4,200 Joshua trees are scheduled to be removed and replaced by solar panels for the Aratina Solar Project near Boron, CA in June of this year.

NY State has been doing everything possible to drive up the cost of electricity. NY’s goals include cutting electricity use by raising the price and making solar generated electricity more competitive by raising the cost of fossil fuel generated electricity. In the recent electric bill, there is a credit which is explained as, “This credit is part of New York State’s ongoing efforts to support energy affordability.”

No one will ever accuse the NY State government of being consistent.

If you are okay with having Joe Biden tell you how to raise your children, consider how Hunter turned out.

We picked a bad generation to start WW3. They can’t even fight anxiety over being called the wrong pronoun.

Memorial Day

Fri, 24 May 2024 17:20:42 GMT

Memorial Day

I read an article by a man who was in a Nazi death camp as a child. He remembered that towards the end of the war, the prisoners were deathly afraid that the guards would execute them. So, when the prisoners were loaded into a box car, they were terrified.

The boy’s father peered through the slats in the side of the car to see what was happening and when he said “there are armed men coming down the road”, there was panic.

But then he said…“It’s the Americans.”

Other than “He is risen,” no three words have ever meant as much to so many people as, “It’s the Americans.”

On the 40th anniversary of D-Day, Ronald Reagan spoke at Point Du Hoc, which is a cliff on the Normandy coast. On D-Day, U S Army rangers scaled that cliff under murderous fire. They took great casualties, but they took the cliff. 40 years later, in front of Reagan were the living survivors of those rangers. Reagan praised them and by extension, all the many victories for freedom that “it’s the Americans” have led.

Reagan said, “Behind me is a monument that symbolizes the daggers, thrust into the top of the cliff by the army rangers. And in front of me are the men who put them there.”

“You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.”

“It’s the Americans” who came on D-Day to Point Du Hoc and the liberation of Europe had begun.

In the American Revolution, 31,000 soldiers and sailors died. They died for a country that didn’t exist and they would never see.

In World War II, 405,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen died. As Reagan said, they came “to liberate, not to conquer.”

In all wars, a total of 1,354,000 Americans have died and another 1,498,000 were wounded.

Remember when we proudly said: “I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That’s what Americans died for.

America was not founded on slavery. The pilgrims and puritans came here for religious freedom. That’s what Americans died for.

Before our Constitution, people were “servants of the king” - not citizens. 11 score and 15 years ago, that changed. That’s what Americans died for.

But the song also gave a reason to fight: so “My heart will lie peaceful and calm when I’m laid to my rest….and the world will be better for this.”

Those 1,354,000 Americans who were killed have hearts lying peacefully and calm. The world was better for them having lived.

It’s a fair statement that everyone now living will eventually be laid to their rest. Will hearts lie peaceful and calm because they did their duty? Will the world be better for them having lived?

America is the last best hope of mankind and worthy of our efforts, past and present, to preserve it.

There is much to be proud of in our history, but there are now foreign and domestic enemies that would destroy the values, traditions and our very Constitution. In doing so, they also sully the cherished memory of those we honor.

We didn’t ask for this fight to preserve what they died for, but it has been thrown upon us by those that don’t learn from history or try to twist it for their own purposes.

The same questions echo across the years for all those called to duty in defense of our nation and our values: We didn’t ask for this fight, but if not us… who? If not now…when?

We must rise to the challenge so generations yet unborn will remember that whenever our country and all of mankind was threatened, it’s the Americans who rose up to defend it. And the government of the people, by the people and for the people did not perish from the earth.

And those future generations will proudly say the same words I end this: God bless the United States of America and all those who died to preserve that nation.

Crime Going Down?

Thu, 16 May 2024 15:57:05 GMT

Crime Going Down?

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) published an interesting study covering an 8 years period.

Percent of Violent Crime NOT Involving Guns:

2015 94%

2016 91%

2017 92%

2018 93%

2019 92%

2020 92%

2021 92%

2022 91%

But, but, but, Joe Biden and his Democrat minions say the answer to violent crime is more gun control, even though less than 10% of violent crimes involve guns. Could they be misleading us in order to promote their policies of disarming law-abiding citizens? Why not go after the other 90+%?

A SCOPE member sent the above to us. In researching the background, we found some other interesting information.

The U.S. employs two distinct measures of crime:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting program counts the number of crimes reported to police annually.

The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, in its National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), asks 240,000 people a year whether they have been victims of a crime.

The two measures have diverged since 2020: The FBI has reported less crime, while the NCVS reports that more people say they have been victims.

Taking advantage of this statistical difference, in his State of the Union address this year, President Joe Biden proclaimed: “America is safer today than when I took office…last year, the murder rate saw the sharpest decrease in history, and violent crime fell to one of the lowest levels in more than 50 years.”

Did Joe do battle with the truth (again)? Why the difference?

Several large cities no longer report crime statistics to the FBI. As the Washington Examiner notes: “In 2019, 89% of agencies covering 97% of the population submitted data, but by 2021, that coverage plummeted to less than 63% of departments overseeing just 65% of the population.“ Included in those that no longer report to the FBI are New York City and Los Angeles.

In addition, the CPRC says that FBI is undercounting crimes. The CPRC cited discrepancies in reports from cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee and Nashville. The CPRC stated: “This trend is consistent across the board: While 2022’s FBI city-level figures track the police’s own data, the 2023 numbers consistently undercount offense totals. Any year-to-year comparison overstates decline.”

Basically, any year-to-year comparison of crime by the FBI is no longer valid since the basis of comparison has radically changed. Which means Biden’s statement about the decrease in crime is not valid and the general public perception that crime is an increasing problem is backed up by the National Crime Victimization Survey. Per CPRC: “While the violent crime rate reported to police fell by 1.7% between 2021 and 2022, the National Crime Victimization Survey shows that total violent crime (reported and non-reported) rose from 16.5 to 23.5 per 100,000.”

(Put another less gentle way, the general public has a better grasp of the issue than Biden and the Democrats.)

There is also another big problem with using the FBI Uniform Crime Report data on crimes reported to police because victims don’t report many crimes.

Why is that?

Per CPRC: “The number of crimes reported to police falls as the arrest rate declines. If people don’t think the police will solve their cases, they are less likely to report them to the police.” (Emphasis added.)

The DOJ Crime Victimization report affirms the CPRC statement, but buries it: “Victims may not report a crime for a variety of reasons, including fear of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble, believing that police would not or could not do anything to help, and believing the crime to be a personal issue or too trivial to report.”

If people don’t report crimes because they do not believe anything positive will come of it, is that a reflection on the “soft-on-crime policies of the Left? And if that is so, could those policies be the reason why liberal media fails to cover non reporting of crime as a reason for the statistical (but not real) drop in crime.

Put another way: do you believe Joe Biden or your lying eyes?

NY Senate Proposed Bill S9225

Tue, 14 May 2024 13:09:32 GMT

NY Senate Proposed Bill S9225

Per Subdivision 1 of section 265.00 of the NY penal law:

“Machine-gun" means any weapon…from which a number of shots or bullets may be rapidly or automatically discharged from a magazine with one continuous pull of the trigger...”

Sounds like the classic definition of an automatic weapon which is commonly referred to as a “machine gun”.

Under proposed NY Senate bill S9225, included the definition of a machine gun will now be “any convertible pistol that is equipped with a pistol converter. A "Pistol converter" means any device (that) enables the pistol to discharge a number of shots or bullets rapidly or automatically with one continuous pull of the trigger.”)

Hard to argue that if one makes a semi-automatic into an automatic, it becomes a “machine gun”. (For example, if you pour alcohol into a glass of 7 Up, it is no longer a soda and has become an alcoholic drink, so S9225 isn’t exactly forging new law – in that case.)

However, S9225 goes too far – way too far…

S9225 also says “Convertible pistol" means any semi-automatic pistol that can be converted into a machine-gun solely by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter.”

If you own a semi-automatic pistol that can potentially be converted into an automatic pistol (but is not converted and is still a semi-automatic weapon) you now have a “machine gun” under S9225 - even though it is not a machine gun.

(Using the previous example, if one has a glass of only 7 Up, is it an alcoholic drink because it can be converted into an alcoholic drink by adding another ingredient? Under the principle in S9225, the answer would be yes, it is an alcoholic drink.)

Apparently, there is already in existence a “Glock switch” that can convert Glock semi-automatics into automatics. So, if this became law, all Glocks - including those unaltered weapons that are currently owned - would become “Machine guns” and the owners would become felons.

At any point in the future, potentially, every semi-automatic pistol could be made illegal if some inventor finds a way to convert them to fire automatically.

This follows in the path of many democrat efforts to make people responsible for what other people do, in order to strike at the 2^nd Amendment’s guaranteed rights.

SCOPE recently wrote about the lawsuit against an FFL (Vintage Firearms) where the owner is accused of selling an illegal “Assault Weapon” because the buyer later drilled out the fixed magazine of a legal weapon and converted it to an illegal weapon.

And of course, the left wants manufacturers to be responsible for lawfully sold weapons that are someday used illegally, even though the manufacturer obeyed all laws in making and selling the weapons.

What’s the penalty under S9225?

“Any person, dealer, firm, partnership, or corporation who disposes of or who transports or ships as merchandise a convertible pistol is guilty of a class D felony.”

Senator Zellnor Myrie of the 20th Senate District (Brooklyn) is the sponsor of this bill. Three guesses what political party he belongs to? (And if you guess wrong, you probably also wonder what religion the Pope belongs to.)

If you own a semi-automatic pistol – or you care about your 2^nd Amendment rights – it might be worth your while to contact your state legislator and express your distaste / concern / outraged indignation over S9225. The right you save may be your own!

One closing thought:

The Crime Prevention Research Center has often pointed out that television crime shows seem to think criminals constantly use machine guns to commit crime. The reality is that the use of machine guns is so rare that it is statistically insignificant.

But Senator Myrie is hot-on-the-trail of anything insignificant.

Link to actual bill: Bill Search and Legislative Information | New York State Assembly

Driving Firearms Manufacturers Out Of Business

Mon, 13 May 2024 20:50:51 GMT

Driving Firearms Manufacturers Out Of Business

On October 27th, 2023, a “90-day pause” to examine firearm export policy was announced by the Biden Administration. (If my calendar is correct, the 90 days pause has lasted over 180 days.)

Exporting firearms from the U.S. involves two major entities: the U.S. Department of State controls exports of guns that are “inherently for military end use;” and the U.S. Commerce Department controls exports of guns that do not fit this category.

Under a just announced “Interim Final Rule” published by Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the “pause” is going to become permanent policy. The export freezes sought by the Biden administration will be permanent.

Hiding under the cover story of U.S. national security, this rule is intended to hobble the firearms industry’s ability to compete in the international market by eliminating export sales of firearms (by Americans) and, the Biden Administration hopes, make the firearms’ business less financially viable.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) estimates that the total economic impact of the Interim Final Rule easily exceeds $250 million to U.S. manufacturers and exporters, which is well above the low estimates BIS has been telling Congress.

The public can comment on the Interim Final Rule until July 1st.

The Interim Final Rule is scheduled to take effect May 30, 2024.

To intimidate exporters, under the Interim Final Rule, firearm export licenses will be reduced from four years to just one year. (This has been a favorite tactic of Democrats since Franklin Roosevelt and his FCC tried to intimidate radio stations that dared to criticize FDR by dramatically shortening their licensing period.)

And there are foreign policy concerns (because the Biden Administration has been so successful in its foreign policy initiatives.)

License applications will consider foreign policy, national security risk factors, government corruption (ours or theirs?), diversion of firearms and human rights abuses, among other criteria. (Sounds like something Letitia James would have thought up.)

There will be a presumption of denial for firearm export licenses to those countries identified by the State Department as “at risk,” which include 36 countries – mostly in Latin America, the Caribbean and Southeast Asian countries.

All previously approved firearm export licenses to “high risk” countries will be revoked 60 days after with the Interim Final Rule takes effect, in 2024

Will it make the world safer? Nah! Other countries are more than happy to fill the void and enjoy the sales revenue. (Kinda like Biden’s policies on oil and natural gas.)

Constitutional protections are relatively weaker in firearm exports than in sales of firearms to U.S. citizens. Executive authority is relatively greater in foreign affairs so the Biden administration takes advantage of this to weaken firearms manufacturers and drive them out of business.

Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel said this:.

“The enmity of the Biden administration against the firearm industry and Second Amendment rights is without parallel. This is deeply troubling the lengths to which this administration will go to turn the levers of government against a Constitutionally-protected industry in order to cozy up to special-interest gun control donors.”

Is he saying Biden is catering to one branch of the Democrat Party in an election year by attacking firearms? Is there any evidence that he does this sort of electioneering with other groups? Say, forgiving student loans or reparations to blacks? (Sarcasm intended.)

Keane also said: These “policies that would strike at the heart of the ability of this industry to stay in business. This has been the end goal since President Biden said from the Democratic debate stage that ‘firearm manufacturers are the enemy.’ This is a wholesale attack on the industry that provides the means for Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights.”

Remember when Biden came to office as a self-proclaimed uniter? An American industry is his “enemy.” That’s uniting?

Export licensing may seem distant from the usual 2nd Amendment issues but the Biden administration will use every power, constitutional or not, to achieve its far-left goals, which includes destroying 2nd Amendment rights.

Court Cases and the NRA Elections

Sat, 11 May 2024 00:25:55 GMT

Court Cases and the NRA Elections

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has denied a preliminary injunction to stop NY’s law requiring background checks for ammunition sales. By denying the motion for a preliminary injunction, that means that ammo background checks will stay in effect while the actual litigation against it is decided in court.

The case arose because, under NY State’s 2022’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act, (CCIA) the state police established a statewide license and record database specific for ammunition sales. Background checks for ammunition are run by state police and also incur a fee of $2.50.

In the finding to uphold CCIA, Judge Geraci cited a colonial Virginia statute dating back to 1756, which prohibited Catholics from owning or possessing arms. This historical precedent, according to Geraci, reflects a longstanding “national tradition” of restricting access to firearms for individuals deemed dangerous or unfit.

Note: The 1756 statute targeted a specific religious group during a time of war, while the CCIA applies to all ammunition buyers. This citing is in the tradition of many of the ‘historical’ gun bans that are traceable back to the post-civil war Jim Crow days and were aimed at disarming blacks.

In California, the case of Nguyen v Bonta is a challenge to California’s one gun purchase per month law.

In March, Judge William Q. Hayes of the United States District Court, Southern District of California ruled the law violated the text of the Second Amendment and there were no reasonable analogies in the relevant legal history of the United States.

Judge Hayes, stayed his decision for 30 days to allow defendants to appeal to California’s liberal-leaning 9th Circuit

The case was sent to be heard by a three judge administrative panel of the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit has not been friendly to Second Amendment cases. Any rulings by three-judge panels on the Ninth Circuit that are favorable to the Second Amendment, have all been reversed by the entire court.

Note: If California is successful, can New York be far behind?

__________________________________________________________________

The case of Bevis v Naperville involves ‘assault weapons’ bans by both Naperville and the State of Illinois.

A district court in Southern Illinois found the ban unconstitutional.

A federal district court in Chicago and overturned the district court’s ruling and found the ban was constitutional.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the federal district court, ruling that AR-15s are NOT protected by the Second Amendment. The decision was made by a three-judge panel, with two judges finding similarities between AR-15s and M16s, and one judge dissenting.

Note: Similar in cosmetic ways but not the same in any substantial way.

In dissent, Judge Michael P. Brennan said, “Because the banned firearms and magazines warrant constitutional protection, and the government parties have failed to meet their burden to show that their bans are part of the history and tradition of firearms regulation, preliminary injunctions are justified against enforcement of the challenged laws.”

The two judges finding the ban legal said, “even the most important personal freedoms have their limits...Government…may condition free assembly on the issuance of a permit; it may require voters to present a valid identification card…The right enshrined in the Second Amendment is no different.”

Note: Getting a permit or a license is not the same as banning something altogether.

_____________________________________________________________

NRA Board of Directors election results are in and four reform candidates were elected, each winning a 3-year seat.

Judge Phil Journey and Rocky Marshall, who got on the ballot via petition of the members, were elected. Wayne Anthony Ross of Alaska, a former Vice President who’s been on the Board since 1980 was reelected. Jeff Knox was also elected.

The ‘reformers’ are only 4 Directors among 76, which means they will probably have no real power or influence. But…

It’s notable that candidates who did NOT get elected included long-time Director Joel Friedman, as well as two past-presidents, John Sigler and David Keene. Friedman and Keene were vocal defenders of Wayne LaPierre.

The NRA is a thousand pound gorilla in defense of 2A and it is vital that they get past their current problems and can concentrate on defending 2A.

Is It A Scam?

Mon, 06 May 2024 16:11:14 GMT

Is It A Scam?

It seems whenever there are good intentions, there is someone trying to use those intentions in a scam to make money.

Ammoland recently carried an article by Chris Lee, the Midwest Director of Government Relations – State Affairs for NSSF, the firearms industry trade association. The NSSF is a legitimate 2A group with numerous lawsuits in defense of 2A.

Lee lives in Indiana and is, obviously, active in that state’s politics. He wrote in Ammoland about a new ‘No Compromise’ 2A group in Indiana called the “Indiana Firearms Coalition” which claims to be “Indiana’s biggest and most powerful gun group.” [www.indianafirearmscoalition.org]

The problem is, neither Lee nor any of his political contacts had ever come into contact with the ‘biggest and most powerful gun group’ in Indiana: “…in all the time I spend at the statehouse, I’ve never seen them there.”

Lee states that the Dorr brothers are behind a network of 24 organizations. The typical comments about them is their fund raising efforts and taking credit for legislation they had nothing to do with.

The following are three articles about these groups and the brothers behind them.

Exposing the Dorr Brother Scams

Patriots Beware Of New Scam ‘No Compromise’ 2A Group In Hoosier State (ammoland.com)

"Ohio Gun Owners" is not here to help | Buckeye Firearms Association

According to the first article, the Dorr’s have two organizations in NY State:

New York State Firearms Association

New Yorkers Against Excessive Quarantine

And for our friends south of the border:

Pennsylvania Firearms Association

Pennsylvanians Against Excessive Quarantine

NSSF is a legitimate 2A organization and is a trade organization for businesses engaged in 2A operations. It is not competing for membership against any of the Dorr Brothers Organizations, so there is no apparent self-serving reason for Lee to have written what he did.

There are many 2A organizations and SCOPE tries to avoid criticizing other 2A groups as we should all be in this together, for the same goal, which is not to enrich ourselves.

SCOPE does not take a position on this other than informing 2A defenders that they need to look closely at organizations and decide for themselves before they donate.

Highlights 2024

Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:35:32 GMT

Highlights 2024

SCOPE defends the 2nd Amendment and the entire Constitution at both the state and local level. Our chapters give us a local connection that very few statewide organizations have developed. The chapter Chairpersons make up the state Board of Directors so there is a close relationship.

The following are a few of the past year’s highlights:

Donations to help fund 2A Lawsuits

GOA - $16,000+ from state, chapters and members

2nd Amendment Foundation - $6,000 from Steuben Chapter

Vintage Firearms – $6,000 from state SCOPE

Financial Support

High School Trap and Skeet Teams – Multiple Chapters support teams

Armed Women of America – Steuben Chapter supports

$5,000 from state SCOPE to Steuben Chapter for get-out-the-vote campaign

Miscellaneous other chapter support

Petitions

Repeal the Ammo background check

Support

SCOPE sent letter supporting NY Citizens Audit

Bill Proposed by SCOPE and introduced into NYS Senate by Senator

S8609 Open Carry

Monroe Chapter sends a letter to a legislator at every meeting

Jefferson Lewis sponsored the play The American Soldier

Educate and Inform are our central goals

Firing Lines bimonthly (distributed beyond membership)

Emails to members on current issues 3-4 times per week (many are passed on & quoted)

Speakers at Chapter meetings, Members Meeting and Banquet

NY Citizens Audit

Legislators

Voter Registration officials

County Clerks

Sheriffs

Judges

Candidates

District Attorneys

Special Interests

Chapters attend Fairs, gun shows, etc.

Political Contacts

State officers and chapter chairpersons develop relationships at both the state and county levels.

Member Support

Research questions for members

Letters to Editors by Members

Strategic 2A Huddle

Multiple 2A organizations working together

Quarterly gun raffles to raise funds for activities

Planning for this November’s Election

Research & publicize candidates

Rate Candidates

Outdoor News ads

Distribute e mails to media

Op Eds

Interviews

Advertising

Chapters have candidates to meetings

Candidates attend SCOPE Annual Banquet in September

SCOPE is a volunteer organization, we have only one employee.

State and chapter officers volunteer their time and money to support 2A

2 Items: HR 6492 / The Bataan Death March

Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:53:13 GMT

HR 6492 / The Bataan Death March

1.) HR 6492 "To improve recreation opportunities on, and facilitate greater access to, Federal public land, and for other purposes."

The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 6492, the Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences (EXPLORE) Act. The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), garnered 51 bipartisan cosponsors. The measure was approved in a voice vote, a rare demonstration of Congress working across party lines.

The EXPLORE Act must be approved by the U.S. Senate before it can be considered by President Joe Biden.

The bill includes the Range Access Act, which would increase and improve outdoor recreation opportunities across the nation while improving infrastructure and driving economic growth in rural communities.

Specifically, that portion of the bill would require the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to have at least one qualifying recreational shooting range in each National Forest and BLM district which is crucial to ensuring safe public recreational shooting. The EXPLORE Act also contains other provisions to improve hunting and recreational shooting access.

Congress Giveth and New York Taketh Away

NY Senate bill S8461A introduced by Senator Harckham (D. District 40 – Peekskill & east) is aimed at driving Rod & Gun clubs and any shooting ranges out of business in the name of preventing ‘lead migration’.

Outdoor shooting ranges and skeet / clay / trap fields will need to be at least 300 yards wide to the left, to the right and forward.

No portion of a skeet field tract shall include a wetland or open water source.

Ranges will need to do lead reclamation and report on it under very bureaucratic guidelines but as yet undetermined specific rules.

If unable to comply with the requirements, the range shall construct and maintain appropriate backstops to prevent lead migration outside of the designated skeet field tract. Such backstops shall be constructed of material that effectively captures bullets and shall be covered by a roof to prevent precipitation from eroding such backstops.

1^st violation is $1,000 per day fine and 2^nd violation is $2,500 per day fine.

The bill is currently in the Environmental Conservation Committee but it more accurately would be in the Gun Grabbers Committee.

If you enjoy a shooting range, you might consider doing what the next SCOPE member did.

Letter to Legislature

A SCOPE member sent the following letter to his State Senator and Assemblyperson with a copy to Kathy Hochul. We need more people to do this to let legislators know where we stand and remind them that we are watching.

Dear Representatives,

I value my life and will not travel nor spend money in New Youk City. This is an area of New York State that is a cesspool of violent crime with no deterrent to correct the problem. Bill O’Reilly states how dangerous it is on the streets and in the subways. Other news networks often show footage of innocent victims brutally assaulted and pushed into whatever. I fail to understand how any police office can go to work and do their job, because the courts and the mayor fail to support what they do.

Two legislators are sponsoring legislation A03855 and S05763. These bills are another assault on the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. Tennessee’s Senate passed a bill for teachers to carry concealed firearms in school K-12. Society is looking for alternatives to protect life. All the legislation on gun controlhas not helped. Now these two legislators along with many others want to turn upstate NY into a community just like NY City.

Gov. K Hochul awarded $ 12 million to address our mental health issues. We’ll be watching to see if these resources help. We should be addressing our drug issues as well. Correct the health issues and most of the gun problems will go away.

Think how to resolve problems.

NOTE from SCOPE: A3855 and S5763 establish “additional requirements to purchase a firearm, shotgun or rifle.”
______________________________________________________

2.) Bataan Death March

Scope tries to remind you of important historical anniversaries. We missed one, last week, but thanks to Tom Shepstone of Energy Security and Freedom for reminding us.

During World War II, on April 9, 1942, 75,000 American and Filipino soldiers surrendered to Japanese forces after months of battling in the Philippines. These soldiers, including members of the 200th Coast Artillery from the New Mexico National Guard, endured extreme conditions, defending Luzon and Corregidor with outdated equipment and limited supplies.

Following their surrender, from April 9th through the 17th, the prisoners faced horrific treatment as POW’s, enduring deprivation and a grueling 65-mile march known as the Bataan Death March, where it is estimated between 5,500 and 18,650 died. The march was marked by severe physical abuse and wanton killings. POWs who fell or were caught on the ground were shot.

The POWs wouldn’t see freedom until 1945, when U.S.-Filipino forces recaptured the Philippines, yet many suffered health complications or perished after liberation. This event profoundly impacted New Mexico families, with hundreds of soldiers from the 200th and 515th Coast Artilleries never returning home.

After the war, Japanese commander General Masaharu Homma and two officers were tried for war crimes and sentenced to death for failing to prevent atrocities committed by their subordinates.

On July 4th 1946, the United States granted independence to the Philippines. Freedom doesn’t come cheap, anywhere.

Vintage Firearms Lawsuit (Part 2)

Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:14:27 GMT

Vintage Firearms Lawsuit (Part 2) by Tom Reynolds

Yesterday, SCOPE gave you the legal background to the lawsuit we are discussing, today.

This e mail is about an effort to drive a small gun store into bankruptcy through unsubstantiated lawsuits. An NRA official said about similar lawsuits, “These cases aren’t designed to win… It’s a sinister abuse of the legal system aimed at bankrupting a lawful industry.” If they can drive gun stores out of business in New York State, they remove access to guns and ammo.

This lawsuit is supported by the usual anti-gun suspects: Everytown (Bloomberg), Giffords, Brady United.

On May 14, 2022, at a Tops Friendly Markets supermarket in Buffalo, ten people were murdered and three were injured.

The murderer, Payton S. Gendron, a white male, was 18 years old at the time of the shooting. He had traveled three and a half hours to the Tops supermarket from his hometown of Conklin, New York.

On November 28, 2022, Gendron pled guilty to all state charges in the shooting, including murder, domestic terrorism, and hate crimes. On February 15, 2023, Gendron was sentenced to 11 consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole.

There seems to be no question that this was a ‘hate crime’ based on writings of Gendron.

The Bushmaster XM-15* that was used in the shooting was purchased from Vintage Firearms in Endicott, NY.

Currently, there are six lawsuits filed against Vintage Firearms owner Robert Donald by: the City of Buffalo; the City of Rochester; relatives of the victim; bystanders at the shooting. All lawsuits attempt to skirt the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and use New York State’s Nuisance laws passed in 2021. (See yesterday’s email for deeper discussion on those laws.)

There is no question that Gendron passed the NICS background check after filling in Form 4473 at Vintage Firearms. Gendron had also cleared another NICS check while purchasing a shotgun (not used in the murders) at a store in the neighboring town of Great Bend, Pennsylvania. Two passed NICS checks would seem to prove that the seller had no reason to question the legality of the sale.

In addition, an ATF inspection of Vintage Firearms after the shooting found no issues.

The lawsuits contend that Vintage Hardware’s owner should have seen that something was wrong with Gendron and stopped the sale. But there is not a single factor that indicates that the owner would have known something was wrong with Gendron; for instance, he was not in any rush when buying the rifle. Gendron did nothing to arouse suspicion and the seller did not remember Gendron until later shown his picture. There are no accusations in the lawsuits that Vintage Hardware’s owner shared any of Gendron’s racial animosity that made it a ‘hate crime.’

In addition, the owner of a local pawn shop frequented by Gendron is an Irani immigrant who did not see any racist signs in Gendron.

So, the lawsuits throw a “Hail Mary.”

Since New York prohibits the purchase and/or possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, Gendron traveled to Pennsylvania to purchase a 30-round ammunition magazine. In his on-line diary, Gendron posted photos of modifications he made to his rifle so that it could be equipped with the 30-round magazine, while acknowledging that this was illegal in New York.

The lawsuits claim that a Vintage Firearms employee instructed him as to how to replace the fixed magazine with the 30 rounds magazine. Vintage Hardware’s owner told SCOPE he does not have any employees and, in fact, he did not know how to make this change until shown how, after the shooting!

The change involves drilling out a part and the plaintiffs claim this made the magazine removeable. (This is important! If the lawsuits are successful, they will have redefined every semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine as an Assault Rifle, as there would be no fixed magazines; every magazine would be removeable by drilling it out.)

How are these suits possible since the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. This is the law that Joe Biden constantly lies about by saying gun manufacturers can’t be sued.

Under this law, both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible; this is the same basis as almost every other product. (This is not an issue in these lawsuits.)

Manufacturers and dealers may also be held liable for negligent entrustment if it is found that they had reason to believe a firearm was intended for use in a crime. (There is no evidence that Vintage Firearms had an inkling of what Gendron intended to do.)

There is another loophole in PLCAA and this is the one that the plaintiffs are using. PLCAA does not shield the manufacturer or retailer when: “a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.” Under NY laws passed in 2021, (bills S7196 and A6762B), they classify firearms as a public nuisance to circumvent PLCAA. Even though they are probably unconstitutional, the laws are still on the books. Therefore, the plaintiffs say NY’s laws were violated and PLCAA does not apply.

Vintage Firearms is under attack. But it isn’t about just this one gun store. The gun grabbers in NY State are sending a message to all gun stores; we’re coming after you. Open a gun store in NY State and you open yourself up to bankruptcy as the left will drag you through court and even if the gun store wins, the cost of defending themselves is so great that they lose. In proof of this, Gendron purchased some of the parts he used from a major gun retailer which would have had the money to defend itself. The lawsuits omit that store and go for a one-man operation in hoping it can’t afford to defend itself.

These anti-2A organizations like Everytown (Bloomberg), Giffords and Brady United are vicious and no-holds-barred in pursuit of neutering the 2nd Amendment. Get in their way and they will punish you!

These lawsuits are great example of how anti-2A organizations with deep liberal pockets are a direct threat to our constitutional rights, by using the court system.

If you would like to help, make check to the owner, Robert Donald and send it to:

Robert Donald
PO Box 5567
Endicott, NY 13763

Please note that you are a SCOPE member

Or send the check to SCOPE and note that it is for Vintage Firearms; 100% will be quickly forwarded.

SCOPE
PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

* Bushmaster XM-15 Rifles | Palmetto State Armory

Vintage Firearms Lawsuit (Part 1) PLCAA and Nuisance

Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:59:15 GMT

Vintage Firearms Lawsuit (Part 1) PLCAA and Nuisance by Tom Reynolds

Vintage Firearms of Endicott, NY is a retailer of firearms and is being sued in several lawsuits related to a mass murder. This is a good example of the strategy of the gun-grabbing Left, but is quite involved so SCOPE is presenting it in two parts on two successive days.

First, some general legal background.

What if you were walking down the street and were subjected to a drive by shooting; someone in a Ford drove by and shot at you with a Glock. Would anyone expect to sue Ford because their car was used in a crime? But the Left expects, under those same circumstances, to sue Glock.

How is a lawsuit possible under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) which was signed on October 26, 2005 and became Public Law 109–92?

PLCAA protects, firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable, in most instances, when crimes have been committed with their products. This is the law that Joe Biden constantly lies about by saying gun manufacturers can’t be sued. Under this law, both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible; this is the same basis as almost every other product.

However, there are some loopholes that the gun-grabbing Left jumps through.

Under PLCAA, firearms manufacturers and dealers may be held liable for ‘negligent entrustment.’ Negligent entrustment means: “the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.”

PLCAA also does not protect when: “a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.”

As usual, the Democrats in the NY State government don’t believe the laws apply to them. In order to circumvent PLCAA, NY laws passed in 2021: bills S7196 and A6762B. Direct quotes from the bills:

§ 898-B. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.

1.NO GUN INDUSTRY MEMBER, BY CONDUCT EITHER UNLAWFUL IN ITSELF OR UNREASONABLE UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL KNOWINGLY OR RECKLESSLY CREATE, MAINTAIN OR CONTRIBUTE TO A CONDITION IN NEW YORK STATE THAT ENDANGERS THE SAFETY OR HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE SALE, MANUFACTURING, IMPORTING OR MARKETING OF A QUALIFIED PRODUCT.

2.ALL GUN INDUSTRY MEMBERS WHO MANUFACTURE, MARKET, IMPORT OR OFFER FOR WHOLESALE OR RETAIL SALE ANY QUALIFIED PRODUCT IN NEW YORK STATE SHALL ESTABLISH AND UTILIZE REASONABLE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES TO PREVENT ITS QUALIFIED PRODUCTS FROM BEING POSSESSED, USED, MARKETED OR SOLD UNLAWFULLY IN NEW YORK STATE.

§ 898-C. PUBLIC NUISANCE.

1.A VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION ONE OR TWO OF SECTION EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT-B OF THIS ARTICLE THAT RESULTS IN HARM TO THE PUBLIC SHALL HEREBY BE DECLARED TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE.

2.THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE SHALL NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER THE GUN INDUSTRY MEMBER ACTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAUSING HARM TO THE PUBLIC.

In trying to justify this, the race card was also used in these bills; apparently, the firearm, itself, is prejudiced against minorities. According to the bills:

This nuisance poses specific harm to New Yorkers based largely on their zip code and certain immutable characteristics such as race and ethnicity. Illegal firearm violence has disproportionately affected underserved black and brown neighborhoods in our cities and throughout the state despite stringent state and local laws against the illegal possession of firearms.

These laws are (intentionally) vague enough to drive a tank through. The Left will claim that any “controls and procedures” were not reasonable (by their definition.)

Perhaps the ‘stringent’ laws which keep blacks in certain ‘zip codes’ from owning guns and practicing self-defense are a root cause and it’s not the firearm itself?

Are blacks ‘underserved’ by the lack of gun stores available to sell them firearms with which they can practice self-defense?

New York State is not alone in this effort to take away your guns by any means.

Ammoland wrote about another state’s efforts to disarm law abiding citizens.

The city of Chicago filed suit against Glock for the third-party criminal misuse of its products, even though Glock is not directly responsible for the actions of criminals. Chicago is seeking to hold Glock liable when criminals use illegal devices (auto sears or so-called “Glock switches”) to illegally modify Glock pistols into illegal machine guns. Chicago is using a “public nuisance” theory. A Chicago Tribune editorial said the lawsuit “represents an abuse of the tort liability system.”

In addition, devices that are designed to convert semi-automatic firearms to fire automatically are already illegal throughout the U.S under Federal law, 26 USC § 5845(b), which defines these devices as a “machinegun.”

Ammoland continues:

U.S. tort law has long held that a person or entity cannot be held responsible for a third party’s criminal acts. Simply put: people are not responsible for the behavior of others. Therefore, if a violent criminal acquires and misuses a firearm to commit a crime, it is the criminal who is liable for the conduct, not the company that produced the firearm. Just like how Chevrolet isn’t responsible for the actions of drunk drivers.

In 2004, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled against Chicago and its public nuisance theory. Pointing to well-established tort law, the opinion noted: the claimed harm is the aggregate result of numerous unforeseeable intervening criminal acts by third parties not under defendants’ control…the manufacturer and distributor defendants…are even further removed from the intervening criminal acts.

Chicago lost, but the city imposed tremendous costs on the defendants. An NRA official explained at the time, “These cases aren’t designed to win… It’s a sinister abuse of the legal system aimed at bankrupting a lawful industry.”

Such abuses led to the enactment of the PLCAA in 2005 which merely codified the standard tort principle. Despite the PLCAA’s clear mandate, anti-gun politicians and their tort attorney allies continue to concoct unconstitutional legal theories in an attempt to get around the law. Especially in deep blue states like New York where, in 2021, a nuisance law was passed about firearms.

(Continued Tomorrow)

Lee Strikes Again

Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:18:54 GMT

Lee Strikes Again by Tom Reynolds

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas is a major opponent of the 2nd Amendment and has told a few whoppers about guns, in the past. She has now broadened her ‘expertise’ into astronomy.

Lee’s district neighbors the Johnson Space Center and she is a member of the House Committee on Science. In1997, she visited the Mars Pathfinder Operations Center in Pasadena, California. While there, according to an article by Sandy Hume in The Hill, Jackson Lee asked if the Pathfinder succeeded in taking pictures of the American flag planted on Mars by Neil Armstrong in 1969.

Recently Representative Lee spoke at Booker T. Washington High School in her Houston-area district. She tried to provide some scientific explanation for the solar system's workings — but any students who listened are going to fail Astronomy 101.

"You have the energy of the moon at night," Jackson Lee explained.

(Note: the moon doesn't release energy at night, it is merely reflecting light from the sun.)

"Sometimes you need to take the opportunity just to come out and see a full moon," which the graduate of Yale explained is a "complete rounded circle which is made up mostly of gases." It's "almost impossible to go near the sun," but the "moon is more manageable" because it's "made up mostly of gases"

Jackson Lee continued, saying "that's why the question is why — or how — could we as humans live on the moon. The gas is such that we can do that,"

(Note: I’m sure you and Neil Armstrong know – but Lee doesn’t - that the moon is solid, not gas. According to NASA, the moon's "weak atmosphere and its lack of liquid water cannot support life as we know it.")

Perhaps NASA should check with Jackson Lee and get the correct information from her? Or not.

These students will hold this with them forever; I am glad we were able to bring everyone together for such a historic moment. pic.twitter.com/7ldL8w0uql

— Sheila Jackson Lee (@JacksonLeeTX18) April 8, 2024

Hopefully the students will remember this and not vote for Jackson Lee when they become eligible.

And you thought Joe Biden was confused!

More Members’ Meeting Attendees

NY State Senator Thomas F. O'Mara of the 58th Senate district will be attending but is not a main speaker. O’Mara has been a Senator since 2010 and prior to that was an Assemblyman from 2005 to 2010

The 58th Senate District is comprised of all or portions of Chemung, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Tioga, Yates and Allegany County.

Tom worked as an Assistant District Attorney and County Attorney in Chemung County before becoming the Chemung County District Attorney, so he has first hand experience with the crime issues that are plaguing New York.

Per his web site: “Senator O’Mara has been guided by a long-held belief: Government does not create jobs, business does. That’s why he’s focused on developing public policies and strategies that allow state government to improve the economic climate for doing business in New York by opposing tax increases, and reducing state spending, mandates, overregulation and oppressive property taxes.”

Senator O’Mara is a member of the NRA and SCOPE. He supported a repeal the Safe Act and has opposed the expansion of Red Flag laws.

Former Congressman Joe Sempolinski will be attending but is not a main speaker. Sempolinski is running for the 148th Assembly District seat.

The 148th Assembly District contains all or portions of Allegany, Cattaraugus and Steuben Counties.

Sempolinski was elected to Congress in 2022 to serve out the last four months of a resigning congressman’s term. He declined to run for a full term.

Per Sempolinski’s web site: “The right to bear arms is a fundamental, individual, human, and Constitutional right. The NY SAFE ACT should never have become law. He is against the new state laws that implement background checks to purchase ammunition and restrict law abiding gun owners in so called “sensitive locations.”

Concerning freedom of speech: “In a free society, the way to defeat an idea is by arguing for a better idea, not by silencing those who think differently.”

Joe is a SCOPE and NRA member and a gun owner.

The Fight Continues: Assembly Bill 03855/Senate Bill 05763

Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:57:03 GMT

The Fight Continues: Assembly Bill 03855/Senate Bill 05763 by John Elwood

The United States Constitution, ratified in 1788 and operationalized in 1789, is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. In it’s first three word ----- “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. Many people believe the Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, is the most important amendment because it defends the rest of the Constitution.

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the “Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Since the creation of the United States Constitution, there have been periods in our history when different parties and organizations tried to circumvent the Second Amendment. A few examples of this include passage of the 2013 SAFE Act in NY State, the possible adoption of new merchant category codes for gun and ammunition purchases, the adoption of red flag laws, and Joe Biden’s continual promise to ban assault weapons.

To fight against this continual effort by the gun control advocates, organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), New York State Rifle and Pistol Association NYSRPA), and Shooter’s Committee on Political Education (SCOPE) were founded. SCOPE’s mission statement states,” to protect, restore, and expand the gun rights of all New Yorkers.” Even with these gun control right organizations, gun control advocates continue their fight today. New York State Assembly bill 03855 and New York State Senate bill 05763 are examples.

New York State Assembly bill 03855 and companion bill Senate bill S05763 establish requirements to purchase a firearm, shotgun, or rifle. These requirements include:

- Requires a person to apply for a hunting license prior to purchasing a shotgun or rifle.

- Establishes additional requirements for all firearms, shotguns and rifles including:

o Taking a five (5) hours gun safety course and exam.

o Passing a shooting range test with 90% accuracy.

o Providing notarized proof of a passed drug test.

o Providing notarized proof of a passed mental health examination.

o Providing proof of purchase of firearm and ammunition safe storage depositories.

o Passing a criminal background check.

Assembly bill 03855 was introduced and referred to the Assembly codes committee on January 3, 2024. To date, the codes committee has not debated/voted on the bill because the Assembly is working on the State budget. As of April 20, 2024, there will be 18 working days remaining in the legislative year. A03855 ‘s sponsor is Chantel Jackson, from Assembly district 79 located in Bronx, New York City. To date, Assemblywoman Jackson is the sole sponsor.

The same as bill to Assembly bill A03855 is New York State Senate bill S05763, sponsored by Senator Kevin Parker from Senate district 21 located in Brooklyn, New York. Senate bill S05763 was introduced on January 3, 2024, and referred to the Senate codes committee. Senator Parker is the sole sponsor for Senate bill S05763. Both bill sponsors are from New York City where there are no SCOPE chapters.

SCOPE’s position is to OPPOSE these two bills.

Assembly bill 03855 and Senate bill 05763 are good examples why SCOPE MUST continue to protect, restore, and expand gun rights of New York State citizens. Gun control advocates will continue their attempts to circumvent the Second Amendment until they get their way. ALL SCOPE members must write their legislators and oppose this legislation, bring new members into their chapters, and help write new legislation supporting the Second Amendment. If we fail in this mission, our sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters will not have the same rights we have had in our lifetime. Get involved and make a difference.

Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Are Like Guns

Tue, 09 Apr 2024 16:08:04 GMT

Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Are Like Guns by Tom Reynolds

2nd Amendment defenders are used to the misinformation and lies from government officials concerning guns. (Joe and Kathy, we are talking about you.) For those that doubt the deceptions, take a look at electric vehicles (EV’s) for a sample of the ‘straight shooting’ that comes from NY’s government. In home charging stations will be a necessity for EV’s but the entire picture is much broader and has deeper consequences than NY would have you believe.

Considering putting an EV charging station in your house? The following information concerning EV charging stations from NY State’s website.* It presents a different picture thant Hochul and company present in their public statements. After you see this, you should have some doubts about anything the NY government is saying about anything...if you don’t already. (Since we already have experience with misinformation on firearms, why should electric vehicles be any different?)

Level 1EV charging stations are nothing more than a standard, 3 prong, 120v outlet. A portable cord is used to charge the car.

Chargers provide 2-5 miles of electric range for each hour of charging. 12 hours of charging will get you a maximum of 60 miles! That’s less than an hour of highway driving.

Note: This is barely practical only as a home use charging station. Okay only for short daily commutes. Presumably, you keep the battery charged to 100% by ‘topping off’ but the long recharge time eliminates longer commutes or any other extensive travel. If you drove 100 miles, it would take 24 hours to recharge.

Level 2EV charging stations use 208-240v and use a standard connector that applies to all cars except Tesla. Tesla has an adapter.

Chargers provide about 20 miles of range per charging hour. 12 hours of charging will get you a maximum of 240 miles. That’s less than 4 hours of highway driving.

This charging station could be used at home or in work places or parking garages but the car must be parked for several hours.

Level 2 charging stations range from $1-$4,000 per port plus installation costs are $2-$10,000, inclusive of labor, materials and permitting. (Estimates probably apply to home installation. Commercial installation would probably be more expensive.)

Note: This seems like the minimum charging level someone would want for convenience and necessary for any longer daily commutes, unless you like living on-the-edge of running out of battery on the road with a level 1. (Unfortunately, you cannot carry an extra 5 gallon can of electricity for emergencies.)

Expensive upgrade. Hard to imagine it would ever pay for itself in a home, especially if you need two EV’s for two worker households. It gets even more expensive when you include the added cost of more expensive electric vehicles.

This has some limited commercial applications.

How many of these would employers install for their employees at $14,000 each plus extraordinary electrical upgrades. Would the employer charge for their use? A 50 employee business would require a $700,000 investment, minimum.

Direct Current Fast Chargers(DCFC) require 3-phase power and up to 500V to provide 50-400kW of charging power. Two common DC connection standards exist and are available on many electric cars, except for Tesla, which uses its own connector.

DCFC charging stations are about $25-$50,000 in equipment cost plus $50-$100,000 in electrical service upgrades.

A DCFC can provide more than 100 miles of range in an hour.

Note: Billionaires might get these for their home but these are exclusively for commercial use and not for use by the bourgeoisie. And don’t expect motels to invest in these.

If you plan on taking a trip in an EV, you would have to plan for access into a DCFC charging station – and taking the time needed to recharge. (And hope there is not a line!) Don’t count on a motel or a friend’s house since their charging station probably won’t give you enough range.

If experience means anything, the NYS cost estimates are probably low. In addition, switching from fossil fuel heating and fossil fuel cars to all electric heating and EV’s will necessitate a mammoth upgrade in the electrical supply system which will be reflected in your electric bill and inflation.

The mileage estimates are, presumably, for unloaded vehicles. Using a pickup to get a load from the hardware store or piling the family into the car will significantly decrease the range.

The mileage estimates are, I’ll bet, for flat and level places. NYS has a variety of environments and many people in NY are surrounded by hills, which will impact mileage estimates - negatively.

Back on July 27, 2022, SCOPE did another email about electric trucks hauling stuff.** It’s worth a reread. In addition, the part in the email about the increase in the copper supply needed to become all electric is a great example of government planning.

This isn’t about whether or not you believe in the various climate change theories. This is about the government being truthful in explaining and justifying the consequences of its actions. Like everything about the transition from fossil fuels, this is horribly more complicated and expensive than the government would have you believe. Kinda like gun control!

* Installing a Charging Station - NYSERDA

** S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Gun Owners Own Trucks, Too (scopeny2a.org)

Albany Ethics-A Double Negative

Wed, 03 Apr 2024 19:06:58 GMT

Albany Ethics-A Double Negative

Albany politics seems to forever be a race to the bottom. Here’s something you may not have read about that furthers that view.

It recently came to light that NY Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie has been having an affair with a union lobbyist, probably since November. (The explanations on the timeline do not always make sense.) Heastie’s reaction to the affair being exposed is that it is none of the public’s business that he was having an affair with someone lobbying his office for money and laws. Heastie seems to believe that NY City politicians, like him, would never let their personal lives interfere with their political lives.

This is the tangled web as best we can unweave it.

The Greater New York Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust (LECET) seeks to promote the use of unionized labor on New York construction projects and enlist public support for those workers’ wages. The labor arm of LECET is the Mason Tenders’ District Council. They deal with matters that regularly come before the NY Assembly.

LECET is what is lovingly called a lobbyist.

State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie has reportedly been in a romantic relationship since last November with Rebecca Lamorte, according to the outlet NY Focus. Lamorte is one of four LECET officials listed as lobbyists for the organization in a disclosure covering January and February. The organization reported lobbying various Assembly members and state Senators on a handful of bills over those two months, ranging from budget bills to a new prevailing wage requirement.

Following the New York Focus article on March 14, when questioned about his relationship with a lobbyist, Heastie replied: “I am never - again let me make that clear - addressing my personal life.” (That’s called no comment, you are hitting too close to home.)

Obviously, a sexual affair between the NY State Assembly Speaker and someone who is lobbying the Assembly raises some ethical questions, but not in Heastie’s opinion.

On January 8th, Lamorte met with Heastie’s senior staff concerning LECET’s top priority bill to promote the use of union labor at major State University of New York construction projects, according to a LECET spokesperson.

Sometime after the January 8th meeting, Lamorte told her boss, LECET Executive Director Dean Angelakos, about the relationship with Heastie. At that point, LECET’s compliance attorney, David Grandeau, advised that Lamorte should not lobby the Assembly, and Angelakos barred Lamorte from doing so.

Per NY Focus, Grandeau said in mid March that Lamorte made LECET “aware” that she was “seeing the speaker” within the last 30 to 45 days, which could include sometime after January 8th, if you stretch it.

According to a March 11th letter drafted by the Assembly majority’s Counsel and sent to the Assembly majority, and obtained by New York Focus, the attorney confirmed that Heastie adopted a recusal policy in November which bars him from meeting with or making decisions about organizations linked to LECET*. The letter stated that Senior staff would “advance a consensus decision” to Heastie concerning “any matters specific or unique to such organizations.”

The dates are confusing. According to Heastie’s attorney, Heastie recused himself for dealing with LECET in November but Lamorte did not tell her LECET boss about the affair until later January. Between November and January, wouldn’t someone in LECET be curious if Heastie had recused himself?

Going forward, and in the lowest traditions of Albany politics, Heastie’s staff would know about the affair with Lamorte but that would not affect their recommendations to Heastie about Lamorte’s lobbying efforts. Albany is far above such butt kissing by political staff?

When word leaked about the NY Focus investigation. Angelakos authorized compliance attorney Grandeau to confirm the romantic relationship to New York Focus. Grandeau added that having seen “what I guess they’re calling a recusal” letter from Heastie, he advised the union “that [Lamorte] not lobby the Assembly.”

This public announcement reportedly made Heastie unhappy. ( Ya think!)

Since 2014, the Mason Tenders union’s political action committee has donated more than $120,000 to Heastie’s campaign or political action committee, including $23,000 last year.

In February, Michael McGuire, director of Mason Tenders’ District Council Political Action Committee made a $5,000 donation while attending a fundraiser for Heastie’s political action committee. He said that, at the time “I was not yet aware of the recusal policy.” (A LECET official was not aware in February of a policy in affect since November [or January?] Certainly, when they accepted the donation in February, Heastie and his staff were aware of the recusal policy which was supposed to be in place since November.)

The day before the news about the affair broke, March 13th, Heastie called a top official within LECET’s labor arm to return the $5,000 campaign donation.

Lamorte later sought a reversal of the policy based on the March 11th letter. Grandeau responded that Lamorte should remain barred from lobbying the Assembly.

However, a spokesperson for the LECET has told New York Focus that Lamorte can resume lobbying the Assembly — including Heastie’s staff — but not the Speaker himself. (Try not to laugh – or cry.)

Mike Hellstrom, co-chair of the Greater New York LECET, confirmed that Lamorte will remain their lobbyist in Albany. “Protocols are in place and being followed so that she can continue her work for us. People in public service can do their jobs ethically while keeping their personal lives private.” (Of course they can. No need for ethics regulations in the NY Legislature.) Hellstrom’s statement mirrors what Heastie told reporters: “My life will never be in conflict with my job.”

Hellstrom also said that Dean Angelakos offered his resignation as executive director of LECET and we accepted it.

With Lamorte allowed to resume lobbying the Assembly, New York Focus asked LECET’s compliance attorney, Grandeau, for comment about LECET’s new leadership rejecting his advice. Two days later, Grandeau told New York Focus that he had resigned as LECET’s outside ethics counsel.

“I was not fired,” Grandeau said. “…it was my decision, not theirs.”

According to a LECET spokesperson, the group’s current leadership has been displeased with Grandeau over his role in disclosing Lamorte’s relationship and other matters related to the group’s lobbying filings.

In summary,

Heastie and Lamorte can continue their affair.

The union head who banned her from lobbying the Assembly is gone.

The union’s compliance attorney who recommended banning Lamorte from lobbying the Assembly is gone.

Life in Albany continues as usual

So, Heastie and his staff are above the ethical issues that plague the rest of the world. As testimony to that, in 2021, the husband of Heastie's Chief of Staff was sentenced to 76 months in prison and ordered to pay $136,000 to the Internal Revenue Service for his earlier guilty plea to cocaine trafficking and tax evasion charges. Brooks-Dennis apparently enjoyed a lavish / opulent lifestyle and never questioned where the money came from?

*The March 11^th letter:

March 11, 2024

To Whom It May Concern:

In response to the request for confirmation regarding the Speaker’s recusal from matters relating to the Mason Tenders’ District Council of Greater New York, including laborers locals 66, 78, 79 and 108, and/or the Greater New York LECET Fund, please be advised that the following directive was communicated to relevant senior staff in November 2023 and remains in effect until further notice:

the Speaker will not personally attend meetings with the aforementioned organizations; and,

senior staff will come to and advance a consensus decision to the Speaker for any matters specific or unique to such organizations.

Rebecca Mudie, Esq.
Counsel to the Majority THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY

Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding this directive as you implement your own internal protocols, and to the extent I am able to, I will happily provide additional information.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Mudie, Esq.
Counsel to the Majority THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY

Myths and Common Sense

Tue, 02 Apr 2024 15:46:31 GMT

Myths and Common Sense by Tom Reynolds

Peter Mutuc recently did an article entitled: 10 Science Myths You Probably Believe (Thanks To The Movies).

Two of Mutuc’s ten myths involve myths about firearms and we thought you might be interested. None of this probably comes to SCOPE members as a surprise but this might be helpful in explaining to some of the gun grabbers about the misinformation that exists about firearms, much of it perpetuated by Hollywood.

#1Silencers / Suppressors

“Modern silencers decrease the noise from a gunshot by around 30 decibels (dB). This isn't nearly enough to keep most guns quiet, as firearms typically produce around 150 dB. Using a silencer can only really reduce gunshot noises down to the level of a nearby jackhammer. Even the firearms industry recognizes that the term silencer is a misnomer, and has shifted to calling them suppressors in order to more accurately describe what they do. Nonetheless, silent gunfire remains one of the most widespread science myths in the history of Hollywood - as seen in the film adaptation of Hitman, the John Wick movies, and the Bond franchise.”

#2 Impact of bullets

“A common occurrence in action movies, people shot by guns are often shown getting thrown back by the impact as they would with a melee hit. However, bullets are not only designed for penetration but are also thousands of times lighter than any human body. This is why they tear through flesh and actually have a minimal impact on anywhere else apart from where they hit. While gunshots throwing people off their feet has been largely perpetrated by Hollywood blockbusters, the roots of this myth go back to classic Hong Kong action cinema - particularly the birth of gun-fu through the first John Woo movies.”

On the topic of common sense issues…

Georgia Senate Bill 189 passed their House by a vote of 101 to 73 and the Senate by a vote of 33-22, sending it to Gov. Brian Kemp for his signature or veto.

Democrats slammed the bill, saying it would enable more baseless attacks on voters.

So, what is so “baseless” about it?

The bill spells out what constitutes “probable cause” for upholding challenges to voter eligibility, which could lead to voters being removed from the rolls.

Probable cause would exist if someone:

has voted or registered to vote in a different jurisdiction,
has registered for a homestead exemption on their property taxes in a different jurisdiction, is registered at a nonresidential address, or is dead.

I’m going out on a limb and if the dead person shows up to challenge being deregistered, they will probably win and be reregistered. The other challenges would prevent voters from voting in two different places.

Oh yeah, there is something else in the bill the Democrats don’t like. The bill would grant access to Georgia’s ballot to any political party that has qualified for the presidential ballot in at least 20 states or territories. The change could be a boost to independent candidates such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose campaign has spooked Democrats worried it could draw support away from President Joe Biden.

Speaking of Robert F. Kennedy Jr…

The Hill and Ammoland report that Kennedy has said, in the past, that he would get behind a bipartisan assault weapons ban, which the overwhelming majority of Democrats support and Republicans oppose. (And if the Democrats could pass it with Democrat only votes, would RFK Jr. veto it for not being bipartisan? If one Republican voted for it, would it qualify as bipartisan?)

“Going after people’s guns at this point in history is to me just going to cause more polarization and make it so that we can’t listen to each other anymore because we get put into these kinds of tribal silos which we have to somehow figure out a way to get past.” (Don’t go after guns because of polarization and not because of the right to self-defense? The “Going after people’s guns at this point in history” leaves open that there might come another time or set of circumstances where he’ll return to his past hostility to guns and decide the time is right.)

“I am not going to take people’s guns away. You know, anybody who tells you that we can end the violence to our children that’s going on now by removing people’s guns is not being truthful with you.” (That is real common-sense talk about guns.)

He is also quoted as saying: “I do not believe that there is, within that second amendment, that there’s anything we can meaningfully do to reduce the trade in the ownership of guns.” (He is acknowledging that there are 2^ndAmendment restrictions that many other gun grabbers ignore. But, why would we want to reduce the legal trade in ownership of guns?)

“We cannot have any more school shootings even if that means protecting schools the same way that we protect Airlines.” (Metal detectors at schools? Xray all back packs? He ignores that 100% of school shootings happen in gun-free zones.)

SCOPE could not find any positions on gun control by RFK Jr.’ VP candidate Nicole Shanahan. However, one of the 3 main thrusts of her Bia-Echo Foundation is “social justice”.

SCOPE Annual Meeting, 4/20, 10AM

Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:35:58 GMT

Time is short to RSVP for the Members Meeting on April 20th starting at 10 AM.Lunch included.

Montour Falls Moose Club 2096 State Route 14Montour Falls, NY 14865

Hear updates on what is happening with 2A in New York State and what SCOPE and others are doing to protect your 2A rights.

In addition, hear presentations from legislators. State Senator George Borrello has already confirmed and we expect others to confirm shortly.

Attendance is free although donations are gratefully accepted.

RSVP

- you can respond to this email with names of those attending

- you can print the Member Meeting RSVP form and mail in your RSVP

- you can email sue.scopeny@gmail.com with names of those attending

Another Lawsuit- Tasers and Stun Guns

Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:17:39 GMT

Another Lawsuit- Tasers and Stun Guns by Tom Reynolds

Ammoland reports that the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners have filed a motion for summary judgment with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a final resolution to its lawsuit challenging New York state and municipal laws prohibiting private citizens from possessing and using stun guns and tasers. The case is Calce v. City of New York.

“Given New York’s history of wanting to keep its peaceable citizens defenseless, it comes as no surprise they would remain an outlier in having a ban which prohibits people from owning electronic arms,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Second Amendment ensures our ability to possess and carry bearable arms, including those that were not in existence at the time of the Founding, yet lawmakers in New York believe they somehow have the ability to ignore that guarantee. Prior to Bruen, other courts have found these bans to be incompatible with the Constitution, and we believe this case should not yield a different result.”

Joining SAF in the lawsuit are the Firearms Policy Coalition Inc. Each of the five individual plaintiffs in this case – Nunzio Calce, Allen Chan, Shaya Greenfield, Raymond Pezzoli and Amanda Kennedy – are represented by attorney David Jensen of Beacon, N.Y.

As noted in the brief, “Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s protections simply because they were unknown to the First Congress than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment.”

“The brief filed today demonstrates that stun guns and tasers are protected by the Second Amendment and we demand a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the ban,” said SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This case was filed in March 2021, and it’s past time for the court to once and for all declare this law unconstitutional.”

Note: SCOPE wrote about one of the cases that preceded this, way back in August 2021. S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Caetano Never Dies It was about Massachusetts doing what New York is doing and how it took the US Supreme Court to slap down Massachusetts and its liberal judges who ignore the Constitution.

SCOPE constantly stresses the need to vote. You can check you voting status by going to our web page.

S.C.O.P.E. - Shooters Committee On Political Education - Dedicated to preserving the 2nd amendment rights for the residents of New York State (scopeny2a.org)

On that page is Check / Protect and click on True the Vote

Election Season – A License to Misinform

Wed, 20 Mar 2024 15:37:21 GMT

Election Season – a license to misinform by Tom Reynolds

In what seems like a daily occurrence, more and more laws are being proposed that would require citizens to have a permit or license, pass a test, and perhaps even be covered by liability insurance in order to buy / sell / touch a gun or ammunition.

What if the need for a permit / license/ insurance were applied to exercising your 1^st Amendment rights? Or better yet, what if politicians were required to get a permit / license / insurance before exercising their 1^st Amendment rights?

With the election season upon us, we are in the silly season of outlandish statements to be printed as facts, as long as the statements are made by those on the left. Some examples of this ‘misinformation.’

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is letting Texas start arresting and deporting people who enter the country illegally, by refusing to block a new Texas law. The justices, in a 6-3 decision, rejected the Biden Administration’s request to keep the Texas law on hold while a legal fight goes forward at a lower court.

The three liberal judges on SCOTUS dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the court “invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement.”

The COURT “invites further chaos and crisis?”

Will the left-wing media report that the chaos and crisis is already there, created by President Biden, and Texas is only trying to get the chaos under control. Or will it report Sotomayor’s dissent as if it were fact?

A leftist SCOTUS’ justice made a political rather than a constitutional decision? Say it aint so!

Anthony Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to a security position in the White House. In his January 28^th, 2022 transcribed interview with the January 6 House Select Committee, Ornato told investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows push Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city. Ornato also testified that President Trump had suggested 10,000 would be needed to keep the peace at the public rallies and protests scheduled for January 6, 2021.

AFTER Ornato’s testimony under oaty, the January 6 House Select Committee had claimed they had “no evidence” to support claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops.

The Federalist reported on March 8^th that the Committee suppressed Ornato’s interview from public release, until now.

Will the NY Times and others report this or let their erroneous original anti-Trump reporting stand? Does a bear… Which is what the NY Times reporting does.

By the way, after Ornato’s first interview - in an amazing coincidence - critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato began appearing in media sources such as the NY Times. Could there have been committee leaks about Ornato’s interview and a concerted effort formed to discredit him in advance of his interview being made public? Say it aint so!

On February 16, in a case brought by NY Attorney General Letitia James, New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ordered Donald Trump to pay $355 million of “disgorgement” penalties. The basis for imposing these extraordinary penalties was Trump’s supposed “fraud” of exaggerating the value of some of his properties on financial statements submitted to a bank. No one had been damaged by Trump’s conduct, and the bank in question had neither complained nor sought any relief.

This judicial decision brought about an “oops” moment.

Prominent investors immediately signaled their intent to halt their business in New York following the Trump verdict. Real estate mogul Grant Cardone announced that his firm Cardone Capital would no longer underwrite New York real estate. Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary vowed to no longer invest in the state as a result of the verdict. Their basic thinking is that if the Attorney General can target a politically-disfavored individual like Trump, how could any person doing business in New York think they are safe from similar legal abuse?

Recognizing the problem, Governor Kathy Hochul went on a radio talk show on February 18 in an effort to reassure the New York business community. She claimed that Trump’s case was an “extraordinary, unusual circumstance,” and therefore “law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers . . . have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior.”

If you believe that smelly pile of ‘misinformation’, Hochul also has a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

And in further evidence Hochul was ‘misinforming,’ ten days later, AG James dropped her latest politicized case. The new target is JBS USA Food Company Holdings — the U.S. subsidiary of the world’s largest producer of beef.

What did JBS do?

JBS had committed itself to Climate Change’s Net Zero by 2040. AG James is suing them because: “The JBS Group, however, has had no viable plan to meet its commitment to be “Net Zero by 2040.”

Well, since James is after those with an unrealistic Net Zero plan…

In 2019, New York State adopted a Climate Act which committed the State to “net zero” emissions by 2050, and in 2022 adopted a Scoping Plan laying out how it was going to get there. The Scoping Plan has been called completely delusional and deceptive, and does not come remotely close to setting forth a realistic way to get to net zero. So, when is the AG going to bring a case against New York State under the same Executive Law 63(12) that was used against Trump and JBS?

When is Hell freezing over?

Batten-down-the-hatches defenders of the 2^nd Amendment. With the silly season now open for political speech without a license, expect more ‘misinformation’ about gun owners being extremist, gun toting, militarized crazies waiting breathlessly to use their high capacity ‘assault rifles’ to defend ourselves against misunderstood criminals who only turned to crime because our bourgeoisie society failed them.

Taxes, Corporations, and Other Myths

Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:21:28 GMT

Taxes, Corporations, and Other Myths by Henry S. Kramer

During the 2024 State of the Union (SOTU) Address, President Biden has again shown his defiance of constitutional limitations. This would seem to fly in the face of his oath of office to ‘defend the Constitution against all enemies.’ He labels his opponent as a “threat to democracy” when the real threat to democracy is Biden. He has reportedly issued an executive order to register illegal aliens to vote, which is barred by most states (including NY) that require citizenship to vote.

It is a myth that Congress can by statute law override a United States Supreme Court decision that was bottomed on the Court’s reading of the Constitution itself. Below are some examples of this drawn from Biden’s SOTU speech.

Biden called for gun law reform that would violate the Supreme Court’s NYSRPA v. Bruen decision concerning Second Amendment rights. In addition, he has championed many efforts that would leave the Second Amendment intact but whose purpose is to destroy gun manufacturers, gun sellers, and make the cost of firearms unaffordable; which would effectively accomplish the same thing as repealing the Second Amendment.

Biden’s latest student debt cancellation plan thumbs its nose at the Supreme Court’s holding that our presidents’ lack the power to give group debt forgiveness. It is a fair inference that this was done to buy votes.

Biden made the pledge to seek a national standard for abortion and he did it with the Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him. (The justices kept decorum and showed no emotion, but his tone was defiant). It does not matter if you are pro or anti-abortion, SCOTUS has ruled that the federal government cannot pass a constitutionally valid nationwide abortion law. The Court did not say if or when abortion was legal or illegal. The Supreme Court held that a national standard was unconstitutional. Abortion law was for the states to decide.

Biden continued his frequently used mantra “tax the rich”. One of his favorites is now a tax on total wealth on top of the income tax. If you tax wealth, there is a constitutional issue. Income taxes required a constitutional amendment because the founding document required apportionment of taxes between states, which an income tax does not do. A wealth tax might require a similar federal constitutional amendment. But that doesn’t stop Biden and the socialist left.

A wealth tax is also unworkable, which also does not stop Biden. A tax on unrealized capital gains is a tax on phantom income as gains in the stock market fluctuate from day to day - and sometimes go down, here today, gone tomorrow. That is why there is no real gain until an actual sale. In Biden’s first 3 years, the stock market went up, then down, then up. If unrealized wealth is taxed when the market goes up, when the market goes down, unrealized losses should be deductible and, thus, lower federal tax receipts for that year. Oops!

Then there were his proposals that would fuel the inflation and shrinkflation, which he condemned in other parts of the speech.

He proposed raising taxes on corporations. But it is an economic myth that ultimately corporations pay taxes. Who really pays them? Real people do. You do.

Corporations may first look for a different format (a loophole) that would not be taxed. Or, corporations may pay taxes and then pass the new corporate taxes on to consumers (inflation!). The corporation may reduce dividends to stockholders (your pension plan and IRA) or downsize the amount of product in the same size package (“shrinkflation”). Ultimately, natural persons pay the price of corporate taxes. There is no free lunch.

Left wing politicians love raising corporate taxes because consumers pay them indirectly as corporations pass through the tax as price increases. Consumers are told to blame the “greedy corporations” for the price increases, not the free spending politicians who proposed the higher taxes. (Note, several bills in Congress would add an excise tax of up to 50% on guns and ammo, which accomplishes the same thing; the corporation pays the tax and passes it along to consumers as higher prices. The “greedy corporations” instead of the “greedy government” gets blasted for the price increases).

Keep in mind that every time taxes go up or the government grants new money to a group of people, new regulations are imposed. Those costs add to why food, energy, and other purchases keep costing you more. Joe Biden doesn’t solve our problems, he creates them.

Cotton Wins

Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:42:40 GMT

Cotton Wins by Tom Reynolds

In 2020, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) wrote an op-ed for the New York Times suggesting Trump should use the military to quell the BLM/Antifa riots that were then taking over American city streets. Staffers for the NY Times went berserk that this opinion – contrary to their beliefs – was published in their newspaper. This resulted in the resignation of the editor who approved the column.

Senator Tom Cotton, Republican-Arkansas, took what appeared to be a victory lap over The New York Times as the Times reported on Democratic New York Governor Kathy Hochul sending troops to the Big Apple to crack down on crime in the subway system.

Following a series of violent incidents in the NY City subway system, Governor Hochul announced a new five-point safety plan that includes bringing in hundreds of National Guard troops. A combined 1,000 personnel — including 750 National Guard troops, along with MTA Police — would be deployed in the subway system to help the NYPD conduct bag checks at the entrances of busy train stations in an effort to keep weapons off trains.

“Let me just be very, very clear. These brazen, heinous attacks on our subway system will not be tolerated,” Hochul said.

What changed from Cotton’s suggested use of use of the military, other than the party of the person calling for this? Inquiring minds – but not the NY Times - would like to know!

Interestingly, NY City Mayor Eric Adams previously insisted that crime in NY City is down and it’s the “safest big city in America.” (If this is the safest, what is crime like in those other big cites?)

The New York Post Reports: “Subway crime spiked 45% in January compared to the same month a year prior — but dropped 15% in February, which Mayor Eric Adams credited to new NYPD patrols on the Subway…Crime on the subway is up 13% overall for the year, according to NYPD statistics.”

Just like Joe Biden claims inflation has dropped from 9% to 3%, (without mentioning who was President when it was 9%,) Adams only sees a drop from 45% to 13% (without mentioning who was Mayor when it was 45%.)

Mayor Eric Adams did try to grudgingly adhere to the ‘party line’ when he said, “I know how it plays on your psyche when you hear about some random acts of violence and that’s why we must be proactive.”

It gets even better.

After the deployment began last week, straphangers entering the subway were greeted by camouflaged and gun-toting soldiers at bag-search checkpoints in a sight reminiscent of the city after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The soldiers were carrying standard military issue M4’s, (which really ARE ‘Assault Rifles.”) Unlike their civilian counterpart, the AR-15, (which really is NOT an Assault Rifle”) the M4s are capable of automatic fire.

All this led to complaints that state leaders were militarizing the subway system, and NYPD Chief of Patrol John Chell accused Hochul of treating the subways like a “war zone.”

This led to Hochul issuing the ban on “military-grade” rifles. Under Hochul’s new directive, some guardsmen will still be armed with ‘assault weapons’ at certain postings throughout the subway, but will not carry them at the actual bag checkpoints.

“Stop the theater!” wrote former Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik in a post on X, adding that “the NYPD knows their job” and should be left to do it.”

Send in the Clowns

Thu, 07 Mar 2024 20:34:57 GMT

Send in the Clowns by Tom Reynolds

An old song went: “Send in the clowns…don’t bother they’re here.”

You would think that even clowns would know that you don't throw business to your enemies. Not so, whoever is running the Biden administration.

Distribution transformers are responsible for “stepping down” higher-voltage electricity generated from long distances away for use by end-use customers. They are commonly mounted overhead on utility poles or secured to the ground on a pad.

In January of 2023, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a proposed: Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers (Proposed Rule). The Proposed Rule, if finalized, would marginally increase efficiency standards on distribution transformers and effectively require all distribution transformers to shift from the industry standard grain oriented electrical steel (GOES) cores to amorphous steel cores. GOES currently accounts for more than 95 percent of the domestic distribution transformer market and manufacturers’ production lines are tooled for designs that use GOES.

The United States only has one small domestic producer of amorphous steel transformers. Moving to amorphous steel cores, as proposed by DOE, would require this sole domestic supplier to rapidly increase operations from its current market share of less than five percent to accommodate the entire distribution transformer market. This will further delay manufacturing production timelines – currently estimated to be a minimum of 18 months to two years.

Sounds like a supply chain problem in the making. And it gets even worse.

Amorphous steel, is produced in the USA only in a limited supply. We would have to rely on imports from China, Japan, and Vietnam to supply the steel for American energy needs. The supply chain for the already vulnerable U.S. electric grid, and thus national security, could be endangered by relying so heavily on imports from the other side of the planet, from a hostile power such as China.

The Proposed Rule would exacerbate existing challenges such as grid modernization, reliability efforts, as well as the ability to respond and recover from natural disasters. All for extremely minimal efficiency gains for distribution transformers that are already meeting efficiency levels over 99 percent.

_________________________________________________________________

The United States and Russia began shipping Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to Europe in 2017-2018.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 prompted European countries to halt most imports of Natural Gas from Russia via pipeline and switch to LNG.

American LNG now represents roughly half the total shipped to Europe and about four times that of Russia.

The Biden Administration would have us halt all the U.S. shipments to evaluate climate impacts and let Russia more than quadruple its role in keeping Europeans warm.

In summary: we cut off Natural Gas shipments from Russia to penalize it for invading Ukraine. Russia offset this by increasing its LNG shipments. Biden’s stopping the USA’s LNG shipments will allow Russia to be able to ship many times more LNG.

_________________________________________________________

The Biden White House announced “new executive actions to help promote safe storage of firearms … to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer.”

The White House statement asserted, “Gun violence is the leading cause of death of children in America.” (That is, if you consider childhood lasting until your 24th birthday!)

This 1,254-word announcement offered details such as “76% of school shootings are committed with guns from the home.” (Which overlooks the fact that 100% of school shootings occur in “gun-free zones.”)

The White House notes that a rising trend has been firearms stolen from unattended motor vehicles. (Cause and effect. It doesn’t mention that law-abiding citizens are often compelled to leave their guns in their vehicles because of “sensitive places” laws which prevent them from entering sensitive places with lawfully-concealed defensive firearms.)

The administration urges that state “laws should impose a clear standard to penalize those who do not safely store their weapons and whose weapons end up being used for violence.” (There isn’t any mention of prosecuting and locking up criminals who actually misuse those guns. No reference to jailing and sentencing recidivist offenders. The administration thinks it will be more effective to criminalize the victim of a residential burglary or car rather than jailing the miscreants who steal those firearms.)

The White House says this project will save lives. (By putting more blame on honest gun owners than on criminals who ignore safe storage laws like they disregard any other gun control law? Good luck with that!)

Another win for the clowns and criminals.

Home Rule

Thu, 07 Mar 2024 02:25:00 GMT

Home Rule by Tom Reynolds

We may be generally familiar with the term Home Rule as a local defense against the overreach of state government. Home Rule is definitely an obstacle to those that would wish to consolidate all power in Albany and, it seems, Home Rule is being backdoored in Governor Hochul’s budget.

First, some background. The following is from the 2016 report on Constitutional Home Rule by the New York State Bar Association

“In New York State, local government has a greater impact on the day to-day lives of the public than any tier of government...since the 19th Century, “Home Rule” — the authority of local governments to exercise self-government — has been a matter of constitutional principle in New York. The continuing dilemma has been to strike the right balance of furthering strong local governments but leaving the State strong enough to meet the problems that transcend local boundaries.” (Emphasis added)

“Article IX, the so-called “Home Rule” article, contains protections for local government that are more extensive than those in many other states. Constitutional Home Rule is established by granting local governments affirmative lawmaking powers, while carving out a sphere of local autonomy free from State interference.”

“Despite Article IX’s intent to expand the authority of local governments, Home Rule in practice has produced only a modest degree of local autonomy. The powers of local governments have been significantly restricted by two legal doctrines developed through decades of litigation: “preemption” and “State concern.” Thirdly, local governments must also follow mandates enacted by the State Legislature.”

“Under the preemption doctrine, a local law is unenforceable when it collides with a State’ statute. But even in the absence of an outright conflict between State and local law, a local government may not act where the State has acted comprehensively in the same area.”

”The state concern doctrine represents an exception to the constitutional limitations on the State Legislature’s authority to enact special laws targeted at one or more, but not all local governments. Under this doctrine, the State Legislature is empowered to regulate local matters which also relate to State concerns, such as waste disposal on Long Island, sewers in Buffalo, and taxicabs in New York City.” (How are NYC Taxicabs the concern of state government?)

“Home Rule is further limited by the State Legislature’s imposition of mandates that compel local governments to provide specific services and meet minimum State standards, often without providing fully supporting funds necessary to comply with such mandates. New York imposes more unfunded mandates on localities than any other state in the nation.” (Probably every county in upstate NY has complained about these.)

John Droz Jr. is a physicist who has written a public warning about parts of Governor Hochul’s new budget that endanger Home Rule. What he describes should be familiar to 2nd Amendment defenders and though his letter does not deal with 2A, it seems important enough to pass on as our Home Rule constitutional rights may about to be overthrown.

Droz writes:

As you know the NYS Governor (and legislative allies) have been steadily chipping away at the rights of NYS citizens for several years now. Their basic mentality appears to be: if we can get away with a power grab, then let's go one step further to see if we can get even more.

This is very much like a child testing parental limits.

In this case — although they don't want you to see this — the Governor, et al work for you! In other words, you are the parent here.

Their next major extraction of NYS citizens' rights is found in the FY 2025 Executive Budget Legislation.

A favorite trick is to label power grabs with innocent-sounding titles. In this case, it is:

Transportation, Economic Development and Environmental Conservation Article VII Legislation.

An accompanying trick used by those trying to take more power is to bury their actions in an omnibus bill overflowing with legalese.

Just this one section has 260 pages!

I was alerted about a problematic energy section: "Part O", starting on page 129.

I perused the next 30+ pages, and (as an energy expert) none of it seems to be in the best interest of the public. (Emphasis added.)

That said, pages 150 and 151 of this polemic are particularly egregious, as they appear to kill any remnants of Home Rule Rights that NY communities still have. (For reference and a refresher on NYS Home Rule Rights, see this good discussion.)

The State is attacking your Home Rule rights as they contend that they have the moral high ground: they are "saving the planet." Your interest in the health, safety, and welfare of your family and community are a pittance compared to their virtue signaling.

Briefly, right now NYS communities have some legal rights to regulate wind and solar facilities. If the "2025 Budget" is passed with these proposed words, the resulting citizen/community rights will be almost non-existent.

I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that the legislature cannot simply pass a law that will negate provisions of the NYS Constitution — e.g. the Home Rule Rights stipulated in Article IX. However, as I stated above, they will do it if they think they can get away with it.

I'm playing a Paul Revere role here: alerting you to what is imminent. What you do to defend your rights is your call.

SCOPE does not have any expertise in Home Rule matters but Droz has been level-headed in the past and if he is this concerned perhaps we should also be concerned. Since most of NY’s land area is Republican and gun rights are important there, Home Rule may be one small arrow-in-our quiver to protect our rights. Our best advice is that we need to know more. Maybe it’s nothing but if it is anything like Droz suggests…

Try writing your state Senator and Assemblyperson with a copy of Droz’s letter and asking, “What’s going on here?”

A Way to Push Back – Write Gun Rights Legislation

Thu, 07 Mar 2024 02:16:17 GMT

A Way to Push Back – Write Gun Rights Legislation by John Elwood

It seems that all gun rights advocates hear is the constant drum beat of Democrat bills to circumvent the Second Amendment. For example, in 2023 alone:

California enacted an 11 percent tax on guns and ammunition, making it the only state with its own tax on guns and ammunition.

Illinois passed an assault weapons ban; the law prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.

Massachusetts is considering giving firearm licensing authorities’ access to some of an applicant’s mental health hospitalization history and expands the list of people who can petition the court to take away someone’s guns if they are deemed dangerous.

In New York State, citizens face the same extreme effort to take away, or at least infringe on one of the most important amendments of the United States Constitution – the Second Amendment; “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Five examples are a small sample of what New York Democrat lawmakers are pushing during the 2023-2024 legislative two-year period. They include:
A03314 requires liability insurance for owners of firearms, rifles, and shotguns.
A00442 establishes the offense of unlawful possession of firearms by persons under twenty-one.
Open carry talking points were provided by a SCOPE member to his New York State Senator Mark Walczyk and Walczyk recently introduced S8609, which expands the firearm license to have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession. In other words, Open Carry in NY State.
S8609 was referred to the Senate codes committee on February 21, 2024, and is currently pending action. Currently the bill does not have an accompanying NY Assembly SAME AS bill, but gun rights advocates are working to acquire that SAME AS bill. SCOPE supports S8609.
Gun rights advocates must get off the defensive and onto the offensive by doing three things to fight back:

A08443 grants the NY Attorney General (NYAG) the power to investigate, seek injunctive relief and prosecute any out of state individual or retail firearms seller should they knowingly sell ammunition to a resident of NY State without contacting the NY State Police for authorization. This includes prosecuting any individual who purchases ammunition on behalf of a New York state resident.

S0093/A01566 restricts the sale of ammunition only to individuals authorized to possess such weapon and creates a no-gun database under the division of the criminal justice services.

A00754 prohibits entry to gun shows to anyone under twelve years old.

You very seldom hear of gun rights bills introduced into the NY State legislature. Why aren’t gun rights bills introduced in the New York State Senate or Assembly very often? Why don’t you write gun rights legislation yourself and pass it to your legislator? Times might start to change!

Support S8609 by discussing and convincing lawmakers to support the bill.

Engage their lawmakers to write more gun rights legislation. If need be, provide talking points to lawmakers, and follow up to ensure lawmakers are doing what gun right advocates want. Fight fire with fire. S8609 is an attempt by gun rights advocates to legislatively start fighting back.

Vote. Winning elections has consequences. By virtue of winning an election, the victor’s agenda takes priority above all else. It is estimated that between 3–4-million-gun owners don’t vote. Do they feel that firearms legislation pushed by the left won’t affect them? That couldn’t be farther from the truth. If gun owners persist in not voting, the outcome is clear; our sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters will not have the same gun rights as we do today.

Gun rights advocates must start flooding the New York state legislature with gun rights bills. Individuals and SCOPE chapters should produce and track gun rights legislation of their choice and make sure legislators push their bill(s). State legislators work for you. Start putting them to work and then verify their efforts.

Saving Your Vote

Thu, 29 Feb 2024 03:07:39 GMT

Saving Your Vote by Tom Reynolds

SCOPE wrote about the politically motivated “1 Man 1 Vote” decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) under Earl Warren. But the Democrat Party will never stop until they can completely obliterate any challenge to them at the polls.

A 2021 New York City law aimed to create a class of voters eligible to vote in NY City municipal elections but not state or federal elections. (800,000 green card holders and illegal alien “DREAMers” who reside in New York City.) Democrats assume these non-citizen voters will reward the Democrat Party that enfranchised them and vote Democrat.

Thus, votes by United States citizens would be offset by non-citizen votes.

Thus, votes by people who were born in the USA or have sworn allegiance to the USA and forsaken any allegiance to a foreign power would be offset by people owing no allegiance to our Constitution, history, values and traditions.

The bill first became law automatically after former Mayor Bill de Blasio and current Mayor Eric Adams both declined to either sign or veto it. De Blasio had openly expressed concerns “big legal questions.”

The law was challenged I court. Vito J. Fossella et al. v Eric Adams etc. et al., centered on the interpretation of Article II, Section 1, and Article IX of the New York State Constitution, which references “citizens.”

Article II, Section 1, of the New York State Constitution states "Every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people...provided that such citizen is eighteen years of age or over and shall have been a resident of this state, and of the county, city, or village for thirty days next preceding an election."

Election Law § 5-102(1) also states “[n]o person shall be qualified to register for and vote at any election unless he (she)is a citizen of the United States."

Seems pretty clear that one needs to be a citizen to vote in any New York election. But clarity never stopped the Democrat Party leadership so the law was passed and the Fossella lawsuit against it was filed.

Staten Island State Supreme Court Justice Ralph Porzio ruled in June 2022 that the law was illegal. (It would seem to have been an easy call.)

But NYC Mayor Eric Adams and the City Council attempted to overturn the ruling since they were ‘playing with house money’ (taxpayer money) and Fossella had to be financed privately. Adams et al appealed.

Recently, in a 43-page order authored by Associate Justice Paul Wooten of the Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department in New York the lower court’s ruling against the law was upheld, by a 3-1 majority decision. (3-1? One judge didn’t believe citizen meant citizen?)

Wooten wrote: "Thus, pursuant to the New York State Election Law, eligibility to vote in a municipal election is dependent upon United States citizenship." In addition, and contrary to a dissenting opinion, Wooten noted there is not "any legislative history reflecting an intent to confer upon municipalities the power to make noncitizens eligible to vote."

"The plain language of this provision provides that the right to vote in 'every election for all officers elected by the people' is available exclusively to 'citizen[s],' as there is no reference to noncitizens, and thus, an irrefutable inference applies that noncitizens were intended to be excluded from those individuals entitled to vote in elections," Wooten surmised.

If the law had not been ruled unconstitutional, can there be any doubt that Democrat strongholds elsewhere in New York State would have passed similar laws? Non-Democrat votes would have been further disenfranchised which was, of course, the whole purpose of the law.

Will Adams and company seek to further appeal this decision since, as stated earlier, they are ‘playing with house money’?

There is an interesting twist to this. Adams is complaining that NY City is being driven broke by the cost of subsidizing illegal aliens. If the law had not been annulled, those same illegal aliens would have been voting in NY City on even more subsidies for the illegal aliens.

Of course, Mayor Adams knows that the illegal alien problem is Donald Trump’s fault. (Sarcasm intended.)

Senate Bill: S3589

Mon, 26 Feb 2024 19:03:49 GMT

Senate Bill: S3589

Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Merrick Garland and the FBI will also be joining them!

On January 16^th, Senators Ed Markey and Laphonza Butler (both Democrats if you couldn’t guess) proposed Senate bill S3589 which has since been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It’s stated purpose is: “To…prohibit unauthorized private paramilitary activity, and for other purposes.”

Per S3589: “The term ‘private paramilitary organization’ means any group of 3 or more persons associating under a command structure for the purpose of functioning in public or training to function in public as a combat, combat support, law enforcement, or security services unit.”

Apparently, Senators Markey and Butler are NOT familiar with the United States Constitution, even though they took an oath to uphold it.

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” or “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” (Amendment I, 1791)

“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” (Amendment II, 1791)

So, we have another proposed law that would seem to violate a few parts of the U. S. Constitution. Any other problems with their proposal?

Democrats have a habit of designing laws that are broad enough for political hacks like Attorney General Merrick Garland to drive a tank through.

“…any group of 3 or more persons associating under a command structure for the purpose of…function(ing)…as a…security services unit.”

If a church deacon or VFW post commander should organize and train a security force of 3 or more people, would Merrick Garland dream of charging them? What if the church had dared to say there were only two genders, making them terrorists in Garland’s eyes?

And you don’t have to act with the group to run afoul of this proposed law. If you have a firearm or ammunition that has crossed state lines (try buying any that hasn’t crossed state lines at some point) and trained with two other people: “It shall be unlawful… while acting as part of or on behalf of a private paramilitary organization and armed with a firearm, explosive or incendiary de vice, or other dangerous weapon…to publically (sic) patrol, drill, or engage in techniques capable of causing bodily injury or death.”

Firearms are capable of causing bodily injury or death, so the mere possession of one while on security patrol would be a crime.

If one person is patrolling on his own, will the other, non-participants be liable also?

But the U S Supreme Court has given the Democrats a peg to hang their hat on. It ruled in 1886—and repeated in 2008—that the Second Amendment “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008) (citing Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)).

So, three people will now constitute a paramilitary organization if this bill passes?

You may laugh but liberal judges only need to get their toe in the tent in order to let common sense fly out that opening.

This would be yet another law that the government would defend to the death with taxpayer funding while attempting to bankrupt anyone who would dare oppose them. The best way to prevent that is to not have these people in the legislature, so they cannot propose something like that, in the first place.

I believe that is called voting.

Trump Trial

Fri, 23 Feb 2024 16:13:36 GMT

Trump Trial by Tom Reynolds

Unless you have been living in a cave, you probably know something about the Manhattan trial where Donald Trump is supposed to pay $355 million in damages. The Manhattan Contrarian posted an excellent article explaining in more detail – but very understandable detail - just how corrupt this was and how dangerous it was to all of us. It is reprinted below. (Emphasis added).

The Stalinist New York Attorney General Scores A Big Win Against Trump (For Now)

February 20, 2024/ Francis Menton

Josef Stalin set the example for the world as the most ruthless practitioner of the art of using a thoroughly corrupt and subservient “justice system” to eliminate all political opposition. Many, many others have since followed Stalin’s lead. Current notable examples include the recent murder of Alexei Navalny in prison in Russia; Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido, who fled that country in late 2023 after his arrest was threatened by the Maduro regime; and Pakistan’s former Prime Minister and current opposition leader Imran Khan, convicted in January 2024of “disclosing a state secret” and sentenced to 10 years in jail. Funny how the countries that engage in such practices virtually always have failed economies as well.

The United States has been remarkably free of such practices during its history. But we have seen a sudden complete reversal of that commendable history with the efforts of multiple political actors and prosecutors to use the courts to take down former President Trump. Readers here are likely familiar with the long list of such efforts, from the two federal Jack Smith criminal prosecutions, to the Fani Willis criminal prosecution in Georgia, to the Alvin Bragg criminal prosecution in Manhattan (supposedly for incorrectly recording the blackmail payment to Stormy Daniels in financial statements), to the many efforts to remove Trump from primary and general election ballots.

Of all the multitudinous “get Trump” efforts, the most proudly and nakedly Stalinist is the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. What distinguishes the James crusade from all the others, as political as those might be, is that the others all have had at least a pretext of investigating some known or suspected wrongdoing. With James, by contrast, from the start it has always been about finding some way, any way, to take out the man. James initially ran for AG in 2018 on a campaign explicitly promising to get Trump, who was President of the United States at the time. My first post covering James’s vendetta against Trump was on December 13, 2018, shortly after her first election victory and before she took office. That post quoted at length from an interview James had just given to NBC News. In her interview, James emphasized that her focus in office would be on somehow getting Trump, and she essentially conceded that she had no basis at the outset to believe that wrongdoing had occurred. A short excerpt:

“We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well,” James, a Democrat, told NBC News in her first extensive interview since she was elected last month. James outlined some of the probes she intends to pursue with regard to the president, his businesses and his family members. They include: - Any potential illegalities involving Trump’s real estate holdings in New York.

In other words, when the investigation began, James had no inkling of what, if any, wrongs might have been committed “involving Trump’s real estate holdings,” and no complaining party asking for redress.

I had a second post about the James jihad against Trump on September 21, 2022 — shortly before James was re-elected to a second four year term in November of that year. The September 2022 post was titled “A New Low For New York Attorney General Letitia James.” The occasion for the post was that James, now nearing the end of her first term, had finally announced the big Complaint against Trump that everyone had been waiting for. The Complaint listed some ten attorneys in the AG’s office as participating — a truly extraordinary investigatory team. My comments in that post have stood the test of time, so rather than re-writing them, I will quote a few of the more notable items:

First, there are no criminal charges.

[T]his is almost entirely about . . . alleged over-valuation of properties when preparing unaudited personal financial statements as part of getting loans.

I can’t find any allegation that any of the loans in question has ever been in default or not paid on time. (Indeed, the proof at trial was that all of the loans were always paid on time.)

[T]here is no one claiming harm.

[H]ow much equity was there? The Complaint doesn’t say. If there’s lots of equity to spare, then various overvaluations are just so much meaningless puffery, and likely would be immediately obvious to a reader with any sophistication.

I have no doubt that Trump gave some ridiculously high values for some of his properties on his financial statements. My reaction is, so what? Particularly in the absence of any defaults after many years. Nothing about that is nearly as serious a matter as the ethical violation of New York’s chief law enforcement officer in misusing the office to select a target on the basis of politics without any reason to suspect particular wrongdoing. Such conduct should get the AG disqualified from running for office and even disbarred.

This case is brought under something called Executive Law Section 63(12). That statute gives authority to the Attorney General to enjoin someone who is engaging in “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts” or “persistent fraud or illegality.”

The judge notes — correctly — that the statute does not require three elements that are usually part of actionable fraud, namely intent, reliance, and damages. However, the judge skips over the problem that the statute does not do away with the element of “materiality.” Materiality is a critical element of a claim of fraud, and proof of it was completely missing here.

The State Comptroller at the time the statute was passed in 1956 was a guy name Arthur Levitt. Engoron quotes Levitt as saying at the time “Why not grant the Attorney General authority to enjoin anyone from continuing in a business activity if such person has been guilty of frequent fraudulent dealings?” Well, Mr. Levitt, now you know your answer. To remove the ancient common law requirements of intent and reliance from proof of fraud is to give a politicized Attorney General way too much power to attack political adversaries.

Several bankers from Trump’s lender, Deutschebank, testified that they did their own valuations of Trump’s properties instead of using the valuations provided by the borrower. That testimony completely undermines any finding of materiality.

The monetary relief is characterized as “disgorgement.” The idea is that Trump paid less interest than he would have paid if he had honestly valued the properties, and therefore he should have to give up that ill-gotten gain. But where does the “disgorgement” go? The answer is that Engoron orders the money to go to the “plaintiff,” or in other words, the AG’s office. (Does it even go to the state general fund? Good question.).

Well, James drew for the case a judge worthy of a Stalin show trial named Arthur Engoron. After previously granting summary judgment to the AG on one count, Engoron conducted a trial from October through January to determine liability on the other counts, and also to determine damages, if any. Justice Engoron issued his 92-page decision on Friday, February 16. Readers likely know that Engoron found the defendants liable on all seven counts (not all defendants on all counts). As monetary relief (technically he calls it “disgorgement” rather than “damages”) the judge ordered a total of some $355 million payable by Trump himself, plus interest from various dates, which could add tens of millions more.

Here are a few legal notes:

Trump at least theoretically gets two levels of appeal from here — first to the Appellate Division, First Department; and then to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals (which only takes cases by its own discretion, like the U.S. Supreme Court). Unlike the federal courts, the Appellate Division in New York has the statutory authority to review findings of fact. Likely before the appeals proceed there will be a battle as to whether Trump is entitled to have enforcement of the judgment stayed pending the appeals.

The Appellate Division, First Department has long had a reputation as a non-politicized court. I do not have any confidence that that reputation remains deserved today, and particularly in this case. Should it so choose, the Appellate Division has ample authority to reverse or drastically reduce the judgment, the most obvious grounds being lack of materiality and lack of damages.

All business leaders in New York, including those who hate Trump, should rightly be concerned about what has happened here. If a Stalinist Attorney General and one judge can do this to Donald Trump, they can do it to anyone they want. Jamie Dimon, David Solomon — this means you. Trump also thought he had the politicians bought off with political contributions.

The New York legal establishment has also shamed itself in this matter. Where are the lions of the bar calling out Letitia James for her conduct? I can’t find that. A few days ago, somebody finally brought an ethics complaint against James for the obvious conflict of campaigning to “get” a particular individual and then remaining involved in the subsequent investigation and trial. The complainant is Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a known Trump ally.

Every day New York becomes more known for descending to third-world country status.

Correction / Comment by Professor Jonathan Turley

In order to file an appeal, the courts require a deposit for the full amount of the damages or a bond covering the full amount. Even with escrow options, the call for cash or collateral can be enough to put some executives in a fetal position."

"It can be challenging enough for many companies drained from years of litigation. For Donald Trump, the demand for $355 million plus $100 million in interest could force a fire sale on properties to pony up just the deposit."

Weaponized Government

Thu, 22 Feb 2024 17:22:05 GMT

Weaponized Government

Weaponizing the government against political opponents is unamerican but there can be little doubt that it is wide spread and currently occurring. Is there any doubt that a weaponized government is being used to back door the 2nd Amendment and attack a presidential candidate frontrunner.

One of the ways the government is being politically weaponized is in the area of intelligence gathering. Our 5th Amendment was specifically passed to protect our rights against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

The following is a letter from Liberty Counsel that does a good job of outlining one of the sources of abuse. It’s well worth reading and will, hopefully, motivate you to take action.

Liberty Counsel Action and the ACLU have a rare moment of agreement urging the House to do more to protect U.S. citizens. The reason for this is simple. Steven Bradbury of The Heritage Foundation warns that "the FBI has come to pose a clear threat to the liberties of Americans."

One court found that for more than four years, the FBI violated the law and invaded the privacy of Americans even when there was "no reasonable basis to expect they would return foreign intelligence or evidence of crime."

"Since 9/11, the FBI has increasingly directed its broad intelligence-gathering powers at political movements that threaten the Washington establishment, such as Donald Trump's presidential campaigns, and at the exercise of free speech (usually speech that dissents from the government's preferred policy positions), religious liberties, and other constitutionally protected rights by ordinary Americans," according to the Heritage Foundation.

The threat of Communist China, Hamas and other terrorists, drug traffickers, cartels, and others seeking to harm our nation, some level of monitoring foreign threats is necessary.

However, the FBI used FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) to monitor politicians, political donors, people in D.C. on Jan. 6, and hundreds of thousands of other Americans.

No one was safe from the FBI's prying eyes.

The FISA law must be reformed to protect law-abiding Americans from the abuse of the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice. The U.S. House is considering two bills that will make small changes to Section 702. Yet, sweeping reforms are needed. Urge the U.S. House to act now to put in place much broader reforms.

Demand Congress safeguard our constitutional protections and stop the FBI abuse of FISA.

Law-abiding citizens have routinely been targeted by the FBI. Instead of investigating foreigners suspected of crimes, the FBI used this database for political or ideological purposes. It targeted Americans based on political affiliations.

The FBI unlawfully spied on President Donald Trump and knowingly spread false information about an alleged connection with Russia in order to suppress information about Hunter and Joe Biden during the 2020 election.

"Because Section 702 does not involve individualized court approvals, it allows surveillance of a much wider array of foreign targets than traditional FISA. Thus, in 2022, the 702 program was used to monitor 246,073 foreign targets, while the government obtained only 337 court orders for traditional FISA surveillance," according to Heritage Foundation's investigative report.

This abuse MUST STOP. Congress must reign in the FBI and reform Section 702 of the FISA law. Urge Congress to stop the FBI's abuse of FISA.

It would be bad enough if this were just happening in the FBI, but this is a pattern that extends to the Department of Justice, the IRS, and many other federal agencies. These agencies are being weaponized against Americans to favor one party.

Even the Inspector General of the Department of Justice is recommending that Section 702 of FISA be reformed by Congress to stop the abuse.

This FISA law comes up annually, and the authorizations are reapproved every year. But not this year.

Now the government wants Congress to pass a five-year authorization plan. Why? Because Donald Trump will most certainly be the Republican nominee for president. The agencies want the FISA authorization to exceed the term of the next president.

We need the U.S. House to stop FISA abuse now.

Ask Congress to pause, consider what has happened here, and strengthen the proposed language in this bill to address these problems at an even deeper level.

Government agencies are being weaponized. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a five-page memorandum to the FBI warning that people who complain about lockdowns and mask mandates at school board meetings were a "threat" that needed to be monitored. This is wrong and FISA must be reformed NOW!

Mat Staver, Chairman
Liberty Counsel Action

One Man One Vote

Wed, 21 Feb 2024 21:33:46 GMT

One Man One Vote by Tom Reynolds

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) under Chief Justice Earl Warren was one of the most liberal SCOTUS that the USA has ever had and, hopefully, ever will. Many of the divisive issues we face today are directly related to rulings during Warren’s reign. Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II accused the Warren Court of repeatedly amending the Constitution through its opinions, rather than waiting for the lawful amendment process.

One of the Warren Court’s worst decisions was Reynolds v Sims, which ignored the Constitution in order to remove political power from conservative rural areas and give it to liberal cities; it’s known as “one man one vote”.

In 1946, before Warren was appointed to SCOTUS, in Colegrove v. Green the court continued its long-standing position that legislative apportionment was a “political thicket” into which the judiciary should NOT intrude.
In 1962, in Baker v. Carr, the Warren Court ignored SCOTUS’ own precedent and forced the Tennessee legislature to reapportion itself on the basis of population.
In 1964, using its own Baker v. Carr precedent to validate its action, the Warren Court cited the Baker case as a precedent and held in Reynolds v Sims that both houses of a two-house legislature had to be apportioned according to population. This is known as “one man one vote”.

As a result of Reynolds v Sims, virtually every state legislature was reapportioned, ultimately causing rural areas’ political power to be given to urban areas. This flew directly in the face of the founders’ intent when it established the federal Senate with two votes per state in order to preserve some power in the small states. In essence, the Warren Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution was unconstitutional.

In defense of the Warren decision, many states had abused their senate districting, which prompted the Warren decision. However, Warren wanted to fix the problem in the worst possible way and that is exactly how he did it, in the worst possible way. But the best way for Democrats.

Warren based the decision on the 14^th Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws.” Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a dissent that said the majority had chosen to ignore the language, history, and original intent of the Equal Protection Clause, which did not extend to voting rights.

As a result, minority parties in many states, such as NY State, do not have an effective vote in state matters, which negates our “equal protection of the laws.”

Every issue must be viewed in context; statements can mean very different things when taken out of context. The US Constitution set up the rules and overall framework for how the federal government would operate, but it also had another purpose; to use those rules to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Every part of the Constitution should be interpreted within the context of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. “One man one vote” goes against that principle.

The Constitution contains many examples that contradict “one man one vote:

The power to make laws is vested in our elected representatives in the House and Senate, not in a vote by the majority of the people (Article I Section 1).
Each state has two Senators, no matter what the population (Article 1 Section 3 and Amendment XVII).
Power is divided and the Executive department has the power to run the government and enforce laws (Article II Section I) but not to make laws (Article I Section 1).
The President is elected by the Electoral College, where each state has the number of votes equal to its total number of Representatives and Senators (Article II Section I). Almost all states allocate their Electoral College votes on a winner take all basis, not a percentage of votes (state laws).
In case no one gets a majority of the electoral votes, the decision is made by the House of Representatives where each state has only one vote for President, no matter what the population. (Amendment XII)
Only the House of Representatives is based on population and it is not truly “one man one vote”. The smallest state gets at least one vote (Article I Section 2). Six states are below the average representation.
Congress passed the law that sets the number of SCOTUS judges at nine and there is no requirement for equal representation throughout the USA.

Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate (Article 2 Section 2); they are not elected. (Another example that goes against “one man one vote”.) 2^nd Amendment defenders face an extremely grave time with the Senate and Presidency both in gun grabbers’ hands; they have run rampant in approving far left judges who will make political rulings, such as the Warren Court made, instead of judgments based on the Constitution. Elections have consequences and we need to ensure that future Presidents and Senates only appoint conservative judges who believe in the rule of law.

Perhaps, someday, we will have judges who recognize that “one man one vote” was another constitutional aberration of the Warren Court and needs to be overturned. That would overcome the tyranny of the majority that is now the rule of law in NY State and give gun owners and Upstate NY a voice in their government that is currently denied to them.

Another Congressional Redistricting

Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:39:51 GMT

Another Congressional Redistricting by Tom Reynolds

The Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) was created by a NY constitutional amendment that was approved by the voters in 2014. The IRC is composed of ten members who are appointed in various ways. It was supposed to do the redistricting for Congress and the NY Senate and the NY Assembly after the 2020 census was completed.

The IRC was pushed by the Democrat Party because, at that time, the NY Senate was in Republican hands and this was a way to change that. But then, the Democrats unexpectedly won control of the NY Senate and they didn’t like the IRC idea, any more. The Democrats wanted to return to the old way where the Senate majority decided on the districts – since they were now in the majority.

The redistricting fight after the 2020 census reflected the Democrats desire to neuter the commission and was so bad that it led to a court stepping in and doing the final redistricting.

Semifinal? That was not the end of it.

Democrats viewed the new congressional districts as too fair to Republicans, who made gains in the 2022 elections, even though Democrats still held the vast majority of NY seats in Congress. Democrats managed to get the process reopened.

Last week, by a vote of 9-1, the IRC approved a new congressional map, to replace the too-fair-to Republicans-map. It could help NY Democrats make slight gains in this year’s U.S. House elections, but it falls well short of the electoral windfall for the Democrats that they were expecting.

The new map now moves for final action to the Democrat-controlled NY State legislature, where its fate is unclear. Democrats in the state legislature have final say over the map, holding the power to reject the commission’s plan and take over the line-drawing themselves. But that would risk another round of legal fights, with Republicans likely to challenge any map they view as an overly aggressive gerrymander. Several Democrats remained noncommittal. The last thing the Democrats want is another judge drawing the final districts – unless they can pick the judge.

The IRC’s map leaves largely undisturbed much of the present districts, with only a few major exceptions.

According to the NY Times, with tears of regret in its eyes, “The commission’s map includes modest tweaks that would help Democrats flip one seat in Syracuse, and would most likely make a pair of vulnerable incumbents — one Democrat and one Republican — safer in the Hudson Valley.”

The Times continued, “But it does not touch lines on Long Island or in Westchester County, both major suburban battlegrounds where Democratic campaigns were looking for a leg up, or on Staten Island, where the party has long coveted a right-leaning seat. Even subtle shifts in those areas could have made a handful of Republican-held seats virtually unwinnable for incumbents in November.”

Andrea Stewart-Cousins, the NY State Senate majority leader, said “We are committed to concluding it in a manner that upholds fairness and democracy.” (Who said Democrats don’t have a sense of humor?)

With the Special Election victory of Democrat Suozzi, the House has a slim Republican majority of 6 (219-213). There are three special elections scheduled for this Spring to fill out the three open seats and two are in heavily favored Republican districts and one is in a heavily favored Democrat district. If all goes as projected, when the dust settles, Republicans will hold a seven-vote majority.

At least until the November elections.

The redistricting is especially important to Democrats as the major issues with voters (inflation, crime, immigration) would all seem to be negatives for them. Getting more favorable districts may be their main election strategy.

And of course, to Second Amendment defenders, the Democrat party has made itself into the enemy of our gun rights, so this should be of great interest to 2A defenders.

Defying SCOTUS

Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:39:08 GMT

Defying SCOTUS by Tom Reynolds

Last Wednesday, February 7th, SCOPE sent an email titled Chevron Dying. It raised an important question about courts, legislatures and executives that defy United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) rulings and get away with it. Specifically, we asked:

When judges, legislators and executives openly defy the Constitution, that also opens the door to abuse and some action needs to be taken. Without threat of punishment, there is little downside to ignoring SCOTUS and the Constitution.

We have a problem that needs to be addressed. With all the legal brainpower in Washington, there must be some possible solution? Of course, there has to be the will to solve the problem.

Yesterday, Ammoland contained an article titled, 'Is the U.S. Supreme Court Losing Control Over Lower Courts', which is a reprint from “Arbalist Quarrel.” The article raised the same issue that SCOPE did a week earlier about lower courts openly defying SCOTUS. However, this article went beyond SCOPE in that it gave multiple examples of states defying SCOTUS.

And it raised the same unanswered question: what can we do about it? It’s not only a NY problem but it’s a bigger problem than you might have imagined.

It is worth reading to see the volume and types of cases where SCOTUS is openly defied.

Is The U.S. Supreme Court Losing Control Over The Lower Courts
(ammoland.com)

A New More Sinister Way For NY To Disarm It's Citizens

Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:27:57 GMT

See this 7 minute 40 second video which lays out the situation in NY very well:

A New More Sinister Way For NY To Disarm It's Citizens

Comments made on this video:

-Former NYer here. I waited 12 weeks for my pistol permit. And that was 20+ years ago.

-They’ve normalized tyranny in that state.

-It’s been generational programming.

-Life long residents think the suppression of their rights is normal and acceptable.

Allowing Credit Card Companies to Track Gun Purchases

Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:12:16 GMT

Allowing Credit Card Companies to Track Gun Purchases by John R. Elwood

In 2022, the International Organization of Standards (ISO) announced it would create a Merchant Category Code (MCC) for gun and ammunition purchases for credit card companies to use. Who is the ISO, and what is an MCC?

The International Organization of Standardization (ISO) is an independent, non-governmental (NGO), international organization. It applauds itself by saying it brings together experts to share knowledge and develop voluntary, consensus-based, market relevant International Standards that support innovation and provide solutions to global challenges. It began in 1946 and, today, it has a membership of 170 national standard bodies. The ISO is an NGO that has an accredited status with the United Nations’ (UN) Department of Economic and Social Affairs and is headquartered out of Geneva, Switzerland. The United States has access to the ISO through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

A Merchant Category Code (MCC) is a four-digit code that credit card that companies use to identify the type of business that is processing a financial transaction – such as hardware stores, department stores or gasoline stations. The code serves several purposes including whether a business needs to report a particular transaction to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and calculating consumer cash back rewards.

Prior to this change, guns and ammunition stores were categorized as sporting goods or miscellaneous general merchandise stores.

Who is leading this effort?

The usual suspects in gun control efforts, Democrat Senators Menendez and Warren, led an effort urging the United States Treasury and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide guidance to financial institutions for the full implementation of these guns and ammunition codes. Senator Elizabeth Warren stated, “We need implementation across the country if we’re going to do everything, we can to prevent gun violence. The sooner credit card companies and banks begin using the new merchant code for gun retailers and tracking suspicious gun purchases, the more mass shootings we will have a shot at preventing before they occur”. (A statement based on no factual studies.) The organization Guns Down America supported this effort, calling on companies to make the gun store code available in every state where it is not banned.

Senators Menendez and Warren wrote to U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Attorney General Merrick Garland stating, “We believe the new MCC code has the potential to help reduce gun violence and save lives.” The Senators highlighted in most mass shootings between 2007 and 2018, credit cards or debit cards were used to acquire the guns and ammunition used in the attack.

(Most cars in auto wrecks were probably financed with car loans so is the answer to auto crashes a new MCC category for auto loans?)

A resistance formed. Later in 2023, inspired by an uproar from Second Amendment Constituents, Republicans in the United State Senate pushed back. Several states also launched a legislative effort that shut down the effort to track purchases of firearms and ammunition. At least seven Republican-controlled state legislatures have banned MCCs for gun and ammunition purchases, while nine other legislatures are considering similar legislation. States that have already banned MCCs include Wisconsin, West Virginia, Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota, Montana, Texas, and Florida. Under the “Florida Arms and Ammo Act”, credit cards companies can be fined up to $10,000 if they track gun and ammunition sales.

Great, now we can rest? Not so fast!

The MCC for gun and ammunition purchase is back!

Major credit card companies (Mastercard, Visa, American Express) are moving forward to make an MCC available for firearm and ammunition retailers in order to comply with a new California law that will allow banks to potentially track suspicious gun purchases and report them to law enforcement by May 2025. Gun control activists hope the code can be used as a tool to help identify suspect purchases and stop gun crime including mass shootings.

What is the big deal?

Bankers have the expertise to identify potential criminals who will misuse firearms?

What’s a suspicious purchase…more than one box of ammo?

Some people don’t have to use a credit card or debit card to purchase firearms or ammunition, they can use cash or pay with a check. But, what if the federal government goes to an all-digital currency like a digital dollar, and cash is not available? If that were to happen, and that is not out of the realm of possibilities because Democrats in the U.S Government are currently looking to move to a digital dollar. If implemented, EVERY purchase you make, including gun and ammunition purchases, will be monitored by the U.S. Government.

(Not doing enough for climate change by buying what the government considers too much meat? The digital dollar will tell on you, too!)

The National Rifle Association (NRA) vehemently denounces the use of a firearm-specific Merchant Category Code (MCC) as a clear infringement of the sacred Second Amendment rights of every American. An NRA representative stated, “Orchestrated by left-wing institutions and anti-gun lobbyists, this underhanded maneuver aims to bypass federal laws, effectively implementing a de facto national firearms registry and trampling the Constitution. Amid an environment where lawful gun sales already undergo rigorous scrutiny, this scheme represents an unprecedented assault on the privacy of law-abiding gun owners”.

A gun expert stated, “If governments or credit card companies start to require certain purchase patterns at gun stores be reported to police, that could put a lot of innocent people under suspicion depending on how broad the criteria are”.

We have been warned! California’s move to institute a gun and ammunition MCC is a warning to New York State gun owners. Now, what are we going to do about it?

The New York State organization, Shooter’s Committee on Political Education (SCOPE) OPPOSES this attempt by the left-wing Democrat Party to restrict the privacy of gun owners when they purchase a gun or buy ammunition. We do so because:

The NRA-ILA summarizes it nicely: “Several provisions in federal law, but most notably a key part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, prohibit the federal government from centralizing most firearm records into a registry. The new MCC could provide a way for the government to outsource the creation of a registry that the government itself is prohibited from creating. If banks and payment processors share their records with the government, that would be a major step towards the registration of all gun owners in America.”

Gun owners know what comes after national registry…CONFISCATION.

Just as important, it is not the responsibility of an INTERNATIONAL non-governmental (administrative bureaucracy) like the ISO to pass laws on citizens of the United States. Public-private partnerships DO NOT make legislation, the United States Congress makes our laws!

This is a great example of why It is important to remind each and every American that every AMERICAN must continue to be involved in the legislative process and to ensure that your representatives are fighting to protect your Constitutional rights”.

Let’s not assume someone else will fight this battle. Let’s get involved now!

The hour is late in the fight to protect the United States Constitution.

Special Election This Coming Tuesday

Fri, 09 Feb 2024 16:07:02 GMT

Special Election This Coming Tuesday

There are currently 219 Republicans and 212 Democrats in the House, giving Republicans a seven-member advantage. Normally, if only four Republicans switch their vote on any issues, the Democrats could enact any law. But Republican Steve Scalise is home being treated for cancer and unavailable to vote.

There are currently four openings which will be filled by Special Elections.

Ohio’s 6th Congressional District is currently open with a special election scheduled for June 11th. The district is rated as solid Republican.

California’s 20th Congressional District is currently open with a special election scheduled for May 19th. The district is rated as solid Republican.

New York’s 26th Congressional District is currently open. Governor Hochul must make a decision on a date for a special election by February 12th. The district is rated as solid Democrat.

_________________________________________
The Constitutional Right you save may be your own.

This coming Tuesday, February 13th, a special election will be held in New York’s 3rd Congressional District. The district primarily represents part of the northern shore of Long Island. Tom Suozzi (D) is running against Mazi Melisa Pilip (R). The election is rated a tossup.

Given the Republicans’ small majority and with Republicans and Democrats sharply divided on gun control – as well as many other issues – this election is important to all Americans and of special interest to all SCOPE members.

Tom Suozzi is running on the Democrat ticket. He said, “I’m proud of my F-rating from the NRA. We see these violent acts with guns happening much too often.”

The Brady Campaign and Giffords endorsed Suozzi and Moms Demand Action named him a ‘Candidate of Distinction’. Brady, Giffords and Moms are all rabidly anti-2A organizations so it’s fair to say that Suozzi is not 2A friendly.

SCOPE rate Suozzi as an “F”.

Mazi Melesa Pilip is running on the Republican ticket. Being a political newcomer, there isn’t much available about her position on 2A. One statement was that, on gun control, Pilip supports pro-gun interpretations of the Second Amendment, but makes clear the need for responsible regulations.

Suozzi’s campaign, in an appeal to Democrats, sees it as a negative when they say this about her, “Pilip is also running on the Conservative Party platform that opposes common sense gun reform, even red flag laws.”

Pilip spoke about gun policy in an interview with Spectrum News. When asked about preventing school shootings, she said there are "already policies in place that we have to make sure that we coordinate between the federal and state government."

So, we have one rabidly anti-2A candidate (Suozzi) running against one who is at least mildly pro 2A (Pilip).

SCOPE rates Pilip as “B+”

This election is important to all of us because, when voting for any legislator, you are really voting for two people; the legislator and the head of the legislator’s party. The latter might become the Speaker / Majority Leader due to the election and have enormous power over that legislative body. A vote for Suozzi is a vote for a Democrat Speaker and a vote for Pilip is a vote for a Republican Speaker. And you know which party’s leadership Is anti-2A.

If you live in the 3rd Congressional District, be sure to vote on Tuesday.

A Few More Lawsuits

Thu, 08 Feb 2024 15:36:21 GMT

A Few More Lawsuits by Tom Reynolds

Gun control addicts realize they can’t get the 2^nd Amendment repealed so their approach is that Americans may be able to keep and bear arms but there will be no place where they can do that. This flies in the face of the Bruen decision but SCOTUS decisions never stop the Left; those decisions just invigorate the Left to try new approaches.

Ammoland reports on this case.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of New York, challenging the state’s blanket ban on out-of-state residents being able to obtain a concealed carry permit or to have New York honor out-of-state permits.

Under current New York law, only New York residents may apply for and obtain permits to carry concealed weapons, and the state does not grant any form of reciprocity for individuals who hold a similar permit from another state.

While those who hold out-of-state driver’s licenses may drive in New York, exercising one’s constitutional right to bear arms in New York State is wholly forbidden to Americans who are not NY State residents. New York is the only known state where nonresidents are not allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. (And residents keeping and bearing arms isn’t too popular with the NY State government, either.)

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“The State of New York and its cadre of anti-gun politicians have done everything in their power to weaken and outright ban the Second Amendment within their borders. The Supreme Court has made clear that the right to bear arms extends to the public square, and this right is for all Americans, not just those who are residents of individual states.”

Sam Paredes, on behalf of the board for GOF, added:

“This is the only example nationwide that we can find where an out-of-state resident is completely barred from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, and there’s no doubt the anti-gun legislature in Albany purposely designed it this way. We’ve warned these politicians before and we’ll do it again, fall in line on the Second Amendment, or we will make you.”

Note: while this lawsuit applies to residents of other states, it is an important step towards forcing NY State to comply with the spirit and the letter of the Bruen decision.

Bearing Arms reports on this case

The Fry v. Nigrelli lawsuit challenges several aspects of New York’s carry laws including the post-Bruen ban on lawful carry on public transit. Gun owners from Westchester and Orange counties sued New York City in 2021 because their state-issued concealed carry handgun licenses are invalid in New York City. The case was expanded after the Concealed Cary Improvement Act was passed in 2022.

A lower court denied the request for a preliminary injunction against firearm bans on public transportation such as the MTA, subway, and train cars and in Times Square. A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, recently heard the latest appeal for an injunction.

The Concealed Carry Improvement Act, which took effect in September 2022, bans guns from designated “sensitive places” such as schools, playgrounds and Times Square. The gun owners claim the regulations are “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of firearm regulation.”

Fry’s attorney says that both the state of New York and New York City officials have argued that no one’s going to get arrested and charged with carrying in New York City, so long as they have a valid permit issued in another New York county. But the attorney has a client who’s facing felony charges; a 23-year-old who was pulled over behind the wheel in the Big Apple and charged with three felonies for carrying concealed even though he has a valid New York State carry permit.

As might be expected, the Leftist 2^nd Circuit did not seem friendly to the complaint. The question is whether ‘Frey’ will try to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Note: This case applies to non-residents, too; non-residents of New York City. Since the NYC government doesn’t want its own citizens to have guns, it should not be a surprise that they hate the idea of non city residents having guns.

Ammoland reports on this case.

In Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority, a federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a challenge of a public housing authority gun ban in Cortland, N.Y.

The 29-page decision enjoins the defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys “from, taking any action to enforce, or otherwise require any person or entity to comply with the firearms ban as set forth in the ‘Tenant’s Obligations’” in the standard lease agreement pending final resolution of the case.

“This is not the first time SAF has litigated a public housing case,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “which have all been about the same thing, a Second Amendment violation. We have won cases in Illinois and Tennessee, and by now, it would seem that public housing authorities should have gotten the message that constitutional rights do not end at the front door. We will continue pursuing such cases as they come to our attention because people do not give up their rights simply because they live in subsidized housing.”

“No public housing authority should be allowed to simply block tenants from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Bill of Rights is an all-or-nothing proposition, not a buffet from which a bureaucracy should be able to pick and choose which rights they find acceptable. We’re delighted with Judge Suddaby’s decision, which is a victory for constitutional rights everywhere.”

Note: These cases put NY State on the defensive, for a change, something Hochul, James and company are not accustomed to.

Chevron Dying?

Wed, 07 Feb 2024 18:34:55 GMT

Chevron Dying? by Tom Reynolds

Under the 1984 SCOTUS opinion in Chevron U.S.A. v. National Resources Defense Council, if a law is ambiguous, the court must accept the executive agency's interpretation of the law if the executive branch agency's interpretation of the law is reasonable or permissible. No room for judicial scrutiny.

The Chevron decision has seriously distorted how the political branches operate; under Chevron, Executive Branch agencies become lawmakers, which is contrary to that pesky scrap of paper, the United States Constitution, which demands that only Congress can legislate.

Chevron is the reason that the ATF has been able to arbitrarily pass firearm regulations.

That may be changing, on paper at least.

The cases of two Herring fishing companies are before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS): Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. Why are two fishing cases of interest to 2nd Amendment defenders?

The federal Magnuson-Stevens Act, allowed the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to require herring boats to carry federal monitors to enforce of NMFS’ regulations. NMFS decided that, without any express statutory authorization, the herring boats must also pay the salaries of these monitors, estimated by the NMFS to be $710 per day. NMFS took the usual bureaucratic attitude; what are you going to do about it? Sue us?

To NMFS surprise, Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless sued.

There is reason for us to be hopeful. SCOTUS has ruled positively against the chevron Doctrine in a similar case.

West Virginia vs the EPA was about the EPA legislating through regulation, under the Chevron Doctrine; the EPA was mandating the shutdown of coal fire power plants. The question was not whether shutting down coal plants was good or bad but whether the EPA had the power and right to move forward with regulatory mandates on such “a major question” without express congressional approval.

SCOTUS answer was a resounding no to the EPA.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his concurring opinion, was a resoundingly strict constitutionalist: “By effectively requiring a broad consensus to pass legislation, the Constitution sought to ensure that any new laws would enjoy wide social acceptance, profit from input by an array of different perspectives during their consideration, and thanks to all this prove(d) stable over time…Permitting Congress to divest its legislative power to the Executive Branch would dash (this) whole scheme…agencies could churn out new laws more or less at whim.”

2A defenders are hopeful these cases will mortally wound the Chevron doctrine and curtail agencies such as the ATF in its anti-2A methods. The Chevron Doctrine must be put to death.

However, that won’t necessarily solve the problem, in real life, as there is a related problem. If the federal government loses the “Herring” cases, will they have any impact, other than as paper victories?

Article VI of the Constitution states: “This Constitution…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby…” But what happens to judges (and legislators and governors) who ignore the Constitution?

Answer, in most cases: nothing.

In Caetano v Massachusetts, every level of Massachusetts’ state courts ignored an existing SCOTUS ruling that clearly stated that guns did not have to be in existence when the 2nd Amendment was passed in order to be protected by 2A. Massachusetts judges openly defied SCOTUS and based their opinions on a type of gun not being in existence in 1790.

What was the judges’ punishment in Democrat controlled Massachusetts for ignoring the Constitution? Nothing!

In NY State, the legislative and executive branches ignored the SCOTUS rulings in NYSRPA v Bruen and passed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) which openly contradicted much of Bruen. As a result, hundreds of thousands of dollars (eventually millions) are being spent suing NY State.

We expect SCOTUS will overturn much of CCIA. If so, will there be any legal action against anyone who openly defied SCOTUS? Not in Democrat controlled NY State.

In Biden v Nebraska, SCOTUS ruled that the Biden Administration does not have authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers.

In response, Biden has been forgiving loans and extending repayment periods.

Can we expect an impeachment?

People need to be held responsible for violating their oaths of office.

Granted, it is also dangerous path when the executive and judicial branches start taking legal action against judges because of court decisions. This can be easily abused. The Left has little regard for our Constitution and this would open up a new path for them to destroy it. Which is is why there have been few impeachments of federal judges.

When judges, legislators and executives openly defy the Constitution, that also opens the door to abuse and some action needs to be taken. Without the threat of punishment, there is little downside to ignoring SCOTUS and the Constitution.

We have a problem that needs to be addressed. With all the legal brainpower in Washington, there must be some possible solution? Of course, there has to be the will to solve the problem.

Oregon( e )

Mon, 05 Feb 2024 17:28:12 GMT

Oregon( e ) by Tom Reynolds

Oregon is the place where people go who are too radical for California.

Oregon was the first state to decriminalize the possession of drugs. Police can no longer arrest someone for possession of small amounts of heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, oxycodone and other hard drugs under a ballot measure passed by a wide margin in November 2020. Instead, those found in possession face a $100 fine or a health assessment that could lead to addiction counseling.

Note: If they can’t pay what Is basically a speeding ticket, drug users had to undergo an assessment they don’t want to determine if they have an addiction they don’t want to break so they could undergo addiction counseling they don’t want. What could go wrong?

But, supporters of the measure were ecstatic. (Notice how similar their comments and predictions were to Democrat comments every time a new gun control law is passed.)

Decriminalizing hard drugs was hailed it as a revolutionary move for the United States. Supporters said that criminalizing drug possession had not worked.

'Today, the first domino of our cruel and inhumane war on drugs has fallen, setting off what we expect to be a cascade of other efforts centering health over criminalization,' said Drug Policy Alliance executive director Kassandra Frederique.

Oregon’s 'Drug Treatment and Recovery Services Fund' was rolling in money thanks to ‘pot taxes’ on the rapidly growing legal marijuana industry. However, some funds were also diverted from other programs and entities that had already received the funds. The ballot measure capped the amount of pot tax revenue that schools, mental health alcoholism & drug services, the state police, and cities & counties received at $45 million annually, with the rest going to the 'Drug Treatment and Recovery Services Fund'.

'In the future, as Oregon's treatment programs reach full funding, the state should evaluate what other services would benefit from our continually growing marijuana tax revenues,' Oregon Education Association (OEA) President John Larson said in an email.

Note: The OEA union represents about 44,000 educators. I wonder what other non-addiction services’ the teacher’s union has in mind to finance with the ‘pot tax’?

The initiative was also expected to help save money by reducing law enforcement costs stemming from arrests. After decriminalization of hard drugs, about 3,700 fewer Oregonians per year were estimated to be convicted of felony or misdemeanor possession of controlled substances, according to estimates by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. The measure was also predicted to lead to a 95 percent reduction in racial and ethnic disparities in convictions and arrests, the state commission said.

Oregon was to become Nirvana for the drugs formerly known as illegal.

Or maybe not.

Opioid deaths in Oregon, which were 280 before the de-criminalization of drugs, grew to 955 in 2022. The Portland Police Department’s Bureau of Narcotics and Organized Crime Unit saw a 75% increase in notifications of overdose deaths in 2023 over a year prior. According to the Oregon Health Authority, the state experienced more opioid overdose visits to emergency departments and urgent care centers last year compared to previous years.

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek (Democrat of course) said in a statement, (we) “are grappling with how to respond” to the opioid / fentanyl crisis.

Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson (Democrat) and Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler (a ‘moderate Democrat by Oregon standards) each declared a 90-day state of emergency to commit available resources into a unified response to the fentanyl crisis. (Taking money away from some of those ‘revolutionary’ methods hailed two years ago?)

Mayor Wheeler said in a statement: “This is exactly the type of coordinated action needed to make a direct impact and a lasting difference." (This ‘coordinated effort’ sounds a lot like what was promised two years ago about another approach.)

Remember when Portland was synonymous with ‘Defund the police?” Portland Police Bureau has entered into a partnership with the Oregon State Police to jointly patrol downtown streets for fentanyl sales.

At the state level, Democrat lawmakers in Oregon unveiled a sweeping new bill that would undo a key part of the state’s first-in-the-nation drug decriminalization law. The bill would recriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs as a low-level misdemeanor.

2d Amendment supporters in NY State are accustomed to the same type of hype that accompanied the 2020 decriminalization of drugs and we are also used to the same type of results. After all, the ‘gun control’ laws take guns away from law abiding citizens while leaving criminals virtually untouched; something the gun control proponents do not get!

And in a similar vein, no bail laws and soft on crime prosecutors like Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg promised new approaches to crime. New -yes. Effective-no.

The lesson for all of us is that the Left promises big things when they make big changes to established laws and traditions. Maybe the old ways aren’t so bad? You know, things like “keep and bearing arms” to protect ourselves from criminals and drug addicts who commit crimes. (I differentiate between criminals and drug addicts since, in Oregon, they are not the same.)

Some closing thoughts:

We shouldn’t put all the blame on the decriminalization. After all, Joe Biden opened our southern border to smuggling-at-will and that has certainly contributed to the fentanyl crisis.

Several years before Oregon decriminalized drugs, it also made marijuana legal. NY State has also made marijuana legal. Can we expect the far left, which has utterly failed in their efforts in NY State, to follow Oregon’s lead in spite of Oregon’s failure?

Congresswoman Lauren Boebert introduced a bill (as yet unnumbered) “To…treat illicit fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction.” This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fentanyl is a WMD Act’’.” (Maybe Boebert isn’t as crazy as the leftist media tries to portray?)

To whom it may Concern; . . .

Sat, 03 Feb 2024 15:05:04 GMT

To whom it may Concern;

Every member of Scope - if they are not already doing it - needs to start writing and phoning their State and Local Representatives. There is power in numbers and until our elected officials receive hundreds and thousands of messages they will not budge. I myself write to Senator Schumer, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Cooney, Representative Joe Morelle, Assemblyman Josh Jensen and Governor Kathy Hochul on a weekly, sometimes daily routine, and President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris when I’m really upset. Out of these people the only individual that I believes cares to buck the system is Josh Jensen. I would vote against the rest of them.

We have illegals requiring that our school children go back to remote learning because the illegal migrant camps are overcrowded and the space in our schools is needed to house the illegals during storms. When these illegals will be required to attend school, be prepared to watch our school budget and taxes go sky high with no input from us by the way.

We have more money in our state budgets for the illegal aliens that we do for our legal residents, many who live in poverty. State Senator Cooney was pretty proud of the fact that the Monroe County area would receive $50 Million from Governor Hochul for impoverished families. This same Governor is putting 2.4 billion in our state budget for the illegals, something Senator Cooney forgot to mention.

We have Governors, Attorney Generals and other officials asking our President for relief supporting the illegal population entering our country with no response.

We have a Vice President telling Katie Couric on National Television that our leaders need to do something while, apparently, not realizing that she is a leader (I Think).

This week on National TV, we watched as Illegal Aliens beat up a NYC policeman. Initially four were arrested and released without bail. As of today Thursday, seven of the 12 suspects have now been arrested with police still looking for the rest. Governor Hochul thinks the event should be looked at to determine if the illegals should be deported. Do you believe she needs to think about it? Why were the arrested released without bail?

I can go on and on but nothing is going to change until everyone that is unhappy starts contacting their elected officials and telling them they’ve had enough.

It’s very important that we keep our members informed, as you have done nicely, but it’s just as important that, after we read your messages, we also do our part and follow up and act upon your message with a phone call, email, Facebook any kind of message that confronts our elected officials with the truth which is “We don’t like what you are doing and we want you to change it”. We need to do this because while all of this daily commotion is going on with the illegals, these same politicians that ignore the laws of our country and make a farce of their Oath of Office are sneaking in new gun bills.

With Respect Ron B.

NYS Assembly

NYS Senate

NYS Congressional Delegation

Senate Proposed Bill S3407

Sat, 03 Feb 2024 14:19:05 GMT

Senate Proposed Bill S3407

At its inception, the United States Constitution was unique in that its power came from the bottom up (from the people) and was not top-down. We became citizens instead of servants-of-the-king.

In addition, there were many parts of the Constitution specifically designed to decentralize power. We often think about three coequal branches of the government but there is another very important way power was diffused. Amendment 10 says that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The separation of powers between the states and the federal government is a vital part of the Constitution.

Our founders understood a simple truth, that it is easier for a tyrant to take power if it is centralized. Decentralized power requires multiple efforts while centralized power can be taken in during one short, freakish moment.

Unfortunately, politicians being politicians, the federal government has constantly strived to increase its power, primarily by buying it from the states. The feds offered to pay for things, relieving states of expenses, if power is transferred to the feds. (Think highways. Education is not a federal issue but the feds have bought their way into controlling it, too.)

The feds have also stepped in when the states abused citizens’ rights as with Civil Rights in the 1960’s.

Any excuse, good or bad, was sufficient for power hungry politicians to centralize power in Washington.

Now, the Left in Washington D.C. has initiated another power grab that would further move power from the states to the feds.

Twenty-seven states (a majority) have adopted Constitutional Carry (Permitless Carry). Constitutional Carry reflects the will of the citizens of that state and flies-in-the-face of the Left’s efforts to disarm American citizens. So, the Left is striking back and trying to federalize gun laws that have traditionally been state issues.

On 12/5/2023, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D Mass.) for herself and Senators Corey Booker (D New Jersey), Ed Markey (D Mass.), and Mazie Hirono (D Hawaii) introduced proposed Senate bill S3407. All the sponsors are Democrats from deeply Blue States. The bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Note: Whenever you see Elizabeth Warren’s name attached to something you can bet it increases the power in D.C.

Pistol Permits (or Constitutional Carry) have been state issues. S3407 would supersede the states and require a federal license good for ten years to own firearms and ammunition. There are numerous provisions to obtaining a federal license that are similar to Hochul’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

Note: there is an exception from the license requirement for lawfully possessed firearms and ammo at the time this law is implemented but if you want to buy another firearm you will need to be federally licensed. And how will the retailer know about ammo purchases for previously owned guns?

The good (??) news for NY State residents may be that a license will not be required if a state “has in effect a process for issuing a state firearm owner’s license to eligible individuals in the State that is substantially similar to the requirements” in this law. NY’s permit requirements are so over-the-top (unconstitutional) that we may qualify as an exception. But if you are from a Constitutional Carry state – which is where this law is directed – they are about to find out what real bureaucracy is!

Oh yeah, if you pick up a box of .22 ammo for a friend or relative, you are a criminal under this law.

You will have to be 21 to buy a firearm or ammo. (There a New York State bill establishing NO minimum age for a child to decide to have a sex change operation without parental consent. [See January 29th,s email to members on ‘Natural Allies’ for more information.] Apparently, a mental illness is not a disqualifying factor if you are doing something of which the left approves but saneness does not qualify you if the Left does not approve of your choice.)

The bill is 281 pages long so we will only highlight a few of the other conditions.

Only one firearm purchased every 30 days. Don’t worry about this since the added taxes and costs will make it unaffordable to buy more than one gun every 30 days.

30 percent tax on pistols, revolvers, firearms other than pistols and revolvers and any lower frame or receiver for a firearm, whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper receivers.

50 percent tax on Shells and cartridges.

Note: You will not see the taxes you will only feel them since they are hidden taxes on the manufacturer. A $500 firearm will suddenly cost $650 (plus sales tax.) And isn’t there some issue in the news about inflation?

Universal background checks designed to make it more bureaucratic – and thus more frustratingly difficult – to buy a firearm. If you like working with the IRS you will love working with the ATF.

Secure gun storage for all firearms, not just handguns.

Gun Free School Zones expansion. Apparently, mass murderers need more opportunities without the fear of someone shooting back.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (Red Flag Laws) are federalized. Another example of a state power being taken over by the feds.

Assault Weapons’ definition is formalized and a great many semi-automatic firearms will now be illegal.

Note: there is an exception for lawfully possessed ‘Assault Weapons’ at the time this law is implemented but if you want to buy another ‘Assault Weapon’ you are out of luck. And how long before previously owned ones will be illegal?

Repeal of pistols revolvers and other firearms from consumer product safety laws.

And if a direct hit on gun owners is not enough, this law will fund anti-2A propaganda. “$60,000,000 for each fiscal year for the purpose of conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention.” Anyone want to bet on how much of $60 million will go to pro-gun researchers?

Does it seem like a lot of proposed bills that are anti 2A are being pushed on us? The way to prevent it is to remove anti-2A legislators from the legislature. That’s called voting. But hey, if they haven’t come for your gun yet, why worry. 30% tax on firearms and 50% tax on ammo aren’t inflationary, right?

Spread the word to those gun owners that don’t want to get involved that this is what is happening in D.C.

NY Proposed Bills A3855 and S5763

Wed, 31 Jan 2024 20:14:03 GMT

NY Proposed Bills A3855 and S5763

Proposed bills A3855 and S5763 (same as bills) were introduces into the NY Legislature in February and March 2023 by Assemblywoman Chantel Jackson (D, Bronx, NYC) and Senator Kevin Parker (D, Brooklyn, NYC). At that time, they were referred to committee, where they have sat.

Something may be going on with them as SCOPE is hearing about activity on them in January 2024.

Gun owners be warned…these are extreme anti 2nd Amendment bills that would not stand up to scrutiny under the Bruen decision. (But constitutionality never stopped the radical Left who seem to say, “Pass it and let them bankrupt themselves suing us.”)

From the official summary: Relates to establishing additional requirements to purchase a firearm, shotgun or rifle; requires a person to apply for a hunting license prior to the purchase of a shotgun or rifle; establishes additional requirements for all firearms, shotguns and rifles including taking a five hour gun safety course and exam, passing a shooting range test with 90% accuracy, providing notarized proof of a passed drug test and mental health evaluation, providing proof of purchase of firearm and ammunition safe storage depositories and passing a criminal background check. (Emphasis added.)

Specifically, to purchase a firearm, rifle or shotgun, no license shall be issued or renewed:

except by the licensing officer, and then only after investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true. (More on this later.)
except for an applicant who has provided notarized proof of a passed drug test by a licensed physician; (Added cost & time. Shouldn’t the government have to prove you failed a drug test.)
unless the applicant has provided notarized proof of a passed mental health evaluation by a licensed physician; (Added time & cost. Purely subjective.)
unless the applicant has successfully completed live firing instruction and a test with at least ninety percent accuracy at a shooting range using the type of firearm he or she anticipates purchasing, possessing or acquiring. There is an exception for Honorably Discharged Veterans; (No standards for the test. Notice that they still used traditional gender terms…the Woke police will be coming for them!)
unless the applicant has purchased a safe storage depository for his or her firearms and ammunition as evidenced by a receipt of such purchase. (If you don’t have the receipt or it was a gift, there is no exception in the law for producing the actual storage unit.)

Prior to the purchase of any rifle or shotgun a person shall also apply for a hunting license. (Sorry, no self-defense. You must hunt Bambi.)

No hunting license for the purchase of a rifle or shotgun shall be issued except for an applicant:

who is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance as defined in section 21 U.S.C. 802 and
who has provided notarized proof of a passed drug test by a licensed physician; (Added cost & time. Shouldn’t the government have to prove you failed a drug test.)
who has stated whether he or she has ever suffered any mental illness. (Not every mental illness makes you a risk but it will disqualify you.)
who has provided notarized proof of a passed mental health evaluation by a licensed physician; (Added time & cost. Purely subjective.)
who has successfully completed a five hour firearms safety course. Exception for Honorably Discharged and can produce evidence of official qualification in firearms during the term of service. (More time & cost.)
who has successfully completed live firing instruction and a test with at least ninety percent accuracy at a shooting range using the type of rifle or shotgun he or she anticipates purchasing, possessing or acquiring; (No standards for the test.)
who does not have a criminal record which would otherwise disqualify him or her from purchasing a shotgun or rifle; and
who has purchased a safe storage depository for his or her rifle or shotgun and ammunition. (If you don’t have the receipt or it was a gift, there is no exception in the law for producing the actual storage unit.)

Before a license is issued, there shall be an investigation of all statements related to the requirements of this section by the duly constituted police authorities of the locality where such application is made. (They have to investigate the truth in your statements. Remember how efficiently and timely the new law on background checks has gone. This puts those background checks on steroids.)

For that purpose, the records of the appropriate office of the department of mental hygiene concerning previous or present mental illness of the applicant shall be available for inspection by the investigating officer of the police authority. (When the Left was pushing legalizing drugs, it said that reporting discourages people from dealing with their mental health issues. Let’s not encourage gun owners with a mental health issue from coming forward, it’s not like they are in a favored class, like drug addicts.)

In order to ascertain any previous criminal record, the investigating officer shall take the fingerprints and physical descriptive data in quadruplicate of each individual by whom the application is made.

one standard card shall be forwarded to and retained by the division of criminal justice services in the executive department, at Albany. A search of the files of such division and written notification of the results of the search to the investigating officer shall be made without unnecessary delay. (Good luck on that!) Thereafter, such division shall notify the issuing officer and the executive department, division of state police, Albany, of any criminal record of the applicant filed therein subsequent to the search of its files.

second standard card, (supplied by the federal bureau of investigation), shall be forwarded to that bureau at Washington with a request that the files of the bureau be searched and notification of the results of the search be made to the investigating police authority.

one shall be filed with the division of state police, in Albany, within ten days after issuance of the license,

the other remain on file with the investigating police authority.

In acting upon an application, the issuing officer shall either deny the application for reasons specifically and concisely stated in writing or grant the application and issue the license applied for.

Summary reaction:

You have to pass a test to exercise your Constitutional rights. What’s next, a civics test to exercise 1st Amendment rights?

Lots of added time and cost. The recent background check laws should warn us as to what will happen.

Medical practitioners are increasingly pressured to toe-the-line on Leftist issues. A mental health exam is subjective.

No procedure for challenging any of this is included. But then again, you won’t be able to afford the challenge, anyway.

Will NY State and local entities be hiring additional staff to expedite the handling of these licenses?

Natural Allies

Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:45:10 GMT

Natural Allies by Tom Reynolds

2nd Amendment (2A) defenders face an increasingly leftist and extreme-bordering-on-insane agenda in the Democrat controlled NY Legislature. The Left will do anything to promote their agenda to tear down traditional and constitutional American values. And it is not confined to 2nd Amendment issues. 2A defenders need to be aware of some of the other insanity happening in Albany as this insanity creates natural allies to those of us opposing the Left on 2A issues.

Destroying ‘Parental Rights’ has been one of the Left’s goals and two proposed ‘companion bills’ in the NY Legislature would be a giant step forward for the extreme Left. However, these bills should also motivate those on the right to vote these politicians out of office. (And by-the-way, these are the same politicians who would take away our 2A rights.)

For more than a decade, New York legislators have been steadily raising the minimum age for minors to do things that have any risk. In New York State,

You have to be at least 18:

to use a tanning saloon;

to get married;

to be prosecuted as an adult;

to get piercings and tattoos without parental consent.

You have to be at least 21:

to buy a semi-automatic rifle;

to buy tobacco and e cigarettes;

to buy nitrous oxide cylinders

Consistency never being a trait of politicians in general and leftist politicians in particular, children are now being threatened by the latest round of left-wing madness; bills A6761 and S8352 propose doing away with the age of medical consent, without parental approval.

The official descriptions of NY legislature bills A6761 and S8352 say: “allows homeless youth to give effective consent to certain medical, dental, health, and hospital services, provides for insurance coverage of such health care services consented to by such youth.“ (Emphasis added.)

Do you believe the bill’s description or your lying eyes?

A6761 / S8352 allows any medical procedure, including trans surgery, for ALL children, not just runaways and homeless minors, without parental consent.

The key language in the bill says, “Any person, including a minor, who comprehends the need for, the nature of and the reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits involved in any contemplated medical, dental, health and/or hospital services and any alternatives thereto, may give effective consent to such services for themselves, and the consent of no other person shall be necessary.” (Emphasis added.)

Under this law, a 12 year old can decide what medical care he / she will receive, including genital mutilation surgery in the name of ‘affirmative’ health care.

Question: why is this law necessary, since a New York law already allows physicians to treat runaway youth if the child’s health is in danger and a parent cannot be reached.*

Answer: to the Left, the law is necessary because A6761 / S8352 will cover ALL children not just homeless and runaway youth and it can be used to promote the gender confusion agenda of the Left.

This bill ‘s authors obviously believe that parents are not to be trusted with their children’s healthcare - and that the child knows better than the parents. Do children know enough about their own personal and familial medical history to make life-altering medical decisions? Do children have the knowledge and experience to make life altering decisions? Is completely removing parental involvement in a child’s healthcare a good thing?

Oh yes, parents will still be legally responsible for the care of the child if there is any fallout or complications.

Nothing in A6761/S8532 prevents minors from being recruited for experimental procedures. There are no protections for developmentally disabled minors, especially those who are not visibly disabled. Do children feel mentally strong enough to challenge adults promoting a political agenda?

2A defenders are no less concerned about their children’s welfare than those with no interest in 2A. And the people endangering our children are also the people endangering 2A. The extreme leftists have built a bridge between factions that oppose leftist goals. We need to take advantage of that bridge and work with these other groups to rid our state of this insanity.

You have an issue of mutual interest and pursuing that issue will have the added benefit of defending 2A.

*New York Public Health Law, Paragraph 4.

Anti 2A Bills

Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:08:59 GMT

Anti 2A Bills

Numerous anti-2A bills get proposed in the NY State legislature every year. It’s educational to follow a few of them and see the various issues surrounding them.

Keep in mind that the current legislative session includes calendar years 2023 and 2024. Any bill introduced in 2023 and not rejected is still alive in 2024. (It dies and must be reintroduced after 2024.)

S138

On January 4, 2023, State Senator Sean Ryan, Brian Kavanagh, Iwen Chu and Julia Salazar (all Democrats) filed proposed law S138 to remove the National Rifle Association from the list of entities authorized to grant certificates as instructors in small arms practice.

S138 is the same as Assembly bill A0663

S138 was passed by the Senate on June 7, 2023 (41 to 20) and was delivered to the Assembly

Assembly has not ever taken a vote on it.

S138 was referred back to Senate Codes Committee

Note: The NRA has a decades long record of first-rate firearm instruction. Why would it be removed from the list of eligible instructors for anything but political reasons? This is an excellent example of the Democrat Party using its political power to punish those of which they disapprove.

S140

On January 4, 2023 State Senator Sean Ryan has also filed proposed law S140 which would revoke a license to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms for a conviction for failure to safely store rifles, shotguns, and firearms.

S140 was referred to Senate Codes Committee.

Note: No conviction for any crime is necessary, just fail to store your firearm in accordance with NYS regulations and you would lose your 2A rights. Sounds unconstitutional, but when has that ever stopped a Democrat gun grabber?

S6033

On March 27, 2023, State Senator Kevin Parker filed proposed law S6033 stating that “Any person in this state who shall own a firearm shall, prior to such ownership, obtain and continuously maintain a policy of liability insurance in an amount not less than one million. Failure to maintain such insurance shall result in the immediate revocation of such owner's registration, license and any other privilege to own such firearm.

S6033 was referred to Senate Insurance Committee.

Note If you don’t have liability insurance you lose your 2A rights! What’s next, needing liability insurance to exercise your 1st Amendment rights in case you offend someone? Again, unconstitutional but that doesn’t stop the Democrats.

Here are three bills lurking in the background. Do they have a chance of getting passed? S138 got passed by the Senate and made it to the Assembly which is overwhelmingly Democrat but for some reason the Assembly Speaker did not bring it up for a vote. The other two are sitting in Senate committees and could be acted upon at any time.

So, what do we do?

Democrats Kavanagh, Chu, Salazar and Parker all have districts in the NY City / Long Island area and are probably safe from 2A supporters effectively challenging them.

However, Parker is known for violent rages and has been convicted for them and also accused of rape. Even the far left New York Times editorial board wrote that that Parker was "known as the man with frightening rages that could erupt at any time and on almost any subject…Mr. Parker should be censured, and voters in central Brooklyn should start recruiting a qualified replacement.”

Will the Democrat Party do the right thing and replace him? The seat would most likely still be in Democrat hands, in any case.

Sean Ryan’s Senate District 61 stretches from Buffalo's inner suburbs to the southwestern corner of Rochester and including parts of Erie and Monroe Counties and all of Genesee County. Registration is 37.8% Democrat and 33.6% Republican, so it is relatively close. But in 2022, Ryan won with 56.6% to 43.3% so there are probably Independents in the district who are closet Democrats. Is he beatable with a strong candidate and support?

S138 passed the Senate on an almost straight party line vote; the only Republican to vote for it was Jack Martins, whose district is on the north shore of Long Island. Martins is a different problem. His district registration is 40.4% Democrat to 28.4% Republican. But in 2022 he defeated a Democrat incumbent 53.2% to 46.8%.

Was Martins tossing his Democrat constituents a bone when he voted for S138.

The answer, again, is for 2A supporters (and others) to get motivated to vote in districts where there is a chance of victory. Until Republican supporters of 2A get back a majority in the NY State Senate, we are in constant danger of having our 2A rights infringed.

Special Election on February 13th

Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:53:46 GMT

Special Election on February 13th by Tom Reynolds

Republican George Santos was elected to Congress from a Long Island district in 2022. He’s memorable because he was ‘ethically challenged’ in the extreme and is now an ex-member if Congress. (I know - I know – he was not alone in Congress in having ethics problems, but that’s a discussion for another day.)

A special election to replace Santos will be held on February 13th.

The Republicans currently have a very small majority in the House so the special election will have significant impact. Given the Republicans’ small majority and with Republicans and Democrats sharply divided on gun control – as well as many other issues – this election is important to all Americans and of special interest to all SCOPE members.

Tom Suozzi is running on the Democrat ticket. He said, “I’m proud of my F-rating from the NRA. We see these violent acts with guns happening much too often.”

She favors an assault weapon ban, saying that while she respects the Second Amendment, she does not support automatic weapons.

So, we have one rabidly anti-2A candidate (Suozzi) running against one who is at least mildly pro 2A (Pilip).

A little about their background.

Mazi Melesa Pilip is an Israeli-American. She was born in Ethiopia and immigrated to Israel when she was 12 years old and later served in the Israel Defense Force's Paratroopers Brigade as a gunsmith. Pilip studied at the University of Haifa, where she earned a bachelor's degree in occupational therapy, and also at Tel Aviv University, where she earned a masters degree in diplomacy and security.

Pilip has been a registered Democrat since 2012, but ran for the legislature on the Republican ballot line, serving in New York's Nassau County Legislature since 2022.

Thomas Richard Suozzi is a politician, attorney, and accountant. He had previously served eight years as the mayor of Glen Cove. He was the county executive of Nassau County from 2002 to 2009, when he was unseated by a Republican. He served as the Representative for New York's 3rd Congressional District from 2017 to 2023.

In 2006, Suozzi ran unsuccessfully against Eliot Spitzer for the Democratic nomination for governor of New York.

He retired from Congress to run again for the Democratic nomination for governor of New York in 2022, losing to incumbent governor Kathy Hochul.

Since leaving Congress in 2023, Suozzi has been a ‘strategic adviser’ to clients rather than a registered lobbyist, since he was barred from lobbying Congress for two years as a former member.

A SCOPE member lamented not knowing enough about a politician’s character. Here is a little something.

For one brief second, Suozzi was a 2A supporter. Complaining about then President Donald Trump, Suozzi seemed to promote armed rebellion against Trump. Suozzi said, “And then, you know, this is where the Second Amendment comes in quite frankly.”

Suozzi took so much heat for that statement, his office tried to explain, “Congressman Suozzi explained why our founding fathers created the Second Amendment as a way for citizens to fight back against a tyrannical government that does not follow the rule of law.”

I wonder if he feels the same way with Biden as President?

Suozzi had other issues, too.

The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012 is to prevent insider trading by Congress. Ethics violations were lodged against Suozzi in 2021 and 2022 for failing to report $ millions in stock trades. When Suozzi explained why he had not disclosed hundreds of stock trades in a timely manner, he told investigators: "Quite frankly, we have a lot going on in Congress. I have a lot of other stuff going on. And it's just not—ethics is a big priority for me. But…the…some of the formalities are not necessarily something I make a priority of."

Business Insider published "Conflicted Congress" (an investigation of lawmakers' stock trades and financial holdings). Suozzi was one of only 13 lawmakers given a "Danger" rating.

In an amusing turn around, Democrats tend to run people based on race, gender, etc. (VP Harris for example.) But in this race, the Republican is a Black, Jewish, Ethiopian woman while the Democrat is a White male. Will Democrats push diversity in this case?

One final thought.

If you are interested in donating to either’s campaign:

Mazi Pilip for Congress | Mazi for NY

Suozzi for Congress - Let's Fix This!

NEW LAWS TAKING EFFECT – JANUARY 2024 in NY State

Tue, 16 Jan 2024 17:07:19 GMT

NEW LAWS TAKING EFFECT – JANUARY 2024 in NY State

Lots of laws took effect in January, covering more than just the 2^nd Amendment. Here is a list of new laws that SCOPE could find. We hope its not a partial list and there aren’t any more lurking out there.

With inflation eating up income, illegal immigrants flooding NY City and seeping into the rest of the state, crime increasing, NY citizens deserting NY for other states, high taxes, bureaucracies out of control and government agencies putting politics above all else, the NY legislature focused like a drunken sailor. (With apologies to drunken sailors.)

Note: Bill numbers for the NY Senate and NY Assembly are shown first.

S.841-A A.6177-A

Requires petroleum bulk storage facilities to paint tanks white or beige/cream to reduce emissions of air pollutants.

S.5685 A.4853-A

Enacts the final phase of Brianna's Law, requiring all operators of mechanically propelled vessels to complete a boating safety course.

A.3006-C S.4006-C

Increases the minimum wage to $16 an hour in New York City and Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk counties and to $15 an hour in the rest of the state.

A.3006-C S.4006-C

Increases the rent subsidy payable to a foster child living independently from $300 per month to $725 per month.

A.3006-C S.4006-C

Requires the chief administrator of the courts to issue regular public reports on the demographics and charges of pretrial commitments at local correctional facilities.

S.4007-C A.3007-C

Provides for insurance coverage for behavioral health services.

S.4007-C A.3007-C

Clarifies the definition of a clinical peer reviewer for substance use disorders and mental health evaluations.

S.4007-C A.3007-C

Provides for electronic visit verification for personal care and home health providers.

S.4008-C A.3008-C

Changes the retention percentage of certain motor vehicle related fees collected by county clerks from 12.7 percent to 10.75 percent.

A.3009-C S.4009-C

Establishes a permanent 30% metropolitan transportation business tax surcharge.

S.1331 A.4015

Provides for the synchronization of multiple prescriptions for recipients of medical assistance by allowing partial refills.

A.7690 S.7550

Requires the cure affirmation for an absentee ballot to be received by the board of elections within seven days.

S.7394-A A.7632-A

Establishes the New York Early Mail Voter Act, authorizing registered voters to obtain early mail voting ballots through application to the board of elections; requires the state board of elections to establish and maintain an electronic early mail ballot application transmittal system through which voters may apply for an early mail ballot online.

A.5948 S.6124

Requires a whistle to be carried on all vessels, rowboats, canoes and kayaks; and requires fire extinguishers and use of engine cut-off switches on certain vessels.

A.6480 S.6482-A

Allows an individual with disabilities or a disabled veteran to hold full-time or part-time positions for purposes of eligibility for recruitment for state employment.

A.5772 S.5162

Allows an affirmation by any person, wherever made, subscribed and affirmed by that person to be true under the penalties of perjury, to be used in a civil action in New York in lieu of and with the same force and effect as an affidavit.

A.5994-B S.536-A

Prohibits clauses restricting research about the health consequences of e-cigarettes and restricts the advertisement and promotion of electronic cigarettes.

S.5621-B A.2873-B

Requires reporting of certain digital assets on the annual statement of financial disclosure filed with the Legislative Ethics Commission or the Joint Commission On Public Ethics.

S.454-A A.3116-A

Directs counties to contact a veterans' organization to provide for the disposition of the unclaimed remains of a deceased veteran when such veteran has no next of kin or other person designated to provide for the disposition of his or her remains; develops an application process for veterans' organizations to receive reimbursement of costs associated with such funeral and burial services for indigent veterans.

S.2330-B A.345-C

Requires the Department of Financial Services to make public any rate filing or application submitted by long term care insurance carriers; requires certain notices be provided to policyholders and certificate holders regarding premium rate increases.

A.783 S.2630

Authorizes the Department of Environmental Conservation to issue a certified nuisance wildlife specialist a deer cull permit after a review of the site-specific deer management plan and upon a finding that deer have become a nuisance, destructive to public or private property or a threat to public health or welfare.

S.2599 A.133

Establishes a dyslexia and dysgraphia task force and implements the findings of such task force.

S.4234-A A.4055-A

Prohibits utility corporations from charging customers for gas or electric service which was rendered more than two months prior to the mailing of the first bill to the customer; requires utility corporations to provide a two-year history of charges in their bills.

S.7537 A.7761

Establishes the village incorporation commission to evaluate and make decisions regarding village incorporation elections.

A.1120 S.1746

Provides for the development and implementation of programs to prevent workplace violence in public schools.

S.5775 A.5639

Requires certain trains and locomotives to have a minimum crew size of two people.

S.3567-A A.6050-A

Permits the sale or promotional gifting of certain complementary products for wine and spirits by retail licensees.

S.1902-A A.1245-A

Requires notice to unemployment applicants of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program For Women, Infants And Children (WIC).

S.7020-B A.10162-A

Establishes requirements for licensure as a histotechnologist.

S.5915 A.5347

Requires the Office For The Prevention Of Domestic Violence to distribute informational materials on recognizing economic abuse and the support available to survivors.

S.582 A.6798

Prohibits the sale of sodium nitrate and sodium nitrite to any person under the age of twenty-one.

S.2683-A A.4599-A

Allows charities to use a single table of unisex rates and a simplified calculation for maximum allowable rates for charitable annuities.

Lawsuits Aren’t All About Right and Wrong: Sometimes Strategy is a key factor.

Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:43:02 GMT

Lawsuits Aren’t All About Right and Wrong: Sometimes Strategy is a key factor. by Tom Reynolds

Many SCOPE members – and 2A defenders in general – are confused by the number of lawsuits and rulings that are occurring. There are some legal strategy decisions to be made which have nothing to do with right or wrong. SCOPE would like to try to simplify some very complex behind-the-scenes issues and give you some insight into the decisions that must be made.

On December 12th, we wrote an email to members about the 2nd Circuit Court’s decisions on several lawsuits brought against N Y State. S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - 2nd Circuit Decision (scopeny2a.org) The decisions now faced in those lawsuits are typical of those faced by all 2A lawsuits, so let’s use it as an example.

Under this ruling, the following provisions on New York’s law are stopped by temporary injunction (enjoined):

Requiring applicants to disclose social media accounts for review.

The restrictions on carrying on private property that is accessible to the public, as well as the restriction on carrying in houses of worship.

The “good moral character requirement” in place for those seeking a concealed carry permit.

The prohibition on concealed carry in so-called sensitive locations, a category that includes government buildings, airports, public playgrounds, schools, theaters, establishments that serve alcohol and Times Square.

Under this ruling, the following provisions of New York’s law are not enjoined and remain in effect for now:

2A advocates may look at the 2nd Circuit’s decisions and say those decisions that were not enjoined were wrong and let’s keep suing them. But there are other considerations.

First, the recent decisions only dealt with temporary injunctions to stop enforcement of the ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ (CCIA) while the court cases are being decided. They did not decide the cases, themselves. The ruling by the appeals court was at an early stage of the legal battle, which is seen as likely to wind up before the Supreme Court, again.

Some other considerations:

NY and other blue states pass unconstitutional laws and basically say, ‘If you don’t like it, sue me. I – the state – am going to run up your legal bill in an attempt to bankrupt your effort while I – the state – will operate on the bottomless taxpayer dime.’

There is a business principle called “Opportunity Cost.” Basically, if you use your resources (time, energy, money) on one thing, those resources are gone and will not be available for other things. Each of these lawsuits will cost 2A advocates hundreds of thousands of dollars – approaching or exceeding a million dollars if they go to the Supreme Court. What’s the best use of the limited financial resources available under the ‘Opportunity Cost’ principle?

There are other factors.

Do the 2A litigants in these cases want to keep fighting for the injunctions or accept what victories and defeats we have and concentrate their efforts on winning the actual cases? It’s been a year and a half just to get to this point and gun owners are still subject to much of CCIA’s unconstitutional laws. (It was twelve years between the Heller decision and the Bruen decision.)

The 2nd Circuit decision was made by a three judge panel, not the full 2nd Circuit court. Do the 2A litigants want to appeal for a hearing on the injunctions before the full court or, if possible, go straight to the Supreme Court on the injunctions? More time and more money, either way.

Or do they stop fighting for injunctions and switch to fighting for the meat of the cases?

Until there is a final decision, we continue to be subject to these unconstitutional laws. This is particularly acute in the Gazzola case which centers around retail stores. (Federal Firearms Licensees - FFL’s.)

FFL’s are being attacked at both the federal and state level. Federally by Biden’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) which is revoking FFL licenses at an unprecedented rate, many for minor technical violations. Under NY State’s CCIA, NY State is driving FFL’s out of business. (GOA-NY reports that we have lost seventy-three 2A businesses in NY State this year.) Those are businesses that will never come back in a state that is generally unfriendly to all businesses and hates 2nd Amendment businesses, in particular. The longer this drags out, the more FFL’s that will close.

Finally, as a general rule, the Supreme Court avoids making a ruling on a constitutional issue until it has “percolated”through the lower courts. Under “percolation,” the Supreme Court normally let’s stand a lower court ruling or injunction until multiple lower courts have weighed in on a legal question that the Court is bound to decide.

Certainly, there are other issues and each case has its own peculiar circumstances.

SCOPE hopes that this has given you some insight into the behind-the-scenes decisions that must be made. Few want to make these decisions and it would be nice if all decisions were limited to right-or-wrong, but they cannot be avoided.

COURTS LOOKING TO REVIEW 2ND AMENDMENT LAWSUITS

Wed, 10 Jan 2024 21:27:01 GMT

COURTS LOOKING TO REVIEW 2ND AMENDMENT LAWSUITS

by Bohdan Rabarsky

When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, several states would not ratify it (New York being one of them) unless a Bill of Rights was added. These rights were vital to the well being of a newly formed country and not one of the Founders Era would ever have envisioned having to fight for those rights 250 years later.

Welcome to the Biden Era.

Of all the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment has been the most under attack for many years by those wanting to gain control of the ‘masses’. To accomplish that, they first had to disarm those masses, just as Stalin, Mao, Castro & Pol Pot had done.

Recently, court rulings have been striking down anti-gun regulations created by government agencies. These rulings resulted from lawsuits brought by organizations and individuals against various state officials or federal government agencies.

A three judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has ruled against the ATF’s 80 % Frame Rule, finding that the ATF overstepped it’s bounds in issuing it’s ruling. Fifth Circuit Delivers More Wins for Gun Owners, But Will They Stick at SCOTUS? – Bearing Arms

In another case, Garland v Cargill, SCOTUS has granted “certiorari”, which means they have agreed to review the case. In 2018, then President Trump used an Executive Order to ban bump stocks in the wake of the mass shooting which had taken place at a music festival in Las Vegas. Donald Trump and his ATF overstepped their authority in banning the bump stocks and a lawsuit followed. The suit has worked its way through the court system in the 5th, 6th and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, before SCOTUS granted certiorari.

SCOTUS also granted certiorari to a 2nd Amendment case in NRA v Vullo. The court will decide whether the New York State Department of Financial Services violated the 1st Amendment Rights of the NRA. SCOTUS Grants Cert to Bump Stock Case – Bearing Arms

Government officials have found that, instead of trying to ban guns through legislation, which is never popular with the public, it’s easier to go after gun owners using state and federal agencies’ regulations. This way, the government (state or federal) can use taxpayer funds while the gun owners or 2nd Amendment organizations have to raise funds to support the lawsuits. (The gun owner is paying for both sides of these lawsuits fighting for the God given right to bear arms.)

In addition, these agency regulations violate the ‘Separation of Powers” central to the U. S. Constitution, because the Executive branch is taking on legislative powers.

Hopefully SCOTUS follows the Constitution, which they all took an oath to uphold.

A8443

Tue, 09 Jan 2024 18:51:59 GMT

A8443 by Tom Reynolds

SCOPE sends out information on various gun control laws proposed federally or in NY State and usually these notices can be relatively brief and still get the message across. But occasionally – or more often - a bill is proposed that is so outrageous and strikes so straight at the heart of the Constitution that it requires further explanation.

Assemblyman Phillip Steck (Democrat 100th District – Schenectady Albany) has climbed that mountain when he proposed Assembly bill A8443.

As many of us have unhappily experienced, NY State now requires a background check on purchases of ammunition which has resulted in frequent and unnecessary delays. (All a part of Hochul’s plan?) Many NY residents, with easy access to another state, have chosen to cross the border for ammunition purchases and bypass the NY background check and related fee. (A reaction not unexpected by anyone.)

Under Assemblyman Steck’s bill, the NY Attorney General can bring civil and criminal actions in NY State courts against any NY State resident or the ammunition seller in another state, when ammunition is purchased in another state and it does not go through NY State’s background check.

For example, a NY State resident in Waverly NY drives a couple miles south into Sayre PA and buys ammunition without undergoing a NY background check. NY Attorney General (Leticia James) can have him and the seller arrested, in NY State.

Or, a NY State snow birder in Florida buys ammunition in Florida, without a NY background check, and uses it there. Leticia James could come after him and the seller under A8443.

By the way, it is bureaucratic to get licensed to use the NY background system so an ammunition seller in another state has little incentive to do it.

And what about on-line purchases, which have to be accomplished through a NY FFL who would has to perform a NY background check. Will the on-line seller also have to duplicate the NY background check to be legal under A8443?

Basically, Steck wants to prosecute you if you legally (under the laws of 49 states and federal law) buy ammunition in another state.

Imagine, for a moment, that NY State passed a law setting the maximum speed limit at 55 mph everywhere in NY State. Afterwards, a NY State resident while in Pennsylvania drives 65 mph – where the speed limit is 65 MPH. Using his logic, NY Assemblyman Phillip Steck believes the NY Attorney General should prosecute that motorist in NY State for exceeding the NY speed imit. (After all, it would be good for ‘Climate Change’.)

One of the reasons that the Articles of Confederation were abandoned in favor of the U S Constitution was interstate issues. The founders knew that a federal government was necessary to handle interstate issues. But even in the 1780’s, who would have imagined a Phillip Steck?

Article I Section 8 of the U S Constitution says that the U S Congress regulates interstate commerce. Assemblypersons take an oath of office to, “support the Constitution of the United States…” Can we anticipate an impeachment proceeding against Assemblyman Steck for violating his oath of office?

F Y I, the related parts of the bill are as follows: A08443

“The (N Y State) attorney general shall have the power and duty to…Seek and obtain injunctive relief to prevent any individual seller of firearms or retail firearms dealer from knowingly selling ammunition to a resident of the state of New York or to an individual who purchases ammunition on behalf of a New York state resident without contacting the New York state police for authorization pursuant to section two hundred twenty-eight of this chapter and any other law, rule or regulation. “

“The attorney general shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this section by bringing civil and criminal actions in the state courts of New York.”

Obviously, SCOPE opposes this bill as should anyone who truly believes in the U S Constitution.

TAKE ACTION!

The Island of Romance, etc.

Mon, 08 Jan 2024 17:55:22 GMT

The Island of Romance, etc. by Tom Reynolds

People my age will remember the hit song by the Four Preps about Santa Catalina Island (California): “The island of romance, romance, romance, romance…A tropical heaven out in the ocean covered with trees and girls.”

Apparently, Californians can even screw up a place like that!

Santa Catalina Island (or just plain Catalina Island) has a mule deer herd that was introduced on the island in the 1930's. The island has an extended hunting season but the mule deer are ‘over producing’.

The Catalina Island Conservancy which manages 90% of Catalina Island–says that the mule deer population has grown to around 1,800 deer and they are destroying the island’s ecosystem, causing soil erosion and threatening native species.

Deer hunting is legal on the island but the permitting process is very bureaucratic and expensive. SCOPE is told that, if you want to hunt the island you have to use non-lead ammo and be a member of the Conservancy, which costs $65 per year. You have to have firearms liability insurance in the amount of $500,000. You must hold a public lands management tag for a cost of $100 if you are a resident of the island, while nonresidents pay $200. Daily vehicle or camper use on the island costs $45. (It was easier to get there, back then, for the Four Preps: “40 kilometers in a leaky old boat, any old thing that'll stay afloat.”)

The hunting program allows 300-400 deer to be harvested, annually, but hunters only take about 244 deer. This isn’t enough to reduce the population to acceptable levels. And the deer that are taken tend to be older males. (Apparently, hunters prefer large Bucks rather than Does. What a surprise - to no one who hunts.)

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife backed a management plan that involves culling the herd, but it hasn’t been enough to stop population growth.

So…

White Buffalo Inc. will begin shooting the deer next fall. Hunters will use AR-15 style rifles with non-lead bullets, and the hunted deer will be left where they lay. (They are using the hated ‘Assault Rifle, but in a sop to the Left they will use non lead bullets.)

It goes almost without saying that there are opponents of the hunt and they responded that the Conservancy should have done more to solve the barriers to successful hunts. (Ya think!)

The Coalition Against the Slaughter of Catalina Deer are circulating a petition to “Stop the Slaughter of Mule Deer on Catalina Island” which has gathered 15,863 signatures.

One group has proposed another option to the hunt; sterilizing the deer.

Before you laugh…

This option may sound familiar to New Yorkers as Cayuga Heights (Ithaca) had a huge deer problem and in 2012 they tried to address it by, primarily, sterilizing deer and they hired White Buffalo Inc. to also cull the herd. Ithacans, of course, objected to shooting the deer, but they were overruled.

According to the Village of Cayuga Heights report in 2019*: “Having professionals cull the deer is expensive. Since 2013, we have spent $117,100 on camera surveys and $304,616 on White Buffalo.” ($421,716 total.)

As best we can tell from the report, Cayuga Heights sterilized or culled about 225 deer, since the process began. That’s about $1,900 per deer.

At this point, SCOPE members are saying to themselves that there is another way to cull the herd that will, in addition, bring in revenue and also provide food. But the Democrat leadership is so anti-gun that they would rather bankrupt the state than admit that hunting is the answer to deer overpopulation. This is the mentality we (and Californians) are facing.

*Deer Management - Village Of Cayuga Heights (cayuga-heights.ny.us)

Hamilton Speaks Today

Thu, 04 Jan 2024 18:22:10 GMT

Hamilton Speaks Today by Tom Reynolds

Even before he had a Broadway Play about him, Alexander Hamilton was considered a really smart guy. Amongst other things, his ‘Federalist Letters’ (along with James Madison and John Jay) helped secure passage of the Constitution.

On Wednesday, SCOPE wrote about the unconstitutional attempts to deny the American people the right to vote for the presidential candidate of their choice. In a Letter from Phocion to the Considerate Citizens of New York On the Politics of the Day, Hamilton warned of something that sounds eerily familiar to what is currently happening.

While he wrote this of the dangers of legislatures disenfranchising people, the principle also applies against government officials disenfranchising voters. And when we are not allowed to vote for the candidate of our choice because he was illegally removed from the ballot, we are, in effect, disenfranchised.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

Nothing is more common for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the government, principles and precedents which afterwords prove fatal to themselves. Of this kind is the doctrine of disqualification, disenfranchisement and banishment by acts of the legislature. The dangerous consequences of this are manifest. If the legislature can disenfranchise any number of citizens at pleasure by general descriptions, it may soon confine all the votes to a small number of partisans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy; if it may banish at discretion all those whom particular circumstances render obnoxious, without hearing or trial, no man can be safe, nor know when he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction. The name of liberty applied to such a government would be a mockery of common sense.

I wonder how many people seeing the play ‘Hamilton’ are appalled by current events? Alexander Hamilton would be!

Trump Disqualified?

Wed, 03 Jan 2024 21:03:13 GMT

Trump Disqualified? by Tom Reynolds

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled, in an unprecedented decision, to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The Maine Secretary of State barred former President Trump from Maine’s primary ballot. The official statement on the Secretary of State’s website says that Trump: ”…is not qualified to hold the office of the President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment”. (Emphasis added.)

Both disqualifications are under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That these were obviously partisan decisions that ignore the law and prior precedent goes beyond question. (But that has never stopped the Left, so why would it now?)

A little more about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

First:

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The basis of Colorado and Maine’s decision was Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or treason. The last sentence in Section 3 states: “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability”.

Congress removed that disability from most of the people covered. The pertinent parts of Section 3 don’t exist anymore because the Amnesty Act of 1872 was passed by the 42nd United States Congress (voice vote in the House and 38-2 in the Senate.)

The 1872 Act removed office-holding disqualifications against most of the secessionists who rebelled in the American Civil War, except for "Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.” (Note: The Presidency is NOT one of these exceptions that are still ineligible.)

For their rationale, Colorado and Maine cited a law that does not exist anymore.

Second:

Amendment V states that no person shall: “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.” Certainly, the right to run for the presidency should be covered by that.

No federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in ‘insurrection or rebellion.’ The only thing resembling a trial was Trump’s second impeachment - which acquitted Trump.

There has been no due process of law. (Another one of those constitutional issues the Left conveniently ignores.)

Third:

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment originally applied only to individuals who were previously a ‘member of Congress,’ an ‘officer of the United States,’ or a state official who had previously taken an oath to support the U S Constitution. Individuals who are elected—such as the president and vice president—are not officers within the meaning of Section 3 both before and after the Amnesty Act of 1872.

Fourth:

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”.

Prior court rulings have held that Section 3 is not self-executing and Congress has never passed any federal law providing for enforcement, meaning that courts such as the Colorado Supreme Court and Maine’s Secretary of State have no legal authority under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It is federal law and they cannot enforce Section 3 because they are not federal authorities and because Congress has not given anyone the power to enforce it..

Colorado and Maine decided to remove the constitutional right of American voters to make their own decision on who they believe should be president.

This election interference should swiftly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which should take this case in order to short-circuit all the similar meritless challenges that are being filed in numerous states to remove Trump from the ballot.

But this is more than just an attempt to keep Trump off the ballot, it is a blatant attempt to distract him from campaigning by tying him up in court cases that have no legal foundation.

It is also a message to all Americans; don’t disagree with Democrat run governments or they will get you. The U S Constitution does not exist in “Blue states.”

And the Democrat media is saying that Donald Trump will destroy democracy if he is elected! (Which ignores that the USA is a Republic.)

2024 A Happy New Year!

Tue, 02 Jan 2024 22:08:30 GMT

2024 A Happy New Year! by Tom Reynolds

During World War 2, from 1939 through mid-1942, the Germans and the Japanese were on the offensive and scored many victories. In 1942, the first early hints of change began to emerge. After over three years of mostly defeats, on January 1, 1943, the allied leadership must have sensed there was an opportunity to turn the war around and win it.

Eighty one years later, entering the new year of 2024, we should also embrace the possibilities before us. People who defend the U S Constitution - and especially the 2nd Amendment - should be thrilled at the possibilities before us. After being on the defensive with only lawsuits as a way to defends us, we can strike back. We have the equivalent of another D-Day in front of us, minus the violence and death.

Every member of the NY State Senate is up for election.

Every member of the NY Assembly is up for election.

Every member of the House of Representatives is up for election.

NY Senator Kristin Gillibrand is up for election.

President Joe Biden is up for election.

We have the opportunity to turn the tide on the gun grabbers and anti-constitutionalists and take back control of our government from those that have used their government positions to thwart our rights and for personal gain.

All we need do is get involved and vote. Was Hochul’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act our Lexington & Concord? Are Biden’s ATF regulations our Tea Party? And most importantly, will this November’s elections be our Declaration of Independence?

One of the great abilities of our Founding fathers was their understanding of - and the dangers of - big government. The issues today are much the same as the Founding Fathers experienced 250 years ago.

In 1774, John Adams recorded a conversation he overheard: “What would you say, if a fellow should come to your house and tell you he had come to take a list of your cattle that Parliament might tax you for them at so much a head? And how would you feel if he should break open your barn to take down your oxen, cows, horses and sheep.?”

“What would I say, I would knock him in the head.”

“Well, if Parliament can take down Mr. (John) Hancock’s wharf…they can take away your barn and my house.”

Many gun owners have not gotten involved because they believed when Biden and Hochul came after Modern Sporting Rifles, it didn’t involve them. And when Biden and Hochul came after pistols and revolvers, it didn’t involve them. But if Hochul can charge ammunition buyers for a background check that delays or denies their ammo purchases and drives gun stores out of business, that involves all gun owners.

Yes, if the government “…can take down Mr. Hancock’s wharf” they can take away your right to carry a firearm. It may take them awhile, but they won’t quit - as opposed to many gun owners who won’t get started.

Our fathers and grandfathers fought and bled to stop socialist tyranny during World War 2 and then spent 45 years opposing communist / socialist tyranny. We won. Socialism lost.

Today, the socialists in the American government want to destroy every Americans’ rights under the U. S. Constitution, as those rights are a major impediment to the Left’s complete and permanent control. There are too many examples to list of the Left’s attack on: the 1st Amendment; the 2nd Amendment; the 12th Amendment; and Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. (Before you go running to look them up, the last two have to deal with ‘We the People’ choosing the President of the United States of America.)

We can’t depend upon the Supreme Court to always be there to fight our battles.

We have a marvelous opportunity to take back our Constitution and our government from the Constitution hating, gun grabbing swamps in D.C. and Albany. Those of us already involved need to ramp up our efforts and, especially, to get those involved who have, till now, evaded their duty. Make 2024 the year of the Constitution.

When we were born in the United States, we won the lottery. It’s time to pay for that ticket.

New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) has made some more “equal” than others.

Sun, 31 Dec 2023 12:51:40 GMT

New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) has made some more “equal” than others. 12/31/23, 7:50 AM LETTER: State's gun laws highlight inequality | Opinion | romesentinel.com

by Bohdan Rabarsky, Oneida-Herkimer chapter chair

New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) has made some more “equal” than others.

Until July of 2022, pistol permit holders were allowed to carry conceal in New York State as long as they had a valid New York State pistol permit.

The 2022 act changed all of that — basically turning the state into a giant “Sensitive Zone.” As usual, these laws are never thought out in advance as to their outcome and how they’ll effect everyday citizens.

Judges, district attorneys and assistant DA’s in rural areas were hesitant to appear in town and village court proceedings, since quite often there wasn’t any presence of law enforcement when a defendant was brought in or dropped off for an arraignment as they weren’t allowed to carry conceal even if they had a pistol permit as “All Government Buildings” is one of the categories within the Sensitive Zone that was created when the CCIA took effect.

Now you see, that doesn’t sit well with the elites in New York State when it comes to who can have a conceal carry permit and where they can carry concealed.

This reminds me of the famous George Orwell “Animal Farm” quote on equality: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

All New York State citizens are equal, but when it comes to the ability to carry concealed, judges and district attorneys, some citizens lives are more valuable than others.

All this is doing is creating a separate class of citizens and a division among citizens, which is wrong. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment it didn’t discriminate by employment, wealth or social status, it applied equally to all citizens of America.

Here come our state legislators with bills as they were asked to remedy the situation. In October, state Sen. Joseph Griffo, R-53, sponsored state senate bill S7712 which would allow judges, justices and criminal prosecutors that are licensed to possess a concealed firearm in court where no magnetometer or security personnel are present.

Assemblywoman Marianne Buttenschon, D-119, sponsored a similar bill in the Assembly.

Why is it law abiding gun owners of New York State have to live by the rules of the new CCIA but as soon as the safety and well being of certain citizens is threatened, they come up with exceptions to the rule? Are their lives any more valuable than ours or are they just selective in whose life is more valuable? Maybe the legislature should be proactive and think these things through before passing these bills into law. The New York State legislature passed the CCIA of 2022 into law, and we all should live by it or abolish it completely as it’s unconstitutional to begin with.

romesentinel.com-LETTER States gun laws highlight inequality.pdf

— Bohdan Rabarsky, Oneida-Herkimer SCOPE chapter chair

Festivus Report

Fri, 29 Dec 2023 15:09:11 GMT

Festivus Report by Tom Reynolds

Let’s finish the old year in a way that aptly summarizes the year under the guidance of the Biden /Harris administration.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) shared his annual “Festivus” report, showing Americans how some of their tax dollars were tossed down the drain in 2023. Paul’s report showed how the U S government wastes money.

Below is the link to the actual report. You will not enjoy reading it!

Note the last item: $236 billion ($236,000,000,000) in improper payments.

Festivus-2023.pdf (senate.gov)

Some of the highlights:

Barbie Doll Photo Used to Get COVID PPP Funds…………………….portion of $800,000,000,000

In the RED: Interest on Our National Debt is Expensive ……………..………...….$659,000,000,000

Dr. Fauci’s Monkey Business on NIH’s “Monkey Island”……………………..………..….$33,200,000

USAID Fund to Boost Egyptian Tourism...........................................................................$6,000,000

SDA’s Cutting-Edge Research: Walking Dogs in the Summer……………...…...………..Unknown

DHS Training Employees to Be Their “Authentic & Best Selves”……………..…...………..Unknown

Russian Cats-On-A-Treadmill Studies Funded by NIH……...………........…..portion of $2,700,000

The Government Pays Dead People … Again!.....………………………………………...$38,000,000

DOD’s Lobster Tank………………………………………………………………………………….$8,395

How to Ruin Expensive Military Equipment Part 1: Engines………………………...……$89,000,000

How to Ruin Expensive Military Equipment Part 2: Transmissions……………………....$12,600,000

How to Ruin Expensive Military Equipment Part 3: Tank Treads………...……………....$68,000,000

“Real Fake”: DHS’s 1st Graphic Novel About Disinformation………………………………...Unknown

DHS’s 2 nd Graphic Novel: COVID Disinformation…………..………………………………...Unknown

NIH’s Meth-Head Monkeys………………………………………………………portion of $12,000,000

Treasury’s Pot of Cash for Political Campaigns……………………………….……….…$400,000,000

NIH’s Monkey Casino: Gambling for Drinking Water………………….…….....portion of $3,700,000

SBA’s Ticket to Backstage………………………………………………….……………….$200,000,000

Studying COVID-19 “Misinformation” On Social Media In Black & Rural Communities…$3,800,000

Dr. Fauci’s Transgender Monkey Study………………………………………………………...$477,121

Whoopsie: Improper Federal Payments………………………………………………$236,000,000,000

FLASHBACK: The Government Likes Its Gambling Monkeys…………………………….…$171,000 T

A Christmas to Remember ~ Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, and Happy New Year! From S.C.O.P.E.

Fri, 22 Dec 2023 21:20:13 GMT

A Christmas To Remember

The July 4th 1776 Declaration of Independence from Great Britain had real world consequences for the signers. One of them, Benjamin Rush, recalled: “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after the other, to the table of the President of Congress, to subscribe what was believed by many at the time to be our own death warrants?”

On August 26th, the battle began on Long Island and the right wing of the American forces was about to be cut off and destroyed. But a group of Americans who were variously called “Washington’s Immortals” and the “Maryland 400” did not retreat. Instead, they made a suicidal charge which bought time and allowed the American army to survive. For their efforts, the Americans were bayoneted by the Hessians.

A large portion of the American army had retreated to Brooklyn with the East River at their backs. The British generals did not recognize the appalling state of the Americans and, more importantly, remembered their horrendous losses taking Bunker Hill. So, they laid siege and used the Royal Navy to attempt to cut off the East River from retreat.

Washington’s only chance was to cross the mile wide East River - with its treacherous tidal currents - to the temporary safety of Manhattan. Security was airtight and so secret that John Glover, the leader of the “Marblehead Regiment” of mariners that would ferry the army across, was not told of the purpose until it was time to man the boats, which were a combination of rowed and sailed boats. The crossing would be made in total darkness in a horrendous rain storm with the mariners depending on their experience to guide them to the other shore.

The tides and winds cooperated for the first two hours and multiple crossings went well. Then, the tides and winds shifted, and the mariners were unsuccessfully rowing against tides and wind, making it impossible to complete the retreat before sunrise and the British becoming aware of what was happening. Suddenly, the winds died and shortly thereafter shifted in the American’s favor.

When dawn arose, some Americans were still in Brooklyn, but a thick fog covered the Brooklyn side - but not the Manhattan side. A fog was very unusual at that time of the year and it hid the Americans and allowed the complete evacuation. Only one boat and three men were captured by the British.

Eventually, the colonial army was completely driven out of New York and it retreated across New Jersey to Valley Forge Pennsylvania, where things became even more desperate.

The enlistments of the bulk of his army were due to expire in a few weeks and there was little hope of many reenlistments. Not just because of the devastating defeat in New York but the army was undersupplied in almost every area; many soldiers had no shoes and had been wearing the same clothes – now rags - for months. Food was scarce. Defeatism ran through the army.

There is no record of Washington contemplating giving up. Instead, Washington gained control over whatever negative emotions he had and formulated a plan, which led to the most important Christmas in American history.

On the early evening of December 25, 1776, with the temperature barely above freezing and in a freezing rainstorm that lasted all night, the Continental Army loaded onto boats and crossed the ice clogged Delaware River in three groups. The crossing was so treacherous that one group did not make it across and a second group, that did make it across, turned around and went back. Only Washington’s group was able to march to the attack.

Hours behind schedule, with one-third strength, the army arrived at their target, Trenton New Jersey.

While the enemy was yawning and waking up, what looked like the army-from-hell had come screaming from the depths to kill them; the Continental Army was in rags with long hair and matted beards coated in rain and mud. The battle was brief and the Hessians surrendered.

In what was the potential breaking point of the Revolutionary war, when all hope seemed to be lost, Washington did not lose hope. When his officers despaired, he never lost sight of his goal. He and his army persevered and they eventually won. They set an example that should live today; we’re Americans, we’d cross a frozen river on Christmas to kill our country’s enemies.

Of late, our forefathers have come under a lot of undeserved criticism. All but forgotten is the immense personal courage that it took to sign the Declaration of Independence and the physical courage for the “Maryland 400” to make a suicidal attack. As Americans, we have a lot to be thankful for at Christmas and those that risked their lives to gain us our freedom need to be honored, not denigrated.

Luck certainly played a part in the successful American Revolution: the unusual fog covering the retreat from Brooklyn, for instance. At times, God is on our side. Another reason to be thankful this Christmas.

Today, many are dejected and in a funk over the politics. Summoning the energy to continue the fight to preserve the Constitution seems beyond some people’s wills. To them it would be easier to, in a very real sense, surrender to the likes of Alexandria Octavio-Cortez and tell her, “You win. We give up. Do with the USA what you will.”

We need to remember that many of us took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath had no expiration date! If you didn’t take that oath, it’s not too late to commit yourself to that principle.

Thomas Paine wrote, “These are the times that try men’s souls. The sunshine soldier and the summer patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country…”

Are you a sunshine soldier and summer patriot that will find other excuses to occupy your time, in this modern crisis, and let the Constitution be shredded by the forces of Socialism? Do you believe our current situation is less winnable than it appeared on Christmas morning, 1776?

Paine also wrote, “Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered.”

When we were born in the USA, we won the lottery! It’s time to pay the price of that lottery ticket. Our forefathers were willing to pay that price and we need to join with them. Are you willing to stand up and fight for the USA: its Constitution; its traditions; its future; and your family? The choice is clear - get engaged or surrender.

NY Senate Proposed Bill S00930 and NY Assembly Proposed Bill A01566

Thu, 21 Dec 2023 16:20:16 GMT

NY Senate Proposed Bill S00930 and NY Assembly Proposed Bill A01566 by John Elwood

Here is another attempt by the anti-2nd Amendment gun-grabbers to do away with your 2nd Amendment protected rights.

Restricts the sale of ammunition to only individuals authorized to possess such weapon; creates the no gun database under the division of criminal justice services.

Details of bill:

A person is guilty of criminal sale of firearm ammunition when such person sells any firearm ammunition to a person not authorized pursuant to law to possess a firearm capable of firing such ammunition.

A Class B misdemeanor. Punishment for a Class B misdemeanor include: In New York State, misdemeanors are punishable by community service, fines, probation and/or a jail sentence. You can serve up to 90 days in jail for a Class B misdemeanor. Misdemeanor convictions will typically show up on routine background checks by employers or law enforcement agencies. A misdemeanor conviction stays on your record forever. However, as of October 2017, a person can ask a court to seal up to two criminal convictions of which either can be misdemeanors, but only one can be a felony.

Create a no-gun database containing name, date of birth and any other appropriate information as deemed necessary by the division of criminal justice service. The division will allow for any person selling a firearm or firearm ammunition with the state to check the no-gun database for the buyer of such firearm or firearm ammunition.

Bill goes into effect 1 November next succeeding the date of which it becomes law.

State Senator Roxanne Persaud (D); Senator since 2015. Member of the codes committee where the bill is now. Bachelor and Master of Science in Education Administration. Her district 19 covers New York City; No corresponding SCOPE Chapter.

History– S-00930 Referred to the Senate Codes Committee on January 9, 2023.
A-01566, referred to Assembly codes committee on January 17, 2023.

Sponsor of S00930:

SCOPE opposes passage of these bills!

Take Action

NY Assembly Proposed Bill A03314

Wed, 20 Dec 2023 16:59:21 GMT

NY Assembly Proposed Bill A03314 by John Elwood

The anti-2^nd Amendment gun-grabbers never stop introducing proposed bills to do away with your 2^nd Amendment protected rights. Here’s another one.

A03314– Requires liability insurance for owners of firearms, rifles, and shotguns.

Details of the Bill:

Adds a new section to penal law – Section 400.04

Must have liability insurance BEFORE ownership or BEFORE an issuance of a gun license.

Amount of insurance shall be determined by the Superintendent of Financial Services specifically covering any damages resulting from any negligent acts involving the use of such firearms, rifle or shotgun while owned by the owner.

Failure to own liability insurance results in a fine from $150 - $1,500 and immediate revocation of owner’s registration, license, and any other privilege to own or possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun.

Owner still responsible if firearm, rifle, or shotgun is lost or stolen until the loss is reported to the police/Sheriff.

The bill goes into effect 90 days after bill becomes a law

Any person owning a firearm, rifle, or shotgun has 90 days from the effective date of this provision to get liability insurance.

Bill will not apply to police officers.

Jeffery Dinowitz - District 81; No corresponding SCOPE County chapter.

Christopher Burdick - District 93; No corresponding SCOPE County chapter.

Anna Kelles – District 125; No corresponding SCOPE County chapter.

David Weprin – District 24; No corresponding SCOPE County chapter.

Phara Souffrant Forrest – District 57; No corresponding SCOPE County chapter.

___________________________________________________________
Get involved, write, call, or email your representatives. Tell them to vote NO!

Partisan Bill– 5 Democrats Sponsoring:

There is a NO SAME AS BILL in the NY Senate.

Status– Introduced to Assembly Insurance Committee on February 2, 2023.

SCOPE opposes this bill!

You can find A03314 and other bills on SCOPE's Take Action page.

Go Woke Go Broke

Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:32:11 GMT

Go Woke Go Broke by Tom Reynolds

People tend to travel in similar groups and share similar beliefs and interests. So, it should come as no surprise that the leftist people who want to destroy the 2^nd Amendment are, pretty much, the same people who are pushing the Woke agenda. How is that going?

You may be aware that Disney betrayed its roots and was leading the Woke effort. Disney CEO Bob Iger recently admitted defeat, pledging to stop the left-wing propaganda and start entertaining again. The CEO of the world’s biggest entertainment conglomerate has just confirmed: Get woke, go broke.

Iger said: “Entertain first, not messages.” He added that “positive messages for the world” are great but shouldn’t be forced on the public or used as the story’s primary job. (I disagree with Iger defining Woke as a ‘positive message’ which leads me to believe Iger isn’t really serious but hopes to fool people into returning to Disney products.)

_______________________________________________________________

And if that doesn’t convince you that ‘going Woke means going broke’, one of the propaganda arms of the Democrat Party, (and rabidly anti-2^nd Amendment) the far-left Washington Post, has had another layoff and just cut 120 jobs through buyouts and has promised that layoffs will commence if 120 more staffers do not accept buyouts. If involuntary layoffs happen, Washington Post CEO Patty Stonesifer warned that they would offer “significantly less generous benefits than the voluntary package.”

According to the farther left New York Times, the Washington Post is on track to lose $100 million in 2023. (Jeff Bezos, the billionaire founder of Amazon also owns the Washington Post so he can afford to subsidize it but has apparently decided that good business practices supersede propaganda. Of course, good business practices would include reporting the news instead of propaganda.)

Why label their reporting as propaganda? John Nolte of Breitbart listed a few reasons:

· Russia Collusion Hoax

· Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Hoax

· Jussie Smollett Hoax

· Covington KKKids Hoax

· Very Fine People Hoax

· Seven-Hour Gap Hoax

· Global Warming Hoax

· Russian Bounties Hoax

· Trump Trashes Troops Hoax

· Policemen Killed at Mostly Peaceful January 6 Protest Hoax

· Rittenhouse Hoax

· Border Agents Whipping Illegals Hoax

· NASCAR Noose Hoax

· COVID Lab Leak Theory Is Racist Hoax

· Hunter Biden’s Laptop Is Russian Disinformation Hoax

· Joe Biden Will Never Ban Gas Stoves Hoax

· COVID Deaths are Over-Counted Is a Conspiracy Theory Hoax

· Mass Graves of Native Children in Canada Hoax

· Hamas Hospital Hoax

· John Fetterman Is Healthy Hoax

Other than that, where’s the propaganda? (Sarcasm intended.)

Anheuser-Busch's beer brand Bud Light employed transgender social media personality Dylan Mulvaney to promote its product. That cost its parent company more than $15 billion and over 23 percent of its stock valuation in just six weeks.

They, too, had some layoffs.

Anheuser-Busch's marketing vice president, Alissa Heinerscheid, who spearheaded the campaign, was placed on leave, as was vice president for mainstream brands Daniel Blake. Benoit Garbe, the chief marketing officer for the embattled company’s US portfolio of beers, canned cocktails and non-alcoholic beverages since 2021, “will be resigning at the end of the year in order to embark on a new chapter in his career.”

Maybelline, for which Mulvaney also recently did promotions, was likewise targeted for boycotts—by feminists who objected to a biological male modeling women's sports bras and cosmetics. (Guys weren’t too excited about that either!)

Nearly 4,000 car dealerships signed an open letter to President Biden urging him to delay the timeline for proposed emissions standards that would force two-thirds of new vehicles sold by 2032 to be electric.

The groups stated in the letter: “Electric vehicles are stacking up on our lots, which is our best indicator of customer demand in the marketplace…no government agency, no think tank, and no polling firm knows more about the automobile customer than us”.

EV inventories have increased by 506% from a year ago, with EVs sitting on lots an average 82 days versus 64 days for gas-powered vehicles. In response to slowing demand, automakers like Ford and GM are cutting production.

Julia Martinez reported, “Sticker shock” is a real thing for most people, even after government incentives. And the maintenance costs and the practical impact of charging time are real considerations that purchasers are making.

In a related incident

In January 2022, Michigan’s Progressive Governor Whitmer announced a massive financial agreement with GM, which ultimately saw Michigan taxpayers footing an $824 million bill to have the automaker promise to invest billions in auto jobs across the state. Whitmer said at the time: “GM’s $7 billion investment in Michigan — the largest in their history — will create and retain 5,000 good-paying jobs and enable us to build on our legacy as the place that put the world on wheels.

In two separate state filings, GM executives said they are laying off 1,300 auto workers starting January 1, 2024.

A crushing budget deficit of $780 million has forced San Francisco Mayor London Breed to eliminate the budget of the Office of Reparations, which was considering payouts of up to $5 million each to long-term black residents of the city.

The deficit is blamed on an exodus of work-from-home residents and taxpayers, coupled with a rise in crime, outdoor drug abuse, and homelessness, and chased away retail businesses. (In other words, woke policies.)

Then there is Target, which is not learning from experience.

In mid May, Target CEO Brian Cornell described his company's diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives of offering Woke merchandise for sale: “I think those are just good business decisions, and it's the right thing for society, and it's the great thing for our brand."

Target customers disagreed and within just 10 days of Cornell's statement, Target lost $10 billion, in value, watching its stock price fall daily. The company’s second-quarter earnings report shows a 5.4% decrease in sales—the first drop in roughly six years.

Did Target learn anything? Nope.

Target has reportedly hired a Senior LGBTQIA+ Segmentation Strategist and Pride Leader. (Try fitting that title on a business card!) His job is to wokify the aisles. Gary Thompson goes by “gaycruella” on social media.

SCOPE constantly points out that it is the gun owners who won’t vote that are causing us to lose elections. Apparently, these same gun owners vote with their feet – and their wallets - but can’t find time to solve the core problem and vote on election day.

There’s an election coming in eleven months that will determine if the Constitution lives as the law of the land or is just a temporary impediment to the liberal left to be worked around. Let’s not hesitate to tie these leftist groups together - since they already are together.

Federal Gun Registry History

Thu, 14 Dec 2023 20:53:06 GMT

Federal Gun Registry History by Tom Reynolds

It is often stated that the federal government is prohibited from maintaining a gun registry. Here is a short history of the federal gun registry prohibitions to which you can refer, to get good information.

Congressional Research Service serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. On March 4, 2022 it released a report (*) which is the basis for the following.

Four provisions of current federal law prohibit a national registry of most, but not all, modern firearms.

1934 National Firearms Act (NFA)

Under the Department of Justice (DOJ), the ATF is the principal agency that administers and enforces the NFA

Under the NFA, certain firearms deemed to be particularly dangerous are more highly regulated. (e.g., machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, and silencers/suppressors.)

ATF maintains a centralized registry of NFA-regulated firearms (e.g., machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, and silencers) that are held privately by unlicensed persons and publicly by nonfederal law enforcement agencies.

For 34 years, FY1979 through FY2012, Congress attached a proviso to the annual ATF appropriations that blocked any proposed rule, that would have required FFLs to submit quarterly reports on firearms sales and dispositions.

For FY2012, the word of futurity (“hereafter”) was included in this, which indicates it intended the prohibition on these quarterly FFL reports to be permanent law (H.Rept. 112-284, p. 240). (**)

Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA)

Under the Department of Justice (DOJ), the ATF is the principal agency that administers and enforces GCA; however, the FBI administers the GCA background check provisions.

The GCA requires anyone who engages in the business of manufacturing, importing, or dealing in firearms to be licensed federally. These licensees are known collectively as Federal Firearms Licensees. (FFL)

All modern firearms are regulated under the GCA if they are based on post-1898 designs and are capable of accepting self-contained, commercially available ammunition. In addition, certain devices (e.g., silencers / suppressors) also fall under the GCA definition of “firearm.”

For nine years, FY2004 through FY2012, Congress included a general provision in the annual DOJ appropriations bill that required the FBI to destroy background check records within 24 hours on persons who are found eligible to receive and possess firearms. This provision was crafted because a 90-day NICS audit log was maintained by the FBI during the Clinton Administration.

For FY2012, Congress inserted a word of futurity (“hereafter”) in this provision, which indicates it intended for the 24-hour destruction requirement to be permanent law. (***)

Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), 1986 Under 18 U.S.C. §926,

The Attorney General is authorized to prescribe the rules and regulations necessary to carry out the GCA. Section 6 of FOPA amended §926 to prohibit a registry of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions.( ****)

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 1993

Congress amended the GCA and required FFLs to initiate a background check on any prospective unlicensed customer seeking to acquire a firearm from them through a sale, trade, or redemption of firearms exchanged for collateral (18 U.S.C. §922(t)). The FBI facilitates these background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Subsection 103(i) of the Brady Act prohibits the establishment of a registration system of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions with any records generated by NICS, except for records on persons found ineligible to receive or possess firearms.(*****)

Notes:

(*) Link to actual report 3 (congress.gov)

(**) “Provided, That no funds appropriated herein or hereafter shall be available for salaries or administrative expenses in connection with consolidating or centralizing, within the Department of Justice, the records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and disposition of firearms maintained by [F]ederal firearms licensees. (Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, P.L. 112-55, November 18, 2011, 125 Stat. 552, 609.

(***)Hereafter, none of the funds appropriated pursuant to this Act or any other provision of law may be used for—(1) the implementation of any tax or fee in connection with the implementation of subsection 922(t) of title 18, United States Code; and (2) any system to implement subsection 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, that does not require and result in the destruction of any identifying information submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm no more than 24 hours after the system advises a Federal firearms licensee that possession or receipt of a firearm by the prospective transferee would not violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or State law

(****) No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [Attorney General’s] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation. (P.L. 99-308, May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 449, 459.)

(*****) No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may—(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or (2) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm.

S04150

Wed, 13 Dec 2023 21:26:35 GMT

S04150 by John Elwood

In 2022, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a New York law on who is allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public by ruling that the New York law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled the ability to carry a pistol in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

The Constitution never seems to stop Governor Hochul.

Eight days later, on July 1, 2023 New York State Governor Hochul signed into law the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). Significant provisions of the CCIA includes an ammunition background check (backdoor registration) prior to the purchase of ammunition, a fee of $2.50 for each purchase of ammunition, as well as a $9.00 fee for any purchase of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.

And the anti-2A Left never stops.

On November 29, 2023, Democrats in the United States Congress, led by Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico), Mark Kelly (D -Arizona), Michael Bennett (D-Colorado), and Angus King (I-Maine), introduced the most sweeping list of gun prohibitions in the 21^st century, including prohibiting nearly all semi-automatic handguns. The bill labelled the “Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion Act (GOSAFE) will require all semi-automatic rifles above .22 caliber to have a permanently affixed magazine capacity of 10 rounds or fewer while outlawing magazines of higher capacity. Further, the bill requires government approval of any future semi-automatic firearm design before production occurs. Finally, the bill will also ban build-it-yourself ghost gun kits.

In 2024, New York State Democrats will continue their goal of gun control by bringing forth an avalanche of gun control bills to the New York State Legislature. In 2023, they included: A03314; S02978; S01701/A07885; S07364/A07489; S00930/A01566; A00754, A00442; S07365; A05049/S02635; and S04150.

S04150 is a particularly egregious bill. S04150 requires limiting the acquisition of a rifle, or shotgun to one every ninety-day period. S04150 was introduced on February 23, 2023 and was sent to the consumer protection committee. Provisions of S04150 do not apply to police officers, and would take effect 180 days after signed into law by the New York State Governor. The bill states a violation of S04150 is a class A misdemeanor.

Class A misdemeanors are the most serious type of misdemeanor. Someone can be punished for a class A misdemeanor is up to 1 year in jail. Additional penalties include fines, community service, three (3) years’ probation, and driver’s license suspension. If convicted of a misdemeanor, it can stay on your record forever, but a 2017 New York State bill allows for the sealing of one misdemeanor conviction under certain circumstances.

S04150 is partisan bill sponsored by State Senator James Sanders, a Democrat from New York City (district 10 - Queens). (There is no corresponding SCOPE chapter to Senator Sanders’ district.) Currently, he is the chairman of the NY State Senate Committee on Banks. An attempt was made to ask Senator Sanders why he feels there is a need for this bill, and what is his source research document, but the Senator did not respond to this author’s inquiry.

Obviously, Shooter’s Committee on Political Education (SCOPE) OPPOSES S04150.

It seems like democrats from New York City are in competition with each other to determine who can create the most draconian firearm legislation, and impose it on New York State citizens. The good news is there is no SAME AS bill for S04150, meaning there is no corresponding Assembly bill working through the Assembly at the same time S04150 works through the New York State Senate. However, gunowners (SCOPE) cannot rely that a corresponding Assembly bill does not appear in 2024.

I continually hear there are 4 to 5 million-gun owners in New York and if NY State gunowners all voted we would not be in danger of losing our Second Amendment rights.

OK, we all agree Second Amendment restrictions are unconstitutional, but how do we fight back? SCOPE is, “A Second Amendment Defense Organization, defending the rights of New York State gun owners to keep and bear arms!” SCOPE’s mission statement states we accomplish our mission by, “Tirelessly making every effort to educate anti-gun politicians, and publicly speaking and debating gun issues with anti-gun organizations”. Ask yourself, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS? I’m not just talking about SCOPE board members, but ALL SCOPE members.

If ALL SCOPE members aren’t actively writing and calling your legislator to OPPOSE S04150, we are not doing enough! If we are not voting because we think these restrictive gun laws won’t affect us, we are WRONG and we aren’t doing enough! If we are not educating ourself on gun laws, and then debating anti-gun organizations, we are not doing enough!

SCOPE is trying to synchronize its efforts with other Second Amendment organizations and making donations to help fund a lawsuit against violations of the Second Amendment. But it won’t be enough until we have stopped this flood of anti-2^nd Amendment legislation and that will require members to act individually as well as a part of SCOPE.

OPPOSE S04150!

S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education Frontlines

From Breitbart News

Twisted Legal Logic by Tom Reynolds

Two Flags by Bohdan Rabarsky

The 2026 S.C.O.P.E. Annual Members Meeting is Saturday, April 18th.

March is Women’s History Month by Bohdan Rabarsky

Monkey See Monkey Do by Tom Reynolds

Annual Member Meeting Guest Speaker

Oregon, Initiative Petition 28 by Tom Reynolds

Planning Ahead by Tom Reynolds

Good News by Tom Reynolds

Gun Control in Iran by Tom Reynolds

Equal Protection by Bohdan Rabarsky

Mexico – New York’s Ambition by Tom Reynolds

Colonial Sensitive Locations by Tom Reynolds

Gun Laws Missing Something? by Bohdan Rabarsky

A New FFL

HR 2189 by Tom Reynolds

Can Pro-Gun bills actually come from the NYS Legislature? by Ron Havlen

A T F Director

Pretti in Minneapolis

Wolford v Lopez Aftershock

Attacking 2A From All Directions

Maryland’s Sensitive Places

Wolford v Lopez is Heard by SCOTUS

O Canada: NOTICE TO INDIVIDUAL FIREARMS OWNERS ASSAULT-STYLE FIREARMS COMPENSATION PROGRAM (ASFCP)

U. S. v. Hemani

Bruce Blakeman

ERPO for 11-Year-Old Girl

Wolford v Lopez (Hawaii)

Baird v Bonta

A Christmas To Remember

Reagan on Legislation

DOJ’s 2nd Amendment Section

The November / December edition of the SCOPE newsletter, The Firing Lines, is available for download

The November / December edition of the SCOPE newsletter, The Firing Lines,is available for download here.

A New Interpretation

Frey / Cheng v NY City

CPRC (Crime Prevention Research Center)

One Man One Vote

Blue or Not by Costantin Belyayev

A NOVEMBER 2025 SCOPE UPDATE

Thanksgiving Non Talk

Internet Insecurities

Looking Back and Forward by Richard Rossi

Frey v. City of New York, No. 23-365 (2d Cir. 2025)

If you want to run for a SCOPE Leadership Position

To All SCOPE Members, (A message from the president of SCOPE)

Veterans Day

Glock

2nd Amendment Task Force Strikes Again

Vote - Ballot Proposal 1

Random Articles of Interest

Another way to Infringe

Celebrating 60 Years of SCOPE by Senator Pam Helming

N Y City Mayor Ratings

G F Z’s by Bohdan Rabarsky

Don Lemon Speaks by Tom Reynolds

School Safety by Jess Nassar

A machinegun . . .

Hawaii Sensitive Places

Shoot to Kill

DOJ vs LA Sheriff

Lessons From General Marshall

Projection by Tom Reynolds

NY City

Why is the Democrat Party losing voters?

Nevada

Legal Updates Highlights

The 2025 SCOPE Annual Banquet will be on Saturday, September 27th

Quicker So You Are Not Deader

Unasked Questions

86 Years Ago

Animal Farm

Not Coming After Hunting Rifles - Yet

SCOPE Banquet: Attorney General candidate to be at SCOPE banquet

The July/August edition of the SCOPE newsletter, The Firing Lines is now available

DO GUN FREE ZONES SERVE A PURPOSE?

$4,706

H R 4676

The November / December edition of the SCOPE newsletter, The Firing Lines,
is available for download here.