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

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

    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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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.