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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over-Regulation and Deprivation of Rights  by Jarrod Lomozik

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCOPE President Activities in April 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

Untangling Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antonyuk appealed to SCOTUS

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

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

Antonyuk went back to SCOTUS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Gun Control Failure  by Bohdan Rabarsky

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

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

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

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

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

The Red Flag law didn’t prevent this shooting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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…

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.