Free Speech  by Tom Reynolds

Legal Insurrection’s web site posted this article.  Although it is about free speech, it should be obvious to anyone not living in a cave that the Biden administration (and Blue states in general like New York) have weaponized the power of the government against those that dare oppose it (such as conservatives.)  This weaponization flies directly in the face of the Bill of Rights which are not an add-on to the Constitution but ARE the Constitution.

In Blue states, the only remedy is the power of the judiciary to enforce the Constitution on those that would ignore it.  This case shows that there is hope.

Without Free Speech, how will we be able to spread the truth about guns and the 2^nd Amendment.

Per Legal Insurrection: We previously have covered the lawsuit brought by Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden administration regarding collusion with big tech platforms to silence mostly conservative voices.

After extensive pre-trial proceedings, the federal District Court has issued a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting further collusion. The Memorandum Decision is 155 pages. Most of it consists of extensive findings of fact and evidence of the collusion. Here are the key summary parts from the introduction and conclusion (emphasis added):

This case is about the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The explosion of social-media platforms has resulted in unique free speech issues— this is especially true in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

Although the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech, the issues raised herein go beyond party lines….

The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.

Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.”721

721 An “Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’” refers to the concept presented in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, ‘1984.’ In the novel, the Ministry of Truth is a governmental institution responsible for altering historical records and disseminating propaganda to manipulate and control public perception.

The Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign. This court finds that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment free speech claim against the Defendants. Therefore, a preliminary injunction should issue immediately against the Defendants as set out herein.

The Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 10] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

The Plaintiffs’ request to certify this matter as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Article 23(b)(2) is DENIED.

On Monday, SCOPE wrote about Hunter Biden’s sweetheart deal on gun felonies.  If you thought that Joe Biden’s approach to crime was hypocritical - as well as odd – on August 1, 2022, the White House web site highlighted another aspect of Biden’s “Safer America Plan.”

Stores are leaving major cities where DA’s and mayors are more concerned about criminals than victims and stopping crime is not a priority.  Nordstrom, Walmart, Whole Foods, Starbucks, CVS are a few examples of major chains deserting crime ridden cities.  And not just retailers.  Chicago lost corporate headquarters for Caterpillar, Tyson Foods, Boeing and Citadel (a $51 billion hedge fund.) 

So, what does Biden want to do about it?  Actually, nothing.  He wants online marketplaces such as Amazon to solve the crime problem and do a better job of policing goods being ‘fenced’ on their web sites.

Here is what the White House says: “To tackle organized retail theft, the plan calls on Congress to pass legislation to require online marketplaces, such as Amazon, to verify third-party sellers’ information, and to impose liability on online marketplaces for the sale of stolen goods on their platforms.”

CNN disagrees with Biden (as well as every credible news agency in the world.)  CNN believes the reason stores are leaving these cities is not crime but – there are too many stores; “a glut.”

Well, CNN’s problem will solve itself.  

__________________________

On June 16^th, Biden made a speech at the University of Hartford where he continued to show his confusion about crime and gun control and almost everything else.

In praising the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, (BSCA) Biden claimed his “son was the first to enforce ‘Red Flag’ laws when he was Attorney General of Delaware.”  Delaware enacted its “red flag” law in 2018.  His son, Beau Biden, died in 2015.

Biden also claimed that the BSCA made “straw purchases” illegal.  Purchasing a firearm for someone else who is prohibited from purchasing a firearm has been illegal for decades, as has misrepresenting who is the real buyer.

Whoever writes his speeches needs to get in touch with reality.  Biden further defended the BSCA by saying: “And in most cities — down in Philadelphia and New York, areas I know well — like up here — you’d see a truck pull up, pull to the curb, and selling weapons — selling guns, selling AR-15.  Selling weapons.” 

Crime may be out of control in those cities but pulling to the curb and selling AR-15’s out of a truck would be a bridge-too far, even in those cities, since unlicensed firearms dealing was illegal before the BSCA.

It’s surprising that Biden didn’t accuse “Corn pop” of doing the weapons selling.

And Biden was only getting warmed up!

The BSCA, “Put a pistol on a brace, and it…turns into a gun.”

I thought a pistol was a gun even before a stabilizing brace was attached to it?

Then he added that stabilizing braces, “Makes them where you can have a higher-caliber weapon — a higher-caliber bullet coming out of that gun.”

A stabilizing brace changes the caliber of the weapon?  Does Biden have even a clue about what he is saying? 

Bided closed by saying, “God save the Queen, man.”  He could not have been referring to Queen Elizabeth, who died nine months earlier.  Was he referring to drag queens as this is their “pride month” and would explain adding ‘man’ at the end?”

It’s scary that politicians pass laws about things they know nothing about.

Remember when he said: “there can be no more than eight bullets in a round?” Or when he said “…nobody says you can have a magazine with 100 clips in it.”

Actually, all known technology says you can’t have eight bullets in a round or 100 clips in a magazine.

___________________________

And when it comes to self-deception about guns (or just about anything else), NY’s Governor Kathy Hochul ranks with Biden. 

In a video her office posted on Twitter, she said, “A year ago today, the Supreme Court ruled to strip away the rights of a governor to protect her people from concealed carry weapons.”

“We refused to go backwards.”

Actually, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled that governors must act within the confines of the law, otherwise known as the United States Constitution.  That’s what really ticked off Hochul.

SCOTUS did NOT take away the governor’s power to protect stores from being robbed, people from being assaulted on subways or the power to prosecute criminals and keep them in jail.  Hochul would rather take away the constitutional right to protect oneself with a gun than protect ‘her people’ from those crimes. 

“Her people’.  Doesn’t that sound like something a queen would say? Perhaps Biden was referring to Hochul?

Luckily for criminals, SCOTUS’ ruling did not affect the criminals’ ability to illegally carry guns and use them against the citizens that Hochul would disarm. 

Can you imagine if aliens landed and said “take me to your leaders.”  Enter Biden with Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg by his side.  Perhaps Hochul and Gavin Newsome standing behind them.  Mankind would be toast!  The problem is, even without aliens entering the picture, we’re in trouble.

Biden on Background Checks  by Tom Reynolds

Joe Biden is a big believer that increased background checks are the answer to fighting violence.  For example, the BBC web site reported on March 15^th, 2022 that Joe Biden said:

"It's just common sense…check whether someone is a violent felon, a domestic abuser, before they buy a gun."

Per the White House web site on August 1, 2022:

“On March 24^th, 2022, Biden signed into law the NICS Denial Notification Act…requires federal officials to notify state and local law enforcement when individuals who are legally prohibited from purchasing firearms fail a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).”

In June, the President signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which will help keep dangerous guns out of dangerous hands. For example…it requires enhanced background checks for gun purchasers under the age of 21. 

On August 1, 2022, Joe Biden introduced his crown jewel, the “Safer America Plan.” The White House said about it:

“We need to enforce our commonsense gun laws, require background checks for all gun sales …”

“Keep guns out of dangerous hands. The federal gun background check system is the best tool we have to keep guns out of the hands of people currently prohibited under federal law from purchasing these weapons…”

Biden has repeated these sentiments many times in many places but it’s best to quote the White House web site so there can be no denials.  Nothing taken out-of-context.  Straight from the horse’s…mouth.

I will bet you can guess where this is going.

Form 4473 — the Firearm Transaction Record —must be filled out whenever someone buys a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer.  The form asks questions including whether the person buying the gun is addicted to drugs.

Hunter Biden purchased a handgun in October 2018.  To buy it, he had to lie on Form 4473 about being a drug addict or his request would have been denied.

How do we know he was a drug addict?

In 2021 he wrote a book saying that he was actively using cocaine in 2018.  In addition, Biden had been discharged from the Navy Reserve for drug use.

Federal law prohibits people who use drugs from possessing firearms.   The US Attorney in Delaware David Weiss’ office said "…Hunter Biden possessed a firearm despite knowing he was an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance."

Hunter Biden should be facing a felony gun charge for illegal possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Lying on Form 4473 is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. For being a user of unlawful drugs in possession of a firearm, the punishment is up to five years.

However, as has been reported about Hunter Biden’s deal with the Justice Department,  Biden will avoid prosecution and potentially have it dismissed as part of the agreement with the Justice Department.  Biden has reportedly agreed to enter a pretrial diversion program for that charge, meaning the charge will be dropped as long as he follows the conditions of the agreement.  (Eew!  A pretrial diversion program!  Doesn’t that fall under the definition of cruel and unusual punishment?)

Can we expect those hard fact newspapers like the Washington Post (I joke) to ask Joe Biden questions like: what good is a law if it is not enforced?  Doesn’t it set a bad example to let the President’s son slide on a felony with a slap on the wrist?  What message does that send to other drug addicts who want to buy a gun, legally?  (Illegally it’s not an issue.)

But we can expect the Washington Post (WP) to provide cover for Brandon.  How do we know?  Because they already tried on June 9^th 2022.

First, the WP seems to question why drug addiction is even a disqualifying action.  (Only a leftist newspaper could wonder about that.)  It answers: “The reason for adding drug users to the list is a bit obscure.”

But then it provides a possible answer which you will never guess – if you have been living in a cave.  It hints that the reason drug use was included as prohibited was…drum roll please…racism.  Who would have guessed!

But the WP wasn’t finished in throwing up a smoke screen.  “…the odds of being charged for lying on this form are virtually nonexistent.”  Nonexistent?  According to WP’s own report, data extracted from the U.S. attorneys’ case management system shows that, for fiscal 2018 there were 444 referrals for lying on Form 4473 and 271 cases filed (61%).  In the 2019 there were 478 referrals and 298 cases filed (62%).  In 2020 there were 433 referrals and 243 cases filed (56%).  So, there is better than a 50-50 chance one will be prosecuted.

But the WP seems to believe that the DOJ and FBI are too busy.  They are “Keeping guns out of the hands of people who already have committed heinous crimes is probably a higher priority…”  Yeah, heinous stuff like storing documents behind Secret Service protection in Mar A Lago.

It should be noted that everyone in the Department of Justice works for Attorney General Merrick Garland and Garland works for President Joe Biden.  The White House announced, "The President and First Lady love their son and support him as he continues to rebuild his life.”  Although Joe loves Hunter, both Garland and Biden claim all the decisions concerning Hunter were made at lower levels and Garland and Joe Biden had no input. 

The White House has also announced that in a budget balancing effort they will be selling a bridge in Brooklyn.

Gun Control Studies  by Tom Reynolds

On June 13th, Ammoland had an article entitled, “Is Gun Control Making Vermont less Safe.”  It answered its question by concluding, “Vermont’s gun control measures had no salutary impact whatsoever in the already peaceful jurisdiction.”

But how it got to that conclusion was an interesting path since it dealt with whether or not many of the academic studies on gun control – or anything else in the social science realm – have much validity.

It concluded that “…different researchers presented with the same exact data will come to wildly different conclusions.”  Oops. 

How did it reach that conclusion?

In a 2022 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, the authors assembled 161 researchers in 73 teams and provided them with the same data and hypothesis to be tested. 

The authors reported: “Results from our controlled research…demonstrate that analyzing the same hypothesis with the same data can lead to substantial differences in statistical estimates and substantive conclusions. In fact, no two teams arrived at the same set of numerical results or took the same major decisions during data analysis.”  (Emphasis added.)

Gee whiz.  Does that mean that, ”Much of social science is of dubious value, even before trying to account for political bias.”

Following that path, in 2022, Reason magazine exposed almost all “gun violence” social science as junk science.

“Drawing on the expertise of statistician and New York University and University of California at San Diego instructor Aaron Brown and a 2020 analysis by the RAND Corporation, the video**  explained that the vast majority of gun violence research is not conducted in a manner sufficient to offer meaningful conclusions. An article accompanying the video, written by Brown and Reason Producer Justin Monticello, noted, a 2020 analysis by the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, parsed the results of 27,900 research publications on the effectiveness of gun control laws. From this vast body of work, the RAND authors found only 123 studies, or 0.4 percent, that tested the effects rigorously.” (Emphasis added.)

Reason and Brown then examined those remaining 123 studies from the RAND analysis and offered the following,

“We took a look at the significance of the 123 rigorous empirical studies and what they actually say about the efficacy of gun control laws.”

“The answer: nothing.”

“ The 123 studies that met RAND’s criteria may have been the best of the 27,900 that were analyzed, but they still had serious statistical defects, such as a lack of controls, too many parameters or hypotheses for the data, undisclosed data, erroneous data, misspecified models, and other problems.”

“The gun issue aside, the problems inherent in the type of modeling presented here, the academy’s obvious political bias, and the replication crisis*** have led to increasing doubts about whether large swathes of the social sciences have any value at all.”

Then there are ‘Fact Checkers’ who claim to tell us what is true and what is false (without letting their personal biases enter into their analysis).

On June 13, 2023, The Washington Free Beacon ran an article about the political donations of self-identified fact checkers.  It used federal campaign finance disclosures over the past four election cycles.  It found that, “$22,580 of the $22,683 in political donations that came from self-identified fact checkers during that time—a whopping 99.5 percent—went to Democrats and liberal groups. Only three of the fact checker donations made during that period went to Republicans.” 

Luckily, Democrats never let their political biases enter into their analyses. (Sarcasm intended.)

So, how do everyday gun owners make sense of what is true and what is junk science?

You could do what the Left does and read the NY Times and Washington Post and listen to CNN and MSNBC.  (Just kidding.) 

The answer is that you can be very skeptical, research the subject and use your common sense.  The tough part is researching since that will take time.  SCOPE and many 2A defender organizations often print rebuttals to misinformation but there is so much of it ‘out there’ the best approach is a rule-of-thumb: the Left believes that everything and anything – including lying - justifies their march to power and control.  

*  Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of   uncertainty,

**  See this video explainer on the topic.

***  The replication crisis is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them.

Florida  by Tom Reynolds

We are all aware of the huge difference between a ‘red’ and a ‘blue’ state.  A recent court case in Florida brings that home.

Richard Burns engaged in a verbal confrontation with a tree-cutting crew in his front yard. A crew member made sexual gestures toward his fiancée and another crew member threatened his dogs with a chainsaw.  Burns demanded the crew leave.  When they refused, he retrieved a handgun and while in his front yard he chambered a round. He held the handgun at his side and again demanded the tree-cutting crew leave his front yard.

Burns was charged with aggravated assault.

Burns cited Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law, but lost.

Burns appealed the decision.

A three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida heard the appeal and unanimously found that loading and openly carrying a firearm in a person’s own yard is NOT use of deadly force and is protected conduct under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

The court’s rationale:

Richard Burns did NOT point his handgun at anyone.  The mere display of a firearm is NOT the use of deadly force.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

Florida law against open carry does NOT apply to a person’s home or place of business.

Even if Burns had NOT been on his home property, it would have been lawful for him to “briefly and openly display” his firearm in anticipation of possibly needing to use it for his and his fiancée’s protection during his confrontation with the tree-cutting crew.

Once Richard Burns told the tree-cutting crew to leave, and they refused, they became trespassers. The trespass and the threat to his dogs also justified his actions.

One can only imagine what would have happened if similar circumstances had happened in New York State.

Florida may or may not appeal the decision.  New York would undoubtably appeal the decision, just as it has appealed decisions declaring the Concealed Carry Improvement Act to be unconstitutional, even though the CCIA is undoubtably unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the Florida decision does not apply to New York.  On the other hand, it is fortunate that similar courts’ decisions in New York do not apply to Florida.

Speaking of ‘red’ versus ‘blue’ states…

On August 28, 2022, Breitbart News noted Gabby Giffords’ gun control group was urging major credit companies to flag gun and ammunition purchases via the new Merchants’ Code.

On August 30 Breitbart News noted Democrat New York lawmakers were urging major credit card companies to create and use the same new firearms-specific code.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed legislation that prohibits credit card companies from tracking gun sales in Florida. His office posted an announcement to the Florida Governor’s home page saying, “Today, Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill (SB) 7054 and SB 214 to protect the personal finances of Floridians from government overreach and woke corporate monitoring…SB 214 prohibits credit card companies from using firearm-specific Merchant Category Codes and institutes a fine for violations of Florida’s consumer protections against gun owner registries.”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for DeSantis’ actions to be followed in NY State.

Speaking of Gabby Gifford’s anti-gun activities..

According to that pesky United States Constitution, Amendment VI, which has been around for 232 years, says: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall…have the assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

Even TV shows, the lowest form of semi-intelligent life, know about this.  Anyone who has seen a TV cop show knows that criminals are advised of their right to counsel. 

What if there were no lawyers?  (Stop applauding!)  To be more specific, what if there were no defense lawyers to provide “Counsel for the defense?”

Gabby Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence and Michael Bloomberg’s March for Our Lives gun control groups are canvassing campuses to convince law students to sign a pledge they won’t represent the firearm industry or firearm owners when it comes to protecting and preserving Second Amendment rights.

The gun control groups’ pledge peddles verifiably false claims to convince the aspiring lawyers that the firearm industry – not criminals - is responsible for violent crime in America. They’re blaming the industry for crimes committed by violent offenders and ignoring basic legal foundations in order to sway law students to deny legal services to companies and individuals that follow the law.

This effort is not restricted to the anti 2^nd Amendment.

In his book, Get Trump, Alan Dershowitz writes: “…the Get Trump campaign is also out to get his lawyers and anyone associated with him. The targeting of his lawyers is especially troubling, since it implicates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.  Good lawyers are understandably afraid of becoming the subjects of criminal or bar investigation, if they dare to defend Trump.”

The Constitution and especially its Bill of Rights will forever be an obstacle to be worked around by the left in its search for power and control.

Working Together  by Tom Reynolds

At the time of the Constitutional Convention, what was to become the United States were thirteen individual ‘nation states’ that, for the most part, didn’t trust or particularly like each other.  But, they recognized the need for a central government to deal with specific issues. 

It wasn’t just North versus South but big states versus small states, agricultural states versus manufacturing states and slave states versus free states.  They all realized that, if they were to survive with some level of individual rights and self-government, they needed to unite and work together.

Perhaps the only thing they shared was a distrust of a strong central government.  They compromised on issues, for the greater good, and worked together to form our Constitution.

It worked!

Fast forward 234 years and I was pleasantly surprised to see this statement at the beginning of an article in Ammoland: “The Second Amendment Foundation today said it welcomes the National Rifle Association’s request to join in a federal lawsuit filed by SAF and its associates in a challenge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ new ‘“arm brace rule.’”

Kathy Hochul and New York State’s outright defiance of the Supreme Court’s NYSRPA versus Bruen decision brought many 2^nd Amendment defense groups into a fight against Hochul.  Unfortunately, they all went to war individually even though they had a common enemy. For example, there are at least four separate law suits challenging Hochul’s rules against carrying firearms for security in houses of worship. 

While there may be some justification for attacking from different positions, each law suit carries a price tag in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention missing the advantages of a united front.  

One of the left’s tactics is to bankrupt 2^nd Amendment groups by passing unconstitutional laws in multiple ‘blue’ states, forcing state by state lawsuits.  It would seem that, like the original thirteen states, a united front would be necessary for financial reasons and, thus, SCOPE applauds the SAF and the NRA for working together on an issue.

Prior to World War 2, Winston Churchill was one of the most bitter foes of the Communism and the Soviet Union.  But after Hitler invaded the USSR, Churchill’s foe became his ally.  When Churchill was challenged about this new position he responded: “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” 

Like our founding fathers, Churchill recognized the need for a united action in the face of an enemy.

Does anyone doubt the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (better known as the ATF) is leading the Biden administration’s fight to neuter the 2^nd Amendment.  It is as much the 2^nd Amendment’s enemy as Communism was Churchill’s enemy. 

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is joining with the ATF in offering an increased reward for the arrest and conviction of criminals responsible for stealing guns from Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) gun dealers.  In addition, Senate Republicans have introduced a bill to increase penalties for thefts from FFL retailers. 

The ATF under Biden (and perhaps under any president) will never be a friend of 2A.  But this is better than just making a favorable reference to the devil, this is using the devil for our own purposes.

Over the last seven years, SCOPE has recognized the need for working together with other 2^nd Amendment defense organizations.  We have developed alliances, big and small, with other 2A groups.

You probably all remember SCOPE’s recent fund raising drive to support GOA-NY’s lawsuits which resulted in $15,000 in contributions from state SCOPE as well as our chapters and our members.  SCOPE realized that it does not have the financial resources to fight Hochul by itself in court but it can contribute to supporting another 2A organization’s lawsuits.  Not many organizations would fund raise for a second organization.

Check out the recent Firing Lines and you will see ads supporting Armed Women of America.  In addition, the Steuben Chapter has actively worked to support them financially.

Firing Lines also has featured articles by Doctor Robert Young of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.  He was also one of our featured speakers at the recent Members Meeting and he has combined to write some past emails to members.

SCOPE has been working with Niagara SAFE (Second Amendment Forever) and Congresswoman Claudia Tenney to start a grass roots movement to overrule the ‘One man one vote’ doctrine that is depriving us of our vote in New York State.

New York Citizens Audit is featured in Firing Lines and they have authored emails to SCOPE members.

There are other organizations that SCOPE is working with and this is also working in the other direction.  Other organizations are quoting SCOPE in their materials and distributing our emails to members to their members.  We have had requests from as far away as Florida and Georgia to use our materials.

But at the heart of SCOPE are our chapters which have a symbiotic relationship to state SCOPE; we each strengthen each other.  Our chapters give us access to local governments that few other organizations can match.  While combined together at the state level, we have the relationships mentioned above as well as higher visibility amongst elected officials. 

Like the proverbial fingers which have limited strength but when combined into a fist become a weapon, our chapters become a stronger weapon when combined. 

SCOPE will continue to seek out relationships and combinations which make all of us a greater force in the fight to protect our Constitution and the 2^nd Amendment!

Contradictions  by Tom Reynolds

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits unlawful drug users from owning firearms. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says that ban applies to people who have admitted to using illegal drugs in the months before purchasing a gun.

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden boasted that in 1993, he “shepherded through Congress the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which established the background check system …”

Joe Biden declared himself the ‘father’ of the NICS background check system

Hunter Biden (President Biden’s son) wrote in his 2021 memoir that he frequently used crack cocaine: "I was smoking crack every 15 minutes."  

When Hunter Biden bought a gun in 2018, he filled out a federal form required by the NICS system that his father “fathered.’  On that form he allegedly claimed that he was not "an unlawful user of, or addicted to" any "controlled substance."   

President Biden’s son Hunter is on record that he criminally violated the laws his father promotes.

President Biden is on record as being against the NYSRPA v Bruen decision of the U S Supreme Court.  On June 3, 2022, President Biden released the following statement: I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen…This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution…”

In Bruen, the Court held that “modern firearms regulations” must be “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.  To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment,” do “modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-dense, and second, whether that regulator burden is comparably justified.”

Because of the NYSRPA v Bruen decision, several law suits have been filed using that Supreme Court decision’s wording to challenge firearms’ restrictions.

Biden’s lawyers have reportedly informed the DOJ that, if their client is charged, they will challenge the constitutionality of the law under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen to make their case.

In order to escape prosecution, President Biden’s son is going to use the Supreme Court decision his father says “contradict both common sense and the Constitution.”

I can’t wait to see Biden’s Press Secretary Katrine Jean-Pierre dance around that one.

While Governor Hochul whines about a housing shortage, New York has laws that punish landlords and rewards those tenants who fail to pay rent or are destructive.  For instance, a landlord or owner cannot change the locks and evict a tenant if the tenant has “lived in the home for more than 30 days.” A Marshal, Sheriff, or Constable can evict the tenant after the landlord goes to court and wins “a judgment against” the tenant.

Punishing landlords is usually not a good way to get apartments built.

NY City has a law that does not allow apartment or house rentals for less than 30 days.

Apparently, all rentals must be for more than 30 days and, thus, subject to the restrictions on evictions.

NY City is a “sanctuary city” for illegal / criminal aliens.

Texas has been shipping illegal / criminal aliens to NY City causing a housing crisis.

NY City Mayor Adams wants to take advantage of NY City’s overwhelmingly liberal population - who obviously care deeply about all things liberal - and house illegal / criminal aliens in private homes with the city paying the rent.  Presumably, to follow the city’s law, rentals will have to be for more than 30 days after which the owner will have to go to court to evict the tenant.

Will NY City liberals welcome these “poor immigrants” into their homes knowing they can’t readily evict them?  Will condominium Homeowners Associations relax their rules and welcome these “poor immigrants” into their condos?  Will Mayor Adams share extra space in “Gracie Mansion” with these “poor immigrants.”

Will ice water be on the menu in Hell?

Newark NJ Cardinal Joseph Tobin has some scattered support for being the first American to be Pope.

Tobin is an advocate of a lenient position towards illegal aliens.  He described President Trump’s policies as, "you really have to believe in inflicting cruelty on innocent people to choose to support the policies."

He is also a supporter of the LGBTQ movement

Two years after he became Cardinal, he claimed no knowledge of a clergy sex abuse scandal. At about the same time, the Cardinal admitted to American Spectator that he “temporarily” housed in his rectory an Italian male movie star while the actor improved his English at nearby Seton Hall. 

On June 2^nd, uCatholic reported that Cardinal Tobin said America must, “…change our culture from one that is obsessively focused on individuals’ rights to a society dedicated to ensuring the common good.” (Individual rights and the common good are mutually exclusive?  Tobin renounced the U S Constitution.)

What might have been Tobin’s hidden agenda?

Breitbart and others report that Tobin says Americans “have a Second Amendment right to bear arms” but he believes the right is eclipsed by “the responsibility to protect the innocent and to secure public safety and good order…Let’s voluntarily set aside our rights in order to witness the truth that only peace and never violence, is the way to build a free society…”

Actually, he’s not exactly rabid about that ‘voluntarily’ part.  Tobin also pushed for Catholics to contact their elected representatives and push for more gun control.

Perhaps the Cardinal should read some of John Lott’s and Gary Kleck’s work on how guns ‘protect the innocent’ and help ‘build a free society.’  And a few books about the Constitution might not hurt, either.

Gun Control Changes in the state budget bill  by Tom Reynolds

2022’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) was passed in response to and in defiance of the U S Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA vs Bruen.  Recently enacted NY State budget bills make some changes to the CCIA.  While the changes address some of the “low-hanging-fruit,” they do not address the CCIA’s serious unconstitutional challenges to the U S Supreme Court’s NYSRPA vs Bruen decision. 

Most of the court cases challenging CCIA will probably proceed with no or small changes.  However, NY Attorney General Letitia James is attempting to moot some of those cases, especially those involving houses of worship.  James is not challenging that the CCIA is unconstitutional but that some of the petitioners do not have standing to sue. 

The following is a brief summary of what changed in the new budget:

• Exemption from Sensitive Location for places of worship for “those persons responsible for security at such place of worship.” (See below for more on this)

• Exemption from Sensitive Location for privately held land within a public park.  That privately held land is now excluded from the private park section of the definition of sensitive location.

• Exemption from Sensitive Location for “forest preserve” as defined in subdivision six of section 41 9-0101 of the environmental conservation law is excluded from the definition of a public park as a sensitive location. This effectively excludes parts, but not the entirety, of the Adirondack and Catskill Parks from falling under the public park sensitive location definition.

• Summer camps have a narrow exemption that allows them to maintain and use guns in some circumstances.

• Exemption from Sensitive Location for hunting is expanded and reworded:

“persons while lawfully engaged in taking of wildlife or attempts to take wildlife pursuant to a hunting permit or license issued by the department of environmental conservation, or as otherwise authorized pursuant to the environmental conservation law, and

persons while lawfully engaged in hunter education training, marksmanship practice, marksmanship competition or training, or training in the safe handling and use of firearms, in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations.”

• Exemption from Sensitive Location for employees of the revenue control and security departments of the MTA and the NYC transit authority who are authorized to carry a firearm as part of their employment.

• Exemption from Sensitive Location for persons engaged in historical reenactments and motion picture or theatrical productions while in compliance with local, state, and federal law.

• Exemption from Sensitive Location for persons while participating in military ceremonies, funerals, and honor guards.

• Exemption from Sensitive Location for storage or display of antique firearms, rifles or shotguns at museums and historic sites.

• Exemption from Sensitive Location for individuals traveling to or actively competing or training in biathlon, while complying with local, state, and federal law.

• Exemption from Restricted location for hunting for “persons while lawfully engaged in taking of wildlife or attempts to take wildlife pursuant to a hunting permit or license issued by the department of environmental conservation, or as otherwise authorized pursuant to section 11-0707 and 11-0709 of the environmental conservation law.”

• Exemption for Restricted location for employees of the revenue control and security departments of the MTA and the NYC transit authority who are authorized to carry a firearm as part of their employment.

• Police and military exemption for mandatory unload and lock of rifles, shotguns, and firearms when left in a vehicle.

More on New York Church Gun Restrictions.

2022’s CCIA, among other things, banned individuals from carrying firearms in “sensitive locations,” including houses of worship, with the exception of private security.

New York State’s 2023-24 budget amends CCIA.  The new law now allows armed “persons responsible for security at such place(s) of worship.”

Religious advocates and experts argue it does little to protect churches from rising hatred, pointing to vague language in the law that makes it unclear how churches can defend themselves.

In the changes adopted through the governor’s 2024 budget, the term “security guard” is defined as individuals “who have been granted a special armed registration card, while at the location of their employment and during their work hours as such a security guard.”  Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies told the Daily Caller that Hochul’s changes to the CCIA are “vague as to whether that can just be a concealed carry permit holder who is assigned to a security team or whether it has to be a licensed, paid security officer.”

First Liberty Institute (FLI) filed a lawsuit on behalf of His Tabernacle Family Church in New York in 2022 against the CCIA. FLI Senior Counsel Jeremy Dys told the Daily Caller that he believed the recent changes were only made in an attempt to halt any legal repercussions.

The above comments are for educational and discussion purposes only.
Not intended as legal advice.

Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff  by Tom Reynolds

On Memorial Day we honored those that gave their lives to preserve our country and its values.  That included 405,000 in World War 2.  An unanswered question is: how many of those lives were lost because of bad leadership?

The assumption is that when someone reaches the level of general, they have the necessary ability to lead our military.  But according to the NY Times, “…at least 16 of the 155 generals who commanded divisions in combat during the war (WW2) were relieved while in combat.”  (Over 10%.)  And that doesn’t include the more than 600 officers of various ranks forced out in the two years prior to America’s entry into the war when, under Army Chief of Staff George Marshall, the Army did not hesitate to rid itself of those promoted to their level of incompetence.

Since then, the military changed and seems to have adopted the attitude, “There but for the grace of God go I.”  Infrequent firings of general officers are done by the civilian leadership, not by the Army hierarchy.  This puts politics before competence.

Many SCOPE members proudly served in the U S Armed Forces and take seriously our national defense, which brings us to General Mark Milley who is retiring as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Some of the highlights of Milley’s tenure as the highest-ranking officer in the U S military:

According to a CNN report, Milley organized the national security apparatus to monitor and interfere with any orders President Trump may have given to the military.

Also per CNN, Milley secretly called the chief of the Chinese military to assure him that if the U.S. were to attack China, Milley would give the Chinese military advance notice.

Milley presided over the withdrawal from Afghanistan in which billions of dollars in equipment was left to make the Taliban, per Oliver North at the SCOPE banquet, ‘the best armed terrorist organization in the world.’  Not to mention the soldiers needlessly killed in the withdrawal and allies left behind to the Taliban’s ‘mercy.’

Military recruitment has tanked under Milley’s Woke priorities and the mandated vaccine requirements; the latter led to experienced personnel leaving military service rather than take the vaccine.

A Chinese Communist spy balloon traversed the United States, including travelling over secret defense areas, before being shot down.  The balloon’s presence was kept secret from the American public until a civilian reported it.

U S weapons stockpiles are low due to the shipment to Ukraine, which limits our ability to deter China from invading Taiwan.

In spite of the many honors and salutes Milley will receive as he goes-out-the-door, our attitude should be, don’t let the door hit you in the butt as you leave.

So, we can look forward to Joe Biden’s new pick to be Chairman.  Wait…Biden selects the Chairman!  The same guy that picked Kamala Harris for Vice President and Pete Buttigieg for his cabinet.  The same guy that picked Kathleen Hicks to be Deputy Secretary of Defense: (she’s the military strategist whose priority is for the military to convert all its non-tactical vehicles to all electric.) 

Who has Biden nominated to be the next Chairman?

Legal Insurrection says, “Air Force General Charles Q. “C.Q.” Brown, currently the Air Force Chief of Staff, who, on Thursday, President Biden nominated to replace Milley, is even worse, (than Milley) if that can possibly be true.” 

Under General Brown, the Air Force has become the most woke of the major service branches.

Why does Legal Insurrection say that?

During the Black Lives Matter race riots, Brown, a black man, released a video in which he appeared in uniform and took political positions concerning race, something that would have gotten a white officer court martialed.  Brown endorsed Black Lives Matter and subsequently forced ‘racial struggle sessions’ on Air Force officers.

As Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Brown authorized a racist document that establishes “officer quotas set by race and gender”. Brown’s quotas limit the number of white officers to 67% and cut white men down to 43%.  He believes his racist and illegal policy is necessary because “diversity and inclusion” are the “key to the success of any organization.”

I wonder if Brown would impose racial quotas on the NBA?  After all, lack of a meritocracy in pro basketball would not be as damaging to the country as the lack of a meritocracy in the military.   Oh wait, the NBA entertains us and that is much more important than defending the Constitution. (Sarcasm intended.)  

Instead of focusing on war fighting, Brown like Milley is focused on creating a racial divide under the guise of Diversity, Inclusion and Equity (DIE).  That acronym seems particularly appropriate for the military.

Air Force readiness rates continued to drop even as the service became more diverse.  The Air Force has not hit its aircraft readiness rates and the mission critical rates for fighter jets are catastrophic. In 2022, on Brown’s watch, the F-35A rates fell to 54%. That’s barely 1 in 2 available planes.

General George Marshall would have relieved Brown but President Biden sees someone who prioritizes Biden’s social programs at the expense of military preparedness. 

It’s often said that elections have consequences and we usually refer to federal judicial appointees whose lifetime appointments last well beyond the tenure of the president who nominates them.  The same can be said of senior military officers, even though they do not have lifetime appointments.  The damage done by Milley would take years to offset and if Brown is confirmed…

Fortunately, Brown’s nomination must be approved by the Senate and we need to let the Senate know that the military must be a meritocracy and there is no room at the top for a racist like Brown.

Memorial Day  by Tom Reynolds

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.”

“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 had begun.

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 14 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.”

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. 

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.

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.