Log in

from our SCOPE membership

  • 02/17/2023 8:04 PM | Anonymous

    Snipers  by Tom Reynolds

    When I was playing football in college, I once had my first opportunity to kick an extra point.  I thought it was a big deal and, later, called my dad to tell him.  He asked me if I had heard what my best friend, Bill Shear, had done that day.  While I was kicking my extra point, Bill had kicked the longest field goal in NCAA history!

    Want to feel inadequate?

    Most shooters would feel good about hitting a bullseye at 200 yards.  Here are some stories to make you feel inadequate.

    In 2017, in Iraq, a Canadian sniper eliminated a target at 2.14 miles (3,540 meters).  This is the record distance for snipers.  Which means it’s probably the record distance for everyone else. 

    The shooter was using a McMillan TAC-50 sniper rifle and was firing from a tall building.  The rifle was a 50 caliber, bolt action, 26 pound rifle with a 5 round magazine.  If you want to buy it, bring at least $10,000.

    In addition to the usual forces to be considered – like gravity, wind, elevation, relative humidity, etc. - the sniper had to take into consideration the Coriolis Effect; that is, the spin of the earth, since the shot took almost 10 seconds to hit the target.

    Think about that for a second.  Say bang and count off 10 seconds.  That’s a long time for a bullet to be in the air.  Lots can happen in 10 seconds including that a motionless target is not really motionless due to the Earth’s rotation.

    The previous record was attained in 2009, in Afghanistan.  The sniper took on a Taliban machine gun crew at 1.5 miles (2,475 meters) and the bullet was in the air for 6 seconds. 

    He used an L115A3 .338 Lapua Magnum, which is a .338 caliber,  15 pound rifle holding a 5 round magazine.  It’s a “little” more expensive at $38,000.

    The sniper was standing up, not lying prone. Which may explain why he missed on two of the five shots he took.  His first shot missed, but his second shot was on target.  The third shot missed, but the fourth eliminated a second target. A fifth shot took out the machine gun.   

    The longest American shot was made in March 2004, in Iraq.  The sniper killed an insurgent from 2,300 meters away.  He reportedly used an M82 SASR .50 caliber rifle which held a 10 round magazine.  

    Luck or skill?  Probably a combination of both? Mostly a whole lot of skill. 

    But as too luck…

    The previous longest American sniper kill was in the Viet Nam War by a Marine sniper at 2,286 meters using a machine gun set to semi-automatic.  The Browning M2 was a .50 caliber weapon that had a longer range that the standard sniper rifle so it was occasionally fitted with a scope by inventive snipers. 

    As to luck, USMC Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock reportedly had fired at a specific spot while sighting in his Browning M2 heavy machine-gun.  An enemy soldier stopped his bicycle on the spot Hathcock was aiming at.  Talk about bad luck!

    Hathcock was entitled to a little luck since this was one of 93 confirmed kills that he had; which were more skill than luck.

    In the heat of battle, controlling adrenaline and breathing after formulating the physics of the shot sounds impossible.  But they did it.

    As to my extra point, it still stands as a personal record.

  • 02/14/2023 2:28 PM | Anonymous

    1 Person, Biden Lies, the FBI and Voting

    The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Dobbs v. Jackson defied ‘Stare Decisis’ (precedent) when it overturnedRoe v. Wade.”  (It ruled that the states had the power to legislate on abortion but not the federal government.)  SCOTUS was willing to overturn the Roe v Wade precedent because, “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.” 

    The same can be said for another Warren Court decision, Reynolds v. Sims, which waswrong, weak reasoned and created damaging consequences

    Reynolds v. Sims was landmark case in which SCOTUS ruled that the electoral districts of both state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population. Along with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), it was part of a series of Warren Court cases that applied the principle of "one person, one vote" to U.S. legislative bodies. 

    Reynolds v Sims is the reason the NY State Senate is based on population instead of mirroring the United States Senate where every state has equal representation. 

    The US Constitution protects minorities from the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ by dividing the Legislative branch between one house where representation is based on population and another house which has equal representation for every state, no matter what the population. Or it did protect us before the Warren Court got ahold of it.  Because of Reynolds v. Sims, upstate NY counties are subject to the Tyranny of the Majority in the NY Legislature. 

    SCOPE wrote extensively on this on December 8, 2022. S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - One Man One Vote (

    We need to begin publicizing that ‘one person one vote’ should be reversed.


    In his State of the Dis-Union speech, President Biden demanded the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. He and California’s Senator Dianne Feinstein sponsored it in 1994, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.  It banned the sale of Modern Sporting Rifles.  That ban expired in 2004 and was not renewed because it was widely recognized as ineffective. 

    The semiautomatic rifle has since become the most-popular selling centerfire rifle in America – with over 24.4 million in circulation today.

    The HellerMcDonald, and Bruen decisions of the Supreme Court made it clear that any such ban as Biden is proposing is unconstitutional.

    In last year’s dis-union speech, Biden also wanted Congress to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).  He said, “Repeal the liability shield that makes gun manufacturers the only industry in America that can’t be sued, the only one.”

    Gun manufacturers do have legal protections from being held liable for injuries caused by criminal misuse of their weapons, thanks to the PLCAA.  But they are not exempt or immune from being sued, as Biden said.  Their protections aren’t dissimilar to protections for pharmaceuticals and medical device manufacturers.

    How can you tell that Joe Biden is lying?  His lips are moving.


    The text of an internal FBI guidance document was leaked by an FBI whistleblower and subsequently published by Kyle Seraphin, who had been a special agent at the bureau for six years.  It links traditional Catholicism such as the Latin Mass with violent extremism, as a basis for the FBI to investigate those Catholics.  Per Seraphin, the document contained an unsubstantiated assumption that “a preference for the Catholic Mass in Latin instead of the vernacular and a number of more traditional views on other world religions can amount to an ‘adherence to anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ and white supremacist ideology.’”

    After this information saw the light-of-day, the FBI pulled the document and issued a statement: “While our standard practice is to not comment on specific intelligence products, this particular field office product — disseminated only within the FBI — regarding racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism does not meet the exacting standards of the FBI.”

    The last six years have given us a pretty good idea of what are the FBI’s ‘exacting standards’.

    The FBI statement continued: “The FBI is committed to sound analytic tradecraft and to investigating and preventing acts of violence and other crimes while upholding the constitutional rights of all Americans and will never conduct investigative activities or open an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity.”

    Oh yeah.  Then how come ‘sound analytic tradecraft’ relied heavily on analysis from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which is a far-left organization.

    According to former Attorney General Jeff Session, the SPLC has used the “hate group” designation as a weapon and has “wielded it against conservative organizations that refuse to accept their orthodoxy and choose instead to speak their conscience…They use it to bully and intimidate groups..”

    On Tucker Carlson Tonight, Kyle Seraphin asserted that the FBI is “so desperate to find white supremacists that they are going to look at the Catholic Church.”

    They have found a gateway in what they think is fringe Catholicism in order to move into Christians in general and to declare them to be the actual criminals in this country or the potential terrorists.”

    Last year, on the Dan Bongino show, Seraphin asserted that the Biden regime has more “demand for white supremacy” than “supply of white supremacy,” which forces the police state to invent cases.

    We know that the left wants to ‘disarm’ their opponents, based on the left’s actions against the 1st and 2nd Amendments.  Does the left fear that an organized religion (like Catholicism) has the potential to move against the abortion and LGBTQ movements.  Was this the left’s attempt to intimidate and silence them, before they could act?

    Think your vote doesn’t count?

    According to Ballotpedia, one hundred and three (103) state legislative elections were decided by 100 votes or fewer in 2022, three times more than in 2020.

    In 2022, 103 elections represented 1.6% of the 6,278 seats up for election.

    In 2020, 30 elections represented 0.5% of the 5,875 seats up for election.

    Democrats won 49 of those 103 races (48%), Republicans won 52 (50%), and an independent won one (1%). An additional race in New Hampshire ended in a tie with a redo election scheduled for February 21st.

  • 02/13/2023 11:01 AM | Anonymous

    Bankruptcy, CCIA, and Sheriffs  by Tom Reynolds

    Last Thursday, Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) introduced the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act. This bill would exempt $3,000 worth of firearms from bankruptcy proceedings, allowing Americans to maintain their Second Amendment rights through tough financial times.

    Current bankruptcy law allows debtors to maintain items to support a base quality of life, including a primary residency, car, clothing, household appliances, and even musical instruments. But there is no current exemption for a firearm that can be used for self-defense, a constitutional right. This important piece of legislation ensures that Americans can keep their firearms to defend themselves, no matter their financial state.

    No American should ever have to sacrifice their constitutional rights because of their financial situation,” said Congresswoman Tenney. “The Second Amendment is a constitutional right for all Americans, even those experiencing financial hardship. I am honored to lead this important legislation that protects the rights of gun owners everywhere, no matter their financial situation.”

    Additional co-sponsors include Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-9), Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14), and Rep. Doug Lamborn (CO-5).

    In January, Congresswoman Claudia Tenney introduced HR 45 in the House condemning the Concealed Cary Improvement Act.  SCOPE sent the following statement of support.

    We are a nation of laws.  By passing the so-called Concealed Carry Improvement Act, Governor Hochul and the New York Legislatures have said that decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States do not apply in New York State.  They have ‘thrown down the gauntlet’ to the United States Supreme Court. 

    At a time when crime is sweeping through major cities, the Governor and the Legislature want to leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals.  How will these citizens protect themselves from armed criminals to whom the laws mean nothing?

    Governor Hochul and the New York Legislatures know that they aren’t held accountable for unconstitutional laws that they pass and that the law-abiding victims of these laws must spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to overturn those laws.  We need “The People’s House” to step forward and protect the American people of New York State.

    SCOPE strongly supports Congresswoman Claudia Tenney’s Resolution that says:


    That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that-

     New York State’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act violates the rights of New Yorkers under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and is unconstitutional; 

    the courts should immediately strike down the Concealed Carry Improvement Act as unconstitutional; and

    all States should pass legislation supporting Second Amendment rights instead of trying to restrict or undermine Americans’ constitutional rights.

    The bill is cosponsored by four other NY Republican Congresspersons: Elise Stefanic, Nick Langworthy, Darrell Issa and Brandon Williams.


    Please consider contacting your Congressional Representative and let them know you support these bills.


    Illinois passed new state gun control laws and at least 80 Illinois sheriffs posted letters saying essentially the same thing.

    As your duly elected Sheriff,” one letter says, “my job and my office are sworn to protect the citizens … This is a job and responsibility that I take with the utmost seriousness. The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people of this country …Therefore, as the custodian of the jail and chief law enforcement official, I proclaim that neither myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting or housing law-abiding gun individuals that have been arrested solely with non-compliance of this Act.”

    In the left’s never-ending competition to see who can be the most unconstitutional, Washington State’s Governor Jay Inslee has proposed more gun control laws including a ban on semi-auto rifles, the Washington State Sheriff’s Association President wrote:

    We, members of the Washington Sheriffs’ Association, believe the proposed restrictions will serve to erode constitutionally protected rights without addressing the root causes of violent crime. We are particularly concerned with the proposed so-called ‘assault weapons ban’ and ‘permit to purchase’ laws.”

    The rise in violent crime that so concerns citizens has happened even as regulations and restrictions on firearm ownership have grown. Of course, this is because the people who commit violent crimes simply don’t concern themselves with obeying rules about guns.”

    The support for the radical left wing leaders of blue states may be a mile wide but in some places it’s only an inch deep.

  • 02/09/2023 10:56 AM | Anonymous

    Gun Murder Rates

    A study by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA Network Open) concluded that gun homicide rates among black men have exploded far beyond any other demographic group in America.   

    The Wall Street Journal wrote about the JAMA report that: “Since 1990, rates of gun-related homicide have been highest among black men aged 20 to 24, with 142 fatalities per 100,000 people in this group in 2021—a 74% increase since 2014.” 

    “Homicide rates are as much as 23 times higher among black men and as much as nearly four times higher among Hispanic men than among white men, the analysis said.”

    A co-author of the JAMA study, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that to stem violence in groups that have high homicide rates, “there are certain programs like violence prevention, firearm-buyback programs, and safe storage.

    It must be the guns that are at fault.  Nothing was put forward to address the psychological or cultural issues that might lead to such violence.

    Non safe storage is responsible for the increase in black men’s homicides?

    Criminals are going to start selling their illegal guns back to the government?

    How about violence prevention through anti inner city gang programs?

    Nah, the only other possible root cause is racism.  Except, more blacks are killed by other blacks than by whites.

    On March 15, 2022, a left-wing advocacy organization called The Third Way published a 15-page study with the provocative title “The Red State Murder Problem.  The study states that “murder rates are far higher in Trump-voting red states than Biden-voting blue states.”  Not surprisingly, dozens of media outlets picked up the “study” and reported on its “findings. 

    We should have known; Trump did it!

    Both theories about the rise in black men homicides and “The Red State Murder Problem” are shot-full-of-holes by some credible research.

    According to a 2021 PEW Research Center survey, the household gun ownership rate in rural areas was 79% higher than in urban areas and suburban households are 37.9% more likely to own guns than urban households. Despite lower gun ownership, Biden-voting urban areas have much higher murder rates than Trump-voting rural areas.

    This was further emphasized in a November 2022 article in the Heritage Foundation; which countered The Third Way’s study: “The Blue City Murder Problem.”  It wrote that: “…most crime is hyper-localized, so the fundamental flaw with the study and the reason it does not deserve any serious consideration is that the ‘murder rate’ in each state is largely a function of the large number of murders in a state’s biggest city or cities.”  (Remember - those Biden-voting urban areas.)

    Heritage then stated: “When you remove the homicide-riddled cities from the state murder rate featured in the Third Way study, you dramatically lower the murder rate for that state, upending their conclusions and exposing the piece for what it really is: a straightforward attempt at political projection dressed up as a ‘study.’”

    To further evidence this, On January 17th, John Lott published a paper about murder rates by counties, based on data from the FBI’s 2020 Supplementary Homicide Report.  He wrote: Murder isn’t a nationwide problem. It’s a problem in a small set of urban areas, and even in those counties, murders are concentrated in small areas inside them…

    He further wrote that: “The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 73% of murders.

    So, the problem isn’t guns or racism but seems to be certain areas of cities. 

    Per Lott:

    The five counties with the highest number of murders are:

    o   Cook County—(Chicago.)

    o   Los Angeles County

    o   Harris County – (Houston)

    o   Philadelphia County

    o   New York City – (the 5 counties)

    Could soft-on-crime, George Soros funded district attorneys have anything to do with the surge?  All top five counties have Soros funded D A’s

    • Kim Foxx, Cook County  - (Chicago)
    • George Gascon, Los Angeles County
    •  Kim Ogg, Harris County - (Houston)
    • Larry Krasner, Philadelphia
    • Alvin Bragg, Manhattan

    How about the mayors?  All five are members of Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns and have some of the strictest gun laws and all five cities have been dominated by the Democrat Party:

    • Lori Lightfoot-Chicago
    • Eric Garcetti-L A  (Former Mayor and Karen Bass  new current Mayor)
    • Sylvester Turner-Houston
    • James Kenney-Philadelphia
    • Bill DeBlasio-NYC  (Former Mayor and Eric Adams new current Mayor)

    It should be noted that under Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani murder rates in NY City declined.

    Lott also points out that in 2020, the murder rate was 5.84 per 100,000 people. If the 5% of the counties with the worst number of murders somehow were to become a separate country, the murder rate in the rest of the US would have dropped to 2.99 per 100,000.

    What else might be the cause of this rise in homicides?

    The start of this gun homicide spike coincided with the rise of Black Lives Matter, “defund the police” protests, and urban riots.  Any connection?

    About the same time frame, Soros funded D A’s put in radical left policies that promote rather than inhibit crime.  These policies generally are:

    • Refusing to prosecute entire categories of misdemeanor crimes, including theft, drug possession, shoplifting, receiving stolen property, breaking and entering, destruction of property, disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and more.
    • Forbidding prosecutors from including sentencing enhancements or allegations of prior convictions or special circumstances for egregious crimes or actions.
    • Forbidding prosecutors from seeking the death penalty in any case.
    • Forbidding prosecutors from seeking life without parole sentences for any crime.
    • Refusing to prosecute violent teenagers in adult court for such crimes as murder, child abuse, and rape.
    • Requiring prosecutors to ask for the release of duly convicted violent felons, whose appeals have been denied, after these felons have served as least 15 years of a longer sentence.
    • Prohibiting or limiting prosecutors from asking for bail to ensure the presence of the defendant at the next court hearing and/or taking into consideration the defendant’s prior criminal record.

    As pointed out, the homicide rates are localized into specific areas of the inner cities.  These inner cities have the worst crime, the worst schools and the worst economies and yet they reliably vote for Democrats and, in spite of the strictest gun laws, those Democrats continually misdirect attention away from them and onto lawful gun owners.

  • 02/07/2023 3:10 PM | Anonymous

    California (is) Dreaming  by Tom Reynolds

    Just when you thought New York’s politicians were crazy, California steps up and says, ‘Hold my beer’.

    Slavery was never legal in California, but it is considering paying “reparations” to Black Californians who are directly descended from enslaved people. To get around that slavery hurdle, they’re recommending reparations for discrimination and not for slavery. 

    If California is offering reparations for racial discrimination, why not offer them to every group that suffered discrimination based on their race or ethnicity throughout California’s history?

    How about descendants of Chinese workers who built much of California’s early infrastructure and also the Transcontinental Railroad which linked California with the rest of us and gave their economy a huge boost.

    Or the descendants of Japanese Americans living in California who had their assets confiscated and were relocated to internment camps during World War II?

    And what about Native Americans? (What we used to call Indians.) Of course, the Mexicans started the discrimination against them so perhaps they should ‘chip in’.

    And, of course, we took California from Mexico through warfare so Mexican heritage descendants might qualify? (Although, if one compares California’s economy with Mexico, you would have to conclude that, as a whole, they are better off in California. But maybe not for much longer; not because Mexico is getting better but because California is sinking.)

    So, what is California proposing for reparations?

    • It wants to make up for a “housing wealth gap” by granting $223,239 to every Black Californian who is descended from slaves. (Kamilah V. Moore, the chair of California’s reparations committee, disagreed. She said that reparations should be $1 million per person.)

    • $127,226 per year for unpaid prison labor and years of lost income while in prison or “disproportionate health outcomes,” including shorter life expectancies. (They committed a crime and were imprisoned and should now be paid for the time incarcerated! Who says crime doesn’t pay?

    The reparations task force, which did the above calculations, is reported to be overwhelmingly black.  (Who would have guessed that any ethnic group would find that they should be paid big bucks for some past wrong?)

    Not to be outdone by the state, San Francisco is considering their own reparations for discrimination:

    • pay each Black longtime resident a one-time lump sum of $5 million;

    • grant total debt forgiveness;

    • supplement lower-income recipients’ income to reflect the Area Median Income (about $97,000) annually for at least 250 years.

    To be eligible for SF’s program, the applicant must be 18 years old. (But must be 21 to buy a gun. Of course, with $5 million they could afford to hire their own security.)

    Another way to get the dough is to be "Personally, or the direct descendant of someone, incarcerated by the failed War on Drugs." (So, you don’t even have to be jailed to get paid, just be related to someone who was jailed.)

    Talk about ‘feelings of guilt’!

    Then there is the pesky question: how to pay for this?

    The leading proposal to fund this is a “Wealth Tax” on wealthy Californians. (California and New York State lead the country in out-migration of their citizens. Any possibility this might drive even more wealthy Californians into becoming Texans?)

    The panel got creative and recommended that ten prisons be shuttered. The savings made from closing the prisons will be used to fund the reparations. (Any recommendations on what to do with the prisoners released?)

    The panel also recommended eliminating certain types of punishment and that current inmatesreceive fair wages and that they are eligible to vote.

    Will ‘Fair Wages’ have a deduction for room & board as well as security while in prison?

    Will there be a reduction in the payments for those that got special treatment in ‘Affirmative Action’ programs or got money through the failed ‘War on Poverty’.

    About 360,000 Americans died in the Civil War which freed slaves. Does that count towards a down payment?

    Hitler would have ‘final solutioned’ blacks if he had won. Shouldn’t 400,000 American deaths in WW2 count for something?

    The War on Poverty taught us that if we take away the incentive for people to work, you foment chaos in families and communities.  There are many stories about lottery winners who blew it all. (One recent single mother of four won $88 million and spent a chunk of it on multiple bail payments for her boyfriend. There’s those pesky personal choices, again.)


    Where does California get these loopy ideas?

    Right from the top!

    Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the wife of Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom, writes and directs "gender identity" films that are then licensed to public schools. Reportedly, these films have brought in almost $1.5 million in licensing fees, in addition to donations. Newsom's wife received $2.3 million in total salary between 2011 and 2018

    About those films shown in schools, Adam Andrzejewski, founder of the watchdog group The Book, wrote this: "Newsom's films and curricula are saturated with images lifted directly from pornographic websites,…Minors are exposed to social commentaries about privilege and oppression, and one commentator says Americans need to 'express shame and sorrow about who we are and what we've done' as a society." 

    Andrzejewski added "When paired with calls to organize and spread the films more widely, it's clear that Siebel Newsom seeks to activate students politically and in accordance with some radical ideologies about gender, identity, race and privilege." 

    According to The Sacramento Bee, companies with a history of lobbying the state of Californiadonated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Governor Newsome’s wife's nonprofit over the past several years.

    The nonprofit received $290,000 between 2016 and 2018 from Pacific Gas & Electric which is overseen by the California Public Utilities Commission, whose Commissioners are appointed by the governor.

    Kaiser Permanente donated $20,000 in 2018 and 2019 before signing a $500 million no-bid contract with the state.

    AT&T gave more than $185,000 and Comcast gave more than $15,000 between 2017 and 2020. The companies were able to shut down a plan to bring broadband to underserved parts of the state in 2020.

    United Airlines donated between $25,000 and $49,000 and later lobbied Newsom's office for pandemic relief for airlines.

    Kendra Arnold of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust said "Ethics rules routinely prohibit elected officials from soliciting donations for nonprofits that they are closely aligned with — because of course donations may be made in an attempt to seek favorable treatment by the government,"

    It appears that Newsome and Hochul are in competition to be labeled the most corrupt governor in the United States. Or the flakiest.

  • 02/06/2023 7:23 PM | Anonymous

    Stabilizing Braces  by Tom Reynolds

    Short-barreled rifles (SBR) are controlled under the Gun Control Act of 1968. One has to register an SBR in order to own it.

    On January 13, 2023, Attorney General Merrick Garland signed BATFE final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’”which attempts to clarify the regulations on when ‘Stabilizing Braces’ make a pistol into an SBR and - by happy circumstances for the gun grabbing left - subject it to greater control by the BATFE.

    If the firearm with the “stabilizing brace” is now a short-barreled rifle, it needs to be registered within 120-days from the date the new rule is published in the Federal Register. After 120 days, possession of an unregistered SBR is punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment or $10,000 in fines - or both. (26 U.S.C. 5861(d), 5871).

    So, if you have a stabilizing brace, what do you do? Per BATFE’s Frequently Asked Questions:


    • Submit through the e Forms system an ‘Application to Make and Register a Firearm’, ATF Form 1 (EForm 1) within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. or

    • Permanently remove or alter the “stabilizing brace” so that it cannot be reattached and thereby removing it from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA, or

    • Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm thus removing it from the provisions of the NFA, or

    • Turn the firearm into your local ATF office, or

    • Destroy the firearm.




    • An NFA firearm need not be assembled to be regulated as such. Whether a person may be in constructive possession of an NFA firearm depends on the facts of a particular case.



    Senators Roger Marshall (R-KS) and John Kennedy (R-LA) are pushing legislation titled Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today Act(SHORT) which would end SBR’s being included under the National Firearms Act’s registration and regulation purview. This would eliminate BATFE’s jurisdiction and negate the pistol brace rule. This would also remove SBR’s from the taxation, registration and regulation in the National Firearms Act.

    Senator Marshall said: “The SHORT Act will protect Americans from the anti-2nd Amendment gun registry that the ATF is abusing the National Firearms Act to create. This legislation…will stop the ATF’s pistol brace rule in its tracks.”

    Senator Kennedy said that under this rule: “…countless law-abiding gunowners in Louisiana and other states will become criminals in the blink of an eye.”

    It is reported that Representative Andrew Clyde (R-GA) is going to introduce SHORT Act legislation in the House.

    If the SHORT Act should be enacted it has to be signed by gun grabber in chief Joe Biden.

    If it did become law, BATFE’s grab would have the opposite affect than was intended by BATFE; instead of giving BATFE more control, they would have less.

    Let your Congressperson know that you support this legislation. And you can let your Senator know that too, just to annoy the NY Senators (And Gillibrand is up for reelection in 2024.)

    A closing thought:

    • Rifles are much less used in crimes because of their length which makes them more difficult to hide.

    • Suppressors / silencers are much less used in crimes because of their length which makes them more difficult to hide.

    • Handguns are most often used in crimes and are easy to hide.

    • Adding a brace makes a pistol much more difficult to hide so it will be much less used in crimes.

    • By going after braces, BATFE / Biden are again showing that their real goal is to disarm law abiding citizens and BATFE’s rule has nothing to do with stopping crime. (The same logic applies to suppressors.)

  • 01/31/2023 2:04 PM | Anonymous

    Firearms Advice from Joe Biden  by Tom Reynolds

    The Left calls for more training in almost every incidence, especially when a gun is involved. Perhaps the ones that need the firearm training are the Leftists that are spouting off about guns and training.

    Under the category of, if only he knew what he was talking about…

    Joe Biden announced that police should shoot to stop (wound) rather than shoot to kill (center mass).

    Yeah, that Joe Biden. The same one who wants to ban “more than 8 bullets in a round”.

    In February 2013, then Vice President Biden told Field & Stream magazine, “…[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."

    During that same interview, Biden told of his suggestion to his wife for handling an intruder. “If there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here— walk out, put that double barrel shot gun and fire two blasts outside the house.”

    How did real firearms experts react to Biden’s ‘thoughts’?

    As to shooting to wound:

    The whole concept of what Biden was saying is insane,” said Sarasota County (Florida) Sheriff Kurt Hoffman. “…you’re never going to shoot to potentially incapacitate. You’re going to shoot to stop the threat."

    Hoffman added: “If you can’t effectively neutralize a threat as quickly as possible – which equals shooting center mass – you can’t render aid to other people on scene who need assistance. Are you going to wound someone and hope he stays down while you render aid?

    Bob Keller is a retired Master Sergeant who spent 17 years in the Delta Force and has been in more than 400 gunfights said that: “There’s no way an average shooter can do that. If you’re telling people to do that and they get in an active shooter situation...and they’re now aiming for someone’s arm or leg, the likelihood of them making the shot is miniscule…What happens if they miss the shot and hit a child?"

    Marc Pezzella is a former SWAT team commander, said: “Shooting to wound? Who are you shooting at? Are they mentally stable? Do they feel pain? What is their level of commitment to the fight? Will shooting make them more angry? Are they on drugs? Are they on alcohol? Are they able to fight through the wound?”

    As to banning “more than 8 bullets in a round”…

    Biden finally came up with a gun policy that all gun owners can get behind.
    Most gun owners would respond, “You gotta be kidding.”
    Sir Isaac Newton would have pointed out, “What goes up must come down.”

    Then there is “fire the shotgun through the door.”

    Mark Oliva, managing director of public affairs at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, put it more tactfully: “Among the cardinal rules for firearm safety is to know your target and what is beyond. NSSF does not recommend any firearm owner blindly fire their shotgun, or any other gun for that matter…”

    And it won’t do the door much good, either!

    As to firing a shotgun into the sky…

    Joe Krawtschenko, a retired law enforcement officer and firearms instructor pointed out that it will come down, “ with enough force to kill someone and we don’t know where it’s coming down.”

    “You’re going to have a bunch of idiots firing warning shots into the air with no idea where the shot’s going to land…We live in a well-populated area. Look around within a mile of where you live. There are schools, parks and playgrounds loaded with kids.”

    The problem is, there are many people who know little or nothing about guns and they will believe what Joe Biden says. They also believe in shooting the gun out of the bad guy’s hand and that suppressors / silencers only go poof when shot. After all, they saw it in the movies and in TV - where Biden must get his information on guns - so it must be true.

  • 01/30/2023 1:02 PM | Anonymous

    Proposed NYS Assembly Bills  by Tom Reynolds

    Governor Kathy Hochul claims she is open to changes to the state’s failed criminal justice policy.  So far, that only includes tweaking language which forces the “least restrictive” bail requirements on those accused of certain serious crimes.

    Since virtually every day seems to bring another story of avoidable crime committed by someone freed under Hochul’s new bail laws, we need less talking from lawmakers and more effective action.

    On behalf of the minority Republican Party, Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay has proposed a series of bills designed to restore order and truly make communities safer. They include:

    ·       Restoring Judicial Discretion – Restoring judicial discretion to allow judges the ability to determine whether a violent criminal poses a dangerous threat to the community and can be held without bail.

    ·       Bail for Gun Crimes – Removing all gun crimes from the no-bail list of offenses Democrats established in 2019.

    ·       Increased Penalties on Youth Gun Crimes – Prohibiting the removal of an Adolescent Offender to Family Court where the defendant possessed a loaded firearm.

    ·       Parole Reform – Requiring a unanimous vote of at least three parole commissioners to grant a prisoner early release and allowing a majority vote of the Legislature to remove a commissioner from the Parole Board.

    ·       Three Strikes & You’re In – Authorizing life in prison without parole for persistent violent felony offenders.

    ·       Shooting Into Crowds – Making it a Class B violent felony to fire into a crowded space with the intent to harm.

    ·       Additional 5 Years for Possession – Providing for an additional 5-year term of imprisonment for committing a felony while possessing a loaded firearm.

    ·       Bail for Hate Crimes – Making a hate crime a qualified offense for purposes of bail issuance.

    ·       Paula’s Law – Preventing the parole of anyone who sexually assaults and murders a child under 18 years of age.

    ·       Bail Reform Repeal – Repealing bail reforms and other criminal justice reforms enacted in Chapters 55 and 59 of the Laws of 2019 and Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2020 and restore prior language.

    ·       Risk Assessment – Restoring judicial discretion relating to bail reform, and providing that when the defendant is charged with a felony, the court shall request of the applicable county pretrial services agency that a risk and needs assessment be conducted.

    ·       Obstructing a Police Officer – Making it a felony to intentionally interfere with or inhibit a police officer or peace officer from engaging in the course of performing their official duties, including spitting, throwing or spilling items, liquid or other physical contact.

    Unfortunately, since the NY Legislature is over-filled with left wing radicals who are more concerned about criminals than victims, these will probably go nowhere.  But, that shouldn’t stop us from publicizing these bills as one of the answers to the crime wave surging through our state.  Perhaps that will convince some people that there is a new, rational direction possible, when they vote in 2024.

    Another answer to the crime wave, that Hochul opposes, is keeping our guns nearby for self-defense.

  • 01/26/2023 4:16 PM | Anonymous

    Military Recruiting  by Tom Reynolds

    The United States military services are missing their recruitment goals which should be of concern for all citizens.   Derrick Morgan, Executive Vice President of the Heritage Foundation, said that 2022, “was the worst year for recruiting since the advent of the all-volunteer force, and 2023 is shaping up to be as bad or worse.”

    Remember the quote supposedly attributed to the architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."  At a time when the Biden administration wants no rifles behind those blades of grass, who will protect us?  We all need to be concerned as to why this recruiting deficit is happening. 

    The Heritage Foundation established the National Independent Panel on Military Service and Readiness (NIPMSR) to explore some answers to these issues.  The panel is composed of a distinguished group of policymakers, thought leaders, veterans, and defense experts, including:

    • Rep. Michael Waltz, R-Fla., ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee’s Readiness Subcommittee and a combat-decorated Green Beret.
    • Michael Berry, vice president of external affairs, director of military affairs and senior counsel for First Liberty Institute.  He served for seven years on active duty as an attorney with the U.S. Marine Corps.
    • Lt. Gen. Robert D. “Rod” Bishop, Jr., retired U.S. Air Force, chairman of the board at STARRS (Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services).
    • Lt. Gen. Robert D. “Rod” Bishop, Jr., retired U.S. Air Force, chairman of the board at STARRS (Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services).
    • Rebeccah Heinrichs, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, specializing in U.S. national defense policy with a focus on strategic deterrence. Heinrichs served in the U.S. House of Representatives as an adviser to former Rep. Trent Franks.
    • Jeremy Hunta media fellow at Hudson Institute. He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and was later deployed to Ukraine. Hunt was a recent candidate for the U.S. Congress.
    • Earl G. Matthewsan American government official and attorney who held senior positions within the Department of the Army and at the White House. Matthews has been an Army Reserve officer for 23 years, including three years deployed to combat zones and is still serving as a colonel in the Army Reserve.
    • Lieutenant General (USA, Ret) Lt. Gen. H.R. McMasterretired U.S. Army, the 25th National Security Adviser and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
    • Morgan Ortagus,  the founder of Polaris National Security, a venture capital investor who also served as spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State from 2019 to 2021. She is also an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve.
    • Sixty-eight percent say they have witnessed politicization in the military;
    • Sixty-five percent are somewhat or very concerned about this development; 
    • Fifty-three percent say the military has become “too politicized;”
    • Sixty-eight percent say such politicization would impact their decision to encourage their children to join the military;
    • Seventy percent say lowering physical fitness standards to “even the playing field” are of great concern and lowers their trust in the institution;
    • Seventy percent say the focus on “climate change as a top national security threat” has lost their trust;
    • Eighty percent say changing policies allowing unrestricted service of transgender-identifying persons have decreased their trust in the military;
    • Sixty-nine percent said the inclusion of Critical Race Theory books on the reading list for the Chief of Naval Operations was concerning;
    • Sixty-eight percent said they were concerned about reports of sexual assault.

    NIPMSR gathered data from active-duty military which shows specific areas of policy concerns and hits us like a 2 by 4 with some of the answers.  The new  data released by The Heritage Foundation on January 12th reports:

    Representative Mike Waltz (R-FL), who chaired the panel, summed it up well: “The Pentagon should be focused on winning America’s future wars rather than prioritizing divisive programs and issues…The Pentagon should be focused on how best to counter our global adversaries like China and recruiting the best and brightest to our ranks…It’s more clear than ever that Americans are losing faith in what should be America’s most trusted institution and the current recruitment crisis facing our military is evidence of that.”

    Army Secretary Christine Wormuth disagreed when she said that she isn’t “sure what ‘woke’ means” but added, “If ‘woke’ means we are not focused on warfighting (or) we are not focused on readiness, that doesn’t reflect what I see at installations all around the country or overseas when I go and visit.” 

    (Note: Wormuth is a career bureaucrat with a political science and fine art Bachelors Degree and a Masters of Public Policy who has never served a second in the military - but she is married to a retired Navy officer.  Biden’s Army Secretary doesn’t know what woke is even though her top generals and admirals are promoting it and Biden’s Supreme Court nominee did not know what a woman is…  No wonder Biden thinks Hunter Biden is the smartest person he knows.  By Biden’s standards, Hunter just might be that!)

    In April 2021, before the Biden administration had a chance to “reform” the military, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported: “Nearly 2 decades of conflict has degraded U.S. military readiness—the forces' ability to fight and meet the demands of their assigned missions. The National Defense Strategy states that DOD should be ready to operate in all warfighting domains—ground, sea, air, space, and cyber.”

    GAO also stated, “DOD has a plan to recover readiness, which includes goals that align with the national strategy.”

    Maintenance issues were frequently mentioned by the GAO as needing readiness recovery. 

    Politicization of the Pentagon was not one of those pre-Biden goals.

  • 01/24/2023 12:24 PM | Anonymous

    Pistol Permit Recertification  by Tom Reynolds

    If you read our emails from SCOPE, you know that New York State has been changing the date on which Pistol Permits had to be recertified.  Permits that formerly had five (5) years to recertify have been changed to three (3) years.

    Apparently, a lot of people were as surprised as I was about the change in recertification dates.  SCOPE’s email was burning up after members got our warning and checked their recertification date.  They obviously believe that this was done “behind our backs”.

    Pistol Permit holders were surprised because they believed that if they recertified before September 1st, it would be 5 years to recertification.  Why did they believe that?  Because when they recertified, the response from the New York State Police (NYSP) had a 5 years renewal date.  That, very reasonably, led them to believe that they had 5 years.

    As of January 21st, there has not been, to my knowledge, any public statement by the NYSP that the 5 years recertification dates that licensees had been given were no longer valid and had been unilaterally changed to 3 years.

    If the government passed some subsequent law that changed any other license or permit, we would reasonably expect some kind of notification and public statement.  But it did not happen with firearms.  (Merely an oversight in a state that hates the 2nd Amendment?  Not many of us believe that!)

    I went back and checked the NYSP’s website for Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).  They addressed several recertification FAQ’s but the one conspicuously missing was:  If I am currently scheduled for recertification in 5 years, will it be shortened to 3 years?  Somehow, NYSP didn’t think of that as worth mentioning, even later while they were actually doing it.  It is valid for people with a piece of paper issued by the NYSP which indicates a 5 years recertification date to believe they have those 5 years before recertification is due.     

    What angered many permit holders (and sowed their distrust) was that there was no notification to them that their recertification time had been shortened.  Apparently, many of them (like I did) kept track of their recertification date so they would continue to be law-abiding citizens and would not inadvertently break the law.  They / I had no reason to go back to the NYSP web site to see if anything changed since we had a piece of paper in our files telling us exactly when recertification was due. 

    Another big response has been people asking if this was intentionally misleading, to give the NYSP an excuse to confiscate firearms.  Will NYSP be notifying them in 3 years?  Only the NYSP can answer if it is cover for confiscation and if they will notify us. 

    On August 27th, I wrote an email about people recertifying early (before September 1, 2022) in order to avoid getting the shorter, 3 years, recertification period.  What I wrote at that time was. “What we don’t know is if NY will try to strike back at people who avoided the new law when they recertified early.”  

    Now we know.

    One other interesting point: check the actual pistol permit plastic cards we were issued.  No expiration date and no statement that it is a lifetime permit.  It was left open for abuse like this.     

    Since NYS laws are written in ‘legalese’, we depend on the government to issue instructions and forms that interpret laws and keep us as the law-abiding citizens we want to be.  For instance, before applying, does anyone read the actual wording of the law for obtaining or renewing a driver’s license?  We follow the government’s instructions and depend on the government to guide us and insure we comply according to the law.  (However, the NY government is trying to do away with the 2nd Amendment, so they believe they can leave a rather important part unsaid and make criminals of law-abiding gun owners?)

    We expect that the NYSP and Hochul will defend this by simply saying that the 3 years period is in the law. 

    But did the law apply to permits issued, recertified and documented before the law became effective?  There are, obviously, a lot of questions being frequently asked about that.  As stated earlier, the NYSP didn’t believe that should be a FAQ…or did they and they wanted to bury it.

    State Senator Thomas O’Mara has quickly introduced bill number S2176 into the NY Senate, as soon as SCOPE notified him of this.  That bill would require the NYSP to send renewal notices at least 90 days before expiration to holders of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver.

A 2nd Amendment Defense Organization, defending the rights of New York State gun owners to keep and bear arms!

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

SCOPE is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization.

{ Site Design & Development By Motorhead Digital }

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software