The Truth Shall Set You Free  by Tom Reynolds

It’s often said that whatever the Liberal Left is accusing others of doing, they are probably already doing it themselves.  For instance, the January 6th Committee.

The House recently released all the video footage of January 6th to Tucker Carlson of Fox News.

Other liberal news agencies (CBS News, CNN, Politico, ProPublica ABC, Axios, Advance, Scripps, the Los Angeles Times, and Gannett) complained, perhaps legitimately, that they should also get the tapes. 

Fair enough.  But their letter requesting the tapes warns of dire consequences if they don’t get the tapes to publicize.  Their attorney, Charles Tobin wrote:

“Without full public access to the complete historical record, there is concern that an ideologically-based narrative of an already polarizing event will take hold in the public consciousness, with destabilizing risks to the legitimacy of Congress, the Capitol Police, and the various federal investigations and prosecutions of January 6 crimes.”

Can anyone deny that Nancy Pelosi’s January 6th committee produced “an ideologically-based narrative” that was intended to further polarize the public? 

Can anyone doubt that the politically motivated actions of the Department of Justice and its FBI (as to the January 6th participants) have undermined confidence in the impartiality and legitimacy of the government and, especially, the Department of Justice?

___________________________________

The Biden Administration, and in particular Transportation Secretary Petey Buttigieg, were quick to blame the Trump administration for the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.

However, even the far left Washington Post‘s fact-checker Glenn Kessler admitted that Trump’s regulation changes didn’t cause the derailment.  Kessler relied on the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) preliminary report.

Here are the accusations and the facts from the preliminary report.

In 2017, the Trump administration repealed a rule requiring Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brakes (ECP brakes) on ‘high hazard’ trains that carry flammable hazardous materials.”

Biden’s administration, which took control in January 2021, hasn’t reinstated the rule.

The train was not equipped with ECP brakes.

The facts are that when the train’s crew received an alarm and initially applied the train’s main air brakes, the train had already derailed before the brakes were applied.  So, it did not derail due to the absence of ECP Brakes.

Note: Why didn’t Biden and Buttigieg repeal Trumps’ order in the two years of their administration?  Petey too busy?

The Obama administration had a rule requiring a two-person train crew. 

Trump’s administration repealed the rule in 2019.

The fact is that the Ohio train had a two-person crew.

Trump’s administration “revised minimum safety requirements for railroad track.”

The fact is that the NTSB found no problems with the track in its investigation.

Trump’s administration “adopted weaker standards for regulating emissions of ethylene oxide,” which is one of the toxic chemicals spilled in the crash.

The fact is that the rule is all about emissions, not spills.

I wonder if those news agencies that were worried about an ideologically-based narrative were quick to alert their viewers that their earlier reporting, which blamed Trump, was wrong and Trump had been illegitimately maligned.

Keep this in mind the next time the Democrats say they are not going to take away your guns.

Rights Defined  by Tom Reynolds

A “right” is defined as: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.  It means you have the freedom to act but not that anyone will provide you with the means, particularly not the government at the expense of taxpayers, 

Owning a firearm and healthcare are both often defined as “rights” in different ways by different groups. What if the traditional “right” to own a gun was changed and redefined in the same way as healthcare is defined in Obamacare; it is a “right” and Obamacare mandated that from a mere domestic restraining order everyone must have health insurance.  And if you can’t afford it, the government will pay for it. 

If owning a gun is a “right” in the same way that the Left defined Obamacare, then the government should mandate that everyone must have a gun and if you can’t afford one the government will pay for it.  The “right” to keep and bear arms would mean that you have the “right” to have someone (the government) provide you with a firearm.    

Put another way, does the 1^st Amendment right to free speech mean the government has to provide you with the means of speaking or writing?

 Let’s flip it and define the “right” to health care in the same way that the 2^nd Amendment is traditionally defined.  The 2^nd Amendment traditionally means that you are allowed to own and carry any firearm you can legally acquire. You can buy one, receive it as a gift, or build one yourself. Once acquired, it is like any other property; it cannot be taken from you without the due process of law. (At least that’s how Amendments 4, 5 6, and 14 are supposed to work.)

Applying this to health care, it would mean that we have the right to see a doctor and pay for his services. It would give you the right to contract with anyone who might provide you with health care. Someone else might voluntarily pay for it out of charity or you might contract with an insurance company to pay for it. If you can obtain health care by any such legal means, government may not stop you or take it away from you.

Under either definition of a “right”, the Left loses the debate when both “rights” are defined in the same way.  But consistency was never a goal of the left.

__________________________________

Courts have ruled that police do not have an obligation to protect us.  The primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect our liberty and our individual rights as guaranteed by our Constitution; its primary responsibility is NOT to keep us safe.  The oath that Presidents and other government officials take would seem to give some support to that idea since the oath requires them to preserve and protect the Constitution - and says nothing about keeping us safe. 

If the government’s job is to keep our rights safe, there is no basis for taking away our guns since to “keep and bear arms” is one of our rights that the government must protect.

And since the government’s job is not to keep us safe, that is further justification that we need to “keep and bear arms“ in order to keep ourselves safe.

_______________________________

The United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division (at Lexington), has held that a domestic restraining order’s ban on Second Amendment rights is unconstitutional.

A Family Court in Kentucky issued a Domestic Violence Order (DVO) - a restraining order - against Sherman Kelvin Combs. Kentucky’s DVO procedures do not require an attorney to be appointed or a jury to resolve factual issues.  Combs and his lawyers successfully argued that a ban on receiving a firearm while under a restraining order, is unconstitutional because of those issues.

This is at least the third case where a court has held that a ban from a domestic restraining order on exercising the Second Amendment right is unconstitutional. A Texas District court has also held the restraining order ban is unconstitutional and a three-judge panel in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has also held the ban to be unconstitutional.

We may sympathize with the idea of someone under a restraining order not having a gun but it must and can be done in accordance with the Constitution.  Like Red Flag laws, these restraining orders run afoul of the 4^th, 5^th, 6^th and 14^th Amendments.  When crafting legislation, the Left should focus on those needing protection and not on their real / hidden agenda of more gun control.

Remember when liberals were all for criminals going free if their Constitutional Rights were violated, even if the criminal had committed a murder?  They’re not so rabid about preserving Constitution Rights when gun owners are involved.

SCOPE often points out that the people going after the 2^nd Amendment are also going after the rest of the Constitution and especially the 1^st Amendment.

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University says on its web site, “Conversations that once took place in parks, sidewalks, and public squares now take place largely online, and often on privately owned social media platforms. As a society, we are just beginning to grapple with the question of how the First Amendment and free speech principles should apply in these digital spaces.”

“Knight” has just, along with five other gun rights organizations, filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit in the case Antonyuk v. Hochul.  (The big lawsuit challenging many aspects of Hochul’s Concealed carry Improvement Act.)  “Knight” argues, in the brief, that the part of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act that requires applicants to register their social media in order to get a pistol permit…is unconstitutional.  New York’s regulations must conform to the First Amendment and this particular provision of New York’s new gun law does not.

Anna Diakun, staff attorney at the Knight Institute argues, ‘Not only has the state failed to demonstrate that the social media registration requirement will actually further its goals, but it has also failed to acknowledge its costs: It will have a profound impact on the right to speak anonymously and associate privately online, and it will invite discrimination by licensing officials.’

The brief further states that “the statute compels applicants to direct the State to a record of their online speech and associations. The natural and predictable result of this requirement is that applicants will refrain from speech or associations online that they fear may be held against them in the application process or that they do not believe should be subject to government inspection.’

Katie Fallow, senior counsel at the Knight Institute said: ‘The state’s dragnet social media registration requirement goes far beyond what is necessary, and will set a dangerous precedent for broad intrusions on individuals First Amendment rights…If the New York law is allowed to stand, one can easily imagine the government imposing these requirements in any number of other situations.’

What an accurate description, labelling the law as a “Dragnet.”

The brief quotes Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s concurrence from a 2012 Supreme Court case called United States v. Jones, in which she stated that “Awareness that the government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse.”

Ya think! 

How about the government’s power to assemble data on gun owners – or anyone else that opposes the government’s actions?

Who are the other organizations joining in the brief?  The brief explains, “This is of urgent concern to amici gun owners’ associations, which represent Asian Pacific Americans, African Americans, women, LGBTQ individuals, and politically active individuals—some of whom have particular reasons to distrust law enforcement and to fear the government’s scrutiny of their online lives.”

Those other gun rights organizations are:

The Liberal Gun Club, (gun-owning liberals and moderates), and

The DC Project Foundation, (female gun owners), and

The Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association (Asian Pacific Americans who own guns), and

The National African American Gun Association (members of the African American community), and

The Operation Blazing Sword–Pink Pistols lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (“LGBTQ”) firearm owners.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Hochul may have kicked a hornet’s nest in her wild desire to deny us our 2^nd Amendment rights.  Perhaps, she should have followed NY law and not declared a non-existent emergency and, instead, thought about what she was doing.

Of course, if she thought about what she was doing she wouldn’t be doing what she is doing.

All members should have received the Jan/Feb 2023 Firing Lines issue in the mail For At-Large Director; take the time and VOTE! *Ballot must have your addess label on the back  if you did not receive your issue in the mail - contact Susan Annual SCOPE Member Meeting Join us in Montour Falls on April 29th! We have Robert Young, MD from Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership Assemblyman Phil Palmesano (District 132) Congressman Nick Langworthy (District 23) Coming to speak to you!~~ SCOPE Ballot -or- SCOPE Member Meeting PO Box 165 East Aurora, NY 14052 (Postmarked by April 14th, 2023) Page 23 has your Official SCOPE 2023 Ballot  Page 21 has the information about your 2023 *Both the ballot & RSVP for the Member Meeting must be mailed separately to Click the link below to download January/February 2023 Firing Lines

NY A4271 and S803  by Tom Reynolds

Two bills (Assembly Bill 4271 and Senate bill 803) have been introduced in the NY Legislature.  They say:

NO PERSON, FIRM, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OR CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE RETAIL BUSINESS OF SELLING RIFLES, SHOTGUNS OR FIREARMS SHALL SELL, DELIVER OR TRANSFER ANY CHILD OPERATED FIREARM TO ANOTHER PERSON.

No one can sell deliver or transfer a Child Operated Firearm.  But, young children aren’t allowed to operate firearms.  Does this mean toys?

The bills explain what is a Child Operated Firearm:

CHILD  OPERATED  FIREARM  MEANS  A PISTOL  OR  REVOLVER…WHICH DOES NOT CONTAIN A CHILDPROOFING  DEVICE OR  MECHANISM INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN OF SUCH PISTOL OR REVOLVER TO  EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDE AN AVERAGE FIVE YEAR OLD CHILD FROM  OPERATING  THE PISTOL OR REVOLVER.

So, gun locks are not enough.  The child proofing needs to be built in as a part of the firearm.  Won’t that eliminate virtually every firearm currently sold?  Does a bear…

My kids are all above average.  But for those of you with average 5 year olds, remember, in just one year they will be six and will be able to bypass these new mechanisms.  Wouldn’t it be better to just keep the gun unloaded?  Oh wait, that is already the law when children are present in the household.

My above average kids are grown and out on their own.  Why would I want to buy a gun with these impediments?  

Some examples of these devices or mechanisms to be incorporated into the firearm that are cited in the bill:

1-THE CAPACITY TO ADJUST THE TRIGGER RESISTANCE TO AT LEAST A TEN POUND PULL.

Ten pound pull - the force need to pull the trigger to fire the weapon.  Put into perspective, per the American Gun Association on trigger pulls:

1-5 pounds: most single-action revolvers and semiautomatic weapons, some hunting rifles, most target rifles, some shotguns

5-8 pounds: some other hunting rifles, some shotguns, many striker-fired semiautomatic weapons

Over 8 pounds: double-action weapons

What happens with heavier trigger pulls?  (You jerk the weapon and miss the target.)  Doesn’t missing the target defeat the purpose of the weapon? Does a bear…

Aren’t women generally less strong than men and will have to make greater effort to pull the trigger?  What about the handicapped or elderly?  Too bad…you die if you need a gun for emergency self defense.

2-THE CAPACITY TO ALTER THE FIRING MECHANISM SO THAT AN AVERAGE FIVE YEAR OLD CHILD'S HANDS ARE TOO SMALL TO OPERATE THE PISTOL OR REVOLVER.

Will only big guns be legal?

3-THE CAPACITY TO REQUIRE A SERIES OF MULTIPLE MOTIONS IN ORDER TO FIRE THE PISTOL OR REVOLVER.

The often-cited reason why many people, (women, black, jews, Asians, LGBTQ, and even straight white men) cite as the reason for buying a gun is self-defense.  Using a gun in self-defense is usually an emergency and requires a fast response.  (At least that’s what experts in the field say.  But what do they know compared to Hochul and the NY Legislature.)  Won’t all these mechanisms slow down the response and make it less effective?  Does a bear…

Will those that illegally possess guns – some or many of them living with 5 years old or younger children and are responsible for most gun homicides – follow these regulations? 

These rules need some “fleshing out”.  How will that be done?  The law says:

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE POLICE SHALL, IN CONSULTATION WITH SUCH GUN MANUFACTURERS AS SUCH SUPERINTENDENT DEEMS APPROPRIATE, ADOPT RULES AND REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CHILDPROOFING DEVICES OR MECHANISMS TO ENSURE THAT SUCH CHILDPROOFING DEVICES OR MECHANISMS ARE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.

Steven Nigrelli is the Acting Superintendent of the NY State Police.  Yes, that same Nigrelli who is being sued by Antonyuk as he is in charge of enforcing Hochul’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act and reports to Kathy Hochul.  Well, I’m sure we can count on him to “deem appropriate” in consulting with gun manufacturers and people in Hochul’s administration and not abuse his unfettered authority when developing these rules and regulations.  And, of course, he will not fall into the bureaucratic tendency to overregulate so no one can accuse him of underregulating. 

What’s the penalty for breaking the law?

              CLASS A MISDEMEANOR.  (Up to a year in jail.)

When would it take effect:

This act shall take effect on the first of November next, succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.

Rough guess: there are 20 million guns already in NY State.  What about them? Nothing mentioned…yet.  Unless of course, you want to trade your current gun in for a new one.  It will be covered and will now have considerably less trade in value.

I know we often say this but you might want to contact your Senator or Assemblyperson and tell them how you feel about these laws. 

And as to those gun owners who don’t vote because these laws are not affecting you…keep living in your dream world.

USA Clay Target League  by Jim Griffin (Steuben County SCOPE)

In Minnesota in 2007, the USA Clay Target League was formed.  The leading reason for the league was to get young people to participate in shooting activities and to help offset declining membership in shooting clubs.  From its onset the league has promoted safety while having fun and improving the individuals’ shooting skills.

The Target League is the fastest growing high school sport in the United States:

• In 2007 the league was limited to Minnesota with 3 teams with 30 participants. 

• In 2013 the league expanded to 2 states with 191 teams and 7,046 participants.

• In 2022 the league is in 34 states with 1,466 teams with 43,009 participants.

• It started in the spring of 2016 with 5 teams and 128 participants

• In the Spring of 2022, it had 122 teams with 2,142 participants

• New teams are being added for the spring 2023 season, and it looks like it will be another record year

• 12,347 first year student athletes joined the league

• 35% of the athletes earned firearm safety certification specifically to participate in the league

• 70% learned about the league through their school

• There was a 99% team retention rate with 95% athlete retention

• 63% of teams have a lettering program

• 80% were included in the school yearbook

• 81% of shooting ranges reported increases in non-youth participation as a result of hosting a USA Clay Target League Teams

• 26% of head coaches expect their shooting ranges will expand participant capacity within the next 2 years

• 43% of league parents reported an increase in hunting and shooting sports participation since their child become active in the league.

• The league has expanded to include Home schooled students, a skeet discipline and a new college league.

• 230 Teams

• 2,950 Registered Athletes

• 375, 000 targets were thrown

• 7,500 Total Attendees

• 100,000 participants by 2025

• 20,000 Team Coaches and Staff Members

• 3,000 High Schools-Approved Teams

• 1,800 Shooting Ranges Hosting Teams across the Country

• 65,000 Tournament Participants

This is the fastest growing sport in New York State,

The league is creating the next generation of outdoor enthusiasts as it is open to all Students from 6^th to 12^th grade.

All shooters must take safety instruction before they can participate in the league, which creates a new generation of safer gun enthusiasts.  The league has a pristine safety record with well over 120 million rounds of shotgun shells shot since the beginning.  77 million rounds were shot in 2022 with NO incidents.  (The league is safer than Band.)  

The league is open to anyone, no matter what race or sex and those who are physically challenged are all welcome.

The League is empowering young people and boosting their self-confidence. 

Experienced shooters and novices can participate and help each other to improve as they compete against themselves.

You don’t need to buy expensive equipment, a Remington 870 works as well as a $20,000 Krieghoff.

One of the hidden benefits that the league has generated are the contributions to the Pittman Robinson Act, which is a tax on sporting goods that we pay when we purchase sporting equipment.  The act was passed in 1937 to let state’s wildlife agencies to use certain funds allocated from the Wildlife Restoration Account to build and maintain shooting ranges and bolster marketing and communications efforts to recruit, retain, and re-activate hunters and recreational shooters.  The league in 2022 added $97.5 million in sports related expenditures which generated an estimated $4.5 million added to the Pittman Robinson fund.

In 2022:

At the 2022 High School National Championship in Mason, Michigan:

What is the vision for the future of the League at a National Level?

With all the bad publicity when it comes to guns, this is a bright spot that we need to talk about.  The High School league benefits all shooting enthusiasts in New York. Anyone who knows of a High School that wants to start a team, have them go to the web site nyclaytarget.com to get the information on how to get started.

With everyone’s help, continued growth is not just attainable but likely.  This is a great way to offset the media’s anti-2A bias.  Let’s do our part in New York!

President’s Day  by Tom Reynolds

A year ago, SCOPE sent this as an email.  It is as current now as it was then…or when Thomas Jefferson wrote them.

Miscellaneous Thoughts on President’s Day by Thomas Jefferson, Founder of the Democrat Party

No free man shall ever be disbarred the use of arms.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them.

The democracy will cease to exist when we take away from those that are willing to work and give to those who would not.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes, the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debt’s as it goes. A principle which if acted upon would save one-half the wars of the world.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

When we get piled on one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

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.

1 Person, Biden Lies, the FBI and Voting

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Dobbs v. Jackson defied ‘Stare Decisis’ (precedent) when it overturned “Roe 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 a 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 (scopeny2a.org)

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 Heller, McDonald, 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 1^st and 2^nd 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.

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:

Resolved,

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.