Reeling?  Angst?  by Tom Reynolds

A CBS News report on the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen indicated angst among gun control proponents now faced with the challenge of justifying restrictive gun laws.

CBS cries about, “the new legal test” has “led to uncertainty over whether measures that aim to curb gun violence can survive legal scrutiny.”

CBS suggests that anti-gun administrations and legislatures in multiple states are reeling from the SCOTUS majority opinion. 

Anti-gun states have angst?  Are reeling?  Who’s kidding who?

Kathy Hochul and the NY Legislature were not reeling when they passed several laws which flew in the face of the Bruen ruling. They knew they were on extremely radical ground (not just shaky ground but an earthquake) when they passed these laws.  But they didn’t care that these laws won’t stand up to scrutiny by anything but leftist judges and would be struck down by any reasonable reading of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. 

And Hochul is not alone as Deep Blue states such as California, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland are passing similar laws.

Why are they not concerned with the Constitution?

Like NY, these states have been dominated by democrats for years.  The governor’s mansion and the legislatures have democrat majorities and the state judicial systems are heavily filled with democrats.  And it’s not enough to just be a democrat.  To be in a political leadership position or judgeship, one has to be a far-left, woke, radical, democrat.

The politicians believe that they will be reelected in Deep Blue states where the Democrat nomination is akin to winning the election.  (Maybe they should ask Lori Lightfoot if that still holds true.) 

They know that it will take hundreds of thousands of dollars to challenge these laws while plaintiffs can expect defeats in the state courts and must get to federal court in order to prevail on the Constitution.

Judges know that most of their decisions will not be appealed because of the time and money involved.

Like politicians, the judges know that there are no personal repercussions to their ignoring the Supreme Court.  Judges are rarely impeached and probably never impeached for ruling wrong on a constitutional issue.

Reeling?  Angst?  That would require that they care that they are violating the Constitution!

Not Be Infringed…Hunting and Fishing  by Tom Reynolds

We all know that the U S Constitution says: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  (Amendment II)

The U S Constitution also says: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.” (Amendment XIV)

The right to “keep and bear arms” is protected in the U S Constitution by the 2^nd Amendment and the 14^th Amendment reinforces that Constitutional rights cannot be overridden by state laws. 

Though described as amendments, 2A and 14A are, in fact, the U S Constitution, just as much as having two Senators from each state or the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.  They are not 2^nd Class parts of the U S Constitution, subject to states ignoring these rights as the state deems fit.

Since the U S Constitution covers this issue, it would not seem necessary but some states also have a statement similar the 2^nd Amendment in their state constitutions. 

New York State does not. 

But New York Civil Rights Law art. II, § 4 provides that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed."  That doesn’t stop Kathy Hochul and the leftist legislature but there is something new being added which might cause the gun grabbers some further problems.

Florida (that state to which many New Yorkers are fleeing) is taking the fight over gun rights to a new level.  On March 10^th, Townhall reported that Florida could soon add a right to hunt and fish amendment to its state constitution.  A joint resolution is currently being deliberated in the state legislature. The provision, if passed, would add to Florida's constitution a statement to "preserve in perpetuity hunting and fishing as a public right." 

Now is the time for Republicans in the NY Legislature to introduce such an amendment to the New York Constitution.

As SCOPE often points out, we need to awaken those millions of New York gun owners who don’t vote and believe all these gun control laws don’t affect them.  However, losing our gun rights will eventually take away our hunting rights and we need to take proactive steps to protect hunting.   Let’s put legislators and the governor on record if they are in opposition to hunting (and fishing).  If they refuse to vote for that constitutional amendment, that might awaken some of these “sleeping dog” gun owners who will ignore gun control efforts until it hits them between the eyes.

Of course, the Left would claim their gun control laws don’t apply to guns used in hunting but hunters / gun owners would know that the models the Left would ban are used in hunting.

This would also give 2^nd Amendment defense advocates another arrow in their sling; guns being indirectly protected in the NY Constitution.

NY State Governor Elections  by Tom Reynolds

In the last 3 New York State governor elections, the numbers of people who voted were:

• 2014  3,925,000

• 2018  6,231,000

• 2022  5,962,000

• 2014  1,537,000     (39.2% of total vote)

• 2018  2,208,000     (35.4% of total vote)

• 2022  2,763,000     (46.3% of total vote)

• 2014  1,025,000    

• 2018  1,472,000

• 2022  1,842,000

• 2014  3,975,000

• 2018  3,528,000

• 2022  3,158,000

• 2014     532,000     (A. Cuomo vs R Astorino)

• 2018  1,428,000     (A.Cuomo vs M. Molinaro)

• 2022     378,000     (K. Hochul vs L. Zeldin)

In those same elections, the Republican candidate got:

Let’s say that half (50%) of the Republican votes were from gun owners and (since the Democrat Party is uncontestably anti-gun), let’s say gun owners voted 75% for Republicans and 25% for Democrats.  Therefore, the total number of gun owners who voted were:

Conservatively estimated, there are 5 million gun owners in NY State!  (Some estimates go as high as 6 million.) 

Using the 5 million figure, these following numbers of gun owners didn’t vote:

If:

1.1 million additional gun owners had voted in these elections and they continued to vote 75% for Republicans, that’s a net gain of 550,000 votes in each election.

In those same elections, the Democrat won by:

If those additional 1.1 million gun owners had voted, Republicans win 2 of the last 3 governor elections!

Go back and look at the estimated number of gun owners who voted and didn’t vote.  An additional 1.1 million is not a stretch; the voting total never goes over 3 million which would be only 60% of the gun owners.

The answer to the craziness coming out of Albany – and not just on guns – is right before us:  VOTE!

And yet, the majority of gun owners…

Click to download a printable Pdf copy

Defensive Use of a Gun  by Tom Reynolds

In the early 1990’s, the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victim Survey (NCVS) reported ‘only’ 68,000 annual Defensive Gun Uses in connection with assaults and robberies (about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in household burglaries.)  That number was low according to a later study.

In the 1995 study: Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz*, they took issue with NCVS and listed the estimated number of annual “Defensive Gun Uses” from numerous studies.  There were a lot more:

3,609,000

3,052,000

2,141,000

1,797,000

1,621,000 (median number)

1,414,000

777,000

771,000

764,000

Kleck and Gertz used these studies to prove that the NCVS report was drastically wrong. 

Further, Kleck and Gertz gave reasons why the NCVS was so far off:

First, the NCVS had not asked about self-protection unless the respondent first indicated that they had been a victim of a crime, so it was certainly underreported and underestimated. 

Also, the respondent might be hesitant to admit to the use of a gun for self-protection because: 

The defensive act itself might constitute an unlawful assault by the respondent or legal authorities could regard it that way.  (Remember the St. Louis couple who were arrested because they “brandished” weapons in front of a mob.  Also, Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with murder for defending himself against a mob.)

Guns are highly regulated.  A victim's possession of the weapon might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of the person who used one. (Lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated laws of self-defense or firearms are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

Kleck and Getz pointed out another interesting aspect, that the NCVS data indicated that even where the robber had a gun, victims who resist with guns are substantially less likely to be injured than those who resist in other ways and even slightly less likely to be hurt than those who do not resist at all.  (Remember Governor Cuomo rejected arming teachers to prevent collateral damage, in spite of this data to the contrary.)

Sounds like a resounding endorsement of the 2^nd Amendment.

Then in 2018, Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?" found that the CDC had later asked about Defensive Gun Uses in its ‘Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey’ (BRFSS) in 1996, 1997, and 1998.  But never reported it.  Using the CDC’s data, Kleck summarized the CDC findings:

In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale national surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU). They never released the findings, or even acknowledged they had studied the topic. I obtained the unpublished raw data and computed the prevalence of DGU. CDC’s findings indicated that an average of 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense in each of the years from 1996 through 1998 – almost exactly confirming the estimate for 1992 of Kleck and Gertz (1995).

Did the CDC read the Kleck-Gertz 1995 study, decided to challenge it, and then discovered their studies reflected the same conclusion?  Oops.

Another resounding endorsement of the 2^nd Amendment. 

Almost…

But then, a sharp-eyed reviewer pointed out a method error in Kleck’s latest work (not the 1995 original).  Kleck agreed and reworked the 1996, 1997 and 1998 data and came up with a lower estimate, but still over1 million Defensive Gun Uses.

Gun control fans like to now refer to Keck as ‘discredited’ because of an error he admitted and corrected, while they never reference the corrected 1 million number.

At some later date, the CDC published some statistics on Defensive Gun Use in its ‘Fast Facts’ web site.  It’s not clear what those statistics were since they are not there anymore.  However, in December 2022, while often quoting ‘The Reload’, multiple sources reported that the CDC quietly removed a range of gun statistics from its website after gun control advocates complained that the statistics made gun control laws harder to pass.

Researchers with the time - and with a grant to pay for that time – can argue and nitpick about the validity of every study they do not agree with.  Of course, many grants come with the unspoken assumption that the results better be what the grantor hopes, if the researcher wants more funding.  But the sheer size of Kleck’s numbers should give everyone pause. 

Take only the median number of Kleck’s original study,1,621,000. That’s 1.6 million crimes prevented by a gun and if only 1% had ended in serious injury or death to the victim, that is 16,210 prevented.

Reduce the estimate to the later study of 1 million and you still get 10,000 serious injuries or deaths prevented.

In an average year, in the United States there are about 14,000 non suicide gun deaths from all other sources, legal and illegal. 

And the numbers of Defensive Gun Uses keep going up, according to later studies. 

A recent survey conducted by William English, from the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, found “...that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year.” The number is the product of an exhaustive effort in early 2021, when roughly 54 thousand U.S. residents over the age of 18 were polled.

Clearly, possession of a gun by the average citizen is beneficial, not harmful, and the numbers clearly outweigh gun usage by criminals.

Just as clearly, when gun control is advocated by the Left, Defensive Gun Uses is missing from the conversation.  But now you know the complete story, in context.

 

*   Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun (northwestern.edu)

Hateful Conduct  by Tom Reynolds

Last Monday Scope wrote about a 1st Amendment challenge to Hochul’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act.  Any government body should tread lightly when infringing on a Constitutionally protected right, especially when that Right is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.  As evidenced by this law, apparently not if you are Kathy Hochul and the NY Legislature.  They will trample on 1^st Amendment rights as gleefully as they will trample 2^nd Amendment rights.

In another of her never-ending attempts to trash the U S Constitution, in 2022 Hochul signed the “Hateful Conduct Law”, (Social media networks; hateful conduct prohibited).  It went into effect on December 3, 2022.

The “Hateful Conduct Law” is  being challenged in the case, Volokh v. James.  The plaintiffs operate online platforms described as social media networks.  They asked for an injunction to stop the law from being enforced.  The crux of their reasoning was: “…the law regulates the content of their speech by compelling them to speak on an issue on which they would otherwise remain silent.”   

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Andrew Carter Jr., granted an injunction.  He described the essence of Hochul’s law as: “The Hateful Conduct Law requires a social media network to endorse the state's message about ‘hateful conduct’".

No freedom of choice as to how or what one speaks in Hochul’s world. 

Judge Carter continued: “A social media network that devises its own definition of ‘hateful conduct’ would risk being in violation of the law and thus subject to its enforcement provision…each social media network's definition of ‘hateful conduct’ must be at least as inclusive as the definition set forth in the law itself.

In granting the injunction, the judge wrote about the unconstitutionality of the state compelling someone to speak in a particular way, even if the person does not want to speak: “The law also requires that a social media network must make a ‘policy’ available on its website which details how the network will respond to a complaint of hateful content. In other words, the law requires that social media networks devise and implement a written policy—i.e., speech.”

Like the ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’, the ‘Hateful Conduct Law’ leaves much undefined, giving bureaucrats the latitude to fill in essential definitions in ways that are to theirs and Hochul’s liking – the U S Constitution be damned.  Judge Carter wrote: “The potential chilling effect to social media users is exacerbated by the indefiniteness of some of the Hateful Conduct Law’s key terms…the law does not put social media users on notice of what kinds of speech or content is now the target of government regulation.”

As with the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, in their zeal to outlaw anything they disagree with, Hochul and her minions can’t seem to write a law that is both clear and constitutional.  Instead of breathlessly legislating, they should consider stepping back, taking a deep breath and thinking before legislating.

And as with the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, the state has again sought to violate the constitutional rights of citizens.

Hochul and the Left should read the decision in Matal v. Tam (2017). “…the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'” 

Or to put it even more eloquently, as Voltaire may have said, “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  Words that will never be spoken by Kathy Hochul or her friends on the Left.

Will any of that matter to voters?  Hochul and state legislators believe that there will be no political costs for passing laws that violate the First or Second Amendments. Will social media users show up at the polls to protest Hochul’s and the Left’s ham-handed approach?  Will gun owners show up at the polls to protest Hochul’s and the Left’s attempt to eliminate civilian gun ownership?

Until gun owners start voting in big numbers, expect more reprehensible laws like these.  This is even more frustrating since gun owners have the numbers to put a stop to this nonsense. 

Free speech is a threat to Hochul’s definition of a democracy.  Civilian gun ownership is as much or more of a threat to Hochul and the downstate Democrats in the legislature.

Expect NY Attorney General Letitia James to again dip deeply into the taxpayer’s pockets and appeal this decision.

Clean Slate Bill  (S211 / A1029)  by Tom Reynolds

State Senator Zellnor Myrie and Assembly Member Catalina Cruz are sponsoring a bill that would seal the criminal records of many people convicted of certain felonies or misdemeanors: three years after the imposed sentencing for misdemeanor crimes and seven years for felonies.

It was first introduced in 2020, it has never passed both chambers.

Concessions to help pass the bill:

• the bill won’t include sex offenders, and

• the criminal can’t commit additional crimes, and  

• certain entities, such as some levels of law enforcement and the state Department of Education will have access to a person's sealed criminal records. Records would remain sealed from private employers. 

Last year, Kathy Hochul explicitly mentioned the bill in her State of the State address. (Of course, she never met a leftist proposal that was too extreme.) 

Hochul did not mention Clean Slate in this year’s State of the State address.  (A concession to the visuals of crime running amok in NY State and the Left being soft-on-crime?)

Last year the state Senate passed the bill, but in the Assembly, it never made it out of the Codes Committee – the committee responsible for reviewing all legislation focused on the state’s criminal justice system.

Chair of the Codes Committee, Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, who is also a co-sponsor of Clean Slate, said that “The devil is in the details in terms of which crimes are included and the timetables that are involved.”

After Democrats lost a few Assembly seats in the last election, the Republican conference gained a seat on the Codes Committee.  Last year, the committee was made up of 16 Democrats and six Republicans. This year, there are 15 and seven respectively.  Will that have some small impact? 

Supporters say the bill will allow people who have served their time to be better able to access job and housing opportunities.  The bill’s sponsor Cruz, a Democrat from Queens said: “If you're concerned with public safety, the way to keep the community safe is to get people back to work…Statistics show recidivism is completely tied to someone's ability to sustain their family to actually earn a living."  (She better reexamine those statistics.  I doubt if absentee fathers who commit crimes do so to support their families.)

 Cruz expressed optimism that support for the bill will increase this year. “We had significant support last year, that will only increase once we finalize amendments to the bill.”

When asked whether allowing certain entities to unseal records would compromise the integrity of the legislation, Cruz said the sponsors of the bill are actively working with the Department of Education, business and law enforcement to ensure the bill supports economic development and communities.  (So, it’s important that some government people have access to these records but not you and I, who will be the ones most likely threatened by ex-convicts.)

Assembly Minority Leader William Barclay said he believes in second chances, but he also echoed our concerns about the need for thorough background checks. “There are any number of occupations where a background check is important: in personal care settings, positions around children, jobs that handle finances. People have the right to make informed decisions,”

Remember the debate over who’s job was “essential” during the Covid close down?  Now it’s who is essential enough to get access to these records.  I’ll bet ordinary citizens won’t qualify as essential.

Former Democratic Assembly Member Tom Abinanti, wrote a memo about the language of the bill. “Our society depends on having background checks, in sensitive positions…We have to carefully go through that bill and make sure that everywhere there’s common agreement that background checks should be conducted, they're going to be allowed and not prohibited.”

As usual, the Left is deeply concerned about criminals.  Those that obey the law…not so much.

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.