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.

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:

WHAT ARE THE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL (NON-LICENSEE) IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM EQUIPPED WITH A “STABILIZING BRACE,” WHICH IS A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR), AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE?

• 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.

AFTER THE 120-DAY FORBEARANCE EXPIRES, WILL ALL UNREGISTERED FIREARMS WITH AN ATTACHED “STABILIZING BRACE” THAT ARE SHORT-BARRELED RIFLES (SBRS) BE CONSIDERED CONTRABAND?

• Yes.

CAN I POSSESS A PISTOL AND UNATTACHED“STABILIZING BRACE”?

• 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.

CAN A SHORT-BARRELED SHOTGUN BE REGISTERED DURING THE 120-DAY TAX FORBEARANCE PERIOD?

• No

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.)

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.

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.

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 Hunt, a 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. Matthews, an 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. McMaster, retired 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.

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 27^th, 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 2^nd 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.

News You Can Use – Or Not  by Tom Reynolds

It’s Monday - and not a Federal Holiday - which hasn’t happened much, lately. So, you’re back to work!  Start your week out with a laugh.  Or at least something to show you that the people trying to ban guns are just as rabid about other things.

California legislators voted to phase out gasoline-powered car sales by 2035.

Wyoming’s legislature is considering a resolution that calls for a phaseout of new electric vehicle sales by 2035.

What if more fossil fuel states and Red states passed similar legislation!  The left would simply say that Wyoming was being divisive, while California was worshipping at Greta’s Grail.

Legal Insurrection’s Professor William Jacobson said that administrators and faculty who advocate for open borders do not want the words “illegal applied to people who cross the border - illegally.

He believes word-banning neutralizes opposition in order to impose authoritarianism.  “They monitor your language, they get you to use language that only they approve, and once you’ve done that with somebody…that’s enormous control.”

Note: ICE also banned use of “illegal alien” in 2021.

SCOPE suggests as possibilities: Undocumented tourists?  Visiting drug dealers?  Biden’s blunderers?  Paperwork challenged? Freebie Foragers?  Mayorkas’ Mob.

Let’s ban the words “Assault Weapon.”

A libertarian higher education expert proposed measures to improve higher education funding by ultimately phasing out all aid programs because they inflate tuition. 

What?  Government subsidies promote inflation?  If that’s so, the current general inflation would be caused, at least in part, by…government spending.  You know…things like green energy subsidies. 

Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey wrote that, “if [government agencies] are going to be the lenders, they should assess somebody’s ability to enroll in a program and succeed instead of giving out…loans regardless of whether they are going to succeed.”

Repay a loan you voluntarily taken put? Do a cost / benefit analysis of your college degree?  That’s personal responsibility!  Be careful, if that gets around it will destroy the whole liberal movement.

Last Will and Testament of a Gas-Stove Owner

Bottom of Form

My body is faint. Even now, reality spins as if demons had put Earth within the dryer — that gaseous beast — and set it to tumble low.

We sent the children to our Amish friend, just in time; it’s too late for us, though. 

If only we hadn’t renovated the kitchen. Joanna Gaines has killed us all with her painted shiplap and brass pot fillers installed above those . . . those stovetops.

The blue flames — they were so comforting. We should have known they were will-o’-the-wisps in the bog, leading us to doom.

For years we spent our days before that flickering, azure, Promethean shrine, not knowing, not caring to know. We now lie expired upon the suburban savannah, poisoned and stupefied. 

Like the Israelites stricken by the serpents for their faithlessness, we are now punished for our sins of conveniently heating soup and centrally heating our homes. Where is Moses? Where is the snake upon the staff to heal us?

Biden, forgive us, for we knew not what we did. 

Saint Greta, pray for us.

SCOPE wrote about this issue a few months ago* and it may have been fixed.  Or as fixed as anything ever is fixed in NY City.

New York City officials have agreed to remove 441,083 ineligible voters from its voter rolls after a legal watchdog found the liberal-led government refused to clean up its list of voters as required by federal law.

Judicial Watch, a non-profit public interest law firm, filed the lawsuit after an investigation found that in six years, out of 5.5 million voters, only 22 names had been removed for moving away, dying or otherwise becoming ineligible to vote.

There is no word about how many of the 441,083 voted in recent elections.

S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Seems reasonable. If you’re dead you shouldn’t vote. (scopeny2a.org)

And under the category of “they can’t get much dumber”…

FOX News’ talking head Geraldo Rivera backed President Biden’s push for an “assault weapons” ban.

On The Five, Rivera told its co-hosts that the AR-15 was a “machine gun” that people own in order to make them feel “macho.”  (I could make a lot of jokes about this but the only nice one is: What about women who own the AR 15?)

A machine gun?  Really?  Where does Rivera get his information from: John Wick movies?

Greg Gutfeld then asked Rivera, “What does ‘AR’ stand for?”

Rivera responded, “Automatic rifle.”

Urrggghhh! 

You can’t fix stupid!

Appeals to be Reheard  by Tom Reynolds

New York State’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) tried to work around the NYSRPA v Bruen decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).  This has resulted in numerous lawsuits to stop enforcement of various portions of CCIA since many view CCIA as a direct challenge to SCOTUS’ decision.

Originally, the lawsuits challenging CCIA were generally successful at the trial court level but were appealed to the Appeals Court level where the trial courts’ decisions were generally overturned.

The Appeals Court decisions were then appealed to SCOTUS which declined to hear the appeals now but sent them back to the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals to be reheard.*  SCOTUS believed that the Appeals Court had not furnished an adequate explanation of why they had overturned the trial courts’ very well thought out and well-documented decisions against the CCIA.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals announced it would hear arguments “in tandem” on four lawsuits challenging several provisions of CCIA on March 20.  Those four lawsuits are:

Ivan Antonyuk, et al v. Steven A. Nigrelli (This lawsuit was to stop NYS from enforcing major areas of the CCIA)

Jimmie Hardaway, Jr., et al v. Steven A. Nigrelli  (This lawsuit was to stop NYS from enforcing the CCIA’s firearm ban covering places  of worship and religious observation.) 

Brett Christian, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, Inc v. Steven A. Nigrelli, (This lawsuit is to stop NYS from enforcing CCIA’s firearm ban on private property unless the owner affirmatively allows it.)  

Nadine Gazzola, et al. v. Kathleen Hochul, et al. (This lawsuit is to stop NYS from enforcing the Federal Firearm Licensee portions of the CCIA.)

This only covers four of the many lawsuits already filed against CCIA.

Until March 20, almost all of the CCIA is in effect almost everywhere. 

We should not expect an immediate decision.  And whatever the decision, it will probably be appealed back to the Supreme Court, which has the option of hearing or not hearing the appeal.  This might take a long time to finish.

Or it might not.

If the 2^nd Circuit’s new decision keeps the CCIA in place and enforceable until SCOTUS decides on an appeal, we can hope that SCOTUS would hear the appeal on an expedited basis since CCIA flies directly in-the-face of the NYSRPA v Bruen decision.  It is hard to imagine SCOTUS not hearing an appeal if CCIA is left in place

If the new 2^nd Circuit decision strikes down the CCIA, in whole or in part, New York would probably appeal to SCOTUS but SCOTUS might choose to not hear the appeal and just leave it in place.  If it does hear the appeal, it might not be in a hurry to do so.

We should take heart in the Caetano v Massachusetts decision in which every court level in Massachusetts ruled against Caetano while ignoring SCOTUS’ precedent.  SCOTUS had no difficulty in overturning Massachusetts and basically saying to Massachusetts, “Can’t you guys read?”   

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York.  It exercises federal jurisdiction in six districts with each district having multiple seats on the court:

• District of Connecticut (New Haven, Hartford, Bridgeport)
• Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn, Central Islip)
• Northern District of New York (Albany, Binghamton, Plattsburgh, Syracuse, Utica)
• Southern District of New York (Manhattan, White Plains)
  
• Western District of New York (Buffalo, Rochester)
  
• District of Vermont (Burlington, Rutland, Brattleboro)
  

*Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said in a letter attached to the order that CCIA "presents novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments." The pair also made clear that the court's denial was in no way "expressing any views on the merits" of the challenges brought by firearms proponents; instead, it was to "reflect respect for the 2nd Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket."

Pistol Permit Recertification Changed  by Tom Reynolds

While you were sleeping, Kathy Hochul and the NY State Police were busy.

This weekend, I was warned by a SCOPE member that NY State has been changing the date on which Pistol Permits had to be recertified.  Permits that had five (5) years to recertify have been changed to three (3) years.

I checked mine and it was true!

I have a piece of paper that I copied off of the State Police web site, when I recertified, that says my recertification date is August 2027.

Being warned, I went to that same web site.   I now have a piece of paper, copied off of the same State Police web site, that says my recertification is now due on August 2025.

What happened to those two years?

We don’t know.

Others have confirmed this has happened to them.

Obviously, we are checking on the latest sleight-of-hand by the Hochul regime.

We will be keeping members informed through e mails.

Link to check your recertification date:

NYS Pistol Permit Recertification

Antonyuk v Nigrelli 1/11/2023  by Tom Reynolds

The case of Antonyuk v Nigrelli is probably the most far- reaching of many cases in opposition to Governor Hochul’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). 

Initially, the District Court judge issued a stay in enforcement (stopped enforcement) of that act. 

This Stay was overturned by the 2^nd Circuit Appeals Court which allowed the CCIA to be enforced while the case is being decided.  However, the 2^nd Circuit did not give an adequate explanation of its decision. 

The STAY was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS.)

On Wednesday, SCOTUS refused to overturn the Appeals Court ON THE STAY.  However, there are conditions to that decision: The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court must “provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.”

Therefore, unfortunately, the CCIA is still in force while the case against it proceeds.

While we had hoped that enforcement would be stayed, we are still optimistic that CCIA will eventually be declared unconstitutional.

Below is the statement of JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, respecting the denial of the application to vacate stay.

“The New York law at issue in this application presents novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments. The District Court found, in a thorough opinion, that the applicants were likely to succeed on a number of their claims, and it issued a preliminary injunction as to twelve provisions of the challenged law. “

“With one exception, the Second Circuit issued a stay of the injunction in full, and in doing so did not provide any explanation for its ruling…In parallel cases presenting related issues, the Second Circuit has likewise issued unreasoned summary stay orders, but in those cases it has ordered expedited briefing. “

“I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case. Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.”

As usual, the judicial system is very bureaucratic in the way cases are handled, which adds to the expense of non-government participants.  The government uses bottomless pockets of taxpayer dollars.  The above decision does not reflect on the merits of the case.