Talking Points for the Lawsuit Banning Body in Armor in NY State Brought Forth the by Plaintiff Armored Republic Holdings LLC

• Armored Republic Holdings LLC (Arizona Company) v s Walter Mosley (NY State Secretary of State, Steven James, Superintendent of the New York State Police, Anne Donnelly, Nassau County District Attorney, and Melinda Katz, Queens County District Attorney.
• The lawsuit is a Second Amendment challenge to the State of New York’s statutes and regulations banning the sale, purchase, acquisition, and transfer of body armor to persons who are not in certain “eligible professions”.
• The lawsuit is based on the Second and Fourteenth amendments.
• The right to keep and bear arms includes/refers to the right to WEAR, BEAR, or CARRY upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.
• Body armor is included in the term “arms”
• The Challenged Regulations infringe on the rights of New York citizens to keep and bear body armor by prohibiting all, but a select few from lawfully acquiring body armor.
• Under the Bruen decision, the defendants must meet their burden by showing that the Challenged Regulations are consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.  This is a burden the defendants cannot meet.
   
• Bruen struck down NY’s “Proper Cause” licensing regime for the carry of firearms under which an applicant could only obtain a license to carry a firearm “only if he demonstrated a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general public. 
• The Challenged Regulations in this case, are worse than the “special need” regime invalidated in Bruen.  Unlike in Bruen when an individualized determination was made for each applicant as a person, the Challenged Regulations bar ANYONE from acquiring body armor unless they are employed in an eligible profession.
• The inherent right for self-defense is central to the Second Amendment right (Heller).  Like the D.C. handgun ban was struck down, NY’s body armor ban amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelming chosen by the American society for that lawful purpose.   
• The Bruen decision described both weapons and armor as “ARMS”.
• History of the Use Body Armor:
• • 1181 – King Henry II of England proclaim every free layman to have a shirt of mail, a helmet of some sort, and a lance.
  • 1285 – Statute of Winchester – commanded every man have in his house a chainmail shirt, a haubergeon, and a helmet of iron.
  • 1328 – Statute of Northampton – demonstrated not only that armor was within the meaning of “arms” but also that armor was possessed by all classes and professions of persons.
  • 1511 – King Henry VIII reissued the Statue of Winchester
  • 1606 – King James I granted a charter to the Virginia Company for the creation of a settlement.  Among the rights granted was the right to acquire “Armour” and all other things useful for their defense.
  • 1680 – New York forbad the sale of any amor or weapons to the Indians.
  • 1756 - Maryland statute prohibited Roman Catholics from possessing armor.
  • 1783 – Connecticut statue made it a capital crime to commit robbery while being armed with any dangerous armour or weapons.
  • No law in American history leading up to the ratification of the Second Amendment n 1791 prohibited the acquisition of body armor by persons based on their profession or restricted the lawful acquisition of armor to select professions.
  • Body armor was in common use.  NY, NC, RI, and VA required citizens to keep various kinds of armor for use in the cavalry as late as 1798; used in the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War.
  • 1860s – bullet proof vests were purchasable by the general public, used in the Civil War
  • NO LAWS EXIST IN AMERICAN HISTORY THAT PROHIBIT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS FROM ACQUIRING BODY ARMOR OR RESTRICTING THE ABILITY TO ACQUIRE BODY ARMOR TO SELECT PROFESSIONS, UNTIL JULY 2022 WHEN NEW YORK STATE ENACTED THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS.

• Statistics for Modern Body Armor Use Today
• • Nearly 99.4% of police forces nationwide use some form of body armor when on duty.
  • Currently there are millions of body armor products in use among American private citizens for civilian purposes. The overwhelming majority of body armor products are used for lawful purposes such as law enforcement and civilian purposes. 
  • The FBI also found that 70% of mass-shootings are committed using handguns, but handguns are not banned, yet they are used far more than body armor. 

• What about the issue of whether an arm is “in common use”/
• • Common use is met when at least tens of thousands of an item are in use (Avitabile v Beach) or (Maloney v Singas).
  • The ban on stun gunswas reversed in Massachusetts because hundreds of thousands of tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens (Caetano v Massachusetts).
  • There are far more body armor products in use among Americans today.

The Challenged Regulations

• On June 6, 20233 Governor Hochul signed into law restrictions on the purchase, sale, exchange, and transfer of bullet-proof vests for citizens outside of people in selected professions.

• On July 1, 2022, Governor Hochul signed legislation that expanded the scope of these restrictions from applying only to body vests to applying more broadly to all “body armor; went into effect on July 6, 2022.

• The Challenged Regulations definition of body armor found in N.Y. Penal 270.20(2) defines “body armor” as any product that is personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire, regardless of whether such product is to be worn alone or is sold as a complement to another product or garment”.

• Select professions include Police officers, Peace officers, Persons in the Military or NY National Guard.  Additional Professions added include in the Challenged Regulations:
• • Armored car guard
  • Security guard
  • Firefighter
  • Emergency medical technician
  • Paramedic
  • Ambulance driver
  • Firearms dealer
  • Retailer/salesperson
  • Private investigator
  • Building safety inspector
  • Code enforcement officer
  • Firearms instructor
  • Professional journalist
  • Newscaster
  • Nuclear safety officer
  • Process server
  • Animal control officer
  • Federal firearms dealer
  • Range safety officer
  • Forensic science technician, ballistic examiner
  • School building administrator and school district administrator

• The first offense is a Class A misdemeanor, every subsequent offense is a Class E felony.

• The following categories are not “professions” within the meaning of the Challenged Regulations and are not eligible to acquire body armor and are also categorically ineligible for recognition as a class of persons possible of being designated as an “eligible profession”:
• • Member of the People within the meaning of the Second Amendment:
  • Law-Abiding American Citizen;
  • Taxpayer;
  • Stay-at-home parent;
  • Retired person;
  • Person whose professional career is inactive for reasons other than retirement;
  • Disabled person unable to maintain employment in a profession;
  • Purchaser of Body  Armor Products; And
  • Prospective purchaser of Body Armor Products

Summary of the Unconstitutionality of the Challenged Regulations

• The provisions of the Challenged Regulations that prohibit the acquisition of body armor by persons not engaged or employed in an eligible profession violate the Second Amendment because they prevent law-abiding American citizens from acquiring, and prevent the sale of arms based on their profession, a prohibition for which there is no historical analogue in this Nation’s traditions of arms regulations.

• The provisions of the Challenged Regulations that establish criteria and processes for determining “eligible professions” that may acquire body armor violate the Second Amendment because they expressly exclude from eligibility entire classes of persons from being able to acquire body armor or even to apply for eligibility, a prohibition for which there is no historical analogue in this Nation’s tradition of arms regulation.

• The provisions in the Challenged Regulations that require an in-person transfer of body armor violate the Second Amendment because they have the effect of eliminating the ability of law-abiding, responsible citizens to acquire body armor. 

• Federal law and the law of some states outlaws the possession of body armor by violent felons but provides exemptions for such felons who need body armor for their profession.  But the Challenged Regulations treat everyone as a violent felon and allow only certain privileged professions to acquire body armor based on the Secretary of State’s determination that those professions have a special need for it.  Like New York’s carry license regime that was invalidated in Bruen, the Challenged Regulations permit New Yorkers to acquire arms “only after demonstrating to government officials some special need.”  Therefore, like the regulations that were struck down in Bruen, the Challenged Regulations “violate” the Fourteenth Amendment in that they prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

His lips moved

The usual suspects, the main stream / legacy media were full of headlines about Trump lying during the debate.  Actually, much of their reporting ranged from inaccurate to misleading.

So, what about Joe Biden.  Not much was reported about his “misstatements.”  Let’s put that story straight.

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

Doubt that?  Here are a few highlights from last week’s debate.

• Biden said "we find ourselves in a situation where when [Trump] was president, he was separating babies from their mothers, put them in cages, making sure that the families were separated."

• Biden claimed that Border Patrol endorsed him and his “position” on immigration.

• Biden claimed that then resident Donald Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the ‘Unite the Right’ rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, "very fine people."

• Biden claimed Trump called veterans “losers and suckers.”

• Biden claimed Trump added the most new debt in a single presidential term.

• Biden claimed that when he took office, the economy was "flat on its back" at 15% unemployment.

• Biden falsely said he is the first president in the past decade to not witness American troops’ deaths overseas.

After the 2020 debates, the LA Times (the most leftist paper on the left coast) corrected the statements blaming Trump for the cages: “The Obama administration did build the cages. The facility…was built with chain-link fencing by the Obama administration in 2014 in a warehouse in Nogales, Ariz.”

Question: Who was the Vice President under Obama when the cages were built?

The National Border Patrol Union reiterated their stance in a short statement posted to X, formerly Twitter: “To be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden.”

Snopes, (which is no fan of Donald Trump or the Conservatives), fact checked this recently, after letting the lie go unchallenged for seven years:

Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.”

Trump: “Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides…I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? 

The “losers and suckers” comments were first mentioned in an article on September 3, 2020 from The Atlantic (which is another far left rag.)  Since it was reported two months before the election, consider the source and timing.  

Under Trump, the national debt went from $19.6 to $26.9 trillion, an increase of $7.3 trillion.  (Take out $3 trillion for the Covid extraordinary expenditures and it would have risen by $4.3 trillion under Trump.)

Under Biden, in 3 years and 7 months, the national debt went from $26.9 to $34.6 trillion.  An increase of $7.7 trillion. 

By the way, none of the covid spending under Biden was necessary. Before Biden took office, in the third quarter of 2020, the economy grew at a 34.8 percent annual rate. In the fourth quarter, it grew 4.2 percent. But because Biden had campaigned on the lie of an economy in ruins, his administration could not allow the economy to continue to recover on its own. That would have amounted to an acknowledgement that Trump's policies had worked. So, another huge round of stimulus became a political necessity and brought about inflation.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment was at 6% in January 2021. 

January 6th was the subject of more “misinformation.”

Jake Tapper asked, "those voters who believed that you violated your constitutional oath through your actions and inaction on January 6, 2021, and worried that you'll do it again," President Biden argued that the former president "encouraged" the January 6th attack.  Biden also criticized Trump for inaction on January 6th.

Trump actually said in his speech, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Trump advisor Kash Patel was in a January 3rd meeting where he claims Trump gave his approval for defense officials to communicate to Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi that they were authorized to deploy the National Guard to the District and the U.S. Capitol building amid threats of violence that day. Patel previously told DailyMail.com that the Capitol Police and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser both denied the offer for an armed National Guard presence.  (Trump says Bowser denied the offer in writing.)

In a video shot by Pelosi's daughter, Alexandria, while the pair were escaping from the Capitol on January 6, 2021, the former speaker can be seen saying 'Why weren't the National Guard there to begin with?' 'They clearly didn't know, and I take responsibility for not having them just prepared for more,' Pelosi said to her chief of staff Terri McCullough.

Trump attackers point out that the President is in charge of the National guard but Patel and Trump say he had approved their use and only Pelosi needed to agree – which she did not.

Thirteen service members died during the botched U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan on August 26, 2021.

GUN OWNERS - GET OUT AND VOTE

    In 2022, Governor Hochul clinched victory in the New York State Governor race with a meager margin of 327,000 votes over Lee Zeldin, in an election that saw only approximately 1.8 million out of an estimated 5-million-gun owners in the state casting their ballots.  With New York State boasting a population nearing 20 million, the influence of gun owners in shaping policies such as gun laws becomes evident.  Had more gun owners turned out to vote, the landscape of gun legislation, such as the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), would not be as restrictive today, underscoring the potential impact of increased voter participation among gun owners.  Why don’t more gun owners vote in New York State? 

    Gun owners cite several primary reasons for abstaining from voting: lack of interest, dissatisfaction with candidates, voters are too busy, or a belief their votes are inconsequential.  The latter concerns are particularly troubling and impactful.  It is projected that a mere 20% increase in voter turnout among New York State gun owners in 2022 could have altered the outcome of the gubernatorial election, resulting in Lee Zeldin assuming office and the CCIA not signed into law.  New York State gun owners MUST get out and vote in the 2024 election.

    America stands on the brink for many reasons.  President Biden’s economic policy has the economy faltering, evidenced by a meager 1.3 percent growth in last quarter’s gross domestic product.  Job creation is predominantly in the government sector or going to illegal immigrants, exacerbating wage stagnation amid rising inflation.  The southern border remains porous, with an estimated 7.6 million illegal immigrants entering since President Biden took office, contributing to escalating crime nationwide.  Gun control constitutes a pivotal aspect of President Biden’s agenda.    

    President Biden seeks to implement stringent gun control measures, including bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, universal background checks, and lifting immunity for gun manufacturers.  When will New York State gun owners decide enough is enough and mobilize to vote?  What is former President Trump’s platform on guns?

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) endorsed Donald Trump on May 20, 2016, and most recently on May 19, 2024.  Former President Trump stated, gun owners need to show up and vote; that gun owners have not participated enough in past elections.  Former President Trump praised the NRA as the “backbone” of the country, claiming the Second Amendment is “under siege” under President Biden.  Former President Trump in his speech to the NRA vowed to protect gun owner’s rights stating, “we need it for safety because the bad guys aren’t giving up their guns and claiming Biden “is coming for your guns.” It comes down to informed citizens voting to realize the country and polices they want. 

    Elizabeth Willing Powel, who is considered one of the well-connected social figures of Colonial and early Republic Philadelphia, was a close friend of both George and Martha Washington.  Upon completion of the Constitution of the United States, Elizabeth Powel ask Benjamin Franklin, "what have we got a republic or a monarchy," to which Benjamin Franklin replied, “A republic if you can keep it’” The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely DEPENDENT upon the active, educated, and informed involvement of the people.

    New York State gun owners MUST get out and vote in the 2024 Presidential election and local Congressional political races.   Take 10 friends with you to vote.  If you must, pick them up and drive them to the polling center.  The United States is on the brink of losing it as a republic, and if gun owners don’t vote in greater numbers than in the past, our sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters will not have the same Second Amendment rights you and I do today!  GET OUT AND VOTE!  The country and our state are depending on YOU!  Become a PATRIOT and VOTE!

DONATE HERE

Non-Citizen Voting

There is no question that our national borders are open to illegal entry.  One big reason for the open-door policy seems to be that Biden and the Democrats want illegals to eventually be able to vote (for Democrats.) 

Eventually may be now.

The below comes directly from the New York State Voter Registration Form:

To register you must be a US citizen.

Are you a citizen of the U.S.?    Yes      No

Verifying your identity:

We’ll try to check your identity before Election Day, through the DMV number (driver’s license number or non-driver ID number), or the last four digits of your social security number, which you’ll fill in below.

If you do not have a DMV or social security number, you may use a valid photo ID, a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or some other government document that shows your name and address. You may include a copy of one of those types of ID with this form— be sure to tape the sides of the form closed. If we are unable to verify your identity before Election Day, you will be asked for ID when you vote for the first time

No Social Security Number?  No problem. Just fill out this affidavit that says you have never been issued a Social Security Number.  (See link below.)

nss1a.pdf (ny.gov)

In New York State, all you have to do is say you are a citizen but not show any evidence that you are a citizen, only show that you live in NY State.  There are multiple ways to prove you live in NYS and they do not involve proving citizenship.  NY State also gives out driver’s licenses to illegal aliens without any proof of citizenship.

Are you an illegal alien worried that applying for a driver’s license will get you reported to ICE?  No problem.  Per NY State’s “Documented” web site:

Will my information be shared with the federal government? 

No. The law restricts access by immigration enforcement agencies unless it is required by a judicial order.

Basically, if you are a United States citizen living in New York State and do not want your vote cancelled by that of a non-citizen…you are screwed.

The Federalist offers more information:

Currently, Arizona is the only state that has some mechanism in place besides the honor system to keep foreign nationals from registering to vote. The state requires potential voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in state elections. But thanks to federal government interference, individuals who cannot prove their citizenship for state registration can still register as federal-only voters.

Thus, in Arizona, you must provide proof you are a citizen to vote in Arizona elections but you don’t need that proof to vote in federal elections!

The Federalist does offer some hope.

To find foreign nationals on their voter rolls, states can use two little-known federal statutes to verify whether a registered voter is an American citizen through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), according to America First Legal (AFL).

If requested, AFL contends, DHS is required to provide such information.

AFL first points to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c), which requires the former Immigration and Naturalization Service — which was replaced by the DHS — to “respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.”

AFL also points to 8 U.S.C. § 1644, which states: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.

Accordingly, States and localities should submit requests to DHS to verify the citizenship or immigration status of registered voters on voter rolls where there are any reliable indicators that a voter may not be a U.S. citizen.

In summary, current law makes it illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, but it does NOT require states to obtain documentary proof of U.S. citizenship before an individual registers to vote.  So, illegal aliens voting in federal elections is illegal, but the federally-mandated registration process is a sieve and doesn’t prevent it.

There are two things we need to do right now, this year:

1-    Be sure our local election board is aware of 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c) and 8 U.S.C. § 1644 and utilizes them to weed out illegal voters.  (Of course, there is zero chance that NY City will do this.) 

2-    Motivating gun owners, who want to preserve the 2nd Amendment protections, to vote in this election is vital in order to offset what must certainly be expected is a flood of illegals voting for Democrats (a party that is unquestionably anti 2nd Amendment.)

Republicans have introduced the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act which would amend the National Voter Registration Act to clarify that states must require proof of citizenship when registering individuals to vote in federal elections.  That bill has no chance of becoming law with Biden as President and the Senate in Democrat hands but with a change in 2025 in administrations and the legislature, it could be enacted. 

You will be voting for more than just the 2nd Amendment in this election.  You will be voting to protect your vote in future elections.  We lose this one and we can expect even more laws that negate our votes.   

DONATE HERE

Trust the Science

You have probably heard some form of this theory of gun ownership, that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises would be more likely to personally own guns.”

What you already knew - but the Left can’t believe - has now been researched and proven. 

In a paper published in the Journal of Men’s Health entitled: Size Matters? Penis Dissatisfaction and Gun Ownership in America . (1)

The study showed that those more satisfied with penis size are more likely to own guns.  And not just a gun but multiple guns and also to own “military-style” rifles!

And like most things that the Left is accusing us of, they themselves are doing...

Per the study: “We find that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises are less likely to personally own guns. “(Emphasis added)

So, the Left was maligning us that we were compensating for small penises by owning guns while it’s the Left that is actually compensating for small penises by NOT owning guns!  (Instead of owning guns, they compensate by lusting after political power?)

Why waste one’s time researching something silly like this?  That’s what’s even more fun.  The research was funded by Change the Ref which is an anti-gun organization.   From their website: “CHANGE THE REF RAISES AWARENESS ABOUT MASS SHOOTINGS and works to reduce the influence of the NRA and gun manufacturers through strategic interventions and by using art as a form of communication.”  I don’t have to wonder what they were hoping would be the conclusion.

Actually, there was an earlier study, too.

In a 2021 paper entitled “Sexual Dysfunction and Gun Ownership in America: When Hard Data Meet a Limp Theory”(2) they concluded that:

“This study, we showed that men experiencing SD (Sexual Dysfunction) are no more likely to own guns than men without SD. Our findings are important because they contribute to our understanding of factors associated with gun ownership by challenging the belief that phallic symbolism and masculinity somehow drive men experiencing SD to purchase guns. Our findings also remind us of the perils of gun culture rhetoric, which is often characterized by misinformation and political propaganda.”

The Left may try to invalidate these studies as the studies constantly use the term “Male” in the traditional sense of those that have a penis.  Which would seem to be a necessary part of studying penis dissatisfaction.  But, to the Left, a penis is not necessary to be Male.    

And statistics show that ‘real’ women are increasingly buying guns.  I wonder what the left’s theory is on that?

Notes:

• (1)Authored by Terrence D. Hill PhD, Liwen Zeng, PhD, Christopher G. Ellison, PhD, Benjamin Dowd-Arrow, PhD

• (2)   Authored by Terrence D. Hill, PhD, Benjamin Dowd-Arrow, PhD, Christopher G. Ellison, PhD, Ginny Garcia-Alexander, PhD, John P. Bartkowski, PhD, and Amy M. Burdette, PhD 
  
  _____________________________________________________

The Apocalypse is Upon Us

First there were safe spaces to shoot up on drugs or where “progressive” cities would actually furnish syringes.   

Then, there was San Francisco which has implemented a free alcohol program for homeless alcoholics as part of a Managed Alcohol Program.  Nurses provide clients with enough alcohol to meet their addiction needs while keeping them at a safe level of intoxication. (You can’t make this stuff up.)

3,000 miles away, per Maine Wire on June 13^th, Maine’s taxpayer-funded “harm reduction” specialists call it “boofing” or “booty dumping,” but those are just pleasant euphemisms referring to the practice of sticking heroin, fentanyl, or meth up your butt.

Maine Access Points, a taxpayer-funded nonprofit based in Bangor, as well as the city of Portland’s city-run needle distribution center are both offering extensive how-to guides and — even anal injection kits — to help drug users squirt narcotics into their anuses.

In Portland, the “Portland Public Health Boofing Kit” comes with a needleless syringe and an informational flyer explaining the proper technique for putting drugs up your butt.

Apparently, Portland believes that, if you are going to intentionally leave your border open to drug smuggling, the government should at least provide instructions on how to use the illegal drugs.

New Laws

The New York State war on the 2nd Amendment continues.  As SCOPE has often pointed out, since NY can’t get 2A repealed, NY State is trying to drive gun shops out of business. 

The following bill was passed and has been sent to Kathy Hochul for a signature.

A2882/S6649 requires gun shops to put a warning sign on their buildings. The warning sign would state: “Access to a weapon or firearm in the home significantly increases the risk of suicide, death during domestic disputes, and/or unintentional deaths to children, household members and others. If you or a loved one is experiencing distress and/or depression, call the national suicide prevention lifeline at 988.”

Firearms are now like cigarettes and alcohol, except the latter two aren’t constitutionally protected rights.

The law will be enforced by your local police: “The Provisions Of This Subdivision Shall Be Enforced Within Each Municipality By The Applicable Local Police Force, Including Town, City And Village Police Departments Which Officers Are Authorized To Issue Appearance Tickets. Appearance Tickets Shall Be Served Personally.”

Hey, it’s not like there is a lot of crime happening out there to keep them otherwise occupied.

The penalties for failure to comply: “A Violation Punishable By Imprisonment Of Not More Than Fifteen Days Or By A Fine Of Not More Than One Thousand Dollars, Or Both. Each Day That A Violation Continues Shall Be Deemed A Separate Offense.”  (Emphasis added.)

New York is an expert at pyramiding crimes as seen in the Trump trial in NY City.

This will also put business licenses in jeopardy

And don’t cross your local police, they have a get out of jail free card!

“No Licensing Officer, Local Government, Or Any Employee Thereof Shall Be Liable To Any Person By Reason Of Any Injury Or Damage Resulting From The Failure Of “Any Gunsmith Or Firearms Dealer To Comply With This Subdivision Or In Consequence Of Any Act Or Omission In Connection With The Implementation Or Enforcement Of This Subdivision.”

The police will have absolute discretion in performing their duty here and immunity from tortious conduct that may arise from their performance, even intentional misconduct. 

Here’s another one waiting for Hochul’s signature.

A9862/S8479 allow financial institutions to assign merchant category codes (MCC’s) to retailers who sell firearms and ammunition, thus allowing these financial institutions to potentially track and/or halt purchases from these retailers. 

A9862 & S8479 will require issuers of credit and debit cards to use specific MCC’s for firearms and ammunition merchants.

This legislation will allow financial institutions to distinguish firearm retailers from other general or sporting-goods retailers, as well as allow for the potential creation of a list or registry of privately owned firearms in New York.

In addition, it sets the stage for New York State to pressure retailers, wholesalers, financers and others to withhold firearm related services as the credit card company will have a list of them, based on MCC’s. The state already tried that and was slapped down by the Supreme Court in NRA v Vullo.*  But NY State has never let the Supreme Court stand in the way of NY’s lawless pursuit of neutering the 2nd Amendment.

*S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - NRA v Vullo (scopeny2a.org)

More Than Bump Stocks

Beware of liberal judges, they do not believe in the United States Constitution and will destroy your rights to achieve their goal – which is to destroy your rights.  Doubt that?  Let’s look at the recent decision on ‘Bump Stocks.’

Some quick background.

Semi-automatic firearms require a separate trigger pull for each shot.  Automatic firearms, (machine guns) require only one trigger pull for continuous shooting.  This has been the law since 1934.

After a “Bump Stock” was used in a 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued an interpretive rule concluding that "Bump Stocks" are machine guns, even though they require a trigger pull for each shot.

Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works, sued the government after he was forced to surrender several "bump stocks" under the ATF's rule. He argued that ATF incorrectly identified bump stocks as machine guns, and overstepped its power in banning them.

A Texas-based U.S. District Court first approved the ATF rule, but an appeals court overruled it and sent it back to the District Court.  The second time around, the District Court judge agreed that the ATF rule was illegal and likely to be rejected by other courts.

Of course, the Biden Administration appealed and the case eventually went to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS.)

The Supreme Court struck down the ATF ban on bump stocks.  SCOTUS found that the ATF did not follow federal law when it banned bump stocks.  The 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas was joined by fellow conservatives John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

This decision needs in depth examination as it highlights why leftist judges are such a danger to the Constitution.

Justice Clarence Thomas outlined the issue when he wrote, "This tragedy (the Las Vegas shooting) created tremendous political pressure to outlaw bump stocks nationwide. Within days, members of Congress proposed bills to ban ‘bump stocks.’ 

But the bills did not pass and so did not become law.  That’s how the Constitution works!  Congress must pass laws to put them in effect.

Instead, the ATF acted and outlawed “Bump Stocks.”

Why did SCOTUS rule against ATF?

In essence, the law Congress passed in 1934 and amended several ties afterwards clearly states that a machine gun requires only one trigger pull for continuous shooting.  A ‘Bump Stock’ helps to fire rapidly but requires a separate trigger pull for each shot.  A ‘Bump Stock’ does not make a gun into a machine gun as defined in existing law.  The ATF violated a law Congress passed.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the majority arguing that the majority got it wrong.  That’s fair, to question a decision.  Both sides do it, all the time.

But then Sotomayor goes too far when she is quoted as saying that it’s “deeply regrettable” Congress has to act.

At the highest judicial level, liberals like Sotomayor find it ‘deeply regrettable’ that proposed laws - that they like - have to go through the work of being passed by a Congress elected by “We the People’ in order to become laws!  They would much prefer their favorite proposals just be enacted by some executive agency appointees without ‘We the People’ having any say.  After all, Liberals know best!

This is not the first time Sotomayor has expressed dissatisfaction with the constitutional steps needed to pass a law and prefers executive agency shortcuts.  In another dissent, when a Barack Obama executive order was overruled by SCOTUS, Sotomayor complained that the people should not have to wait for Congress to act.

Justice Alito spoke for Conservatives when he wrote a short, separate concurring opinion on ‘Bump Stocks’ to stress that Congress can change the law to equate ‘Bump Stocks’ with machine guns.  He doesn’t regret that Congress has to pass a law for it to be in force; it might then reflect the will of the people and not just the will of the liberal elite. 

That’s it in a nutshell.  Liberals want to bypass the Constitution whenever it’s convenient - for them - and they will rule as such if they can get a majority.  The Constitution has no meaning to liberals like Sotomayor when it works against them.  Conservatives believe laws should be enacted following the Constitution, whether or not it is convenient.

The way to prevent liberal judges from ‘legislating from the bench’ is to vote.  Donald Trump explained it when he spoke at the National Rifle Association's Annual Meeting in Texas about not voting.

"But one thing I'll say, and I say it as friends, we've got to get gun owners to vote, because you know what? I don't know what it is. Perhaps it's a form of rebellion, because you're a rebellious people, aren't you? But gun owners don't vote. What is that all about?"

"If gun owners would vote, we would swamp them at levels that nobody's ever seen before.  So, I think you're a rebellious bunch.  So, let's be rebellious and vote this time."

Trump Trial Notes

It is difficult to get the straight story on the current Trump trial since it is loaded with complexities and not completely explained by much of the media (intentionally or not.).  For instance, what exactly were the 34 counts that Trump was charged with?  After all, at the bottom of this was a $130,000 payment to lawyer Cohen.  How did that payment get to be 34 crimes?

To understand, there are two things to remember: 

In the corporate world, one does not simply write a check.  There is an invoice (bill) and then entries are made into the books (ledgers) and then an actual check is written.  It seems that each of those steps was considered a separate “crime.”

And then Cohen was not paid in one check but over several checks written between February 17, 2017 and December 5, 2017.  So, each check resulted in multiple crimes repeated multiple times, resulting in 34 crimes. 

Here are the first 4 crimes, all revolving around 1 check (emphasis added):

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof:

(Crime 1) made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization;

(Crime 2) made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization;

(Crime 3) made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842460, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization;

(Crime 4) made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account check and check stub dated February 14, 2017, bearing check number 000138, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

Writing one check = four crimes.

Every time a new check was written, add three or four more crimes. 

If the whole bill had been paid with one check, there would only be 4 “crimes” and not 34.

The 34 crimes amount to an accounting disagreement as to how the payments were classified.  The prosecution claims the checks were falsely labeled as being for legal services. Trump’s lawyers claimed they were properly labeled because Cohen was serving as Trump’s attorney at the time. 

Would normal procedure (not involving Donald Trump) have been to negotiate a classification and pay any additional taxes (if there were any?)

Trump was accused of falsification of business records, which only requires someone to have “[made] or [caused] a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.”  Under New York law, that crime is a misdemeanor and it had already passed the Statute of Limitations so Trump could not be prosecuted on them, standing alone. 

The 34 misdemeanors become felonies if it’s proven the defendant falsified records “with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

What was the second crime that made the misdemeanors into a felony?

Prosecutors alleged that the second crime was against New York’s election law: 

Election (ELN) CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE 17, TITLE 1

§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more

persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.  (Emphasis added.)

The second crime, necessary to make the 34 crimes a felony was a misdemeanor that Trump had promoted his election as President.

On November 8th 2016, Trump was elected President.

On January 20th, 2017, Trump was sworn in as President.

The first check and associated entries were not made until February 17th, 2017, after Trump was already President. 

How could entries made after Trump was elected and inaugurated have made a difference?  If the entries had been labelled “boinking a bimbo porn star”, it would have been embarrassing but would not have affected the election.  Labelling them lawyer’s fees had no impact on the election.

Ah, but Cohen cut the check for $130,000 just before the election and, in return, got a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).  A conspiracy? 

First, Non-Disclosure Agreements are legal agreements.  There would not seem to be a crime.  The jurors had to determine whether a third crime was committed that made the NDA payment violate the election law.

Second, Cohen testified about a conversation he had with Trump on October 24th^, 2016.  But under cross examination, the defense produced text messages that the prosecution had initially hidden from the defense.  Why hide them?  Well…  The text messages written both before and after the phone call showed that the phone call was to Trump bodyguard Keith Schiller and lasted less than two minutes and was about harassing phone calls that Cohen had been getting.  Cohen claimed that he knew Trump was with Schiller.  The defense says Trump was not there. 

In any case, how much could have been said in such a short time about two subjects including an NDA that was legal?   Were they discussing a conspiracy about a legal agreement? 

Judge Merchan gave the jurors the option of finding that the “unlawful” action that violated the Federal Election Campaign Act was the NDA.

Bradley Alan Smith was initially nominated by President Clinton and  served as commissioner, vice chairman, and chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) between 2000 and 2005. He is one of many election law scholars that have written that the NDA was not a violation of the federal election law.  He was scheduled to testify as such in the trial, which would have killed this tactic by the prosecution. Judge Merchan ruled that “Smith may not testify…or offer an opinion as to whether the alleged conduct in this case does or does not constitute a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA").   As Smith later explained, "Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me.” 

So, Smith could testify but not on the central issue, of which he was an expert.  That explanation to the jury was left to Judge Merchan, who was not an expert.

The judge instructed the jurors that they must agree on the first and second crimes—that Trump falsified business records in order to cover up the election crime—for him to be convicted, but they can differ on the third crime, or the “unlawful means” to influence an election. Some jurors could think campaign finance laws were broken and others could think there were tax violations, for instance. 

So much for that quaint legal tradition about unanimous decisions.

In summary, the prosecution turned questions about accounting classifications of a legal agreement into the crime of influencing an election, after the election had occurred.

There is much more about this.  Serious constitutional issues.  For more on them, go to:

Trump Guilty Verdict: “There are some serious constitutional problems with this case” (legalinsurrection.com)

S9137A:  So Hunters Don’t Believe Hochul and Company Are Coming For Them

Larry DiDonato did a good job of outlining this in Outdoors on June 7th and we reprint it here with his permission.

                 ___________________________________________________

​New York gun grab may hurt hunters 

The New York State Senate recently passed a bill, S9137A, that bans the open carrying of rifles and shotguns in New York. It defines openly carrying a rifle or shotgun as doing so in a manner that allows the rifle or shotgun, or any portion of it, to be visible to others. Rifles and shotguns are also commonly referred to as “long guns.” The senate states the purpose of the bill is; “…to regulate the open carry of rifles and shotguns with enumerated exceptions in order to promote public safety and align with existing law in other states.”

Sponsor of the long gun carry ban, Deputy Senate Majority Leader, Micheal Gianaris, (D-Queens), said, “Making our communities safe starts with educating gun owners and limiting accessibility to weapons of violence. I am proud we are taking serious steps to tackle this critical issue. We must keep our communities safe and prevent guns from taking more lives.” 

I don’t know of any hunter or shooting sports enthusiast who considers firearms used as they enjoy their hobby, a “weapon of violence,” but it’s apparent Sen. Gianaris does. 

This bill does nothing to keep our communities safe. Criminals, intent on committing crimes with guns, will not be deterred by this legislation. Plus, long guns are almost never used in the commission of street, turf, gang, and drug fueled shootings, currently ravaging NY’s urban centers.

According to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Of all firearm-related crime reported to the survey, 86% involved handguns. The FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports show that 57% of all murders in 1993 were committed with handguns, 3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns where the type was unknown.” 

Later federal studies confirm the trend. When the FBI researched homicides to determine the type of weapon used in homicides committed in the U.S. in 2019, they determined rifles were used in just 2.6%, and shotguns in just 1.4% of those homicides. Handguns, not long guns remain the weapon of choice in most of the homicides committed in the US. 

Although the NYS bill banning the open carry of long guns claims to “promote public safety,” it does nothing to address the real issue of crimes committed by criminals with guns in our cities.  

The state Senate already passed its version of the long gun carry ban, but its companion bill in the state Assembly, A10052, currently remains in the Assembly Codes Committee.

In an interview with New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) President Tom King, he called upon all concerned citizens, especially hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts to immediately contact their assembly representative, regardless of their party affiliation, to object to passage of this assembly bill. Its imperative legislators hear from constituents expressing their disapproval of needless, harmful legislation that does nothing to fight crime, and makes law abiding long gun owners into criminals simply by carrying hunting and target shooting rifles and shotguns.

Tom King added there’s recently been a deluge of anti-gun and anti-hunting legislation in NY. This bill checks both boxes. It is both anti-lawful gun ownership, and anti-hunting. The NYSRPA president went on to say Democrats have a veto-proof super majority in both the NY senate and assembly and emphasized the most important thing people can do is vote in November. “What we are seeing is the result of losing elections.” Make sure you vote so we can achieve a more balanced legislative body. Call your legislator on this, and other anti-gun and anti-hunting legislation you find objectionable.   

While the current Senate and Assembly bills prohibiting the open carry of long guns tout some exemptions for police, military, military re-enactors, etc., in addition to those lawfully engaged in hunting and target shooting, there’s a problem. If you’re hunting and injure a deer for instance, and you track that deer onto posted property with a firearm, that used to be a mere violation in NY and you’d get a ticket for trespass while hunting facing a maximum fine of $250/and/or 15 days in jail. This new law makes the offense a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. The law follows a ridiculous theory established by NY’s CCIA where all NYS landowners must affirmatively post their property ALLOWING carrying of firearms. Otherwise, a hunter with a long gun who trespasses can go to jail for a year after being charged and convicted of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the 4th Degree pursuant to this long gun open carry legislative ban.

How does this bill “promote public safety”?  Locking up law-abiding hunters and target shooters who get caught up in loopholes that make them criminally liable for a serious gun charge do nothing to “promote public safety.” In fact, the legislature is defying a federal court ruling that already shot down the provision of NY’s CCIA requiring signage affirmatively permitting those with legal firearms from being guilty of a crime just by going across a private property line.  “A federal appeals court has struck down a New York State law requiring private property owners to post signs allowing concealed carry on property open to the public as part of a massive decision dealing with several separate challenges of the Empire State’s post-Bruen gun control legislation.” 

Assemblyman Chris Tague (R/C-Schoharie) said, "New York State continues to set the bar for some of the most constitutionally-infringing legislation when it comes to gun rights, and this bill is just another example. It's another attack on responsible gun owners and sportsmen, and should absolutely not be the priority for this government. The fact that the Democrats of this state would rather work on this as opposed to the immediate issues people are facing on the ground, like affordability and the ongoing migrant crisis that is draining this state's resources is frustrating to see. I'd much rather focus our time and energy on those matters."

This statement seems to sum up the frustration of many NY sportsmen, gun owners, in addition to those voiceless victims trapped in high-crime urban areas who seek effective redress to combat crimes committed by criminals with guns. ​​​​​

A resident of Durham, Larry is a retired captain with the  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

SCOPE Note: With the legislature closed down, hopefully for the year, we can hope this bill was not passed by the Assembly in their flurry of last minute activity.  But even if not passed this year, you can bet that a new version will be dialed up by Senate Democrats in January 2025.

Hunters, you have been warned!

NRA v Vullo

The Far Left seems to recognize no boundaries in pursuit of their goals.  They expect the public to quietly accept whatever they do, especially since most of the media will not criticize them.  The danger the Left is willing to assume is that they may push it too far and create pushback.  In the issue before us today, the pushback came from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

Too often we lose sight of those non 2nd Amendment other rights protected by the Constitution.  However, sometimes those other rights have an impact on 2A. 

Which brings us to the case of National Rifle Association (NRA) v. Vullo.

The NRA sued Maria Vullo—former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS)—alleging that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS regulated parties to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy. As DFS superintendent, Vullo had direct regulatory and enforcement authority over all insurance companies and financial service institutions doing business in New York. She could initiate investigations, refer cases for prosecution, notice civil charges, and enter into consent decrees. Although the NRA was not the directly regulated party here, Vullo used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRA’s business partners in the insurance industry. 

The facts.

 In a  1963 decision in Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, SCOTUS explained that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression” of disfavored speech.  SCOTUS ruled that even though a state regulatory commission lacked the “power to apply formal legal sanctions,” the coerced party “reasonably understood” the commission to threaten adverse action, and thus its “compliance with the commission’s directives was not voluntary.”

Fifty five years later, on February 27, 2018, Vullo disregarded the Bantam decision and met with senior executives at Lloyds of London (a huge multinational insurance company) and expressed her views in favor of gun control, and told the Lloyd’s executives “that DFS was less interested in pursuing” infractions unrelated to any NRA business “so long as Lloyd’s ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA.”   Vullo and Lloyd’s struck a deal: Lloyd’s “would instruct its syndicates to cease underwriting firearm-related policies and would scale back its NRA-related business,” and “in exchange, DFS would focus its forthcoming insurance enforcement action solely on those syndicates which served the NRA.”

Subsequently, on April 19, 2018, Vullo issued letters entitled, “Guidance on Risk Management Relating to the NRA and Similar Gun Promotion Organizations.”   In the Guidance Letters, Vullo “encouraged” DFS-regulated entities to: reevaluate, review and take prompt action on any dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations.

Vullo and Governor Cuomo also issued a joint press release echoing many of the letters’ statements, and “urging all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York” to join those that have already discontinued their arrangements with the NRA.

Fulfilling their part of the bargain, DFS subsequently entered into separate consent decrees with insurance companies that it had been investigating.  These companies agreed to not provide any NRA-endorsed insurance programs (even if lawful).

Vullo and the DFS’s lawyers had to be aware of the Bantam decision and know that a government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs in the hopes of persuading others, but she may not use the power of her office to punish or suppress disfavored expression. 

But legalities have never been an issue to the left when pursuing their goal of undermining the Constitution.

The NRA sued Vullo alleging that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated parties to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy.  Vullo / New York asked the federal courts to dismiss the NRA’s suit.

The District Court denied Vullo’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the NRA plausibly alleged that “the combination of [Vullo’s and Cuomo’s] actions . . . could be interpreted as a veiled threat to regulated industries to disassociate with the NRA or risk DFS enforcement action.”

On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed the District Court decision. It concluded that Vullo’s alleged actions constituted permissible government speech and legitimate law enforcement, and not unconstitutional coercion. The Second Circuit determined that the Guidance Letters and accompanying press release were not unconstitutionally coercive because they “were written in an even handed, nonthreatening tone and employed words intended to persuade rather than intimidate.”  (Was the 2nd Circuit reading the same guidance letter and considering Vullo’s meeting with Lloyd’s???)

The NRA appealed to SCOTUS and, last week, SCOTUS overruled the 2nd Circuit decision by a unanimous 9-0 decision.  Leftist Justice Sotomayer even wrote the decision.  The NRA plausibly alleged that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress gun-promotion advocacy.

The judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  (The NRA hasn’t won the actual case but the case is proceeding instead of being dismissed.)

In pushing this obvious violation of the NRA’s 1st Amendment Rights, Vullo and DFS may have opened a Pandora’s Box that the left will not like.

Breitbart Business Digest writes:

“Just as the NRA argued that Vullo's actions violated their rights, fossil fuel companies can now contend that insurance regulators' climate policies do the same. The arguments that the DFS used to pressure insurance companies to drop the NRA are almost the same arguments it has used to pressure companies to divest themselves from fossil fuels and stop insuring fossil fuel projects.”

“Insurers were being told to drop underwriting and investment in fossil fuels because activist "social movements" were likely to demand that they do so. Who needs to pass laws when just the possibility of leftwing activism is enough to trigger regulation?”

Let’s hope that government overreach and weaponization will suffer a significant setback.

Here is another reason why gun owners and lovers of the US Constitution need to vote.  The President nominates SCOTUS justices and the Senate confirms them.  A left leaning SCOTUS would be a clear and present danger to the Constitution.