Log in

from our SCOPE membership

  • 04/11/2024 12:57 PM | Anonymous

    The Fight Continues:  Assembly Bill 03855/Senate Bill 05763  by John Elwood

    The United States Constitution, ratified in 1788 and operationalized in 1789, is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government.  In it’s first three word ----- “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens.  Many people believe the Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, is the most important amendment because it defends the rest of the Constitution. 

    In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the “Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” 

                Since the creation of the United States Constitution, there have been periods in our history when different parties and organizations tried to circumvent the Second Amendment. A few examples of this include passage of the 2013 SAFE Act in NY State, the possible adoption of new merchant category codes for gun and ammunition purchases, the adoption of red flag laws, and Joe Biden’s continual promise to ban assault weapons.

    To fight against this continual effort by the gun control advocates, organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), New York State Rifle and Pistol Association NYSRPA), and Shooter’s Committee on Political Education (SCOPE) were founded.  SCOPE’s mission statement states,” to protect, restore, and expand the gun rights of all New Yorkers.”  Even with these gun control right organizations, gun control advocates continue their fight today.  New York State Assembly bill 03855 and New York State Senate bill 05763 are examples. 

                New York State Assembly bill 03855 and companion bill Senate bill S05763 establish requirements to purchase a firearm, shotgun, or rifle.  These requirements include:

    • -         Requires a person to apply for a hunting license prior to purchasing a shotgun or rifle.

    • -         Establishes additional requirements for all firearms, shotguns and rifles including:

    • o   Taking a five (5) hours gun safety course and exam.

    • o   Passing a shooting range test with 90% accuracy.

    • o   Providing notarized proof of a passed drug test.

    • o   Providing notarized proof of a passed mental health examination.

    • o   Providing proof of purchase of firearm and ammunition safe storage depositories.

    • o   Passing a criminal background check.

                Assembly bill 03855 was introduced and referred to the Assembly codes committee on January 3, 2024.  To date, the codes committee has not debated/voted on the bill because the Assembly is working on the State budget.  As of April 20, 2024, there will be 18 working days remaining in the legislative year.  A03855 ‘s sponsor is Chantel Jackson, from Assembly district 79 located in Bronx, New York City.  To date, Assemblywoman Jackson is the sole sponsor.

                The same as bill to Assembly bill A03855 is New York State Senate bill S05763, sponsored by Senator Kevin Parker from Senate district 21 located in Brooklyn, New York. Senate bill S05763 was introduced on January 3, 2024, and referred to the Senate codes committee.  Senator Parker is the sole sponsor for Senate bill S05763.  Both bill sponsors are from New York City where there are no SCOPE chapters. 

                SCOPE’s position is to OPPOSE these two bills. 

                  Assembly bill 03855 and Senate bill 05763 are good examples why SCOPE MUST continue to protect, restore, and expand gun rights of New York State citizens.  Gun control advocates will continue their attempts to circumvent the Second Amendment until they get their way.  ALL SCOPE members must write their legislators and oppose this legislation, bring new members into their chapters, and help write new legislation supporting the Second Amendment.  If we fail in this mission, our sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters will not have the same rights we have had in our lifetime.  Get involved and make a difference.

  • 04/09/2024 12:08 PM | Anonymous

    Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Are Like Guns by Tom Reynolds

    2nd Amendment defenders are used to the misinformation and lies from government officials concerning guns.  (Joe and Kathy, we are talking about you.) For those that doubt the deceptions, take a look at electric vehicles (EV’s) for a sample of the ‘straight shooting’ that comes from NY’s government. In home charging stations will be a necessity for EV’s but the entire picture is much broader and has deeper consequences than NY would have you believe. 

    Considering putting an EV charging station in your house?  The following information concerning EV charging stations from NY State’s website.* It presents a different picture thant Hochul and company present in their public statements.  After you see this, you should have some doubts about anything the NY government is saying about anything...if you don’t already.  (Since we already have experience with misinformation on firearms, why should electric vehicles be any different?)  

    Level 1EV charging stations are nothing more than a standard, 3 prong, 120v outlet.  A portable cord is used to charge the car.

    Chargers provide 2-5 miles of electric range for each hour of charging.  12 hours of charging will get you a maximum of 60 miles!  That’s less than an hour of highway driving.

    Note: This is barely practical only as a home use charging station.  Okay only for short daily commutes.  Presumably, you keep the battery charged to 100% by ‘topping off’ but the long recharge time eliminates longer commutes or any other extensive travel.  If you drove 100 miles, it would take 24 hours to recharge.

    Level 2EV charging stations use 208-240v and use a standard connector that applies to all cars except Tesla.  Tesla has an adapter.

    Chargers provide about 20 miles of range per charging hour.  12 hours of charging will get you a maximum of 240 miles.  That’s less than 4 hours of highway driving.

    This charging station could be used at home or in work places or parking garages but the car must be parked for several hours.

    Level 2 charging stations range from $1-$4,000 per port plus installation costs are $2-$10,000, inclusive of labor, materials and permitting.  (Estimates probably apply to home installation.  Commercial installation would probably be more expensive.)

    Note: This seems like the minimum charging level someone would want for convenience and necessary for any longer daily commutes, unless you like living on-the-edge of running out of battery on the road with a level 1.  (Unfortunately, you cannot carry an extra 5 gallon can of electricity for emergencies.) 

    Expensive upgrade.  Hard to imagine it would ever pay for itself in a home, especially if you need two EV’s for two worker households.  It gets even more expensive when you include the added cost of more expensive electric vehicles.

    This has some limited commercial applications.

    How many of these would employers install for their employees at $14,000 each plus extraordinary electrical upgrades.  Would the employer charge for their use? A 50 employee business would require a $700,000 investment, minimum.   

    Direct Current Fast Chargers(DCFC) require 3-phase power and up to 500V to provide 50-400kW of charging power. Two common DC connection standards exist and are available on many electric cars, except for Tesla, which uses its own connector.

    DCFC charging stations are about $25-$50,000 in equipment cost plus $50-$100,000 in electrical service upgrades.

    A DCFC can provide more than 100 miles of range in an hour.

    Note: Billionaires might get these for their home but these are exclusively for commercial use and not for use by the bourgeoisie.  And don’t expect motels to invest in these. 

    If you plan on taking a trip in an EV, you would have to plan for access into a DCFC charging station – and taking the time needed to recharge.  (And hope there is not a line!)  Don’t count on a motel or a friend’s house since their charging station probably won’t give you enough range. 

    If experience means anything, the NYS cost estimates are probably low.  In addition, switching from fossil fuel heating and fossil fuel cars to all electric heating and EV’s will necessitate a mammoth upgrade in the electrical supply system which will be reflected in your electric bill and inflation.

    The mileage estimates are, presumably, for unloaded vehicles.  Using a pickup to get a load from the hardware store or piling the family into the car will significantly decrease the range.

    The mileage estimates are, I’ll bet, for flat and level places.  NYS has a variety of environments and many people in NY are surrounded by hills, which will impact mileage estimates - negatively.

    Back on July 27, 2022, SCOPE did another email about electric trucks hauling stuff.**  It’s worth a reread. In addition, the part in the email about the increase in the copper supply needed to become all electric is a great example of government planning.

    This isn’t about whether or not you believe in the various climate change theories.  This is about the government being truthful in explaining and justifying the consequences of its actions.  Like everything about the transition from fossil fuels, this is horribly more complicated and expensive than the government would have you believe.  Kinda like gun control!

    Installing a Charging Station - NYSERDA

    **  S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Gun Owners Own Trucks, Too (

  • 04/03/2024 3:06 PM | Anonymous

    Albany Ethics-A Double Negative

    Albany politics seems to forever be a race to the bottom.  Here’s something you may not have read about that furthers that view.

    It recently came to light that NY Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie has been having an affair with a union lobbyist, probably since November.  (The explanations on the timeline do not always make sense.)  Heastie’s reaction to the affair being exposed is that it is none of the public’s business that he was having an affair with someone lobbying his office for money and laws.  Heastie seems to believe that NY City politicians, like him, would never let their personal lives interfere with their political lives.

    This is the tangled web as best we can unweave it.

    The Greater New York Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust (LECET) seeks to promote the use of unionized labor on New York construction projects and enlist public support for those workers’ wages.    The labor arm of LECET is the Mason Tenders’ District Council.  They deal with matters that regularly come before the NY Assembly. 

    LECET is what is lovingly called a lobbyist.

    State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie has reportedly been in a romantic relationship since last November with Rebecca Lamorte, according to the outlet NY Focus. Lamorte is one of four LECET officials listed as lobbyists for the organization in a disclosure covering January and February. The organization reported lobbying various Assembly members and state Senators on a handful of bills over those two months, ranging from budget bills to a new prevailing wage requirement.

    Following the New York Focus article on March 14, when questioned about his relationship with a lobbyist, Heastie replied: “I am never - again let me make that clear - addressing my personal life.”  (That’s called no comment, you are hitting too close to home.)   

    Obviously, a sexual affair between the NY State Assembly Speaker and someone who is lobbying the Assembly raises some ethical questions, but not in Heastie’s opinion.

    On January 8th, Lamorte met with Heastie’s senior staff concerning LECET’s top priority bill to promote the use of union labor at major State University of New York construction projects, according to a LECET spokesperson. 

    Sometime after the January 8th meeting, Lamorte told her boss, LECET Executive Director Dean Angelakos, about the relationship with Heastie. At that point, LECET’s compliance attorney, David Grandeau, advised that Lamorte should not lobby the Assembly, and Angelakos barred Lamorte from doing so.

    Per NY Focus, Grandeau said in mid March that Lamorte made LECET “aware” that she was “seeing the speaker” within the last 30 to 45 days, which could include sometime after January 8th, if you stretch it. 

    According to a March 11th letter drafted by the Assembly majority’s Counsel and sent to the Assembly majority, and obtained by New York Focus, the attorney confirmed that Heastie adopted a recusal policy in November which bars him from meeting with or making decisions about organizations linked to LECET*.  The letter stated that Senior staff would “advance a consensus decision” to Heastie concerning “any matters specific or unique to such organizations.

    The dates are confusing.  According to Heastie’s attorney, Heastie recused himself for dealing with LECET in November but Lamorte did not tell her LECET boss about the affair until later January.  Between November and January, wouldn’t someone in LECET be curious if Heastie had recused himself? 

    Going forward, and in the lowest traditions of Albany politics, Heastie’s staff would know about the affair with Lamorte but that would not affect their recommendations to Heastie about Lamorte’s lobbying efforts.  Albany is far above such butt kissing by political staff?

    When word leaked about the NY Focus investigation. Angelakos authorized compliance attorney Grandeau to confirm the romantic relationship to New York Focus. Grandeau added that having seen “what I guess they’re calling a recusal” letter from Heastie, he advised the union “that [Lamorte] not lobby the Assembly.”

    This public announcement reportedly made Heastie unhappy. ( Ya think!)

    Since 2014, the Mason Tenders union’s political action committee has donated more than $120,000 to Heastie’s campaign or political action committee, including $23,000 last year.

    In February, Michael McGuire, director of Mason Tenders’ District Council Political Action Committee made a $5,000 donation while attending a fundraiser for Heastie’s political action committee. He said that, at the time “I was not yet aware of the recusal policy.” (A LECET official was not aware in February of a policy in affect since November [or January?]  Certainly, when they accepted the donation in February, Heastie and his staff were aware of the recusal policy which was supposed to be in place since November.)

    The day before the news about the affair broke, March 13th, Heastie called a top official within LECET’s labor arm to return the $5,000 campaign donation. 

    Lamorte later sought a reversal of the policy based on the March 11th letter.  Grandeau responded that Lamorte should remain barred from lobbying the Assembly.

    However, a spokesperson for the LECET has told New York Focus that Lamorte can resume lobbying the Assembly — including Heastie’s staff — but not the Speaker himself.  (Try not to laugh – or cry.)

    Mike Hellstrom, co-chair of the Greater New York LECET, confirmed that Lamorte will remain their lobbyist in Albany. “Protocols are in place and being followed so that she can continue her work for us. People in public service can do their jobs ethically while keeping their personal lives private.” (Of course they can.  No need for ethics regulations in the NY Legislature.)  Hellstrom’s statement mirrors what Heastie told reporters: “My life will never be in conflict with my job.” 

    Hellstrom also said that Dean Angelakos offered his resignation as executive director of LECET and we accepted it.

    With Lamorte allowed to resume lobbying the Assembly, New York Focus asked LECET’s compliance attorney, Grandeau, for comment about LECET’s new leadership rejecting his advice. Two days later, Grandeau told New York Focus that he had resigned as LECET’s outside ethics counsel. 

    I was not fired,” Grandeau said. “…it was my decision, not theirs.”

    According to a LECET spokesperson, the group’s current leadership has been displeased with Grandeau over his role in disclosing Lamorte’s relationship and other matters related to the group’s lobbying filings.

    In summary,

    Heastie and Lamorte can continue their affair.

    The union head who banned her from lobbying the Assembly is gone.

    The union’s compliance attorney who recommended banning Lamorte from lobbying the Assembly is gone.

    Life in Albany continues as usual          

    So, Heastie and his staff are above the ethical issues that plague the rest of the world.  As testimony to that, in 2021, the husband of Heastie's Chief of Staff was sentenced to 76 months in prison and ordered to pay $136,000 to the Internal Revenue Service for his earlier guilty plea to cocaine trafficking and tax evasion charges. Brooks-Dennis apparently enjoyed a lavish / opulent lifestyle and never questioned where the money came from?

    *The March 11th letter:

    March 11, 2024

    To Whom It May Concern:

    In response to the request for confirmation regarding the Speaker’s recusal from matters relating to the Mason Tenders’ District Council of Greater New York, including laborers locals 66, 78, 79 and 108, and/or the Greater New York LECET Fund, please be advised that the following directive was communicated to relevant senior staff in November 2023 and remains in effect until further notice:

    • the Speaker will not personally attend meetings with the aforementioned organizations; and,
    • senior staff will come to and advance a consensus decision to the Speaker for any matters specific or unique to such organizations.
    Rebecca Mudie, Esq.

    Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding this directive as you implement your own internal protocols, and to the extent I am able to, I will happily provide additional information.


    Rebecca Mudie, Esq.

  • 04/02/2024 11:46 AM | Anonymous

    Myths and Common Sense  by Tom Reynolds

    Peter Mutuc recently did an article entitled: 10 Science Myths You Probably Believe (Thanks To The Movies).

    Two of Mutuc’s ten myths involve myths about firearms and we thought you might be interested.  None of this probably comes to SCOPE members as a surprise but this might be helpful in explaining to some of the gun grabbers about the misinformation that exists about firearms, much of it perpetuated by Hollywood.

    #1Silencers / Suppressors

    Modern silencers decrease the noise from a gunshot by around 30 decibels (dB). This isn't nearly enough to keep most guns quiet, as firearms typically produce around 150 dB.  Using a silencer can only really reduce gunshot noises down to the level of a nearby jackhammer. Even the firearms industry recognizes that the term silencer is a misnomer, and has shifted to calling them suppressors in order to more accurately describe what they do.  Nonetheless, silent gunfire remains one of the most widespread science myths in the history of Hollywood - as seen in the film adaptation of Hitman, the John Wick movies, and the Bond franchise.”

    #2 Impact of bullets

    “A common occurrence in action movies, people shot by guns are often shown getting thrown back by the impact as they would with a melee hit. However, bullets are not only designed for penetration but are also thousands of times lighter than any human body. This is why they tear through flesh and actually have a minimal impact on anywhere else apart from where they hit. While gunshots throwing people off their feet has been largely perpetrated by Hollywood blockbusters, the roots of this myth go back to classic Hong Kong action cinema - particularly the birth of gun-fu through the first John Woo movies.”

    On the topic of common sense issues…

    Georgia Senate Bill 189 passed their House by a vote of 101 to 73 and the Senate by a vote of 33-22, sending it to Gov. Brian Kemp for his signature or veto.

    Democrats slammed the bill, saying it would enable more baseless attacks on voters. 

    So, what is so “baseless” about it?

    The bill spells out what constitutes “probable cause” for upholding challenges to voter eligibility, which could lead to voters being removed from the rolls.

    Probable cause would exist if someone:

    • has voted or registered to vote in a different jurisdiction,
    • has registered for a homestead exemption on their property taxes in a different jurisdiction, is registered at a nonresidential address, or is dead.

    I’m going out on a limb and if the dead person shows up to challenge being deregistered, they will probably win and be reregistered.  The other challenges would prevent voters from voting in two different places.

    Oh yeah, there is something else in the bill the Democrats don’t like.  The bill would grant access to Georgia’s ballot to any political party that has qualified for the presidential ballot in at least 20 states or territories. The change could be a boost to independent candidates such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose campaign has spooked Democrats worried it could draw support away from President Joe Biden.

    Speaking of Robert F. Kennedy Jr…

    The Hill and Ammoland report that Kennedy has said, in the past, that he would get behind a bipartisan assault weapons ban, which the overwhelming majority of Democrats support and Republicans oppose.  (And if the Democrats could pass it with Democrat only votes, would RFK Jr. veto it for not being bipartisan?  If one Republican voted for it, would it qualify as bipartisan?)

    Going after people’s guns at this point in history is to me just going to cause more polarization and make it so that we can’t listen to each other anymore because we get put into these kinds of tribal silos which we have to somehow figure out a way to get past.”  (Don’t go after guns because of polarization and not because of the right to self-defense?  The “Going after people’s guns at this point in history” leaves open that there might come another time or set of circumstances where he’ll return to his past hostility to guns and decide the time is right.)

    I am not going to take people’s guns away. You know, anybody who tells you that we can end the violence to our children that’s going on now by removing people’s guns is not being truthful with you.”   (That is real common-sense talk about guns.)

    He is also quoted as saying: “I do not believe that there is, within that second amendment, that there’s anything we can meaningfully do to reduce the trade in the ownership of guns.”  (He is acknowledging that there are 2nd Amendment restrictions that many other gun grabbers ignore.  But, why would we want to reduce the legal trade in ownership of guns?)

    We cannot have any more school shootings even if that means protecting schools the same way that we protect Airlines.”  (Metal detectors at schools?  Xray all back packs?  He ignores that 100% of school shootings happen in gun-free zones.) 

    SCOPE could not find any positions on gun control by RFK Jr.’ VP candidate Nicole Shanahan.  However, one of the 3 main thrusts of her Bia-Echo Foundation is “social justice”.

  • 03/22/2024 11:35 AM | Anonymous

    Time is short to RSVP for the Members Meeting on April 20th starting at 10 AM.Lunch included.

    Montour Falls Moose Club 2096 State Route 14Montour Falls, NY 14865

    Hear updates on what is happening with 2A in New York State and what SCOPE and others are doing to protect your 2A rights.

    In addition, hear presentations from legislators. State Senator George Borrello has already confirmed and we expect others to confirm shortly.

    Attendance is free although donations are gratefully accepted.


     - you can respond to this email with names of those attending

    - you can print the Member Meeting RSVP form and mail in your RSVP

    - you can email with names of those attending

  • 03/21/2024 9:17 PM | Anonymous

    Another Lawsuit- Tasers and Stun Guns  by Tom Reynolds

    Ammoland reports that the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners have filed a motion for summary judgment with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a final resolution to its lawsuit challenging New York state and municipal laws prohibiting private citizens from possessing and using stun guns and tasers. The case is Calce v. City of New York.

    Given New York’s history of wanting to keep its peaceable citizens defenseless, it comes as no surprise they would remain an outlier in having a ban which prohibits people from owning electronic arms,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Second Amendment ensures our ability to possess and carry bearable arms, including those that were not in existence at the time of the Founding, yet lawmakers in New York believe they somehow have the ability to ignore that guarantee. Prior to Bruen, other courts have found these bans to be incompatible with the Constitution, and we believe this case should not yield a different result.”

    Joining SAF in the lawsuit are the Firearms Policy Coalition Inc. Each of the five individual plaintiffs in this case – Nunzio Calce, Allen Chan, Shaya Greenfield, Raymond Pezzoli and Amanda Kennedy – are represented by attorney David Jensen of Beacon, N.Y.

    As noted in the brief, “Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s protections simply because they were unknown to the First Congress than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment.”

    The brief filed today demonstrates that stun guns and tasers are protected by the Second Amendment and we demand a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the ban,” said SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This case was filed in March 2021, and it’s past time for the court to once and for all declare this law unconstitutional.”

    Note: SCOPE wrote about one of the cases that preceded this, way back in August 2021. S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Caetano Never Dies   It was about Massachusetts doing what New York is doing and how it took the US Supreme Court to slap down Massachusetts and its liberal judges who ignore the Constitution.

    SCOPE constantly stresses the need to vote.  You can check you voting status by going to our web page.

    S.C.O.P.E. - Shooters Committee On Political Education - Dedicated to preserving the 2nd amendment rights for the residents of New York State (

    On that page is Check / Protect and click on True the Vote

  • 03/20/2024 11:37 AM | Anonymous

    Election Season – a license to misinform by Tom Reynolds

    In what seems like a daily occurrence, more and more laws are being proposed that would require citizens to have a permit or license, pass a test, and perhaps even be covered by liability insurance in order to buy / sell / touch a gun or ammunition. 

    What if the need for a permit / license/ insurance were applied to exercising your 1st Amendment rights?  Or better yet, what if politicians were required to get a permit / license / insurance before exercising their 1st Amendment rights?

    With the election season upon us, we are in the silly season of outlandish statements to be printed as facts, as long as the statements are made by those on the left.  Some examples of this ‘misinformation.’

    The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is letting Texas start arresting and deporting people who enter the country illegally, by refusing to block a new Texas law. The justices, in a 6-3 decision, rejected the Biden Administration’s request to keep the Texas law on hold while a legal fight goes forward at a lower court. 

    The three liberal judges on SCOTUS dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the court “invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement.”

    The COURT “invites further chaos and crisis?”

    Will the left-wing media report that the chaos and crisis is already there, created by President Biden, and Texas is only trying to get the chaos under control.  Or will it report Sotomayor’s dissent as if it were fact?     

    A leftist SCOTUS’ justice made a political rather than a constitutional decision?  Say it aint so!

    Anthony Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to a security position in the White House.  In his January 28th, 2022 transcribed interview with the January 6 House Select Committee, Ornato told investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows push Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city.  Ornato also testified that President Trump had suggested 10,000 would be needed to keep the peace at the public rallies and protests scheduled for January 6, 2021. 

    AFTER Ornato’s testimony under oaty, the January 6 House Select Committee had claimed they had “no evidence” to support claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. 

    The Federalist reported on March 8th that the Committee suppressed Ornato’s interview from public release, until now.

    Will the NY Times and others report this or let their erroneous original anti-Trump reporting stand?  Does a bear…  Which is what the NY Times reporting does.

    By the way, after Ornato’s first interview - in an amazing coincidence - critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato began appearing in media sources such as the NY Times.  Could there have been committee leaks about Ornato’s interview and a concerted effort formed to discredit him in advance of his interview being made public?  Say it aint so! 

    On February 16, in a case brought by NY Attorney General Letitia James, New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ordered Donald Trump to pay $355 million of “disgorgement” penalties. The basis for imposing these extraordinary penalties was Trump’s supposed “fraud” of exaggerating the value of some of his properties on financial statements submitted to a bank. No one had been damaged by Trump’s conduct, and the bank in question had neither complained nor sought any relief.

    This judicial decision brought about an “oops” moment.

    Prominent investors immediately signaled their intent to halt their business in New York following the Trump verdict.  Real estate mogul Grant Cardone announced that his firm Cardone Capital would no longer underwrite New York real estate.  Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary vowed to no longer invest in the state as a result of the verdict.  Their basic thinking is that if the Attorney General can target a politically-disfavored individual like Trump, how could any person doing business in New York think they are safe from similar legal abuse?

    Recognizing the problem, Governor Kathy Hochul went on a radio talk show on February 18 in an effort to reassure the New York business community. She claimed that Trump’s case was an “extraordinary, unusual circumstance,” and therefore “law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers . . . have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior.”

    If you believe that smelly pile of ‘misinformation’, Hochul also has a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    And in further evidence Hochul was ‘misinforming,’ ten days later, AG James dropped her latest politicized case. The new target is JBS USA Food Company Holdings — the U.S. subsidiary of the world’s largest producer of beef.

    What did JBS do? 

    JBS had committed itself to Climate Change’s Net Zero by 2040.  AG James is suing them because: “The JBS Group, however, has had no viable plan to meet its commitment to be “Net Zero by 2040.”

    Well, since James is after those with an unrealistic Net Zero plan…

    In 2019, New York State adopted a Climate Act which committed the State to “net zero” emissions by 2050, and in 2022 adopted a Scoping Plan laying out how it was going to get there. The Scoping Plan has been called completely delusional and deceptive, and does not come remotely close to setting forth a realistic way to get to net zero. So, when is the AG going to bring a case against New York State under the same Executive Law 63(12) that was used against Trump and JBS?

    When is Hell freezing over?

    Batten-down-the-hatches defenders of the 2nd Amendment.  With the silly season now open for political speech without a license, expect more ‘misinformation’ about gun owners being extremist, gun toting, militarized crazies waiting breathlessly to use their high capacity ‘assault rifles’ to defend ourselves against misunderstood criminals who only turned to crime because our bourgeoisie society failed them.

  • 03/15/2024 6:21 PM | Anonymous

    Taxes, Corporations, and Other Myths  by Henry S. Kramer

    During the 2024 State of the Union (SOTU) Address, President Biden has again shown his defiance of constitutional limitations.  This would seem to fly in the face of his oath of office to ‘defend the Constitution against all enemies.’  He labels his opponent as a “threat to democracy” when the real threat to democracy is Biden. He has reportedly issued an executive order to register illegal aliens to vote, which is barred by most states (including NY) that require citizenship to vote.

    It is a myth that Congress can by statute law override a United States Supreme Court decision that was bottomed on the Court’s reading of the Constitution itself.  Below are some examples of this drawn from Biden’s SOTU speech.    

    Biden called for gun law reform that would violate the Supreme Court’s NYSRPA v. Bruen decision concerning Second Amendment rights.  In addition, he has championed many efforts that would leave the Second  Amendment intact but whose purpose is to destroy gun manufacturers, gun sellers, and make the cost of firearms unaffordable; which would effectively accomplish the same thing as repealing the Second Amendment.

    Biden’s latest student debt cancellation plan thumbs its nose at the Supreme Court’s holding that our presidents’ lack the power to give group debt forgiveness.  It is a fair inference that this was done to buy votes.

    Biden made the pledge to seek a national standard for abortion and he did it with the Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him.  (The justices kept decorum and showed no emotion, but his tone was defiant). It does not matter if you are pro or anti-abortion, SCOTUS has ruled that the federal government cannot pass a constitutionally valid nationwide abortion law.  The Court did not say if or when abortion was legal or illegal. The Supreme Court held that a national standard was unconstitutional.  Abortion law was for the states to decide.

    Biden continued his frequently used mantra “tax the rich”.  One of his favorites is now a tax on total wealth on top of the income tax. If you tax wealth, there is a constitutional issue.  Income taxes required a constitutional amendment because the founding document required apportionment of taxes between states, which an income tax does not do.  A wealth tax might require a similar federal constitutional amendment.  But that doesn’t stop Biden and the socialist left.

    A wealth tax is also unworkable, which also does not stop Biden.  A tax on unrealized capital gains is a tax on phantom income as gains in the stock market fluctuate from day to day - and sometimes go down, here today, gone tomorrow.  That is why there is no real gain until an actual sale.  In Biden’s first 3 years, the stock market went up, then down, then up.  If unrealized wealth is taxed when the market goes up, when the market goes down, unrealized losses should be deductible and, thus, lower federal tax receipts for that year.  Oops!

    Then there were his proposals that would fuel the inflation and shrinkflation, which he condemned in other parts of the speech. 

    He proposed raising taxes on corporations.  But it is an economic myth that ultimately corporations pay taxes. Who really pays them?  Real people do.  You do.

    Corporations may first look for a different format (a loophole) that would not be taxed.  Or, corporations may pay taxes and then pass the new corporate taxes on to consumers (inflation!).  The corporation may reduce dividends to stockholders (your pension plan and IRA) or downsize the amount of product in the same size package (“shrinkflation”).  Ultimately, natural persons pay the price of corporate taxes.  There is no free lunch.

    Left wing politicians love raising corporate taxes because consumers pay them indirectly as corporations pass through the tax as price increases.  Consumers are told to blame the “greedy corporations” for the price increases, not the free spending politicians who proposed the higher taxes.  (Note, several bills in Congress would add an excise tax of up to 50% on guns and ammo, which accomplishes the same thing; the corporation pays the tax and passes it along to consumers as higher prices.  The “greedy corporations” instead of the “greedy government” gets blasted for the price increases). 

    Keep in mind that every time taxes go up or the government grants new money to a group of people, new regulations are imposed.  Those costs add to why food, energy, and other purchases keep costing you more.  Joe Biden doesn’t solve our problems, he creates them.

  • 03/11/2024 3:42 PM | Anonymous

    Cotton Wins  by Tom Reynolds

    In 2020, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) wrote an op-ed for the New York Times suggesting Trump should use the military to quell the BLM/Antifa riots that were then taking over American city streets. Staffers for the NY Times went berserk that this opinion – contrary to their beliefs – was published in their newspaper.  This resulted in the resignation of the editor who approved the column.

    Senator Tom Cotton, Republican-Arkansas, took what appeared to be a victory lap over The New York Times as the Times reported on Democratic New York Governor Kathy Hochul sending troops to the Big Apple to crack down on crime in the subway system.

    Following a series of violent incidents in the NY City subway system, Governor Hochul announced a new five-point safety plan that includes bringing in hundreds of National Guard troops. A combined 1,000 personnel — including 750 National Guard troops, along with MTA Police — would be deployed in the subway system to help the NYPD conduct bag checks at the entrances of busy train stations in an effort to keep weapons off trains.

    Let me just be very, very clear. These brazen, heinous attacks on our subway system will not be tolerated,” Hochul said.

    What changed from Cotton’s suggested use of use of the military, other than the party of the person calling for this?  Inquiring minds – but not the NY Times - would like to know!

    Interestingly, NY City Mayor Eric Adams previously insisted that crime in NY City is down and it’s the “safest big city in America.”  (If this is the safest, what is crime like in those other big cites?)

    The New York Post Reports: “Subway crime spiked 45% in January compared to the same month a year prior — but dropped 15% in February, which Mayor Eric Adams credited to new NYPD patrols on the Subway…Crime on the subway is up 13% overall for the year, according to NYPD statistics.”

    Just like Joe Biden claims inflation has dropped from 9% to 3%, (without mentioning who was President when it was 9%,) Adams only sees a drop from 45% to 13% (without mentioning who was Mayor when it was 45%.)

    Mayor Eric Adams did try to grudgingly adhere to the ‘party line’ when he said, “I know how it plays on your psyche when you hear about some random acts of violence and that’s why we must be proactive.

    It gets even better.

    After the deployment began last week, straphangers entering the subway were greeted by camouflaged and gun-toting soldiers at bag-search checkpoints in a sight reminiscent of the city after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  The soldiers were carrying standard military issue M4’s, (which really ARE ‘Assault Rifles.”)  Unlike their civilian counterpart, the AR-15, (which really is NOT an Assault Rifle”) the M4s are capable of automatic fire.

    All this led to complaints that state leaders were militarizing the subway system, and NYPD Chief of Patrol John Chell accused Hochul of treating the subways like a “war zone.”

    This led to Hochul issuing the ban on “military-grade” rifles.  Under Hochul’s new directive, some guardsmen will still be armed with ‘assault weapons’ at certain postings throughout the subway, but will not carry them at the actual bag checkpoints.

    Stop the theater!” wrote former Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik in a post on X, adding that “the NYPD knows their job” and should be left to do it.”

  • 03/07/2024 3:34 PM | Anonymous

    Send in the Clowns  by Tom Reynolds

    An old song went: “Send in the clowns…don’t bother they’re here.”

    You would think that even clowns would know that you don't throw business to your enemies.  Not so, whoever is running the Biden administration.

    Distribution transformers are responsible for “stepping down” higher-voltage electricity generated from long distances away for use by end-use customers. They are commonly mounted overhead on utility poles or secured to the ground on a pad.

    In January of 2023, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a proposed: Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution Transformers (Proposed Rule). The Proposed Rule, if finalized, would marginally increase efficiency standards on distribution transformers and effectively require all distribution transformers to shift from the industry standard grain oriented electrical steel (GOES) cores to amorphous steel cores. GOES currently accounts for more than 95 percent of the domestic distribution transformer market and manufacturers’ production lines are tooled for designs that use GOES.

    The United States only has one small domestic producer of amorphous steel transformers. Moving to amorphous steel cores, as proposed by DOE, would require this sole domestic supplier to rapidly increase operations from its current market share of less than five percent to accommodate the entire distribution transformer market. This will further delay manufacturing production timelines – currently estimated to be a minimum of 18 months to two years.

    Sounds like a supply chain problem in the making.  And it gets even worse.

    Amorphous steel, is produced in the USA only in a limited supply. We would have to rely on imports from China, Japan, and Vietnam to supply the steel for American energy needs. The supply chain for the already vulnerable U.S. electric grid, and thus national security, could be endangered by relying so heavily on imports from the other side of the planet, from a hostile power such as China.

    The Proposed Rule would exacerbate existing challenges such as grid modernization, reliability efforts, as well as the ability to respond and recover from natural disasters.  All for extremely minimal efficiency gains for distribution transformers that are already meeting efficiency levels over 99 percent.


    The United States and Russia began shipping Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to Europe in 2017-2018.  

    Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 prompted European countries to halt most imports of Natural Gas from Russia via pipeline and switch to LNG.

    American LNG now represents roughly half the total shipped to Europe and about four times that of Russia.

    The Biden Administration would have us halt all the U.S. shipments to evaluate climate impacts and let Russia more than quadruple its role in keeping Europeans warm.

    In summary: we cut off Natural Gas shipments from Russia to penalize it for invading Ukraine.  Russia offset this by increasing its LNG shipments.  Biden’s stopping the USA’s LNG shipments will allow Russia to be able to ship many times more LNG. 


    The Biden White House announced “new executive actions to help promote safe storage of firearms … to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer.”

    The White House statement asserted, “Gun violence is the leading cause of death of children in America.”  (That is, if you consider childhood lasting until your 24th birthday!)

    This 1,254-word announcement offered details such as “76% of school shootings are committed with guns from the home.” (Which overlooks the fact that 100% of school shootings occur in “gun-free zones.”)

    The White House notes that a rising trend has been firearms stolen from unattended motor vehicles. (Cause and effect.  It doesn’t mention that law-abiding citizens are often compelled to leave their guns in their vehicles because of “sensitive places” laws which prevent them from entering sensitive places with lawfully-concealed defensive firearms.)

    The administration urges that state “laws should impose a clear standard to penalize those who do not safely store their weapons and whose weapons end up being used for violence.” (There isn’t any mention of prosecuting and locking up criminals who actually misuse those guns.  No reference to jailing and sentencing recidivist offenders.  The administration thinks it will be more effective to criminalize the victim of a residential burglary or car rather than jailing the miscreants who steal those firearms.)

    The White House says this project will save lives.  (By putting more blame on honest gun owners than on criminals who ignore safe storage laws like they disregard any other gun control law?  Good luck with that!)

    Another win for the clowns and criminals.

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

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

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

{ Site Design & Development By Motorhead Digital }

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software