Log in

Briefings  from SCOPE President, Tom Reynolds

  • 01/04/2023 10:43 AM | Anonymous

    GOA Lawsuits

    On Monday SCOPE updated you about the Antonyuk vs Nigrelli law suit and on Tuesday about the Gazzola vs Hochul law suit. 

    Today, we are going to do something very unusual.

    SCOPE does not make frequent or overt calls for contributions - as many other organizations do.  It’s not that SCOPE doesn’t need the money – we do.  In the past, our members have been generous without being asked.

    Today, we are asking you to make contributions to GOA-NY towards the costs of these lawsuits. Not many organizations will ask people to donate to someone else.  But we all have the same goal and if they can achieve it, it's a victory for all of us. 

    These lawsuits are very important in our fight against the unconstitutional 2A efforts of Kathy Hochul and the NY legislature’s gun grabbers.  As you know, the court system is our main – and perhaps currently our only – way in NY to stop these unconstitutional abominations.

    You can send a check (include a comment “GOA”) and we will pass the money on. 
    Mail to:

    PO Box 165
    East Aurora, NY 14052

    Or, donate on line through our web site:  Be sure and enter “GOA” in the comment section.


    The fastest way is to donate directly to GOA-NY

    Gun Owners of America – New York – Molon Labe

    Under “Note” please add SCOPE so GOA knows it is coming from a SCOPE member.

    You can also send a check to:

    PO Box 25532,
    Rochester, NY 14625

    Please add the comment “SCOPE” so GOA
    knows it is coming from a SCOPE member.


  • 01/03/2023 10:26 AM | Anonymous

    Gazzola vs Hochul  by Tom Reynolds

    On November 30th, SCOPE sent an email to members about Gazzola v Hochul, one of the lawsuits filed against Hochul’s unconstitutional gun laws. On December 5th, we sent a follow up email on it. They are available on our website under “Briefings” and provide more detail.

    The lawsuit challenges thirty-one inter-connected statutes that contain many new mandates impacting Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL’s) as both individuals and businesses. The thirty-one statutory provisions being challenged originated in four Bills, signed into law between May 30, 2022 and July 1, 2022.

    The 31 statutes are an attempt to drive many New York FFL’s out of business by increasing the cost of doing business and, thus, leaving fewer legal places to buy firearms in NY. They would also drive up prices in the gun stores that remain open. These new laws bury the FFL’s in paperwork and give the anti-2A NY government the opportunity to find an error in the paperwork, so the FFL’s license can be revoked.

    The Gun Writer reports that in the years before the Biden-Harris administration took over the White House, the ATF usually revoked an average of 40 Federal Firearm Licenses per year. But, in the first 18 months of the Biden administration, the ATF has revoked 273 FFLs.

    If successful, Hochul certainly hopes that other anti-2A states follow her example, so she can say that “New York is leading”; (leading in infringing on our rights.)

    The lawsuit charges: “…the new laws collectively impair and impede the ability of the Plaintiffs to engage in the lawful commerce of firearms and to host a gun show, and to serve as a conduit for those seeking to exercise their fundamental Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The new laws also violate the Fifth Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs, including the right against self-incrimination.”

    Some of the specific issues cited in the lawsuit:

    • The NYS Police become the “Point of Contact” for the federal NICS background check;
    • A “security plan,” including a “safe,” “vault,” or “secured and locked area on the dealer’s business premises” and the separate storage of ammunition is required;
    • A very expensive “security alarm system” is required;
    • No entry of persons under eighteen years of age without a parent or legal guardian;
    • Mandatory, semi-annual submission of the Book of Acquisitions and Dispositions (A&D Book) to the NYS Police;
    • Access to inventory records “at any time” by “law enforcement agencies;”
    • Authorization to the Superintendent of the NYS Police to “…promulgate such additional rules and regulations as the superintendent shall deem necessary...”
    • Restriction against the sale of body vests;
    • Establishing a new, standardized, classroom and live-fire course and test necessary for concealed carry handgun permits;
    • Need a license to purchase a semi-automatic rifle;
    • Requirement of an ammunition background check.

    This lawsuit charges NY State with:

    Gazzola asked for a declaratory judgment that all thirty-one (31) new laws, rules, and regulations shall be struck down.

    Not trusting the Hochul administration, the lawsuit further requested: “…the appointment of a special referee or magistrate to monitor any actions by the Defendants and other associated offices and agencies…to monitor any claims of future Defendant compliance with their responsibilities…”

    A hearing was held on December 1st before Judge Brenda K. Sannes, the Chief U.S. District Judge. She was an Obama appointment in 2014. (She is one of the results of gun owners who don’t vote.)

    The attorney for the plaintiffs is Paloma Capanna.

    Judge Sannes quickly denied the lawsuit’s request for temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction to stop the laws from going into effect.

    This decision does not stop the lawsuit from going forward but does stop an injunction from temporarily halting its enforcement.

    Frankly, the chances of winning in NY State have always been slim but this is such a slap-in-the-face to the Bruen ruling that it should do well if it gets before the U S Supreme Court.

    An Emergency Motion for a hearing before the U S Supreme Court has been filed, including a “Rule 11 Petition for Writ of Certiorari” because the case is of national interest.

    Reports are coming in that the U S Supreme Court may take up several NY State gun cases on an expedited basis. Let’s hope so!

  • 01/02/2023 7:28 PM | Anonymous

    Antonyuk vs Somebody  by Tom Reynolds

    Antonyuk vs Bruen was formerly renamed Antonyuk vs Hochul and is now renamed Antonyuk vs Nigrelli (Nigrelli is the new head of the NYS Police).  It is one of the big lawsuits against Hochul’s unconstitutional Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).  The CCIA affects New York State Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f). 

    Antonyuk is being primarily funded by Gun Owners of America (GOA) in this expensive legal endeavor.  SCOPE has contributed toward the expenses.

    A statement in one legal filing defines the situation very well: “…the CCIA is…breathtaking in both its scope and its blatant unconstitutionality.”

    It is worth noting that the lawsuit is filed in Federal Court and not in the NYS Court system since the latter is filled with Cuomo appointees.  It also expedites its trip to the US Supreme Court. Of course, the federal courts have many Clinton, Obama and Biden appointees to get past.  Thankfully, there are also judges nominated by Reagan, the Bushes and Trump.  Elections do have consequences.

    As it has bounced through the legal system between Circuit Courts and District Courts, there have been a number of judicial opinions going in opposite directions.  See SCOPE email of November 17th which laid out the situation at that time.   S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Playing Ping Pong with Gun Owners (  We won’t try to take you through the confusing numbers of Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions and Stays as Antonyuk is still alive and fighting its way through the judicial system.

    Instead, we will give you the current status, as we understand it.  What the law is today.  (Disclaimer, SCOPE does not give legal advice.  You are reading a non-attorney’s interpretation of the situation, bolstered by several articles in reputable journals and conversations with an attorney.)

    CCIA is currently New York State law - at this moment - even though it is working its way through the legal system.  The NYS government can – currently - enforce these amendments to the State’s Gun Law during CCIA’s current judicial journey.

    There is a minor exception:  the “Sensitive Locations” prohibitions to airports, places of worship, and private buses are temporarily not in force.  (But no civilian may carry a firearm in airports under federal law.) Houses of worship and private buses can devise their own rules for the carrying of firearms.  All other CCIA “Sensitive Location” provisions remain in force – at this moment.

    After the CCIA was allowed to stay in force, an Emergency Petition was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to reverse the 2nd Circuit Court’s ruling and, in effect, put a hold on enforcement of CCIA.  (We’ll keep you informed of this as events unfold.)

    Each U.S. Supreme Court Justice oversees certain circuits and that justice deals with Emergency Petitions from that circuit.  Probably unfortunately, Justice Sotomayor – who is not 2A friendly - oversees the Second Circuit.  But she has allowed the case to proceed and gave NYS until January 3rd to respond.   

    Sotomayer had criticized the Supreme Court for overturning precedents when it overturned Roe v Wade on abortion.  Sotomayer dissented in the Bruen decision but it is now precedent.  So, the question is whether she will disregard the Bruen decision precedent – or not.  (Sotomayer, like most of the liberal leadership, is not big on consistency when consistency gets in the way of their ambition.)     

    Once New York State files its response, there isn’t a timeline for Sotomayer’s ruling or the next step.  And where it goes after the Sotomayer decision depends on the decision, so that is the subject for another e mail, sometime after January 3rd.   (Note today’s date!)

  • 12/22/2022 10:30 AM | Anonymous

    A Christmas To Remember  by Tom Reynolds

    The July 4th 1776 Declaration of Independence from Great Britain had real world consequences for the signers.  One of them, Benjamin Rush, recalled: “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after the other, to the table of the President of Congress, to subscribe what was believed by many at the time to be our own death warrants?”

    While independence was being celebrated in Philadelphia, 23,000 British soldiers and 10,000 Hessian mercenaries were being unloaded from ships in NYC Harbor, where George Washington, by order of the Continental Congress, had to defend it.  At some level, Washington must have known that the city was not defendable against the combined army and naval forces of Great Britain.

    On August 26th, the first battle began on Long Island and the right wing of the American forces was about to be cut off and destroyed.  But a group of Americans who were variously called “Washington’s Immortals” and the “Maryland 400” did not retreat. Instead, they made a suicidal charge which bought time and allowed the American army to survive.  For their efforts, the Americans were bayoneted by the Hessians.

    A large portion of the American army had retreated to Brooklyn with the East River at their backs.  The British generals did not recognize the appalling state of the Americans and, more importantly, remembered their horrendous losses taking Bunker Hill. So, they laid siege and used the Royal Navy to attempt to cut off the East River from retreat.

    Washington’s only chance was to cross the mile wide East River - with its treacherous tidal currents - to the temporary safety of Manhattan.  Security was airtight and so secret that John Glover, the leader of the “Marblehead Regiment” of mariners that would ferry the army across, was not told of the purpose until it was time to man the boats. The boats were a combination of rowed and sailed boats.  The crossing would be made in total darkness in a horrendous rain storm with the mariners depending on their experience to guide them to the other shore. 

    The tides and winds cooperated for the first two hours and multiple crossings went well.  Then, the tides and winds shifted, and the mariners were unsuccessfully rowing against tides and wind, making it impossible to complete the retreat before sunrise and the British becoming aware of what was happening.  Suddenly, the winds died and shortly thereafter shifted in the American’s favor.

    When dawn arose, Americans were still in Brooklyn, but a thick fog covered the Brooklyn side, but not the Manhattan side.  A fog was very unusual at that time of the year and it hid the Americans and allowed the complete evacuation.  Only one boat and three men were captured by the British.

    Eventually, the colonial army was completely driven out of New York and it retreated across New Jersey to a place in Pennsylvania called Valley Forge, where things became even more desperate.

    The enlistments of the bulk of his army were due to expire in a few weeks and there was little hope of many reenlistments.  Not just because of the devastating defeat in New York but the army was undersupplied in almost every area; many soldiers had no shoes and had been wearing the same clothes – now rags - for months.  Food was scarce.  Defeatism ran through the army.

    There is no record of Washington contemplating giving up.  Instead, Washington gained control over whatever negative emotions he had and formulated a plan, which led to the most important Christmas in American history.

    On the early evening of December 25, 1776, with the temperature barely above freezing and in a freezing rainstorm that lasted all night, the Continental Army loaded onto boats and they crossed the ice clogged Delaware River in three groups.  The crossing was so treacherous that one group did not make it across and a second group, that did make it across, turned around and went back.  Only Washington’s group was able to march to the attack.

    Hours behind schedule, with one-third strength, the  army arrived at their target, Trenton New Jersey.  Officers reported to Washington that the ice storm had soaked the muskets and many could not fire because of wet powder.  These officers suggested that the attack be abandoned.  Washington’s reply was the equivalent of “fix bayonets”.

    While the enemy was yawning and waking up, what looked like the army-from-hell had come screaming from the depths to kill them; the Continental Army was in rags with long hair and matted beards coated in rain and mud.  The battle was brief and the Hessians surrendered. 

    In what was the potential breaking point of the Revolutionary war, when all hope seemed to be lost, Washington did not lose hope.  When his officers despaired, he never lost sight of his goal.  He and his army persevered and they eventually won.  They set an example that should live today; we’re Americans, we’d cross a frozen river on Christmas to kill our country’s enemies. 

    Of late, our forefathers have come under a lot of undeserved criticism.  All but forgotten is the immense personal courage that it took to sign the Declaration of Independence and the physical courage for the “Maryland 400” to make a suicidal attack. As Americans, we have a lot to be thankful for at Christmas and those that risked their lives to gain us our freedom need to be honored, not denigrated.

    Luck certainly played a part in the successful American Revolution: the unusual fog covering the retreat from Brooklyn, for instance.  At times, God is on our side.  Another reason to be thankful this Christmas.

    Today, many are dejected and in a funk over the elections.  Summoning the energy to continue the fight to preserve the Constitution seems beyond some people’s wills.  To them it would be easier to, in a very real sense, surrender to the likes of Alexandria Octavio-Cortez and tell her, “You win.  We give up.  Do with the USA what you will.”   

    We need to remember that many of us took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  That oath had no expiration date!  If you didn’t take that oath, it’s not too late to commit yourself to that principle. 

    Thomas Paine wrote, “These are the times that try men’s souls.  The sunshine soldier and the summer patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country…”

    Are you a sunshine soldier and summer patriot that will find other excuses to occupy your time, in this modern crisis, and let the Constitution be shredded by the forces of Socialism?  Do you believe our current situation is less winnable than it appeared on Christmas morning, 1776? 

    Paine also wrote, “Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered.”

    When we were born in the USA, we won the lottery!  It’s time to pay the price of that lottery ticket.  Our forefathers were willing to pay that price and we need to join with them. Are you willing to stand up and fight for the USA: its Constitution; its traditions; its future; and your family?  The choice is clear - get engaged or surrender.

  • 12/20/2022 10:53 AM | Anonymous

    O Canada  by Tom Reynolds

    On November 29th, SCOPE wrote about Joe Biden’s struggles with the truth.  S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Biden’s Meanderings (  Then on December 12th, we wrote how the news media tends to give a heavy leftward slant to the news, so the lies and mis-information of Biden, and other Liberals, do not reach the majority of Americans.  S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Pit Bulls and Propaganda ( 

    Lying is not limited to just the United States.  Not facing blowback on their lies, Liberals worldwide are empowered to double down.  Our neighbor to the north is no exception.

    The liberal movement to ban all guns from civilian ownership is alive and well in Canada.  Their gun grabbers are like American gun grabbers in that they keep coming back with more attempts at gun control.  And like American Liberals, they can’t stop lying about what they are doing.

    For example, Canadian proposed law Bill C-21 got an amendment that included a schedule of long guns to be criminalized.  Trying to hide what they are doing, Liberals deny that any hunting arms will be caught in the ban, even though this is easily shown to be a lie.

    Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino tweeted: “Don’t believe the hype. We are focusing on assault-style firearms, not hunting rifles.”

    Bill C-21 goes beyond even the most charitable definition of the term “assault style,” which in Canada typically refers to rifles with pistol grips, black coloring, semi-automatic action and other military-inspired aesthetics. Dozens of firearm models included in the Bill C-21 amendments have wood stocks and actions that do not allow rapid fire.

    “Mendicino said in the House of Commons: “We are not targeting law-abiding gun owners. We are not targeting guns that are commonly used for hunting.”

    The Bill C-21 ban list applies to law-abiding gun owners; it seeks to criminalize behavior that has previously been legal and regulated. Of course, the proposed legislation has no effect whatsoever on Canada’s gun criminals, who have already abandoned their adherence to firearms legislation.

    Liberal MP Yasir Naqvi said: “We respect the sustenance rights of Indigenous peoples. We are not targeting those rights whatsoever.”

    C-21 proposes to ban quite a few firearms that are currently in active use among Indigenous hunters, trappers and outfitters. While Bill C-21 doesn’t place any specific curbs on Indigenous hunting rights, it will obviously affect the ability of Indigenous Canadians to hunt as it would become a crime to have their guns outside the home, without explicit authorization.

    Liberal MP Taleeb Noormohamed tweeted: “Let’s be clear: we’re not banning hunting rifles & shotguns.”

    In 2020, the Trudeau government banned more than 1,500 types of firearms that it deemed to be “assault-style;” the list was largely driven by aesthetics. This time around, the ban is so sweeping that it will criminalize the gun of hunters who have avoided firearms that carry even a whiff of military aesthetic.

    Mendicino also said  that the bill will only “go after those AR-15-style firearms that were used in the likes of Polytechnique

    Ecole Polytechnique was a 1989 mass shooting in which 14 people were murdered by a Ruger Mini-14, not an AR 15. (The official coroner’s report into the massacre concluded that the rate of fire was immaterial to the number of victims, and that the gunman likely could have murdered just as many with a bolt action rifle.)  Bill C-21 would ban numerous firearms that could not be more different from an AR-15, including several antique models of break-action shotguns.

    Liberal MP Pam Damoff said in the House of Commons: “The government has been very clear that it is not targeting the guns commonly used for hunting.”

    Bill C-21 does ban many guns “commonly used for hunting.” However, the law's defenders claim it’s possible that the legislation’s creators weren’t intending to do so.  (Oops, I didn’t know the gun was loaded?)  Apparently, many of those pushing Bill C-21 know little about firearms. Liberal MP Michael McLeod, a hunter and gun collector and a tentative opponent of Bill C-21, said he’s often in caucus meetings with urban Liberals who “see guns from a city/urban standpoint and look at it through that lens.”

    At SCOPE we tend to focus on laws and actions that directly affect firearms but those that indirectly affect us are just as dangerous to our rights.  We cannot lose sight of the impact of the Liberal media on most people.  I’ll bet Canadians are mostly reading about C-21 not affecting hunting.

  • 12/16/2022 10:59 AM | Anonymous

    Supreme Court and Contracts  by Tom Reynolds

    There is much controversy, name calling, misinformation and confusion in the liberal media over the U. S. Supreme Court, because of some recent decisions.  The core issue is actually much simpler to understand than often presented.  Let’s try to simplify things. 

    Examples make the points clearer:

    Suppose you agreed to buy a house for $100,000 but, at the closing, the seller wanted $105,000 because of inflation between the signing of the contract and the closing.

    An “originalist” judge (as are 4 or 5 members of the U.S. Supreme Court) believes that contracts mean what the parties understood them to mean when they were created; what the signers intended them to mean.  He’d decide on $100,000 as the selling price. 

    Leftist judges believe in a flexible contract, (as do 3 liberal judges on the Supreme Court), where the current social, political and economic consequences are more important than the intentions of the signers.  A contract doesn’t mean what the signers understood it to mean but can be reinterpreted by judges in the name of “Social Justice”.  He’d probably rule that $105,000 is the selling price.  (That you only have a $100,000 mortgage is your problem.)  

    Another example:

    Suppose that in 1950, your grandfather gave $10 million to Syracuse University for an endowment to fund “scholarships for Syracuse University football players”.  The president of Syracuse agreed, in writing, to the terms.

    In 2020, Syracuse University used some of the money to fund scholarships for Syracuse University women soccer players.  As the grandchild, you objected and it went to court to be settled.

    An “originalist” judge will rule that the contract meant American football as it was understood to mean by your grandfather and Syracuse University.  Football is still basically American football as your grandfather knew it.  As laudable as the University’s intentions may or may not be, it is bound by the terms of the contract, as understood by the signers.

    Leftist judges might rule that the endowment does cover women’s soccer.  Soccer is known in other countries as football; American soccer players participate in international football tournaments. And, under a federal law, women now must have more access to sports and this would help the University comply with the social justice aspects of the law; the current university president must deal with changing times and not be handcuffed by a 70 years old agreement.   Current University administrators cannot be constrained as they adjust to current society’s needs (as they and the judge see them, not as your grandfather saw them.) 

    If the leftist judge’s rulings became generally accepted, contract law would be meaningless and a basic underpinning of society would be destroyed.

    Now, apply that to US Supreme Court decisions.

    The US Constitution is a contract.  In 1789, a contract was drawn up between the people of the 13 states, the states themselves and the federal government.  It created the federal government and spelled out what the federal government could and could not do.  All 13 states signed on to it.  When new states joined the union, per the method laid out in the Constitution, they agreed to abide by the Constitution.

    Under the United States Constitution, we have the ability to change it through the amendment process.  If enough people believe that society has changed enough to make some part of the Constitution – or all of it – no longer appropriate, we can change it. 

    The process is not easy, in order to prevent fads.  Our Declaration of Independence tells us why: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.”   (Those Founding Fathers were really smart…and they didn’t even have access to the internet.)

    Until amended, the Constitution means what it meant when it was signed.

    This, of course, ties the hands of the left who want only to be bound by their unbounded ambition.

    The Constitution has worked very well and has transformed the United States into the most powerful economic and military society in the history of the world.  It’s worked.  Tweak it through amendments, but recognize that its core values are still valid. 

    We haven’t been perfect but what product of mankind has been perfect?

    And when we identified a problem that needed changing under the Constitution, we amended it; the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments for example.

    And if we made a mistake in amending it, the 18th Amendment for example, we repealed it, (the 21st Amendment).  But while the 18th Amendment was the law of the land, the government enforced it and those that skirted it were criminals.

  • WHY

    12/15/2022 5:41 PM | Anonymous

    WHY  by Tom Reynolds

    Why is it unamerican for the Census to count Americans?

    Why is Russia influencing American elections not okay but illegal aliens voting in American elections is okay?

    Why was Biden blackmailing Ukraine’s president okay but Trump asking about it is an impeachable offense?

    Why is a man pretending to be a woman okay and we have to also pretend it’s okay?

    Why is there no such thing as gender but we need a female president?

    Why is it that 20 year old’s cannot drink beer or buy semi-automatic guns in New York State but 18 year old’s can vote?

    Why should people who have never been slave holders pay reparations to people who have never been slaves?

    Why is it that we are responsible for things that happened before we were born but criminals are not responsible for their current activities?

    Why is it that people who never went to college should pay off the college loans of people who went to college?

    Why is it that if you cheat to get into college you go to prison but if you cheat to get into America you go to college for free?

    Why is it racist to refer to Covid as the China Virus even though it started in China but it is okay to label violence as gun violence?

    Why is killing murderers wrong but killing unborn babies okay?

    Why are Republican “election deniers” bad but a 2016 “election denier” can be the Democrat House Minority leader?

    Just asking for a friend.

  • 12/14/2022 6:23 PM | Anonymous

    Election Thoughts  by Richard Rossi

    Our Midterm elections are over.  Unfortunately, the "Red Wavenever materialized to save our Republic. I say Our Republic because that is what the midterm election was all about.  

    This was not about political parties: Republican vs. Democratic.  This went way beyond that.  This was a defining moment for our Republic. This was our Democracy, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our Rights and Freedoms as Americans on the ballot.

    They lost.  

    A quote by Alexander Hamilton seems appropriate: " If it is asked, what is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws."

    Somehow, the Democratic Party – which ignores our constitution and laws - was able to make Abortion and the January 6th Insurrection their agenda - and it worked!  

    I am sure the analysis will go on for weeks, trying to make "common sense" of exactly what transpired. I, for one, don't have any explanation.  Our voting citizens must have been living in an alternate universe to want this agenda to continue.  I cannot believe that our citizens did not come out in record numbers to restore our Republic. 

    Our economy is in the toilet, we have runaway inflation and spending, crime and violence are rampant across America and unconstitutional laws are being passed in defiance of our Constitution/Bill of Rights. We lost our energy independence and school parents are being labeled by Biden’s D.O.J and F.B.I. as domestic terrorists for standing up against the woke agenda in our schools. Law-abiding gun owners are being attacked while criminals are given a "free Pass" under Social Justice policies and by liberal Attorney Generals, DA's and judges.   

    Closer to home, in Delaware County, we did well at our "local Levels''.  We were able to retake the 19th Congressional District back into Republican hands with the win of Marc Molinaro. Elise Stefanik, George Santos and Claudia Tenny also won their congressional elections.  Peter Oberacker was re-elected to the NYS Senate. The Assembly saw Chris Tague, Lester Chang and Brian Maher win.  And last, but not least, John Hubbard is our new Delaware County Judge; a true supporter of our Constitution and our Second Amendment Rights and Freedoms.

    However, and unfortunately, the Albany Democratic regime was successful on the executive level.  Hochul, DiNapoli, James and Schumer (Governor, Comptroller, Attorney General and Senator) all remain in power.  Electing those four was a sad day for our Second Amendment Rights, in particular, as well as our other Rights and Freedoms.  This was a "Gut Punch'' to self-defense rights in America. 

    In retrospect, after the NYS Safe Act was passed in 2013, we failed to defeat Andrew Cuomo and he was re-elected our governor in the 2014 elections. NYS gun owners failed to come to the forefront and take him out. 

    The question now is: how do we take back New York State?  Unfortunately, NYC and several big liberal upstate cites, like Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Albany give the edge to the Democratic establishment.  

    On the county level, Lee Zeldin was the clear winner; however, the votes in many of these county regions are low because of population. 

    Kathy Hochul won 13 NY State counties with 3,024,061votes.

    Lee Zeldin won 49 NY State counties with 2,697,796 votes.

    However, here is another interesting statistic; there are at least 4.5 million gun owners in NYS!  What does this tell you?

    As of November 2022, the total statewide registered voting population is 13,125,900 (Active: 12,124,242 - Inactive 1,005,658)!  What does this tell you? 

    Where were the citizens who love our country?  Have we no American Patriots any longer?

    I would like to leave you with a quote by Samuel Adams: "To have a villainous ‘ruler’ imposed on you was a misfortune; however, to elect one yourself was a disgrace."

    America really needs an awakening! If this continues, our Republic will never survive to be enjoyed by our children and grandchildren. Pay heed to both quotes by Hamilton and Adams before it is too late.

    God Bless the United States of America.

  • 12/13/2022 12:56 PM | Anonymous

    At Large SCOPE Directors

    Each SCOPE County Chapter Chair is automatically a member of SCOPE’s State Board of Directors.  There are also “At Large Board Directors” who are elected by the membership by written ballot.  An At Large Director is equal in all respects to other board members.

    This is an opportunity to “step up” in the fight to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights and to participate in and help set the direction of SCOPE’s efforts. 

    The Board meets in person at the Members Meeting (in April) and the Annual Banquet (usually in September) and probably 1 other time in central New York.  It meets by ZOOM 2 or 3 other times and occasionally by ZOOM as needed (usually on Saturdays.)  Issues are sometimes discussed by E-Mails between board members in what are not official meetings but give guidance on issues to the Board’s Officers.

    If you are interested, please send a notice of your candidacy and a biography, postmarked by January 1st to: 

    PO Box 165
    East Aurora, NY 14052

    Or E-Mail it to:


    The biography will be printed in the February edition of Firing Lines.  (We’ll help you edit it, if you need help.)

    Below are some excerpts from SCOPE’s by-laws which outline the position, qualifications and procedures.

    At-large directors shall be elected through ballots mailed to the members in advance of the annual meeting of members. (The ballots will be included in the Firing Lines which comes out in early February.)

    Ballots shall be returned from the members and postmarked no later than the specified required postmark date.  That date shall be no fewer than 14 days prior to the date of the annual meeting of members. (The date of the Annual Meeting will also be announced in the February Firing Lines.)

    The At-large Directors shall be elected to hold office for two-year terms

    Directors may be elected to any number of consecutive terms.

    Directors must be at least 18 years of age and must also have been a member in good standing for at least 2 years prior to their notice of candidacy. The State Board of Directors may waive the two year requirement.

    To become an at-large candidate a member must give a notice of candidacy and a biography by January 1st to the election committee. The member will become a recognized candidate unless the election committee can show cause for ineligibility.

    In order to be elected as an At-Large Director, a candidate must get at least 35 votes.

  • 12/12/2022 11:52 AM | Anonymous

    Pit Bulls and Propaganda  by Tom Reynolds

    Why didn’t Republicans win big?  Election history and most major issues were on their side.  Did abortion overshadow crime, inflation and immigration numbers?  Is “it’s the economy” no longer operative?

    Or something else?

    Fox news is the only reliably Republican / Conservative news channel and it consistently draws about as many viewers as the left-wing cable channels MSNBC and CNN combined.  But, combined, the leftist ABC, CBS and NBC news draws 3 times as many viewers as Fox.  Combine those three with MSNBC and CNN and 4 out of 5 news viewers are getting a left-wing slant on the news. 

    Could left wing propaganda, playing constantly, have brain washed voters?

    Read a story about election fraud and anything Trump says will have added to it “without proof”.  Question the 2020 election and be labelled “election denier”.

    On the other hand, Hakeem Jeffries just replaced Nancy Pelosi as Democrat House Minority Leader.  He tweeted, “The more we learn about 2016 election the more ILLEGITIMATE it becomes. America deserves to know whether we have a FAKE president in the Oval Office. #Russian Interference”.  He sounds like a “2016 election denier” and “Russian Interference” is “without proof”.  How many stories label him as such?

    How much coverage did “Russia Collusion” get after it was proven to be a lie?

    Hunter Biden’s “computer from hell” and various other accounts tying Joe Biden into using his offices for profit were suppressed.  A few leftist media are admitting the laptop story is true - but then drop it.   

    When articles label the 2020 election as stolen, will the media stop adding “without proof”?

    How much did those issues influence voters in 2020 - if publicized?

    The why and when issues are presented are also worth noting.

    Just before the election, every day, there was at least one front page story on a major issue.  Each was written to downplay Republican positions and emphasize Democrat positions; crime, immigration, inflation and the economy were not major problems threatening the core of America but abortion and gun control were huge crises.  

    Military recruiting is reported to be down.  Reasons given for that are: mandatory vaccine; labor shortage; low unemployment; schools shut down; not meeting physical educational or moral requirements; criminal records; medical issues.  Notice what’s missing from reporting?  Not a mention of the military going Woke!  Apparently, brainwashing the military into believing they will be putting their life on the line for what the woke says is a racist, white supremacist nation is not a disincentive to joining up.    

    Left wing media also waited until post-election to deliver bad news.

    After the election, headlines read, “Rising costs straining college athletic budgets”.  Had inflation changed from before the election?  Answer: only that the media did not want to make voters more conscious of inflation before they voted.

    Woke Disney announced huge layoffs - after the election.

    A crypto currency company – whose founder was a HUGE Democrat donor - collapsed into bankruptcy after the election and billions are missing.  The media is more interested in who Trump dines with.

    A post-election newspaper article happily reported that election problems were minimal and proved it…by reporting only on minimal problems.  Somehow, it missed Maricopa County in Arizona.  Try this link for a credible story on major election problems that the media somehow missed: Maricopa's Election Was A Bigger Disaster Than People Realize (

    In June, the Gannett chain, which owns hundreds of newspapers across the country, scaled back its opinion pages in an effort to combat a perception of Gannett having a political bias. (Ya’ think!) 

    Gannett found that young readers in particular "…often can’t tell the difference between news reporting and opinion, especially online," and readers "…often mistakenly believe that news stories are dictated by the paper’s editorial side," according to the Post.  (Mistakenly believe news stories are dictated by the editorial side?)

    My local newspaper is a Gannett chain paper.  After Trump’s 2016 election, for the next 21 days there were 20 negative editorials about Trump, one of which was on the front page – and not labelled an editorial.  In that same period there was 1 Trump story that was neutral; not positive but neutral. Maybe there is a reason that young readers can’t tell the difference. 

    One of the strategies of the left is to blame their opponents for what they are doing.  Remember all the coverage about “Democracy being on the ballot” which was supposed to convey that it was Republicans endangering Democracy.  Until news becomes reporting and not advocacy, Democracy will be on the ballot but not in a way portrayed by the media. 

    Right issue, wrong party.

    So, what do we do about it?

    First, we must eliminate disappointment over the lack of the anticipated “Red Wave” as that disappointment influences our perception. If you were hoping to win the $2 billion Power Ball lottery and only got the 2nd prize, you may think “what might have been” but you should be happy because you just won $1 million.  We won the House and we now have a dog-in-the-fight.  (The question remains: is it a Poodle or a Pit Bull?)

    And through no fault of our own or the Republican Party, Elon Musk has the left in a panic because Twitter will stop unfairly censoring Conservatives.  Anyone who disagrees with the left is labelled misinformation – by the left – and they want Twitter to protect us from it.

    No thank you.

    Wealthy Republican supporters and Republican election committees should concentrate less on advertising and more on gaining control of some media outlets.

    The Republicans now control the House and we should expect a dead stop in the left’s expansion and a roll back of some of the left’s victories over the past two years. But reasonably, the left will control the Senate and the Presidency so the House can’t roll back everything.  What we don’t need is more reaching across the aisle with their lips.  We need leadership that will take the hits from the left-wing media and produce some victories.

    A Pit Bull.

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