Seems reasonable.  If you’re dead you shouldn’t vote.

The law requires registrations to be cancelled when voters fail to respond to address confirmation notices and then fail to vote in the next two general federal elections. In 2018, the Supreme Court confirmed that such removals are mandatory.

In July, Judicial Watch filed a federal lawsuit against New York State and New York City election officials for failing to remove potentially hundreds of thousands of ineligible voters from New York City’s voter registration rolls - as federal law requires. The lawsuit details how New York City removed only 22 names over six years. In all, “more than 600,000 voting-age citizens, per year, are estimated to have changed residence in New York City during the five-year period from 2016 through 2020.”

And NY City must be the healthiest place in the world since almost no one appears to have died and needed to be removed from the voter rolls.

Judicial Watch notes that “Yates County, one of the smallest counties in New York, with a current total registration of about 14,500 voters” made 1,251 removals under this NVRA provision during the same six-year period.

Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections, and New York City’s rolls are some of the dirtiest in the country,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

New York City’s may be “some of the dirtiest” but not the only one.

In February, 2022, Judicial Watch announced that it settled its lawsuit against North Carolina and two of its counties after they removed over 430,000 ineligible names from the voter rolls.

A 2020 letter from Judicial Watch to Allegheny County, Pennsylvania led to the removal of 69,000 outdated registrations.

Kentucky began cleaning up hundreds of thousands of old registrations in 2019 after it too entered into a consent decree in 2018 to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

California also settled a NVRA lawsuit with Judicial Watch that requires the removal of as many as 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter rolls.

In October 2020, Judicial Watch released a study that found 353 counties in twenty-nine states had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens.  (More voter registrations than citizens old enough to vote, i.e., counties where registration rates exceed 100%.)

Bloated voter rolls don’t automatically mean voter fraud but they indicate that the opportunity for voter fraud is there.  In the 2020 election, adding bloated voter rolls to the practice of ballots being mailed to all registered voters further compounded the opportunity.

Even though New York City intentionally ignored the NVRA, the ethics of the political bosses in New York City – such as former mayor Bill DiBlasio - are so beyond question that they would never have taken advantage of this gigantic opportunity for voter fraud in 2020.  (Sarcasm intended.) Ditto for the political bosses in Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Newark NJ, etc.

Pulitzer versus Nixon  by Tom Reynolds

What do you suppose the reaction of the New York Times and the Washington Post would be if some politician was awarded the “Richard Nixon Good Government Prize” for outstanding public service?  Outrage?  Screaming editorials demanding the award be refused?  How could anyone accept an award named after Nixon?

But those same papers (and others) cannot stop bragging about receiving Pulitzer Prizes.

Is Joseph Pulitzer the newspaper equivalent of Richard Nixon?  Does a bear…?

Yellow Journalism is variously defined as: sensationalism; tantalizingly lurid; crude exaggeration; biased; scandal mongering; little or no legitimate well-researched news; using eye-catching headlines for increased sales.  Everything the free press is NOT supposed to be.

And the two uncontested fathers of Yellow Journalism are William Randolph Hearst and…Joseph Pulitzer.  Yes, that Joseph Pulitzer.

Competing in the NY City market, both founded, practiced and encouraged all the above adjectives applied to Yellow Journalism. Pulitzer and Hearst both aligned themselves with the Democrat Party – the party of Tammany Hall and of New York City corruption.  Both spread sensational and fact-free accounts that helped involve the United States in the Spanish American War.  Obviously, not candidates to be icons of the free press!

So, why is Pulitzer enshrined while Hearst is largely forgotten or negatively remembered?

Hearst outlived Pulitzer by more than three decades and spent his considerable fortune on wine women, song, multiple mansions and a Hollywood actress mistress. 

Pulitzer left part of his fortune to award this prize (and $15,000 - tax free).

Since journalists write the books and articles and profit by the prize, guess who gets the better press?  If you have any doubt, read the history of Yellow Journalism and see how both are labelled the fathers but Pulitzer gets “kid glove” treatment while Hearst’s sins are front-and-center. 

Does the left leaning media put their biases aside when awarding the prize?  The 19-member Pulitzer Prize Board is comprised of major editors, columnists and media executives in addition to six members drawn from academia and the arts.  Lots of conservatives in that group? 

In 1962, Citizen Hearst: A Biography of William Randolph Hearst by W. A. Swanberg was highly recommended for the Pulitzer Prize in Biography, but denied by the board. Its subject was not an "eminent example of the biographer's art as specified in the prize definition."  In contrast, a New Yorker writer’s autobiography about his surfing days and At Home with the Marquis de Sade were “eminent examples” of biographies awarded prizes.

In 2003, the Pulitzer Board refused to revoke the award won by former New York Times reporter Walter Duranty denying the Ukrainian famine in the Soviet Union. The New York Times itself called his work “some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper." (Not a tough bar to jump over.)

The 2018 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting was awarded to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting on what is now known as the Russia Collusion Hoax.  The Pulitzer Board refused to recall the prize, even after it was proven to be a hoax.  The New York Times and Washington Post decided that if they won an award, there is no reason to give it back. 

Given its history, the Pulitzer Prize is an apt name for the award as it reflects both the donor and the recipient’s ethical commitments to journalism.

The next time you see someone being lauded for the Pulitzer Prize, now you know the story.  Has anyone ever asked the award recipient: how can you accept an award in Joseph Pulitzer’s name?

Perhaps, after a long life, Donald Trump will leave money for “Trump Prizes in Reporting”.  Can you imagine…can you just imagine the media reaction!

Mass Shootings That Weren’t  (Defensive use of guns…)  by Tom Reynolds

Criminal use of guns usually makes the headlines.  Defensive use of guns…not so much, as that would justify gun ownership.

The left-wing media concentrates on incidents when guns are used in mass shootings.  What about defensive use of guns that stopped likely mass public shootings?  John Lott has produced a list of concealed handgun permit holders that stopped likely mass shootings, since 2014.  It’s a long list that the main stream media has somehow managed to overlook.  

It is not a list of all defensive gun uses but only those that stopped a likely mass shooting.  It’s probably not all of these incidents since the media doesn’t cover them very well.

For more detail on all of these incidents, go to the link at the end of this post.

Greenwood, Indiana, July 17, 2022

A heavily armed man had murdered three people and wounded three others when a 22-year-old man legally carrying the gun fatally shot him.

Charleston, West Virginia, May 25, 2022

A man started firing an “AR-15 style firearm” into a crowd. A woman, who was legally carrying a gun, shot and killed him.

South Fulton, Georgia, May 3, 2022

A teenager fired his gun at multiple people. Two men responded by firing back and killing the shooter.

Phenix City, AL, April 13, 2022

After a dispute from earlier in the day, two men returned.  One got out of his vehicle and shot at four people. One of the intended victims with a concealed handgun permit, returned fire, striking both suspects.

Portland, OR, February 19, 2022

A homeowner shot multiple people at a demonstration, killing one woman and injuring several others. A demonstrator, who is licensed to conceal carry a firearm, shot the homeowner.

South Central, Nebraska, October 22, 2021

A fired employee returned to the facility and killed two employees and injured another before another employee shot and killed the gunman.

Lancaster, Pennsylvania, October 17, 2021

A shooting between two teenagers ended when a concealed handgun permit holder intervened,  shooting one of the participants.

Syracuse, NY, August 31, 2021

A property manager saved several lives when he used a legally possessed handgun to fatally wound a man who had opened fire on a crowd.

San Antonio, TX, August 11, 2021

A woman who crashed into a parked car and then began shooting indiscriminately as people came out of their homes. An armed resident shot the woman to death.

Fort Meyers, Florida, July 22, 2021

A convicted felon, with an illegally possessed gun, fired multiple shots into a crowd before a bystander confronted the attacker. The felon stopped attacking and “threw his gun in a parking lot.”

Chicago, Illinois, July 4th, 2021

Three people standing in an alley were shot before a witness with a concealed carry license shot at the gunman 

Arvada, Colorado, June 21, 2021

A good Samaritan fatally shot a gunman who had just killed a police officer. The Samaritan was mistakenly killed by responding officers.

Fort Smith, Arkansas, May 15, 2021

A man shot an elderly woman in her apartment and then began shooting at people in neighboring apartments. A man used a rifle, not a concealed handgun, to stop the attack.

Metairie, Louisiana, February 20, 2021

After murdering two people and wounding others, armed employees and customers, all with concealed handgun permits, returned fire and eliminated the threat.

Weslaco, Texas, August 17, 2020

A man with an AK47 was planning to shoot people at a Walmart. A customer and security guard held the man at gunpoint and the man put down the gun. The man had another gun on him, which he pulled on police, who returned fire and killed him.

Dallas, Texas, July 25, 2020,

Three men were shot and a woman was hit by shrapnel when someone opened fire outside a sports bar.  He was confronted by armed patrons and they exchanged gunfire.  The shooter fled.

Brownsburg, Indiana, July 16, 2020,)

A 22-year-old man attacked two cemetery workers, killing one.  He shot a third man who was legally armed and shot back, fatally wounding the attacker.

Hummels Wharf, PA, July 11, 2020 

A man killed his ex-wife and another man in the parking lot of a restaurant.  A restaurant customer, who is licensed to carry a firearm, shot and wounded the shooter.

Louisville, KY, June 27, 2020

A man shot a handgun into a park crowd.  Several bystanders returned fire, shooting the assailant in the leg.

Kwethluk, Alaska, May 16, 2020

Aa 19-year-old man, broke into the village public safety building dressed for combat. He staged rifles inside, and activated the fire alert system and shot at responding officers. A resident armed with a rifle, was able to get the shooter to drop his weapon.

Tulsa, Oklahoma, March 27, 2020

A woman started firing at a group of people who were standing in a parking lot.  An armed citizen shot and killed the assailant.

Near Fort Worth, Texas, December 29, 2019.

Three people, including the shooter, were shot in an attack in a church.  The attacker died after being shot by two of the parishioners. Four other parishioners also drew their permitted concealed handguns.

Duncan, Oklahoma, November 18, 2019

A gunman murdered two people in a vehicle before a bystander with a gun confronted him, causing the gunman to turn the gun on himself.

Newnan, Georgia, August 13, 2019

A gunman intended to shoot up a bar when an off-duty employee took a small caliber rifle from his SUV and shouted at the gunman, who opened fire, hitting the employee.  The gunman fled but was later arrested.

Colonial Heights, Tennessee, February 13, 2019

A shooting at a dentist office in Colonial Heights, Tennessee was stopped by a concealed handgun permit holder. After the killer fatally shot his wife, he turned his gun on other people in the office.  A patient shot the killer and kept him covered until police arrived.

Birmingham, Alabama, October 27, 2018

A masked man entered a McDonald’s restaurant and immediately started firing his gun. A concealed handgun permit holder returned firing killing the attacker.

Louisville, Kentucky, Wednesday, October 24, 2018

A white racist murdered two blacks in a Krogers but a white bystander with a concealed carry permit engaged the murderer.  Multiple rounds were fired and no one was injured.  The murderer fled the scene and was later taken into custody.

Titusville, Florida, August 4, 2018

A gunman opened fire at a park full of kids.  The gunman was confronted by a citizen with a concealed weapons permit.  The gunman pointed the firearm at the concerned citizen who shot the gunman.

Tumwater, Washington, June 18, 2018

An attacker carjacked a vehicle, drove to Walmart, stole ammunition and continued shooting at people. He unsuccessfully tried to carjack another vehicle, seriously wounding the driver before two armed customers shot him dead.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Thursday, May 24, 2018

A man shot at people from outside the front door of a restaurant.  An off-duty security guard and another man who was legally open carrying a gun shot and killed the attacker.

San Antonio, Texas, December 7, 2017

A man with a gun was about to start shooting a father’s children as the children were walking out of a restroom.  The father shot and killed the attacker.

Rockledge, Florida, November 17, 2017

A man killed one person and severely wounded another in a parking lot and then continued shooting inside a car repair shop.  Two other workers, both concealed weapons permit holders, engaged in a shootout that left the suspect wounded.

First Baptist Church of Sutherland Spring, Texas, November 5, 2017

A former NRA instructor, who lives next door to the Church where 26 churchgoers were being murdered, grabbed his AR-15-style rifle after hearing the gunfire and went over to investigate. He shot the murderer in the leg and torso before the murderer fled the scene, but was later arrested.

Clearlake Oaks, California, October 23, 2017 

A shooter killed one person and wounded seven in a rampage that started in a neighborhood and continued to two gas stations and a church.  A gas station vendor exchanged fire and a concealed carry church usher eventually held the murderer at gunpoint until police arrived.

Arlington, Texas, May 3, 2017

A man, who had already killed one person, was shooting at the front door of a restaurant as customers were fleeing.  A concealed carry customer, who was dining with his wife, shot and killed the murderer.

Townville Elementary School, September 28, 2016  

A 14 years old boy killed his father and then began shooting at a school playground.  One student was skilled and three were wounded.  A volunteer firefighter, who possessed a valid firearms permit, restrained the shooter until law enforcement officers arrived.

Lyman, South Carolina, June 30, 2016

A man started shot three people in a nightclub.  Permitted concealed handguns were allowed in bars in South Carolina and a permit holder was able to shoot back, wounding the shooter in the leg and stopping him.

Winton, Ohio, Sunday, July 26, 2015

A shooter fired at four different people. A legal concealed carry holder returned fire.  No one was hit and the shooter withdrew.

Conyers, Georgia, Sunday, May 31, 2015

A man came into a liquor store firing a handgun, killing two people.  A customer fired back at the murderer.  The assailant fled but later died.  

New Holland, Wisconsin, May 5th, 2015

A man pulled up to the crowded fire station parking lot full of children and firefighters and began firing in the air and at his vehicle.  He also pointed the firearm at individual firefighters.  Two firefighters who have concealed weapons permits pulled their guns on the gunman who ultimately complied and was disarmed.

Chicago, Illinois, April 19, 2015

An Uber driver with a concealed carry permit pulled a gun and opened fire on a man he saw firing a pistol into a group of people.  The shooting stopped when the assailant was wounded several times.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 22, 2015

A man in a barber shop was arguing and took out his gun and opened fire on customers and barbers.  Another man outside heard the gunfire, ran into the shop, took out his own gun and opened fire, striking the assailant in the chest.

Darby, Pennsylvania, July 25, 2014

A convicted felon killed a caseworker during a regularly scheduled appointment.  The doctor had his own gun and returned fire, hitting the murderer three times and critically wounding him.

Chicago, Illinois, July 7, 2014

A man fired on a group of people leaving a party, only to be shot himself by one of the victims, a military service member with a concealed carry permit.

Portland, Oregon, January 11, 2014,

A man was ejected from a nightclub, but he returned 30 minutes later with a gun and shot a bouncer and two others.  A second bouncer, a concealed handgun permit holder, fatally shot the assailant.

UPDATED: Compiling Cases where concealed handgun permit holders have stopped likely mass public shootings (crimeresearch.org)

Idiots in High Places  by Tom Reynolds

Supreme Court Associate Justice Elana Kagan commented on the Supreme Court and its integrity in a speech in Montana, that was unusually critical of the Supreme Court.

“If over time, the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for a democracy.” 

I thought the Supreme Court’s job was to interpret the US Constitution and not make decisions based on their “connection with public sentiment” (or whatever is a hot topic on CNN).  If you believe her position, fire the justices (including her) and take a national poll on Constitutional issue lawsuits.  (By the way, that poll would lead to Tyranny of the Majority, which is another Constitutional issue of which Kagan is unfamiliar.)

Kagan continued: "I think people are rightly suspicious if one justice leaves the court or dies and another justice takes his or her place and all of a sudden the law changes.” 

The answer to that is, “Get it right the first time.” 

Is she familiar with the Dred Scott and Separate but Equal decisions which had broad support in “public sentiment” but were eventually reversed? 

Later, the Warren Court found many things in the Constitution that even the authors of the Constitution did not know were there; but those were okay because Kagan likes them. 

She continued. "The way the court retains its legitimacy and fosters public confidence is by acting like a court.” 

Legitimacy comes from the court basing decisions on the written Constitution - that’s doing its job and “acting like a court”.  The purpose of courts is to decide issues of law based on facts such as what is written in the Constitution. 

Another Associate Justice, Sonia Sotomayer, believes in “do as I say not as I do”, but got it right at least once: “The task of a judge is not to make the law - it is to apply the law”.  Kagan is as unfamiliar with that quote as she is with the U.S. Constitution.

A more important question about the Supreme Court’s integrity that needs to be addressed is, how did an idiot like Kagan get on it?

And under the category of playing too much football without a helmet:

Indianapolis Colt’s General Manager Chris Ballard recently said: “I’m not anti-gun, but I’m anti-military style weapons. It blows my mind the way that an 18-year-old kid can walk in and buy an AK-15 automatic weapon.”

As I’m sure you all know – but Ballard apparently does not - the correct terminology is an AR-15 or AK-47, neither of which is an “automatic weapon”.  In fact, it would be illegal to sell either of these, anywhere in the USA, IF they were an automatic (machine gun). 

Perhaps Ballard believes, as Barack Obama did, that: “it’s easier for you to buy a firearm than it is for you to buy a book”. 

I’ll bet Ballard watches “John Wick” movies and thinks they are real.

Ballard took over as the Colt’s GM before the 2017 season.  In the succeeding 5 seasons his record is 41 wins and 40 losses and he has never finished higher than 2^nd.  I’d suggest he stick to football but, apparently, he isn’t particularly good at that, either.

HR1808  by Tom Reynolds

Many gun owners don’t vote.  We have to change that and Democrats are trying to help us. 

A recent vote in Congress emphasizes the need to vote in order to elect legislators who will protect our 2^nd Amendment rights. The House of Representatives narrowly passed a sweeping Modern Sporting Rifle ban in a last-minute vote before the chamber left for its August recess.  The House passed  HR1808, which aims to regulate the Modern Sporting Rifle by banning the sale, manufacture, or transfer of a wide range of rifles commonly used by Americans.

Why does every vote count?

The vote was 217 to 213.  Two Republicans, Chris Jacobs and Brian Fitzpatrick voted for the ban.  (Jacobs recently dropped out of his reelection campaign in the 23^rd Congressional District due to blowback from SCOPE and other 2A defense organizations when he said he supported the ban.)  Had those two voted against the ban, there would have been a tie and since there is no tie breaking vote in the House, it would not have passed.

The bill, H.R. 1808, was sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), who believes stabilizing braces turn AR-pistols into an “automatic weapon.”

In a statement, President Biden applauded the decision.

If Republicans hold-the-line, the bill is unlikely to become law since it should NOT pass the Senate; it would need the support of 10 Republicans to pass. 

In addition, the Supreme Court established a “common use” test in which firearms are protected under the Second Amendment if they are commonly used for lawful self-defense. A bill such as HR1808, which targets commonly used firearms, would be unlikely to be found constitutional, even if it were passed into law.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) admitted during the hearing that the purpose of HR 1808 is to ban firearms in common use.  He should know about the Supreme Court’s “common use” principle, but the gun grabbing left does not care about things like the U.S. Constitution, as it gets in their way.     

The new federal Modern Sporting Rifle ban would ban nearly all ARs, AKs, AR pistols (and even many handguns and shotguns), making it illegal for a person to import, sell, manufacture, or transfer the following:

All semi-automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of the following features:

a pistol grip;

a forward grip;

a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock;

a grenade launcher; 

barrel shroud;

a threaded barrel.

All semi-automatic rifles that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 15 rounds.

Bump stocks and any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle but not convert the rifle into a machinegun under NFA definitions.

All semi-automatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of the following features:

a threaded barrel;

a second pistol grip;

a barrel shroud;

a capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip;

a semi-automatic version of any automatic firearm.

All semi-automatic pistols that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 15 rounds.

All semi-automatic shotguns that have at least one of the following:

a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock;

a pistol grip;

a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds;

the ability to accept a detachable magazine;

a forward grip;

a grenade launcher;

or a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

This bill has a "grandfather" clause, allowing for the sale, transfer, or possession of restricted weapons and magazines lawfully possessed before the bill's passage.

The new bill is even more draconian than the original 1994 ban.  The Washington Post reported that Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed the 1994 ban “saved lives.” 

Perhaps, Pelosi should “trust the science” and read the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report…

The Washington Times quoted University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper, author of that NIJ report: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence…The ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”  In other words, the ban could not be credited with any reduction in crime.

Concerning the 1994 ban, GQ magazine reported in 2016: “After every high-profile shooting, Democrats like Hillary Clinton call for a ban on ‘assault weapons’ the military-style rifles that have been dubbed the weapon of choice for mass shooters. There’s a problem with this popular liberal idea: banning these guns would not do much to save American lives. Only 3.6 percent of America’s gun murders are committed with any kind of rifle, according to FBI data. The majority of gun murders are committed with handguns.”

GQ added, “The Democrat staffers who wrote the now-expired 1994 federal assault weapon ban knew it was a largely symbolic policy.”

New York’s Senators will, undoubtably, vote for the bill.  But gun owners should make their displeasure known to them, especially to Chuck Schumer who is up for reelection this November.

The bill specifically lists hundreds of banned firearms.  Here is the link to read it: Text - H.R.1808 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

From NYS Web Site: Apply for a Firearms License

Link: _{Apply for a Firearms License (ny.gov)}

To be eligible to have a firearms license you:

• Must be a New York State resident
• Must be 21 years old
• Have no prior felony or serious offense convictions
• Be of good moral character
• Have a legally recognized reason for wanting to possess or carry a firearm
• Be ready to open the business for which the license is being applied

To complete the State of New York Pistol/Revolver License Application (PPB3), you will need to provide:

• Personal information such as your:
• • Full Name
  • Date of Birth
  • Social Security Number
  • Address
  • Physical Description
  • Criminal History
  • Mental Health History
  • Character References
• You will also need to provide a form of identification

What was the United States Supreme Court’s ruling about New York State’s “concealed carry” law?

• On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling struck down a more than 100 year old law that required an individual to demonstrate “proper cause” in order to be able to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm.
• According to the ruling, New York State’s existing law has been deemed unconstitutional because it gives too much discretion to the State and its licensing officers in determining “proper cause.”

So, is New York’s law overturned? Can I carry a concealed weapon without a permit?

• Nothing in the Supreme Court decision allows anyone to immediately legally carry a concealed firearm in New York State without obtaining the currently-required permits or licenses.  
• This also means you cannot legally carry a concealed firearm outside of your home in New York State if you only have a license to possess a gun in your home.  

What does this ruling mean for license or permit application processes?

• As of June 23, the application process to obtain a license or permit to carry a firearm in New York State is unchanged.
• Though it is ultimately State law that dictates how firearm licenses are issued, the State has designated the application processes to counties (or in some cases, cities).
• Those who want to change their permit status to get an “unrestricted conceal carry” permit must file an application with their designated local licensing authority.
• For example, in New York City, this would be the NYPD.

 What happens next?

• The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the State of New York will be able to continue to require licenses for concealed firearms, so long as the license requirements clearly lay out who can carry, where they can (and cannot) carry, and the types of firearms residents might have access to.  The State can also restrict the carrying of firearms in sensitive locations and otherwise restrict the manner of carrying firearms.

  What actions is New York State taking in response to this ruling?

• It is Governor Hochul’s top priority to ensure that New Yorkers are safe and kept out of danger.
• Governor Hochul’s Administration is working closely with the State legislature, county and local leaders, as well as legal experts, to ensure that the State enacts laws and create rules that conform with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision while also ensuring that the ability to access or use firearms is restricted and carefully regulated.

How does New York State’s firearm licensing system currently work? What is likely to change?  

•  A firearm license is a State-regulated license, and nothing in the Bruen ruling suggests that the State does not have the authority to issue licenses or determine licensing requirements.
• In New York State, licenses are often issued by county licensing entities. It is possible that this process could change moving forward.
• Currently, an applicant must decide what type of license they would like to apply for.
• The most common types of firearm licenses are: (a) Carry concealed (b) Possess on Premises and (c) Possess/Carry During Employment. There is a possibility that these categories might change as a result of the Bruen ruling.
• At this time, the cost to obtain different licenses varies by county (or in some cases, city), as does the time it takes to obtain a license. At this time, the average processing time for license applications is six (6) months.
• Prior to June 23, 2022, in order to be eligible to have a firearms license, an individual in New York State must have demonstrated that they are:
• • A New York State resident;
  • at least 21 years old;
  • have no prior felony or serious offense convictions;
  • be of “good moral character,”; and
  • have a legally recognized reason for wanting to possess or carry a firearm.

• As of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling, only the proper cause requirement to conceal carry is no longer applicable and ordinary citizens are deemed to have a self-defense basis for applying for a concealed carry permit. 

Gun Owners Own Trucks, Too

Many SCOPE members own trucks and most of us buy a truck for practical reasons, like towing and hauling.  So, I thought many of you would be interested in an article about electric trucks that Elizabeth Puckett wrote in Motorius on July 24^th, in which she explored an all-electric trucks’ usefulness for doing “truck things”.

YouTube channel “The Fast Lane Truck” set up a test. They hitched an empty car carrier to a new GMC Sierra Denali Ultimate Edition and another to a Ford F-150 all-electric Lightning to see how they handled towing a load over long distances.

The all-electric Ford truck started with an estimated range of 282 miles by the onboard computer.  When the trailer specs were added, 282 became 160 estimated miles.  A charging station 147 miles away was on the adjusted plan but battery depletion forced a diversion to a charging station at 102 miles.  But…the Lightning couldn’t make it…so the driver headed back to a nearer charging station, arriving with 9 percent charge left.

With the trailer specs included and its 24-gallon tank, the Sierra’s computer estimated 264 miles. The GMC did fine and when the Lightning turned around, the Sierra went back to the starting point - without stopping to refuel.

Another unadvertised issue with all-electric trucks: most public chargers are set up in a regular parking stall. Charging one with a trailer hitched is a problem.  The Ford Lightning had to park the truck and trailer across multiple charging station spots to plug in, making those in line behind it very unhappy.  Luckily, true believers in green energy would make any sacrifice for the Holy Grail of green energy, so I’m sure the air was not blue at the charging station.

Speaking of trillion dollar hiccups in our green energy future:

Electric vehicles require twice as much copper as gas vehicles.  Solar and off shore wind need two times and five times more copper, per megawatt of installed capacity, than power generated using natural gas or coal.  (And green energy rarely works at capacity.)  Then there is the problem of rewiring homes, which requires…more copper wire.  That electrical transmission used to be called infrastructure before social programs became infrastructure.

So, what’s the problem?

CNBC - of all people – in a report by Pippa Stevens on July 16^th, said that a study done by S&P Global forecasts that copper demand will nearly double to 50 million metric tons by 2035. Unfortunately, S&P Global also forecasts that if production continues largely as is, there will be an annual supply shortfall of almost 10 million metric tons in 2035. A more optimistic scenario in which mines increase utilization and ramp up recycling, the copper market will still be in a deficit for most of the 2030s.  When demand exceeds supply, you may be familiar with current result: inflation.    

2022 to 2035 is 13 years.  A new copper mine takes 16 years, on average, to get off the ground, according to the International Energy Agency.  Oops.

While the ever-woke, green energy driven Biden administration has been doing everything it can to increase illegal immigration and increase inflation, China has been focusing on increasing its supply chain of copper.  The U.S.A….not so much.   Per S&P Global, domestic copper production “has gone down by almost half in the last quarter century”.  Oops, again.

In a study by the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, 62% of Biden’s top 68 political appointees and staffers “who deal with economic policy, regulation, commerce, energy and finance have virtually no business experience.”  Only one out of eight Biden officials has what the authors deem “extensive business experience”.

But don’t worry, Joe Biden has Pete Buttigieg to go to for advice on copper supply chain problems.  Oops, Oops, Oops!

E P A  by Tom Reynolds

If one is a  Progressive, the Constitution is an impediment.  It must be neutered or ways must be found to evade the “problem” of Constitutional limitations on government power. 

Progressives want all power in the federal government, superseding any state power.  It’s easier to gain and keep control of one body (federal power) than fifty separate bodies of power.  This, of course, is exactly the opposite of the founding father’s intentions.

The Second Amendment forbids the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Fourteenth Amendment made it clear that the State governments were also forbidden.  New York and other progressive states ignored this limitation on their power, for years, and the courts tended to agree with them until the recent Supreme Court decision.

In the Progressive philosophy, limitations on government power are evil. They prevent the government (which is, of course, Progressives) from doing all the things Progressive theorists think need to be forced upon the poor, ill-educated, stupid, and superstitious common people – for their own good.  It’s the precise opposite of the founder’s thinking, Progressives believe common people cannot be trusted with any power in government, as that will only dilute Progressives’ power.

When Progressives can’t achieve power through the legislature or the courts, they resort to bureaucratic rulemaking – otherwise known as the Swamp.  But the Supreme Court recently threw a significant roadblock into that.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) curtailed the EPA’s power.

This decision should have a broad impact on other federal agencies – including the BATFE – which want to regulate personal behavior that the agency’s progressives disagree with, and run our lives through bureaucratic rules and regulations.  (But that darn Constitution keeps getting in their way.)

SCOTUS said that Congress alone has the authority to pass laws representing the will of the people. Lawmaking that is delegated to unaccountable bureaucracies, unconstitutionally moves the lawmaking power from the Legislative Branch to the Executive branch. 

“Agencies have only those powers given to them by Congress, and ‘enabling legislation’ is generally not an ‘open book to which the agency [may] add pages and change the plot line…The agency instead must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the power it claims…A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

Justices Gorsuch and Alito wrote in their concurring opinion that regulations enacted by the Executive Branch run the risk of being overturned by each successive administration.

“The framers believed that the power to make new laws regulating private conduct was a grave one that could, if not properly checked, pose a serious threat to individual liberty…In a world like that, agencies could churn out new laws more or less at whim. Intrusions on liberty would not be difficult and rare, but easy and profuse…Stability would be lost, with vast numbers of laws changing with every new presidential administration. Rather than embody a wide social consensus and input from minority voices, laws would more often bear the support only of the party currently in power. Powerful special interests, which are sometimes ‘uniquely’ able to influence the agendas of administrative agencies, would flourish while others would be left to ever-shifting winds. Finally, little would remain to stop agencies from moving into areas where state authority has traditionally predominated.”

Gorsuch and Alito tool a direct shot at former President Obama’s attempt to create a tyrannical state where the Executive Branch is supreme.

“When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek to take matters into their own hands…But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives. In our Republic, ‘[i]t is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe general rules for the government of society.’”

Of course, the three progressive judges disagreed.  Justice Sotomayer once wrote that the people cannot always wait for Congress to act, in defense of Obama’s love of Executive Branch rule making with a “pen-and-phone”. 

Watch to see how BATFE’s new progressive director works to evade the Supreme Court’s decision.

Albany Emergencies and Corruption  by Tom Reynolds

Gov. Kathy Hochul’s emergency pandemic powers were renewed on July 14th through her own executive order, which extends the state disaster emergency through August 22nd, 2022.  This, despite COVID-19 cases and fatality levels dropping in a majority of the state.

One of the many benefits granted to the governor from her emergency powers is the ability to hand out taxpayer-backed contracts without having to go through the normal bidding process. That process, along with the contract review and approval by the state comptroller’s office, are important safeguards to protect against wasteful spending and corruption.  But, Hochul says it’s an emergency, so waste and corruption are no longer a concern.

Recently, Gov. Hochul used that lack of oversight to grant a no-bid contract to the family of Charlie Tebele, whose Digital Gadgets LLC has already pulled in $637 million selling at-home test kits. Also noteworthy is the Tebele’s family’s $300,000 donation to the governor’s election campaign*.

The governor is publicly going all-out to boost another donor, Vornado Realty head Steven Roth. He’s given nearly $70,000 to her campaign; his company is in line for $1.2 billion in tax breaks under her Penn Station redevelopment plan.**

The $850 million, taxpayer-funded deal to build a $1.4 billion stadium for the Buffalo Bills is a big win for the firm of Kathy Hochul’s husband.  Bill Hochul is senior vice president and general counsel for Delaware North, the major food concessionaire at the Buffalo Bills’ current Highmark Stadium.  Delaware North has operated concessions, premium dining and retail services at the NFL’s Buffalo Bills since 1992***.  So, the existing vendor, with a direct connection to the governor, will be bidding on operating the concessions at the taxpayer financed new stadium.  

From 1991 to 2016, Bill Hochul was an Assistant U.S. Attorney and then a U.S. Attorney.  After his wife became Lieutenant Governor, he resigned to become senior vice president, general counsel, and secretary to Delaware North.  Purely coincidence that when his wife moved into the NY executive offices he moved into the private sector where he and his wife could benefit from her connections?  His Wikipedia biography says he lectured frequently on corruption.  He should know!

Emergencies happen and when they do officials need to react quickly.  But this also sets up the government for abuse by those same officials, something our founders were very concerned about.  What geniuses gave the governor the power to unilaterally make herself an empress?  Any chance there will be an emergency session of the state legislature to rescind her powers?  Any chance Hell will freeze over?

Since his departure, we are finding out more and more about Andrew Cuomo’s use of his position to enrich himself and get reelected.  It appears that Kathy Hochul is intent on out Cuomoing Cuomo in just her two years in office.  Is she hurrying because she expects to only be in office for two years?   

*Albany Times-Union July 19, 2022

** New York Post July 20, 2022

*** Per Delaware North’s web site

Hochul’s Gun Control: Minorities and Women Hardest Hit  by Stephen M. Dallas

When the U.S. Supreme Court solidified individual gun rights in NYSRPA v Bruen, accidental Governor Kathy Hochul and fellow democrats responded with a law that purported to institute a “shall issue” standard for pistol permits (and semi-automatic rifles).  But it retains mandates that applicants must demonstrate "good moral character," turn over their social media posts and undergo days, if not months, of training, background checks and in-person interviews.  The law also specifies a long list of "sensitive locations" where gun possession is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison. Those restrictions will make it nearly impossible for many permit holders to actually exercise the rights recognized by the high court. 

While Hochul, no doubt, wants the public to think those restrictions will target “extremism” from “white supremacists,” in fact, these new laws will likely have a disparate—if not racist and sexist-- impact on disadvantaged groups, primarily minorities and women.

During the run-up to Bruen decision, many groups submitted amicus briefs in opposition to New York’s gun laws, including the National African American Gun Association, Pinks Pistols, the Independent Women’s Law Center, the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid and several other public defender organizations.

“Such laws invariably discriminate against the poor and minorities,” wrote the National African American Gun Association.

Similarly, the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid quoted gun policy scholar David Kopel, who described New York’s original permitting law as a response to "concerns about …the huge number of immigrants, and race riots in which some blacks defended themselves with firearms." The brief notes that the law was enacted after "years of hysteria over violence that the media and the establishment attributed to racial and ethnic minorities—particularly black people and Italian immigrants."

The public defenders said the restrictions inspired by such concerns continued to have a "brutal" impact on minority groups to the present day.  They calculated that it costs hundreds of dollars (now possibly thousands) to get a gun permit in New York, plus a great deal of time that is disproportionately difficult for the working poor to find.

Echoing the need for equality in self-defense, the Independent Women’s Law Center filed a brief touting a popular conservative refrain: Guns are the “great equalizer” between men and women.

“Women are often at a self-defense disadvantage. Having firearms allows them to be able to protect themselves from situations in which they might be in danger,” said Erin Morrow Hawley, a senior legal fellow with the Center.

In a violent confrontation, guns reverse the balance of power. Armed with a gun, a woman may even have the advantage over a violent attacker. An armed woman does not need superior strength or the proximity of a hand-to-hand struggle. She can protect herself or others who are vulnerable to an assailant.  With multiple rounds of ammunition, at her disposal, she has a chance even against multiple attackers.

John Lott, a law professor at the University of Chicago, has conducted research suggesting that "murder rates decline when either sex carries more guns, but the effect is especially pronounced when women are considered separately."

In other words, reducing choice for gun owners disproportionately punishes minorities and women.  

As the Supreme Court pointed out in Bruen, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense.   Therefore, while the Court noted that some burdens on the Second Amendment may be constitutionally acceptable, the Court also said that “because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.” 

Hochul’s new burdens would seem to be such a denial of “ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”     That denial may, for the above reasons, hit minorities and women the hardest.

In response to Hochul’s new gun control laws, State Sen. Andrew J. Lanza, R-Staten Island, pointed out that the laws are likely to impede the ability of individuals in minority communities, including New York City, to obtain a permit. For the required training, Lanza noted, the "nearest place may be 100 miles away" from Manhattan.

The new requirements may also prove especially difficult for working women and stay at home caregivers.  According to the National Women’s Law Center, 2.2 million women left the labor force between February and October of 2020, due to family needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Bipartisan Policy Center found that women were twice as likely as men to say they left work for caregiving responsibilities due to childcare provider or school closures.

Despite these responsibilities, they are now expected to leave their children and jobs to attend 16 hours of in-person training and an in-person interview which may only be available at a great distance from their homes.

As Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for the progressive “Nation” magazine conceded, “gating access to (a constitutional right) behind a $400 fee and an enormous time sink is not something we do for other constitutional principles.”

According to Lanza, Hochul “thinks it's okay to tell New Yorkers that the constitution does not apply to you, that you're not worthy of being able to protect your life.... When the governor tells the people of the state of New York that they are now more safe because of this legislation, the truth is they will be less safe."

If Hochul’s gun control laws tell New Yorkers they are not worthy of being able to defend themselves and if gun control hurts minorities and women the hardest, it stands to reason that Hochul has told these groups they are, in the minds of her and her fellow democrats, second-class citizens. 

New Yorkers should reject the Governor’s racism and sexism and restore these rights to all.