Menu
Log in
SCOPE NY


from our SCOPE membership

  • 08/07/2024 12:08 PM | Anonymous

    Venezuela

    Venezuela is floating on a sea of oil. But the socialist government’s corruption and mismanagement has forced most of the population into poverty.  As a result, many of the people invading our southern border are fleeing from Venezuela. 

    Venezuelan dictator / president Nicolas Maduro ran against Edmundo Urrutia for President of Venezuela.  Last Monday, Maduro formally announced that he had won the election with more than 51% of the vote. His opponent’s party claimed Urrutia won with more than 73% of the vote.  (124% of the vote went to somebody!  Even CNN would have difficulty explaining that one away.)   

    Ammoland reports that: “…when it became clear that he was going to lose to opposition candidate Edmundo González Urrutia, Maduro sent armed government thugs into polling places with orders to stop the voting.”

    How are Venezuelans protesting?  In Caracas, hundreds of people marched through the streets, waving Venezuelan flags and chanting, “Liberty!”  Across the country, videos show crowds banging pots.

    Maduro responded that his government “knows how to confront this situation and defeat those who are violent.”  CNN reports witnessing dozens of national guard soldiers in riot gear repressing the pot wielding protesters with tear gas and batons.

    Pots are all Venezuelans have with which to protest.

    In 2012, Venezuela banned private sales of firearms and ammunition and closed private gun shops.  In 2013 Venezuela stopped issuing new firearm licenses and in 2017, the government banned the carrying of firearms in public places.  (Inspiration for Kathy Hochul and the Concealed Carry Improvement Act.)  The army, police, and certain groups trusted by the government are exempt from the ban and can buy firearms from state-owned manufacturers.  The penalty for illegal firearm possession is twenty years imprisonment.

    As Lee Williams said in Ammoland, “Every dictator knows that the first thing they must do to maintain their grip on power is ban civilian firearm ownership and then confiscate all the gunsVenezuela is the latest example of the need to protect and defend our Second Amendment rights. Rather than focusing solely on how they intend to disarm us, we should focus on why our politicians – including Harris – want a disarmed populace. It is certainly a question worthy of a response.”

    Anti 2nd Amendment Vice President Kamala Harris issued a statement supporting Maduro’s claims.  “The United States stands with the people of Venezuela who expressed their voice in today’s historic presidential election. The will of the Venezuelan people must be respected.

    Apparently, Kamala Harris is following in Biden’s footsteps and is on the wrong side of every international issue.  Move on.  Nothing to see here.

    But now, she may be on the wrong side of Biden Administration.  Last Thursday, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken finally acknowledged Gonzalez had won “the most votes” in the presidential election.

    By the time you read this, who knows where Biden and Harris may be standing.

    Other leaders were not so accommodating as Kamala Harris to Maduro.  He has bowed to pressure from neighboring countries and called for an audit.  (The audit will probably be as accurate as any audit of New York City voting.)

    If faced with six more years of Maduro, we should see increased pressure on our southern border, to which “Border Czar” Kamala Harris will have to respond.  (Or not…based on previous experience.)

    Which leaves us with two reasons for the 2nd Amendment protections.

    Socialist politicians fear an armed populace.  Guns are like nuclear deterrence; you never want to use them but having them keeps the bad guys and gals at bay. 

    Those Venezuelans who will cross our border won’t all be law abiding people who just want to assimilate into the United States.

  • 08/05/2024 2:59 PM | Anonymous

    Crime Pays?

    Justice Department officials Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page each had a role in feeding the false Russia Hoax aimed at handicapping Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

    Attorney General Sessions fired Deputy Director McCabe before McCabe could retire.  The DOJ Inspector General and the FBI's disciplinary office had said that McCabe had improperly authorized releases of information to The Wall Street Journal about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation and had misled agents who questioned him about it on four occasions, three of which were under oath.

    Strzok played a senior role on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team until he was removed after an internal investigation revealed his texts with Page exhibited political bias. Page, who had also briefly served on Mueller’s team, resigned from her role as a lawyer for the FBI after the messages were discovered.

    Oh yeah, the texts also revealed that Strzok and Page had an extramarital relationship.

    In addition to the Russia Hoax, Strzok aided in Hillary Clinton not facing prosecution for her multiple violations of the law in storing top-secret information on her private email server.  (You may remember, the same laws Donald Trump was prosecuted for.)

    In 2021, the Biden / Harris Justice Department’s restored Democrat McCabe’s retirement benefits, which he lost when he was fired.  (If he were a Republican doing the same thing, does anyone doubt he would be in jail?)

    Now, the Biden / Harris Justice Department settled a lawsuit filed by Democrats Strozak and Page about supposed privacy violations that publicized their anti-Trump messages on government phones in the early phases in the get-Trump “Russian interference” probe.

    Those Democrat Deep Staters running the Justice Department share McCabe’s, Strozak’s and Page’s Democrat politics, so they took care of their fellow travelers.

    Strozak and Page will get $2 million if the settlement is approved by a judge.

    Strzok, who was ultimately fired from the FBI, hasn’t settled the portion of his lawsuit in which he sued for backpay and his job back.

    Your tax dollars at work under Biden / Harris.

    ATF Efficiency?

    Congressional laws prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from creating searchable digital records.  One reason being that 2nd Amendment defenders fear that the ATF could create a database of firearm owners and that it could eventually lead to confiscation.

    ABC News reports that, typically, the bureau takes around eight days to track a weapon and urgent traces average 24 hours.

    The attempted Trump assassin, Thomas Crooks, was not carrying any ID when he was shot by Secret Service snipers but the FBI had his rifle.

    Again, ABC News reported: “Within 30 minutes of the shooting at Donald Trump's Pennsylvania rally on Saturday, federal law enforcement used a byzantine paper records system to track down decade-old gun sales records to help identify the 20-year-old would-be assassin...Agents tracked the AR-15 style rifle the shooter used to a 2013 purchase from the now-closed dealer, sources familiar with investigators' findings told CNN.”

    The ATF stated: "ATF completed an urgent trace through ATF's National Tracing Center based on out of business records from a closed gun dealer…Results were provided to the FBI and Secret Service in less than 30 minutes."

    There are two possibilities.

    ATF is super efficient when it wants to be.  After all, it only had to:

    Contact the manufacturer of the rifle ON A SATURDAY to get the distributor the gun was sold to.  Then,

    Contact the distributor of the rifle ON A SATURDAY to get the dealer the gun was sold to. Then,

    Discover that the dealer was out of business and BATFE had the dealer’s records.  Then,

    Have an employee manually go through all those records looking for the rifle and then pull the purchaser’s information.

    Or

    There exists a secret, illegal searchable digital record.

  • 07/31/2024 6:27 PM | Anonymous

    Your Government is Protecting You

    Why do American citizens want to own personal firearms when we have the state and federal governments to protect us?  Certainly, we have to carry because those governments are filled with top level officials who are corrupt and incompetent and can’t protect us.  Am I talking about the recently resigned Secret Service head Kimberly Cheatle?  No.  There are plenty other scandals and would be scandals floating around the Biden/ Harris administration.

    Here's one you may not have heard about.

    Pauline (Polly) Hanson, was appointed on June 14th as Deputy Director of the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS).  On July 16th, Judicial Watch reported that she has “stepped down”.  Judicial Watch reported that the appointment “came just months after the administration quietly replaced the last FAMS director, marking the fourth time in around as many years that the agency got a new leader.”

    Hanson previously was Amtrak police chief and also served as chief of Metro Transit Police in the District of Columbia and Executive Director of the D.C. Police’s Strategic Service Bureau.  Sounds like she had ‘connections’ in Washington D C.

    Hanson, was appointed to the FAMS’ position despite previously being investigated for fraud and conflict of interest as Amtrak police chief.  Hanson was investigated for “unethical and illegal” behavior after awarding her then live in boyfriend, ABS Consulting senior director Kerry Thomas, a million-dollar counterterrorism contract to train officers in her agency.  An investigation was initiated in December 2015, based on allegations about Hanson and Thomas’s relationship. The allegations included that Hanson and Thomas have been romantically involved for a “substantial period of time, that they cohabitated in Arlington, Va., and own a residence together in Delaware, and that, consequently, their actions regarding the procurement of the contract. . .were unethical and illegal.”

    The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General stated that as deputy director, Hanson would have been in charge of all purchasing and contracts for FAMS. “If the allegations are true this is akin to letting the fox into the hen house,” the Air Marshal National Council wrote.

    Hanson fought in court to limit investigators’ access to her bank records and when a judge ordered her to turn them over, she resigned as chief of the Amtrak Police.

    Hanson’s appointment by TSA Director David Pekoske to be second in command at FAMS raised questions about the criteria to qualify for the top-secret clearance required for the position and ignited fury among air marshals nationwide. The Air Marshal National Council, the union that represents thousands of agents nationwide, asked the DHS Inspector General to reopen Hanson’s investigation, days after Pekoske’s appointment, to ensure she is eligible to hold a position of public trust and top-secret security clearance.

    Judicial Watch also investigated after it was advised of this issue by aviation security specialists and the Air Marshal National Council.  Judicial Watch immediately fired off two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to TSA and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Inspector General, asking for details about Hanson’s criminal and ethical investigation as Amtrak Police Chief and her subsequent resignation.

    Was Hanson a Diversity, Inclusion, Equity (DIE) appointee instead of being appointed on merit?  We’ll never know.  But one has to ask, wasn’t there anyone better available and doesn’t anyone in the Biden / Harris administration bother with background checks?

    Yes, American citizens need to continue exercising their right to ‘keep and bear arms,’ especially since the government which is supposed to protect us is prioritizing politics and ignoring merit when appointing people to protect us.

    On the positive side, at least Hanson wasn’t going to be in charge of airplane maintenance.

    Given that they first raised this issue, the men and women who make up the ‘grassroots’ of the FAMS seem to be more competent and honest than their leadership.  Those of us who will be flying soon will appreciate that.  We need that competence since we can’t carry on airplanes.

  • 07/29/2024 10:38 AM | Anonymous

    Crime Going Down?

    In the upcoming Firing Lines is an article titled: ‘Crime Going Down?’

    Basically, the article shoots holes in Joe Biden’s statement, during his State of the Union address, that: America is safer today than when I took office…last year, the murder rate saw the sharpest decrease in history, and violent crime fell to one of the lowest levels in more than 50 years.”

    Here is one highlight from the upcoming Firing Lines article concerning the source of Biden’s data; the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report.

    Several large cities no longer report crime statistics to the FBI.  As the Washington Examiner notes: “In 2019, 89% of agencies covering 97% of the population submitted data, but by 2021, that coverage plummeted to less than 63% of departments overseeing just 65% of the population.“ Included in those that no longer report to the FBI are New York City and Los Angeles.

    Why did “crime go down” per the FBI’s report?  Because crimes were not being reported to the FBI!  And what cities are no longer reporting crime?  New York City and Los Angeles, two of the most crime ridden cities in the U S A!

    Basically, any comparison of crime by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report is no longer valid because the basis of comparison, is no longer uniform.

    So, why are we jumping ahead of the Firing Lines?

    Newsweek is gleefully reporting that Pete Buttigieg schooled Fox News about crime.  Buttigieg said: "…trying to make people think that crime is up when crime is down under Joe Biden and crime was up under Donald Trump. Now I don't know how often that gets reported on this network. So, if you're watching this at home, do yourself a favor and look up the data."

    Where is the data to look up?

    Newsweek also reports where to look it up: “According to the latest quarterly statistics released in June by the FBI known as the Uniform Crime Report...”  (Emphasis added.)

    Buttigieg, like Biden, (and you can be sure Harris will be added) is using an obviously invalid report to mislead the American people in order neuter a major campaign issue. 

    This erroneous report is on the top of a web page where it will be read and passed on as the truth. Newsweek never lies - except in print - but most people don’t realize that.

    Watch for this lie to become an integral part of Harris’s political campaign.   

    Oh yeah, Newsweek also reported that Buttigieg; “…has emerged as a top choice to be Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate in this year's presidential election.”   (After all, he has been as effective heading the department of Transportation as Harris has been as the “Border Czar.”)

  • 07/27/2024 10:13 AM | Anonymous

    Social Hour                         5:00PM – 6:00PM

    Dinner – Ray Bros. BBQ    6:00PM – 7:00PM

    Cash Bar                             5:00PM – 9:00PM

    Raffles/Games                    5:00PM – 9:00PM

    Guest Speakers                   7:00PM – 8:30PM

    Senate Candidate Mike Sapriacone to Speak at SCOPE Banquet

    SCOPE announces that one of our main speakers at the Annual Banquet will be Mike Sapraicone, who is running for the United States Senate opposing Kristin Gillibrand.

    With crime and violence as major issues in the campaign, Mike’s experience as an NYPD Detective combatting gang violence, illegal gun trafficking, and leading high-profile homicide investigations makes him a timely candidate.  He was at the foundation of the Giuliani crime turnaround in New York City resulting in the most dramatic decrease in crime ever seen in the city.

    Sapriacone also has executive experience in the business world as a law enforcement and security expert, who started a 600-employee company providing armed security services to the nation’s largest corporations.

    Sapriacone wants to get tougher on criminals.  He has come out against New York’s Cashless Bail laws, releasing dangerous criminals back on the street and defunding the police. 

    Tickets are $65.00 per person

    For a printable order form: click HERE

    To order with a credit card: click HERE

    For information on placing an ad in the program booklet: click HERE


  • 07/26/2024 7:23 PM | Anonymous

    Surgeon General Fronts for Biden/Harris

    Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy said, “Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and adolescents.” Both President Biden and Vice President Harris continue to claim that gunshots are the leading cause of death of “children.” Murthy christened the situation as a “public health crisis,” opening the door to use a crisis to impose even more gun control through executive actions.  

    Are you a bit skeptical of claims by Biden and Harris’ experts? You should be.  Remember Fauci and Covid?

    In Murthy’s 39-page report, the entire deterrent emphasis is on the gun-control laws already pushed by Biden/Harris: assault-weapons ban; mandatory gunlock laws; and background checks on the private transfer of guns.  Not once are the effects of soft-on-crime-prosecutors, defund the police, arrest and conviction rates, bail reform and emptying prisons mentioned by Murthy. Biden / Harris’ experts won’t consider both costs and benefits of firearms.  Murthy’s approach will be as counterproductive as many of the experts’ Covid recommendations.  

    As John Lott puts it, it’s nonsense that “these problems wouldn’t exist if guns weren’t there.”  According to Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), “After every gun ban, murder rates have gone up.  One would think that just once, out of simple randomness, murder rates would have gone down or remained the same after a ban. But whenever crime data are available from both before and after a ban, we can see that murder rates have risen (often by huge amounts).”

    Remember those issues mentioned above that Murthy did not mention?  The United Kingdom banned handguns in 1997 and over the next eight years its homicide rate rose by 50 percent.  When the police were increased by 14%, the rate returned to earlier levels.  But Democrats would defund the police in America, anyway. 

    Over 90% of violent crimes do not involve guns.  Per the CPRC, the following percent of Violent Crimes do NOT Involve guns:

    • 2015  94%
    • 2016  91%
    • 2017  92%
    • 2018  93%
    • 2019  92%
    • 2020  92%
    • 2021  92%
    • 2022  91%

    Homicides peaked in 2020 and have come down but the murder rate was still 7 percent higher in 2023 than in 2019. Murthy and Biden blame this increase on the lack of gun control while ignoring the aforementioned defund the police budget cuts, DA’s refusing to prosecute violent criminals, bail reform, and release of prison inmates during the Covid pandemic. 

    And let’s look a little deeper at Murthy’s (and Biden/Harris’) deceptive definition of children and adolescents.

    The age of majority (no longer an adolescent) in 48 states is 18 and yet Murthy’s claim counts 18- and 19-year-olds as adolescents.

    For those adolescents and children under 18:

    In 2020 there were 2,443 deaths from vehicles and 2,218 from firearms.

    In 2021, there were 2,668 vehicle and 2,519 firearm deaths.

    In in 2022, the two numbers are virtually tied at 2,528 for vehicles and 2,538 for firearms.

    When excluding justifiable homicides that are committed in self-defense by civilians and police, the number of firearm deaths for under 18s falls by more than several hundred

    As people get older, suicides become more prevalent.  Even using numbers for those under the age of 20, in 2020, removing suicides would reduce the number of firearm deaths from 4,253 to 2,960 (CDC numbers) or from 3,405 to 2,112 (FBI).

    People don’t decide, “I’ve got a gun I think I’ll commit suicide.”  They decide to commit suicide and then look for the means.  There are many other effective ways to commit suicide besides guns.

    And when Biden, Harris and Murthy mention children, they want you to picture young children and not teenagers belonging to gangs.  Gang related shootings are significant causes of the deaths of older children.

    The surgeon general wants to promote gun control through public health. He should first get his facts and logic right.

  • 07/24/2024 10:15 AM | Anonymous

    Rights for Me but not for Thee

    Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in McDonald v. City of Chicago: In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental. To the contrary, broader constitutional concerns of an institutional nature argue strongly against that treatment.” (Emphasis added.)

    According to the Associated Press: “A member of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s security detail shot an armed man during an attempted carjacking in the early morning hours.  The deputy pulled out his department-issued gun and shot the man about four times, hitting him in the mouth.”

    More per the Associated Press.  Per a Secret Service press release: “Secret Service agents protecting President Joe Biden’s granddaughter opened fire after three people tried to break into an unmarked Secret Service vehicle in the nation’s capital. The agents, assigned to protect Naomi Biden, were out with her in the Georgetown neighborhood late Sunday night when they saw the three people breaking a window of the parked and unoccupied SUV.”

    SCOPE note: Unoccupied vehicle.  They shot to protect property which would have broken a New York State law if it occurred in NY.

    Ammoland reports that U.S. Representative Cori Bush (D-Mo) spent nearly $1 million on private security for herself out of campaign funds.  She is a strong gun control and defund the police advocate.

    SCOPE note: The Washington Examiner reports that: "Squad" Representative Cori Bush (D-MO) is facing a competitive Democratic primary…with the release of a new poll that shows her trailing by 23 points to her challenger.” 

    Will the Democrats run on more gun control for thee but continue to be protected by armed guards?  Bet on it.

  • 07/22/2024 12:45 PM | Anonymous

    In the United States vs Rahimi case, Attorney General Merrick Garland hoped to undermine gun rights using a case with an individual who was described as “anything but a poster child for the Second Amendment.”  Garland’s goal was to dismantle the ‘historical tradition methodology’ set down in the Bruen case and go back to “tiers of scrutiny” or interest balancing.  He failed in that specific attempt even though he technically won the case.

    The background:

    Zackey Rahimi, who police have described as a drug dealer, allegedly knocked his girlfriend to the ground and slammed her head into a car dashboard during an argument and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone. She got a protective order that required him to stay away from her and barred Rahimi from having guns.

    While the protective order was in effect, police say Rahimi allegedly shot into the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger. He also was accused of shooting at another driver after a car accident and three other incidents in which he fired a gun.  Police investigating the shootings found several firearms when they executed a search warrant at Rahimi’s home.

    Rahimi’s violation of a domestic violence protective order is against federal law. Rahimi’s attorneys appealed his conviction for that offense, arguing that he shouldn’t have been banned from having guns in the first place because that violated his constitutional rights.

    Rahimi is not the public face you want when defending gun rights and victims of domestic violence are not sympathetic to him.  The deck seemed ‘stacked’ against the 2nd Amendment. 

    The Supreme Court’s decision rejected Rahimi’s argument but protected the Second Amendment as their ruling had a very narrow scope, focusing only on the case’s specific circumstances.

    The Supreme Court’s ruled 8-1 against Rahimi.  But only because it was justified to temporarily take away Rahimi’s gun rights because he was a ‘credible threat.’  The ‘credible threat’ requirement was not what Garland wanted; he wants to disarm citizens for any felony violation, whether or not the citizen is a ‘credible threat.’  So, the 2nd Amendment won while Rahimi lost since the ‘credible threat’ requirement was advanced. 

    8-1 is important.  Anti-2Aers cannot claim this was just the conservative wing of the Supreme Court since two liberal wing justices concurred.  (Actually, the anti-2Aers will claim otherwise, anyway.)

    SCOTUS actual ruling said: “When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.” 

    The domestic violence law fit the tradition of historical firearm regulations: “When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, the individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”

    The majority also rejected the federal government’s argument that Rahimi could be deprived of his right to have a gun because he is not a “responsible” citizen. “Responsible,” Roberts wrote, “is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail, and there is no support for such a rule in the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment cases.”  The decision also debunked the idea that only “responsible” citizens are entitled to Second Amendment protections. This clarification is a victory against potential abuses in gun licensing regimes that might seek to impose excessive restrictions.  (Memo to Kathy Hochul and the NY Legislature: take note of this!)

    Rahimi’s philosophy is reflected in other court decisions.

    In Garland v. Range, Bryan Range sued the government because he became a prohibited person after pleading guilty to lying about his income to obtain food stamps. The Court stripped him of his gun rights for life. He claimed that the punishment was inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

    The lower Court decided for the government, but the full bench of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Range.  So did SCOTUS which vacated the decision and remanded the suit back to the Third Circuit. Range was not convicted of a violent crime, and no one claims he is a danger to himself or others.  It’s now in the hands of the Third Circuit with direction from SCOTUS.

    The United States. v. Daniels challenges the federal prohibition of drug users owning guns.  Title 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3) bars an individual from possessing a firearm if he is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance. Patrick Daniels admitted to smoking marihuana multiple days per month. But the government presented no evidence that he was intoxicated at the time of arrest, nor did it identify when he last had used marihuana. Still, based on his confession to regular usage, a jury convicted Daniels.

     
    The Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment. The court explained that the nation’s history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage. Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users. Thus, the court held that as applied to Defendant, then, Section 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment.

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with felon gun owners in the case of United States v. Duarte, overturning a federal law that prohibited felons, including non-violent offenders, from possessing firearms. Duarte had five non-violent felony convictions. During a traffic stop, Duarte was found in possession of a firearm, which he attempted to discard. He was subsequently indicted under 18 USC Sec. 922(g)(1), a law which bars felons from owning firearms. Duarte’s argued that this law infringed on his Second Amendment rights.

    The court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to all American citizens, including those with non-violent felony convictions. The judges emphasized that the right to bear arms is an individual right belonging to “the people,” which includes Duarte.

    The court found no historical tradition supporting a lifelong ban on firearm possession for non-violent felons.

    The government had argued that felons are not part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, suggesting that only “virtuous citizens” have this right. The court rejected this argument, highlighting that such an interpretation could extend dangerously to other constitutional rights.  (Again, Kathy Hochul and the NY legislature should take note.)

  • 07/19/2024 12:08 PM | Anonymous

    Politicians should be known by their enemies.  If so, Vice Presidential candidate J D Vance is the poster boy for preserving the 2nd Amendment.

    Everytown for Gun Safety’s website writes negatively: “He opposed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and supported arming teachers in classrooms.”

    The Washington Post reports that “In 2022, Vance said he favored abolishing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which enforces federal gun laws.”

    It’s not just his enemies but the things he says that make Vance a 2A favorite.

    In an Op-Ed* Vance wrote: “Democrat arguments for gun control rest on a series of falsehoods.  Violence in our country is much more about density than guns.  That’s why the Biden Administration’s dull attempts to curb gun violence don’t work and they threaten the very foundation of the rights we are afforded as free, American citizens.”

    Biden has also pushed for executive orders that would restrict ‘ghost guns’ and certain types of firearm braces.  This is the worst kind of political showmanship: these restrictions will make it harder for law-abiding Ohioans to exercise their Second Amendment rights and neither will have even a small effect on gun violence in our country.”

    During his senatorial campaign, Vance vowed to “fight those who confiscate guns, whether it’s federal bureaucrats passing laws or multinational corporations punishing people for exercising their rights.”

    Then there are Vance’s friends.

    Randy Kozuch, chairman of the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund, released a statement: “President Trump has made an outstanding choice in selecting Senator Vance as his vice presidential pick and running mate in the upcoming election. Senator Vance has been an unwavering supporter of constitutional freedoms, especially the right to keep and bear arms. In the U.S. Senate, he has consistently stood against the Biden-Harris gun control agenda. Between now and November, the NRA and its millions of members will engage with America’s gun owners about the importance of electing the Trump-Vance ticket.

    Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, wrote: “In naming Sen. Vance his running mate for the 2024 election, former President Trump has tapped a strong Second Amendment stalwart and someone who proudly stands with the firearm industry and law-abiding Americans from coast-to-coast who believe in exercising their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.”

    We already knew that Trump was a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment but the addition of Vance makes this the most pro 2nd Amendment presidential ticket in history. 

    Is it enough to engage those gun owners who have sat out past elections and get them to the polls in November?  If you know one of these people, you might want to wake them up.

    *Columbus Dispatch July 20, 2021


  • 07/17/2024 10:52 AM | Anonymous

    SCOPE’s Certificate of Incorporation says it is dedicated: “to the preservation of the United States of America and the Constitution of the United States of America and particularly Article 2 of the Bill of Rights.”  Toward that end, the Certificate calls for collecting and disseminating information to “insure that political candidates, as well as elected officials and all government agencies shall continue to preserve to the individual citizens all of their rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution…”

    SCOPE is more than just the 2nd Amendment, although that has become our focus. 

    Since there can be little doubt that the establishment media is more biased than it has ever been, it is important that SCOPE members are made aware of non 2A issues that the establishment media lets slip by, intentionally, that will impact us.  Toward that end, Tom Rood has prepared an analysis of a NY Constitutional Amendment that will be on November’s ballot.

    News you might not know about  by  Tom Rood

    We all need to be watchful of the smoke and mirrors often used to pass laws that would, normally, never get past informed voters, at least in the following case.  Be informed about what we are asked to vote for in November.

    The liberal state legislature and governor are trying to pull a fast one on all NY voters. It's buried in the so-called Equal Rights Amendment to the NY State Constitution. It will be on the back side of your ballot for Nov 5th. 

    The title is designed to attract voters into approving it - who could be against equal rights? Mainly, it's intended to attract liberal voters to vote in November. The libs know they are in deep trouble and are pulling out all stops to derail Trump. 

    What's in this proposition? 

    It's an amendment to our NY State Constitution. That means future NY State legislatures and future governors, perhaps of other political persuasions, will be prevented from changing the law without also making a new amendment to the NY Constitution. It will be locked in, nailed to the barn door, whether you like it or not. In other words, it codifies things you might not like and makes them the law of the land.

    The funny thing that struck me is that the libs are hell bent to ignore the constitution, so why bother?

    Republican legislatures sued to keep it off the ballot and lost- no surprise in NY. 

    What's hidden in it?  

    It puts abortion rights into the NY Constitution.  Not necessary since New York legalized abortion in 1970 and this law is not under any genuine threat of modification or repeal. But putting abortion on the ballot is expected to bring out pro-abortion Democrats in greater numbers.  (But will it also energize anti-abortion voters, too?)

    Some of this is to counter the US Supreme Court’s reversal on Roe vs Wade. However, as I read about the court's action on this, the decision was to return the issue to individual states as the federal government does not have the power, under the U S Constitution, to make a national law either for or against abortion.

    Here’s the real reason for it. 

    It expands the scope of discrimination based on race, religion, GENDER, reproductive freedom and protects them from being reversed by changing political tides. It updates the constitution so no New Yorker can be denied their rights based on ethnicity, national origin, disability, SEX (INCLUDING GENDER EXPRESSION), pregnancy or pregnancy outcome, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE and AUTONAMY. I read that last one as healthcare providers having to cover operations like sex changes. 

    The bottom line- this amendment is vaguely worded for a reason. Among other things it could be used to block parents from having a say whether their children undergo gender reassessment surgery. It might be used to strip parent's legal rights with school age children including controversial gender transformation procedures. 

    Another oppositional point includes schools being required to permit biological males competing on girls' sports teams or individual sporting contests.  And don’t forget coed bathrooms. 

    If you are in agreement with this proposition, then by all means vote for it. But if it bothers you, you can color in the no box.

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