Quick & Dirty

Here are some ‘quick & dirty’ suggestions on priorities for President Trump and the new Congress as to our 2nd Amendment protections.  Just priorities.  If everything is a priority then nothing is a priority.

For President Trump:

Remove ATF Director Dettelbach from office as well as every political appointee in the ATF.

Appoint an ATF Director who respects the rights of law-abiding citizens and uses resources to target actual criminals instead of honest business owners.

Rescind the more than 50 executive orders Biden issued related to firearms.

Remove FBI Director Wray from office as well as every political appointee in the FBI.

Appoint an FBI Director who respects the rights of law-abiding citizens and uses resources to target actual criminals instead of honest gun owners (and stop weaponizing the government against political opponents.)

Close the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Stop every ‘Red Flag’ law attempt that does not strictly adhere to ‘due process of law’ protections.  Protections such as: considered innocent until proven guilty; instituting punishment for frivolous charges. 

Stop the NICS system from being used for ammo background checks, to be in accordance with existing law that does not allow it.

For Congress:

Pass National Reciprocity for gun licenses.

Pass a redefined Safer Communities Act by: reversing the ‘engaged in business’ rule to reinclude ‘livelihood;’ redefining the “willful violation” for firearm retailers that could cost them their license; outlawing the “zero-tolerance” policy being used to cost FFL’s their license.  We need to end the war on FFL’s.

If the ATF is too far gone to correct it, disband the entire department which will allow Trump to start over without the holdovers.

Pass a law specifically restricting those illegally in the United States from gun possession.

Resist the multitude of proposed laws that will infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

Veterans Day

A little history to show why learning from history is important.

In June 1914, a Bosnian Serb assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne.

Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Russia came to Serbia's defense. Germany, France, Britain and the Ottoman Empire soon joined the war. Then, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Italy and others joined. In the Pacific, New Zealand occupied German Samoa and Australian Forces landed on Germany’s island of New Britain. A German cruiser sank a Russian cruiser. Japan declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary in what was a land grab. German forces attacked South Africa. India supplied large quantities of food, money, ammunition and soldiers to the British.

In early 1917, the United States entered the war on the side of the Allies.

It was truly a World War.

Later in 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power in the Russian October Revolution and the Soviet Union was born.

Millions died. It led directly to geocide and a pandemic. A worthless worldwide political body was established in the aftermath.

On November 11, 1918, an armistice was signed and on the "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month" of 1918 hostilities ceased on the Western Front of World War I. (On June 28, 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed which formally ended the war.)

November 11th was declared as “Armistice Day” to celebrate the end of the “Great War.” (It wasn’t yet known as World War 1 since World War 2 was still 21 years in the future.)

Commemorations of November 11th were initially focused on honoring the military dead of the First World War and the return to peace. Later, many countries changed the name to include all veterans of their armed services and a few honored their war dead both uniformed and civilian. Most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations adopted the name Remembrance Day.

In 1954, the United States changed the name to ‘All Veterans Day’, later shortened to 'Veterans Day'. (The United States has a separate holiday, “Memorial Day’, to honor and mourn the U.S. military personnel who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces.)

Monday is the 106th anniversary of the armistice. Have we learned anything from history?

WW1 started because one person was assassinated and it rapidly grew from there.

Currently, Hamas invaded Israel and performed barbaric acts. Israel responded. Hezbollah in Lebanon, on Israel’s northern border, attacked Israel and threatened an invasion. Iran, which has dreams of recreating the Persian Empire, threatens the United States for helping Israel defend itself and an Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump was uncovered. American troops were attacked by drones and rocket barrages in Iraq and Syria and U S forces face ramped up attacks by Iranian-backed groups. Syria has been in a decades long civil war where poison gas has been used.

Russia’s Putin is determined to restore the past ‘glories’ – and atrocities – of the Soviet Union Empire.

China is determined to take over global leadership and practices genocide directed against its own people. It also threatens America’s ally, Taiwan.

Africa lags behind the rest of the world in almost every important category and is a hotbed of atrocities and civil wars.

Today’s situation sounds a lot more explosive than just one royal being assassinated.

One of the major aspects of World War 1 was the incompetence of the military and political leadership. Countless men on both sides were butchered as the generals fought the wrong war – the ‘last war’. (Unknown officers Eisenhower and Patton were reprimanded for espousing tank tactics that differed from what was then accepted army doctrine.)

Today, our military leaders (both generals and politicians) have been fighting the wrong war as they prepare to fight the next war on Woke battlefields where climate change and Diversity Inclusion and Equity are the biggest enemy. These generals were securing their own political support by focusing on Woke and DIE propaganda instead of planning and implementing a successful withdrawal from Afghanistan and keeping our armed forces prepared to fight real world enemies.

When the U S A entered WW1, it was not prepared; soldiers trained using broom handles instead of rifles.

At a time of heightened tensions, our current readiness is threatened as all military branches are missing their recruitment goals. Are our generals and admirals fully engaged in finding the root cause of the enlistment crisis? By raising the maximum enlistment age to 42, they are trying to offset the problem rather than solve the problem.

For instance, the Coast Guard has major national security missions to accomplish, including interdicting drug smuggling and illegal immigrants on the high seas, maritime search and rescue, and other important missions. Forbes reported that the Coast Guard will have a 10% shortage in enlisted ranks forcing the Coast Guard to take ten cutters out of service. Is anyone in D.C. aware that the U S A has a fentanyl drug smuggling crisis which is killing tens of thousands of Americans and that the Coast Guard is a major player in protecting our borders?

During WW1, Congress passed and President Woodrow Wilson signed and enforced a Sedition Act which covered a broader range of offenses. Those offenses included speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light.

Anyone noticed any assaults on our 1st Amendment protected right of free speech by the Swamp in Washington? Anyone noticed the current government in Washington D.C. using its power against its political enemies?

A history lesson on what brought this holiday about and its parallels with today’s worsening global situation should give all of us a reason to pause, remember and take action. We don’t need another holiday to celebrate the end of another war.

We need to honor veterans on this Monday and the best way to honor these veterans is to be sure that history does not repeat itself. They sacrificed too much for it to be in vain.

Last Minute Events

Kathy Hochul says that if you vote Republican you are ”anti-woman” and “anti-American.”  Well, what else would she expect from people the Democrats call “garbage,” “Hitler”, “racist,” “fascist”, “deplorables,” who only cling to their “guns and bibles.” 

Kamala Harris and the Democrats have been walking back positions they took over the last 4 years. 

It’s difficult to tell where Harris stands on the 2nd Amendment, based on her contradictory statements.  I joke.  Actually, it’s not.  She will do everything possible to neuter the 2nd Amendment.

Amongst the Democrat walk back positions is the border wall.  Politico, (of all places), reports:  “Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) once described the border wall as “a racist monument” and called for it to be torn down. Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) called it “stupid” and “useless.” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said a wall across the entire border would be “a gross waste of money.” Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.) called it “a silly idea.”

“But all four Democrats — and several others who once opposed it —tout their commitment to border security and willingness to crack down on illegal immigration.”

Could it be they are all in very contested elections and they are reading polls that indicate the vast majority of Americans disagree with these politicians’ stances on border security?  To be sure, you can count on their strong support for border security - until after the election.

Harris maintains she will not ban fracking but her campaign committee says she will not approve permits – which are necessary to frack.   

Proposition 1 on your ballot would add gender identity to the New York State Constitution.  Radical, left-wing activists are actively working to redefine what male and female mean.

In July, H.R. 9218, the Defining Male and Female Act was introduced by Republicans in Congress. This bill would formally add the definition of “male” and “female” to the U.S. code, defining both by one’s biological sex. 

HR 9218 would be in direct opposition to Proposition 1, if they both should pass.

Democrats want to pass Proposition 1 while opposing HR9218.  Republicans oppose Proposition 1 and want to pass HR9218.  The Tuesday vote will determine where the country is going on the issue of boys becoming girls and using girls’ bathrooms and playing girls’ sports.

Today, the NY State Regents is scheduled to lay out their plan for revised graduation requirements.  Students could qualify for diplomas by passing traditional Regents’ exams, or they could earn an occupational certificate or by volunteering for public service. 

Currently, the state requires students to pass at least four exams — in English, math, history and the sciences, in order to graduate. It has been this way since 1865.  Under the new plan, passing exams would become optional.

What better way to hide the failure of many government public schools, especially inner city public schools, than to do away with the measurement that demonstrates their failure.

Illegal voting an issue? 

In July, Congressional Republicans passed the SAVE Act, which would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. However, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not brought it to the floor for a vote.

Last week, Republicans introduced the JAIL for Alien Voters Act, which would make it a felony for illegal aliens to vote.

The Biden / Harris administration is responsible for distributing absentee ballots to military service members.  Military service members are complaining that they have not received enough absentee ballots to vote before Election Day. 

Representative Brian Mast (R-FL) wrote, “Other service members also stated that when a request for a federal write-in absentee ballot was made, they were told the base’s stockpile of such ballots was depleted and had not been replenished."

Democrats rabidly protect the right to vote, by destroying protections against illegal voting.  But they are considerably less rabid about military service members voting.

Hey, priorities are priorities!

And gun owners in NY will love this:

The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic submitted a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, recommending that former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo be charged with making criminally false statements to Congress.

Governor Cuomo made three criminally false statements under oath:

That he was not involved in reviewing or drafting the New York State Department of Health Report, which was used to counter criticisms of his administration's nursing home policies during the pandemic.

That he had no discussions about a peer review of the New York State Department of Health Report.

That he had no knowledge of any external individuals outside the New York State Department of Health reviewing the Report.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has aggressively gone after anyone associated with Donald Trump who could be accused of making false statements or even the most minor infraction.  Will he pursue Cuomo?

The mainstream media is ardently anti-Trump.  But they are no longer as meaningful as they would wish.  Joe Rogan’s interview with Donald Trump has been viewed at least 42 million times on YouTube. That number does not include people watching/listening on Spotify or X, where the interview is also available.

New York State Congressional Candidate Ratings

Firing Lines contained the NY Congressional rating by SCOPE and Gun Owners of America (GOA).  The following are the updated ratings to include the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the NRA

             R=Republican          C=Conservative       L=Libertarian           D=Democrat           

            WF=Working Families       CS=Common Sense

*  Incumbent                                   

District Descriptions per Ballotopedia
    

Blank or ?  =  Insufficient information to rate

                                                            SCOPE    GOA    NSSF    NRA

District 1  (Likely / Lean Republican)                                                         

Nicholas Lalota* (R C)                   A              B+         A-          A

John Avlon            (D   )                   F                                          F

District 2  (Solid / Safe Republican)

Andrew Garbarino* (R C)              B            B         B           B+

Rob Lubin                   (D WF)          F                                           F       

District 3    (Likely Democrat)

Michael LiPetri jr.   (R C)               A                                              ?

Tom Suozzi*            (D CS)             F            F           F             F

District 4  (Toss Up)

Anthony D’Esposito (R C)             B            B          A             B

Laura Gillen                 (D CS)          F                                              F

District 5 (Solid / Safe  Democrat)

 Paul King             (R C CS)              B-                                            ?

Gregory Meeks* (D)                       F            F            F            F

District 6  (Solid / Safe  Democrat)                                     

Thomas Zmich (R C)                      ?                                              ?

Grace Meng*      (D  )                      F             F            F                F

District 7 (Solid / Safe  Democrat)                                      

William Kregler     (R C)                  ?                                           ?         

Nydia Velazquez* (D WF)             F            F            F            F

District 8  (Solid / Safe  Democrat)

John Delaney        (R C)                  ?                                               ?            

Hakeem Jeffries* ( D )                   F            F            F            F

District 9   (Solid / Safe  Democrat) 

Menachem Raitport (R C)             A                                          ?

Yvette Clarke*             (D   )            F            F            F            F

District 10  (Solid / Safe  Democrat)

Alexander Dodenhoff  (R)            ?                                             ?

Daniel Goldman*            (D)           F            F            F            F

District 11 (Solid / Safe Republican)

Nicole Malliotakis* (R C)              B-           D           C+         B

Andrea Morse            (D   )              F                                              F

District 12  (Solid / Safe  Democrat)

Mike Zumbluskas  (R )                  C                                               ?

Jerrold Nadler*       (D WF)            F            F            F            F                 

District 13  (Solid / Safe  Democrat)

Ruben Vargas          (R C)               ?                                              ?

Adriano Espaillat*  (D   )                F              F         F            F

District 14  (Solid / Safe  Democrat)

Tina Forte     (R C)                            ?                                                ?

Alex’a Ocasio-Cortez* (D WF)     F            F            F            F

District 15 (Solid / Safe  Democrat)

Gonzalo Duran   (R C)                    ?                                           ?

Ritchie Torres*  (D  )                      F            F             F             F

District 16  (Solid / Safe  Democrat)

Miriam Flisser     (R)                       ?                                           ?

George Latimer  (D)                       F                                          F

District 17 (Toss Up)

Michael Lawler*  (R C)                   B                  B            B

Mondaire Jones    (D  )                   F                                          F

District 18  (lean Democrat)

Alison Esposito  (R C)                    A-          A                             A

Patrick Ryan*      (D WF)                F            F            F            F

District 19    (Toss Up / Tilt Republican)                                                    

Marcus Molinaro*  (R C)                A-          B+        B            A

Josh Riley                 (D WF)            F                                             F

District 20  (Solid / Safe  Democrat)                                              

Kevin Waltz   (R C)                          A              A                             ?

Paul Tonko*   (D WF)                      F              F                    F 

District 21 (Solid / Safe Republican)

Elise Stefanik*  (R C)                     A            B+        A+         A+

Paula Collins      (D WF)                 ?                                           F

District 22   (Lean / Tilt Democrat)

Brandon Williams* (R C L)            B              B        B+         A

John Mannion            (D WF)            F                                       F

District 23 (Solid / Safe Republican)

Nick Langworthy*  (R C)               B           A-        A+        A

Thomas Carle          (D   )               F                                           F

District 24  (Solid / Safe Republican)

Claudia Tenney          (R C)              A        A-        A+          A+

David Wagenhauser (D   )              F                                           F

District 25  (Solid / Safe  Democrat)                                              

Gregg Sadwick   (R )                          ?                                          ?            

Joseph Morelle* (D WF)                   F           F            F         F

District 26   (Solid / Safe  Democrat)

Anthony Marecki    (R C)                    ?                                          ?

Timothy Kennedy*   (D WF)              F                            F 

Not Coming After Hunting Rifles - Yet

Hunters, notoriously, don’t vote.  One study said that, nationwide, only between 30% and 50% of hunters vote.

Why don’t they get involved since Democrats have been coming after 2nd Amendment gun rights in increasingly radical fashion? 

One answer is that hunters feel the Democrats are not coming after their guns.  That now needs to be amended to say the Democrats are not coming after their guns, YET.

Connecticut State attorneys are arguing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that hunting rifles, especially semi-automatic ones, are not protected by the Constitution.

Background

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and a co-plaintiff, Toni Theresa Spera filed a lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s restrictive gun control law passed after the Sandy Hook tragedy; the law bans the sale of firearms classified as “assault weapons.”  (NAGR v Lamont)  NAGR is suing the state of Connecticut to overturn their assault weapon and magazine ban as these laws infringe on their Second Amendment rights.

NAGR sought a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of these laws.  On August 3rd, 2023, a United States District Judge ruled against NAGR and the judge would not install a preliminary injunction stopping enforcement of these laws.

The decision was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The hearing on the preliminary injunction was held on October 16th.

At the hearing, the Connecticut Attorney General’s office raised the stakes by contending that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly used for self-defense, but not hunting rifles.  Connecticut’s AG contends that Connecticut has the authority to regulate firearms that are not typically used for self-defense, suggesting that hunting rifles do not fall under this category.

Connecticut referenced a previous Supreme Court ruling (Columbia v. Heller), which stated that the Constitution guarantees the right to self-defense but does not offer blanket protection for all weapons.

NAGR argued that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. and is neither dangerous nor unusual and should be protected. NAGR pointed out that, despite political rhetoric, AR-15s are rarely used in mass shootings, with over 75% of such incidents involving handguns. He criticized Connecticut’s laws as politically motivated rather than based on crime reduction.

The current court action only involves the preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the law while the actual suit over the law is being heard.  Since Connecticut has raised the threat that the 2nd Amendment does not protect hunting rifles, it is likely that this will be a big issue when the actual suit against the laws is heard and Connecticut continues to defend its strict gun regulations. 

A circuit-level victory here will establish legal precedent throughout the entire 2nd Circuit which includes New York and Vermont.

For now, hunting rifles remain legal in Connecticut but their constitutional protection is now in question.

Democrat leaders are always looking for any opportunity to further extend their war on guns, no matter how slight.  Hunters might want to reconsider not voting because Democrats aren’t coming for their guns.  As seen in Connecticut, it’s not IF but WHEN they are coming.

Hitler, Fascists and NAZIs

Lately, the terms Hitler, Nazi and Fascist have been thrown around – a lot – by Kamala Harris and the Democrats when referring to Donald Trump or the MAGA movement. 

The NAZI’s were Fascists and Adolf Hitler was their leader.  Along with Italy’s Fascists and Japan, they plunged the world into a war where most estimates place the total number of deaths at around 70-85 million people. Approximately 17 million of these deaths were due to crimes against humanity carried out by the Nazi regime in Europe. 

The Nazis, Fascists and Hitler were evil people.  Being politically associated with Hitler, NAZI’s and Fascism is a genuine negative.

Since Democrats are known for accusing others of doing things the Democrats are already doing, let’s examine this a little closer.

Nazi is actually an acronym.  It stands for National Socialist German Workers Party.  The NAZI’s self-identified as Socialists and evolved into Fascists. 

Who is associated with Socialism: Harris and the Democrats or Trump and the Republicans?  (Hint: Bernie Sanders ran for the Democrat nomination for President by self-identifying as a “Democrat -Socialist.”)

How about Gun Control?

Under a 1928, law (prior to Hitler’s rise to power), Germany had a strict firearm-licensing scheme. Under Hitler, in 1938, the NAZI’s relaxed certain gun registration laws for the benefit of "law-abiding German citizens" – i.e. NAZI Party members.  Laws were also passed banning gun ownership by "unreliable persons” such as enemies of the “National Socialist State”, Jews, Communists, etc.

Hitler and the NAZI’s believed in gun ownership for the politically connected but not for those they disfavored. 

Who is currently protected by security armed with guns but does not want the non-politically connected citizen to have a gun:  Harris and the Democrats or Trump and the Republicans?

Hint: Trump speaks at NRA conventions. 

Hint: In 2008, Harris signed on to a District Attorneys' friend-of-the-court brief in District of Columbia v. Heller.  The brief urged the Court to reinstate D.C.'s handgun ban, endorsing the view that a total handgun ban does not violate the Second Amendment.  Additionally, Harris argued that the Second Amendment does not protect your individual right to own a firearm.

In early 1933, at Chancellor Hitler's urging, the Reichstag Fire Decree was signed into law; it suspended basic rights and allowed detention without trial. It was classed as an emergency measure to protect public safety and order.  

A month later, the Enabling Act gave Hitler's cabinet the power to enact laws without the consent of the Reichstag (Parliament). With certain exceptions, these laws could deviate from the German constitution.

Hitler's government had become a de facto legal dictatorship.

Within three months the NAZI’s main opposition party had been declared illegal and other parties had been intimidated into disbanding. In July, the Nazi Party was declared the only legal political party in Germany.

Hitler and the NAZI’s weaponized the government against their political foes. 

Trump was president for four years and did not use the power of the government against his political enemies, such as Hillary Clinton and others who participated in the Russia Hoax.  He even respected the law and submitted to some dubious legal proceedings against him.

The Harris / Biden administration has weaponized the government against Trump and anyone who supports him.  In addition, they have illegally let 10 million aliens into the country with the goal of making them American citizens and, thus, give the Democrats a huge voting advantage.  And don’t forget Chuck Schumer threatening the Supreme Court for ruling in a way he did not like and    Harris / Biden’s plan to pack the Supreme Court.

So, who is weaponizing the government like Hitler did?

Hitler and the NAZI’s hate for the Jewish people was demonstrated by the infamous Holocaust in which 6 million Jews were murdered.  Huge numbers of Jewish victims died in Concentration Camps and were executed by killing squads that followed the German army.

As president, Trump fulfilled the longstanding promise of Democrat and Republican presidential candidates to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He recognized Israel’s 1981 annexation of the Golan Heights. He launched a strike killing the Iranian Quds Force terrorist commander Qassem Soleimani. He pulled out of the flawed Obama-administration nuclear deal with Iran and re-imposed strict economic sanctions. He helped negotiate the unprecedented Abraham Accords, bringing peace between Israel and some of its Arab neighbors: Bahrain, the UAE, Morocco, and Sudan.

Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Orthodox Judaism before marrying Jared Kushner, and he’s spoken fondly about having Jewish grandchildren.

As for Harris - Benjamin Netanyahu received a bipartisan invitation to give a speech before Congress. As Vice President, Harris should have officiated over the speech but, instead, went to a sorority event.  Harris chose to side with the fifty-plus Democrats who boycotted Netanyahu or called him vile names like a “war criminal.” 

Harris eventually met with Netanyahu.  She went on with a rant of sympathy for the Palestinian people about their “suffering,” but ignored Israel’s suffering under ceaseless and indiscriminate terror attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, and Iran, and never mentioned the Israeli civilians killed on October 7th.

Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, is Jewish. 

Her step daughter, Ella, has been publicly raising money for UNRWA.  Members of UNRWA have been linked to Hamas and the October 7th attacks.  Benjamin Netanyahu said about UNRWA: it is "perforated with Hamas…In UNRWA schools they've been teaching the doctrines of extermination for Israel - the doctrines of terrorism, glorifying terrorism, lauding terrorism."

If Trump is Hitler, he has a very strange way of going about it.

Harris, on the other hand…

Disarming a Country

In Mark Smith’s book  Israel Disarmed: What the October 7 attack teaches Americans about the right to bear arms, he gives us some examples which should be a wake up call in the debate over 2nd Amendment protected rights.

According to Smith, only about 1.5% of the Israeli population were allowed to own firearms before October 7, 2023.  (John Lott says it is 3%.)  The political belief in Israel was that they could count on their police force and their military to protect them. 

However, in Smith’s book he highlights the contrast between two Israeli kibbutz. 

In the October 7th attacks, one Israeli kibbutz had no defensive firearms and about 750 residents.  60 residents were killed, 17 were taken as hostages.

Another Israeli kibbutz had about 1500 residents which included about a dozen men with firearms. Not one resident of the second kibbutz was killed as the roughly dozen armed defenders held off the Jihadis.

In addition, on October 7th, 364 people were killed and 40 hostages were taken at the Supernova Sukkot Gathering, an open-air music festival.  17 police officers were killed and Smith does not know if the police officers were armed.  The festival was a “gun free zone.”

A few days after the attack, Israel’s Second Amendment-lacking citizenry was granted new ‘permissions’.  Israel’s Minister of National Security went on “X” and wrote: “Today I directed the Firearms Licensing Division to go on an emergency operation, in order to allow as many citizens as possible to arm themselves.”

Basically, regulations were loosened - not lifted - in order for more Israelis to arm themselves.  Included in that ‘loosened’ regulations was that citizens were allowed to purchase 100 bullets (the former limit was 50).  

On October 23^rd 2023, SCOPE wrote about firearm regulations in Israel.  It’s worth rereading.  Here is the link.  S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education - Lessons From Israel

Israel learned the hard way that when the police are minutes or hours away, help is only 1,500 feet per second away.

Smith also uses the example that on November 13th, 2015, a mass shooting and hostage taking took place in Paris at the Bataclan Theatre.  A concert was attended by 1,500 people. The attackers killed 90 and another 416 people were injured. Seven of the attackers were also killed.   Eight police officers who were at the Bataclan off-duty were all unarmed.

France has very restrictive gun laws in spite of a national history of gun ownership.  

And speaking of France’s history, Wikipedia has this to say: “The Farcy law (Loi Farcy) of 1885…liberalized gun ownership and production. This regime continued until 1939, when weapons were divided into categories and ownership of military caliber weapons was strictly regulated, almost prohibited.”

1939!  Great timing to restrict military caliber weapons!  The Nazi’s invaded France in May of 1940 and it took just over six weeks for France to surrender.  (Wikipedia failed to mention that little tidbit!)

It’s worth noting that every school shooting occurs in a gun free zone.

It’s good to remember these lessons when voting.

Full Employment for Lawyers

On the back of your November ballot is Proposition 1, which is a proposed amendment to the NY State Constitution.  It requires a yes vote to pass it and a no vote to reject it.

First, what does Proposition 1 actually say?   This is the wording on the ballot:

“This proposal amends Article 1, Section 11 of the New York Constitution. Section 11 now protects against unequal treatment based on race, color, creed, and religion. The proposal will amend the act to also protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes, as well as reproductive healthcare and autonomy.  The amendment allows laws to prevent or undo past discrimination.”

Got it?  Understand what you are voting on?

Below is what the actual wording of the NY Constitution will be if it passes:

(Italicized/bold words are the additions to the Constitution from Proposition 1)

“§ 11. a. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed [or], religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in [his or her] their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state, pursuant to law.”

“b. Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section.”

Whoa!  Wait a second.  Section ‘b’ does not seem to be addressed by the description on the ballot?  Try reading it again.  Shouldn’t you understand what you are voting to approve and enter into the Constitution?  So, what in hell does Part b mean?  Or for that matter, Part a, too? 

Per their web page: “The Empire Center for Public Policy, Inc. (ECPP) is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank based in Albany, New York.”

On August 16^th, ECPP wrote about their study called: “Ballot Proposal One: A Constitutional Amendment Fraught With Uncertainty.”

ECPP wrote: “Prop One could open many New York civil rights laws—and other laws that may discriminate based on classification—to legal challenges. And those challenges could include irreconcilable differences between classes like religious belief and gender identity.“  (Emphasis added)

ECPP added: “Resolving those cases would make the courts—not the Legislature—the decision-makers on value judgments that determine civil rights policies in New York.”

Then ECPP added: “…Prop One contains vague language that invites legal challenges to existing laws. And it contains no guideposts for the courts in its application. Prop One elevates almost every class of person to a special status and places those different classes of persons and multiple laws into conflict, leaving it up to the judiciary to make up solutions to those conflicts as it goes along.”  (Emphasis added.)

Two thoughts.

Full employment for lawyers!

Religions are a constitutionally protected class that cannot be discriminated against.  But a religion that opposes abortion or the current gender identity movement would be in conflict with those newly constitutionally protected classes.  (Catholic hospitals that refuse to do abortions would, without doubt, be amongst the first challenged under this proposal.)  It would be up to the courts to decide for or against – without much guidance from the NY Constitution.  Welcome to legislation from the bench!

Note: Appeals judges are the final NY State legal authority and they are appointed by the governor and approved by the legislature, which means leftists will be appointing…leftists.  Or, to paraphrase Andrew Cuomo, there is no place in NY State for conservatives.

ECPP continues: “Prop One threatens the status quo by adding so many suspect classes—leaving aside the vagueness of some—that applying the test may render many existing laws unconstitutional or pit classes against each other in ways that are unworkable.”  (Such as the previous example of religious liberty versus abortion rights.)

ECPP adds: “Part B of Prop One attempts to address the inherent conflicts in naming so many suspect classes…But it is unclear how that provision can work in practice.”

They know it works in theory so don’t worry about how it works in actual practice.

ECPP adds something that should terrify anyone who believes in 1^st and 2^nd Amendment rights: “Part B also includes permission for the state to discriminate through ‘any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed’ in Prop One.”

You can expect a NY State law to push the edge-of-the-envelope by proposing a law making illegal to speak out against a constitutionally protected right such as gender identity. 

And certainly, some legislator will figure out a way that firearms discriminate against minorities based on high crime rates in minority neighborhoods and propose another anti-2A law.  After all, under Part b, NY State can discriminate against a protected class if it does so in the interest of another protected class that it disfavors.  (And gun rights are certainly a disfavored class In Albany.)

And here is the gun rights kicker, the right to “keep and bear arms” is NOT protected in the NY Constitution, opening the door for anti-2A legislation.  Since we are not even in a constitutionally protected class, feel free to discriminate. 

Music to Kathy Hochul and the anti-2A movement’s ears.

ECPP concludes: “In short, Prop One and its added suspect classes threatens to throw New York civil rights law into chaos.”

“Thus, the amendment may be unworkable unless New York courts devise workarounds to its application. And that means the amendment will place decisions on civil rights policy in the hands of the judiciary and not the Legislature where they belong.”   (Emphasis added.)

By the way, it will potentially put NY State in conflict with the U S Constitution.  But that small matter has never stopped Kathy Hochul and the NY Legislature.

I hope this email finds you well and enjoying fall foliage. 

I 'd like to remind you that the election is almost here.  In 11 days, on Tuesday November 5, 2024, election day arrives.  However, early voting begins the day after tomorrow. 

Early voting in New York State runs from Saturday October 26, 2024 through Sunday November 3, 2024.  I encourage you to find out exactly where early voting occurs in your part of New York State because it may not be the same place you normally vote on election day. 
I encourage you to vote early and support the Second Amendment.  

Good Luck!
With All Honor and Respect,
John R. Elwood, SCOPE President

Indianapolis Indiana                           Criminal                                            Non-Criminal                                     Homicides                                        Homicides    2021                          249                                                     22       July 1 2022, Constitutional Carry went into effect 2022                          211                                                     15       2023                          171                                                     45       Could be a coincidence (or not a coincidence) that Criminal Homicides went down when people were better able to defend themselves WITH GUNS. I’m betting on ‘or not a coincidence.’ Pennsylvania Note: In 2021, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed Constitutional Carry but Governor Tom Wolfe vetoed it. There are other issues in Pennsylvania which may eventually leak over its northern border into NY. A Pennsylvania law bans 18 to 20-year-old citizens from openly carrying firearms. The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) claimed that the law violates the U S Constitution because it disarms part of “the people.” In October 2020, the lawsuit, Lara v. Paris, originally filed. At the time, states could rely on the concept of ‘interest balancing’ to defend their laws. As you probably know, these trials take forever to go through the trial and the appeals process. In 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bruen. Pennsylvania could no longer use ‘interest balancing’ to defend its law against constitutional scrutiny. The court could only use the original text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment. In January 2024, the Third Circuit found Pennsylvania’s law unconstitutional. In March 2024, an appeal to the 3rd Circuit was denied. In April 2024, Pennsylvania was enjoined from enforcing the law. Pennsylvania appealed to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) On October 15th, SCOTUS vacated the lower court’s decision, and remanded the case back to the Third Circuit for “consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi.” This means the law is still alive, for now. Rahimi said that a citizen could be temporarily disarmed if they posed a threat to public safety. Do 18 to 20-year-olds, as a group - and not as individuals - pose an unusually high risk to public safety?  Applying laws to a group instead of an individual is a very risky limb to crawl out on.  However, accusing groups is currently in vogue: white men are accused of being racist just because they are white; MAGA, as a group, are accused of being fascist.    Pennsylvania will probably argue that the human brain isn’t fully developed until age 25, which leads to bad judgement and risky behavior.  But that argument opens the door to a host of related issues involving age restrictions that few would want to get into.     Street Takeovers Street takeovers by protestors / criminals / thugs are in vogue.  Streets are completely shut down, motorists are accosted and police are generally overwhelmed and helpless. Ammoland warns: “When stalled by a violent riot, stationary vehicles are death traps…your only safety lies in motion! So long as you’re moving, escape from criminal violence is possible.” Ammoland did not mention another possible action; be carrying. Should Trump win the election, it will serve as an excuse for these “mostly peaceful takeovers” to increase in numbers.  You have been warned!       On Another Issue