Log in

from our SCOPE membership

  • 02/08/2021 9:15 PM | Anonymous

    We wrote about Representative Sheila Jackson Lee’s proposed bill HR 127.  You may recall that this would: license firearms; require a mental health test; require purchasing an insurance policy for $800; ban sales to those under 21; ban 50 caliber ammunition and magazines of more than 10 rounds.  It is appropriate to review Jackson Lee’s personal expertise on firearms that allowed her to introduce this mammoth gun control bill.  (As well as her expertise on anything else.)

    In a widely available video, she claims to have had an AR15 in her hands and “It is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving.  And the bullet that is utilized, a .50 caliber.”  (As most SCOPE members probably know, a loaded AR-15 weighs about 7-9 pounds and does not fire .50 caliber rounds.  Do ten loaded moving boxes weigh less than a pound, each?)

    After a November 2018 shooting in Thousand Oaks California, she said, ”…this is the 307th mass shooting event of the calendar year”.   (Per the FBI’s report on Active Shooter incidents, “The FBI has designated 27 shootings in 2018 as active shooter incidents.” The report defines an active shooter as, “… one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area”.) 

    She has also said that each day, 92 Americans are victims of gun violence, resulting in more than 33,000 deaths annually. (Ignoring that the majority of these are suicides and victims of drug gangs in our Democrat-controlled cities.)

    In a speech before Congress on November 7, 2017, she assured Congress that mass shootings were not because of people with mental health problems but because of guns.  (Did the guns have mental health problems?  Why is her new bill HR127 requiring mental health exams for gun owners if it’s not a problem?)

    She is widely reported as claiming that there have been zero mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years.  (What is the definition of “stopped”?  Stopped is not the same as “prevented”.  If someone shoots a potential mass shooter before they begin, technically a mass shooting never took place and one can’t definitively claim it was stopped - but it was definitely prevented.  But if a mass shooting is underway and then stopped by an armed civilian, technically the mass shooting was stopped and further loss of life was prevented; so, she is absolutely wrong.  The FBI has an extensive list of mass shootings that were underway but stopped by civilians.)

    Jackson Lee has problems with more than just information on guns.  History seems to also be a significant challenge. 

    In 2010, she said, “Today, we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South”.  (South Vietnam has not existed since 1975.) 

    In March 2014, she said, “…how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years operating under a constitution…”  (This would date the Constitution – approved in 1789 - back to the Pilgrims.  How did George Washington – who was not born until 1732 – manage to become the 1st President more than 100 years before he was born?)

    In 1997, while on a trip to the Mars Pathfinder operations center in California, Jackson Lee asked, “Will the Mars rover be able to show the flag the astronauts planted there before”.  She was then a member of the House Science Committee. 

    In 2010 Jackson Lee said that the Klansmen of the past are now Tea Party members. She then criticized Tea Partiers for saying “her braids in her hair were too tight”.  (Tea Partiers do have a way with words.)

    While speaking at a memorial service for singer Michael Jackson, she held up a copy of her House Resolution 600, which she introduced to honor Michael Jackson. (Her resolution didn’t get enacted.  Few members of Congress were eager to mourn a man with a history of allegations of sexual predation on young boys.)

    She is a 14 term Congresswoman from Houston, has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from Yale and a law degree for the University of Virginia.  They must all be proud!

  • 02/08/2021 9:00 PM | Anonymous

    S2844 and A930  By Bob Brannan

    NY Senate bill S2844 and its companion NY Assembly bill A930 are currently in their respective committees and, as they may see movement forward, we need to be proactive in calling our representatives in the Assembly and in the Senate to express our opposition.  You should have, when you call, the bill numbers and a brief description.

    Essentially this bill authorizes the State Police to set up a bureau, financed by a fee you will have to pay.  All federal NICS checks would have to go through this NY State Police Bureau instead of directly to the FBI, as has been the procedure.  The NICS check acts on a “shall issue” basis while this NY State bureau could covertly serve its political masters and become a “may issue” basis. 

    Can anyone see the increased possibility of bureaucratic delay, either intentional or unintentional?  As a hint to the answer: if a NICS check has no response within 3 days, the sale may proceed; under this NY State law, the time period until the sale may proceed is lengthened to 30 days.

    If you are denied permission to purchase a gun, you must appeal within 30 days.  But there is no time limit on NY State’s response to the appeal!  A denial could become an indefinite denial.

    While this bureau was authorized in the “Safe Act”, it was never funded. This bill finances it with your fees.  The wording in this bill states that the fees charged shall not exceed the amount of the costs to run the bureau.  (And, of course, government bureaus are known for their efficiency and cost effectiveness.)  While this bureau is set up to work on gun purchases, it could be easily expanded to cover the purchase of ammo.

    Currently, the FBI does not charge for a NICS check.  This bill will require a Federal Firearms Licensee to pay NY State (amount currently unknown) for the background check.  Then, the dealer will directly or indirectly charge the customer.  As with all taxes, you eventually pay them.

    In the end we will be funding NY’s efforts to limit guns/ammo by creating more costs, roadblocks, paperwork and regulations to infringe on our constitutional rights.

    The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) is a federal law that makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any sort of database or registry that ties most firearms directly to their owner.   Can we expect this new NY State bureau to obey the law? 

    These are the same folks who want to legalize pot and sports gambling (while increasing funding efforts against those addictions).  They let felons out of jail and ignore crime if committed for “approved” reasons.  We must be proactive...or else!

    The links below will bring up the bills we are referring to.

    *On the right side of the screen is a box asking if you support this bill. * Please click on “nay”.

  • 02/08/2021 8:54 PM | Anonymous

    Take Action Today!  - Jim Krywalski, Allegany SCOPE Chapter Chairman

    Allegany County’s SCOPE Chapter sends this warning and call to action to all defenders of the 2nd Amendment.

    For those that don’t believe they need to get involved in 2nd Amendment defense, since they believe it does not affect them, guess what, they are coming after you, too.  NY State Senate Bill S1605 Requires a Mental Health Evaluation to Buy Firearms

    Legislation pre-filed in the New York State Senate by State Senator James Sanders (D-10th Senate District) will require anyone wishing to purchase a firearm to first pass a mental health evaluation. Senate Bill 1605 has been referred to Committee where it awaits a hearing.

    Contact your state senators and ask them to OPPOSE Senate Bill S1605.
    Find your Senator Here
    Current New York law requires purchases to go through a licensed Federal Firearms Licensee and passing a federal background (NICS) check to transfer any firearm.

    NY State Senate District Map

    S1605 would require the mental health check prior to initiating the background check.  The implementation of a mental health evaluation for firearm transfers constitutes unprecedented government regulation and overreach. The mental health requirement would even apply to a father giving a treasured firearm to his son or daughter.

    Violators of the new law would face non-violent Class D felony charges and up to 7 years in prison. For comparison, some other Class D felonies in New York include robbery, burglary and vehicular manslaughter. If you are convicted of any felony, you lose your right to own a firearm and your right to vote.

    Are you a hunter who doesn’t believe the gun grabbing will affect you? Are you a member of a Rod & Gun Club who doesn’t want to talk politics?  Jacob Hupp, the Associate Director of State Services for the Sportsmen’s Alliance said, “In addition to the clear violation of second amendment rights, this legislation unfairly targets the hunting and sport shooting community by creating barriers that limit access to the outdoors.   As it becomes more difficult to legally obtain a firearm in New York, it also becomes more difficult to drive participation in hunting and shooting sports.”

    To read the full bill S1605:

  • 02/08/2021 8:47 PM | Anonymous

    Thirteen term Representative Sheila Jackson Lee was born in NY City and she did not lose any of her extremist leftist roots when she moved to Houston.  Her first act in the 2021 Congress was to (again) introduce a reparations bill, HR40.  Her next act was to (again) introduce a sweeping gun control bill, HR127.  Both are regurgitations of her earlier attempts but with Democrat control in Washington, gun owners can’t take continued lack of action for granted.

    HR 127 requires the Attorney General to, “…establish a system for licensing the possession of firearms or ammunition in the United States, and for the registration (of)…each firearm present in the United States”.  The license will have to be periodically renewed.  The bill includes notifying the government if you loan the firearm to anyone for “any period of time” (and that person will also need a license). 

    That’s right, this is a federal firearms licensing bill and this one is on steroids.

    To all those gun owners who have been saying that gun control isn’t an issue for them, the bill covers all guns, whether currently owned or new purchases.  That’s right, all estimated 25 million current firearm owners in the USA and any new ones! 

    There would be three types of licenses: Antique, General and Military. 

    Antique firearms will require a license and there is no differentiation in the bill between operable and inoperable.  There will be government regulations on how the antique is to be displayed and the owner must certify compliance.  It also requires that the owner has “…provided for storage of the firearm in a safe or facility approved by the Attorney General for the storage of firearms.”  (The bill does not explain how the owner will safe storage an inoperable firearm and display it at the same time.)

    General and Military Firearms Licenses will require:

    • the owner to be 21 years old, even though you can vote, drink and join the military at 18.  The Attorney General will probably need a picture ID although that isn’t in the bill. 
    • the owner to also have an insurance policy issued by the government with an $800 annual premium.  (That’s right, $800 per year.) It is not clear if this is $800 per firearm or not.
    • the owner will also undergo a psychological exam by a licensed psychologist. And if the psychologist requires:

              - a psychological examination of other members of the owner’s household;

           - an interview of any spouse, ex-spouse, two other members of the owner’s household or associates “to further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms”. 

    All psychological exams at the owner’s expense, of course.  (Just hope you don’t get an anti-gun psychologist doing the testing.)  You will not get a license if you have been hospitalized with any mental disturbance or depression or if the psychologist determines you have a mental disturbance or addiction.

    Military Firearms includes an expanded list beyond the usual Assault Weapons plus some semi-automatic pistols and some shotguns.

    The bill also prohibits ammunition of 50 caliber or greater and ammunition feeders with more than ten rounds capacity.

    As to the penalties, don’t ask.  You can’t afford the amount of the fine or the jail time.  You would be better off being a serial rapist or defrauding people of their life savings in a Ponzi Scheme.

    25 million gun owners times $800 insurance premium equals $20 billion in government revenue, per year. 

    You will have three (3) months to comply.    Better make your appointment for a psychological exam now because there is going to be a 25 million person long line. 

    This bill should never come to a vote but in the present Congress, who knows?  If it ever became law, the Supreme Court would probably find it unconstitutional thanks to President Trump’s appointees.  (Just imagine if they were Hillary or Biden appointees?)  But if the “court packing” schemes of the left come to fruition…  Of course, challenging this all the way to the Supreme Court will require a million dollars – at least.  That might be cheap for someone with a firearm collection. 

    If someone doesn’t know what I am referring to in the above paragraph and they are a gun owner, explain it before all hell breaks loose. To hunters and Rod & Gun Club members and other gun owners who don’t want to be involved with politics, Sheila Jackson Lee and the leftists gun grabbers do want to be involved with politics and that allows them to make the laws.  When you cede them the battle without a fight, the whole Constitution – not just 2A - loses

    Contact your Congressperson and let them know how strongly you oppose this bill. If you happen to have a Democrat Congressperson, tell them you do not appreciate a party that tolerates these types of unconstitutional bills.

  • 02/08/2021 8:43 PM | Anonymous

    The 2nd Amendment only lasts as long as the Constitution exists, in its original meaning.  The Constitution sets out strict limits on the government, not on citizens and it protects our rights against government intrusion.  Those that would attack 2A know that weakening any part of the Constitution weakens it all.  “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance” and that means protecting all of our beloved Constitution.

    Whether or not you like Donald Trump, the current impeachment effort is an attempt to undermine the Constitution.  What is being used against him can be used against others. The goal is to take the presidential ballot away from citizens by making a specific citizen ineligible - for political reasons.  It would be a joke if it wasn’t so serious.

    Article 1 Section 3 of the United States’ Constitution says, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice will preside”.  Chief Justice Roberts lobbed a grenade when he decided not to preside over the impeachment of Donald Trump, who is currently a private citizen. 

    Is it legal to have a presidential impeachment trial without the Chief Justice?  The Constitution requires the Chief Justice to preside over a Presidential impeachment.  By passing, Roberts is, in effect, agreeing that the President is not on trial; a private citizen is on trial. 

    Private citizens cannot be tried by the Senate under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which says, “No Bill of Attainder…shall be passed”. (A Bill of Attainder is an act of a legislature declaring a person or a group of persons guilty of a crime.)  It is outlawed because it deprives the person of the safeguards connected with a trial by jury, which is guaranteed by several parts of the “The Bill of Rights”.  (The founding fathers had this “thing” about rights when they wrote both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.)   

    Bills of Attainder are also outlawed because the judicial system is supposed to be impartial but the Senate is a political body with no pretext of impartiality.  The Chief Justice was supposed to preside to create some fairness.  If a trial does happen without the Chief Justice, shouldn’t the President of the Senate preside?  That happens to be Vice President Kamala Harris.  Even the Democrats saw that as a conflict of interest and kicked the job down to the President pro-tempore of the Senate; that’s Patrick Leahy, the 46 years-in-office, Democrat Senator from Vermont. 

    When a presiding judge has a “conflict of interest” he is expected to withdraw.  Before he was named to preside, on January 13th Leahy said,

    President Trump has not simply failed to uphold his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which itself would be sufficient to warrant his impeachment and removal. He has emerged as the greatest threat to the Constitution and to American democracy in a generation.” 

    “He sparked the flames of sedition and has fanned them relentlessly. For months he has lied about the election in an effort to undermine Americans’ faith in our democracy. He has promoted division, disruption, and violence. He has attempted to thwart our nation’s unbroken history of a constitutional and peaceful transfer of power. And he has incited and promoted a riot that laid siege to our Capitol building — the very heart of our democracy. Insurrectionists chanting his name… President Trump bears responsibility for this attack...The fact that he has disavowed any responsibility for the violent assault on our democracy makes clear that he is unworthy of public trust, unworthy of the office he holds, and must be removed.”

    Any prejudging, unfairness or bias in that statement?  And I love the part of “insurrectionists chanting his name”.  Is it a crime to have someone else chant your name?    

    Whether you like Trump or not, what matters are principles, the Constitution, and the rule-of-law.  The unconstitutionality of this should set heads spinning.  You recently heard about the peaceful transfer of power on January 20th but we look like a banana republic, when a new government puts the old government on trial.  Doubt that?  Have you noticed that our capital city, Washington D.C. is now a military occupation zone?

    As was pointed out Monday, it doesn’t seem to bother today’s politicians - once they have power - that an impeachment trial would violate several parts of the Constitution; that’s just another constitutional complication to be ignored.

    Think of the interesting possibilities.  Open this door and the next question is, does an ex-president have to be alive to be impeached?  Could Tom Jefferson be impeached for being a slave holder – even though it was legal then?  Franklin Roosevelt definitely qualified for impeachment for putting the Japanese in internment camps (which was aided and abetted by future Chief Justice Earl Warren; doesn’t that raise interesting possibilities.)  Could Obama be impeached for lying about Obamacare?  There is a precedent for this in English history; two years after his death, after political power changed hands, Oliver Cromwell’s body was dug up, hung in chains and then beheaded.

    Forget pandemics, the economy and unemployment, there is “virtue signaling” to be had.  Congress does have its priorities and none seem to align with the citizens’ priorities.

    On the other hand, if they are busy with impeachment, the Senate can’t take time to attack the 2nd Amendment.  If the only issue were 2A and not pandemics, the economy, etc., we would hope to keep the Senate busy with a two years long trial.

  • 01/21/2021 7:26 PM | Anonymous

    The rest of the story  by Tom Reynolds

    You may have read that, about a week ago, the US Capitol Police arrested a man after officers found an unregistered gun and 500 rounds of ammunition in his vehicle when he attempted to use an “unauthorized” inaugural credential at a security checkpoint. That sounds like a real threat, doesn’t it? Guns. Ammo. Fake ID. Made headlines - but there was almost no follow up.

    Here is what happened. The arrest occurred after Wesley Beeler was stopped at a security checkpoint, roughly half a mile away from the Capitol. Beeler attempted to pass through the checkpoint using an unauthorized inauguration credential. His truck also reportedly had multiple gun-related bumper decals. After police stopped him, they searched his car and found a handgun, (Beeler told them it was there), as well as 509 rounds of handgun ammunition and 21 shotgun shells. The gun was not registered in DC, according to NBC Washington; in the District, possession of an unregistered firearm is illegal and subject to penalty. Reportedly, Beeler is a registered gun owner in Virginia. He is facing multiple firearms related charges in D.C.

    Beeler said that he was merely on his way to work and that his arrest was caused by what he called an “honest mistake.” “I pulled up to a checkpoint after getting lost in DC because I’m a country boy. I showed them the inauguration badge that was given to me,” Beeler said, adding, “I don’t know what the DC laws are. It still comes back on me, but I’m not a criminal.”

    An anonymous federal law enforcement official said Beeler was a contractor and that his credential was not fake, according to a newspaper report. Beeler was authorized to have a firearm for his security work, but the gun was not registered in Washington, DC. After his release Saturday, Beeler told the Washington Post that he neglected to take his firearm out of his vehicle because he had been running late for work; he also said he works with MVP Protective Services and that the company gave him the inauguration credentials that Capitol Police rejected.

    We recently wrote about proposed bill, HR 38, which would require national reciprocity for concealed carry. While it has no chance of passing, if Beeler’s story is true, this is a great example of why it is needed.

    Facebook strikes again

    The Saturday before the inauguration, Facebook announced,

    “We are banning ads that promote weapon accessories and protective equipment in the US at least through January 22, out of an abundance of caution. We already prohibit ads for weapons, ammunition and weapon enhancements like silencers. But we will now also prohibit ads for accessories such as gun safes, vests and gun holsters in the US”.

    Reportedly, this came about because of complaints from Senators and Facebook employees. The temporary ban is said to remain in effect until at least January 22nd.

    After a year in which more than 21 million NICS checks were conducted and an estimated 8.4 million people purchased a firearm for the first time, apparently “safe storage” is an inaugural security issue.

    Inauguration violence

    Did you see all the right-wing, gun carrying, white supremacist, extremist violence in Washington and state capitols at Wednesday’s inauguration? In case you missed it, the following are pictures of that violence.

    Quite a difference from four years ago when Democrats tried to burn DC down.

    We would like to show the pictures of the Antifa Violence that did occur in Portland and Seattle on Wednesday but, somehow, the media seems to have missed it.

    Vetting vets

    It’s reported that the FBI vetted the National Guard Troops for extremist ties. Just like they vetted troops for another type of extremist after the Fort Hood Shooting? A good chance to rid the military of those who might take their oath seriously. Like refusing unlawful orders to disarm American citizens - if that order ever were to happen?

  • 01/20/2021 5:08 PM | Anonymous

    Congressional Intelligence  by Tom Reynolds

    Colorado’s Diana DeGette, in her 13th term in Congress, has been appointed as a House Impeachment Manager.

    In April 2013, DeGette was asked why she wanted to ban high-capacity magazines.  First, she described them as “magazine clips”.  Then she said, “These are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.” 

    Remember, she was being asked about the efficacy of banning high-capacity magazines.  Apparently, DeGette’s expertise on guns does not include knowing that magazine are not clips, that magazines are not ammunition and that magazines can be reloaded with more bullets and reused multiple times.

    To help spin that response, a DeGette spokeswoman issued a statement, “The congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years and has been deeply involved in the issue; she simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism.” 

    So, she “has been working on a high-capacity magazine ban for years and has been deeply involved in the issue”.  So deeply involved that she does not know that clips can be reused as well.  And remember, her staff would have vetted her remarks and apparently none of them knew what they are talking about, either.

    In March of 2010, Admiral Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command, was testifying before a congressional committee on stationing an addition 8,000 Marines on the island of Guam.

    Eight term Congressman Hank Johnson commented, “My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize”. 

    Willard was able to maintain a straight face when he assured Johnson that Guam would not sink.

    Five Term Congressman Eric Swalwell has been appointed a House Impeachment Manager.  An alleged Chinese spy, who has fled back to China, was a fund raiser for Swalwell, placed an intern in his office and had a multi-year affair with him (and other politicians.) 

    Nancy Pelosi also appointed Swalwell to Homeland Security Committees. (If you are an American spy in China, don’t you feel comfortable that Swalwell and Pelosi have your back?)

    Six term Senator Diane Feinstein employed a Chinese spy for nearly two decades as her chauffeur, a gofer in her office and a liaison to the Asian American community.  (He certainly was successful in the latter duty.)

    Feinstein’s office said she was mortified but refused other comment.  Why should she comment?  The NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post didn’t bother covering the story.

  • 01/18/2021 12:51 PM | Anonymous

    Armed Rallies  by Tom Reynolds

    You have probably seen stories that anticipate “Armed Rallies” at state capitols and in D.C. on January 20th.   SCOPE is not aware of any reputable 2nd Amendment organization – including SCOPE – that is behind the calls for these rallies.  However, a heightened awareness of them is being promoted by media outlets. 

    Who organized these rallies and what is to be gained?

    The rally organizers, referenced by the FBI as behind this, are usually identified as “on line chatter”.  Articles and the flyers that have been cited in news stories never seem to identify the author(s).

    The only direct reference we have seen is that on November 24th, a group called “Boogaloo” called for protests and said people could “…come armed at their personal discretion”. (The Anti-Defamation League describes Boogaloo as “primarily anti-government, anti-authority and anti-police in nature. Which sounds a lot like those who rioted all last summer.) 

    Another story identified “several followers of a militant anti-government movement”.  It didn’t identify the group and it was not the movement itself that was identified but “several followers”.         

    The call for “Armed” rallies is unusual.  Rally organizers, including 2A organizations, generally use terms such as “Peaceful” rallies and “Protests”. The option to come legally armed is always there, as it is for any rally by any organization, but generally left unspoken

    There is also the tendency, especially amongst the left, to interpret “Armed” rally as “Violent” rally.  Certainly, that is the reaction of the media, in this case, and also the reaction of the government.  Including “Armed” certainly sets the stage for inferring that they will be violent. 

    Some media outlets like the Associated Press (AP) are writing articles unfairly blaming President Trump, in advance and without any facts, for violence that has not happened and may never happen. 

    A non-gun owner may jump on the word “Armed” to condemn gun owners and link it to a gun rights group such as the NRA, again with no factual proof. 

    We must also recognize the potential for our elected officials to introduce unwarranted legislation following the prediction of a nonexistent “emergency”.

    Many people, including 2A defenders, have serious concerns about fraud in the November election and announced policies by the Biden administration may provide legitimate reasons to protest against encroachments on their civil and Constitutional liberties.  We all reserve the right to peacefully protest, as protected by our 1st Amendment.

    Again, SCOPE is not aware of any reputable 2A organization – including SCOPE – promoting armed rallies and certainly not violent ones.  Each protest participant should know and trust the organizing entity.  Individual attendance at any protest or rally is the decision of the individual but these look very suspicious and we would not recommend attendance.  There will be many other opportunities to protests that do not come with the downside potential attached to this one. 

  • 01/13/2021 2:33 PM | Anonymous

    H R 38 – Nice But Meaningless  by Tom Reynolds

    H.R. 38, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, has been reintroduced by Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC).  It would recognize the right of travelers to carry in states, other than their own, that have lawful concealed carry for its own state’s residents.  Under this federal law, travelers would be able to lawfully possess and receive a firearm.  To do so, travelers would need to carry photographic identification issued by the U.S. or a state government and have a concealed carry permit and reside in a state that provides for lawful concealed carry.  Prohibited places for firearms or concealed carry would still have to be obeyed. Private property owners would maintain discretion over whether or to what degree concealed carry was authorized on their property.

    If you have a New York Concealed Carry permit, this would allow you to carry in other states. 

    Before you get too excited…In an anti-gun, Democrat controlled House, Senate and Presidency, the chance of this passing is virtually nil; this is a token political effort.  

    When Republicans are taking a bow for this, they need to be asked, “What is the strategy to get an anti-gun, Democrat controlled Congress to pass this and to get an anti-gun Democrat President to sign it”

    When Republicans regain control, (and eventually they will) they need to be asked, “Hey, you introduced this when it was meaningless. Now are you going to do something that counts”?

    By the way, this is not just a Republican strategy to do this.  Democrats are equally adept.

    - Upcoming Firing Lines

    SCOPE looks to work with like-minded organizations in support of the Constitution and 2nd Amendment.  Toward that end, we are pleased to announce that we will be working with Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.  Their web site is https:/  More detail about this organization will be in the upcoming Firing Lines.

    Also in the Firing Lines will be an article by a nurse who ran afoul of the SAFE Act and her long and difficult struggle to correct erroneous reporting.   It could happen to you!

    The Corona Virus lockdowns will be affecting our Annual Members Meeting.  More information about this in the Firing Lines:

  • 01/11/2021 12:22 PM | Anonymous

    The 25th and Impeachment  by Tom Reynolds

    SCOPE’s purpose is to defend the Constitution with an emphasis on the 2nd Amendment.  There is a lot going on with the Constitution that will eventually affect the 2nd Amendment. 

    Perspective is often lacking in political debates.  The media is running on amped up emotion with calls to end Trump’s presidency, prematurely.  Let’s take a moment and add some perspective.

    Pelosi and Schumer are leading the charge to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the President. There are several problems with this;

    As currently constituted, the Vice President, Mike Pence, must lead this effort.  Pence says he will not do it.  End of conversation?

    If Pence did do this, Trump would only have to officially say he is able to do his duty and he resumes the Presidency.  The VP and Cabinet could try again and then it goes to Congress to decide, meeting within 48 hours.  It then takes a two-thirds vote of Congress to find the President disabled.  Even if successful, Pence would only be the Acting President for the remainder of the term.  (That’s what the Constitution says, not what you’re hearing from the media.)

    The Constitution says the President must be unable to perform the duties of the office.  The 25th as well as Article II Section 1 of the Constitution clearly state “inability”.  There is no doubt that this term meant disability and not dislike of his actions. It would be an unconstitutional “coup” to do this over dislike of a Presidents’ actions.  (That’s called a Banana Republic, which is definitely not in the United States Constitution.)  

    If Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were familiar with the Constitution, and there is grave doubt that they have ever read it, they would know that calling for the 25th is, in this instance, only political posturing.  Political posturing with the United States at stake?  Say it aint so, Nancy, say it aint so!

    Lacking the 25th, now Pelosi and Schumer aim at Impeachment (again).  And again, there are some issues worth exploring.  Primarily, the process takes time and there is only a week and a half left in Trump’s term. 

    Why try it with such little time remaining?

    Some Democrats scream that Trump might start a nuclear war.  Yeah, right!  It’s more likely Nancy Pelosi will resign from office, give all her hundreds of millions of dollars to the poor and become a Nun. 

    Do they want to tar Trump as the only President to be impeached twice?  Which also means he could be the only President to be acquitted twice.  (Remember, it takes two thirds of the Senate to convict.)

    With the short time available, there likely is not enough time to hold the trial before January 20th.  But there is one precedent for holding an impeachment trial after leaving office: In 1876 the Secretary of War’s impeachment trial happened after he left office.  (He was acquitted.)

    Would they hold an impeachment trial after January 20th?  Why?  Trump is already out of office and the purpose of impeachment is remove him from office.  Well, not quite.  There is another aspect to impeachment.

    Trump has threatened to run in 2024 and 74 million people voted for him this time around.  But if convicted of impeachment, the Constitution says that he would be disqualified, “… to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…”  He couldn’t run in 2024.  If Trump fraudulently lost the 2020 election, are the Democrats afraid that he would be elected in an honest election?  (Grover Cleveland did this split term presidencies and Trump would be Biden’s current age in 2024.)  Is Pelosi’s and Schumer’s real purpose to deny the American people the opportunity to choose their own President?  The Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court decisions come down hard to preserve the right of the people to choose their elected officials.

    Let’s speculate on other possible motives.  The Democrats control all the levers of federal power.  Their Socialist policies have never worked while Trump’s were successful.  If the economy is bad in 2024, do Democrats fear that people might long for the good old Trump days? 

    In politics and life, what goes around comes around.  The charges against Trump would be some version of “Inciting riot”.  In 2022, the Democrats could easily lose control of both the House and the Senate.  Kamala Harris would still be the Vice President. Last year, during the height of riots that caused a dozen deaths and billions in damages, she said those riots should “…not end.”  (This is not taking her words out of context, she really said and meant that.)  Sounds a lot like “Inciting riot”.  If it applies to Republican Presidents it surely applies to Democrat Vice Presidents.

    But most importantly, and something which is being completely overlooked, the Constitution is based on the Separation of Powers.  Each branch of government has its own powers and the other branches are not allowed to intrude on those powers.  One branch may not like what the other branch says and does but they are bound, under their oath to uphold the Constitution, not to intrude on those powers.  The Democrats have already tried to break down this constitutional barrier with the first Trump impeachment, which was a trial without a crime. 

    First of all, they shouldn’t attack one of the centerpieces of our Constitution, Separation of Powers.  Second, what goes around comes around.  A Republican House and Senate with Joe Biden as President in 2022 might like the precedent set by the Democrats, and even expand upon it.  That of course would not be good for the United States but if politicians always did what was good for the United States we would not be in this situation.

    Pelosi and Schumer don’t seem to realize that the United States is not a parliamentary republic and impeachment is not a parliamentary “vote of confidence” but they seem to want to treat it as a “vote of confidence”.

    With an epidemic, a recession and a change in administrations happening, don’t Pelosi and Schumer have something better to do with their time?

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